Text size: A A A

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 23, 2016, 7:30 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS

(return  to index) 
  1. Chair Young called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
     
  2. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kape.
     
  3. Roll Call:
    Members Present: Bill Benoit, Emily Bridson, Garrett Fox, Dan Holtrop, Sandra Jones, Ed Kape, Mike Pemberton, Frank Vander Hoff,  and Johngerlyn Young
    Members Absent: None
    Others Present:  Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Economic Development Planner Lisa Golder, Planner Joe Pung, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, the applicants and about 20 residents.
     
  4. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
     
    Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Commissioner Kape, to approve the Minutes of August 9, 2016 and the Findings of Fact for: Case #11-16Grand Rapids Auto Gallery – Major Change to an Approved Site Plan Located at 4722 50th St. SE
  5. Motion Carried (9-0) –
  6. Approval of the Agenda
     
    Motion by Commissioner Benoit, supported by Commissioner Jones, to approve the agenda for the August 23, 2016 meeting.
     
  7. Motion Carried (9-0) –
     
  8. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.
     
    There was no public comment.
     
  9. Old Business
     
    There is no Old Business
     
  10. Public Hearing
     
    Case#12-16 Cloverleaf Site Condominium – Preliminary Site Plan Review for a Site Condominium Project Located at 4392 Woodside Oaks Drive
     
    Golder stated the request is for a site condominium development. Golder began by describing the site location. The I-96 expessway crosses under Forest Hills Ave, Cloverleaf is a public road and there is a small private road called Woodside Oaks that continues from an old part of Woodside Oaks to a new part of Woodside Oaks. Golder stated the original Woodside Oaks had 8 or 9 lots and 8 were tied into a private development agreement that took place a long time ago. Golder stated the parcel we are looking at from the original agreement is lot 8. 
     
    Golder stated, as discussed at the work session when you get above 4 splits you would have to either plat the site or develop a site condominium. Golder stated the definition of a site condominium is a building with open space that everybody owns and maintains and that ownership privilege has been expanded out to include the larger piece of property. Golder stated in effect it looks a lot like a single family sub division and that is what this request is. She stated it has a private road, a 500 foot extension off of the end of Cloverleaf. The plan shows that it is 18 feet wide and the applicant has to widen the road to 20 feet as per the Fire Marshall.
     
    Golder stated the property is zoned R1-C Single family residential in which they need 10,000 square foot lots (which the request exceeds) and as far as the Master Plan it has to be less than 4 units per acre. This is an 8 ½ acre parcel and there are 8 lots; therefore that is less than one unit per acre and well within the Master Plan. Golder stated some things the commissioners will look at is does it meet the R1-C standards. Golder stated there are some Engineering standards that will be incorporated into the recommendation but they come out more at the final site condo process and any other site plan issues that are effected.
     
    Golder stated at the work Session we asked the developer, Ed Pynonnen what kind of homes he is going to build and he showed a ranch house around $300,000 dollars in value. Golder stated but that isn’t what the commissioners are looking at although as part of the condominium act they are required to submit elevations and tell us what they are going to do with the open space and the common area. But those are things we collect to make sure that in the R1-C zone they have to meet the unit size that is required by R1-C. Golder stated there is somewhat of a limited scope for review by the planner commissioners.
     
    Golder with respect to the recommendation and process wise the request works a lot like a plat. She stated preliminary site plan goes to planning commission for public hearing and then city commission for public hearing. Golder stated this is the exact same process when we develop a plat.
     
    Golder stated the recommendation for Preliminary Site Plan Approval for a site condominium development is a recommendation to the city commission. She stated she is recommending conditional approval for the site plan dated 7/6/16. 1. Compliance with the City Engineers memo and review and approval of the site plan by the Fire Marshall. 2.Golder stated there is additional information we have to collect under the condominium act but it is more Engineering and collecting information that is not part of the scope of what the planning commission would review. 3. Approval by staff of a landscaping plan. She stated this is a nice site and we want to know what areas will not be disturbed and want to make sure the areas with trees are fenced so they don’t inadvertently take out trees that they don’t have to. 4. Canopy street trees of at least 2.5 inches in caliper must be provided for each lot as per the landscaping requirements of Section 19.03B. 5. The Master Deed and Bylaws for the development and condominium association must be approved by the City Attorney and City Staff.
     
    Golder stated lots 1-8 are subject to additional agreements, but they are private between the homeowners and developer. Golder stated the additional agreements are private because they have certain restrictions they restrict above and beyond what the City does. She stated there is only one restriction that is relevant to the planning commission review which was established in 1983 whereby for 10 years you can’t subdivide any of these 8 or 9 lots from 1983. She stated that time has passed now that restriction has been lifted but there are other ones that have a longer term. Golder stated the other restrictions have a term of 25 years plus an annual renewal. She stated one has to do with the maintenance of Woodside Oaks, there are 8 lots to help maintain Woodside Oaks.
     
    Golder stated they have certain requirements for building size height, 2 1/2 stories or 35 feet. But the City only allows 25 feet therefore they are also by the City’s restrictions. Golder stated they have material requirements like stone, glass, brick and wood. She stated they have a segment in there for the review and design of any houses that go in. They also have restrictions on noise and activities and bringing in temporary structures and things of that nature. She stated they also have a rule about cutting down trees of over 4 inches in caliper. She stated staff is saying the applicant needs to tell us where they are going to cut; but they have more stringent requirements than we do except for where they need to do construction. Golder stated with all this being said none of it matters to the commissioners because that is between the private owners and developer. She stated if they put up a house that doesn’t meet the building materials and it meets ours there is nothing we can do about it. She stated it is a private restriction so anything except for the one that is expired (the subdivision) all that is private developer and we don’t’ have anything to say about it. The owners and developers are self-imposing the restrictions on each other so that they get the type of development that they want.
     
    Ed Pynonnen and Steve Van Kooten were present.
     
    Young opened the public hearing.
     
    Douglas Vogt, 4254 Woodside Oaks was present. He stated he is the President of the site condominium association for Woodside Oaks. He stated he agrees that there are restrictions to the properties but the one that Golder stated expired was allowed to stay in effect for 25 years and then it renews every year after that unless 70% of the people who live on the street remove it. Golder stated she ran that by our City Attorney and he disagrees. He said that particular one with the number of splits and other properties have splits on Woodside Oaks as well that one is the only one that has expired and the other remaining restriction are 25 years with the minimum 70% threshold to change. Vogt stated on top of that there was a second amendment to the declaration of restrictions and private driveway in liber 4151. There is a restriction that says no splits of divisions or utilizing of parcels lots units of land will be less than 1 acre in size. Discussion ensued. Golder stated she will have to look into this document with respect to subdividing. Vogt stated this was a private agreement among these properties to make sure that the environment remained the way that it was, that they had good trees, safe environment etc. Vogt stated they didn’t want a ton of houses. Discussion ensued. Golder stated staff will review the cited document.
     
    Mike Schmidt, 4507 Cloverleaf was present. He stated they have problems from a traffic standpoint. He stated there will be 8 houses built, which will add an additional maybe 18 vehicles, that will take maybe 3 round trips per day. Schmidt stated they are already having problems with the people on Cloverleaf trying to safely get out on Forest Hills Avenue. He stated he spoke to the KWPD, the Mayor and talked to Michigan State Representatives and he is very concerned.  He thinks somebody is going to get injured or killed. He stated with the sharp curve to the north you can’t see. There is so much brush on that corner that if you are coming off Cloverleaf you have about 4.5 seconds before a car driving the speed limit is on you. He stated there have been a number of accidents on that corner.
     
    VanderHoff questioned who owned the property where the brush is obstructing the view. Schmidt stated he is not sure of the name but there are two houses. VanderHoff stated this should be a relatively easy matter to have the property owner clean up the brush if it obstructs the view. Schmidt stated part of it is on the public right-of-way.
     
    Vogt stated in the declaration it says now and then restrictions and easements covering properties described in the attached exhibit A which is known in the earlier declaration as lots 1-8 except for the northwestern part of lot 5. He stated this particular amendment is the second amendment. He stated the first one was for the proposed Bayberry properties, this one was an amendment made afterwards because Bayberry failed. They wanted to make sure that these agreements were in place with the new property or any of the other properties. These modifies lots 1-8 which is now a part of the new piece. That is why they say any split off of that should be at least one acre.
     
    Commissioner Benoit explained to the residents that this is a private agreement between two property owners. The planning commission has no jurisdiction, there is nothing we can do about it. He stated he appreciates getting the information from the residents, but we have no jurisdiction. He stated if there is a problem due to the private agreement that is what lawyers are for. Vogt questioned if they make the decision of how properties are split. Benoit stated according to the ordinances we don’t deal in private matters between private parties that is for the courts to figure out. VanderHoff stated we can consider it but according to our Master Plan and our ordinances, if the developer can do what they want to do with that property that is all we are concerned with. If it is a private property issue and you don’t think the developer can develop that property according to your agreements then you have to get your attorneys involved but that is not our concern.
     
    Golder stated Schweitzer found the document and all it says regarding splits is that they can’t be less than one acre in size. Golder stated if you look at the plan the parcels aren’t one acre but they have open space associated with it. The developer could split them in to one acre properties, or he could seek to change the agreement between the homeowners. Discussion ensued.
     
    Eric Mulder, 1695 Forest Hills was present. He stated he thought they were only allowed 4 splits. Golder stated there are 4 splits and after that then you have to do something like a plat or a condominium, therefore they are pursuing the condominium process. Golder stated that goes back to the parent parcel which would be about March 1997 when the land division act went into effect. Mulder stated the traffic is also an issue.
     
    David Hammond, 4499 Oakleaf was present. He stated he has been a resident of Kentwood since 1980 and used to live on Cloverleaf Dr. for about 12 years. He stated it is a beautiful area, there is a lot of wildlife in that area. He stated he now lives on Oakleaf drive on about 12 acres. He stated he sold a couple of lots. He stated there is Saddleback Creek that runs along their northern boundary that empties into Plaster Creek and into the Grand River. That creek has a lot of birds, geese, ducks and fish. His concern with the project are the environmental issues. He stated there are a lot of problems with runoff. Whenever there is a heavy rainstorm along Cloverleaf, Oakleaf and on Forest Hills Avenue the drains are not adequately cleaned there are puddles and spills of water ponding in the street. The are no gutters on Cloverleaf, there are no curbs and there are no sidewalks. He stated adding more homes at the end of the street and children that live in a lot of these homes are a safety issue that the commissioners need to consider and address that issue. There is also wetlands that goes through this property. He isn’t sure if they have had conversation with the DNR or drain commissioner but there are some big issues. He noticed there is going to be a bridge put over this project that will not solve any of the environmental issues in terms of the topography. There are flat areas, hills and high points and a creek. He stated these issues, from his viewpoint, have to be addressed before they can make an intelligent decision on the proposed development. He stated there are also a lot of mature trees on the property. Discussion ensued. He asked the commissioners to please address the environmental issues, the wetlands, the traffic. There are real problems, and the sidewalks. He stated he is seeing more of his land falling into the creek and we need to look at these issues seriously.
     
    Commissioner Young questioned where these concerns should go. Golder stated these are private agreements. Golder stated it seems the purpose of the agreement Mr. Vogt brought in is to restrict the amount of traffic on Woodside Oaks because it is very narrow and they want to share maintenance. Golder stated we can tell Pyonnon he would have to deal with the issues before he builds these lots if it turns out even though this development doesn’t use Woodside Oaks. If they are still subject to the requirements of that agreement that means they can subdivide, but they have to be at least an acre in size. Golder stated she is sure Mr. Pynonnen could come close to the acre but it would be a different configuration. She stated if it is a different configuration it is a different site plan. Pynonnen stated they will comply with whatever the private agreements that are already in place and whatever the law requires them to do. He stated this is a civil matter and they will be glad to sit down and talk to the people along Woodside Oaks. He stated they are going to review this with their counsel and see what they will come up with. He stated the reason they are there today is to review the plan that has been presented. He stated if he has to come back and redo the plan then he will come back and redo it, but right now the plan that they have is what they are looking to have done.
     
    Earl Clements, 1765 Forest Hill Avenue was present. He stated this development abuts his property approximately 350-400 feet. He stated his concern on the development is the type of homes, the value of the homes, the cost per square foot, the minimum size etc. Golder stated unless Mr. Pynonnen offers that’s something you really can’t require. If Mr. Pynonnen offers, that’s the way it is going to be then we can incorporate that into the conditions of approval, but right now it is just the division of the land. Clements stated he would also want to make sure he doesn’t have a house right up against his property. He stated he would like the frontage of the houses closer to the new street being put in. He stated the environment is something they need to be aware of, there are a lot of wetlands in that area immediately to the north and the south side of the proposed developments property. Discussion ensued. Clements stated the speed limit is too high in the area. It is 50 miles per hour and this is where people are walking and biking. He stated that he spoke to Mayor Kepley and Kepley explained to him that this is not a City function and that MDOT controls the speed limit of the City street. Discussion ensued. Clements stated we are going to be adding 8 houses on this street. That will be a lot of cars going into this dead end street. What will they do if something gets blocked or if there is an emergency, is there another outlet? Golder stated Creekside Estates to the north comes off of Forest Hills. She stated when Creekside went in, there was an emergency access that was built and eventually got extended to Woodside Oaks. She stated the second way in is through that emergency access, it has a breakaway gate. Discussion ensued.
     
    Douglas Vogt stated there are a lot of children in the neighborhood who are walking down Cloverleaf without sidewalks and that has been a concern.
     
    Commissioner Pemberton stated with regard to sidewalks it would have to be voted on by the people in the neighborhood and it would be a special assessment. Therefore, if they want it bad enough and want safety for the kids, put the sidewalks in. Vote it in, make it happen. When it comes to this kind of development with a private street it really doesn’t require sidewalks we have talked about it. But putting sidewalks in that are going nowhere makes no sense. He stated it is their neighborhood and he suggested that the neighbors take some control.
     
    Chris Vanderwall, 1755 Forest Hill was present.  He stated his property is very wet and he too shares a lot of the same concerns as Mr. Clements regarding what kind of houses will be built, the value as well as the positioning. He stated his big concern is how may trees are going to be removed. He questioned whether the commission is going to offset the loss of trees by requiring some kind of trees to go along the borderline to help with the privacy and the environmental impact. He stated there is a lot of wildlife in the area that is drawn to the area because of the wetlands, because of the creek and he questioned where will they go. He stated they will we be displacing the animals. There are a lot of deer, turkey etc and it will be a shame to see them get hit by cars. He stated one request he would have is to require mature pine trees along the borders to help with the privacy and help offset the loos of trees. He also asked that we don’t allow just clear cutting of the property. He requested maintaining as many of the trees that we can rather than just clearing it out. He questioned if there was a requirement where they will learn more about the types of homes and positioning before this is approved. Golder stated on a parcel by parcel basis we will get that information. Golder stated she thinks they need to show the maximum building envelop on each lot. Discussion ensued. Pynonnen stated their houses will be a lot closer to the road and they will leave the backyards wooded.
     
    Mr. Dondzila 4534 Forest Lake Ct was present. He stated he has concerns about traffic and environmental concerns and understand this is an issue between private parties. He stated it sounds like there is some confusion whether they are in compliance with whatever restrictions may be in place. He stated until the developer knows that he is in compliance with all the restrictions he doesn’t think this is right for a decision today.
     
    Hammond questioned if the planning commission or the city commission or the developer has come forward with a feasibility study that has been approved and documented by the DNR considering that there is significant wetlands. He stated he doesn’t know how you can make a decision without the assurance that the experts in this field, the DNR, have looked at this property. Discussion ensued. He stated you have topography issues, wetland issues that need to be addressed completely and thoroughly. Golder stated we work with properties that have wetlands on them all the time. Our city engineer review them and if there is impact on the wetlands then the DEQ would require permits. Golder stated in this case they need crossing permits for the wetlands that they are planning to crossing otherwise they are not impacting the wetlands. Hammond questioned if the planning commission approves this then it goes to the city commission do they approve the request based upon these same recommendations and that they have all the appropriate permits and their feasibility study from the DEQ. Golder stated this is a preliminary approval it goes to the planning commission and then to the city commission and a lot of the more technical information is part of the final approval.
     
    Steve VanKooten, VanKooten Engineering was present. He stated there is a reason why it is called preliminary approval. The process is to come before the commissioners and residents to get all the comments, problems and concerns so they can start working on solving some of those. He stated the municipality has to say the project is ok to do and once they get the preliminary approval they will start working with the DEQ and the City of Grand Rapids for sewer and water to get those approvals. He stated once they get those approvals he will finish his engineering plans or come back for final site plan approval. This will still have to get engineering plans approved by the City Engineer, City of Grand Rapids and the DEQ. He stated there is a lot of work to do yet. They don’t want to just go in and develop the site. He stated they put the cul-de-sac in the middle of the field and not in the trees. They could have had 10 lots but they only put 8 lots.  He stated they put open space in there to try to protect some of the wetlands. Discussion ensued. Golder stated there are 6 pages of Engineering requirements that are conditions of approval.
     
    Carleen Ghareeb, 4432 Cloverleaf was present. She stated her concern is water. There is an easement behind her house which has always got water in it. She has the only storm drain on the entire street goes right down the side of her house, every time it rains her backyard gets flooded with water. She stated she thinks it is supposed to be cleaned out and go to Forest Hill road to the lake but it is all overgrown and it doesn’t do that, it is just a big wetland. She questioned once they start building what effect will it have on the creek water that fills the in the easement. She stated her sump pump goes off constantly in the spring. She’s just wondering how this development is going to affect all of this. Golder stated this is something that the City Engineer will look at if it is a drain like a creek or if it is filled with debris or trees.
     
    Jeff Schweitzer 4322 Woodside Oaks was present. He stated the statement was made that this was a private party issue. He stated they have not had any information sent to them at all about any of this. Golder stated private agreements go with the property so it is not something that the City has to give to people it goes with the documents that you have when you close on a property.
     
    Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Kape to close the public hearing.
     
  11. Motion Carried (9-0) –
     
    VanderHoff stated a lot of the issues are out of what the commissioners can enforce. He stated the developer is going to have to meet the engineering report, the DEQ report and everything is going to have to be approved before he can build there. The planning commission has limited review. VanderHoff stated just because the residents like the deer and all the other animals, you can’t prevent a developer for developing his property. That is not a reason to turn the request down. The solution about the traffic and the kids is to get the people on the street together and put in sidewalks if they are worried about the safety of their children.
     
    Pemberton stated one of the options the neighbors have had was to buy the property and own it and then you would have total control over the land. He stated one house per acre is pretty reasonable, they will be higher end good sized family homes. He thinks they will be a compliment to any neighborhood in Forest Hill or Kentwood.
     
     
    He stated he doesn’t see anything to force him to not look at this with approval because it meets all of the City standards. If there are outside agreements and concerns we appreciate that, but we have to stay within the parameter of the Master Plan and the requirements of our ordinances and we have to move forward.
     
    Jones stated she has heard the neighbors concerns and their comments and she expressed great respect to all of the people who spoke. She stated many of the comments are not within the scope of the planning commission review.
     
    Bridson stated she has asked about sidewalks before. She stated maybe the City can contact the Department of Transportation and ask for an review of the speed limit. She thinks it is something we should do for the residents. She stated she also thinks another thing we might consider is looking at some of the runoff problems. She questioned whether there is something we can do from a City perspective. She stated we can also table the request and revisit in two weeks.
     
    Holtrop stated he concurs with VanderHoff  Pemberton and Jones but his only thought is if it is approved and the private agreements limit the number of lots that can be developed the developer may have to come back with a revised plan for planning commission review.
     
    Fox questioned if the grading plans are available to the residents. Golder stated it is all available and some have received it and the staff report.  Fox stated he can appreciate the concerns that were heard, but they seem as though many may fall outside the scope of the planning commission review. Fox stated the importance of sidewalks in that area.
     
    Benoit stated if everyone could get a copy of the staff recommendation they will see a lot of their concerns are being addressed and in the process. He stated the request is preliminary site plan approval. This is preliminary plan and a lot of the concerns will be addressed as time goes on. Benoit stated the commissioners spoke to the developer at the work session about sidewalks. The developer stated if there were sidewalks on Cloverleaf they would put them in because sidewalks would be logical. But, Benoit stated to put  sidewalks on the  8 lots doesn’t make any sense.
     
    Motion by Benoit, supported by VanderHoff, to recommend to the City Commission conditional approval of the Preliminary Site Plan dated 7/6/16 for an 8 lot site condominium development for Cloverleaf Site Condominiums as described in Case No. 12-16. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-5 and basis points 1-7 as described in Golder’s memo dated August 12, 2016.
     
  12. Motion Carried (9-0) –
  13. Work Session
     
    Case#13-16 Tire Shop – Special Land Use for Minor Vehicle Repair (Tire Shop) and Site Plan Review Located at 5322 S. Division Ave SE
     
    Pung introduced the request. He stated the request is for Special Land Use and Site Plan Review for a minor vehicle repair operation. The business involves the sale and installation of tires. Pung stated the property is zoned C5 Neighborhood commercial therefore the request is a special land use. Pung stated if this were in a C2 zoning district it would have been a permitted use.
     
    Pung stated the existing building was constructed in 1968 and was remodeled in 2001. Pung stated the site is a legal non-conforming lot in several aspects. Lot area is 8,200 square feet while the zoning ordinance requires at least 10,000 square feet. The lot width is 50 feet wide while the C-5 zoning district requires at least 75 feet. The current parking is 5 ½ parking spots out front while under the current ordinance for a retail building it requires 17 onsite parking spaces. Pung stated the zoning ordinance would also require a minimum15 foot landscape setback while the current parking is well within that 15 foot setback. These are all non-conforming but it is legal nonconforming so the property can be used. They wouldn’t have to get a variance for these existing nonconformities.
     
    Pung stated the site fronts on Division but it does not have its own curb cut. The site will be accessed from the adjacent property to the north and south. Pung stated there is no onsite access to the rear of the building. Pung stated they submitted a letter stating that they have the cross access ability to bring a car back where they would access the building. Pung stated right now it is just a letter. We are going to want a formal cross access easement that is recorded. This way if the properties are either sold or ownership changes the easement can’t be taken away if one of the landlord’s three contiguous properties is sold out separately. The Tire Shop would still have the ability to cross that property.
     
    Pung stated the current parking layout is perpendicular parking. The cars would have to back out onto and drive over the sidewalk along Division Ave. There are 3 properties that are in common ownership which does lead for the potential for creating parallel parking with the cooperation of the property owner to the north. Pung stated there were examples in the packet of how you could do parallel parking but it would create a one way circulation. He stated if it is one way to the north, then they would have to go onto the adjacent property to get out. Ideally you would want the adjacent property to have parallel parking also so you don’t have cars driving into the back of the cars that are parked perpendicular. Pung stated there is some possibly there to create parallel parking which would eliminate the need for vehicles driving over the sidewalk as they do now.
     
    Pung stated the proposal is for a tire shop. They would sell new and used tires and also provide tire repair, tire rotation, they will install tires and they will change tires. Pung stated in their description customers would come in and park in the front of the building and an employee would drive their vehicle to the back of the building and into the bay where all the work would be done. When the work is completed there will be an employee that brings the car out to the front of the building.
     
    Pung stated old tires would be stored in a trailer behind the building and when the trailer is full that trailer will be removed. He stated we are asking for some additional detail on the size of the trailer and also the type of trailer. Want to make sure it is not too large and that it is an enclosed trailer.
     
    Pung stated they are not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building. Interior changes are planned in order to have their repair bay offices and storage.
     
    Pung stated some of the issues were the potential reorientation of parking from perpendicular to parallel; information on the number of employees for verification that they will meet the minimum parking requirements. He stated we will need a recorded cross access agreement and size and type of trailer that they want to use to store the tires in.
     
    Benoit stated the term blacktop behind the building should be used very loosely. He stated it was hard trying to get through between some of the buildings. He doesn’t know how the circulation is going to work. He stated his only other requirement would be that a covered trailer be required.
     
    Fox questioned if the circulation to bring the vehicles to the building will be on the south side or the north side. Fox stated there is an elevation change that is pretty significant. Fox asked how many employees they plan on having. Amy Tyler stated as a right now 2 employees, her and her fiancĂ©.  Fox asked the hours of operation. Tyler stated Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday from 8am-6pm, Wednesday 8am-2pm, Saturday 8am-2pm, and Sunday will be closed. Fox asked about the children’s karate class next door. Olga Halstead, the representative of the property owner, stated she would have to verify but there is nothing during the day, most classes start at 4 or 5pm. Fox stated he was just thinking about moving vehicles that don’t have good tires so they may not have good breaks and the safety of the little people.
     
    Holtrop asked if this will be a one bay shop and where the tires will be stored. Tyler stated the tires will be enclosed with a padlock on it and a one bay shop.  Holtrop stated his biggest concern is the space that they are trying to fit in for cars and movement. He stated he drove by and when he drove outside the parking lines he was heading towards the bicycles coming at him on the sidewalk. The traffic flow will be the biggest concern to try and put this type of operation in that building.  Discussion ensued regarding parking. Holtrop stated he doesn’t like how it fits but everything else is great.
     
    Bridson asked if this was part of the Form Based code. Pung stated this is on Division Avenue, therefore it is within the area where Form Based Code that is being considered. He stated as indicated in the report this use would be an allowed use under the form based code. Bridson asked if staff has any recommendation as far as parking or is there something that will be a better choice than the other. Pung stated if they can do the parallel parking, part of the goal of the Form Based plan is to make it more walkable. They are working with the property owner further to the north to get that one way circulation. There is really no way to not go on Division Avenue. Bridson questioned how many customers they think they will have per day. Tyler stated this will be a new location. They had a location on West River Dr they closed where
     they were averaging anywhere between 10-15 customers per day, sometimes more.
     
    Jones stated her comments are related to Form Based Code also because we want that area to look different and having people potentially driving over the sidewalk is not optimal and at some point she would like to see grass there. She stated it would be a much more friendly looking entrance. Her concern would be related to the parking with the preference that it would be parallel parking given some of the issues and concerns related to that. Jones stated in terms of covered tire storage she worries about standing water and mosquitos. She stated she thinks it is an odd spot to put a business there in the middle of the three businesses to have that be in the center. She just has questions about feasibility and practicality. She stated she’s not sure when they would actually be able to do the work because it seems like they will be moving cars all the time.
     
    Pemberton stated Form Based came in to his mind and what we are doing now and how it will effect it down the road. If we went to a one way traffic pattern; what about angled parking instead of parallel. Could we get a few more cars in there and a little bit more density but still have the ability to maneuver without going over the sidewalk. He stated he echoes the concerns about the type of business in that location. He wishes them the best but it seems odd to have a shop in this location. If they feel it is viable and fits within their plan then he is all for it.
     
    VanderHoff stated it is always nice to see a person start a new business and grow. He hopes that it will be successful. They have had experience in the tire business before. He asked if they will put a hydraulic hoist inside. Tyler stated yes they are but for right now for beginning purposes they are going to just be using floor jacks until they get more established. VanderHoff asked if they plan on doing any oil changes. Tyler stated tires only.
     
     
  14. New Business
     
    Motion by Holtrop, supported by VanderHoff to Set a public hearing date of September 27, 2016, for:  Case #14-16 Cobblestone at the Ravines- Village East Condominiums – Final Site Plan Approval of a PUD Phase Located at 4333 Shaffer
     
  15. Motion Carried (9-0) –
     
     
  16. Other Business
     
  17. Commissioners’ Comments
     
    VanderHoff asked about the meeting on Wing. Golder stated it will be at 7pm on August 24, 2016. He stated he is glad we didn’t get boxed in with all the comments from the residents regarding Cloverleaf.
     
    Bridson suggested having an open house or send a mailing out to talk about sidewalks or passing assessments. Schweitzer pointed out the establishing a special assessment district requires a series of public hearings to establish necessity, support and estimated assessments.
     
    Young stated she likes to let the residents be heard even though it is out of our hands but the way the commissioners handled it was great.
     
     
  18. Staff’s Comments
     
    Schweitzer stated speed limits are set by State law. Discussion ensued
     
    Schweitzer stated the Child Care Institute request on rezoning was denied by the city commission.
     
    Schweitzer stated the group wishing to establish slaughter house zoning provisions would like to come before the LUZ committee either the first or 2nd meeting in September. The Luz committee members indicated a preference for the first meeting in September but a willingness to meet before the second meeting.
     
  19. Adjournment
     
    Motion by Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Commissioner Benoit                           to adjourn the meeting.
     
  20. Motion Carried (9-0) –
     
    Meeting adjourned at 8:45
     
     
                                                                Respectfully submitted,
     
                                                                Ed Kape, Secretary