Kentwood Committees & Boards
Planning Commission (Back to index)
Minutes for 05/24/2005APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 24, 2005, 7:30 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
A. Vice-Chair Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
B. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Gray.
C. Roll Call:
Members Present: Betsy Artz, Todd Gray, Abed Itani, Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Ed Swanson, Howard VandenToorn and Frank Vander Hoff
Members Absent: Maggie Bohn and Dan Holtrop (both 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 Mary Faulkner, the applicants, the press and 20 citizens.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Gray, to excuse Commissioners Maggie Bohn and Dan Holtrop from the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0-) ?
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
D. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
McIntyre-Evenocheck noted that there was a correction to the findings of fact for Case #19-05 Basis point 3, third line, the word ?go? should be ?for?.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Itani, to approve the Minutes of May 10, 2005, and the Findings of Fact 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); and Case #20-05 Paris Meadows Condominiums, Final Site Plan Review of a PUD, located on the West side of East Paris Avenue, 1/3 mile South of 52nd Street.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
E. Approval of the Agenda
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Itani, to approve the agenda for the May 24, 2005, meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Bohn and 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 12-unit Apartment Complex, located at 2688 and 2700-32nd Street
Sengupta informed the Commission that the applicant and his representative were not present and the Commission may choose to defer their decision. He reviewed the request for a 12-unit apartment complex on two parcels of land. He explained the lots would need to be combined to meet the density requirements and the Commission may want to add that as a condition of approval. He reviewed the site plan and his conditions in his staff recommendation.
Vice-chair Swanson reopened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Motion by Itani, supported by VanderHoff, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
Itani questioned whether the combination of parcels was a staff recommended condition. Sengupta stated that the applicant indicated that they may want to go to a condominium at some time and they acknowledged they would have to combine the property. If they do not combine they would not meet the ordinance requirements for density. He stated that he assumed that they would combine the two parcels but recommended that it be combined as a condition.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that one of the reasons that they wanted to have the two buildings flipped had to do with the size of the six-plex building and it would be next to the single family home. She stated that it almost looks like they have the same footprint. Sengupta stated that staff has not reviewed the plans for the four-plex building. He stated that they normally require the plans to be submitted for site plan review and the plan for the four-plex was not submitted. Jeffrey Vos in his letter dated May 19, 2005, indicated that the footprint of both buildings would be the same. Sengupta stated that he assumed that the four-plex would look like the six-plex except that six-plex would be three stories and the four-plex would be two stories.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she was disappointed that the applicant was not present again and it is disheartening. She recommended tabling action until the applicant could be present.
VandenToorn stated that this commission has spent a lot of time on this project and the applicant has not made any apparent attempt to be here this evening when we have questions for this project. If he does not have the interest to come here so that we can ask him questions that tells him that the applicant has a lack of interest. Therefore he made a motion to deny the site plan.
VanderHoff asked if it was incumbent for the applicant to appear before the Commission. Swanson stated that it is not required. VanderHoff asked if there was any reason to deny the proposal just because he did not show up. If the applicant meets all of the things that we are concerned about as far as the size of the buildings, he questioned whether we can deny it just because he did not show up.
Swanson stated that there was no second to VandenToorn?s motion to deny so the motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by VandenToorn, to table action on Case #14-05 Huisman Builders Apartments, until the June 14, 2005, meeting.
Itani asked if we know why the applicant was not present. Sengupta stated that he did not know why. He thought the applicant was under the impression that since the public hearing was opened at the last meeting, whatever he had to answer to he already did that and this meeting was for receiving of comments and decision on this case.
Itani asked if staff had any reservation on approving this project. He stated that what has been presented does not appear to have a problem other than the applicant is not here. Sengupta stated from a staff perspective, he had no reservations and no questions beyond the conditional recommendation for approval.
- Motion denied (2-5) -
- Artz, Gray, Itani, VanderHoff, and Swanson dissenting -
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
Motion by Itani, supported by VanderHoff, to conditionally approve the site plan for Huisman Builders Apartments as described in Case 14-05, and as per site plan dated May 18, 2005. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 through 7 and basis points 1 through 10 in Sengupta?s memo dated 5/19/05, adding condition 8. Combination of the properties.
VandenToorn stated that he felt that we were setting a precedent. He stated that he has never seen a plan approved in his 12 years without the applicant being present. He understood that there may have been a misunderstanding. Therefore he felt the proper action was to table this until the next meeting.
- Motion Carried (5-2) ?
- McIntyre-Evenocheck and VandenToorn dissenting
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
-------------------------------------------------------
H. Public Hearing
Case #22-05 Appletree Christian Learning Center, Site Plan Review and Special Land Use ? Day Care Center, located at 732 52nd Street (south side of 52nd Street, just west of Eastern Avenue)
Sengupta explained that this request is for a special land use and site plan review for a child care center. The proposed day care is within a 10,620 square foot building with a maximum capacity of 170 children. He stated that the revised site plan has only one access point from the shared drive and one egress point onto Wyndtree Lane. He stated that the fire marshal has indicated that the revised site plan would not accommodate the fire trucks and he preferred the previous layout which is also the recommendation from planning staff. Sengupta explained that the proposal does not meet one of the Special Land Use site design standards that require restricting access points to arterials and collectors only. The applicant will have to pursue a variance for an access point to Wyndtree Lane for this facility. Sengupta reviewed the conditions in his staff recommendations for the special land use and site plan.
Ken Watkins, Architectural Concepts, stated that after the work session they submitted the revised site plan. After receiving comments from staff they came up with another staff site plan that addresses all of staff?s concerns. He reviewed the new revised site plan noting the entry point off of 52nd Street has been moved south by 11-1/2 feet. The remainder of the plan with the one-way exit out to Wyndtree has remained the same. The exit-out-only on the southeast corner of the site has remained the same. Mr. Watkins stated that Mr. Doug Tubbs, owner of Appletree, met with the neighbor immediately to the south of this site. He stated that the neighbor was very supportive.
Vice-chair Swanson opened the public hearing.
Dana Burd, 5258 Wyndtree Lane, stated that he is the third house down from the proposed daycare. He stated that he went around and talked to about 11 neighbors and the neighbor adjacent to the site was the only one who did not have the same concerns. He presented pictures of their street looking at the site and a list of the 11 neighbors who were concerned with the removal of the trees. Mr. Burd stated that they also were concerned with the traffic and were glad to see that there was a right-turn-out-only onto Wyndtree Lane.
Scott Bergsma, 5252 Wyndtree Lane, the second house from the site, stated that the trees are a great buffer from the noise on 52nd Street.
Doug Tubbs, the applicant, stated they are not there to chop down their trees and do not want to be bad neighbors. They want to leave as many trees that they can.
Mr. Burd stated that he understood that the trees are on their property and sometimes trees have to be removed in order to fit the building on the site. He asked that they try to work around anything larger than a 12-inch diameter. Unless there is a lot of earth work being done there he did not see why the trees needed to be removed since it is a playground.
Kara Burd, 5258 Wyndtree Lane, asked what type of fence will be installed for the day care and whether or not you can see into the playground. Sengupta stated that he believed that it will be a chain link fence with shrubs along the fence line.
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by VandenToorn, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
Mr. Watkins stated that a six-foot high vinyl-coated chainlink fence is being proposed. He stated that they are proposing chainlink to be responsive to state requirement for ventilation and state restrictions on the use of wood fencing.
Mr. Watkins stated that it is not their intention to clear cut the property however they are dealing with some specific grading issues. The site does sit fairly low in relation to 52nd Street and at the southeast corner there is anywhere from three to five feet of fill that has to go in there to get finish floor set at an elevation such that all of the utilities work with the connections at the street and for visibility of the building. They are not opposed to try to work around the trees that they feel some of the trees have a legitimate chance of surviving with fill around it. He stated that a majority of the large trees do exist along the south property line and several of them are south of the property line. Mr. Watkins stated that they would be willing to try to keep as many as they can as possible. He reviewed the landscape plan for the site.
VanderHoff stated that if they can save as many trees as possible and put in landscaping that will screen and block out the sound from 52nd Street, he would be in favor of the project.
VandenToorn stated that this would be a perfect use for the site. He stated that most of those trees are leafed out four months out of the year.
Artz stated that she drove by and through the property and the first thing she noticed was the trees. The trees are a great buffer and she understands the residents? concerns. It appeared that the larger trees were in a straight line and wondered how many were on the property line and how many were south of the property line.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that the site plan that Mr. Watkins presented is different than what they were given. She questioned which plan was under consideration. Sengupta stated that his recommendation referenced the site plan that was reviewed during the work session and Mr. Watkins presented a plan reflecting the conditions in the staff recommendation. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that the plan that we are considering is the one from the work session with the three access points. Sengupta stated that was correct.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that it is too bad that they could not turn the building and then you could save a lot of the buffering. Mr. Watkins stated that was an option that they looked at and because of the very large front yard setback as opposed to the side and rear yard setback the building did not fit on the site. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she was not happy with the landscaping plan. The trees do buffer the neighborhood from 52nd Street. She recommended incorporating some of the trees within the playground area. She stated that it is otherwise a great use for the property.
Gray agreed that this is a great use for the site and recognized that there are some limitations to develop the site. There are some mature trees and he would like to see some of the larger trees preserved to protect the neighborhood.
Itani stated he shared the concerns in preserving the trees because if we don?t the character of the neighborhood will be different. He stated that he felt the entrance was too close to 52nd Street and was concerned with circulation.
Swanson asked Mr. Watson if he was willing to work with staff in selecting what trees can be saved. Mr. Watson stated that he was willing.
Schweitzer suggested that they insert the phrase, ?provision of the tree preservation plan along with the landscape plan? in terms of the special land use and site plan review. He stated that condition 5 of the site plan could be amended and add a condition 4 to the special land use that speaks to a tree preservation plan.
VandenToorn questioned the need for a variance to allow relief from the requirement of having all accesses from either a collector an arterial street. Sengupta explained that the variance is needed for the egress onto Wyndtree Lane and not the shared drive.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by VanderHoff, to conditionally approve the Special Land Use for a child care center facility as described in Case 22-05. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 through 3 and basis points 1 through 5 in Sengupta?s memo dated 5/18/05, adding condition 4. Tree preservation plan to be submitted to staff for review and approval.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by VanderHoff, to recommend conditional approval of the site plan for Appletree Learning Center as described in Case 22-05 and as per site plan dated February 28, 2005, as revised on May 17, 2005. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 through 8 and basis points 1 through 7 in Sengupta?s memo dated 5/18/05 amending condition 5 to include: ?Tree preservation plan to be submitted to staff for review and approval.?
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
--------------------------------------------------
Case #23-05 Quail Meadows, Rezoning of 51 acres from R1-A & R1-C Single Family Residential to RPUD-1 High Density Residential Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary Site Plan Review of a PUD, located on the North side of 52nd Street between Windy Ridge Estates and Jefferson Farms and extended North to Woodbury Commons Plat (Request from applicant to table public hearing until June 14, 2005, meeting)
Pung explained that this request is to rezone 51 acres from the current zoning of R1-A and R1-C Single Family Residential to RPUD-1 High Density Planned Unit Development and also review of the preliminary PUD site plan. He stated that the applicant has requested tabling so that they will have time to do the traffic study. Pung reviewed the revised site plan noting the changes from the work session. Issues that need to be addressed are: non-contiguous PUD; building elevations for single family portion and sample floor plans for the condos need to be submitted; and stub street is shown to the west but at this point no stubs are shown to the east.
Mr. Brown stated that this project is consistent with the Master Plan for this area. It is being developed at 3.8 units per acre and the Master Plan recommends up to four units per acre. He stated that they reduced the size of the single family detached residential area because of the 30-foot easement for Consumers Energy. They are developing this area with public streets and sidewalks. Mr. Brown stated that they do intend to sell the lots to individuals and developers. He stated that there are 72 units within 36 buildings in the condominium portion of the development with sidewalks on the spine road. He stated that he has hired a traffic consultant to do a study on the impact on traffic on 52nd Street. Mr. Brown noted that Windy Ridge has 55-foot wide lots and Jefferson Farms has 65-foot lots and the Wildflower Creek Subdivision approved next to Windy Ridge has 50-foot lots. He stated that most of the lots in the back will be 60-foot lots with 65-foot lots in the front. He stated that the single family detached will be done in one phase and the condominiums will be done in another phase. He stated that the spine road will be taken all the way through when they start the condominium portion so that there is no question on violation of the cul-de-sac ordinance. Mr. Brown stated that they have had some discussions with the Sommerdyke Family and they have agreed to meet over the next month to discuss the impact of this project on their property.
Vice-Chair Swanson opened the public hearing and explained that the Planning Commission has been requested to adjourn the hearing until the June 14 meeting.
Mark Drysbach, 4676 Morningside Drive, representing the Springbrook Neighborhood and some of the neighbors who will be impacted by this development, expressed the following concerns: 44th Street to 52nd Street cut through; private roads in the condominium area to public roads in the single family portion; accessibility to the area that is being donated to the City; parking of vehicles for those walking along the floodplain area; 53 percent open space ? does it include the floodplain that they are giving away; early planning with the Parks Department; good to see rear yard setback adjusted throughout to 30 feet; tree preservation plan; and information to condominium owners or those purchasing homes on water quality studies from DNR on the Plaster Creek. He stated that it is a good plan but wanted to make sure that it is accessible for the neighborhoods in the area and places for picnic areas, bicycles to park and accessibility for handicapped.
David Hager, 3303 ? 52nd Street, stated that he owns the property between Jefferson Farms and this development. He was concerned that this development may engender problems similar to his problems with kids riding bicycles and go-carts through the Jefferson Farms development into his property and trampling on his plants and trees. The developer for Jefferson Farms put in a barrier to keep them off of his property. He asked that the developer put in some sort of a barrier between this site and the east side of his property.
Michael Guis, 3333 ? 52nd Street, stated that he shared the same concerns as Mr. Hager. He stated that the way it was originally drawn there will be four parcels that will abut his property. There are some beautiful trees on the property that need to be saved. He presented a letter detailing his concerns.
Corrie Sommerdyke, 3429-52nd Street, stated that he will reserve comments until he has time to meet with Mr. Brown again. He noted that he had presented a letter to the Planning Commission expressing his concerns. He asked if the property along 52nd Street is R1-B. Pung explained that it is a typo on the plan and it should be R1-C zoning along 52nd Street and the back is R1-A.
Mr. Carrey Sommerdyke, 3460-52nd Street, stated that he represents Bear S. Enterprises, LLC. He also noted that he had presented a letter to the Planning Commission expressing his concerns. He reserved any other comments until they could meet with Mr. Brown to discuss access to their parcels.
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Itani, to adjourn the public hearing until the June 14, 2005, meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
------------------------------------------------------------
Case #17-05 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ? Special Land Use, Subdivision Real Estate Signs and PUD Contiguous Site Requirement
Schweitzer explained that the three ordinance amendments being reviewed were overlooked when the Commission reviewed the other amendments. He reviewed the proposed amendments as outlined in his staff recommendation. The sections proposed are Section 5.03.E dealing with subdivision real estate signs; Section 12.03.D, 12.04.E, 12-05.D, 12.06.E, 12.07.D and 12.08.F dealing with non-contiguous planned unit developments and the power of the City Commission to waive the condition that the properties do not have to be contiguous; and Section 13.05 dealing with the extension of special land use for one year by the Planning Commission similar to the provision for the one-year extension for site plans.
Vice-chair Swanson opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Motion by VandenToorn, supported by VanderHoff, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
No discussion by the Commission.
Motion by Gray, supported by McIntyre-Evenocheck to recommend to the City Commission to amend Appendix A (Zoning Ordinance) of the Code of Ordinances, City of Kentwood, Michigan to amend Section 5.03.E dealing with subdivision real estate signs; Section 12.03.D, 12.04.E, 12-05.D, 12.06.E, 12.07.D and 12.08.F dealing with non-contiguous planned unit developments and the power of the City Commission to waive the condition that the properties do not have to be contiguous; and Section 13.05 dealing with the extension of special land use for one year by the Planning Commission similar to the provision for the one-year extension for site plans.
VandenToorn questioned whether the proposed Section 5.03.E amendment for Subdivision Signs would allow for one or two signs if the subdivision encompasses a corner. Schweitzer stated that the way the ordinance is set up in terms of number is they are allowed one per major street frontage.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
-------------------------------------------------------------
I. Work Session
Case #24-05 Division Avenue Rezoning, Rezoning of 11.7 acres from C-2 Community Commercial and R1-D Single Family Residential to C-5 Neighborhood Commercial located on the East side of Division Avenue from Montebello Street to 44th Street
Golder explained that this is a proposed city-initiated rezoning to C-5 Neighborhood Commercial and part of the property is zoned C-2 and part is zoned R1-D. It involves 39 parcels, 15 are residential and the rest are commercial. There are five lots zoned commercial and currently used as residential. Golder reviewed the items in her staff report noting the attributes and issues. The C-5 zone is a new zone and one of the features of this zone allows for residential structures to remain as conforming uses. Golder stated that there are fewer permitted commercial uses in the C-5 zone excluding uses such as a drive-through restaurant. She stated that she met with the property owners about a month ago and there were 36 in attendance. Primarily they were owners of homes in the area and were directly affected by the rezoning. For the most part there was some openness to it. Golder stated that they understood that it is their choice to sell their home to a commercial developer. She explained that there is a 50-foot setback requirement for the C-5 adjacent to residential including a parking setback and landscape screen. Golder noted that she believed there was an error in the C-5 zone because it seems to suggest that office uses are special land uses as opposed to permitted by right. Schweitzer is going to check into whether this was a typographical error.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that Golder did an excellent job in explaining the C-5 zoning and hoped that she will do the same at the public hearing. Gray concurred with McIntyre-Evenocheck. Itani also felt it was a good use and asked what the depth would be. Golder stated that it would be 350 feet. Swanson stated that this zoning makes it possible for the mixed use that he has been looking for so long.
------------------------------------------------
J. New Business
Sengupta reviewed his memo relative to the Speedway rebuild at 52nd Street and Eastern Avenue and noted that they would require about seven variances. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted to set the public hearing or have it go to the Zoning Board first. Swanson felt that we could go forward, have the work session then have them go to the ZBA before the public hearing. That way the ZBA will know the Planning Commission?s concerns. The commissioners agreed with Swanson.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by VanderHoff, to set the public hearing date of June 28, 2005, for: Case #25-05 Kingdom Hall of Jehovah?s Witnesses, Special Land Use ? Place of Worship, located at the Southwest corner of 52nd Street and Wing Avenue; Case #26-05 Speedway, Special Land Use ? Convenience Store and Site Plan Review of a Vehicle Fuel Station/Convenience Store at the Northeast corner of 52nd Street and Eastern Avenue (815 Eastern Avenue).
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
K. Other Business
1. Commissioners? Comments
McIntyre-Evenocheck asked if the Fleetwood Diner has been in for their building permit. Pung stated that they have received their approval from the DEQ and a lot split application has been submitted.
VandenToorn asked if an applicant is requesting a straight rezoning does the applicant have to show up. Attorney Sluggett stated that there is no obligation for the applicant to show up for the Planning or City Commissions for a rezoning. Schweitzer stated that anyone that is putting that money up for a rezoning would be foolish not to appear the board and provide arguments in support of it.
2. Staff?s Comments
Schweitzer reminded the commissioners that we will be meeting at 6:30 p.m at the next meeting on June 14 for a brief training session and a review of the Growing Communities Conference.
Golder explained that the developer for Inglenook off of Burton Street is requesting to relocate the path designed to go through the center of the development to back behind the detention pond. There was nothing specific in the approval requiring that the path was to go through the center of the development. Golder stated that they have acquired property to the west so there will be an addition to the project. The Commission agreed to the change.
L. Adjournment
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Itani, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Bohn and Holtrop absent ?
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Secretary
|