Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Date: December 5, 2011 Public Hearing Called to Order at 7:00 p.m. by Jerry Bartow Roll Call by Beth Grohman Hunt Present McCombs Present Knesbeck Present Foerster Present Mills Present Bartow Present Quorum Present Others Present Lynn Laughlin, Beth Grohman, Ken Montgomery, Steve Ehardt and 19 citizens Ehardt Requesting a conditional land use to put in a drive through restaurant. Our proposal is to put in a Tim Hortons. Public Comment Bruce Baclerksi From St. Matthew Property Committee The conditional land use is for a drive through restaurant, in the ordinance fast food is a conditional use in C-2, and permitted in a C-1 but does it address a drive through? Montgomery - Ordinance does not state that drive through restaurants are not permitted Barb Schultz 5049 Lakeshore Road Concerns with a franchise with dual restaurant such as Tim Hortons/Wendy s. Becky Wurmlinger 7185 Lester Representing the Wurmlinger Family Concerns with driveways that come off of the Porter Street, and concerned about safety of the children that wait for the bus. If the Tim Horton s does not last can another drive through restaurant come in there? Ehardt In regards to the Porter Street, it is a city street and is normal size. Most of the properties in the surrounding area are zoned commercial. Quinn Wurmlinger Main Street Concerned with heavy traffic Amy Tabin 6590 Harrington Road Against a drive though feels it will take away the charm of the Village. Feels it would cause more traffic problems. Peggy Stencel A & W 5309 Main Street Main concern is a drive through concept, will take away from the atmosphere of the small town charm, also has concerns about the traffic with a drive through. Kim McKinnie General Store Not opposed to Tim Horton s, opposed to drive through, takes away the quaintness of the Village. Peter Muoio- Lester Street Happy to hear that Ehardt is interested in the safety on Porter Street. Find it unusual that we have not seen a Tim Horton rep. Ehardt This is a small town and respect opinions. Tim Horton s have criteria s that have to be met. Last thing they will do is come here until they know that it will be allowed here. Terry Nolan Irish Rose Opposed to the drive through feels it would change the future of Lexington that it would no longer be the first resort north.
Tim Knapp-Pharmacist Ehardts -Feels it would benefit the north end of town and the entire Village. Jackie Huepenbecker -7108 B. R. Noble Confused about the ordinance. Chad Partaka Attorney Agrees with the safety issues of Porter Street, but feels it would benefit the community, not just focusing on the downtown area. Frankenmuth has a Tim Horton s and it has not hurt their downtown area. Feels Ehardt is trying to benefit the community offering jobs and revenue. Kim McKinnie The businesses on Main Street lost parking when the streets were widened, just does not want to see a drive through Bruce Balcerski When driving north on M25, there is no quaint romantic Village of the Lexington. You don t see anything that you don t see in any other small town. Need to extend the season and try to keep people here longer. Jane Layman Chamber of Commerce President Does not feel it would hurt the Village at all need to build farther north. Feels it will help the Village. Terry Nolan Agree we need to build further, just asking not to allow a drive through in the Village limits. We don t have drive throughs in the Village now. Kathy O Connor Barmilivian Anything we can do to help the youth in the Village we should do it and a Tim Horton s would help the revenue of the Village. Steve Ehardt There are two banks in town with drive throughs. Born and raised in this quaint Village. It is not just a place where people come stay in their cottages for the summer, there a lot of year around activities now. There was a lot of heated discussions over the harbor before it came in, it added to the quaintness and it has been very beneficial to the community. Elise Root General Store It Tim Horton s does not make it, what else will end up there. Bartow I don t believe that Tim Horton s would not allow Ehardt to go through all this if they thought that their franchise would not survive in the Village. Bartow What this body can do is put conditions on the conditional land use. Motion by Mills, seconded by Foerster to adjourn the Public Hearing All Ayes Motion carried Chairman Jerry Bartow called the Planning Commission to order at 7:40 p.m. Roll call Hunt Present McCombs Present Knesbeck Present Foerster Present Mills Present Bartow Present APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Foerster, seconded by Mills to approve the minutes of November 7, 2011 as presented. All ayes, Motion carried Knesbeck excused himself from meeting because of the close proximity of the property to his business.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Motion by Mills, seconded by Hunt to approve the agenda with the addition of Commissioners Comments All ayes, Motion Carried VILLAGE BUSINESS MANAGER REPORT: None Offered. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REPORT PUBLIC COMMENT Barbara Schultz Asked why the Pledge of Allegiance was not done at the Public Hearing? Montgomery Summary of the conditional land use and preliminary site plan. Acreage The final site plan must be based upon an accurate survey of the entire proposed property. Currently the proposed property is vacant. Proposed use is a drive through restaurant. Fast food restaurants are a conditional land use in the C-2 District, not a principal use. The Council and the Planning Commission must use discretion in determining whether or not this location is appropriate for the proposed conditional land use. Adjacent properties to the east, is C-2 General Commercial to the west R-3 Multiple Family, to the north and the south it is C-1 Local Service. Land uses for adjacent properties to the north is a single family dwelling in a commercial zone, to the south is a single family residence, further south is home occupation and east is two restaurants, a laundry mat and a duplex, to the west is an apartment complex. Basis for determination, must be harmonious and in accordance with the objectives of the Master Plan, design construction, operation and maintained harmonious in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general facility, will not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing uses, will be an improvement in relation to the property in the immediate vicinity and the Village as a whole, will be served by essential public services and facilities for the establishment of the proposed use, does not create excessive public cost and not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the Village, and will be consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Material required, a complete application and a preliminary site plan which applicant has provided. Issues for the Conditional Land use, the secondary ingress and egress off of Porter Street may increase commercial traffic, how will the storm water be managed, proposed building elevations not included, subject site is surrounded by commercial zoning and is not adjacent to the CBD District. Landscaping would be addressed in the final site plan. Storm water management, method of detaining the storm water is not addressed in the preliminary site plan or signage. The ZBA granted a variance for the parking. To approve the conditional land use, the planning commission must determine that the proposed use is conforming, if the decision is to deny or table, reasons for denial or tabling must be stated. Preliminary Site Plan should be tabled due to the fact the plan, as presented does included sufficient land area within the boundaries and the storm water management should be addressed. McCombs Would like the definition of the ordinance, no specific reference to the drive through automatically allowed, if it is omitted is not allowed Montgomery -May put conditions on it, defend yourself for the conditions, good location other C-2 locations are suitable for fast food restaurant.
Bartow If there is no other mention about drive through, it would be a valid argument. Entire section 9.7 off street stacking space for drive through facilities, how many stacking spaces per services lane, that is for pharmacies, photo shops, dry cleaners and fast food restaurants. The intent of this ordinance over all is to allow drive through. Laughlin In all honesty and fairness this whole process has been very difficult and lengthy and costly. Mr. Ehardt and his brothers have been compliant with everything required within a timely manner. Commissioner Comments - Foerster Framework that we are discussing is a highly emotional issue. It would be easy to confuse what we want to have and what is governed by laws and policy. We did understand the legal perimeters of each group. DDA is limited to the downtown district as outlined in the ordinance, the LBA has no influence as to what kind of business comes to the Village. That is controlled by the planning and zoning commission in conjunction and suggestions from the Master Plan and how we might move forward. Feels the proposal is thorough. No legal restrictions that would prohibit the request from being reviewed and possibly being approved. There are some gray areas in the Master Plan keeping that plan in mind according to the Michigan Enabling act the Master Plan is nothing more then a guide for development. The first steps for this development have been approved by the zba and this commission. Will not base my decision on whether I like someone or not. Decisions must be based on written ordinances and resolutions and policy. Policy and Procedures states Village government is dictated by Village ordinances, resolutions and policies not personalities. Our focus is and always should be Lexington s purpose and prosperity. I see no reason to oppose this conditional land use that has come before this Planning Commission. Mills Has serious issues and in respect with Ehardts involvement to the community, Opposed to a drive through, not appropriate for the Lexington, not good for the economy Opposed to the ingress and egress on Porter Street. Feels it is dangers and should be on M25. Realizes it will cause some issues with MDOT. Have some trust issues with Mr. Ehardt over the poll barns in town, the water run off from the property he lives in. He has a good presentation and he made information available in the final analysis can I trust Steve Ehardt to do all of the things he said he would do. I promise the properties on Denissen will be screened appropriately. Big concerns are drive throughs and the safety issues on Porter. McCombs In order to meet the conditional land use criteria, the site plan hasno elevation to determine if the structure is harmonious with the objectives of the Master Plan. Concerns with the Village s historic character, safety issues. Understands that the north end of town needs to be integrated with the rest of the Village. The Master Plan addresses the quaintness and what the Village wants to be like. Franchises take away from the character that the community is trying to preserve. When reading the Tim Horton s website, they have to own the property and will build the structure, there is no guarantee that Tim Horton s allow that person to be the franchisee. Hunt Discussed the community surveys and what the residents want, an upscale restaurant, and feels that Tim Horton s is an upscale fast food restaurant. Traffic and parking issues were also on the survey as a concern. We as a committee need to take time to make sure that we don t make a mistake. Character of Village in the survey was keeping the small time atmosphere. Master Plan calls for adequate road improvement
prior to new businesses. I-1 and C-2 does say fast food restaurants, but does not state drive through, but does have vehicle stacking for fast food restaurant. Looking at the site plan we have in front of us, feel that it is incomplete and should be tabled for more time. Bartow Real issue with the out lots E and F. They need to be included at this time and their intended uses needs to be listed. Stormwater detention, a lot of that area is going to be used up. Development of E and F to be determined at a later date. If you intent is to keep those, they should be included in the site plan. Concerns about entering off of Porter Street for the drive through. Do not want to see a back up issue on Porter Street. Parking lot lighting has not been discussed, but have to pay attention to the apartments. The site plan review application asks to attach one set of building plans. Reason want to see the elevations to make sure they are maintained and harmonious. It is not etched in stone that this is going to be a Tim Horton s. Ehardt The requirements that you are asking for are not in the ordinance. We provided everything that we were asked for. Would have gladly included the storm water detention in the site plan. The need for a plan for the out lots or the pedestrian crossing was not a requirement for a preliminary site plan. Cannot start a discussion with Tim Horton s until I know that we will be approved for the conditional land use. We are willing to except all reasonable conditions. My parking lot is used all summer by all the businesses on Huron and I have never complained. This development provides for 37 parking spots, plus two rv parking spots. The lighting was not provided on the site plan because it is not required on the preliminary site plan. You cannot invest the kind of money that you want us to invest give all the fine details including all contractual obligations with Tim Hortons s, if there is not some shred of hope for an approval, that is why we presented a preliminary site plan. We understand that details are required for the final site plan, but I cannot present the details that are necessary until I know it is possible and cannot get this from Tim Horton s until I can prove it is possible. Hunt The parking is required for the usable space inside. Ehardt We are probably over 1000 ft over the average patrons space Would like to add a meeting room in the restaurant. McCombs Is Tim Horton s interested in an establishment that does not have a drive through and are they interested in establishments that may have an outword appearance other then there cookie cutter style. Ehardt Ask 100 people if they think that Tim Hortons is an eye sore to the community. McCombs- Concern is the franchise image. Ehardt What is the A & W, the Dairy Queen and the Real Estate offices. Bartow Biggest contentions is the drive through., but a drive through could be very appealing. Ehardt The Village required that Ehardts give 66 feet to put in a street for the apartment complex and it is a Village street. Since when is it required the property owner to maintain a Village street. Why not create an environment where the children can stand away the restaurant or have the buses drive in to the Porter Apartments Complex. Hunt We are here to look at the site plan and Porter Street is a dead end street Concerned with a pile up on Porter Street and no other way to access or exit. Bartow- Would it be possible to have an entrance only from the south end. Ehardt- On the south end you would not want an entrance and exits. It is not designed to have entry on the Porter Street.
McCombs Did you conferr with Tim Hortons when you developed the plan. Ehardt Have asked to have examples of plans from Tim Hortons. They will not give exact configurations until the demographics studies are complete. Not sure they are going to allow us to have a franchise. Will not get input or plans until they know for sure that we will be given the conditional land use. I understand your concerns. All the requirements needed or the conditional land use and preliminary site plan had been supplied. McCombs If Tim Hortons requirements are to own the land would they set forth another set of plans. Bartow Would like to see a motion to recommend approval for the conditional land use and the preliminary site plan with the condition that it is for a Tim Horton s only. Ehardt If you are going to table for more information, then please supply with the information you are requiring and I will get that information. Be specific in what I need to supply. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discuss, review, approve/reject the application for Conditional Land Use (Ehardt Property) Motion by Hunt, seconded by Mills to table the Conditional Land Use, for further review of the ingress and egress, possible sidewalks, storm water detention and section 3.3.3 and so Mr. Ehardt has time to respond, thirty (30) days at regular scheduled meeting. Ayes: Hunt, Mills, McCombs, Foerster Nays: Bartow Motion carried 2. Review of the Preliminary Site Plan submitted for the Development Motion by Hunt seconded by Mills to table the preliminary site plan for additional information, such as the storm water detention, traffic on to Porter, a determination of section 3.3.3., and a pedestrian sidewalk on the South side of Porter to be brought to the next meeting in thirty (30) days. Hunt- At this point with the plans that we have in front of are incomplete, and I cannot make a determination. Issue concerning Porter Street being a dead end. First entrance off US 25 coming from north into the parking lot should be eliminated Ehardt That is not possible, because if someone does not want to go through the drive through they will be deadlocked. McCombs Would like to ask for the classification of Porter Street Mills It is a residential street McCombs Within the seven criterias is this going cause additional cost to the Village. Ehardt I think what you are asking is to have an exit only on to Porter, not an entrance and I would not be opposed to this. Laughlin Regarding section 3.3.3, Jamie is requesting a look at the facade. Hunt Planner mentioned we need a peninsula off the sidewalk, Montgomery Could add a sidewalk and peninsula to the pedestrian sidewalk Mills Regarding the conditional land use, just so I am clear we have every right to deny a drive through? Ayes: Hunt, Mills, McCombs, Foerster Nays: Bartow
Motion carried CORRESPONDENCE : None PUBLIC COMMENT: Terry Nolan Commented on the traffic of a drive through and a sit down restaurant Kim McKinnie Commented on the Porter Street Issue Peter Muoio Commented on the requirements for the site plan Peggy Stencel Commented on the drive through concept. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Forester, seconded by Mills to Adjourn at 9:35 pm. All Ayes Motion Passed Respectfully Submitted Beth Grohman, Village Clerk