Kentwood Committees & Boards
Planning Commission (Back to index)
Minutes for 10/25/2005APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 25, 2005, 7:30 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
A. Secretary McIntyre-Evenocheck called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
B. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Abed Itani.
C. Roll Call:
Members Present: Betsy Artz, Todd Gray, Abed Itani, Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Frank Vander Hoff, and Chris Winczewski.
Members Absent: Maggie Bohn, Dan Holtrop, and Ed Swanson (all with notification)
Others Present: City Attorney Jeff Sluggett, Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Economic Development Planner Lisa Golder, Planner Joe Pung, Planner Debargha Sengupta, Staff Secretary Mary Faulkner, the applicants, the press and two citizens.
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Itani, to excuse Commissioners Bohn, Holtrop, and Swanson from the meeting.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Bohn, Holtrop and Swanson absent ?
D. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Itani, to approve the Minutes of October 11, 2005, and the Findings of Fact for: Case #35-05 Breton Woods North? Phase II ?In the Woods?, Final Site Plan Review and PUD Phase Approval, located on the South side of Pfeiffer Woods Drive approximately ? mile west of Shaffer Avenue and the Revised Findings of Fact for Case #34-05 Woodhaven Condominiums PUD Major Change, located on the East side of Walma Avenue, South of 44th Street
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Bohn, Holtrop, and Swanson absent ?
E. Approval of the Agenda
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Artz, to approve the agenda for the October 25, 2005, meeting.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Bohn, Holtrop and Swanson absent ?
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 #36-05 Stormy Creek Farms, Final Site Plan Review of a PUD, located on East side of Shaffer, South of 32nd Street
Golder explained that due to a mix-up the site plans are the same as those of the work session. She stated that the only difference between the work session plans and the revised plans is the zoning is correctly expressed on the plan dated October 19, 2005. She noted that this is a final site plan for a PUD which encompasses 14.7 acres with 40 units. She reviewed the conditions in her staff recommendation for approval. Golder added amended the first condition to read: ?Approval of the PUD Development Agreement and Master Deed by city staff and city attorney.?
Steve VanKooten, Medema VanKooten & Associates, and Les Wisner, Owner, were both present.
Mr. Wisner explained that do have someone coming on board to build the condo units ? Jack Workman and Joel Vandenberg. He stated that the Master Deed has been completed and the PUD Agreement has been approved and signed by the Mayor. Attorney Sluggett stated that his office has not reviewed the PUD Agreement and he understands that there are signatures on a draft PUD Agreement but it still has to be reviewed by his office.
Secretary McIntyre-Evenocheck opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Motion by Itani, supported by Artz, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Bohn, Holtrop and Swanson absent-
There were no concerns or comments from the commissioners.
Motion by Itani, supported by VanderHoff, to conditionally approve the site plan dated October 19, 2005, for Stormy Creek Farm as described in Case No. 36-05. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1, as amended, conditions 2 and 3 and basis points 1 through 3 in Golder?s memo dated 10-17-05.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Bohn, Holtrop, and Swanson absent ?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Case#37-05 T-Mobile, Site Plan Review of a Cellular Tower, located at 4400 Potter (City Water Tank and Pump Station Site)
Golder explained that this request is for a cellular tower to be located on the city?s property located at 4400 Potter Avenue. She explained that it is the site for the city?s water tank and a pump station that is currently under construction. She stated that the entire site will be fenced. Golder explained that this project was approved in 2004 and the site plan has expired. She stated the applicant is looking at a 155-foot tower rather than a 130-foot tower that was approved. She noted that the previously proposed tower was going to be built so that it would support up to a 195-foot tower. The tower that is being proposed is not intended to go any higher than 155 feet. Golder explained that the City adopted a plan for wireless communications which located certain sites in the City that would be appropriate for towers. This site was proposed to have a 195-foot tower. She stated that one of the remaining issues is whether or not the tower should be built to 195 feet or should the base be built to support a tower up to 195 feet. The other issue is the fall zone and if it goes much higher than 155 feet then the fall zone does not work out. Golder reviewed the site plan and the conditions in her staff recommendation. She amended condition 1 to include: ?as per the letter from Stephen Yeo, P.E., Director of Engineering for Sabre Communications Corporation, dated October 19, 2005.? She also amended condition 2 to include: Staff review ?and approval? of a landscaping plan for the site.
Ken Kuszpit, T-Mobile, was present and had nothing to add.
Secretary McIntyre-Evenocheck opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Motion by Itani, supported by Artz, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Bohn, Holtrop, and Swanson absent ?
Winczewski stated that he agreed with not requiring the support for a 195 feet as it would cut into the setback requirements and also T-Mobile does not want a taller tower. He stated that he did have a concern that a private company would have gated access to a public fenced water supply. He would prefer to have a fence that T-Mobile would have access to and another that the City would have access to.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she was concerned that a lot of time was spent on the wireless tower amendments to the Master Plan and one was a recommendation for 195-foot heights for selected areas that were chosen for the City. She stated that her concern was that we do not know what will be coming in the future that will need a tower in this area. She suggested a condition that the base be constructed so that it could support a 195-foot tower if it was needed in the future. McIntyre-Evenocheck cited the Master Plan recommendation for a 195-foot tower at this location and additional height may be needed for future applications that are unknown at this time. She understood that if it was ever constructed to 195 feet then it would need to be determined whether a variance would be needed for the fall zone or whether they would need to acquire some more property.
McIntyre-Evenocheck asked if there was a reason why they cannot have a fence around their piece and then the City construct a fence around the other piece. Golder stated no matter what they will have to be able to access the city property because their piece is inside the city parcel. She explained that only people that have the card will be allowed to get into the complex. It was the City?s decision to have the fence around both uses.
Itani questioned the significance of 155 feet versus 195 feet. Golder stated that the Wireless Communications Plan lists that height that we want to build the towers to. The reason for the taller tower was that we could reduce the number of towers elsewhere in the City. She stated that in order to build the tower to 195 feet it would take additional structure at the base to accommodate that and that is what was proposed when the 135-foot tower was going to be built.
Mr. Kuszpit stated that if they are going to build the tower to be expandable to 195 feet then the concrete foundation will have to be larger, the tower itself will have to be stouter. He was not sure if the same fall radius would apply if they did that. The fall radius that they presented was for the specific tower and design. McIntyre-Evenocheck explained that if another carrier comes along and says they will need it to 195 feet then they will have to pay for that additional height and if the fall zone has to be increased because of that then it is up to them to get a variance or to acquire more land. She stated that if the tower is going to be built, build it so that the base can support a tower that would go up to our requirements in the Master Plan.
Motion by Itani, supported by Winczewski, to conditionally approve the site plan dated October 19, 2005, for T-Mobile Telecommunications tower as described in Case No. 37-05. The site plan is conditioned on conditions 1 through 2 and basis points 1 through 2 in Golder?s memo dated 10-20-05 adding condition 3. Construct the base and foundation of the tower to hold a tower up to 195 feet.
McIntyre-Evenocheck asked that the following basis points be added to support condition 3. Basis 4. ?Master Plan recommendation of a 195-foot tower.? Basis 5. ?Additional height may be needed for future applications unknown at this time.? She also asked that condition 1 be amended to include the reference to the engineer?s letter as Golder stated earlier.
Attorney Sluggett stated that condition 2 should include: Staff review ?and approval? of the landscaping plan. He also noted that condition 3 is to increase the size of the base we are talking about both the foundation and the base of the tower. Itani and Winczewski agreed with the changes to the motion.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Bohn, Holtrop and Swanson absent ?
------------------------------------------------------
I. Work Session
Case # 38-05 Wood Meadow Townhomes, Rezoning from R1-C Single Family Residential to RPUD-1 Residential Planned Unit Development High Density and Site Plan Review of the Preliminary and Final PUD Plan, located at 2481 Patterson, SE
Golder explained that this request is for a rezoning of 3.8 acres to RPUD-1 and a preliminary and final site plan of a PUD. She stated that this site is master planned for a mixed use of office and medium density residential. She reviewed the site plan noting that there are wetlands on the south side and center of the property. She stated that the LUZ Committee felt that it would be very difficult to accommodate a mixed use on this site. Therefore they felt comfortable with a townhouse-type development that falls within the medium density category. After the staff review they found out that the density was not 7.8 units per acre as indicated on the site plan but over 12 units per acre which exceeds the high density residential for the City. The applicant did not take into consideration the items that cannot be included in density ? part of the floodplain and utility easements in the roads. The natural features on the site are what kicked it into the high density area. Golder reviewed the deviations of the PUD Ordinance ? 3.8 acres (minimum is 5 acres); rear yard perimeter setback (if the decks on west side are enclosed they would violate setback); and density.
Chris Veneklasen, AJV Venture LLC, stated that they misunderstood the calculations on the density of the PUD. He stated that there are a lot of issues that they have to adjust to as far as floodplain and right-of-ways. He stated that they do not have the property to do a more traditional-type of neighborhood development. He stated that the decks would remain open and that will be noted in the condominium documents. Mr. Veneklasen stated that they want to try and maintain the natural setting.
VanderHoff stated that he had concerns that the size of the PUD (3.8 acres versus minimum of five acres); and 10 feet between buildings (12-feet required). He thought it was a good project for the land but felt there were too many units on this small parcel.
Gray stated that he was struggling with the density issue and obviously they are trying to maximize the site. Mr. Veneklasen stated that the battle they are having is with land values. They have a piece of property master planned for mixed use. Developers and real estate agents see that and feel they could have an office building and town homes in the rear. He thought someone came up with a plan for that but because of the design issues such as the wetlands and stormwater detention it really is not a feasible use. Nonetheless that does not change the fact that they are pricing it for that kind of use.
Winczewski stated that he did not like this plan. He understood the economics argument but there will be a number of variances required and he was concerned with the density. He stated that this plan needs a lot of work ? too many units; units too close together; and setback concerns.
Artz stated that she liked the elevations but felt the site was too crowded. She felt it is a beautiful site and liked what he was trying to do but it was too crowded.
Itani asked what was to the west of the development. Golder stated that there are larger lot single family homes that have access to Burton Street. Itani questioned the reason for a PUD development. Golder stated that the parallel plan shows six single family units and she did not feel that was appropriate under the current zoning. She stated that the plan showing a mixed use was disjointed and it did not make sense to put them together. When this plan came forward we assumed that it would fall into medium density and it did not. Golder stated that if it will take going down than less than eight units per acre to secure approval then the Commission should let Mr. Veneklasen know that is the case. Golder stated that the PUD makes it possible to seek deviations on the density since there are floodplains and wetlands all on one site and thus a lot of area to preserve in its natural state. Itani agreed that 28 units was a lot of units for this parcel.
Mr. Veneklasen asked for some feedback on the number of units they would be looking for. Golder asked the Commission if it was medium density, which is between four and eight units per acre, would that work. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that is what she had in mind when they met at the LUZ Committee. She agreed that this plan is too dense and we need to come to some agreement on the maximum number of units. Golder stated that they will have to rework the numbers because she was still not sure they were calculating the density correctly. VanderHoff stated that if you used the whole 3.8 acres you are looking at 16 to 18 units for the site. Winczewski stated that the concern with the setbacks needs to be addressed. Mr. Veneklasen was not sure he could go that low.
Secretary McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that Mr. Veneklasen should work with staff with regards to density and see what he could come up with. It is a very difficult piece of property and it is in a very busy place. She encouraged fellow commissioners to visit this site if they hadn?t already.
---------------------------------------------------
Case #39-05 B&R Auto, Expansion of a Special Land Use Vehicle Repair, Major and Site Plan Review, located at 5232 Division
Sengupta explained that this request is for an expansion of a special land use and site plan review for a vehicle repair facility. The City recently rezoned this area to C-5 Neighborhood Commercial from I-1 Light Industrial. He noted that this property is legally non-conforming in terms of lot frontage and lot area. The minimum area for a vehicle repair facility in the C-5 zone is one acre and 150-foot wide lot. The current property is only 50 feet wide and 7,000 square feet in area. With the proposed expansion to the south the lot would be 75 feet wide and 10,500 square feet. Variances for lot width and lot area would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. He explained that the City is considering vacating the area along Division Avenue and that would add 1,875 square feet to the property bringing the total area to 12,375 square feet. He reviewed the items in his staff report noting the issues that need to be addressed.
Rick Postema, Postema Architects, and Bruce McGoffin, the applicant, were both present. Mr. Postema reviewed the site plan. He stated that they did not have a problem providing cross access with their neighbor to the north but had concerns with access to the south.
Itani stated that he did not feel this was the site for this use due to the size and width of the lot.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that her husband used to work with B & R Auto but he does not have a relationship with them now.
Winczewski stated that he agreed with Itani. They are lacking the minimum lot width and at 25 percent of the lot area. If they were closer then we could talk about the intent of the ordinance.
VanderHoff stated that it is nice to see a business that is interested in expanding and wants to grow its business and service. He asked Mr. McGoffin if there was anyway that he could purchase additional property to expand the size of the lot. Mr. McGoffin stated that he owns 150-feet of frontage along Division Avenue right now. Sengupta explained that they own three lots there but their site plan does not show that they plan to combine all three parcels. If they do that they would not need the lot frontage variance but would need a lot size variance. Mr. McGoffin stated that he is planning to use one and one-half lots (75 feet) for his business. VanderHoff stated that he would encourage businesses to grow and would like to see him work it out with the City.
Mr. Postema explained that when they came in to expand the property was zoned industrial. The City encouraged them to rezone the property to C-5 and when they read through the ordinance the minimum conforming lot in C-5 was 75 feet wide and 10,000 square feet. He stated that they were surprised to find out in the review that because the use is a special land use the minimum lot size is 150 feet wide and one acre. Mr. Postema stated that the lot is 75 feet wide and 10,000 square feet in area because that is what they thought that is what they thought they were allowed to do. He noted that it is an increase of 50 percent to the lot and felt that it was a reasonable way to improve the project and get closer to conformance than it currently is.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she absolutely agreed with VanderHoff. This is the perfect spot for this. It is in the area of car lots and other uses that are not the norm such as a karate school, Division Turf next door and a tool sharpening place. They are all in this area that we recently rezoned to C-5 because we felt that this is the zoning we wanted for this particular section of South Division that lent itself to redevelop. She stated that B & R was the first one that came to us indicating that they would like to do this. The LUZ Committee did push them to the C-5 zoning. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she felt this was the only way the site could be expanded. She stated that she would hate to see a viable business squelched in their growth at this time because this is a section of South Division that lends itself to be redeveloped.
Itani stated that they own the other two lots to the south so it would not be a hardship for the owner to use all three lots. If he was going to go out and purchase the property it would be a hardship but since he owns it already then he could use all three lots.
VanderHoff asked if staff gave them the impression that he only needed a 75-foot lot and 10,000 square feet in area. Regardless of the other property he may have another use for the other two lots. Schweitzer explained that as we looked at the C-5 staff felt that it was a better fit. The C-2 requires an 85-foot wide lot with 11,000+ square feet in area. The C-5 requires less lot width and lot area. He stated that he failed to note the special land use requirements for the lot width and lot area probably in part because this use received special approval use back in the 1980s. Under the Light Industrial zoning it did go through the special approval use review. He stated that the ability to incorporate land that they already own into the development of the site does provide them with some opportunity to eliminate one of the site requirements and minimize the extent to what they would ask for relief on the other.
Secretary McIntyre-Evenocheck reviewed the concerns and asked staff to work with the applicant.
-------------------------------------------------
J. New Business
Motion by Winczewski, supported by VanderHoff, to set the public hearing date of November 22, 2005, for: Case #40-05 Habitat for Humanity Rezoning of 0.604 acres from OS Open Space to R1-C Single Family Residential located at 4615 Bonnie SE; Case #41-05 Hansen Collision Major Change to an Approved Site Plan, located at 3800 Broadmoor Avenue; Case #42-05 Disselkoen 29th Street, Site Plan Review of a Shopping Center, located at 3105-29th Street; Case #43-05 Wedgwood Christian Services, Rezoning of 20.65 acres from R-4 High Density Residential to RPUD-1 High Density Residential, and Preliminary Site Plan Review of a PUD, located at the Southeast corner of Shaffer Avenue and 36th Street.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Bohn, Holtrop and Swanson absent ?
K. Other Business
1. Commissioners? Comments
Gray asked what is going on at the old Shell Station at the southwest corner of Kalamazoo Avenue and 44th Street. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that it is a company selling vehicles that have been foreclosed on and they have permission from the City for an open air business for two weeks. They were told that they had to take down the balloons and banners. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that it brings up what was started about two years ago relative to the short-term open air business provisions and vacant lots in particular. She stated that we need to look at that again. Schweitzer explained that in the past few years there has been concern with the short-term open air business provisions. He stated that staff crafted four or five different options on how to address it, one being very restrictive and the others modifying the current provisions. He stated that we never gained a census on which way to go.
Itani questioned the resurfacing of 29th Street and whether there was another layer of pavement that was supposed to go on it. Schweitzer stated that he did not know and he would have to check. Itani stated that if it is the final job it is terrible.
2. Staff?s Comments
Schweitzer stated that he met with the Ordinance Committee this evening and they had similar concerns with the open air sale at Kalamazoo and 44th Street.
Golder stated that we would need a motion to correct the minutes from the September 27, 2005, meeting so that it would reflect the same motion as in the revised and approved Findings of Fact for Case #34-05.
Motion by Artz, supported by VanderHoff, to correct the September 27, 2005, minutes to reflect the motion as in the revised and approved Findings of Fact for Case #34-05.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Bohn, Holtrop and Swanson absent ?
L. Adjournment
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Artz, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Bohn, Holtrop and Swanson absent ?
Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Secretary
|