APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION

DECEMBER 14, 2010, 7:30 P.M.

COMMISSION CHAMBERS
(return to index)

A.                Chair Holtrop called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

 

B.                 The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Groce.

 

C.                 Roll Call:

Members Present: Maurice Groce, John Helder, Dan Holtrop, Ed Swanson, Frank Vander Hoff,  Don Yokom and Johngerlyn Young

Members Absent: Betsy Artz and Laurie Sheldon (without notification)

Others Present: Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, City Engineer Steve Kepley, Director of Public Works Ron Woods, Assistant City Engineer Pat Hughes,  the press and the applicants.

 

 

-          Motion Carried (7-0) –

-          Artz and Sheldon absent -

 

D.                Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact

 

 

-          Motion Carried (7-0) –

-          Artz and Sheldon absent -

E.                 Approval of the Agenda

 

 

-          Motion Carried (7-0) –

-          Artz and Sheldon absent -

 

F.                  Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.

 

There was no public comment.

 

G.                Old Business

 

There was no Old Business.

H.                Public Hearing

 

Case #11-10 – South Pointe Plaza – Special Land Use Open Air Business for a Vehicle Rental Establishment located at 5526 Division Ave. SE

 

Director Schweitzer introduced the request. He stated the request is for special land use and site plan review of an open air business for equipment leasing. He stated most of the activity will be in an enclosed building, but there is a portion that involves having vehicles on display in the front parking area and also having vehicles and equipment stored behind the building. 

 

Schweitzer stated  at the work session there were questions as to where the vehicles will be parked and displayed and the ability through easements to be able to display and store vehicle and equipment behind the building. He stated there are easements recorded for ingress and egress and parking. He stated the display and storage isn’t specified in those easements and in the staff recommendation it is recommended to assure that the applicant has easement rights that will entitle him to store the vehicles in the back. 

 

Schweitzer stated another aspect deals with the catch basin, city ordinance requires if you are going to have drainage it has to drain and operate properly. Schweitzer stated it appears the catch basin has some kind of an obstruction and as a recommended condition of approval that would have to be resolved. He stated the landlord has been working with the adjoining properties in order to secure, but he is unaware of the current status. Schweitzer stated approval would become effective once those documents were produced and reviewed by the city attorney and staff.

 

Applicant Dan Mejeur was present to represent the request. He stated they are an equipment rental facility and they have a store in Hastings now. He stated his business will cater to small contractors and home owners. He stated Uhaul will be with him as well and they will bring their trucks and trailers and their storage will be in the back of the building. He stated he will have a couple of Uhaul trucks in the front for advertising. He stated the largest piece of equipment that he has is skid steerer, a compact like tractor and a terramite which is a small backhoe. He stated he has home care products, carpet cleaners, floor care products, ceramic tile cutters, party area tents, tables, and chairs. He stated the majority of the rental equipment would be inside the building, the only thing outside the building and in the back of the building would be some trailers to haul the heavy duty equipment and tables and chairs for deliveries. He stated they will not leave any equipment out in front at night, everything will be parked in the back of the building. He stated they will have the key drop off for the Uhaul trucks and trailers in the back of the building to encourage everything to go in the back of the building.

 

Commissioner Helder stated he has concerns regarding utilizing a parking space for temporary snow storage. Mejeur stated the snow removal is contracted by the landlord and all the parking spaces should all be cleared out. Mejeur stated if the snow plow leaves snow he will try to remove and then talk to his landlord. Helder was also concerned about the security of his equipment behind his building. Mejuer stated they will have a camera surveillance system up and they also plan to put locks on the trailers and maybe putting some steel chain.

 

Chair Holtrop opened the public hearing.

 

There was no public comment.

 

-          Motion Carried (7-0) –

-          Artz and Sheldon absent -                                         

 

 

-          Motion Carried (7-0) –

-          Artz and Sheldon absent –

 

-          Motion Carried (7-0) –

-          Artz and Sheldon absent -

 

Case #12-10 – Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments – Billboards/Sign Regulations

 

Schweitzer stated he spoke to the City Attorney Sluggett and he suggested if it is ok with the commission to defer action to the January 11, 2010. There was an aspect of the project whether or not to continue to allow billboards in the industrial area. Sluggett felt that it would warrant additional research and he will be available for the January 11 meeting to make sure all the basis are being covered.

 

Schweitzer reviewed the work session discussion. Schweitzer stated at the work session there was a lot of discussion focused on the frequency of the 5 minute change interval. He stated the suggestion was made to reduce the message change interval to 1 minute. Schweitzer stated in response to that instead of changing the entire interval for all messages to 1 minute we are suggesting to maintain the 5 minute interval but make a specific exception to allow time and temperature to change at a 1 minute interval. He stated there was discussion regarding the impact it may have as far as traffic safety considerations as far as the frequency of the message change. 

Chair Holtrop opened the public hearing.

 

There was no public comment.

 

-          Motion Carried (7-0) –

-          Artz and Sheldon absent -

I.                   Work Session

 

Case #1-11 – Grand Rapids Water Tank and Office PUD – Preliminary Site Plan review of an overall PUD and Final Site Plan Review of a PUD Phase located at 3411 Patterson Ave. SE

 

Director Schweitzer introduced the request. Schweitzer stated the property was zoned for single family residential development from 1980 to 2003. He stated in 2003 the property owner secured approval to rezone the property to the current OPUD zoning as well as conditional approval of a preliminary site development plan, that called for a 4 story 101,100 square foot office building on the Patterson Avenue frontage. 

 

Schweitzer stated parking to support the building on the prior plan was designed to be extended immediately west of the building with a private drive running the depth of the property along the south lot line. Mr. Grooters has the property on the market and the City of Grand Rapids is looking for a site to accommodate an elevated water storage tank, they had been working with Cascade where negotiations fell through. He stated they looked around and found this site in Kentwood to be an ideal location to accommodate the elevated storage tank.  

 

Schweitzer stated conditional approval of the previous plan included a requirement to provide cross access to the properties to the north and south. He stated the preliminary site plan approval has lapsed, we have a 10 acre site with no plan. He stated the proposed use is allowed under that zone district public and municipal activities are a permitted use in that OPUD zone.

 

Schweitzer stated the review at hand is for the site plan; we require in a PUD zone if you are going to propose a development on any portion of the property that you provide a representation of what is going to happen on the balance of the property. He stated the proposed PUD plan maintains a strong office statement with a 2 story, 50,000 square foot building on the Patterson Avenue frontage. The elevated water tank is placed a substantial distance into the site using the existing stand of pine trees as a transitional buffer.

 

Schweitzer stated in the narrative there was discussion in terms of second phase development. He stated the first phase involves the water tank approximately 900 feet back from the road but the front portion suggests there would be a drive along the south line accessing the property. He stated there was an ability to provide cross access to the north so the user of the site would be able to go north to the intersection of 33^rd Street; that would be an ideal situation to take into account for the traffic impact introducing that large of a user on that site. He stated even with the 50,000 square foot two story building that is a consideration. He stated what the planning commission will be asked to do is provide the city commission with a recommendation on the preliminary site plan on the entire 10 acres and then final site plan review on the first phase involving the water tank. Schweitzer before the first phase development is undertaken you have to establish your detention for the overall site.

 

Schweitzer stated regarding access along the south line of the site the likelihood of developing this for the office phase may be several years off. He stated as time passes we may see development plans for the north, the Patterson Farm. He stated we are concentrating on the first phase but keeping in mind how the developer is going to provide for access to the balance of the property. Schweitzer stated instead of having access run entirely along the south line of the property he suggested bring it north and run it along the north line of the site. He stated we are expecting mixed use development that is master planned and connectivity between properties and if we have a PUD zone we will have the ability to work with the developers and accomplish the access to the traffic signal at 33^rd Street.

 

Schweitzer stated there are a number of pine trees on the property that will be retained in the first phase of development to provide some degree of screening from the site. He stated in the long run we will look at some type of development of the front portion of the property. 

 

Schweitzer stated regarding the prior site plan it required the developer to provide for cross access to the north as well as the south. He stated immediately to the south is the consumers energy right-of-way but there is some industrial PUD at 36^th Street and Patterson that should provide for interconnection north to the area that fronts along 36^th Street.

 

Schweitzer stated another item that was discussed was the development of our non-motorized trail system where along the consumers energy corridor we will have a trail running east/west in the area. Schweitzer stated it is suggested that instead of having it run entirely on consumers energy property then maybe a portion can run across this PUD site.

 

Schweitzer stated another item that was discussed was the fire department, the water tank is to improve the water pressure out in the south east area and fire flows. Schweitzer stated the Fire department supports this and feel it will aide in providing that service to the community in those emergency circumstances.

 

Schweitzer stated there was discussion on the first phase development regarding consideration for the turn radius and paved surface. He stated the turn radius was to accommodate their fire apparatus and a paved surface. He stated they have to set up their out riggers if you had somebody imperil that is on the water tower. The tower has to be maintained, painted periodically and there would be some consideration in the area in the front. Also since it will be a fenced area they would look for knox box so they could provide for emergency access into the site.

 

Schweitzer stated from an engineering standpoint, the major thing that was discussed was the sizing and the timing of the development of the detention pond on the western most portion of the site. 

 

Schweitzer stated the site plan portrays landscaping to be added inside the fence enclosure. What was discussed at the staff level was to be more advantageous to have arborvitae row along the fenceline, and leave inside the fence line either a gravel or grassed surface. Schweitzer stated it will be easier to maintain and less likely to have something that is going to grow up and represent a detriment to the operation.

 

Applicants Dave Baar FTCH and Wayne Gernberg City of Grand Rapids were present to represent the request. Dave Baar stated they are working with the City of Grand Rapids on siting the elevated storage tank. He stated they looked at a site in Cascade but things got difficult as they went to purchase the property. He stated 3411 Patterson was for sale and met all of their criteria. He stated regarding the need for the elevated storage tank in the area it is part of the east high pressure district in the City of Grand Rapids which is their largest pressure district and also the area with the most growth in recent years. 

 

Baar stated a tank in this vicinity has been on the agenda for about 15 years. He stated the people who will benefit from this tank are primarily the City of Kentwood and Cascade Township, they are primarily served by this facility. He stated the major benefit is equalization of pressure and improvement of fire flows. 

 

Baar stated this tank will be filled by the East Paris Service Center. He stated the pumps come on and off at East Paris and pressure fluctuates as you get out to the airport and beyond. He stated this tank will feed the areas from another direction and equalize pressure and also provide significant improvement for fire flow in the event of a power outage or water main break. He stated the Patterson area is in the vicinity of the higher demands and it’s located near a large watermain in the system that runs down 36^th Street within a few hundred feet from this site. He stated from all these considerations this is a prime location for the tank. 

 

Baar stated the other thing is they are getting close to the airport and you can only get so close to the airport to build a facility at 177 feet. He stated the airport on a preliminary basis, is good with the site. He stated until they get better direction from Kentwood indicating this will be an approved site, then they will go through the application process with the FAA and the airport. He stated they were permitted at the previous site just down the road and they don’t anticipate any problems.

 

Wayne Gernberg stated the elevated water tank has been part of their comprehensive master plan for several years. He stated there were plans for an elevated storage tank out in the east high pressure district. He stated there is no elevated storage pressure district at this time, the closet elevated storage that the system has to this location is the Cambridge Tank in the City of Grand Rapids. He stated the benefits/advantages to the City of Kentwood hosting the tank are finances. He stated when the tank gets constructed it will be between Kentwood and Cascade based on the people who utilize the water going through that system. He stated the way that the finances are set up and the items are paid for, there is a credit to the host community, a significant less cost to its residents. He stated in Kentwood the typical water bill per person per year is $340 for the portion that is fed by the City of Grand Rapids. Additional cost to a resident in Kentwood will be estimated at about 4.5 million, therefore would be $7 per year over 35 years. He stated if it were built in Cascade the additional incremental cost for a Kentwood resident per year would be $21 per year.

 

VanderHoff asked who will own the parcel and who will be developing the 50,000

square foot building. Baar stated the City of Grand Rapids would own the parcel. Baar stated when they are ready to split that parcel off they would sell it to a developer or a private owner. Baar stated they will be responsible for the splitting on that parcel they will not own or build the office building on that site. VanderHoff asked if they thought it would be a detraction of development with a water tank that tall in that immediate area. Gernberg stated he doesn’t think it would be a problem. It is not uncommon to have a large storage tanks near commercial developments, retail developments or even residential developments.

 

Schweitzer stated in their discussions there was talk about the relative location and that is one of the reasons the water tank is being proposed on 900 feet back from the roadway so that the office development could take place, it is going to be large 177 feet to the top of the 1 1/2 million gallon tank. Schweitzer stated between now and the public hearing the applicants will provide some renderings to give a sense of the scale. Schweitzer stated staff feels with this being located on the southern portion of the site we are looking at a mixed use perhaps office and retail to the north. He stated it is not usual to see a facility like this in a commercial/industrial area. Baar stated there are some things they can do with the color of the tank to help it blend in with the sky better, they are doing whatever they can to maintain existing trees to screen the base of the facility.

 

Gernberg stated in Master Plan there is a 16 inch watermain at Patterson Avenue that comes off of 36^th and as part of the Master Plan it calls for a dedicated feed to that tank as growth occurs and the need requires it to be feet from its own off the 36 transmission main. He stated by looking at this site they are looking at a much shorter distance than what was primarily planned to the northeast site in cascade. He stated it cut the cost in half. Baar stated because it is closer to the 36 inch main it pushes out the timing to that watermain project instead of a 10 year project it could be a 20 year project depending on what demands due in that system and that cost is getting deferred further down the road.

 

The applicants displayed water tanks in different cities.

 

Groce asked how big is the total parcel and where the trees will be placed. Baar stated the total parcel is 1,768 feet deep and they are about 890 square feet back about ½ way back on the parcel is where the tank sits.

 

Discussion ensued on distance and where they could have put the tank and why where they placed it was the best.

 

Young asked about the color. Baar stated light blue or light gray color does the best with blending in with the sky. Young asked about writing on the tank. Gernberg stated their standard is that they do not put any writing on there because it adds to additional maintenance cost.

 

Helder asked about taxing. He stated he finds it unusual for a piece of property in our city owned by the City of Grand Rapids, but in the front of that they will build a building and that is still the City of Grand Rapids property from a tax based and wanted to know who owns it. Gernberg stated the tank would be on the City of Grand Rapids property and when it comes time for that office building to be built on the front portion would be split off and sold to the developer and the developer would own that parcel, the City of Grand Rapids would not own that office building. Helder asked if the tank becomes a non taxable piece of property for the City of Kentwood. Mr Gerberg stated that is correct. Gerberg stated the back portion of the property they have to accommodate detention and they are looking at all opportunities. If something were to happen on the Patterson Farm property if they need to obtain that piece of property on the back side they would be willing to split that off. Helder asked about the height. Gernberg stated the FAA ceiling elevation is 944 the top of the tank will be 940 and any cell towers that would be mounted on it would have to be done on the side of the tank. 

 

Discussion ensued regarding height.

 

Swanson stated his concern is the land in front of and behind the tower. He stated we require a site plan on that front section, they put on together and it is nothing to be proud of but it is a site plan. He asked if the land behind this is landlocked or are we counting on the Patterson property for service to that area and behind the tower. Schweitzer stated the plan that they put together with the drive along the south lot line would provide access all the way back to the west. Schweitzer stated if there is an inclination to have that access run along the north lot line it has to be determined whether or not that can accommodate the access drive to go all the way back to the north. Baar stated they show it like that on their plan as a future drive extension and they moved the fenceline north in order to accommodate. Swanson stated that isn’t much of an access and he would hope that this site plan never gets built and that this parcel and the one behind could be added to a PUD with the Patterson farm. Swanson asked if we have to approve a site plan, he stated he is not real pleased with the site plan. 

 

Schweitzer stated the plan is similar to the one that was approved before and with any second phase development that will have to come back to the city for final site plan approval. Schweitzer stated he believes that the conditions to the north are going to change over the next several years and it will lend itself to aggregating the front part of the property with any development to the north. Swanson asked if they City of Grand Rapids has any plans to market this property. Mr Gernberg stated absolutely. Swanson stated that is what he wanted to hear. Mr. Gernberg stated the back portion of the property he would agree that it would have to get incorporated into the Patterson Farm development. Gernberg stated the front portion could go either way. 

 

Swanson asked how long the site plan is good for. Schweitzer stated the preliminary site development plan is good for a year but if the first phase is approved and undertaken within the first year the preliminary site development plan is effective indefinitely. Schweitzer stated there was talk regarding the need for detail on the front portion and they are required to provide a representation on how the balance of the property will be developed. Schweitzer stated as a PUD it is a development agreement between the developer and the City of Kentwood. Therefore, if there are any changes in the future they have to be agreed upon. Schweitzer stated that is the security the City has, if we feel when somebody comes in and want to develop the front portion, if we don’t like the way the plan lays out we can work with the developer to modify it to better fit the area. Swanson stated he thinks this would nicely fit with the Patterson land for some kind of big development. 

 

Swanson asked about cellphone towers on storage tank. Gerberg stated they have cellphone towers on all of their elevated storage at this time. Gernberg stated on this particular site since they are near the FAA ceiling they will not be allowed to put any on the top but they can put cell towers on the side. Gernberg stated regarding the site plan the City of Grand Rapids doesn’t want to be a developer they want to sell the property to recoup some of their cost for what they are buying this 10 acre parcel.

 

Yokom stated he is happy to hear they do not plan to put any signage on the water tank because he would be disturbed if it said the City of Grand Rapids in our city. Yokom stated that he is concerned that this piece of property isn’t on our tax roll. Schweitzer stated it would just be the tank site and the commercial will be on our tax roll. Yokom stated he is for the project and thinks it will attract future growth.

 

Holtrop asked if we have a 5 acre minimum. Schweitzer stated the fact that it is a 10 acre site the 10 acres meets the 5 acre requirement if they were to sell off a portion of it, it will still be part of the overall PUD. They have the same responsibilities to comply with the requirements, that would be a condition on the sale so whoever buys the property will obtain the same conditions that are assigned to this plan and any changes for that would have to be approved by the City. 

 

Director Woods stated there will be a 4.85% decrease in water and sewer rates in a standard quarterly bill in the upcoming year.

 

Swanson stated he would like to see more detail on the site plan. Schweitzer stated in terms of the frontage property they meet the base requirements and feels we don’t want to get much more detail than what they have we want them to show access, building location, parking and utilities to be bought through the site storm sewer drainage as long as they provide that detail the commissioners can recommend preliminary site development approved to  the city commission.

 

Discussion ensued.

 

J.                   New Business

 

 

-          Motion Carried (7-0) –

-          Artz and Sheldon absent -

K.                Other Business

 

1.      Commissioners’ Comments

 

Commissioners offered no comments.

 

2.      Staff’s Comments

 

Commissioners Artz, VanderHoff and Young’s appointment was up and they were asked if they wanted to be reappointed to the Planning commission. VanderHoff and Young stated they would like to be reappointed. Artz was absent.

 

Schweitzer stated over the past summer there has been work done with the City of Wyoming, Grand Valley Metro Council and Nederveld and Associates on developing a formed based code on the area along Division Ave. He stated we would like to set up a presentation on January 25 and invite the City Commission.

 

L.                 Adjournment  

 

-          Motion Carried (7-0) –

-          Artz Sheldon absent -

 

Meeting adjourned at 8:30p.m.

 

 

                                                            Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                            Don Yokom, Secretary