Kentwood Committees & Boards
Planning Commission (Back to index)
Minutes for 11/22/2005APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 22, 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 McIntyre-Evenocheck.
C. Roll Call:
Members Present: Betsy Artz, Maggie Bohn, Todd Gray, Dan Holtrop, Abed Itani, Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Ed Swanson, and Chris Winczewski.
Members Absent: Frank VanderHoff (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 press, the applicants, and 25 residents.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Itani, to excuse Commissioner VanderHoff from the meeting.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- VanderHoff absent ?
D. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Gray, to approve the Minutes of November 8, 2005, and the Findings of Fact for: Case #39-05 B&R Auto, Expansion of a Special Land Use Vehicle Repair, Major and Site Plan Review, located at 5232 Division.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- VanderHoff absent ?
E. Approval of the Agenda
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Artz, to approve the agenda for the November 22, 2005, meeting.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- VanderHoff absent ?
F. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.
There was no public comment.
G. Old Business
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 (Public hearing adjourned to December 13, 2005, meeting.)
H. Public Hearing
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
Pung explained that this request is to rezone 0.604 acres from OS Open Space to R1-C Single Family Residential. It is currently a site of a former pool and bathhouse which was built in 1963 and has been abandoned for several years. The property was acquired by the City earlier this year as a tax foreclosed property for Habitat for Humanity. The City had at one point looked at acquiring the property for city use but based on the condition of the property and extensive repairs that would have been required it was determined that it would not have been a good investment for the City to acquire it. Pung stated that the proposed zoning would be consistent with the surrounding zoning which is all R1-C Single Family Residential. He reviewed the basis in his staff recommendation.
Roger Peterman representing Habitat for Humanity was present.
Chair Bohn opened the public hearing.
Joyce Signor, 4594 Brooklyn Avenue, stated that they moved here in 1966 and their big love was the pool and three lots next to them that were the woods. She did not understand how the City can sell land to someone with the purpose of building when the land is zoned Open Space without getting the consent of the people before they sell it. She stated that there is a piece of land between Brooklyn and the pool and now there is not room big enough for a building lot. Ms. Signor questioned why that part could not remain open space. She stated that the square footage for the proposed Habitat homes is small for the number of bedrooms in them.
Andrew Crawl, 4593 Brooklyn, stated that he has been a member of the pool off and on over the years. He stated that his concern is how the City can turn around and sell this property to Habitat for Humanity and not let the neighborhood who that association belonged to not be involved in that decision making process. He stated that for some reason that the people that ran the pool did not make it feasible for them to pay the taxes. He felt that the City should reconsider this and let the people that live in the neighborhood have a chance to pay the taxes and do something with it.
Chair Bohn asked Attorney Sluggett to explain the rights of the City concerning the property. Attorney Sluggett stated that the City has already conveyed the property at this point so the property is owned by Habitat for Humanity. It is not the city?s property any longer. She stated that the only issue before the Commission this evening is the rezoning request.
Alisa Ross, 4663 Bonnie, stated that they were not given any notification of the sale. There was someone who came around and knocked on the door and asked what they would think about the possibility of having Habitat for Humanity homes there. She stated that their concerns were what would it do to their property value and what type of residents would be moving into this area and what type of trouble there would be such as drugs. She stated that the only notice they received was the notice about the meeting tonight.
Attorney Sluggett stated that under Michigan Law if the taxes are delinquent a notice would have gone to the registered owner of the property which was probably a non-profit corporation. Whoever the Board of Directors is would have received several notices that the taxes were delinquent.
Ms. Ross stated that she did not feel that it went through the proper channels as far as asking the neighborhood. She stated that the Commission is not part of the neighborhood and do not know what went into the pool. She questioned how these homes would affect the property values of the homes in the neighborhood. Schweitzer explained that Habitat for Humanity is proposing to build two structures on the property. He stated that what is under review is the rezoning. Ms. Ross stated that she felt a meeting with Habitat should have taken place with the neighborhood before requesting the rezoning.
Art Taylor, 4561 Poinsettia, stated that he was not against Habitat for Humanity but was opposed to the small house. He could see one house but not too. He questioned the size of the homes; size of the bedrooms; size of the bathrooms; unfinished basement ? does it count as living area; has the groundwater been tested for contamination; how much will the taxes be and who could afford them if poorer people move into the area; maintenance of the property once they move in; will this lower the property values and lower their taxes; garages ? one or two stall or no garage; and the minimum distance from the property line to the next house. He stated that he was against two houses and would be happy with one house.
Ms Ross stated that a fence has been put up on the property and the pool land should be greater than you might think both on the side to the north and the side to the west. She wanted this to remain open space since we need more open space.
Rod Johnson, 4606 Brooklyn, stated that they are directly behind the property and when they purchased their home one of the things they liked was that the pool was there. There is a lot of privacy. He stated that when Habitat came around he was not against Habitat but he is against two homes. He stated that there should be only one home and the same type that is in the area.
Roger Peterman, Habitat for Humanity, explained that the Habitat?s home model for these two properties has exceeded the covenants with Habitat and both will have a little in excess of 1500 square feet finished. It is about 300 square feet more than they normally do. The houses were designed specifically for the neighborhood relative to pictures of existing houses. The houses will have brick veneer to match some of the houses and to fit in better with the neighborhood. He stated that it is difficult to come into a neighborhood and build a house that families that qualify for Habitat can afford and keep it an affordable house along with the tax base. To build one house on the property would make the tax base so high for the house that it would not be an affordable home. The property on Bonnie is two platted lots of record and you could build two houses that size and it would not look any different. He stated that they build off of surveys and have to build to existing codes.
Diane Kutter, 1206 Edsel, stated that part of the problem of not being notified about this and the pool being eliminated is that the people who ran the pool were all volunteers. She stated that the person who received the letter about the taxes may have moved. Ms. Kutter stated that the summer before last the pool was alive and well and was doing very good. She stated that they live on short of an acre of land and two houses on this land is one too many. This is a beautiful neighborhood and every house was architecturally built and not tract housing.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Itani, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- VanderHoff absent ?
Bohn stated that the question before the Commission is the rezoning and nothing to do with the homes to be built.
Winczewski questioned whether anyone looked into whether or not the narrow portion of the property would remain as open space. Pung stated that the City does not own the property. Winczewski stated that he felt bad that as shareholders they were not notified of the foreclosure. He questioned whether the pool was built under a special land use under the Open Space zoning. Pung stated that the pool was built around 1963 and at that point it was zoned R1-C Single Family Residential. In 1980 the City did a major overhaul of the Zoning Ordinance and did quite a few rezonings and that included converting quite a few properties to OS Open Space. Prior to 1980 there was no Open Space zoning. Winczewski stated that from a zoning standpoint he was in favor of this. He was not sure of what legal action the shareholders can take about lack of notice. The site plan is something that they are not talking about.
Gray questioned whether this would come before the Commission for site plan review. Pung stated that it would go through a staff review building permit process as long as it conforms to the Zoning Ordinance requirements for setbacks. Gray stated that he was in favor of the rezoning.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she empathized with the residents. She used to live in that neighborhood and was a member of the Linda Park Pool Association in the 1980s. She was sorry to see the pool go to waste this past summer. The issue at hand is the rezoning and she felt that rather than the property remaining in disrepair, the rezoning is the best thing to happen to it at this time.
Artz questioned whether it is normal for someone to purchase property for the use that it is not zoned for and whether someone else could purchase the land from them. Attorney Sluggett stated whether someone could purchase the property would be up to Habitat for Humanity in terms of whether they would want to sell or not. He stated that if the rezoning did not go through they could not do what they hope to do with the property. All the Commission is doing is making a recommendation to either approve or deny the rezoning. The City Commission makes the final decision on a rezoning.
Itani stated that if the rezoning is approved by the City Commission, one alternative available to the neighbors is to purchase the property from Habitat for Humanity. He stated that there is no proof that if they put two houses on the property it will turn into a drug houses. Prejudging the people who will live there is wrong. That is not a basis for rejecting the rezoning request. He saw no problem with the rezoning.
Holtrop asked if the Parks & Recreation Board looked at this property. Pung stated that they did. Holtrop stated that the City does care about the citizens of Kentwood as they considered it as a park and do not want to see it go into disrepair. We are now saying make it fit with the neighborhood and make some residences out of it.
Swanson stated that if the association still exists in some form and you really want to buy this back from Habitat for Humanity talk to them. To make it viable again, it will take some time and money to do it. He stated that we are recommending what is reasonable which is housing for the area.
Bohn agreed with the Commissioners on the rezoning. She stated that it is a shame that the organization that was behind the pool apparently did not notify people the way they should have and things fell apart. She stated that if the property is split into two lots it would be comparable to others in the area. Looking at this as a straight rezoning in a residential neighborhood, she was in favor of the rezoning.
Motion by Holtrop, supported by Itani, to recommend to the City Commission approval of the request to rezone .60 acres of land from OS Open Space to R1-C Single Family Residential as described in Case #40-05. Recommendation is based on basis points 1 through 10 in Pung?s memo dated 11-16-05.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- VanderHoff absent ?
--------------------------------------------------
Case #41-05 Hansen Collision Major Change to an Approved Site Plan, located at 3800 Broadmoor Avenue
Pung explained that this request is for a major change to an approved site plan for a vehicle repair establishment. They are looking at an addition of approximately 5,100 square feet to the existing 14,200 square foot building. The original site plan and land use were approved in 1986. Pung stated that the building elevations appear to meet the facade requirements of the zoning ordinance. He stated that the Fire Department requested another fire lane in front of the building which would take out a lot of landscaping in front of the building. He reviewed the conditions in his staff recommendation for approval.
Larry Overweg was present representing Hansen Collision. He stated that after reviewing the additional fire lane requirement they grew to like the idea since they would not have to access the road to get to the rear of the property. He stated that they are proposing to add additional landscaping to the site.
Chair Bohn opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Motion by Gray, supported by Artz, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- VanderHoff absent ?
Swanson stated that he did not like the fire lane there. He questioned what the addition to the building would be. Mr. Overweg stated that most of it will be a corporate office. Swanson stated that the site looks nice and he did not like to put a road that would remove the landscaping. Mr. Overweg stated that he will see that it will be landscaped and will not take away from the appearance of the building. He stated that they are going to put another window in the original building to match the new part and add dryvit on the top of the existing building to match the front of the new building. Swanson stated that he sees the need for the driveway but does not like the location.
McIntyre-Evenocheck noted that the fence on the back part of the site is not noted on the site plan. She questioned the location of the fence near the side of the building. She felt that it should be shown on the site plan. She asked if cars would be parked on the fire lane. Mr. Overweg stated that they would not be parked there. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she hoped the back parking lot will alleviate the cars parked in the front of the building. Mr. Overweg stated that the employees of the entire facility will be parked in the other space rather than in the front.
Bohn stated that with the fire lane going through staff should see that the landscaping is improved along the parking lot. She stated that with the changes to the existing building it is obvious that the owner wants to keep an attractive place of business.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Itani, to conditionally approve the site plan dated November 11, 2005, as described in Case 41-05 Hansen Collision. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 through 4 and basis points 1 through 4 in Pung?s memo dated 11/17/05.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- VanderHoff absent ?
---------------------------------------------------------
Case #42-05 Disselkoen 29th Street, Site Plan Review of a Shopping Center, located at 3105-29th Street
Golder stated that this project is for a shopping center which is part of a redevelopment of the Disselkoen property at Radcliff and 29th Street. She stated that they are looking at putting in an 8,000 square foot shopping center that will be perpendicular to 29th Street. She reviewed the issues brought up at the work session that included the two driveways out to 29th Street and shared parking. She stated that the two driveways have existed for a long time and there is nothing that can be done because of the cross access agreements on the properties. She reviewed the conditions in her staff recommendation for approval of the site plan.
Randy Disselkoen, owner of the property, and Brian Holleman, Paradigm Design, were present.
Chair Bohn opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Motion by Swanson, supported by McIntyre-Evenocheck, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- VanderHoff absent ?
McIntyre-Evenocheck questioned the location of the barrier-free parking and whether the building would have multiple tenants. Mr. Holleman stated that right now the floor plan is gauged for several tenants. The reason for the location of the barrier-free parking has to do with the grading of the site since it continues to go up and they are flush with the concrete sidewalk in the location that they are proposed. McIntyre-Evenocheck suggested adding a space at the southern end of the center.
Swanson stated that he missed the work session and questioned the reason for the two driveways. He stated that if this is not approved Mr. Dissselkoen should go back and work out a solution for that access. Golder stated that both access exist right now. She stated that it has to do with the cross access agreements and truck access to the upper level stores. Mr. Holleman explained that it is the only easement that exists for truck access. Swanson stated that he did not have a problem with the easement. He questioned the truck movement on the site and the need for the two driveways. He proposed tabling so that they could work out the easements.
Disselkoen stated that changing the easements is not possible. Schweitzer explained that they have worked on phasing the property over the last several years and in that time much progress has been made to consolidate properties and end up with better cross access and reciprocal parking from the properties fronting on 29th Street all the way to 28th Street. He stated that there are two or three different ownerships involved. The adjacent property that is under development right now is very closely tied to the parking and cross access easements to this property. Schweitzer stated that from what he has seen of these agreements it would be a difficult proposition to renegotiate the changes suggested.
Swanson stated that if they removed one of the drives they would have a better parking layout and still provide circulation.
Bohn stated that considering what Mr. Disselkoen and Schweitzer have stated it appears that they have already done some work on trying to achieve this without being able to.
Mr. Disselkoen stated that they have been working on this for five years and if it is tabled nothing will happen. The other owners will not even discuss changing the easements.
Winczewski stated that he agreed with Swanson that 29th Street has a number of curbcuts and we should consider reducing it by one.
Bohn stated that this has been before us several different times and there was a lot of work done by Mr. Disselkoen to combine some of the parcels and the easements. If he and Schweitzer stated that they have worked with the other owners and at this point in time this is the best that they can achieve, she could live with that.
Motion by Holtrop, supported by Itani, to conditionally approve the site plan dated November 11, 2005 as described in Case #42-05. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 through 6 and basis points 1 through 4 in Golder?s memo dated 11/14/05.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- VanderHoff absent ?
---------------------------------------------------
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
Sengupta explained that this request is to rezone 20.65 acres from R-4 to RPUD-1 High Density Residential Planned Unit Development and preliminary site plan review of a PUD. He explained that there is an existing child care institution on the property and the applicant would like to have a master plan in place for future additions and improvements. Sengupta stated that they revised the site plan relocating the access point onto 36th Street further west. He stated that they are requesting a deviation from the 45-foot parking setback and 20-foot landscape buffer for a non-residential use. He reviewed the conditions in his staff recommendation for approval.
Representatives from Wedgwood Christian Services and Exxel Engineering were present.
Chair Bohn opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Itani, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- VanderHoff absent ?
Winczewski stated that he was concerned with the setbacks for the parking lot. He stated that he was disappointed that the Christian Recreation Center would not consider sharing an easement for the drive access from 36th Street. He was concerned how the parking will look like on the corner.
Bohn shared Winczewski?s concerns with the parking lot but overall the plan does look very good.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Itani, to recommend to the City Commission conditional approval of the request to rezone 20.65 acres of land, currently zoned R-4 High Density Residential to RPUD-1 High Density Residential Planned Unit Development as described in Case No. 43-05 Wedgwood Christian Services. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 through 3 and basis points 1 through 5 in Sengupta?s memo dated 11/16/05.
- Motion Carried (8-0) ?
- VanderHoff absent ?
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Itani, to recommend to the City Commission conditional approval of the preliminary PUD site plan dated April 21, 2005 and as per revision dated November 15, 2005, for Wedgwood Christian Services as described in Case #43-05. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 through 8 and basis points 1 through 7 in Sengupta?s memo dated 11/16/05.
- Motion Carried (7-1) ?
- Winczewski dissenting ?
- VanderHoff absent ?
-----------------------------------------------------
Note: Holtrop asked to be excused due to a family emergency and left at 8:40 p.m.
I. Work Session
Case #44-05 GPL LLC Rezoning of approximately 40,302 square feet of land from I-2 Heavy Industrial to C-2 Community Commercial, located on the East side of Breton Avenue, just South of Railroad (part of Sheldon Cleaners property at 3000 Breton Avenue)
Golder explained this request is to rezone approximately 40,302 square feet of land from I-2 to C-2 Community Commercial. The site is part of the Sheldon Cleaners property on the east side of Breton just south of the railroad tracks. The property is master planned for industrial use but there is a mixture of industrial and commercial in the area. She stated that the LUZ Committee reviewed a possible commercial use (car wash) for the site and were in favor of the possibility of rezoning to commercial. She stated that if we rezone the property to C-2 we would have to be okay with the rezoning not knowing what will happen with the use. Golder stated that our needs for industrial especially in this area are less and less and it seems like it has some potential for going to another use. She reviewed the items in her staff report noting the attributes and issues with the proposed rezoning.
Mark Tomasik, Innovative Design, representing Sheldon Cleaners, stated that they did talk about a car wash but now they are considering doing a higher quality multiple tenant retail building.
Winczewski asked for a short summary of the discussion from the LUZ Committee. Swanson referred to the aerial photo in Golder?s staff report noting that the Kentwood Office Furniture has a retail component; tire store has a retail component; a strip center to the south and there is a lot of retail in the area associated with other uses. As a car wash the LUZ Committee felt that it fit nicely with the auto dealerships to the north. The discussion of making it a high-end retail is a new subject. It is different than the LUZ Committee talked about.
Bohn stated that we have to realize that if it is rezoned to C-2 then it opens it up to any use allowed in the C-2 district.
Mr. Tomasik noted that they are looking at a high-end more attractive building rather than high-end commercial use.
Winczewski stated that he would like to see the uses fit the Master Plan but he did not want to deter investment in the City.
Gray stated that what we are looking at a rezoning and we lose a lot of control as anything that fits in the C-2 is fair game. He stated that he would like to create a shared access between the Sheldon property and this site in order to reduce the curb cuts in this busy area.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that this is a busy area and at the LUZ Committee they were sold on a car wash and a strip mall was not something they cared for. She was not in favor of the rezoning if it was going to be any retail in there. It is a busy area and next to a railroad tracks, there will be a lot of noise and dust that are associated with industrial zones. She felt that a car wash would fit in but not a retail use.
Swanson agreed with McIntyre-Evenocheck. He stated that a car wash fits the area but a retail strip center he did not feel that it fit the area.
Itani agreed with the previous comments. He stated that if it is straight retail it would generate a lot of traffic compared to heavy industrial. He questioned the size of the building they could put on the property. Mr. Tomasik stated that it is about 8,000 square feet. He stated that they did extensive research on car washes and they found that it is a lot of work. He stated that they would like to go to a C-2 zoning and do what they normally do and that is retail. He stated that if there was a problem with the curb cut and it would prevent them from doing what they would like to do, he was sure they would negotiate the curb cut in using a shared drive. Mr. Tomasik stated that with the retail across the street they felt that retail was appropriate for this site.
Artz stated that she is also on the LUZ Committee and was shocked to see that this had changed so much. She could see a car wash and not retail.
Golder stated that we need to look at the bigger picture of this area because it is changing. A lot of the industrial uses are not successful except for the Sheldon Cleaners. There are a lot of vacant industrial buildings here. She felt that the LUZ Committee should look at the whole area from 29th Street down to 32nd Street and then take a look back at the car wash. She suggested tabling and having LUZ look at this again.
After further discussion, the LUZ Committee agreed to meet at 6:30 p.m. before the next meeting to look at this project and the area and open the public hearing, take comments and possibly adjourn the public hearing until the January 10th meeting.
--------------------------------------------------
Case #45-05 Prestige Import Repair ? Addition, Major Change to an Approved Site Plan, located at 2919-29th Street, SE
Pung explained that this request is for a major change to an approved site plan and special land use for an open air car sales. The applicant is looking at an addition of approximately 3900 square feet to the existing 11,000 square foot building. He reviewed the items in his staff report noting the attributes and issues to be addressed ? building elevation calculations; provision of lot coverage calculations; and completion of dumpster enclosure.
Gordon Julius, Architect, was present.
Swanson stated that the proposed addition looks good.
McIntyre-Evenocheck asked if barbed wire was allowed in commercial areas. Schweitzer stated that there is a provision for barbed wire to enclose storage areas.
Mr. Julius presented a colored rending of the building and explained that the building is a pre-engineered metal building with the perimeter scored block and pre-engineered metal skin. He stated that the intent is to change the building from a masonry finish to a nice clean finish but they do not meet the facade requirements. Schweitzer stated that may need to be worked out between now and the public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------
Case #46-05 Hope Network ? 36th Street Home, Site Plan Review and Special Land Use ? Adult Foster Care Facility Group Home, located at 4345 ? 36th Street
Sengupta explained that this request is for a special land use and site plan review for an adult foster care facility group home. It is an existing facility on 36th Street that allows for six adults to be cared for and they want to expand the facility to seven residents. All changes would be done within the existing home. He stated that they need six parking spots for off-street parking and all of them would be on the driveway. He stated that the setback requirements for parking are 45 feet from a residential use and the first 20 feet from the lot line needs to be developed as a landscape buffer. In order to meet that requirement they would need a variance or relocate the parking towards the back of the building.
Andrea Ott, representing Hope Network, explained that the request was occasioned by a request by the Department of Social Services to Hope Network to increase the capacity of this particular program that provides specialty care for a certain type of disability. She stated that they could make the family room into another bedroom to expand the capacity. There would be no changes to the exterior of the building and no staffing changes would be required. The parking issue comes into play by increasing the facility by one they become more of a commercial use rather than a residential function. As far as traffic nothing is changing. Ms. Ott stated that they are looking to seek the variance as they will be accommodating the same number of staff. She stated that they are also considering creating parking in front of the building to the west of the drive.
Swanson questioned the number of parking spaces required by expanding the number of residents. Sengupta stated that they do not need any additional spaces for the expansion the only issue is the setback of the parking spaces. They need six spaces and they have six spaces but for the special land use they need the 45-foot setback so they are considering relocating the parking to a parking lot in front of the existing house.
McIntyre-Evenocheck questioned if the designation is changed to an adult foster care small group home doesn?t the ordinance allow up to 12 residents to stay there. Ms. Ott stated that they have to comply with AFC licensing requirements and the license would specify a maximum of seven individuals. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she had no problems with this one.
Bohn stated that she hoped that they could get the variance as you see six cars in a residential drive all the time.
----------------------------------------------------
J. New Business
Public hearing date of January 10, 2005, will be set at the December 13, 2005, meeting.
Case #1-06 Woodhaven Condominiums, Final Site Plan Review of a PUD, located on the East side of Walma Avenue, South of 44th Street
K. Other Business
1. Commissioners? Comments
Swanson stated that he was glad to be back and hoped to be driving for the next meeting.
McIntyre-Evenocheck informed the Commission that Gray and his wife were expecting a baby in the May.
Winczewski stated that the new Cinemark facility does look nice even though you have to walk a distance.
2. Staff?s Comments
Change meeting date for long-range planning issues from July 25, 2006 to August 8, 2006
Schweitzer explained that generally the long-range planning meeting is held at the second meeting in July, however since the first meeting in August is the day for the state primary election, the Commission Chambers and the large conference room are used for one of the election places. He asked that the long-range planning meeting be changed to the August 8 meeting and they could meet elsewhere in the building. He asked for a motion to amend the schedule of meetings for 2006.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Itani, to change the schedule of meetings for 2006 to change the long-range planning meeting to the first meeting in August rather than the second meeting in July due to the state primary election on August 8.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Holtrop and VanderHoff absent ?
Schweitzer stated that Pung has been working with the city attorney on the conditional rezoning provisions. He asked the Zoning Ordinance Subcommittee to set a meeting to review the proposed ordinance changes that would also include the open air business provisions. It was decided that they would meet before the January 10, 2006, meeting. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she would also like to sit in on that meeting.
L. Adjournment
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Itani, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Holtrop and VanderHoff absent ?
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Secretary
|