Kentwood Committees & Boards
Planning Commission (Back to index)
Minutes for 08/28/2007APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 28, 2007, 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 Swanson.
C. Roll Call:
Members Present: Betsy Artz, Laurie Sheldon, Dan Holtrop, Nancie McIntyre-Evenocheck, Ed Swanson, Frank Vander Hoff, and Chris Winczewski.
Members Absent: Abed Itani
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, two residents and the applicants.
Motion by Secretary Winczewski, supported by Vice Chair Swanson, to excuse Commissioner Itani from the August 28, 2007 meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent -
D. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by Vice Chair Swanson, supported by Commissioner VanderHoff, to approve the Minutes of August 14, 2007.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent -
E. Approval of the Agenda
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Commissioner VanderHoff, to approve the agenda for the August 28, 2007 meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent -
F. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.
There is no public comment.
G. Old Business
Commissioner VanderHoff excused himself due to a potential conflict of interest
Case #8-07 - Bretonfield ? Rezoning of approximately 102 acres from R1-C Single Family Residential to R-PUD-2 Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review of a Preliminary PUD Plan located at 60th Street west of Wing Ave.
Planner Pung introduced the request.
Introduction
Request to rezone 102 acres from R1-C single family residential To R-PUD-2 single family PUD was tabled by the Commission at the last meeting to allow the applicant to look at increasing open-space adjacent to the Paul Henry Trail.
Changes from Last Meeting
The applicant relocated 2 lots from each of the 2 northern cul-de-sacs which pulled the cul-de-sacs a little further south thereby creating some additional open-space area adjacent to the trail.
Three issues had been raised by citizens at the public hearing. They were:
1. Concern with how Breton would impact the Paul Henry Trail.
There will be a grade separation between Breton Avenue and the Paul Henry Trail. The plan is for Breton Avenue to go over the Paul Henry Trail which was shown in a conceptual drawing created by staff.
2. Speed/design of Breton Avenue.
Concern that Breton Avenue would end up like Eastern Avenue with seemingly high speeds and not pedestrian friendly. Intent is that Breton Avenue south of the trail would have a 3-lane cross section (as shown in drawing) as opposed to 4 or 5 and would be curvilinear. Should help cut down on speeds and make it more pedestrian friendly.
3. Impact on school system.
Staff spoke with Steve Zakem (Asst. Superintendent for Business) and he indicated that although the number of homes is more than what was originally depicted in the prior Bretonfield preliminary plat and concept plan, the overall density is still less than 4 units per acre which is what was used as a base for determining number of housing units on the remaining vacant area in Section 34.
Recommendations
The staff recommendations are still to recommend conditional approval of both the rezoning and preliminary PUD plan to the City Commission.
The only changes are to Conditions #2 and #4 for the rezoning
The Applicant and representatives were present to answer questions.
Troy Stahl, Allen Edwin, stated they are in full support of staff and their recommendations.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck?s questioned how staff will monitor and enforce the proposed driveway restrictions. Pung stated staff could look at the other Allen Edwin developments that have used the flare drive and if there are issues arising in those locations staff can address Bretonfield. Pung stated if there is a problem occurring, the city can from that point say the future driveways have to have two lane cross sections as opposed to the flare design.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated she appreciates the applicant taking the commission?s advice and looking at the cul-de-sacs to the north and making it more of a park area. Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck was concerned that some of the homes will have 49 foot frontages. Applicant Troy Stahl stated that only lots around a street radius will have 49 foot frontages, the minimum frontage measured at the setback line will be 52 feet. Director Schweitzer stated when you have non-parallel lot lines they measure the width at the building setback line. McIntyre-Evenocheck asked what the square footage will be for the homes. Scott Sanderson stated there best selling homes are 2,047 square feet.
Commissioner Artz stated she appreciates what they have done. She stated she does not like the driveways, she thinks they look cheap. She stated she will not vote for the project if the driveways are going to be one lane.
Commissioner Sheldon stated she appreciates that they did more work on the plan and she is in support of the project.
Secretary Winczewski stated he really wanted to see more open space then the movement of the 4 lots offered. Secretary Winczewski stated what Kentwood thinks is a good development is way off. He stated in Bretonfield we are not getting a variety of housing and price points. He stated people will be out in the open space seeing these houses from all angles and all sides. Winczewski stated the rear, left and right elevations are lacking in architectural detail. He doesn?t think there is architectural variety and compared to other developments in Kent County, this is not a conservation oriented development. He stated the applicant shrunk the lots sizes to get open space when other developments such as West Village in Ada reduce the number of lots. He stated that the development is not what is needed in Kentwood.
Vice Chair Swanson stated he thinks they will build the traditional development if the commission turns down the PUD. He thinks there is a significant amount of green space and really nice building lots backing up to the green space. He stated that he thinks they have compromised and they have got the best that we can get with the zoning that is permitted for the site. Vice Chair Swanson stated he is in support.
Secretary Winczewski stated he asked the community to voice their opinion on which of the two plans would they like to see. Secretary Winczewski stated one letter they received with 14 signatures and another letter with 19 signatures state that they do not want 52 foot wide lots and that if given the choice they would rather have R-1C zoning with 80 foot wide lots. The citizens have an issue with the smaller lots.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she is not thrilled about the whole project she would like to approve the PUD and turn down the site plan, but, she can?t separate the two. She stated she feels this is not the best plan and she thinks they could have come up with larger lots. She stated she is disappointed that they took the four lots that they gave up and put them somewhere else.
Motion by Commissioner Swanson, supported by Commissioner Sheldon to recommend to the city commission conditional approval of the request to rezone 102 ares from R1-C Single family Residential to R-PUD-2 Single Family Residential Planned Unit Development. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-8 and Basis points 1-13 as described in Pung?s memo dated 8/23/07.
- Motion Carried (4-2) ?
- Artz and Winczewski dissenting ?
- VanderHoff abstaining-
- Itani absent -
Motion by Commissioner Swanson, supported by Commission Sheldon, to recommend to the city commission conditional of the Preliminary PUD plan. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-9 and basis points 1-9 as described in Pung?s memo dated 8-23-07.
- Motion Carried (4-2) ?
- Artz and Winczewski dissenting ?
- VanderHoff abstaining ?
- Itani Absent -
H. Public Hearing
Case #5-07 Broadmoor Center ? Site Plan Review for Shopping Center located at 3450 & 3460 28th Street SE Kentwood. Applicant requested tabling to the September 25, 2007 meeting
Case #6-07 Broadmoor Center ? Special Land Use for a Parking Facility in a Floodplain located at 3450 & 3460 28th Street SE Kentwood. Applicant requested tabling to the September 25, 2007 meeting.
Commissioner McIntyre-Evenocheck opened the public hearing.
There was no public comment.
Motion by Commissioner Swanson, supported by Commissioner Artz, to table the public hearing to September 25, 2007.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent -
I. Work Session
Case #9-07 Clark on Keller Lake ? Major Change to an approved PUD located at 2451 Forest Hill Avenue SE.
Case #10-07 Clark on Keller Lake ?Special Land Use for Housing for the Elderly/Independent Living Facilities located at 2451 Forest Hill Avenue SE
Planner Golder introduced the request.
History
The proposed development is an amendment to the Embassy Park PUD. The Embassy Park PUD was originally approved for 187 condominiums and 82 single family homes. The development that was eventually approved included 56 single family homes (Phase 4), 28 condominiums (Phase 3); 86 Clark Home units and dentist office (Phase 1) and a church (Phase 2). The proposed amendment is only for Phase 1.
Phase 1 was approved originally in 1994 for congregate living. Clark purchased the property in 2001 for a 124 unit congregate facility and 52 townhouse units. In 2003 Clark requested an amendment to the PUD to allow 86 townhouse units only. Twenty-three of the townhouse units were constructed on the west side of the Keller Lake. The applicant now wishes to return to a congregate style building with 100 units, with the potential of constructing an additional building located to the north with 48 units. Excluding the assisted living facility, there are 171 housing units proposed for the Clark Home portion of the PUD.
Compatibility With Master Plan
The Master Plan recommends low density residential use for this area. The Clark development is Phase 1 of an overall 84.48 acre development called the Embassy Park PUD. The density for the proposed Clark development is 5.37 units per acre or medium density. However, the density for PUD developments is measured across the entire PUD acreage. The gross density of the overall 84.48 acre Embassy Park PUD (including the amendments to the Clark plan) is 3.2 units per acre. The applicant must provide additional data regarding the net acreage of the development; the net density will be higher than the gross density.
The proposed gross density of the Clark Development (Phase 1 of the overall Embassy Park PUD) is 5.37 units per acre. The previously approved version of this plan (reviewed and approved in 2002) allowed for a density of approximately 2.63 units per acre. (For the purposes of density calculations, the assisted living units are calculated at a rate of 6:1).
*Applicant is also requesting a major change to an approved PUD (Case No. 10-07) to allow an increase in the number of units within the PUD from 86 condominium-type units (plus the existing assisted living units) to 148 independent, congregate living units (plus 23 condominium types units already constructed and the existing assisted living units)
Attributes:
? Overall gross density less than 4 units per acre
? Design of the development is consistent with a previously-approved plant
? Underground parking is provided to reduce the number of trees lost on the site
? A greater variety of options are available for senior housing
? Open space increased by re-introduction of one large building
Issues:
? Fire lanes must be addressed
? Applicant must provide more information on the net density of the development
? Applicant must provide more information on the height of the building
? Application must provide more information on landscaping and areas of tree preservation
? Sidewalks must be separated from driveway areas
Planner Golder indicated that the plan fails to adequately provide fire lane access to the building based on a conversation she had with the Assistant Fire Chief.
Bob Perl, Executive Director of Clark Retirement Community was there to represent the request. He stated that Clark Retirement Community is a continuing care retirement community affiliated with United Methodist Church, that has been serving older adults since 1906. Mr. Perl stated there are two campuses one on Franklin Street and they serve approximately 400 residents. In 2001 they purchased Clark on Keller Lake and they service approximately 115 residents. He stated before they purchased in 2001 they received approval for a large congregate building that would serve 124 independent units and 52 townhomes. He stated in 2003 they came back to the planning commission to have an amendment to the PUD to allow 86 townhomes along with the two assisted living facilities. He stated that they have built the first phase of the townhomes. He stated that the market for townhomes went slower than anticipated. He stated they conducted a market study to determine what they were looking for at the location and they stated they are looking for congregate living and amenities. He stated based on that they are proposing 100 independent living units with a variety of amenities. He stated they have an area for future development, and they do not have an foreseeable plan for the future for those 48 units. He stated that the independent units will be taxable.
Vice Chair Swanson stated he is disappointed with the site plan. He stated it is hard to read and to big, the streets aren?t labeled and he can?t figure out where the walkways are. He indicated with the sidewalk design immediately adjacent to the streets parking areas and drives cars are going to overhang the parking space and the sidewalks aren?t going to be useable.
Secretary Winczewski stated he has a concern with the 35 open air parking spaces. Golder stated they have 100 parking spaces underground. Mr. Perl stated 35 will be enough open air parking spaces. Gene Gesgowski, AG architecture stated they have experience in senior living. Mr. Gesgowski stated the users will be people in their late 70?s early 80?s. He stated the underground parking spaces may not be used by visitors but they will be available for staff on a day to day basis. He stated they could designate areas if that would address the parking concerns.
Secretary Winczewski stated he doesn?t have a problem with the overall idea. His only concern is this neighborhood seems to have an abundance of new developments that are not generally single family residential. He suggested to the applicants to get feedback from the residents in the Forest Meadow Condominium. Gene Gesgowski stated they had a meeting with the neighbors and they expressed a number of concerns, one being what they can see from their site. He stated they are trying to save as many trees they can. He stated they want to place the building so that it can have a view of the lake. They have located as many units as they can to look back toward the lake, there is no back view. He stated they brought the building together in that area because when people age walking becomes more critical so the walk on a day to day basis is to a central point to an elevator and to the amenities. He sated when they talked to the residents in the area they were concerned about the height of the building. He stated the height of the building is important and they have taken the building split it and lowered it into the site almost 10 feet so it will not be as visible. He showed what the residents will see from each side.
Vice Chair Swanson suggested they should identify the distance from the nearest condo to the building at the public hearing.
Bob Perl stated the neighbors were positive about the project other than the height.
Commissioner Holtrop stated his main concern was the height of the building and he is glad to see they are lowering it.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck asked about the 24 hour emergency care. Bob Perl stated there will be nurses on the campus 24 hours a day. They have two assisted living facilities on the campus that will have staff available. He stated they have yet to finalize their staffing plan. He stated they have staff parking at the Oxford Manor and Windsor Manor that is not fully utilized there is additional parking on the campus. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated she hopes that they are going to have the same high quality as the rest of the facilities have. Issues were: the site plan location map, grading labeling, number of visitors parking, point of view from the neighbors side and the sidewalks.
Swanson stated he would like to have them respond to the emergency response too.
J. New Business
There was no New Business.
K. Other Business
1. Commissioners? Comments
Secretary Winczewski stated he would like to see a city initiated rezoning to PUD for the entire section 34, so the city can better determine the course of action in that section. Schweitzer stated that once you get a consensus on the concept plan you look at ways to implement in a COD zone. He stated Sengupta is working on this.
Commissioner VanderHoff stated he will not be at the September 11, 2007 meeting. He stated he thinks when we look at the Bretonfield development in five years we are not going to be happy with it and if the commission felt this way he doesn?t know why it was approved.
Commissioner Artz stated she will not be at the September 11, 2007 meeting.
Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck stated October 9, 2007 the City Commission and planning commission will have a joint meeting.
2. Staff?s Comments
No Staff comment
L. Adjournment
Motion by Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Secretary Winczewski, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent -
Meeting adjourned at 9:35p.m
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Winczewski, Secretary
|