Kentwood Committees & Boards
Planning Commission (Back to index)
Minutes for 07/25/2006PROPOSED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 25, 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 Poyner.
C. Roll Call:
Members Present: Laurie Sheldon, Ray Poyner, Dan Holtrop, Abed Itani, Nancie McIntyre-Evenocheck, Ed Swanson, Frank VanderHoff, and Chris Winczewski.
Members Absent: Betsy Artz
Others Present: City Attorney Jeff Sluggett, Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Planner Joe Pung, Planner Debargha Sengupta, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, the press and the residents.
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Commissioner Poyner, to excuse Commissioner Artz from the July 25, 2006 meeting.
- Motion Carried 8-0-
- Commissioner Artz absent -
D. Approval of the Minutes of July 11, 2006 and Findings of Fact for Case #15-06 ? LSI Financial / Capital Community Credit Union Major Change to and Approved Site Plan located at 641 44th Street;Case #18-06 ? The shops on 52nd Street Special land Use Drive Thru Service Establishment located at 3868 52nd Street SE; Case #19-06 ? The shops on 52nd Street Final PUD Site Plan Review for phases 5&6 located at 3868 52nd Street SE
Motion by Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Commissioner Holtrop, to approve the Minutes of July 11, 2006 and the Findings of Fact for: for Case #15-06 ? LSI Financial / Capital Community Credit Union Major Change to and Approved Site Plan located at 641 44th Street;Case #18-06 ? The shops on 52nd Street Special land Use Drive Thru Service Establishment located at 3868 52nd Street SE; Case #19-06 ? The shops on 52nd Street Final PUD Site Plan Review for phases 5&6 located at 3868 52nd Street SE
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- Commissioner Artz absent -
E. Approval of the Agenda
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Itani, to approve the agenda for the July 25, 2006 meeting.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- Commissioner Artz absent -
F. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.
There was no public comment.
G. Old Business
Case #17-06 ? Rosi?s Mini Market Special Land Use and Site Plan Review located at 4720 South Division Ave. SE
Planner Pung introduced the request. He stated that he spoke to the property owner who was under the impression that the city would put the sidewalk on 47th Street and the cost would be put against their taxes or set up as a special assessment. Ms. Cortez, the lessee, indicated that she did want to put the sidewalk in and thought that the City would also participate in the cost. Planner Pung stated that he spoke to the Engineering Department and they stated that they do not put in sidewalks. The Engineering Department stated that when the City repairs sidewalks they have a contractor do that and their contract for this year is now expired. Pung stated that Ms. Cortez is no longer involved in the business. Ms. Cortez sold the business to Eduardo Cortez; he is no relation to Ms. Cortez. Eduardo Cortez stated that he doesn?t feel that he needs to put the sidewalk along 47th Street when he is just the tenant.
Planner Pung stated that the recommendation regarding the parking spaces was changed. If the applicant could show that they can provide the number of parking spaces to meet the ordinance they would not have to get the variance. Planner Pung stated that the only remaining issue is the sidewalk.
Mr. Cortez, the new owner, stated that he did not feel he should have to put the sidewalk along 47th Street. He indicated that he would make sure that he keeps the store nice, but does not feel he should be held responsible for the sidewalk.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck opened the public hearing.
There was no public comment.
Motion by Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Commissioner Poyner, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried 8-0 ?
- Commissioner Artz absent -
Commissioner VanderHoff stated the he is in favor of approving the request and not in favor of condition 2 mandating that the tenant pay for the sidewalk. He stated that he thinks it is unreasonable since there are no sidewalks on 47th Street. Commissioner VanderHoff stated that in the future if the City thinks they should have sidewalks along 47th Street then it will be solved.
Commissioner Poyner stated that he is in favor of the project but doesn?t feel that condition 2 for the site plan review is necessary to have the tenant put a sidewalk on 47th Street.
Commissioner Itani?s concern was whether or not there are a lot of pedestrians in that area. Planner Pung stated that at the times he has been out there he hasn?t seen anyone walking on the streets. He indicated he could contact the police department to see what the pedestrian activity is in that area. Commissioner Itani also wanted to know how someone with a wheelchair would get access to the business. Planner Pung stated that there is sidewalk along Division Avenue with wheelchair access. Commissioner Itani stated that he is in favor of the project and he could live without condition 2.
Secretary Winczewski stated that he would like to see the sidewalk there, but he doesn?t think that the tenant should be responsible. He stated that it could be risky to put this condition on the lessee because it could lead to the property owner evicting the tenant. He stated that he would like to also take out condition 2.
Vice Chair Swanson had no comment.
Commissioner Sheldon?s concern was whether or not the condition would apply to the property or to the current lessee only. Attorney Sluggett stated that it would apply to anybody using the property for the purpose proposed. Commissioner Sheldon stated that she is in favor of seeing the area improve and is torn whether or not the condition should be applied to the lessee. She stated that she would like to see the sidewalk go in.
Commissioner Holtrop?s concern was whether or not they still needed a variance for parking. Planner Pung stated that if they can indicate how they can provide the parking spaces to meet the ordinance they would not need the variance.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she agrees with the commissioners comments. She stated that she thinks it is unfair the owner is not taking up the responsibility to put the sidewalk on 47th Street. Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck thought that the owner should be the one to place the sidewalks at the property. She stated that she doesn?t think the lessee should have to do it. She stated that she would agree that condition 2 and basis point 1 be removed for the special land use, site plan recommendation.
Motion by Commissioner Winczewski , supported by Commissioner Itani, to grant conditional approval of the Special Land Use Convenience Store as described in Case #17-06 Rosi?s Mini Mart. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 and basis points 1-5 as described in Planner Pung?s memo dated 7/25/06.
- Motion carried 8-0-
- Commissioner Artz absent ?
Motion by Commissioner Winczewski, supported by Commissioner Poyner, to grant conditional approval of the Site Plan dated May 11, 2006 as described in Case 17-06 Rosi?s Mini Mart. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1,3 and 4 and basis points 2, 3 and 4 as described in Planner Pung?s memo dated 7/25/06.
- Motion Carried 7-1-
- Commissioner Swanson opposed -
- Commissioner Artz absent -
H. Public Hearing
Case #20-06 - Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
Director Schweitzer stated that he met with the City Commission Ordinance Committee members prior to the meeting and he proceeded to share their comments. The public hearing for the City Commission will be held August 15.
Section 13.04.F pertaining to Special Land use public hearings, the City Commission Ordinance Committee had three concerns. One concern related to provision 3) failure to notify a party or an address not listed in city records shall not jeopardize compliance with this section. The committee wanted the City Attorney?s opinion whether or not this provision is valid in light of the new zoning enabling act. Attorney Sluggett stated that it is. The second concern was Section 13.07.B pertaining to the Zoning Board of Appeals, where there is a phrase (or cause to place) they felt that was repetitive and redundant language; they want to take out the phrase. The third concern is whether or not there is a need within the zoning ordinance to define what the zoning act is. Attorney Sluggett stated that it is a good idea to add it as a definition or the first time it is used in the amendments say what it is. Director Schweitzer stated that the City Commission Ordinance Committee's recommendation would be to have some provisions for definition in the two options. Director Schweitzer stated that if the commission is inclined to approve this set of proposals they would modify the wording to be responsive to that and offer to the City Commission as part of the recommendation. Then they would see what the language is on the acceptance of the Findings of Fact at the next meeting.
Section10.02.A pertaining to the Industrial Table of Uses, the City Commission Ordinance Committee suggested making some of the use allowances the same in light industrial as they are in heavy industrial. Director Schweitzer stated that another aspect of this is industrial selling retail; it allows them the option through special land use review to have drive through service. They also had discussion about the 50,000 square foot threshold for office and industrial they felt the change in language was reasonable. Director Schweitzer stated that if the planning commission is inclined to go with these modifications on the very last paragraph of the basis change the last sentence that refers to the staff perception should be treated as a permitted use; and modify it to say that the planning commission feels that the requested use qualifies a kennel and should be classified as a special land use in the industrial zone.
Section 15.04.C pertaining to Site Design Standards for Special Land Use Animal Hospitals. The Ordinance Committee had split concerns, one felt that they just need to leave it alone and use the present restrictions on a 75 foot front yard setback and a 50 foot perimeter setback from all the property lines. Others felt that by going with the proposed change it provides more flexibility in locating this type of use within the community.
Section 15.04.R regarding Site Design Standards for Special Land Use Kennels. Director Schweitzer stated that this amendment is similar to what Ada Township is considering to adopt and the City of Auburn Hills was adopted. The ordinance committee felt that this was reasonable but they wanted to add a number 14) require that a parking plan is submitted for the use that would account for both principle and accessory uses that would be located on the property.
Section 5.03.B pertaining to R-1 Residential Development Requirements proposed to increase the maximum lot coverage in the R1-C and R1-D districts. The ordinance city commission does not want to pursue this. They feel that the current allowances are reasonable. The Ordinance Committee stated that if they have an exceptional circumstance the Zoning Board of Appeals is available. They felt that this is a provision that has been in place for quite a number of years and they have had very few request for variances on it and they are not sure that there is a pressing need to allow for more intense use for residential properties. Director Schweitzer stated that the Ordinance Committee thought there is a value to having green space and open space on the individual lots. Vice Chair Swanson asked how we compare to our neighboring cities. Director Schweitzer stated that Walker and Wyoming allow up to 35% coverage and Grand Rapids allows up to 50%. City Commission Ordinance Committee felt that there isn?t a need to change the allowance. Planner Pung indicated that a number of lots within Bailey?s Grove would appear to exceed 30% lot coverage.
Section 17.08.A pertaining to Residential Parking restrictions, the City Commission Ordinance Committee felt that the proposed language needed more work. They felt that basing the restrictions on the parking of large vehicles based upon the gross weight of the vehicle would be a very difficult ordinance to administer and they didn?t want to come up with an ordinance that the city could not enforce. They have asked staff to go back to the drawing board pertaining to this section.
Section 12.03.C.6 pertaining to Building Height Requirements in RPUD-1 the City Commission Ordinance Committee had no problem with this.
Section 21.02.A pertaining to Zoning Board of Appeals composition and terms of office, the City Commission Ordinance Committee felt that staff should continue to work with a seven person board. If there is a problem with getting quorums for the meetings, the Mayor?s Office should deal with those who are continually missing those meetings. They did not want to introduce alternates that may or may not be up on the progression of reviews by the Zoning Board on a month by month basis.
Section 13.03 pertaining to guidelines for amendments of the official Zoning Map the City Commission Ordinance Committee did not want to pursue this since they felt that this would limit their discretion on rezonings. The planning commission will continue to use these as guidelines and basis for recommendation to the city commission, but the city commission will not be bound by this set of guidelines.
Section 8.03.C pertaining to Parking Requirements for Convenience Stores in the C-2 zoning. The City Commission Ordinance Committee is up in the air on this one, they had no strong feelings one way or the other.
Commissioner Poyner asked about if we enacted the proposal changes to Section 13.03.C whether the City Commission would be more restricted when making decisions. Director Schweitzer stated that this reduces the scope of consideration that the City Commission could utilize in making the ultimate decision. Attorney Sluggett stated that he thinks it reduces the City Commissions flexibility.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck opened the public hearing.
There was no public comment.
Motion by Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Commissioner Poyner to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried 8-0 ?
- Commissioner Artz absent -
Vice Chair Swanson suggested that we adopt the proposed changes to section 5.03.B pertaining to residential lot coverage and section 21.02.A pertaining to Zoning Board of appeals composition. He felt that that is a good idea to have alternatives for the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Secretary Winczewski stated that we should leave section 21.02.A as it stands proposed and thinks we should adopt the proposed changes to Section 5.03 to allow for 35% lot coverage, and leave everything else as the City Commission Ordinance Committee has proposed.
Commissioner Itani agreed with Secretary Winczewski.
Commissioner Poyner stated that at the last meeting the commission decided to ask the developers if they had any issues about the 15 day notice. Director Schweitzer stated that the developers were asked for feedback on having an Escrow Fees and also having a Citizen Participation contact before they make application. Director Schweitzer stated that we are getting feedback and hope to have the report to the Commissioners by the August 8 meeting. Commissioner Poyner stated that he is in favor of 13.04.F, he likes the idea of putting in the definition of the zoning act. Poyner stated that he is in favor of the alternatives for the ZBA also.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck wanted to make sure commissioners knew what they are going to be voting on:
Proposal 1 -13.03.B 13.04.F, 13.07.B and 13.05 C with the addition of the definition Zoning Act.
Proposal 2 -Basis wording planning commission special land use
Proposal 3- no change
Proposal 4- adding 14. Parking plan to account for principle and accessory use
Proposal 5 -5.03.B leave the lot coverage at 35% maximum lot coverage
Proposal 6- pull out the parking restrictions to allow more staff time to devise restrictions that will work.
Proposal 7 ? no changes
Proposal 8 ? no changes
Proposal 9 leave in Section 21.02.A
Proposal 10 13.03.C remove
Proposal 11 no change.
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by, Commissioner Sheldon, to recommend to the City Commission to amend the City of Kentwood Zoning Ordinance removing proposal changes to Section 13.03.C and 17.08 and adding a definition of the zoning act and amending the basis for the changes to Section 10.02.A in Schweitzer?s memo dated 7/17/06.
- Motion Carried 8-0-
- Commissioner Artz Absent
Case #21-06 ? City of Kentwood rezoning of approximately 2.3 acres of land from C-2 Community Commercial to C-5 Neighborhood Commercial
Director Schweitzer introduced the request. He stated that this involves eight properties in the 5600-5700 block of Division Avenue running north /south of Nancy/Nora. He stated that the properties are currently zoned C-2 and the proposed Zoning would be C-5 Neighborhood Commercial Corridor Zoning. Director Schweitzer stated that one of the benefits is that there are allowances in terms of building and parking locations that are more in tune to the setting. Director Schweitzer stated that the properties are shallow in depth and when you apply the commercial retail requirements it starts compressing down the shallow lots so that it is very difficult to redevelop on these properties. Director Schweitzer stated that C-5 is a reasonable way to approach these properties. Director Schweitzer stated that the property located at 5658 Division Avenue was being proposed for redevelopment. He stated that they want to redevelop the convenience store but with the C-2 zone district their redevelopment plans they would need 11 variances. If it is proposed under the C-5 zoning, the plan that they have in mind requires only one variances. Director Schweitzer stated that this is a good example of the potential this C-5 rezone would have for redevelopment along the corridor. He stated that the three properties furthest south are currently single family homes there is another residential use located North of the Convenience store site. North of Nancy/Nora there is a service business building that is vacant and then another service type use that is north again of that. He also stated that the residential uses still in existence they would still be considered conforming uses under C-5 Zoning. The C-5 zone requirements would otherwise make it more feasible to redevelop these properties.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck opened the public hearing.
Yoon Yae owner of Y&K Party store located at 5658 South Division stated they have owned the business for 13 years and they are trying to tear down the old building and build a new one. She stated that they support the rezoning of the property.
Motion by, Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Commissioner Poyner, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried 8-0-
- Commissioner Artz Absent-
Commissioner Holtrop's concern was whether there were any other properties north or south along Division Avenue that should be considered. Director Schweitzer stated that as you go further north and south the depth of the properties increases a little more.
Commissioner Sheldon's concern was if we rezone to C-5 whether the residential homes would try to sell as commercial. Director Schweitzer stated that he thinks that it may be a factor in promoting that redevelopment. If they are going to have a residential use there, they are going to have to keep them up better. Commissioner Sheldon wondered whether or not it will change the property values. Director Schweitzer stated that it won?t change the property value. Division Avenue is currently zoned commercial, a different commercial classification should not have an effect on the property values.
Vice Chair Swanson asked if one the property on the southeast corner of Division and Nancy/Nora properties could be developed commercial with the C-5 zoning. Director Schweitzer stated that under the C5 zoning they would need at least a 70 foot lot width and 10,000 square foot lot area. He stated that it is a non conforming lot under C-2 and non-conforming under C-5. Vice Chair Swanson stated that he agrees with what the staff is proposing.
Commissioner Itani asked how this impacts what ITP needs to do in order to increase transit viability on that corridor and how does this fit in the overall land use plan that they need to develop. Director Schweitzer stated that Division Ave corridor has the highest ridership for the existing transit services and it is also a corridor being considered for more extensive transit service for the future. He stated that in order for that corridor to be a vital one, we need to allow for mixed use for just as much opportunity for residential along the corridor along with neighborhood commercial and C-5 allows that. He stated that the four homes along the stretch can continue to be used as residential properties and potentially values may increase for the residential use with further development as the a transit corridor.
Commissioner Poyner and Commissioner VanderHoff stated that they are in favor of the rezoning.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that it is good to have to C-5 neighborhood Commercial Corridor and she thinks this is a great start.
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Commissioner Poyner to recommend to the City Commission approval of the rezoning of approximately 2.3 acres of land from C-2 Community Commercial to C-5 Neighborhood Corridor Commercial as described in Case #21-06. Approval is conditioned on Basis 1 a-f as described in Director Schweitzer?s memo dated 7/17/06
- Motion Carried -8-0-
- Commissioner Artz absent -
I. Work Session
22-06 - Sam?s Club Carwash Special Land Use and Site Plan Review located at 4326 28th Street
Planner Sengupta introduced the request. He stated that the Planning Commission approved a request for a Vehicle Fueling Station on this site in 2005. Now, Sam?s Club is also requesting a Vehicle Wash Establishment on the same site. Sengupta stated that there are concerns with circulation, driver confusion and some congestion. He stated that they are requesting a special land use and site plan approval for a car wash use. He stated that his would be an approval for a new site plan for the entire site. He stated that it is zoned for commercial use and it would be in compliance with that. Planner Sengupta stated that there was a traffic study done and staff asked the applicants consultants to focus more on circulation and the conditions at the nearby intersections. Planner Sengupta stated that this use will not generate a significant increase in traffic. He stated that as far as the internal circulation is concerned the study agreed that there are some driver confusions there and congestion was also there when the gas station initially began operations. Since then it has toned down. The study has three alternatives that will modify the circulation on the site. He stated that alternative 1 and 2 would work better than 3 because they open up a variety of movement. Planner Sengupta went over the three alternatives with the commissioners. Planner Sengupta stated that one of the other things that he looked at was whether there was a bail out possible after a customer approaching the payment kiosk for the car wash. He stated they would have to turn back and use the bypass lane to leave the site and if it is not a lot of traffic on that site it may not be a problem. Planner Sengupta stated that they have excess parking spaces on the site so they are in compliance. He stated lot coverage will be considered in two different parts: the former Cheddar's part of the site would have to meet the zoning ordinance requirement of 75% where as the Sam Club part can use the variance and have up to 87%. He stated that if they use that lot coverage approach that site would not require any variances. Planner Sengupta stated that staff is working with the applicant on an overall landscaping plan.
Kendra Bulig, John Mucha and Jeff Heald were available to answer questions.
Commissioner Poyner stated that last time they were in they tried to work with the flow of traffic. He stated that he?s not convinced that they did a good job with it. He stated that it is very confusing when he drives through there now. He questioned whether the car wash was for members only. Applicant Buhlig stated that it is. She also stated that they are proposing to put up better signage on that property to show what direction they need to go and how to exit. She stated that they agree that the current signage is not effective on that property. Commissioner Poyner asked how many cars they expect to go through the car wash. Applicant Buhlig stated that they don?t think that they are going to accumulate anymore users than what the gas station is already receiving. She stated that she doesn?t think people are going to come just for the car wash, she believes that people will come only if they are coming purchase gasoline. She stated that you can pay for the car wash at the pump after putting gas in the car, at the kiosk, or pay by credit card at the entrance to the car wash. Commissioner Poyner asked how many cars they get going through the gas station in a typical hour. Jeff Heald of Metro Transportation Group stated that they had staff out there counting cars on a Saturday and Thursday evening. He stated that Saturday was heavier; they observed 100 vehicles during peak hours. Mr. Heald stated that a car wash with the size they are proposing would generate anywhere around 30-35 trips. He stated that they don?t anticipate the car wash being a heavy generator. He stated that the car wash is about three minutes per wash. Commissioner Poyner stated that he likes alternative 1 for the optimal traffic flow.
Tim Mason with CEI stated that considering the circulation issues that are out there, alternative one would solve some of those issues. He suggested that he likes the idea of closing the drive to the east or have it one way out. Mr. Mason demonstrated with the drawings how he sees the traffic flow and what kind of circulation they foresee.
Commissioner Itani asked whether or not we have any data from the car wash during the peak hour. Applicant Heald stated that they do not. Applicant Heald stated that only a select few will be arriving to the site because they are members and only a portion of those people will get a car wash. He stated that they are probably over calculating the number of people who will be getting their car wash. Commissioner Itani stated that he is in favor of alternative 1 as well.
Secretary Winczewski asked about the bail out for the car wash. Planner Sengupta will review the limitations associated with the proposed design.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that before the next meeting the applicant needs to clarify how they are going to address the traffic circulation and whether the center median leading in to the car wash is going to be landscaped and how they are going to allow a bail out from the car wash lanes.
Secretary Winczewski asked if the fire department had reviewed the plan for the alternative which closes the north east lane. Planner Sengupta stated that it is, but the final site plan would have to be approved by the fire department.
Vice Chair Swanson asked if the northeast exit could swing to the south and operate as one way. He asked if the site would be manned or unmanned. Applicant Buhlig stated that the gas station is manned but the car wash would be unmanned. Vice Chair Swanson questioned if someone wants to bail out of the car wash whether someone be there to help him out. Applicant Buhlig stated that there will be an attendant inside the kiosk and they are typically walking around to make sure everyone is okay. Vice Chair Swanson also stated that there will be some days in the middle of the winter when the car wash demand will be unusually high. Vice Chair Swanson stated that on those kinds of days you will end up with a lot of circulation problems. Applicant Mason stated that Walmart tracks that information and they will communicate with the club and they will make sure that they are carefully stocked, supplied and ready to go. Vice Chair Swanson stated that one of his issues he has had with Sam?s Club for quite some time are carts. He stated that the last time Sam?s Club came in they built a large area for carts and promised there wouldn?t be any carts in the parking lot. He stated that there are still carts in the parking lot. Applicant Buhlig stated that she spoke with the store manager, Jim Olsen, and told him that they needed to be moved and they were no longer to be sitting in the lot. He needed to make sure that the carts within the parking lot are picked up throughout business hours and at the end of the evening. Applicant Buhlig stated that she hasn?t been able to track them. She stated that Mr. Olsen has assured her that it has been cleaned up. She drove by the site and it looked like it was in good shape. Vice Chair Swanson stated that it would be nice the store manager came forward with a plan as to how he is going to deal with that because it has been an issue. Applicant Buhlig stated that she will get with Jim Olsen and see his schedule as to when he has someone going out to remove the carts from the parking lot.
Commissioner Sheldon stated that she would not like to see that north east entrance blocked. She would just like to see a lot of signage there that says do not enter or one way. She thinks it is important to have the additional exit there. She stated that she has been in a car wash line where it has broken down and customers are sitting there with no bail out. She stated that the landscaping looks good, but, she suggested that it be modified to allow for a bail out. Applicant Mason stated that they can accommodate. Applicant Mason stated that if you run into an operational issue with the car wash you will still be able to drive through the car wash. He stated you will have the option to drive through. Commissioner Sheldon asked if the doors will come down. Applicant Mason stated that those doors are there for the winter months so they will be up most of the time other than that. Commissioner Sheldon stated she would like to see a bail out and the entrance remain a one way but not closed off.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck's concerns were whether or not there have been any fender benders at this site. Applicant Buhlig stated that she is not aware of any. Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that this looks like a start of a good plan and they need to check the proposed building elevations to make sure they are correct because the east, west, north and south are all mixed up. Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck reviewed the issues that need to be addressed noting that alternative 1 needs to be modified somewhat. She stated that she likes the idea the north east exit as Vice Chair Swanson suggested. She stated that they also need a bail out by the pay kiosk and the carts need to be addressed and they would like to have a written statement, stating that will be taken care of.
23-06 ? Heritage Pointe (East Paris Professional Complex) Final Site Plan of a PUD located on the South East corner of Burton and East Paris
Planner Sengupta introduced the request. He stated that the PUD was approved in 2005 rezoning from residential to an office planned unit development. He stated that the proposal is for 70,000 square foot of office space aggregating six different parcels. He stated that the master plan recommendation for the site was mixed use, however, when they went through the rezoning they decided to go forward with primarily office use with the understanding that there will be some features that would make it more residential in nature. He stated that one of the conditions was to have a shared drive onto East Paris Avenue that would be tree lined and more residential in character. Staff is working with the applicant to address site constraints limiting the access design. Other issues with the site plan are revised access to the property, pedestrian connections within the site as well as to the neighboring properties, provision of site amenities like benches, bike racks, information kiosks, public art, planters and streetscape enhancements; Tree survey, retaining/relocating matured trees that are there on the site, and revision of the PUD agreement.
Doug Stalsonburg stated that the reason it has taken them nine months to come back to the planning commission for the final site approval was because there was an unknown plat restriction that limited the use of the previously platted site to residential use only. He stated that it took unanimous approval from all of the property owners within the overall plat and they also had to agree to elimination of a drainage easement that crosses the property that used to carry water from East Paris down to the east. He stated that the property owners have agreed. He stated that the building is not 70,000 square feet it has been downsized and refined to 66,000 square feet and it is still a two level building. The bus turn out has been eliminated from the plan. Since it did not make enough allowance for a bus to transition safely to the left turn at the Burton / East Paris intersection. Applicant Stalsonburg stated that at the entry drive there was attempt to meet with the property owner to the south and that was also unsuccessful. So they moved the drive as far south as possible and put the curve radius right on the property line and provided the stub with appropriate easements that would provide access to the south property. He stated that it opens up significant stacking area for traffic entering East Paris. He stated that at the staff meeting the applicant did agree to provide pedestrian connection to the east and into the south. He stated that they have complied with the Fire Department and the latest review letter from the Engineering Department. He stated that they have not done a complete tree survey; he stated he has been on the site a couple of times and it looks green now, but there is a lot of brush and junk trees. Applicant Stalsonburg stated he would like to have discussion later because the condition is to replace the trees that are to be removed of a similar size and species.
Commissioner Sheldon asked why there was not another entry off of Burton. Applicant Stalsonburg stated that Burton Street is controlled by Kent County Road Commission and East Paris is controlled by the City. He stated that they have tried everything to get a curb cut but the County would not allow it.
Commissioner Poyner asked whether they approached the property owner to the east to see if they would be willing to sell. Applicant Stalsonburg stated that they have several times to purchase a piece of that property to line up a drive with the existing MVP Sports drive and the owner was not interested. He stated that shortly after that a for sale sign went up on his property but he did not make an attempt to purchase the entire property. Applicant Stalsonburg stated that the Kent County Road Commission was not in favor of a driveway there at all because of the curvature and grade of Burton Street. They didn?t think it was a good location.
Applicant Stalsonburg stated that they will be extending the left turn lane along East Paris Avenue from where it terminates now across their frontage and then tapering back south of the property line back to the four lane section.
Commissioner Itani asked if this is approved as office PUD whether the rest of the property to the south is going to be residential. Planner Sengupta stated that the OPUD rezoning is only for the six parcels. The land use and zoning sub committee indicate that the 11 acre parcel to the south will probably have a better chance of mixing residential. It will be more residential than office, but there may be some office use in there as well.
Secretary Winczewski stated he thought the drainage easement was a contentious issue last time. He asked whether the Engineering Department and the DEQ had approved the elimination of this easement. Planner Sengupta stated that Engineering did look at the situation and at least two or three of the land owners did consult with the Engineering Department before they agreed to vacate. Secretary Winczewski asked if it was the applicants opinion that even if the applicant purchased a piece of the property to the east they are not guaranteed a curb cut on Burton because the county road commission does not feel the curvature on Breton is safe. Applicant Stalsonburg stated that that is correct. Secretary Winczewski asked if anything has changed with the property owners to the northeast with the trees since they were worried about the height of the proposed trees. Applicant Stalsonburg stated that there are two things that changed. The original plan had a dumpster that has been relocated and they did extend the pine trees further south that what was originally proposed. Applicant Stalsonburg explained the relative elevation changes between the properties. Secretary Winczewski stated that he likes the plan. He stated that he is nervous about the entire site traffic leaving and turning left onto East Paris.
Discussion ensued regarding cars turning left onto East Paris. Applicant Stalsonburg stated that right now they have a 150 foot taper from the five lane section which will end at their driveway 150 feet to the south it will be back to a four lane section. He stated that it is not much room.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck summarized the concerns: make sure the sidewalks work; see if there is anything that can be done with the traffic turning left and the trees.
Commissioner Itani suggested that they speak to the Kent County Road Commission again to see if they could get the driveway out on Burton Street. Applicant Satlsonburg stated that he will approach them again.
J. New Business
There was no new business.
K. Other Business
1. Commissioners? Comments
Secretary Winczewski asked whether it is common for communities to have alternatives for the ZBA. Director Schweitzer stated that he isn?t sure because it is a new provision in the state statute. Attorney Sluggett stated that some of the communities do have alternates but most don?t.
Secretary Winczewski also stated that he thinks Walgreens has possibly cut down more trees than allowed in the site plan and would like for staff to look at the site plan and pay the site a visit.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that the primary election is in two weeks. She also showed a July 15 article primary in the paper that highlighted Jeff Sluggett?s election for a prestigious post within the State Bar Association.
Vice Chair Swanson stated that he has yard signs and information on the ballot issues and to vote yes, yes, yes.
2. Staff?s Comments
Planner Sengupta stated that Wildflower Creek should be coming in for the August 22 and meeting to present some changes to the original PUD agreement. Planner Sengupta created four graphic options for section 13 and 34 for the use of the commissioners to consider and make any comments that they may have.
L. Adjournment
Motion by Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Commissioner Holtrop, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- Commissioner Artz absent
Meeting adjourned at 9:45pm
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Winczewski, Secretary
|