Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of proposed truck-stop and convenience store at 9055 Waterville‑Swanton Road
Summary
Waterville planning commissioners recommended denying a rezoning and conditional-use application for a semi-truck fueling terminal, citing traffic, compatibility with the 2012 comprehensive plan and potential land‑locking of adjacent parcels. Council scheduled further readings and a public hearing this summer.
Waterville planning commissioners recommended denial Monday of a request to rezone 9055 Waterville‑Swanton Road from Agriculture A‑1 to Mixed Use Business C‑4 and to grant a conditional‑use permit for a convenience store with a semi‑truck fueling and parking facility.
The recommendation, summarized to council by municipal administrator John, said the proposal would sharply increase traffic on Waterville‑Swanton Road and conflict with the city’s 2012 comprehensive plan. “The study indicates this development would bring 6,724 more vehicle trips per day — about a 48% increase — and 500 to 700 of those would be semi trucks,” John, municipal administrator, told the council.
Why it matters: The parcel sits within the city’s US‑24 concept area, where the comprehensive plan encourages orderly development that preserves traffic safety and roadway capacity. Planning commissioners found that a large truck facility would not advance those goals and could reduce long‑term economic benefit to the city.
Most of the commission’s technical objections centered on traffic and access. John said the applicant’s traffic impact study predicts up to a 38‑minute delay for eastbound traffic making a northbound left at the US‑24 off‑ramp under existing, unsignalized conditions. The applicant did not show a proposed signal on the site plan, and review engineers flagged the location as not meeting state and county spacing guidelines for traffic signals, according to John.
Commissioners also raised economic concerns: the development would generate mostly part‑time, low‑paying jobs while producing a large jump in heavy‑vehicle traffic. John noted that the sale of the parcel to the applicant would “land‑lock” two adjacent parcels totaling more than 58 acres owned by the same property owner, leaving those parcels without public road access and diminishing their development potential.
The planning commission’s recommendation to deny will go forward to council. Council scheduled the second reading of Ordinance 5‑25 on June 23 and set a public hearing, legislative action and administrative action for July 28. No final council vote on the rezoning or conditional‑use permit had occurred by the end of the meeting.
What happened next: Council received the planning commission’s report without taking immediate final action and moved the matter through the codified hearing schedule required for zoning changes.
