Kentwood Committees & Boards
Planning Commission (Back to index)
Minutes for 11/08/2005APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 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 Dan Holtrop.
C. Roll Call:
Members Present: Maggie Bohn, Todd Gray, Dan Holtrop, Abed Itani, Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Frank Vander Hoff, and Chris Winczewski.
Members Absent: Betsy Artz and Ed Swanson (both 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 20 citizens.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported byVanderHoff, to excuse Commissioner Betsy Artz and Ed Swanson from the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and Swanson absent ?
D. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by Holtrop, supported by Itani, to approve the Minutes of October 25, 2005, and the Findings of Fact for: Case #36-05 Stormy Creek Farms, Final Site Plan Review of a PUD, located on East side of Shaffer, South of 32nd Street; Case#37-05 T-Mobile, Site Plan Review of a Cellular Tower, located at 4400 Potter (City Water Tank and Pump Station Site).
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and Swanson absent ?
E. Approval of the Agenda
McIntyre-Evenocheck noted that we would have eight cases to review at the November 22 meeting and she wanted everyone to be aware of that when we set the public hearing date for new business.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Gray, to approve the agenda for the November 8, 2005, meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz 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 # 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 is a proposed rezoning for 3.24 acres in size to RPUD-1 and a preliminary and final site plan approval. She explained that the site is master planned for a mixed use office and medium density residential. The LUZ Committee reviewed the proposed plan and said that they would consider a medium density residential development. Golder explained that what was proposed at the work session was for 28-unit development with a gross density of 7.3 units per acre. The developer has come back with a plan for 22 units and the gross density is 6.7 units per acre and the net units per acre (taking out the floodplain and right-of-way) are still over medium density at 8.45 units per acre. Golder explained that because of all the floodplain on the property there is still 1.38 acres of open space and that accounts for 42 percent of the overall site. Golder stated that the only problem she had with the rezoning was the density. The Master Plan says medium density which is four to eight units per acre and this is being proposed at 8.45 units per acre. Golder explained that she is recommending tabling the rezoning and site plan for two weeks due to the density, lack of landscaping information, location of the adjacent homes, and tree preservation. She stated that several of the buildings are six-unit buildings and about 140 feet wide so they are rather large buildings.
Chris Veneklausen, the applicant, explained that they basically made a math error in calculating the density. He stated that the site will be unique in that they are not going to have mowed lawns in order to maintain the existing woodlands. He stated that he has ordered a tree survey to identify the trees. He stated that they are proposing to in-fill areas with evergreen trees to maintain the privacy that the neighbors currently enjoy. Mr. Veneklausen stated that he understood the need for the detail and felt the tabling was a good idea. He stated that he has talked to the neighbors on this project relative to the landscaping and tree location. He stated that he is at the lowest density that he can be and likely still get approval from a bank for financing. Given that they are only developing one side of road makes the road costs much more expensive on a per unit basis.
Chair Bohn opened the public hearing.
Dennis Truby, 4740 Burton Street, stated that he has approximately three acres and his concerns with the proposed development relate to the density. He stated that there is no defining line for the boundary today and putting 22 units there gives them the opportunity to use their land and take away some of the privacy they have. Mr. Truby stated that the units being 30 feet from the property line would remove a lot of the woods that give them protection from sound and sight from Patterson Avenue. He stated that if it is the city?s desire for mixed use he would like to have some input. He thought an office building would be better rather than bringing in residential.
John Hull, 4742 Burton, stated that his house and his neighbors? homes are in an oasis of a forest and it is wonderful because they are a couple of minutes from the commercial area of 28th Street. He spoke to the privacy that they enjoy with a forest behind them. He had no problem with two or three houses on the property rather than townhouses or condominiums as it would detract from their enjoyment. Mr. Hull was concerned with who would maintain the property and also the lack of privacy due to the townhouses being only 30 feet from the property line. He suggested that the property go to a commercial use to maximize the tax base.
Ralph Livingston, 4709 Burton, stated that his property is at the corner of Burton Street and Patterson Avenue and is just north of this site. He stated that the townhouses will be 30 feet from the property line and that does not include the deck that will come out. He stated that he was opposed to rezoning the property and would prefer to see it all go commercial or would prefer homes. Mr. Livingston presented a letter from Tracy Fish, 4774 Burton Street, expressing her objection to the proposed rezoning due to the proximity of the buildings to her property line. Mr. Livingston felt that it would change the whole character of where they live.
Ken Vandenberg, 4736 Burton, spoke to the new single family and condominium developments that are being built in the area along Burton and east of East Paris Avenue. He stated that he was concerned that this may become rental units and turn into a ?transient thing?. He stated that the area is trying hard to be single family. Mr. Vandenberg stated that it is great to be in the country and be in the city. He felt that a residential-type office building would fit in at this site.
Motion by Holtrop, supported by McIntyre-Evenocheck, to adjourn the public hearing for Case #38-05 until the November 22, 2005, meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and Swanson absent ?
Holtrop stated that it was nice hearing input from the neighbors and his main concern is the density and with that would come the traffic concerns.
Itani questioned the density under the current zoning. Golder stated that the current zoning is R1-C Single Family and the parallel plan presented at the work session would have produced six single family units. The Master Plan dictates the density and the zoning is the form that it takes and in this case that is why the rezoning is required because you cannot develop medium density with an R1- C zoning. Itani questioned if the Master Plan has four to eight units for medium density why would the developer right away consider that he will get eight units per acre instead of four units. Golder stated that in part he got that from the LUZ Committee. She stated that at the time we were not talking about density as it looked like a lot of open space as well. Part of the reason it turned out this way is because of the various limitations that the land has. Golder stated that if the floodplain was not there then it would be a different story. Part of the limitations of the property created the density and part of it is the number of units. Itani stated that his concern is the density and had no problem with the lower end of the medium density. He stated that we need to look at the neighborhood surrounding this development and see how this development will change the character of the neighborhood.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that the density was the biggest issue at the work session and were looking at 16 to 18 units for the site. She empathized with the neighbors with losing backyards and not having privacy but she believed something will be developed here and they will lose some privacy. She stated that the density still has to come down.
Gray stated that it was a shame that the floodplain was on the south side of the property because it is the one side that does not abut the residences. He stated that the density as it impacts the site, the need to have these so close to the property line and with the decks coming closer to the property line, are the issues that are causing the problem. If from an economic standpoint we cannot put together something that is going to be viable with fewer units then we need to look at the next opportunity to develop this site. Gray stated we need to see a drop in the density.
Winczewski questioned whether we could condition the PUD on no rental units. Golder stated that it could be worked out in the PUD Statement and conditions of approval. Winczewski stated that we are still under the five acre minimum for a development like this and he was willing to overlook that. But, because of the uniqueness of the land he would like to see the gross density somewhere around four units per acre and then the net would probably come in below the eight units per acre. He stated that he was surprised that privacy was a concern but at least three neighboring residents were in favor of commercial development there.
VanderHoff stated that he can empathize with the neighbors but when you have property that butts up to someone else?s property you cannot expect it to stay natural for the rest of your life. One has to realize that the developer has the right to develop his property under the existing zoning rules. He stated that he would be in favor of around 16 units but no more. If its not economical for the developer that is the way that it is.
Bohn stated that she was a member of the LUZ Committee when it came before them. One reason that the committee considered this for condominiums over and above the office use or commercial was they felt condos are single family residences and therefore lends to more the privacy and maintenance of the existing neighborhood. Bohn stated that there is nothing to say that an office building would not be used 24-7. She agreed that the density was too much. Bohn questioned the setback and decking. Golder stated that the setback is for the building and the deck is allowed to extend up to ten feet into the required setback.
Golder asked the commission if it was the distance from the property line or was it the density of the site. Bohn suggested putting in additional landscaping and berm along the west property line. Bohn stated that along the north property line if two or three units could be removed and bring the four unit building to the south would give a deeper setback to the north which would allow additional landscaping and berm.
Holtrop suggested tabling this case until the December meeting rather than the November 22, meeting. Mr. Veneklausen agreed and stated that he felt that he would need it to work on the site plan.
Motion by Holtrop, supported by Itani, to adjourn the public hearing for Case #38-05 Wood Meadow Townhomes Rezoning and Preliminary and Final Site Plan Review until the December 13, 2005.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and Swanson absent ?
--------------------------------------------
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 the current zoning is C-5 Neighborhood Commercial and the request is for an expansion of an existing vehicle repair facility. The main issue at the work session is that the property is legally non-conforming in terms of lot frontage and lot area for special land uses of this nature. He reviewed the conditions in his staff recommendation for approval of the special land use and site plan.
Rick Postema, Richard Postema & Associates Architects, explained that the owner of this site came to the business in 1995 and the following year and a half they bought additional property with the idea that they could expand here. In the process they looked at expanding across the 150 feet of frontage but in the end they found that it was not economically viable for them to do that. Mr. Postema stated that they have been looking at ways to expand their business at a cost point that would work for them. He stated that they went through the rezoning from industrial to C-5 on staff?s recommendation and it seemed logical that the C-5 would allow this whole area to redevelop into something more viable there. He stated that they found at the last minute that the plan that they were pursuing is now contingent on using all of the land. Mr. Postema stated that the owners are quite firm that they cannot make it work with the 150-foot piece of property. He stated that they felt they could make the expansion that they would like to do with the 75-foot lot and improve a situation that is borderline blighted in that area and have another lot that conforms to the new zoning that they could sell and help pay for the expansion.
Chair Bohn opened the public hearing.
Tom Bloodworth, 3422 Bromley, SE, stated that he has known Randy and Bruce (the owners) up to 15 to 17 years. He stated that they are not a mega company and not going to give Kentwood an exuberant tax base but have not done anything but been a good business partner for Kentwood. He stated that this is a business that cares for individuals with integrity and are honest.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by VanderHoff, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and Swanson absent ?
VanderHoff stated that this is a viable company and if they combine the three lots and split it into two 75-foot wide lots he had no problem with the request. They are a good solid business for Kentwood.
Winczewski asked what was the zoning prior to 2002 when the requirements for lot frontage and lot area were amended. Schweitzer stated prior to 2002 you only had to meet the lot width and lot area of the zone district. This use would not have met these requirements in 2002 since it was industrially zoned and it became a legal non-conforming lot. With the rezoning to C-5 earlier this year it put the minimum lot to 75 feet so what they are proposing would meet the 75-foot lot width of the new zoning. Schweitzer stated that in 2002 the City was looking at the requirements for vehicle repair which was more commonly associated with a traditional vehicle service station that sold gas as well as auto repair. It was decided to break the vehicle repair and gas sales uses out separately because a lot of the vehicle service stations had evolved in this manner and it was decided to carry the 150-foot lot width site requirement over to vehicle repair. Winczewski stated that he would like to encourage this business to expand as it is always good for the City and also good for the business owners. He expressed support for the way the staff recommendation is laid out.
Gray stated that he was in favor of splitting it into two lots and he did not feel that the applicant should be penalized because he happens to own the adjacent lot. He liked the plan and what they are proposing to do by adding a bit of landscaping to the front area. It is a viable business in an area that needs something like this.
McIntyre-Evenocheck agreed with the other commissioners. She felt that the conditions in the staff recommendation work out best for the applicant and the City. She was in favor of the request.
Itani stated that he was against this at the work session but at 75 feet it meets the minimum requirements of the C-5 zone he could support it. It is an existing business that predates the change of the zoning.
Holtrop agreed with VanderHoff.
Bohn asked if the lots were combined and split into two lots would the remaining 75-foot lot be usable in that area. Sengupta stated that it meets the requirements for the C-5 zoning. Bohn stated that she had no problem with the request because they have a very good record as a viable business.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by VanderHoff, to conditionally approve the Special Land Use for expansion of a Vehicle Repair Establishment for B & R Auto as described in Case 39-05 and as per site plan dated September 27, 2005. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 through 4 and basis points 1 through 8 in Sengupta?s memo dated 10-31-05.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Akers and Swanson absent ?
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by VanderHoff, to conditionally approve the Site Plan for expansion of a Vehicle Repair Establishment for B & R Auto as described in Case 39-05 and as per Site Plan dated September 27, 2005. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 through 9 and basis points 1 through 5 in Sengupta?s memo dated 10-31-05.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Akers and Swanson absent ?
----------------------------------------------
I. Work Session
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 the current zoning of OS Open Space to R1-C Single Family Residential. This site is a former pool and bathhouse that was built in 1963 and has since been vacated. The property was purchased by the City on behalf of Habitat for Humanity earlier this year as a tax foreclosure property. At one time the City considered purchasing the property but based on the conditions of the property and the extensive repairs needed to restore the pool, it was determined not to be a good investment for the City. Pung stated that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Master Plan for low density residential and meets the guidelines for rezoning.
Roger Peterman, representing Habitat for Humanity, was present and had nothing to add.
McIntyre-Evenocheck questioned the size of the proposed two houses and wanted to make sure they were compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Peterman stated that both houses at the minimum will be daylight in the back as the property falls off on the west side of the property. One may be a walkout and both will have four bedrooms and two baths. The square footage will be around 1200 to 1300 square feet. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she had no problem with the rezoning and helping out Habitat for Humanity is a wonderful thing to do.
Winczewski questioned how the split to the adjoining neighbors would work. Pung stated that one of the proposals would be to split the easement off to help finance the rest of the project. Mr. Peterman stated that he has talked to both neighbors and they are both interested in the property but they have not worked out the details as yet.
Schweitzer noted that the overhead picture did not include the easement out to Brooklyn. He wanted to make sure that the legal description for the rezoning included the entire parcel.
----------------------------------------------
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 5100 square foot addition to an existing special land use vehicle repair establishment. The amount of the expansion constitutes a major change and therefore requires Planning Commission review and approval. He reviewed the items in his staff report.
Larry Overweg, Hansen Collision, was present and had nothing to add.
There were no comments from the Commission.
-------------------------------------------------
Case #42-05 Disselkoen 29th Street, Site Plan Review of a Shopping Center, located at 3105-29th Street
Golder explained that this request is part of the Disselkoen redevelopment project at the 3105-29th Street. She stated that this is the lower level from the area on 28th Street which has a pet store and party store. The plan is to demolish an existing house on the site and build an 8,000 square-foot strip center that would be perpendicular to 29th Street and would be adjacent to the developing area to the west. She reviewed the items in her staff report noting the cross access easements and easements for truck traffic between this site and the site to the west. Issues that need to be addressed were: determine if second driveway on 29th Street is necessary; more information needed on building materials and other facade views; if cross access parking agreements are in place, islands for greenspace could be added; and second fire lane may be necessary.
Randy Disselkoen, the applicant and Dwight Huskey, Paradigm Design were both present.
Mr. Huskey stated that they have been working on this project for about 2-1/2 years. He presented a revised plan in response to the staff meeting. The changes included the reduction of seven parking spaces; and sidewalk extended down to 29th Street. Mr. Huskey stated that they have a project that has existed with the two curb cuts for almost 30 years and while there are cross easements for the specific buildings, there are also specific easements that protect the rights. There is no way to eliminate one of the drives without the consent of the other property owners. Without adding any other curb cuts they are incorporating another lot into the development. Mr. Huskey stated that the facade will incorporate the feel of both facades of the buildings that straddles between 28th and 29th Street. The materials would be a combination of brick, architectural block, or dryvit and some metal canopies over the entrances.
Winczewski stated that he would like to see the curb cut go away but since it won?t it would not be that detrimental. He noted that 29th Street is becoming hard to get in and out of so anyway that we can incorporate better traffic flow would be nice.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that she felt it was a good plan and would be a nice project.
Bohn stated that because this building will be perpendicular to 29th Street and the rendering of the facade was for the front she would like to see what the back would look like. Mr. Huskey stated that the east wall of this building will be at least 60 percent as a retaining wall as well as some of the north end of the building. Between that and the screening that is there you will not see much as you come from the east.
----------------------------------------------------
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 Wedgwood Christian Services is requesting for a rezoning of their facility from R-4 to RPUD-1 High Density Residential Planned Unit Development and a preliminary site plan review of a PUD. The use would be a mix of institutional and residential use. The purpose of the rezoning is to have a master plan in place for future additions and improvements to their facility. He reviewed the items in his staff report noting the issues: deviations may be required for some of the parking as well as building setbacks; density and open space calculations need revisions; alternate joint access from the drive serving the Christian Recreation Center; and preservation of mature trees on the site.
Randy Zylstra, Director of Services for Wedgwood Christian Services, was present.
Holtrop stated that the north parking lot is too close to the road. He noted from his experience that most of the time there are excess parking spaces.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that Sengupta covered everything in his report. She felt that this facility does a great job and anything we can do to help them with their needs is great.
Gray stated that if there was an opportunity to blend the access from 36th Street to the Recreation Center access would be great.
Winczewski asked for the definition of a ?troubled youth?. Mr. Zylstra stated that he was not sure there was a definition of a ?troubled youth? because it has a lot to do with public perception. From their perspective they find the children very workable at a young age and are happy to work with them. He stated that relative to the neighbors is the perception of what kind of trouble can they cause my neighborhood. Mr. Zylstra stated that they have been there for about 25 years and have had more trouble from the kids coming down from the apartments breaking into the staff cars than from their kids going up into the apartments. It is very rare because the facilities are all locked and the kids only come out under staff supervision and for recreational purposes. Very few of them earn the privilege of going to the community school and most are schooled on the grounds within a locked facility. Winczewski stated that was his question and he understands exactly the problems with the apartments. As a resident on Shaffer when the commercial piece goes in at 44th Street and Shaffer he was concerned about foot traffic from the apartments and this facility. If the kids are well behaved and well supervised he did not see a problem. Mr. Zylstra stated that if they are not well behaved they will not be outside.
Bohn asked Sengupta to check with the Police and Fire Departments to see if there have been an unusual number of calls to that area but she did not think he would find a problem.
---------------------------------------------------
J. New Business
Motion by Holtrop, supported by to Itani, set the public hearing date of December 13, 2005, for: 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); Case #45-05 Prestige Import Repair ? Addition, Major Change to an Approved Site Plan, located at 2919-29th Street, SE; 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.
- Motion Carried (6-1) ?
- McIntyre-Evenocheck dissenting -
- Artz and Swanson absent ?
K. Other Business
1. Commissioners? Comments
VanderHoff stated that he will be absent from the November 22 meeting.
Winczewski thanked staff for their staff reports as they are very easy to review. He informed the commission that he and his wife are expecting twins next May.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that the engineering memos have been very great and help her in what to look for.
2. Staff?s Comments
No comments from staff.
L. Adjournment
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Winczewski, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and Swanson absent ?
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Secretary
|