Kentwood Committees & Boards
Planning Commission (Back to index)
Minutes for 08/09/2005APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 9, 2005, 7:30 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
A. Chair Bohn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
B. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Frank VanderHoff.
Chair Bohn presented former Planning Commissioner Howard VandenToorn with a plaque representing his years of service as a commissioner since 1992. She stated that he will be difficult to replace on the commission and will be missed. Mayor Root stated that he has known Howard for many years as a confidant and friend. His service exemplifies those things we hold most important and that is, he cares about the City.
C. Roll Call:
Members Present: Betsy Artz, Maggie Bohn, Todd Gray, Dan Holtrop, Abed Itani, Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Ed Swanson, Frank Vander Hoff, and Chris Winczewski.
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Mayor Richard Root, City Attorney Jeff Sluggett, Economic Development Planner Lisa Golder, Planner Joe Pung, Planner Debargha Sengupta, Staff Secretary Mary Faulkner, the applicants, the press and one property owner. VandenToorn thanked the Mayor and the Commission.
D. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by VanderHoff, to approve the Minutes of July 26, 2005.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
E. Approval of the Agenda
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by VanderHoff, to approve the agenda for the August 9, 2005, 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
Case #26-05 Speedway, Special Land Use ? Convenience Store and Site Plan Review of a Vehicle Fuel Station/Convenience Store at the Northeast corner of 52nd Street and Eastern Avenue (815 52nd Street Avenue)
Sengupta reviewed the request and changes to the site plan for the rebuild of the Speedway Station at 52nd Street and Eastern Avenue from the previous meetings. He noted that variances for the building setback and parking were granted from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Other variances that are being sought include landscaping, buffer with the residential property to the north, maximum lot coverage and signage. He explained that one of the issues had to do with the truck movement on the site and exiting the site westbound onto 52nd Street. Sengupta stated that it is staff?s recommendation that the exiting truck should be routed east on 52nd Street. He reviewed the conditions in his staff recommendation.
Aaron Kruse, and Gene Larsen, both with Marathon Ashland, and Todd Harkema, District Manager for this Speedway Station, were all present.
Mr. Kruse reviewed the changes to the site plan including the relocation of the sidewalk on 52nd Street, locating the curb cuts as far away from the intersection that they feel that they could; and angling the fuel dispensers. He stated that they would like to keep the mountable curb as it is on 52nd Street to try and reduce the amount of traffic that flows on the street. He stated that they would like the trucks to be able to exit the site and make a right-hand turn onto 52nd Street and then exit the area on Eastern Avenue. He presented a colored elevation of the building and explained that it is similar to the station at East Paris Avenue and 28th Street.
Chair Bohn reopened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Motion by Itani, supported by Holtrop, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
Itani stated that they have done everything possible to the site and sees it as an improvement to this corner. He was in support of the project.
Holtrop stated that it looks good and noted condition 2 relative to the left-turn exit onto 52nd Street. He referred it to Swanson.
Swanson stated that he had no problem with the design for the truck circulation and noted that the driver still has the option of turning left or turning right. He noted that it will affect traffic no matter which way the truck goes out of the site. Swanson stated that he did not see a need for condition 2. He noted that the utility pole on the north side of the site on Eastern Avenue is there but questioned why the guy wire could not go over and then down to allow the curb to be moved further north. He stated that he would like to see the applicant work with staff on this.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that we have asked a lot of the applicant and they have done a good job of making the changes that were suggested. She stated that they are probably looking at a 24-hour operation and questioned whether this is something we want to have in this particular area given that the area behind it is heavily residential.
Gray questioned the need for condition 2. Sengupta reviewed the site plan and noted that the truck barely makes the turn with the mountable curb. Sengupta stated that the Engineering and Planning Staff?s concern is that the truck may go over to the eastbound lanes and the eastbound traffic may not see the truck and that becomes a hazard. The truck would have to make another right turn onto Eastern Avenue. McIntyre-Evenocheck asked how the trucks exit the site now. Mr. Kruse stated that the tanks are on the north side of the site and the trucks enter from Eastern Avenue and exits the site from 52nd Street. Sengupta noted that now the truck goes behind the store and it gives it more room to make the turn where now it is almost a u-turn. Itani noted that the safety concern is always going to be there but the truck is waiting for a gap is on the property and not on the street and the truck will not make the turn unless he is sure he can make it. You have to give the driver the benefit of the doubt that he can make the turn. If it is impossible to make then the next time they will not make the turn. Sengupta stated that there is merit to both sides. Gray stated that he likes the changes there were made and would prefer to go with the safer option on the drive.
Winczewski asked the city attorney who has the authority on how the truck turns and hours of operation. Attorney Sluggett stated that it is one of the standards that you are asked to look at is whether there is safe traffic flow so it is part of your purview. You take into account recommendations from staff but ultimately it is the Planning Commission?s decision. On the hours of operation because there is a special land use component to the request is a legitimate factor for your consideration. Sluggett stated that if they put a restriction on the hours of operation it is important that they come up with a basis in support of why the hours would be restricted. Winczewski stated that we should consider looking at whether we want the 24 hour operation because there are not a lot of 24-hour businesses now.
VanderHoff questioned the hours of operation being proposed. Gene Larsen stated that the operations do not like to be bound by hours of operation and they would run at the hours of operation that are profitable for the location. He stated that the station is not a 24-hour operation today and it is possible that it may not be a 24-hour operation. It is based on customer demand. The hours of operation are 5:00 a.m. to midnight. VanderHoff stated that if we can come to an agreement on these issues, it is definitely an improvement to the corner.
McIntyre-Evenocheck asked if any of the neighbors contacted the City in regards to this proposal. Sengupta stated that they have and a few were at the first public hearing and at the Zoning Board meeting. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she was concerned with the impact on the neighbors in Leisure Acres. Swanson stated that he is on the ZBA and neighbors were at the meetings and there was never a concern over the hours of operation.
Itani asked Mr. Kruse about the route the truck takes now. Mr. Kruse stated that the truck leaves the station and goes north on Eastern Avenue. Bohn stated that she had a concern that if we had a restriction on truck turning right who will know if it turns right and they are not supposed to. She was concerned that it will be a condition that we put in and have no power to enforce so it becomes worthless. VanderHoff suggested leaving it up to the truck driver to figure out how best to exit the site.
McIntyre-Evenocheck asked Attorney Sluggett about putting on a restriction of hours of operation and then later wanting to change them at a later time. Attorney Sluggett explained that the conditions can only be changed with the applicant?s consent. If you were to establish hours of operation and they came back and said it was not working then they have the right to amend the condition.
Motion by Swanson, supported by McIntyre-Evenocheck, to conditionally approve the Special Land Use - Convenience Store as described in Case 26-05 Speedway Rebuild as per site plan dated May 12, 2005 and as revised on July 28, 2005, conditioned on conditions 1 and 2 and basis points 1 through 5 in Sengupta?s memo dated 8/3/05.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
Motion by Swanson, supported by Holtrop, to conditionally approve the site plan dated May 12, 2005, and as revised on July 28, 2005, for Speedway Rebuild as described in Case 26-05. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 through 9 omitting condition 2 and basis points 1 through 10 in Sengupta?s memo dated 8/3/05.
Swanson asked staff to work with the developer on possibly moving the Eastern Avenue driveway further north by moving the guy for the pole on the north side of the drive keeping the width of the drive as it is now.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
-----------------------------------------------------
Case #27-05 Division Avenue South Rezoning, Rezoning of approximately 5.3 acres from I-1 Light Industrial to C-5 Neighborhood Commercial located on Division Avenue 52nd Street to approximately 240 feet North of 54th Street
Golder explained that this is a city-initiated rezoning of 5.3 acres from I-1 Light Industrial to C-5 Neighborhood Commercial along Division Avenue. Essentially the uses that are along Division Avenue are commercial uses that could be zoned C-2 and that is part of the reason for this application. The application came forward initially by one of the owners for his own property and because it made sense for the balance of the properties that is why it became a city-initiated rezoning. All of these uses predate the zoning ordinance or were permitted by special land use or variance. Golder explained that the C-5 zone is something that we have been talking about for along Division Avenue. She reviewed the basis in her recommendation for the rezoning.
Chair Bohn opened the public hearing.
Mr. Rick Postema, Richard Postema Architects, explained that he was the applicant that originally approached the city with the request for the B & R Auto property for a rezoning. He stated that they are supportive of the rezoning and felt the C-5 fits their proposed project.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Holtrop, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
Commissioners were in support of the rezoning.
McIntyre-Evenocheck questioned Golder about the Waddell property at 5308 S. Division Avenue. She stated that Schweitzer met with Mr. Waddell who was concerned that Tubergen Saw would not be compatible with the C-5 zone. Golder stated that Schweitzer informed Mr. Waddell that in his opinion as zoning administrator it would be a permitted use.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Holtrop, to recommend to the City Commission approval of the rezoning of 5.3 acres of land from I-1 Light Industrial to C-5 Neighborhood Corridor Commercial as described in Case 27-05 based on basis points 1 through 5 in Golder?s recommendation dated 8/1/05.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
-------------------------------------------------
I. Work Session
Case #28-05 CBS Partnership Rezoning of 28,380 square feet from C-4 Office to C-2 Community Commercial, located at 2300-44th Street
Golder explained that this request is to rezone 28,380 square feet of property located at 2300-44th Street from C-4 to C-2. She stated that the designation for this area was recently changed from office to commercial in the Master Plan. From that perspective it is consistent with what we have planned for the long term. She noted that that property is small and narrow and may be difficult to develop. The surrounding uses would remain zoned C-4 Office. The only concern is what type of development we would get with such a long narrow property. Golder stated that one of the things the City could look at is a city-initiated rezoning for the balance of the area that the Master Plan recommends for commercial use. It would not resolve what happens with this piece but it may offer an opportunity for redevelopment and combination of parcels to make a nice commercial piece along 44th Street.
Howard VandenToorn, representing CBS Partnership, and Doug Stalsonburg, Exxel Engineering, were present.
Doug Stalsonburg stated that he is representing Eldon Bliek, one of the partners in CBS Partnership. He explained that the property is one of the few remaining houses along 44th Street that were over the years converted to various uses. This house has been vacant for over three years and the owners do not have a specific use for the property at this time. He stated that VandenToorn has been in contact with the adjacent property owners and apparently they were not interested in joining in a rezoning. Stalsonburg stated that he understands there is an easement in place for the property to the east that would allow access to Countrywood. He stated that the property does have an easement to the property to the east for access to 44th Street.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that this is a narrow lot and is going to be difficult to develop. She noted that a strip center would be perpendicular to the street and would be difficult as a retail operation. She stated that long term commercial is good for this area but not at this time. She stated that it will be hard for her to go along with the rezoning as there is nothing compelling to rezone it at this time.
Gray asked why the neighbors were against the rezoning. VandenToorn stated that he sent letters to the adjacent property owners and asked them to respond within a certain time. The only one who responded was John VanSeuss, the property owner to the east. Mr. VanSeuss stated that he was not interested at this time as he has a full building with higher than market value rents and saw no reason to rezone at this time. The other uses are a bank which received their special land use approval and had no reason to rezone. The next building is a doctor?s office and an optical center which is allowed under the current zoning. The next buildings are 2300 and 2330 and the next building there is a language barrier. The next building to the west is a house.
Gray stated that he agreed that the Master Plan for commercial makes a lot of sense but he was resistant to plucking out a small parcel and rezoning it. There was no compelling reason to rezone it particularly due to the size of the lot.
Winczewski stated that he agrees with the intent of the Master Plan but was concerned with rezoning an 85-foot lot when we do not know what the plan is. He did not feel that it is wide enough for a building site.
VanderHoff asked what could be done with C-2 that you could not do with C-4. VandenToorn stated that he could do retail. The property has been vacant for three years and has been on the market for three years with a ?build to suit?, ?buy the land? and ?office?. The office market is down particularly along 44th Street and there are a lot of vacancies in the building that he manages. VanderHoff asked what type of commercial use could you put on this property. VandenToorn stated that he and Eldon Bliek met with Schweitzer and came up with a way to utilize this site and have to get access from the Wolverine property and Countrywood Drive. He stated that there are a lot of service type businesses that could go in there. He did not envision it being a strip center.
Swanson stated that is a narrow piece but it would be a great location for retail. Timing is the issue. He did not feel that it would be an asset unless parcels could be put together. VandenToorn stated that with the conversations with the neighboring property owners he does not see it happening. Swanson asked what type of retail. VandenToorn stated that a dry cleaners or a Mailbox Etc. would be a good use. He explained that they are looking at other ways to develop the site from Countrywood.
Golder stated that the applicant does not own the property with access to Countrywood so there is no connection to Countrywood There is no recorded easement that the applicant has been able to find that would allow for access to Countrywood. Swanson stated that VandenToorn should come back with more detail that shows how this may work and that the easement is there and that you can give us Countrywood access. VandenToorn stated that the managing partner for the building has the documentation for the easement but he is traveling at this time.
Holtrop stated that this has been a vacant property on 44th Street for three years and it would be nice to spruce it up and give you more options for rental. He asked if anything that was built there would come back to the Commission. Golder stated that if it rezoned to C-2 it is most likely not going to be reviewed by the Commission. It will go to staff for a building permit and if it meets all of the requirements then we have to approve it. Unless it is a special land use it will not be reviewed by the Commission.
Artz stated that she agreed with Holtrop that it would be nice to see that house go away. She asked Golder how she feels about the rezoning. Golder stated that she has the same concerns about the narrowness of the lot, however looking at the basis it would be difficult to deny a rezoning because we don?t think we will like what they will put on the site. She stated that it is unfortunate that we may end up with a development that none of us like. Golder stated that she felt there was the ability for the Commission to initiate a rezoning that will at least open up the opportunity for these other people to sell. Maybe at the time they were contacted they did not understand that it would be a good business option for them to rezone to commercial in order to sell their property. Golder stated that she did not see any negative effect on the other properties if they were rezoned to C-2.
Itani agreed with most of what the other commissioners had said. He would like if it is possible, that this piece of land be considered with the other adjacent property. He did not have a problem with the rezoning but was concerned that what type of businesses would be there.
VandenToorn stated that if the property is rezoned then they intend to do the site plan. He also understood the concerns about what will be there. He stated that it will be a 6300 square foot building more or less depending on how it is oriented. He stated that he would have the easement information for the public hearing.
Swanson asked for a sketch plan to see how this will come together as it would help the Commission.
Bohn stated that the easement information will make a big difference in the way that she feels about the rezoning. If the easements are there so there are other access points which would increase the visibility then she would be inclined to be in favor of it.
--------------------------------------------------
Case#29-05 Woodbury Commons Phase II, Preliminary Plat Approval and Final Site Plan Review of a R1-C Single Family Residential Development, located on Torrington Drive extended south of 44th Street and west of Middlebury Drive
Pung explained that this request is for a preliminary plat and final site plan for phase 2 of Woodbury Commons development. He reviewed the items in his staff report noting that this phase is for 44 lots on 14.26 acres. The overall development is proposed for 179 lots on 62.79 acres. He stated that the applicant has noted on the site plan that no building permits would be issued for lots 68 through 81 until Torrington Drive is connected to Middlebury Drive or to 52nd Street through the proposed Quail Meadows development to the south.
Mr. Bruce Brown, Trinity Development, was present.
The Commissioners had no comments with the proposed phase 2.
---------------------------------------------------------
Case #30-05 Republic Bank, Site Plan Review and Special Land Use ? Financial Institution
Sengupta explained that this request is for a special land use for a bank as well as a site plan review. The proposed bank would be on 1.10 acre parcel which is part of an original five plus acre parcel. The balance of the property is proposed to be developed as office. He reviewed the items in his staff report noting the issues that need to be addressed: consideration of the overall layout ? whether a PUD is more appropriate; overall circulation ? possible consolidation of the proposed drives; circulation within the bank site ? elimination of the right-turn-exit-only drive and conflicting vehicular movements near the northwest corner; parking ? consider shared parking arrangements; bearing of address and signage issues on the layout of the site.
Itani stated that he did not mind the bank facing East Paris Avenue but if the driveway on East Paris is intended for right-turn-only the configuration needs to be changed so we have an island going north to prevent drivers turning left on East Paris Avenue. He was not concerned that the drives were close as the internal traffic would be going slow.
Artz stated that this appears to be a good use for the property.
Holtrop suggested that the five problematic parking spaces be used for employee parking. Sengupta stated that they could be used for that. Holtrop stated that his other concern was seven buildings on three parcels with very cluttered signage on East Paris Avenue.
Swanson asked if staff considered requesting a traffic impact analysis to take into account what happens when all of these buildings are completed. Sengupta stated that he did not think the threshold for a traffic assessment is met here and that is why they did not require one. Sengupta explained that the special land use is for the bank parcel and not for the entire property. The site plan illustrates what they intend to do with the entire parcel. Swanson stated that he would like to see a traffic impact analysis for the entire parcel and was not sure if they could require it. Swanson stated that he felt the driveway should be a temporary driveway until that road extends on up to the future road. He stated that there are no traffic signals to service this parcel and there never will be. There may be some gaps on East Paris with the traffic signals that are there but this is a lot of development in a small piece. Sengupta stated that if they went with a PUD it would take all of the buildings into consideration. Swanson stated that he had no problem with the bank at this location but had a problem with the rest of the parcel and how it fits together with the bank at this location. He would like to see it as a PUD.
McIntyre-Evenocheck agreed with Holtrop?s concerns. She asked if there were any other Republic Banks in this area. Mr. Phil Stenger, Embassy Properties & Investments explained that there is a Republic Bank on Cascade Road near Watermark and it is a commercial loan operation. This facility is intended to be a West Michigan Corporate Headquarters with commercial and retail component.
Gray stated that he felt that the applicant should consider a PUD since there is so much going on at this site. He stated that our ability to have an impact on the quality of the overall site would be a lot greater if it were a PUD.
Winczewski asked if it was consistent with the Grand Rapids Master Plan. Sengupta stated that there is office use across East Paris Avenue in Grand Rapids so it would be compatible.
Itani agreed with Swanson that we should consider a traffic analysis for this parcel. When Embassy Drive was constructed the intention was to divert traffic to Sparks Drive.
Attorney Sluggett stated that if it is important that they have a traffic impact analysis to determine whether this is an appropriate use he did not feel that it was inappropriate to ask the applicant to provide that information to the Commission. Swanson asked if it could be the entire parcel. Attorney Sluggett stated that the only matter that is this particular lot with this particular use. Swanson stated that since it is part of a master parcel we should be able to ask for an analysis for what the remainder might be. Attorney Sluggett stated that it is not an unreasonable request to make of the applicant.
Bohn agreed with Swanson and Itani.
Rick Pulaski, Nederveld Associates, stated that the site is vacant and the proposed use is a nice use that fits in with the surrounding area. It will be a brick building with a peaked roof. He stated that they do not want to go with a PUD because it simply locks them in too much and would be too restrictive. Mr. Pulaski stated that they are trying to keep their flexibility for the site. He stated that they have entertained two or three offers within the last month of people who want to do what we are showing versus some people that want to do buildings that are 20,000 square feet.
Swanson asked if they would consider a traffic study for the entire site. Pulaski stated that traffic is important and they are willing to consider it. He felt they would be trying to hit a moving target in terms of what is projected to be used there. Swanson asked him to come up with an analysis of what they are showing as it would be helpful to him in reviewing this. Pulaski stated that they would be willing to look at that.
Bohn stated that the Republic Bank on Cascade Road appears to be more of an office, who typically are the customers for the bank ? general public, business, commercial. Pulaski stated that it will have a drive-through component so it will have the neighborhood use for it. It will also have a business component as this is a branch corporate office.
Itani stated that if Embassy Drive is a public street why do we have to allow another access point on East Paris when they have access on Embassy Drive. Sengupta stated that staff has told the applicant that a right-turn-exit drive may not be required and have the traffic routed through the main shared driveway. According to the applicant operations wise they would like to see the drive but from staff?s perspective it is not necessary.
-----------------------------------------------------
J. New Business
Motion by Holtrop, supported by Itani, to set the public hearing date of September 13, 2005, for: Case #31-05 52nd Street Auto Spa, Site Plan Review and Special Land Use ? Vehicle Wash, located on the South side of 52nd Street, approximately 520 feet East of Eastern Avenue (900-52nd Street).
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
K. Other Business
1. Commissioners? Comments
Bohn asked the commissioners to consider volunteering for the different subcommittees. She passed out the list of subcommittees and noted that under Land Use & Zoning Betsy Artz is a member. Chris Winczewski stated that he would like to work on the Structures & Improvements Plan Subcommittee.
McIntyre-Evenocheck informed Pung that she would like to set up a meeting with the Open Space Committee since the City?s Master Plan and the Parks & Recreation Master Plan is done.
McIntyre-Evenocheck expressed condolences to Attorney Sluggett on the recent death of his father.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she would be absent at the next meeting on August 23.
Holtrop and Itani also stated that they would be absent from the August 23 meeting.
2. Staff?s Comments
Attorney Sluggett reminded the Commission that they should look at all of the uses that could be developed in the C-2 district as part of your analysis. He stated that we cannot hold VandenToorn to the sketch plan that he may present.
L. Adjournment
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Holtrop, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (9-0) ?
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Secretary
|