Kentwood Committees & Boards
Planning Commission (Back to index)
Minutes for 12/12/2006APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 12, 2006, 7:30 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
A. Vice-Chair Ed Swanson 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: Laurie Sheldon, Ray Poyner, Dan Holtrop, Abed Itani, Ed Swanson, Frank Vander Hoff, and Chris Winczewski.
Members Absent: Artz and McIntyre-Evenocheck (with notice)
Others Present: City Attorney Jeff Sluggett, Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Economic Development Planner Lisa Golder, Planner Joe Pung, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, the press and one citizen.
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Commissioner Poyner, to excuse Commissioner Artz and Chair McIntyre-Evenocheck from the December 12, 2006 meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and McIntyre-Evenocheck absent ?
D. Approval of the Minutes of November 28, 2006 and Findings of Fact, there were no Findings of Fact.
Motion by Commissioner Poyner, supported by Commissioner Itani, to approve the Minutes of November 28, 2006.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and McIntyre-Evenocheck absent ?
E. Approval of the Agenda
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Commissioner Itani, to approve the agenda for the December 12, 2006 meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and McIntyre-Evenocheck absent -
F. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.
There was no public comment.
G. Old Business
Case #24-06 - CBS Partners Site Plan Review located at 2300 44th Street SE
Staff Planner Pung introduced the request. He stated that the request is for a site plan review for a 6,000 square foot shopping center. He stated that the lot is 86 feet wide and 330 feet deep. He stated that the main concerns at the previous work sessions/ public hearings were the cross-access to the west, lack of architectural features windows etc. to break up the west building wall, addition of a pedestrian connection from the 44th Street sidewalk to the building and the building orientation. Pung recommended denial for Case #24-06 CBS Partners site plan review for a multi tenant retail building as outlined in his planning staff recommendation. Denial was based on basis points 1-5.
Attorney Randall Kraker was there on behalf of CBS Partners. He stated that he wants to emphasize that the property is zoned for retail use and that the city commission rezoned the property to allow that. He stated that they have a pre existing lot that is uniquely shaped. He stated that the lot has already given up its only curb cut and has arranged to share a curb cut on the neighbor?s property. He stated that they have shown an easement on the site plan to allow for connections to the property next door. He stated that the proposed site plan complies with the entire objective zoning ordinance requirements. He stated that the property is zoned for retail use and he doesn?t think the city should ignore the unique characteristics because staff/commissioners don?t like what they are proposing.
Mr. Kraker stated that with regards to the staff recommendation basis point 1. one should expect the building to be the shape that they are proposing due to the long, narrow characteristics of the lot. He stated that a zero lot line is permitted by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Kraker stated that the statements regarding the design negatively impacting the visibility, marketability and general aesthetics, offer no evidence or no proof of any detrimental impact. He stated that those are only conclusion statements with no basis in fact and he doesn?t think they support a denial.
Mr. Kraker stated that basis point 2. includes more conclusion statements and no evidence. He stated that the unique state of the preexisting lot is ignored. He stated that there are two lots to the east with buildings that are close to the side lot lines and similar orientation. He stated that there are numerous retail buildings in the City with similar orientations and locations on even wider lots than the proposed lot. Mr. Krakker stated that he wants to point out that zero lot lines are permitted in the zone district. He stated that this is the kind of lot you?re required to build a zero lot line on one side or the other to make reasonable use of the lot. He stated that the width the depth analysis is irrelevant. He stated that it ignores the unique characteristics of the lot. He stated that other long narrow lots zoned for retail use in the city will involve the same kind of building that is proposed by the applicant.
Mr. Kraker stated that basis point 3 ignores the fact that the applicant has repeatedly indicated that the actual building constructed will comply with requirements of that section. He stated that the zoning ordinance allows for several possible architectural treatments for the building wall. He stated that the applicant will use one or more possible architectural treatments. He stated that once the tenants are known their preferences will be taken into account in the design of the wall. Mr. Kraker stated that the applicant has suggested that the only appropriate way to address that issue is to propose a condition that the final elevation of the wall will be subject to review and approval by the planning department.
Mr. Kraker stated that regarding basis point 4 everyone has acknowledged that sometime before the property to the west is developed, the access easement will be activated. He stated the commissioners will have to impose a requirement that the cross access easement be activated. He stated that the property owner to the west has not expressed any interest in developing as of this time. He stated that when the development does happen CBS Partners will remove the dumpster from the cross access easement. He stated that when the property to the west is developed the commissioners can impose a condition that when and if the access easement is used the dumpster will be moved to a different location on the site.
Mr. Kraker stated that their proposal is reasonable, practical and an economically feasible project that utilizes a difficult lot to develop; it is a deep narrow lot that is zoned for the retail use. He stated that they would like the planning commission to approve the site plan with two conditions that the elevation of the western wall be subject to approval by the planning director and the relocation of the dumpster occur at such time as the access easement is activated.
Vice-Chair Swanson opened the public hearing
There was no public comment.
Motion by Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Commissioner Poyner to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (7-0)-
- Artz and McIntyre-Evenocheck absent-
Secretary Winczewski stated that he is disappointed that he hasn?t seen any changes since the work session. He stated that he agrees with the basis points from planning staff that it will have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and he is basing his decision on that. He stated that the zero lot line will change the make up of the neighborhood and he is not in favor of the project.
Commissioner VanderHoff stated that he supports the planning department?s recommendation and he is not in favor of the project.
Commissioner Poyner stated that he too supports the planning department?s recommendation. He stated that in zoning ordinance section 14.01 it does specify and allow that the commission has the flexibility to look at the impact on the community. He stated that his concern is that the site plan will have a detrimental impact on the community. He stated that he is concerned about an empty building being there for several years. He stated that he is not in favor of the site plan.
Commissioner Sheldon stated that she doesn?t think it is a reasonable fit for that area. She stated that has seen quite a few of these buildings and they are not attractive and there are so many empty ones and she doesn?t want to see that in Kentwood. She stated that she is not in support.
Commissioner Holtrop stated that he is torn. He stated that he realizes they are using what they have. He stated that he doesn?t like the 100 foot wall but that could be addressed with a basis point.
Commissioner Swanson stated that he has concerns about the viability of the project and it may not be wise to develop such a narrow lot at this time with the building they are proposing. He stated that he supports the staff comments and recommendations.
Motion by Commissioner Poyner, supported by Commissioner VanderHoff to deny the site plan dated December 5, 2006 as described in Case #24-06 CBS Partners. Denial is based on basis 1-5 in Pung?s memo dated 12/07/06.
- Motion Carried (7-0)-
- Artz and McIntyre-Evenocheck absent
Case #31-06 ? 32ND Street Condo?s - Site Plan Review located at 3016 32nd Street
Staff Planner Pung introduced the request. He stated that this request is for a 14 unit condominium development. He stated that they are looking at 2-two unit buildings and 2-three unit buildings and 1- four unit building. He stated that at the work session there were two issues that came up. One was the concerns with the adjacent property owners with regards to drainage and run off. The City Engineer stated that it meets all the requirements of the drainage ordinance. The City Engineer stated that it should not increase the run off on adjacent properties but it should slow down the rate of run off. He stated that another issue that was raised had to do with the building fa?ade and orientation of the units. Planner Pung stated that the applicant has indicated that he has his architect looking at different orientations for the garages themselves. He stated that they are unable to modify the building orientation while feasibly developing the site. He stated that the applicant has submitted some ways to address that concerns. Pung stated that they are also looking at modifications to the landscaping. Pung stated that the applicant would like to table the public hearing in order to get revised site plans. The applicant submitted different options for the garages, roof lines and fa?ade treatments for the planning commission?s comments.
Vice Chair Swanson stated that if the city engineer was present he would like to ask if there is a problem on the property that needs to be improved or resolved with the drainage issue as a part of the solution.
Vice Chair Swanson opened the public hearing.
Terry Brandon a resident from Castle Villa stated that he is concerned about the run off. He stated that in Wingate there is a berm where water runs from that property and runs west into other properties. He is concerned about the water problems.
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Commissioner Itani, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and McIntyre-Evenocheck absent -
Commissioner Holtrop stated that he is glad to see the number of options, but he doesn?t think it addresses any change in the depth of the garages in front of the houses.
Commissioner Sheldon stated that she would like to see some landscaping options at the next meeting. Sheldon stated that she likes the options and does not care for the garages in front of the home. She stated that she would like to see every unit with a different look.
Commissioner Poyner stated that he is concerned about the garages.
Commissioner Itani stated that it will be difficult for him to vote for the project if the run off issue isn?t taken care of. He stated that there were several residents that stood up and talked about the water problems. He stated that he thinks it is important for the city to take a look at this issue before it gets approved.
Secretary Winczewski stated that he agrees with Commissioner Itani about the flooding. He stated that his concern about the elevation is that he doesn?t consider them different at all, the buildings look exactly the same. He stated that he would like to see more modifications with the plan. He stated that he knows there are other options and the property next to him is for sale. He stated that he doesn?t like the site plan the way it is. He stated that he would like to see an extensive landscaping plan, different homes or expanding on the property next door and maybe combining of units in order to put the garages on the side or underneath the buildings.
Commissioner Swanson stated that he would like the applicant bring in some other options. He stated that he would like the civil engineer to work with city staff regarding the drainage issue.
Applicant Mr. Adis Kikic stated that the zoning for the property could be developed for up to 19 units but he thought that if he did smaller units and present them nicely would be more appealing. He stated that if he put the garages next to the house he would be cutting his number of units even less and he stated that it will just be two buildings, one long building on the left with six or seven units and one on the bottom facing south with six units. He thinks that looking at something like that would be ugly. He stated that is why he took more space in between the duplexes and three plexes to make it nicer.
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Commissioner Itani, to table action to January 9, 2007
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and McIntyre-Evenocheck absent -
H. Public Hearing
There were no public hearings.
I. Work Session
Case # 33-06 Encore Motors Sales & Leasing ? Special Land Use/ Site Plan Review located at 5091 Broadmoor Ave. SE
Staff Planner Pung introduced the request. He stated that the applicant wishes to operate an open-air business for vehicle sales and leasing. The proposal is located on a site of a former vehicle rental operation. The applicant will not change the building on the site. He is only looking at paving and restripping the parking lot and adding in additional landscaping. There were two issues, one with parking. He stated that staff has asked the applicant to provide detail on the lot area that will be dedicated to vehicle display to accurately determine the minimum parking requirements for the site. The second issue was the zoning ordinance requirements for a buffer zone along the rear and side lot lines.
Applicant Shannon Keefer was there to present the request. He stated that the only thing he would have to do to the site is landscaping. There is already a surveillance system and a security system, parking spaces, lights. He stated that regarding the buffer zone he will take some pictures of that area and submit the application for the variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Secretary Winczewski asked about the lighting plan. Mr. Keefer stated that the lighting system that is already there sufficient. Winczewski stated that he thinks it fits well.
Commissioner Sheldon stated that she is excited to see an empty lot getting filled.
Commissioner Swanson?s concern was signage. Mr. Keefer stated that there is a sign that is already there that is nice and on the front of the building he would like to stencil the Encore Motor Cars on that sign.
Case #34-06 ? Escrow Fee Provisions
Community Development Director Schweitzer introduced the request. He stated that that the request is for consideration of a text amendment to establish an escrow fee for development reviews. He stated that staff has gone back to the development community to get their feedback and their comments. He stated that developers are accustomed to using the escrow fee in other communities.
Commissioner Sheldon concern was whether the developers be able to keep track of the costs that are incurred. City Attorney Sluggett stated that the rates for legal cousel are always on file with the city. They change typically about every 2-3 years but anybody can call up anytime because it is public information. They can call to find out what the hourly rate is. He stated that it would be the same thing if we were to hire a traffic consultant or an engineering firm. He stated that depending on the job it may be in the city or the developer?s best interest come up with a unit price a project.
Secretary Winczewski stated that he thinks the wording is better than it was the first time. He stated that the only way the city is going to get the developers trust is pass the request and then show them.
Commissioner Itani stated that it looks good and once it is in place the developers will be a lot more confident.
Commissioner Vanderhoff stated that he thinks it looks good also. His concern was whether or not the developers will know their fees ahead of time. Schweitzer stated that when the issues are identified staff should be able to keep them abreast of what the fees would be.
Discussion ensued
J. New Business
There was no new Business
K. Other Business
1. Case No. 42-05 - 29th Street Shopping Center Site Plan Extension
Golder reviewed developer Randy Disselkoen?s request to grant a one year extension to the site plan approved for a shopping center.
Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Commissioner VanderHoff, to grant a one year extension to Case #42-05 - 29th Street Shopping Center Site Plan.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and McIntyre-Evenocheck absent -
2. Section 34
Schweitzer reviewed the memo prepared by Planner Sengupta regarding Section 34.
Commissioner VanderHoff stated that there is no way someone will build $500,000
dollar homes in the City of Kentwood about 800 feet from M6 and adjacent to homes valued at $125,000-150,000.
Vice?Chair Swanson stated that we wanted room for some higher end homes.
Commissioner VanderHoff stated that if he were to build a $500,000 dollar home it would not be in Kentwood, it would be in Cascade or Ada where you have growth and prices are appreciating and not staying stable or going down and not next to a major highway. He stated that he hears the traffic all the time at his home and it is a detriment.
Discussion ensued
3. Commissioners? Comments
Commissioners wished everybody a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Swanson stated that he will see everyone in March.
4. Staff?s Comments
Planner Golder stated that she thinks we should talk to realtors about the Kentwood housing market in order to gauge the reasonableness of the draft land use plan.
L. Adjournment
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Poyner, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Artz and McIntyre-Evenocheck absent -
Meeting adjourned at 8:54pm
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Winczewski, Secretary
|