Kentwood Committees & Boards
Planning Commission (Back to index)
Minutes for 02/28/2006APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 28, 2006, 7:30 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
A. Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
B. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Artz.
C. Roll Call:
Members Present: Betsy Artz, Maggie Bohn, Todd Gray , Abed Itani, Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Frank VanderHoff and Chris Winczewski.
Members Absent: Ed Swanson, Dan Holtrop absent with notification
Others Present: City Attorney Jeff Sluggett, Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Economic Development Planner Lisa Golder, Planner Joe Pung, Planner Debargha Sengupta, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, the press and forty citizens.
Motion by Winczewski, supported by Artz, to excuse Commissioners Swanson and Holtrop from the meeting.
-Motion Carried- (7-0)-
-Swanson and Holtrop absent-
D. Approval of the February 14, 2006 Minutes and Findings of Fact for: Case#38-05 Wood Meadows Townhomes Site Plan Review of the Final PUD Plan, located at 2481 Patterson Avenue, SE
McIntyre-Evenocheck made the following corrections to the minutes of February 14, 2006. Page three of the minutes the last paragraph to correct the spelling of mullions. On page five take out ?Walgreens? and put ?the existing stores in the mall where it is now? and the motion was supported by Holtrop and not Gray. On page nine the first paragraph, correct the spelling of McIntyre-Evenocheck and add ?stated the concerns of the rest of the Commissioners.? Under Other Business Commissioner?s comments Structures and Improvements not Systems and Improvement should be capitalized.
Commissioner Winczewski wanted the letter from Ben Muller dated February 7, 2006 also entered into the minutes.
Motion by Bohn, supported by VanderHoff, to approve the Minutes of February 14, 2006 and the Findings of Fact for Case #38-05 Wood Meadows Townhomes with corrections as noted by McIntyre-Evenocheck and Winczewski.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Swanson and Holtrop absent -
E. Approval of the Agenda
McIntyre-Evenocheck added Case #12-06 Quail Meadows under new business per staff?s request.
Motion by Winczewski, supported by Artz, to approve the agenda as amended for the February 28, 2006 meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Swanson and Holtrop Absent -
F. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that the Planning Commission received a letter from Shelia McHugh regarding excessive noise from Autocam and she directed staff to continue to investigate to see if there is a nuisance.
G. Old Business
Case #2-06 Walgreens Pharmacy Rezoning of 3.93 acres from C-4 Office to C-2 Community Commercial, located on the Northeast corner of 44th Street and Breton Avenue
Case #3-06 Walgreens Pharmacy Site Plan Review and Special Land Use ? Drive-through Pharmacy, located on the Northeast corner of 44th Street and Breton Avenue
Golder introduced the request for the Rezoning of 3.93 acres of land from C-4 Office to C-2 Community, The Special Land Use for a Drive-thru Pharmacy and the Site Plan Review for a Drive-thru Pharmacy for Walgreens at the northeast corner of Breton and 44th Street.
Golder stated that the staff recommendation changed slightly and gave a brief discussion of the history and her recommendations and conditions.
Harry Kokkanakis was there to represent Walgreens. He stated that they have resolved all the issues with staff and have agreed to everything raised by the Planning Commission at the Work Session.
Mike Bailey talked about the letter that was generated by Walgreens that answered the question as to why Walgreens is no longer staying at its current site.
Kokkanakis stated that in the meetings he attended, Jim Eppink the Economic Specialist on the Master Plan Consultant team for the city, projected that the 44th Street and Breton area will support an additional 112,000 square feet of retail. Dick Keller, the traffic and transportation specialist for the consultant team said that the city should increase density on the major arteries and the mass transit corridors. He felt higher density development should be encouraged along corridors like 44th Street. It was also Kokkanakis?s impression that William Johnson, land planning expert for the Master Plan consultant team, was of the opinion that retail should be on the corner which offers visibility and office and residential should be located behind the retail. Mr. Johnson also stated that open space should be left in its natural state because it is an important asset to Kentwood. A system of drainage ways and wetlands along the arterial roads will provide additional green space and visual relief. Kokkanakis said that 1.86 acres of this site is in the conservation easement and took into account Mr. Johnson?s suggestions and increased the water way. Kokkanakis discussed how they wrapped the wetlands around the site and discharged off Breton. He stated that it increases the length of travel for the water that helps purify the storm systems. Kokkanakis read four points of the Master Plan and pointed out how they were applied with this project design.
Mr. Brent Circle, Senior Real Estate Manager Walgreens Co., submitted a letter to Golder and the Planning Commissioners dated February 24, 2006 regarding Walgreens having no interest in remaining in the Breton Meadows Shopping Center.
McIntyre-Evenocheck indicated that the public hearing had been closed on this request on February 14.
Bohn asked whether the fence would interfere with the wetlands. Mr. Kokkanski stated that they worked out a location for the fence that put it within a two foot, so the fence will not affect the wetlands at all.
Motion by Chris Winczewski to recommend to the City Commission deny the rezoning request of 3.93 acres of land from C-4 Office to C-2 Community Commercial located at the northeast corner of Breton and 44th Street with the following basis points from zoning ordinance section 13.03.C.1, he doesn?t think that it matches up with the identity corner theme number four and number six. Number six Winczewski believes that they have opportunities to do commercial in other areas in the City such as 44th and Shaffer and 44th and Kalamazoo.
- Motion failed due to a lack of support ?
Motion by Artz, supported by VanderHoff, to recommend to the City Commission for approval of the rezoning request of 3.93 acres of land from C-4 Office to C-2 Community Commercial located at the northeast corner of Breton and 44th Street based on basis points 1-5, from Golder?s memo dated February 21, 2006.
- Motion Carried 5-2 -
- Itani, Winczewski dissented ?
- Swanson and Holtrop absent-
Motion by Artz supported by Gray, to grant conditional approval of the Special Land Use for a Drive-Thru Pharmacy as described in Case No. 3-06. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-5 and basis points 1-3 in the Golder memo dated February 21, 2006.
- Motion Carried 5-2-
- Itani, Winczewski dissented-
- Swanson and Holtrop absent-
Motion by Artz, supported by VanderHoff to grant conditional approval of the site plan dated January 31, 2006 for Walgreens Pharmacy Drive-thru Pharmacy as described in Case # 3-06. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-7 and basis points 1-3 in Golder?s memo dated February 21, 2006.
- Motion Carried 5-2 ?
- Itani, Winczewski dissenting-
- Swanson and Holtrop absent ?
H. Public Hearing
Case #5-06 KDP Plan Retirement Services Preliminary Site Plan Review of a PUD Phase located at 3060 Lake Eastbrook Blvd.
Joe Pung introduced the request for the Preliminary Site Plan review of a PUD phase. He stated the applicant is looking at constructing a two story 16,000 square foot office with an 8,000 square foot building footprint. Pung stated that the site was rezoned to a CPUD in 1980 and in January of 2000 the City approved a Preliminary PUD plan for the overall PUD zone except for the far southern most property.
Pung states that the site is 3.93 acres in area with over half the site encumbered with wetland and a no build area to the rear of the proposed building.
Pung stated that the applicant has made several changes to the site plan since the work session to address the issues that were raised by staff and the Planning Commission. They have reduced the amount of parking to 54 parking spaces and they have relocated the parking to the east side of the north-south drive. They are going to construct 35 parking spaces, deferring for the other 19 until they are needed. They are showing the cross access connection to the south.
Jim Reyers, of Houseman Construction represented KDP.
McIntyre-Evenocheck opened the public hearing.
There was no public comment
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Bohn, to close the public hearing
- Motion Carried 7-0-
- Swanson and Holtop absent -
Winczewski wanted clarification if they are only going to add parking spaces if needed and Mr. Reyers stated that was the intent to add only if needed.
McIntyre-Evenocheck wanted to know if the view from the condominiums to the east will be of trees and Mr. Reyers stated yes.
Motion by Winczewski, supported by Artz, to grant conditional approval of the preliminary site plan dated February 11, 2006 as described in case #5-06 KDP Plan Retirement Services. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-7 and basis points 1-5 from Pung?s memo dated February 22, 2206.
- Motion Carried 7-0-
- Swanson and Holtrop absent -
Case #6-06 The Shops on 52nd Street, Rezoning from RPUD ? 1 to CPUD Commercial Planned Unit Development, A Major Change to an Approved PUD Plan and Preliminary and Final Site Plan Review of an overall PUD plan, located East of Bailey?s Grove, South of 52nd Street
Case #7-06 The Shops on 52nd Street Bank, Site Plan Review and Special Land Use Financial Institution, located East of Born Clinic, South of 52nd Street
Golder introduced the request and talked about the plan for this site that was adopted back in 1997. Golder stated that later on Eastbrook did a study and it indicated that there wasn?t enough market for a grocery store. In 2002 the southern portion of the site was rezoned to an R-PUD-1, with the frontage PUD Approved for a two story retail office mix of 54,000 square feet.
Golder stated that now in 2006 square footage wise it is about the same, 58,000 square feet of retail and office area, but it would require the 3.3 acre area to the south to be rezoned back to the C-PUD.
Golder stated the rezoning of 3.3 acres back to a commercial planned unit development from residential represented a major change to an approved site plan. They are also asking for a special land use for the drive through bank.
Golder stated some of the issues that were talked about at the work session were the dumpsters, additional landscaping, deferred parking, green space, providing a sidewalk for senior citizens and the overall Bailey?s Grove PUD and the lighting plan.
Frank Carnovale, the architect for the applicant, stated that there were concerns as to what was going to be done with the two buildings on the south side of the property; he stated that they have interest from a group of doctors who are looking at those buildings or there may be a possibility of an insurance company or a travel agency, a secretary of State, or a book store. He stated that they are looking at low impact retail that will be beneficial to the community.
Carnovale stated that they intend to incorporate additional variety to the existing landscaping. He stated the dumpsters are going to be at the corners of the property, which are the furthest away from the residential areas. He stated that the dumpsters will be constructed so that they are built into the berm and landscaping.
Chris Sonneveldt, 3830 Old Elm Drive, Geraldine Hausch, 3811 Old Elm Dr., George Samra, 3754 Old Elm Dr., Rick Warner, the Housing Manager of the Senior Independent Living Center, Sandy Lane, 3863 Old Elm Dr, Janet Nicols, 5252 Bailey Center Dr., Brian Toronyi, 5384 East Heathwood Dr., Beverly Artlip, 5252 Bailey Center Dr. Apt #119, Geri Eye, 572 East Grove Dr., are all residents of Bailey?s Grove and their major concerns included the dumpsters, they would like them moved since they anticipate they will have a smell and will be noisy during pick up times. The residents had concerns with lighting; how long will they be on and if it will be shining in their windows all night long. They didn?t want the private drive on the west side of the development to turn into a street; they feel it will bring a lot of traffic and affect the quietness. They would like to see that road stay closed. They also want to see more landscaping. They were very concerned about them moving the park from its current location to the center where it is proposed. The seniors do not want the park moved. They do not want the parking in back of the building. They also had concerns of the signage and what will it look like on 52nd Street.
Geraldine Hausch also submitted a letter to the Commissioners expressing her concerns.
Motion by Winczewski, supported by Itani, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried 7-0 ?
- Swanson and Holtop absent-
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated she would like the questions answered about lighting, the dumpster issue, the west access road and the park issues.
Golder stated that when an applicant gets a building permit that they have to submit a lighting plan and it is reviewed by staff to make sure light doesn?t cross into the residential area. Golder stated that there are specific restrictions.
Golder stated that moving the park to make it appear to be a town square idea is nice, but she knows the senior citizens would like to have the green space so her recommendation is to defer the parking area. On the eastern most portion of the site, Golder stated they should leave some green space and benches in this area to accommodate moving the park.
Golder stated that the access roads on the east and west side have always been a part of the plan. Golder stated the idea was for people within Bailey?s Grove to be able to access the retail/office area without going onto the major arterial street. Golder stated that she didn?t think it would be a big cut through for people trying to get to East Paris Avenue.
Frank Carnovale stated that they have plenty of dumpsters for the retail offices at the front of the site that will service the two center buildings. For the southernmost buildings it would be more paper rubbish so there won?t be a smell and any disruption due to the servicing of dumpsters would be controlled by restricting pick-up times in the waste disposal contracts.
Mr. Carnovale stated that they don?t have any objections to eliminating the westernmost road connection, but he thinks that road is something that is needed given the design of the overall development.
Mr. Carnovale showed the building elevations plan and stated the materials they will use will have bricks on the sides and the backs of the building; they intend to change the texture and color of the bricks to get the old downtown look.
Mr. Carnovale stated that the relocation of the park will be more enjoyable and cozy and he thinks it will benefit the new development as well as the existing. Mr. Canavale stated that in its proposed location it will be a more level area and more accessible.
Artz stated that Carnovale did not answer the question regarding the park staying closer to the residents; they can not make it to the park that easily. She asked if he would be willing go along with eliminating parking along the east to leave the green space.
Mr. Canovale stated that there are benefits in moving the park, one being the physical characteristics, and it will be more level in central proximity to the buildings. He thinks that it should be moved away from the road and traffic. He felt it would be detrimental to the downtown atmosphere they are trying to acquire if it is moved away. He stated that he understands the disadvantage to those who are immobile, but he said that where the park is located right now it is on hill and it?s not the safest design. Mr. Carnovale feels the design that he has will be safer and more enjoyable.
Artz stated that she likes the idea of the park in its proposed location but suggest leaving some green space where the parking is proposed.
Carnovale stated that they can enhance the landscaping but they are unsure what the final mix office use will be. He stated that depending on what goes in the buildings will determine the different parking requirements and they would like to be flexible to make sure it is sufficient parking to make sure people aren?t driving around looking for a parking space.
Artz asked if it a possibility to eliminate some of the parking that is presently the park area. Carnovale stated that they are proposing that the parking is part of the deferred parking so if it turns out that it is not needed then they would landscape it.
Artz stated that they only way she would vote for this is if they do not call it deferred parking or eliminate some of the parking and have an area that will be left green space.
Carnovale stated that from a pedestrian stand point and a beauty stand point that it is best to have parking toward the outside. They want an excellent use of landscaping and adequate parking.
Artz indicated that she thought Mr. Carnovale was talking around the green space issue.
Golder stated that you can look for less parking than what is required by the ordinance and it is one of the things that can be waived by the Commission and therefore they can say that shall be landscaping. Golder stated that if they find out that they don?t have enough parking to accommodate their needs they can reduce the size of the buildings or live with less parking knowing that it is a certain amount of time that they will be all full. Golder stated that she thinks the park center will have a lot of walkers and bikers. Golder stated that the plan shows half is going to be retail and half is going to be office but she thought it will be more office in the back area.
Carnovale stated that they have already eliminated some parking because of grading issue and it will now be landscaped. He stated that they are open to what Artz is saying about elimination and more parking; he said they want more green space.
Gray stated that one of the residents stated that we are putting a lot of emphasis on the buffer between condominiums, but he thinks we do need to pay attention to the senior living center and the proximity. He stated that having the park in the middle of the shopping is a ?sexy? idea. He also thinks that they need to look at how it will affect the seniors if their first view is parking and their next view is a building. He thinks they need to protect their line of sight. He stated that if the park is going to be moved from its current location that it is required that the deferred parking be green space and in addition put some trees there for some nice visual variety. Gray also stated that he would like to add some dense landscaping for the condos so that as much as possible can be hidden. Gray mentioned adding in a sidewalk off the south west road. Gray wanted to know if there is a crosswalk for the seniors to get to the park.
Carnovale stated that there are some sidewalks in the daycare area and they will find an area that is most level and safe. They will define that with striping on the road and signage to alert people that is a crosswalk.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated she would like to see some benches in the landscape area as well as the deferred parking to make sure the seniors can come across the street and sit in those benches and enjoy the park. McIntyre-Evenocheck also stated that she would like to see the access road on the west to be deferred until phase six or seven is done, or in the process of being done.
Winczewski asked about the lighting requirements and restrictions. Carnovale stated that they are required by ordinance to restrict the lighting to the site and that will be done.
Winczewski asked who owns the street to the west. Golder stated that it is an association to all the owners in the commercial area. Mr. Warner, Housing Manager of the Senior Independent Living center stated that they pay dues to the association to maintain the road.
Winczewski questioned whether it would be an option to install a stop sign on Bailey?s Center Drive to allow for safer access for the seniors. He also wanted to know if phase three and four can be switched because they only need three phases for the next five years and they can get a little more open space in the meantime.
Carnovale stated that they can switch the phases but they are trying to look at it in a way that it can be the quickest way to construct with the most impact to increase the leasing.
Winczewski stated he?d like to add the deferred parking into the motion.
Itani wanted to know if there was a traffic analysis study done. He stated that he thinks it will generate a lot of traffic and said it will create a hazard for the seniors that are trying to cross the street to go to the park. Carnovale stated that the cross walk for the senior citizens into the development is away from where you turn into the park.
Itani wanted to know why we were considering a high intensity development. Golder stated that it was consistent with the previously approved plan. Itani stated that he doesn?t want phase three at all. He suggested to instead developing that area as a park for the senior citizens.
Bohn stated the parking area can be eliminated so that you can have a walkway with several benches to have a mini park for the seniors and leave the larger one in the center for the village square effect. She stated that the commercial development is to service all of the development. Bohn also had questions regarding the dumpsters; if they did turn out to be a nuisance can they be moved to another location?
Sluggett stated that the City has a nuisance ordinance that will address the odor issue if it became a problem and if it is interfering with the neighbors? ability to enjoy the use of their property. Sluggett stated the hours of operation can be added as a condition as part of the PUD agreement.
VanderHoff stated that he agrees with the other commissioners and if the areas of concern are addressed he would be in favor of the project.
Motion by Artz, support by Itani, to recommend to the City Commission conditional approval of the rezoning of 3.3 acres from R-PUD-1 High Density Residential PUD to C-PUD Commercial Planned Unit Development. Approval is conditioned on the condition one and basis points one through seven in Golder?s memo dated February 23, 2006.
-Motion Carried 7-0-
-Swanson and Holtrop absent-
Motion by Winczewski, supported by Artz, to recommend to the City Commission conditional approval of the request for a major change to an approved PUD for 52nd Street Shops and preliminary site plan review for the PUD site plan dated February 17, 2006 as described in case #6-06. Approval conditioned on conditions 1 through 11 in Golder?s memo dated February 23, 2006 and condition 12: The 18 deferred parking spaces along the east line of the site are eliminated and park benches, trees and green space are added to the strip; remove condition two; and add a condition 13: A traffic assessment to address safety issues along the internal street system. And the basis points one through six specified in the staff recommendation.
-Motion Carried 7-0-
-Swanson and Holtrop absent-
Golder stated that they are looking for preliminary and final site plan approval for all phases. She suggested that given the concerns of the Planning Commission another way to address this would be to separate it out the final site plan by phases.
Sluggett stated that you can grant approval for some but not all phases with the understanding that the remainder will be effected by the traffic assessment that the City will receive.
Mr. Fenton stated that it will restrict the progression of how they can lease their buildings if they don?t have final site plan approval of all the phases.
Schweitzer stated that if they would have to come back for a phase approval they are looking at a 45 day time period because it is something that just goes to the Planning Commission. It would not have to go to the City Commission.
Mr. Fenton wanted to know if they can secure final site plan approval for at least phases one, two, three, and four.
Motion by Bohn, supported by VanderHoff, to recommend conditional approval of phases one, two, three, and four of the final site plan dated February 17, 2006 for the Shops on 52nd Street as described in Case # 6-06. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-8 minus condition two and basis points 1-3 of Golder memo dated 2-23-06.
After discussion, Bohn and Vander Hoff amended the motion to include the approval of the final site plan for the phase five park improvements.
-Motion Carried 7-0-
-Swanson and Holtrop absent-
Motion by Artz, supported by Winczewski, to grant conditional approval of the site plan dated February 17, 2006 for a Drive Through bank as described in Case # 7-06. Approval is conditioned on condition one and basis point one and two in Golder?s memo dated February 23, 2006.
- Motion Carried 7-0-
- Swanson and Holtrop absent ?
Motion by Gray, supported by VanderHoff, grant to conditional approval of the Special Land Use Drive Through Bank as described in Case # 7-06. Approval is conditioned on conditions one through three and basis points one through three in Golder?s memo dated February 23,2006.
- Motion Carried 7-0-
- Swanson and Holtrop absent-
I. Work Session
Case #8-06 Deavers Meadows Major Change to a Site Plan, Preliminary Plat and Final Site Plan for a PUD, 3735 60th
Golder introduced the request and gave a brief overview of the Zoning History and PUD as outlined in the staff report. The issues that were addressed including ensuring that the development is seamless because it is going to be part of Bailey?s Grove and the homes need to be consistent with what has been approved through all the phases. The proposed home elevations have not yet been presented. There is also a need to resolve the issue of the 60th Street right-of-way so sidewalks can be developed.
Dave Deaver was present.
Winczewski asked if the Bailey?s Gove open space was more than the minimum requirements in the RPUD-1 zone. Golder stated that it meets the ordinance even taking into account the Deaver Meadows acreage.
McIntyre-Evenocheck told Mr. Deaver to work with the Kent County Road Commission to resolve the sidewalk issue.
Case #9-06 44th Street Rezoning of 12.99 Acres from C-4 Office to C-2 Community Commercial, south side of 44th St. from Breton to within 200 ft of Applewood Dr.
Sengupta introduced the request and his staff report stating that last year the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request of CVS Partners for rezoning at 2300 44th from C-4 to C-2. The City Commission turned down the rezoning request because the use would be an isolated commercial use in an office district and the shape of the property would not be viable for retail use unless it was coordinated with the zoning surrounding uses.
Sengupta reviewed the Master Plan and stated there are ten parcels that are being considered for this rezoning.
Sengupta states that the attributes of the rezoning are that it is consistent with the Master Plan Sub Area recommendations and the future land use plan and the rezoning would not change the conformity status of the constituent properties in terms of uses.
The issues are the impact on property values and taxes, rendering properties non-conforming in terms of setbacks and lot coverage and change in the list of permissible uses.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated the she would like to have in writing the assessor?s office opinion concerning property values particularly to the non-conforming residential.
Case #10-06 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
Pung and Schweitzer both introduced the request for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments including Conditional Zoning and Safe House Provision in the Residential Zone Districts.
McIntyre-Evenocheck asked the commission to review the ordinances and contact staff to get questions clarified.
J. New Business
Motion by Winczewski, supported by Gray, to set the public hearing date of March 28, 2006 for: Case # 11-06 Breton Woods North; Case #12-06 Quail Meadows; and the Structures and Improvements Plan.
-Motion Carried 7-0-
-Swanson and Holtrop absent-
K. Other Business
1. Commissioners? Comments
Bohn stated that they put a contract in to build a house in Florida. It is on a cul-de-sac with a garage that sticks right out in the front, and the home will be beige.
McIntyre-Evenocheck reminded everyone of the Mayor?s surgery.
2. Staff?s Comments
Schweitzer stated that March 9, 2006 is the reschedule date for Kalamazoo Avenue Public meeting.
L. Adjournment
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Artz, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Swanson and Holtrop absent -
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Winczewski, Secretary
|