Kentwood Committees & Boards
Planning Commission (Back to index)
Minutes for 08/22/2006APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 22, 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 Betsy Artz.
C. Roll Call:
Members Present: Betsy Artz, Laurie Sheldon, Ray Poyner, Dan Holtrop, Abed Itani, Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Ed Swanson, Frank VanderHoff, and Chris Winczewski.
Members Absent: None
Others Present: City Attorney Jeff Sluggett, Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Economic Development Planner Lisa Golder, Planner Joe Pung, Planner Debargha Sengupta, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, the press, the applicants and three citizens.
D. Approval of the Minutes of August 8, 2006.
Secretary Winczewski stated that he would like to start adding Vice-Chair, Chair, and Secretary etc. to the minutes in order to more easily identify who people are from printed minutes.
Motion by Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Commissioner Sheldon, to approve the Minutes of August 8, 2006, meeting.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
E. Approval of the Agenda for August 22, 2006
Motion by Vice-Chair Swanson, supported by Commissioner Artz, to approve the agenda for the meeting.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
F. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.
There was no public comment.
G. Old Business
There was no Old Business
H. Public Hearing
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 some of the issues that came up during the work session were the traffic and circulation within the site. There was a traffic study done that focused on circulation within the site. The study identified that there may be congestion and driver confusion. He stated that with the property site design, some of the issues can be rectified. There were three alternatives presented and one was identified as the best option. There was discussion regarding the northeast connection to the parking lot. After review the applicant offered to have the northeast connection closed with bollards and staff would review the circulation again in a year?s time. Based on the findings staff would require them to either close the drive or open it based on the traffic conditions in the site. There was also discussion at the work session regarding bail out for customers using the car wash. Planner Sengupta stated that limited bail out capability has been incorporated into the site plan. They have paved a portion of the island that was separating the carwash lanes from the bypass lane that would allow for limited bail out. Planner Sengupta stated that he believes that will work very well. He also stated that the parking was discussed at the work session. They have the parking required by the ordinance and also what they anticipate the site would need. There is a landscaping plan currently under consideration by staff. If this project gets approved they will have to submit a revised landscaping and outdoor lighting plan for the whole site that would be reviewed and approved by staff.
John Mucha, the Attorney for the applicant, Kendra Buhlig from CEI representing Sam?s Club and Jeff Heald the traffic consultant were present to answer questions.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck opened up the public hearing.
There was no public comment.
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Commissioner Itani to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
Vice-Chair Swanson stated that he thinks the site plan is fine, but he wanted to know what they plan to do to handle carts. Kendra Buhlig stated that she has talked to the manager on several occasions and she was informed that there are two people from Monday-Thursday each shift that are out there all the time collecting carts bringing them in. If they are not out there collecting carts they are helping people load. On weekends, Friday ? Sunday they have four people per shift that are there to collect carts. Vice-Chair Swanson stated that the carts he is worried about are the ones that are being stored in the parking lot. Kendra Bulig stated that the carts they are storing are those that are waiting for someone to come and fix. She has asked Sam?s Club to keep those carts inside when they are waiting to get fixed. She stated that it takes a week for someone to repair or haul off the broken carts.
Commissioner Sheldon and Commissioner Artz stated that it looks good.
Commissioner Holtrop asked if the bail out from the carwash into the exit lane can be angled out a little bit so customers can merge into any traffic that that may be coming. Ms. Buhlig stated that that is a possibility. Commissioner Holtrop stated that he likes that the bollards are in there, but, it seems like someone will not see them until they pull into there. He asked if two sets of bollards can be put in as they are exiting the gas station. Planner Sengupta stated that they will also have ?No Entry? signs there.
Commissioner VanderHoff stated that on condition two it specifies that the trucks using the gas station shall only use the route represented in the Site Plan. His concern was how will we enforce that. Planner Sengupta stated that if we catch them doing that, we will have to notify the store manager and let them know that there is a condition in place and have him enforce that for us. Commissioner VanderHoff stated that the he thinks the Site Plan and the Special Land Use are fine.
Commissioner Poyner stated that he is in favor and likes the idea of giving it twelve months to see how the traffic flow works.
Motion by Secretary Winczewski, supported by Commissioner Poyner, to grant conditional approval of the Special Land Use of Sam?s Club Car wash as described in Case #22-06 and as per Site Plan dated August 10, 2006. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-3 adding a number 4 to add a revised landscape site plan and basis points 1-7 in Planner Sengupta?s memo dated 8-18-06.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
Motion by Secretary Winczewski, supported by Commissioner Poyner, to grant conditional approval of Sam?s Club Car Wash Site Plan as described in Case #22-06 and as per Site Plan dated August 10, 2006. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-6 and basis points 1-7 in Planner Sengupta?s Memo dated 8-18-06.
- Motion Carried (9-0) -
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 at the work session the main concern was the desire to extend the center turn lane further south of the south line of the site. He stated that it can only be approved if offered by the developer since that is considered an off site improvement. He stated that when the property to the south is developed the center turn lane issue will be revisited and they will ask the developer to extend the center turn lane. He stated that the developer was initially considering a bus stop but the ITP looked at it and said that will not work. They stated it will have to be located further south of this site in order to allow buses to safely transition to a left turn at Burton Street. This issue will be revisited when the property to the south is developed. He stated that some of the other issues were enhancement of the pedestrian and non-motorized trail system within the site and connecting with the larger public system. Another issue was adding sidewalks along the south and the west access drive. He stated that those will be added when the southern property develops. He stated that a tree survey was conducted on the site and the applicant will replace most of the significant trees on the site that can not be retained. Planner Sengupta stated that the general landscaping will exceed the landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance in order to make up for the trees that could not be replaced. He stated that the provisions of the other amenities will be reviewed and approved with the final landscaping plan for the site. Planner Sengupta stated that a few parking spaces will be added near the north east corner if there is a favorable grade and no wet lands and existing significant trees. He stated that the PUD agreement will have to be revised and approved by staff and the City Attorney?s Office.
Doug Stalsonburg was there to represent the request. He stated that in the north east corner, four parking spaces have been added to the plan. He stated the island was eliminated and the cross pedestrian walkway was extended out to East Paris sidewalk to make that connection. He also stated that condition number three talks about a sidewalk connection to Burton which is not shown on the Site Plan and they have no problem doing that except in the north east corner where it is noted that they have a grade issue, he thinks it will have to be moved further to the west.
Chair Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck opened the public hearing.
Shawn Nicholson is a resident at 4074 Burton next door to the project, stated that he wants to know what is going to be on the other side of the buffer of trees. Mr. Stalsonsburg explained to him that the buffer on the east side of the site will be landscaped and that there will no longer be a maneuvering lane running along the east side of the building.
Bill Pipe, 4100 Burton, wanted to know the typical usage hours and wondered whether or not it could change to a 24 hour use without the city approval. Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that the commissioners are only reviewing the plans.
Director Schweitzer stated that this is an Office PUD zone and if the commission felt that it was appropriate, limitations could be assigned to the project. If there is reasonable basis on assigning limitations on hours the commission will be able to do that.
Shawn Nicholson stated that his concern would be MRI Clinics. He stated that they run 24 hours a day and this could open it up to people coming in and going out 24 hours a day. He is concerned about that and thinks that could be a problem.
Director Schweitzer stated that if the Planning Commission felt that it was a factor for this project it would require concurrence by the City Commission to assign it as a condition at this point in time.
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Vice-Chair Swanson to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
Commissioner VanderHoff stated that he was in favor of the site plan.
Commissioner Poyner asked if the Planning Commission put stipulations on the hours of operation would the City Commission have to approve that. Director Schweitzer stated that on a Final Site Plan approval of a PUD, this type of request would be dealt with by the planning commission. Director Schweitzer stated that if a condition is composed that would go beyond the Site Plan then that would require revisiting with the City Commission to see if they would concur with that. Commissioner Poyner stated that he doesn?t feel comfortable restricting the hours of operation and is okay with the proposal as it is.
Commissioner Itani wanted to know if the entrance to the development will be signalized. Planner Sengupta stated no. Commissioner Itani stated that at the last meeting they were asked to explore the idea of having an exit from the northern part of the development on Burton and right turn in and right turn out lane. Commissioner Itani?s other concern regarding East Paris and Burton was whether there are future plan to include a right turn lane on East Paris. He stated that this issue needs to be addressed before he would vote in favor of this project. Planner Sengupta stated that a traffic study was done when we were considering the PUD and that study did not identify a need for a right turn lane at that intersection. Commissioner Itani stated that his concern is that a lot of people will try to turn right to go east bound on Burton because you don?t have that northern exit and entrance and that will create congestion. He stated that it is very congested during peak hours. Commissioner Itani stated that if we wait for the next development to be developed we are going to have a problem. Planner Sengupta stated that the study showed that the right turn traffic will have a traffic stack up to 230 feet that is where the drive was. Planner Sengupta stated that the drive was moved to have additional space for stacking on the right turn lane.
Secretary Winczewski asked what happened to the trees along the Northeast lost line. Mr. Stalsonburg stated that they are still represented on the landscape plan. Secretary Winczewski asked if Mr. Stalsonburg spoke to the county regarding the northern drive. Mr. Stalsonburg stated that he has had extensive conversations and they would allow a right in right out, but they wanted the exit and entrance lanes extended into the site too far. This request would use a significant part of the site. Mr. Stalsonburg stated that he would have lost around 15-20 parking spaces and maybe part of the building. Secretary Winczewski suggested that we table this and see if staff could work something out, with the county. Secretary Winczewski agrees that traffic there is already an issue and he thinks it is going to get worse it we wait until the land to the south is developed.
Vice-Chair Swanson stated that the right turn in right turn out would be a great addition.
Commissioner Artz stated that she agrees with the commissioners and if tabling is an option then she is for that.
Commissioner Sheldon stated that she wants to table this request. She stated that she is not comfortable voting on it tonight. She stated that she has had concerns about the traffic a couple of weeks ago and has even more concerns now.
Commissioner Holtrop stated that his concern was traffic in the other direction.
Secretary Winczewski asked Mr. Nicholson whether his property was for sale. Mr. Nicholson stated that it is not at this time.
Commissioner Poyner?s concern was if this request is tabled what the commission wants to see done. Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she would like staff to get a hold of the County to see if they can do something in regards to the right in right out on Burton and East Paris. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Stalsonburg stated that they would not have a problem with tabling. He stated he would like to be at the meeting with Wayne Harrall and John Strunk. He doesn?t want them to come back and say we will give you a right in right out, but, cause them to redesign the site, lose building and lose parking and start over. He stated that it is going to have to be reasonable.
Motion by Secretary Winczewski, supported by Commissioner Itani, to table Case #23-06 to September 12,2006 pending staff?s review with the Kent County Road Commission on possible right in right out on Burton and possibly aligning the drive with MVP.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
I. Work Session
Case #24-06 - CBS Partners Site Plan Review located at 2300 44th Street SE
Planner Pung introduced the request. He stated that this is a site plan review for a 6,000 square foot shopping center. He stated that the lot is 86 feet wide and 330 feet deep. He stated that the building is on the west property line perpendicular to 44th Street. Some issues that were bought up in the staff report are provision for cross-access to the west consistent with the Master Plan recommendation, lack of architectural features windows etc. to break up the west building wall, addition of a pedestrian connection from the 44th Street sidewalk to the building and the building orientation. Planner Pung stated that there are two properties to the west, one of which is owned by the City of Kentwood and the other is private. Planner Pung stated that staff is encouraging the applicant to aggregate those three parcels. They would be able to create a single development which will provide better visibility, better cross access and easier to provide cross access to a future road that will connect Countrywood Dr to 44th Street. In the Fire Marshall report the issue that was bought up was the size of the building requiring fire lanes on both long sides. The applicant has appealed this requirement to the fire department and it is still under review.
Howard VandenToorn was there representing CBS Partners. He stated that they are willing to provide cross access but through the back of the property. He stated that they have been asked to move this building 25 feet back which hides the building. He stated that it meets the ordinance requirements. He stated that when they apply for a building permit they will do the things that are required. He stated that it is not hard to get some architectural relief on the back either using windows or setting block. Mr. VandenToorn?s concern was if the building were turned where patrons would park. He said that the building is 120 feet long and the way the building is proposed the project is feasible. Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that instead of having the building on the west side of the property make it so it is on the east side of the lot and the parking lot on the west. Vandentoorn stated that they have consulted other people who have developed in the area and it was suggested that moving the building to the east would kill the project. He stated that if the building is facing the east as you come down 44th street you will have poor visibility of the shopping center. He stated there was some discussion with combining those properties, he voted for that and pushed it and he thinks it is a great idea. He stated that the parcel has been for sale for two years and if either one wanted to buy they would sell it to them. He stated that the property owner to the west does not want to sell. VandenToorn stated that he has a legal conforming property and they have removed an eye sore and all they are asking is to be allowed to participate in Kentwood?s ?Open for Business? philosophy. He stated that anything the ordinance requires them to do they will do.
Commissioner Poyner wondered what the occupancy rate is for all the retail centers around 44th and Breton today. He stated that his concern from a marketing stand point is a number of the shopping centers have many vacancies and he just wonders about adding another set of retail stores. VandenToorn stated that they have the same concerns, but the building will not be built until there is a tenant for it. Commissioner Poyner asked how many potential tenants will there be. VandenToorn stated that what they envision for this project is retail in front and office in the back.
Director Schweitzer added that the recent Master Plan update did anticipate for the 44th and Breton area that there was ability for greater retail market in the general area.
Commissioner Poyner asked VandenToorn whether this project been presented to any possible tenants. VandenToorn stated that he has spoken to two people and one dropped off. He also stated that he has had conversations with another gentleman too. Commissioner Poyner stated that turning the building 180 degrees is a good point. Commissioner Poyner asked about the height of the adjacent building to the west. Vandentoorn stated that it is a home and it is a walkout. He stated that there is a 4 ? foot grade separation. VandenToorn stated that he agrees with the Master Plan.
Commissioner Itani asked whether it was feasible for the cross access to the west be moved more to the south. VandenToorn stated that they have thought about that too but they have two problems. One if they move the driveway south it will mess up their parking and two there are limits to the easement. VandenToorn stated that this was a system that the County agreed to and thought would work best.
Secretary Winczewski noted the grade differential associated with cross access along the south side of the proposed building. VandenToorn suggested that any cross access would require substantial fill.
Secretary Winczewski stated that Planner Pung suggested combining the three parcels (the house to the north, the city owned parcel and Mr. Vandentoorn?s property.) Secretary Winczewski asked whether the City was willing to sell the parcel. Planner Pung stated that the City is open to options. They have had some initial discussions on what we can do with the City property.
Secretary Winczewski asked when the road is going in. Planner Pung stated that there are no immediate plans for the road. VandenToorn stated that he was told that whoever obtains ownership of the City owned parcel will have to pay for the road. VandenToorn stated that if he adds that parcel he would have an acre and now he has to put in a detention pond. Secretary Winczewski stated that he understand the complications of the property, but, he would like to make it look nice for the City.
Secretary Winczewski?s other concern was that there is a zero foot setback on one side of the property which does not leave many development options for the property owner to the west. Secretary Winczewski stated that VandenToorn was concerned about sight lines from the east, he stated that there is nothing stopping the neighbor to the east from putting a zero foot setback on that property also. VandenToorn stated that the number of parking spaces he has is preventing them to do so, he stated that he can not leave that structure where it is and build another building on that side because it takes up the parking. Secretary Winczewski stated that he could technically tear the building down and put a zero foot set back building there. VandenToorn stated that he would like to reiterate that they have a parcel that meets all the standards. He stated that they have designed a building that meets everything except for the back side. He stated that they meet all the setback requirements. He stated that they are trying to beautify the neighborhood. Secretary Winczewski stated that what he is not doing is allowing cross access which is part of the plan for the area. Vandentoorn sated that he will allow cross access in the back. Secretary Winczewski stated that what we want is cross access by the street so that retail frontage along the entire 44th can make use of the access. He stated that he will not vote for this unless the plan improves..
Vice-Chair Swanson stated that he is concerned that what we will end up with is a perpendicular shopping center and they don?t have the best record as staying rented and you end up with empty space. He stated that he wants to see this done in a manner so that it stands a good chance for success. He suggested that a rectangular building with orientation to the front and limited parking in the front, larger parking in the back, the lower level worked with adjacent parcels, cross access that worked both to the back and to the front. The property to the east and west could also be attached to the development and make a much nicer looking parcel and work better for all developers involved. He stated that they need to go together. Vice-Chair Swanson stated that this site plan doesn?t work for him.
VandenToorn stated that it was his understanding that there were many orientations tried and he agrees with the merits of the rectangular box. He stated once again that nothing is being built until they have a tenant for the building if there is no tenant then it will not be built.
Vice-Chair Swanson stated that if VandenToorn comes with a tenant that shows him this will work then he might be receptive to approving it. He stated that he is not ready to approve it at this time. Vandentoorn stated that there are several perpendicular buildings that work.
Commissioner Artz agreed with the other commissioners
Commissioner Sheldon stated that she is not happy with the site plan. She stated that she doesn?t want to see the back of the building when traveling east. She stated that she would also like to see the proposals for signage. She stated that she would like to see something redeveloped and thinks maybe they could have it look more like a home. She stated that as far as the back something different has to be done about that. Commissioner Sheldon stated that she supports bringing something into the area but she just would like to see something different than this plan.
Commissioner Holtrop asked how he intends to break up the walls. Vandentoorn stated that would break up the walls with windows. Commissioner Holtrop stated that the Fire Marshall doesn?t allow them when the building is placed on the lot line. Vandentoorn stated that it was suggested to him that he could put windows in there. He stated that he will address the issue as to why they will not allow windows. VandenToorn stated that in front he could use stiles. He will also put them in the back.
Vandentoorn stated that this is a design to give a footprint of the building so the commissioners would have something to look at. Commissioner Holtrop stated that VandenToorn mentioned a lot of perpendicular buildings having success and Commissioner Holtrop brought up Trinity Plaza and not being that successful. Vandentoorn stated that there are always people going in and out of there but he said that facility is making money. VandenToorn stated that he won?t build the shopping center until they have a tenant. Vandentoorn stated that there is one in Standale called JME, there is a sub shop in there on Lake Michigan Dr. on the south side of the road that is successful and advised the commissioners to go take a look.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that the concerns were signage, cross access, building orientation, architectural features of the building and she would like to have staff come up with the occupancy rate in the 44th Street/Breton area.
Case #25-06 ? T-Mobile Special Land Use and Site Plan Review located at 5592 S.
Division
Planner Golder introduced the request. She stated that the city has a Wireless Communication Plan that was adopted in 2000 and amended in 2001. Planner Golder stated that when this plan was adopted the city wanted to proactively designate areas where they wanted to see wireless communication towers. A consultant was hired to do this to comply with the federal regulations to provide adequate coverage for anyone who wanted to come in and bring a cellular service towers all over the city. Zoning regulations were subsequently devised to allow for the use of existing tall structures so if we have something tall, they can put an antenna on it..
Planner Golder stated that there are eight sites on the plan and the request is not consistent with that. When a tower comes in that is inconsistent with the plan then it is a Special Land Use. Planner Golder stated that this particular site that is being proposed is part of a Residential Planned Unit Development RPUD that we don?t have a plan for.
Planner Golder stated that the biggest issue is inconsistency with the Master Plan. She stated that she has had the consultant look at what the applicant has presented to see if it has met any of the standards. The consultant indicates that he does not believe the additional tower site is necessary and feels that there is a site at the 5800 block of Division in Wyoming that will serve the needs of the applicant as well as provide adequate coverage as outlined in the FCC regulations. Planner Golder stated that if the commission feels it necessary to have the consultant there for the public hearing to answer any questions she would do that. She stated that the city ask for 195 feet and this is less than that and it shows four equipment shelters and we only allow for two. She noted that the location of the proposed tower may make itt dufficult to come up with a good plan for the balance of the PUD zone.
Ken Kuzsbit was there to represent T-mobile. He stated that cell phones are not just a mobile phone but personal phones too. He provided an overview of their efforts to expand coverage in the southeast. He stated that they are having problems with the gapping coverage. Mr. Kuzpit stated that they weren?t aware of the split problems until after they ran title and found out the split has not been performed by the owner. He stated that they were told that they may not be able to develop the rest of the property. He stated that their site is in the northwest corner of the property and access is going through is the north. He stated that they have tried to work with the Wireless Plan, they have four sites in the city including the one that is built at 44th and Potter. He stated that in this request is stacked to 150. A letter of the changes from 2000 and 2001 until now was submitted to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Holtrop asked how tall the one is at 44th and Potter Mr. Kuspit stated that it is 155 and T- Mobile is at 140 feet at that tower. Commissioner Holtrop asked what the tower at 44th and Eastern does in terms of the coverage range compared to the Wyoming. Mr. Kuspit stated that the green on the map that was shown to the commissioners indicates strong coverage. Commissioner Holtrop stated that he is not in favor of adding another site because we already have a plan in place. Commissioner Holtrop asked if M. Kuspit if he could increase the height at 44th and Eastern. Mr. Kuzspit stated that they can go to 195 at the location but the radio Engineer stopped it at 140 feet at that location. Mr. Kusbpit stated that the reason they choose the height they choose is each tower can handle so many phone calls each carrier has so many radios frequencies available. The tower turns your phone call to a radio signal and sends it out to your phone. He stated that there is a limited capacity at each tower; it has to judge the anticipated call volume through the site. Commissioner Holtrop asked how high is the Wyoming location, Mr. Kuspit stated that it is 140 feet and they have indicated that 120 is available to them. He stated that they can?t go on top of that one.
Commissioner Sheldon wondered if they have the capability to build another tower near the Kentwood Bus garage, Mr. Kuspit stated that they are going on an existing tower. Commissioner Sheldon stated that she would like to see what the coverage is going to be with this additional tower that at the Kentwood Bus garage. He stated that he will provide this information at the public hearing.
Commissioner Artz?s concern was whether or not he has talked to any of the neighbors at the proposed site. He stated that he has talked to two neighbors when he had to do some photographs on Nora and they were Nextel customers. He stated that they are about 1200 feet from the neighbors to the east and he doesn?t know if they are going to have any issue.
Vice-Chair Swanson stated that he would like the consultant?s recommendation and have the applicant supply color copies of the coverage maps for the public hearing.
Secretary Winczewski stated that he would like to make sure we have consistent coverage. He feels that a lot of people are dropping their land line phones and as a safety issue it is a good thing to try to develop consistent coverage. He stated that since the plan hasn?t been revised since 2001 he would head up a committee to look at the Plan again to see if it needs changes and to work with the other cities. He stated that he is in favor of additional coverage but he doesn?t want to do it loosely, he would like for a committee to redo the plan to discover if the area sites need to be upgraded.
Commissioner Itani questioned whether the towers can be increased in height. Mr. Kuspit stated that if you have 200 phones calls you want a small tower so that you can handle that, if you are out in the boondocks where you need to go higher to cover a larger geographic area for the same call volume. Mr Kuspit stated that he had a recent meeting where Cingular and Nextel were there and looking for 120 to 150 feet elevation. Commissioner Itani asked if there was an equipment limitation that you can only handle 200 calls. Mr. Kusbit stated that it is the number of radio frequencies each carrier has and many frequencies have been issued by the FCC and there has to be enough separation between the calls so that they are not interfering with each other; the tower can only handle so many calls. Commissioner Itani stated that at this point the proposed does not comply with the Master Plan and the Wireless Communication Plan and it is proposed in a residential district. He stated that he thinks it could change the character of the neighborhood. He stated that he has an open mind and would like to work with him to help him.
Commissioner Poyner stated that the he thinks that staff needs to redo the Wireless Communication Plan. Commissioner Poyner also agrees that cell phones are a significant utility to the community. He stated that this could be less expensive than having a land line. He stated that most people have given up their land line phones and that speaks for cell phones coverage for the home and inside the structures as well. He stated that he thinks this is a significant issue for the community. He stated that he would be in favor of tabling this until the community and city has had a chance to assess what is going on in the surrounding area and what we need to do to have consistent coverage from the vehicles and homes.
Planner Golder stated that the consultant indicates the number and type of carriers have changed since 2001. Planner Golder stated that there is also an opportunity for an antenna to be placed on a church steeple or some other existing tall structures in order to address the coverage gaps.
Commissioner VanderHoff stated that he thinks we should see if we can make the site that is three blocks away from the proposed site to work. He stated that it is already set up and programmed for a tower site in Wyoming.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that her concern is that we had a very good plan and we recognized that things will be changing over time but they thought that things would be getting more compressed. She stated that she thinks there are all kinds of red flags. She stated that she would like to see coverage in Kentwood, but she doesn?t think it is possible for us to provide that for the entire community. She stated that she would like to hear from the consultant and she would like to see if we could find out from Wyoming what their maximum height is on the tower at 5800 Division because she feels that we can work with them. She stated that it is not our responsibility to cover the entire area surrounding Kentwood. She stated that she has to see something that says this location has to have a cell tower or she will not be in favor of this.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated the issues that need to be worked out is the 44th and Eastern coverage, the maximum height of the tower at 5800 Division to see if we can work with them, tower coverage is going to be on the tower at 60th and Eastern Kentwood Bus garage, need the colored maps of the coverage area. She also requested that any questions t the commissioners had be directed to Planner Golder for the consultant to have the answers by the next public hearing,
Case # 26-06 ? Wildflower Creek Major Change to a PUD located at North side of 52nd Street across from Bailey?s Grove Drive
Planner Sengupta introduced the request. He stated that this is a Major Change to an Approved PUD. He stated that what they are asking for is to have a maximum of 40% of the homes to have garages to the side than to the back. Also, PUD deviations to allow them to have a 12 feet building separations. The third is to have a waiver to have a minimum first floor aerial of 520. The fourth is allowing windows to have proportions other than twice their width. He stated they want garages to the side to have a bigger rear yard. They have agreed to put the garages so that they are not in the front, the garages would be setback at least six feet from the front building line. One issue was whether or not they would have enough off street parking spaces. The ordinance requires three off street parking spaces all the garages would be two stall garages. Sengupata stated that we would like to include a condition that would at least talk about the garages having the same kind of architecture that the building would have. Planner Sengupta stated that he talked to the building Inspections Department and they do not have any problems with the proposed building separation. He stated that the developer wants the garages to the side because the lots are narrow and keeping with the style of development with the area. They want the lower minimum first floor area but they are not reducing the minimum finished living space that was approved at the PUD. He stated that this will have a smaller footprint for a bigger yard. He stated that the window proportions were recommended as part of the architectural features. He stated that the applicant does not have intention on putting it in the lower level of the front fa?ade but they would like to have the ability to add the windows to the sides and to the upper level. He stated that if one or more of these changes is approved then the planning and city commission it would require an amendment to the existing PUD agreement and that has to be reviewed by staff and the attorney?s office.
Jack Barr with Nedeveld and Associates was there representing the request
Commissioner VanderHoff?s concern was why he is deviating from the original PUD plan. Mr. Barr stated that they are trying to give some diversity to some builders to get varying types of products approved and people like to have bigger backyards. Commissioner VanderHoff stated that regarding the building separation he would not be in favor of reducing it from 14 feet to 12 feet. He thinks it should be some room between houses and privacy. He stated that maybe they are trying to put too many houses on too few acres.
Commissioner Poyner asked if they already have people to buy the homes. Mr. Barr stated no, it is just something to stimulate some interest. Commissioner Poyner stated that one of the concerns that he would have is just maybe it is just the market today we might not be getting a lot of demand until things improve in the area. He stated that he didn?t understand the parking issue bought up by staff. Planner Sengupta stated that the ability to park a car in front of the garage if you have the garage to the sides you have a longer driveway and more cars can be parked.
Secretary Winczewski stated that he doesn?t mind neighborhoods that have some variants. He stated that he likes the changes over all and the variants of the houses.
Vice-Chair Swanson stated that he thinks there isn?t a problem with the changes they are very minor. He thinks it is a good idea to give the flexibility to make this project work and approval of the items would support that. He stated that this is a positive step.
Commissioner Sheldon stated that she is in favor. She likes the look.
Case #27-06 - Camp Bow Wow Special Land Use and Site Plan Review located at 4150 40th Street SE
Planner Golder introduced the request. She stated that the planning commission recommended approval of an amendment that would approve kennels in an industrial zone. She stated that at the August 15 City Commission hearing it was not approved, but, September 5, staff anticipates adoption. Planner Golder stated that they would like an 8,000 square foot daycare for dogs and boarding kennels. She stated that it meets the criteria, but it needs some clarification of some of the descriptions. They wish to have a smaller area for an outdoor fenced area they would like 3600 square feet, and they want a chain link fence. Staff is proposing a solid fence, the building adjacent has windows along that side. Planner Golder would also like to see information on the refuse disposal. She stated that on the site plan they are proposing a 10 foot fence they have been asked to drop it to 8 feet.
David and Cindy Haines were there to represent the request. Ms. Haines stated that Camp Bow Wow is a national franchise based in Denver Colorado.
Commissioner Sheldon asked about what they do with disposal of the waste. Cindy Haines stated that it is removed immediately by staff and the waste is picked up at a minimum of twice a week and if necessary it can be increased. Commissioner Sheldon asked if they have looked into burying it in the ground. Ms Haines stated that is not something that they do as a franchise. They will arrange for the removal from the properties.
Ms Haines stated that they have staff that works directly with the dogs and the set up is indoor/outdoor play area. She stated that they are a premier doggy daycare and provide overnight boarding. She stated that the indoor facility has indoor play area that is connected to outdoor play areas. She stated that all dogs are not allowed out at the same time.
Commissioner Poyner asked about the fence. Ms. Haines stated that they plan to put in the privacy vinyl fencing about 8 feet tall so that it is privacy and more aesthetically appealing.
Secretary Winczewski stated that he thinks it looks good.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck concerns was how many dogs they anticipate having at one time. Ms. Haines stated that they do not take more than 125 dogs. Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that the concerns were language that the City Commission adopted for changing the ordinance, the distance of the play area to the neighboring office building, if there are windows on the outside office area next to the proposed location.
J. New Business
Set public hearing date of September 26, 2006, for: The Woodbury Commons Phase III Preliminary Plat request was not scheduled for hearing at the applicants request.
This item was removed the applicant has asked to remove indefinitely at this point.
K. Other Business
1. Commissioners? Comments
Commissioner Artz indicated she will not be at the next Planning Commission meeting
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck thanked Commissioner Poyner for sending his recommendation on section 13.
Attorney Sluggett encouraged commissioners to take a look at the project sites and make a point when they were out there to note any particular observation, and mention that during the meeting that they were out there and this is what they saw.
2. Staff?s Comments
Attorney Sluggett stated that there are two separate sets of standards that you can rightfully look to when evaluating a site plan. The Site Plan review standards and also more generic standards. He stated that these are general standards the planning commission is to take into account at any time they have to make a decision and those are more subject to interpretation than some of the straight forward than the other site plan standards. Attorney Sluggett stated that under the zoning ordinance you are supposed to be looking at both sets of standards. He stated to look at those two sections and make that call at how you are interpreting this. Attorney Sluggett stated that VandenToorn is right, this is not a Special Land use, but that doesn?t mean there are some standards that require some interpretation on the commissions part. Attorney Sluggett stated that the planning commission has a right to take a look at the economic impact. He stated that he can put something together to for their packets to show the relevant standards and say here are your options. Director Schweitzer stated that the other section is 13.08 General Review Standards.
Director Schweitzer the City Commission did not agree with every Zoning Ordinance Amendment recommendation. He stated that the rezoning from C-2 to C-5 was tabled. The property owner to the north came and questioned the project. City Commission wanted to give more time for the convenience store owners to talk more with the neighbors to the north. Vice-Chair Swanson stated it was at ZBA on Aug 21 and it was tabled because the City Commission did not take action. He added that the owner of the adjacent house used to own the convenience store and sold it to them and cut off access between them and the adjacent street. He has offered to sell them the house twice at $40,000 and they didn?t take it up they have since then offered him $50,000 and he said that is not enough.
Director Schweitzer stated that he wanted the LUZ committee to meet before the next meeting. A property at the northwest corner of 32nd and East Paris is zoned R3, it is on the market and there is a development concept for the property that exceeds both zoning and master plan. Commissioner Sheldon and Secretary Winczewski will sit in on the meeting, replacing to commissioners who will not be able to attend.
L. Adjournment
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Commissioner VanderHoff to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
Meeting adjourned at 9:45p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Winczewski, Secretary
|