Kentwood Committees & Boards
Planning Commission (Back to index)
Minutes for 04/12/2005APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 12, 2005, 7:30 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
A. Chair Bohn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
B. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Frank VanderHoff.
C. Roll Call:
Members Present: Maggie Bohn, Todd Gray, Abed Itani, Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Ed Swanson, Howard VandenToorn and Frank Vander Hoff
Members Absent: Dan Holtrop (with notification)
Others Present: City Attorney Jeff Sluggett, Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Economic Development Planner Lisa Golder, Planner Joe Pung, Planner Debargha Sengupta, Assistant Parks & Recreation Director Kendall Klinglesmith, Staff Secretary Mary Faulkner, the representatives, and the press.
Motion by Itani, supported Swanson, by to excuse Commissioner Holtrop from the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0)
- Holtrop absent ?
D. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Faulkner noted that there was one correction, City Attorney Jeff Sluggett, was not present at the last meeting. City Attorney Bob Buchanan was present at that meeting.
Motion by Swanson, supported by VanderHoff, to approve the minutes of March 22, 2005, with the correction as noted.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Holtrop absent ?
E. Approval of the Agenda
Itani noted that under Item G. Public Hearing, the SIP should be from 2005-2011 not 2005-2001.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Itani, to approve the agenda for the April 12, 2005, meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Holtrop absent ?
F. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.
There was no public comment.
G. Old Business
Case #14-05 Huisman Builders Apartments, Site Plan Review of a 14-unit Apartment Complex, located at 2688 and 2700-32nd Street
Chair Bohn opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Swanson noted that the applicant has requested tabling of the public hearing as noted in the letter from Jeffrey L. Vos, P.E., dated April 12, 2005. Sengupta stated that he was not sure of what date to which to adjourn this hearing because they are supposed to go before the Zoning Board on April 18. He stated that there could be a work session at the April 26 meeting. The Commission agreed to adjourn it until the May 10, meeting.
Motion by Swanson, supported by VanderHoff, to adjourn Case #14-05 Huisman Builders Apartments, until the May 10, 2005, meeting per the applicant?s request.
- Motion Carried (6-1) ?
- VandenToorn dissenting ?
- Holtrop absent ?
H. Public Hearing
Structures and Improvements Plan 2005-2001
Golder explained that the SIP Committee met today and they asked some of the department heads to be available especially given the questions raised regarding streets but no one came to the meeting so there are still some questions with the SIP. She explained that Engineering is in the process of developing the Structures & Improvements Plan process for streets, roads, and sidewalk improvements and that next year we should have a better idea of the projects well ahead of this process. This year is not a good year for getting good information from the Engineering Department on road projects. All of the projects listed for last year that have not been accomplished yet were simply moved into the 2005-06 year because we do not know yet whether they will occur this year, next year or any other year. Golder stated that under Streets and Sidewalks there is 19 million dollars of projects listed that are to be accomplished in the 2005-06 year and we probably cannot undertake all of those projects. Golder stated that she did not feel that the SIP document will change much from where it is right now with the allocation of funds and projects listed.
She stated that Kendall Klingelsmith was present from the Parks & Recreation Department if they had any questions on Parks and Recreation.
Chair Bohn opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by McIntyre-Evenocheck, to close the public hearing for the Structures & Improvements Plan.
- Motion Carried ?
- Holtrop absent ?
Itani stated that the Metro Council recently held a public meeting for the Transportation Improvement Program which includes projects for the City of Kentwood for 2008. He stated that there were six or seven people at the public hearing that had some concerns about Kalamazoo Avenue between 52nd Street and 60th Street. He explained that the City had informed these people that Kalamazoo is going to be improved to four lanes with a boulevard. Itani stated that it would be helpful to have all of the information before you enact the plan, it would be a great improvement to the process.
Schweitzer explained that what was in the regional long-range plan called for a four-lane boulevard for Kalamazoo Avenue and that is what has been submitted for the general design of the roadway. He explained that Kent County Road Commission shares the jurisdiction on Kalamazoo and they would like to consider a five-lane cross section in that stretch. The specifics still have to be worked out to be responsive to the concerns from the residents.
Gray stated that he was disappointed to not know what specific projects will be undertaken for this upcoming year with regards to streets and improvements. He questioned whether it was finances or resources that we do not have the information. Bohn explained that at the present time we have a new city engineer and he is switching over to a new system to help him prioritize and get organized. This is where the committee found the difficulty that at the present time he did not have clear cut answers for them. At the subcommittee level while they were not happy with this lack of information they could understand why there was the lack. She stated that based on what they have seen in previous years this was everything that was left over and as money is available the City Commission will probably approve projects on an on-going way. Hopefully next year the new system will be in place.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated on page 21, item 29 Eastern Avenue, 44th to 60th (involves the repair of street surface as needed) does not have a project cost estimate on it. Golder explained that the reason for that is initially it was a reconstruction project and the committee felt that Eastern Avenue did not need to be reconstructed at this time. The reconstruction was moved to 2008-09 and item 29 is for the repair of the street and the city engineer did not have a good estimate for the cost. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that something should be put in there. Golder stated that she would like to put in a good estimate if we can get one.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that it would be helpful if the items were listed by year so she could see what was coming up next year. Golder explained that the items are listed by alphabetical order and in the tables they are listed by year.
Swanson stated that in the development of this project there is a questionnaire sheet that is a broad definition for each project sent to the department heads and that is what the committee was looking for. When it was submitted none were returned except for Schweitzer. Swanson stated that we are looking for a revision in the process next year and possibly having a city commissioner on the committee that gets an understanding back to the administration as to why it is important to have this so we can do a better job.
Swanson stated that Swank Drive is listed as unranked and he would like to drop it from the list and add it later if it needs to be added. He stated that for next year?s SIP he would like to see a ranking of sidewalk needs on major streets that conform to the Master Plan.
Golder stated that toward the end of the document, there is a Fund Description and it tells the balance of certain funds that we have in the City and some of those need to be updated by Finance Director Tom Chase. She wanted them to understand that if they adopt the SIP tonight then those figures will be changing. She explained that this section is strictly a reference.
Golder stated that a bus transfer station at City Hall that will be added as a 2005-06 project in the Streets and Sidewalks section.
VandenToorn stated that he was disappointed that once again citizens have not shown up at the public hearing for this project. Itani stated that they used to have the same problem at the Metro Council. He stated that they have changed how they reach the public. He explained that once they have prioritized the projects, then they target mail for the residences that live along that corridor. He stated that you should not expect the public as they are not interested.
VanderHoff asked if anyone has any idea on how much it costs to build the roads. Schweitzer stated that the person that would know is City Engineer Steve Kepley and he has the best background on how to assess the relative needs of the streets and what type of improvements are needed. VanderHoff stated that the roads in Kentwood and all over Grand Rapids are not in good shape and his question would be what does it cost to build a road as we do it and how much more would it cost to do it properly so the road lasts 10 to 15 years and what is the cost benefit. If it lasts longer then it would be the way to go.
VanderHoff stated that he did not feel that the City should spend $400,000 to build a public driving range that private enterprise could do more efficiently and just as well.
Bohn stated that this is the second year that the Planning Commission is working on the SIP. She stated that they used to be involved in the total CIP which involves the total capital expenditures for the City budgeting process. While this is supposed to make their job easier, those that were on the committee were feeling very frustrated this year that the information we needed was not available as it was when they were part of the entire committee which involved the Mayor and City Commissioners. She was not sure if the reason they were not getting the information had to do with the Mayor and City Commission not being involved or whether it had to do with new staff members. Bohn stated that the City Commission and Mayor should know that consideration needs to be given to the process particularly if it falters again next year.
Itani suggested that the City work with the Metro Council on the sidewalk initiative since they are developing a non-motorized plan which the first priority is to make sure that where there are bus stops there are sidewalks. VandenToorn stated that he would like to see the sidewalk improvements start where children walk to school.
Swanson stated that he felt that the SIP could be adopted if there were a couple of modifications. The first was the bus station at a total cost of $250,000 with a cost of $70,000 for the City.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Itani, to modify the SIP document to include the Bus Transfer Station under Streets and Sidewalks at a cost of $250,000.
- Motion Carried (6-1) ?
- VandenToorn dissenting ?
- Holtrop absent ?
Motion by Swanson, supported by VandenToorn, to modify the SIP document to update Section 6 Funding Guide Descriptions as per Golder?s recommendation.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Holtrop absent ?
Motion by Swanson, supported by Itani, to modify the SIP document to remove Swank Drive from the list of projects and to add it later when industry is a big issue and when it will be needed again, if at all.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Holtrop absent ?
Golder asked if the Commission wanted to add a dollar amount to item 29 on page 21 Eastern Avenue 44th to 60th. Itani stated that it should be around $200,000.
Motion by VandenToorn, supported by Gray, to modify the SIP document by adding the dollar amount of $200,000 into item 29 Eastern Avenue 44th to 60th on page 29.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Holtrop absent ?
Motion by Swanson, supported by VanderHoff, to adopt Resolution 2-05 adopting the Structures and Improvements Plan, July 1, 2005 ? June 30, 2011.
Roll Call Vote:
Yeas: Todd Gray, Abed Itani, Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Ed Swanson, Frank VanderHoff, Howard VandenToorn, and Mary Smith Bohn
Nays: None
Absent: Daniel Holtrop
--------------------------------------------------------
Case #17-05 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Pung reviewed the staff recommendation for the miscellaneous zoning ordinance amendments which included: the height of tree branches on the street level to allow for a clearance corner; adding drive-through restaurants as a Special Land Use in the C-3 Regional Commercial district; adding Places of Worship in the C-5 Neighborhood Corridor Commercial District; to allow for plat entry signs to be located within a boulevard of a collector street; and the area between the street paving or curb line and the property line to be maintained as landscaped area with grass, trees, and other plants as approved by the City.
Chair Bohn opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Motion by VandenToorn, supported by VanderHoff, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Holtrop absent ?
VandenToorn asked for a clarification on Section 19.03.I on the right-of-way landscaping. He suggested that we allow for some provision for landscapers to mulch or bark trees as it is imperative for the trees to live a healthful life. He suggested allowing 18 inches of mulch or bark around a planted tree or shrub. VanderHoff felt that it made sense but was wondering who would measure it to see if was 18 inches.
Swanson asked staff if someone has put bark and landscaping materials out there so they could edge up against it, how would you enforce this. Pung stated that as part of the zoning ordinance it would be considered nonconforming. If the City adopted a right-of-way ordinance and something conflicted with that then there is no such thing as a non-conforming as it is a city ordinance. If it is an existing situation now then it would be a non-conforming situation but you could not expand it and if you took it out you would not be able to put it back in. Swanson stated that explanation addressed his concerns about existing landscaping.
Bohn asked if someone currently has graveled the right-of-way and using it for their own parking lot would that still be allowed. Pung stated that was not allowed even under the old ordinance. He stated that with the adopted right-of-way ordinance, it is a city regulatory ordinance and not a zoning ordinance so it does not make provision for non-conforming. So it would have to be removed.
McIntyre-Evenocheck questioned the need for a drive-through restaurant in the C-3 district. She stated that there are two new restaurants coming into the mall property and was concerned that they would request a drive-through. She was not sure it was something we wanted in the busy area of the mall. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that we have the possibility of other restaurants going into the C-3 district and was concerned with them being in the parking lot of the mall. VandenToorn asked what is the difference between a drive-through restaurant within the C-3 district as opposed to the C-2 district. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that there is more traffic and people will be more distracted coming out of a drive-through.
Pung stated that as a special land use you will have the opportunity to look at it to see if it will be a safety issue. If it is going to be in the middle of the mall parking lot with traffic all over then there would be reason to deny it because of public health, safety, and welfare. He stated that there is no way to put a drive-through on the restaurants that were approved because of the way they were designed with out redesigning the site. He noted that there was an A & W Restaurant off the mall property but within the C-3 district. A special land use may work on one of the outlots but not on the mall property itself.
Swanson stated that the Zoning Board already approved the proposed restaurant on the hotel site so this has nothing to do with that project. He stated that if the Planning Commission wants to control drive-through restaurants then this language will make it a special land use and bring the control back to the Planning Commission rather than sending it to the Zoning Board.
Bohn shared McIntyre-Evenocheck concern on the drive-through. Even on the outlots they will be putting their traffic onto the mall drive.
VandenToorn stated that there is less traffic on the mall drive than on 28th Street where drive-through restaurants are allowed in the C-2 district and a developer will question why can?t he do it in the C-3 zone when there is less traffic on the mall drive. There is no comparison to traffic levels.
Schweitzer stated that under the special land use you have the ability to assess on a site specific basis whether it does fit and you exercise those properly in the C-2 zone when looking at a special land use for a drive-through restaurant. This amendment would give the Commission the ability to make that determination on a site specific basis if it is zoned C-3.
Bohn stated that if we approve the drive-through at one site are we going to have legal problems saying it is not safe at another site. Schweitzer stated that no because it is site specific and you can look at the specific circumstances associated with the respective sites.
Motion by Swanson, supported by VanderHoff, to recommend to the City Commission to amend the City of Kentwood Zoning Ordinance, being Ordinance No. 9-02, as amended, as outlined in Pung?s recommendation dated 4-6-05 as follows: amend Section 3.06.D Tree branches shall be a minimum of ten feet above the adjoining street level within the clearance corner; amend Section 8.02 to allow drive-through restaurants as a Special Land Use in the C-3 Regional Commercial district; amend Section 9.02 to add table of uses and parking for places of worship; amend Section 5.03.E and Section 6.03.E to allow for plat entry signs to be located within a boulevard of a collector street; amend Section 16.05.A.7 to provide restrictions and permitting requirements; and amend Section 19.03.I right-of way landscaping to include: ?with grass, trees and other plants and materials as approved by the City?.
Attorney Sluggett explained that his suggestion for adding ?and materials? was that it would include mulch, bark, and maybe some other things along those lines without tying down a specific amount of mulch or bark. It will give the city some flexibility. Swanson stated that he was going to remove ?mulch, bark, etc.? from the clarification in Pung?s memo. Attorney Sluggett stated that would also be a good idea.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that Swanson had stated 6.02.E and it should have been 6.03.E.
- Motion Carried (6-1) ?
- McIntyre-Evenocheck dissenting ?
- Holtrop absent ?
-----------------------------------------------
I. Work Session
Case #18-05 Radisson Hotel Addition, Site Plan Review, located at 3333 ? 28th Street (Northwest corner of 28th Street and the East Beltline)
Pung explained that this request is for a site plan review of a proposed development for a freestanding multi-tenant square building of 10,000 square feet, a retail and restaurant addition of 2900 square feet, and 4300 square foot addition to the existing hotel. He stated that the vacant Fannie May building will be removed as part of this development. They are proposing to close the existing two full service curbcuts on 28th Street and create one right-in-right-out curbcut. He reviewed the site plan and the items in his staff report. He stated that in 2004 the applicant was granted a parking variance and in March of this year they were granted a use variance for a drive-through restaurant. Issues discussed at the staff work session included: additional detail on accessibility of dumpsters; setback of the restaurant from the west property line; detail on unloading and loading; and pedestrian access to the building from the sidewalks.
Todd Olin, Land Development Solutions, representing National Hospitality Services, gave a brief review of the project and reviewed the site plan. He explained that the long-term land lease on the Fannie May property is 60 years rather than 30 years as stated in his letter. He stated that the hotel owners have obtained a building permit for a kids fun park/pool area within the hotel.
McIntyre-Evenocheck asked what type of retail is being proposed. Mr. Olin stated that there will be jewelry stores, nail shop, or hair salon or similar small shops. McIntyre-Evenocheck asked if the entrance to the attached restaurant will be through the hotel or through the outside parking lot. Mr. Olin stated that the restaurant that is going there is an extension of what is already there and there will be access from the hotel and from the outside. McIntyre-Evenocheck asked Pung about the chain link fence for the trash enclosure. Pung explained that walls will be concrete and the door will be chain link with slats. McIntyre-Evenocheck referred to the City Engineer?s memo on page 4 item 5 having to do with the trash receptacle being closed at all times to prevent leachate from the dumpster draining into the storm drain. She did not see how this could be enforced and questioned whether it should be relocated.
McIntyre-Evenocheck had concerns with traffic entering from the drive off of the East Beltline and how would they exit the site. Mr. Olin stated that there is an access from the East Beltline there now but the passenger cars do not use it. It is not signed for this site it is signed for the Residence Inn to the north. It was intended for truck traffic. If someone would enter that way they would travel counter-clockwise around the 10,000 square foot building. If they went through the drive-through building then they would travel counter-clockwise again around the building to get to 28th Street or to Plaza Drive. McIntyre-Evenocheck asked if they expect most people to come in from 28th Street or to come through Plaza Drive. Mr. Olin stated that they were not relying on any access off of the East Beltline. McIntyre-Evenocheck asked Pung to check into this as it might be an issue. She stated that this is an important corner and we need something to spruce it up.
Gray stated that the landscaping will be a big part of this project. He noted that there are a lot of low-lying shrubs proposed and questioned the location of trees. Mr. Olin noted the location of the trees on the site plan.
Itani stated that overall this is a good project. He had some safety concerns over the internal circulation of the site. Mr. Olin stated that most trucks deliveries are at off-peak times. He stated that he did share the same concerns with the drive-through circulation.
Swanson stated that with this 10,000 square foot building you are cutting off a lot of the visibility of the hotel itself. He questioned how will this avoid causing more difficulty for a hotel that is not heavily used now. Mr. Olin stated that the occupancy rate for the hotel hovers about 45 to 50 percent all the time. He explained that they are engaged in several contracts with the airlines where they are constantly taking pilots and cabin attendants back and forth to the airport which does not produce a lot of cars. Swanson stated that he was still concerned with blocking off the visibility of the hotel, although by taking out the Fannie May building you are opening it up. Swanson stated that in the Master Plan there is a section that talks about using cluster trees to provide greenspace. He questioned whether it would be possible to put in a cluster of trees within the site distance triangle with the State. Swanson stated that he doubts MDOT will allow right-in-right-out on the 28th Street access. He stated that he drove in the site today using the ?truck access? and found it to be a fairly good way to access the site coming down the Beltline. He felt that drive will be heavily used. Swanson asked if there is any restriction for cars using that drive. Mr. Olin stated that none that he was aware of. Swanson stated that the right-turn-out of that drive looks a little awkward.
Mr. Olin stated that they were not opposed to seeking authorization from MDOT in installing trees in the triangle as they need a grading easement out there anyway. He stated that it is a in-line detention in that area but there is a possibility to do some side slope enhancements.
VandenToorn asked if there was sufficient parking on the site when they add the new building. Pung explained that they were granted a variance and one of the conditions was to get approval from Comerica for overflow parking if it is required. VandenToorn stated he did not feel there was sufficient landscaping. He stated that tearing down Fannie May and building another building there does nothing to enhance the corner. VandenToorn stated that the site needs to be heavily landscaping.
VanderHoff stated that getting rid of the Fannie May building will be an improvement on the corner.
Bohn stated that this will be a good use on the corner but had some concerns over the retail. She stated that from the landscape plan there are shrubs proposed on the corner and if there is a cluster of trees in the triangle that will help. She noted that the sidewalks will be a plus, but felt that the landscaping needs to be enhanced.
VandenToorn asked if there were letters of intent for the retail uses. Mr. Olin stated that they do have them and one was a beauty salon/spa. He stated that they are looking for uses that will support the hotel and the mall. Mr. Olin stated that there is a banquet facility in the hotel and they will need the overflow parking for that use.
------------------------------------------------
J. New Business
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by VanderHoff, to set the public hearing date of May 10, 2005, for: Case #19-05 60th Street Office Rezoning, Rezoning of 1.41 acres from R-2 Single and Two Family Residential to C-4 Office, located on the North side of 60th Street, East of Division Avenue (501 60th Street).
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Holtrop absent ?
K. Other Business
1. Master Plan Amendments
Schweitzer reviewed the section maps with the recommended changes to the text for Sections 2, 22 and 33. He explained that the map for Section 2 should be amended to show the entire Calvin College properties as park-open space. The map for Section 13 should extend the conservation-oriented designation to the block of existing residential homes along the 36th Street frontage. The Section 32 map should extend the high density residential designation out to Kalamazoo Avenue through the Truax property. The commercial land use designation should extend to the corner on the northeast quadrant of 60th Street and Kalamazoo Avenue in Section 33. He also reviewed the proposed changes to the text. He stated that these are the changes that staff feels merit consideration.
Swanson stated that he felt that the current mixed use, medium density residential-commercial designation for the Truax should remain the same. He heard the Sutton Club representatives say something different and thought they said they would like a buffer remain between them and the Kalamazoo Avenue. VandenToorn agreed and McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she heard they did not want commercial in that area. Swanson stated that if the shopping center is going to amount to anything then somebody has to work out how to get to Kalamazoo Avenue. He felt they could work something out that could provide plenty of buffer and maintain their separate access. Swanson was in favor of the other amendments.
VandenToorn agreed with Swanson. He was not in favor of changing the Truax property to high density. Schweitzer stated that the site was designated high density residential until the recent adoption of the Master Plan and now it is a mixed use designation. VandenToorn stated that he would prefer to leave it mixed use and wait until someone comes in with a development plan. Schweitzer stated that the point he felt had some merit was extending the commercial further north along Kalamazoo Avenue. He stated that the Sutton Club representatives did not want commercial and there is some merit. To the north of the Truax property is a church. He did not feel that we needed more commercial on the frontage of Kalamazoo. He felt it would be more desirable to relocate the access for the existing commercial. That is why his recommendation was to go back to strictly residential rather than the mixed use. Swanson stated that if somebody does buy that property just to provide access they are going to have pay for that property and a little more commercial in that area would allow that. It still could be buffered beautifully and allow access back to Sutton Club that was not ugly. VandenToorn asked for something in the narrative portion of the Master Plan that would describe what we would like here. Schweitzer stated that Sutton Club is a high end residential area and we want to be sensitive to their concerns. He agreed that it would be desirable to amend the narrative for Section 32 to clarify what we have been talking about. The Commission agreed to leave Section 32 as mixed use and amend the text to address what they would like to see at this site.
Bohn asked what can they do so that there is landscaping included in the northeast corner of 60th Street and Kalamazoo. Schweitzer stated that was the intent of the initial wording in the text. It is up to the developers to come in with what is described for that site. He stated that the best approach may be to withhold a rezoning of the property until you have it with conditions that are most favorable to the community. The clearer they are in the text the stronger the case would be. Attorney Sluggett stated that if someone comes in with less than what is called for in the Master Plan you will have to address at that time.
Motion by VandenToorn, supported by VanderHoff, to set the public hearing date of May 10, 2005, for Case #21-05 Amendments to the Master Plan.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Holtrop absent ?
2. Commissioners? Comments
McIntyre-Evenocheck extended condolences to Dan Holtrop on the death of his father.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she had 22 pictures of Tom Thomson Vehicle Repair, at 52nd Street and Kalamazoo Avenue, and out of the 15 vehicles that were in the parking lot on Sunday, one had a valid license plate on it. She stated that there was a car for sale there with his phone number on it with an expired dealer?s plate on it. There was an engine sitting next to the building and they are parking vehicles off the lot. Today there were cars being worked on in the parking lot. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated of the six conditions for the special land use, five of the conditions were not being complied with. She stated that if he does not clean it up and get on the straight and narrow we need to shut him down. Schweitzer stated that during the approval there was some discussion that advised Mr. Thomson of the restrictions on the use. Golder stated that after the last meeting she talked to Mr. Thomson and told him to get the stuff out and a week ago it did not look too bad but on the weekend and apparently today he is in violation.
3. Staff?s Comments
Attorney Sluggett reminded the Commission that the Radisson Hotel is a site plan review and not a special land use review.
Golder stated that she met with the residents of the Division Avenue & 44th Street area on expanding the commercial area to include some of the residential properties. There were about 36 people in attendance. After discussion and having their questions answered there were maybe four people who seemed to object to the change. Golder suggested looking at the depths of the commercial properties and run it by a developer to verify sufficiency. The residents who were against it were on Farnham near Rite Aid.
L. Adjournment
Motion by VandenToorn, supported by McIntyre-Evenocheck, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Holtrop absent ?
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Secretary
|