Text size: A A A

DECEMBER 13, 2016, 7:30 P.M.
 (return  to index)
  1. Chair Young called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
  2. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Benoit.
  3. Roll Call:
    Members Present: Bill Benoit, Garrett Fox, Dan Holtrop, Sandra Jones, Ed Kape, Mike Pemberton, and Johngerlyn Young
    Members Absent: Emily Bridson, Frank Vander Hoff,(with notification)
    Others Present:  Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Planner Joe Pung, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, and the applicants.
    Motion by Fox, supported by Benoit, to excuse Bridson and VanderHoff
  4. Motion Carried –
  5. Bridson and VanderHoff absent -
  6. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
    Jones stated throughout the minutes the motion needs to be changed to reflect that Young was absent and Jones was not.
    Motion by Commissioner Benoit supported by Commissioner Pemberton, to approve the Minutes of November 22, 2016 and the Findings of Fact for: Case#19-16 – Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments with change noted.
  7. Motion Carried (7-0) –
  8. Bridson and VanderHoff absent -
  9. Approval of the Agenda
    Motion by Commissioner Pemberton, supported by Commissioner Kape,                             to approve the agenda for the December 13, 2016 meeting.
  10. Motion Carried (7-0) –
  11. Bridson and VanderHoff absent -
  12. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.
    There was no public comment.
  13. Old Business
    There was no Old Business
  14. Public Hearing
    There were no public hearings
  15. Work Session
    Case#1-17- Non Motorized Plan (postponed)
    Case# 2-174571 Patterson Vehicle Sales – Special Land Use and Site Plan Review for Indoor Vehicle Sales in an Industrial Zone located at 4571 Patterson Ave SE
    Pung introduced that request. He stated the request is for Special Land Use and Site Plan Review for Indoor Vehicle Sales within an Industrial district. He stated the applicant is purchasing an existing 7200 square foot building. He stated the primary use of the facility will be for major vehicle repair which will be a continuation of what was approved by the planning commission in 2010. He stated the applicant also wishes to have the ability to sell vehicles as a secondary use. He stated the display of inventory would be within a 1,500 square foot showroom within the building.
    Pung stated with indoor vehicles sales there is a restriction that no vehicle repair or maintenance occur on site. He stated the primary use of this facility is for a vehicle repair operation with the secondary use as selling vehicles. Pung stated the Zoning Administrator determined this use would not be a conflict.
    Pung stated the applicant is going to also offer vehicle rental to their customers but this is not under review or approval. Pung stated this is a very minor secondary accessory use and they would only be able to rent vehicles to customers that are having their vehicles repaired.
    Pung stated the only issue was to clarify and update the statement of operations. Staff is looking for the applicant to add the intended hours of operation; what their expected vehicle sales level would be; and to also clarify with them that all vehicle sales operation would occur within the enclosed building. Pung stated in their statement they indicated the possibility of doing an expansion, that expansion would come back to the planning commission as a major change to the site plan and the use as a vehicle repair and vehicle sales.
    Kape questioned if they plan to sell vehicles inside.  Jeff Anderson stated this is a fairly small facility. There will be classic cars, restored cars, exotic cars etc. Anderson stated not something that is a high volume business. Occasionally when they need to keep your employees busy you might have to inventory a car or buy a wreck. This would happen within the building. Discussion ensued about damaged cars. He stated they are very limited with what they can do and even the volume of what they will be able to produce. Kape questioned if he owns the cars or a broker. He stated it will be a combination of both. Kape asked how high end will they go with their cars. Anderson stated they are very high end cars and can be very expensive. Discussion ensued. Kape questioned if he will be doing internet sales. Anderson stated that is correct that is the only way they can survive.
    Jones questioned if his vehicles will be maintained on the inside with the exception of those being towed there for collision repair. Anderson stated that is correct, they will be stored off site. The customer retains the cars as work flow comes in. The cars will need to be brought in on the back of the premises and then prepped. Discussion ensued. Jones asked it there will be a show room. Anderson stated there already is, there is a 1,500 square foot existing showroom in the front of the building. Anderson stated there are large display windows that will stay. Jones questioned how many vehicles he plans to have at any one time. Anderson stated in its current form probably 6, once the body shop would be added maybe more around 14.
    Jones questioned the number of consignment vehicles. Anderson stated difficult to say but maybe 3. Anderson stated the vehicles may be in various forms of work in progress that are going to be brokered off but most will come in the front door, then right back out the front door and back to the client. Jones questioned if there will be vehicles outside. Anderson stated in the back, yes. Discussion ensued. Anderson stated everything will be behind a fence you couldn’t stand at any place and see what is going on in the back. Jones questioned where the rental vehicles will be stored. Anderson stated their plan is that there will be somewhere near 30 parking spaces in total on the site with 13 being outside of the fenced area. He stated no more than 5 rentals and they will be stored at the property in the back of the parking lot. Discussion ensued.
    Pemberton questioned the total square footage with the addition of the body shop. Anderson stated it will be under 12,000 square feet. Pemberton stated he thinks it’s great and wishes them the best.
    Holtrop questioned if the body shop would raise a red flag. Pung stated it would be a major vehicle repair and we have others that are in industrial zones. The request will come back before the commissioner for the addition. Holtrop stated we have a number of indoor car sales and see a lot of outside storage, we want to make sure he is aware no outside vehicles storage and want to keep things inside. Anderson stated that has been made very clear. Discussion ensued.
    Benoit asked if they are currently mechanics. Anderson stated that is how their current facility is operated. Anderson stated this is a startup, a confederation of people they know who have been in this field for a long time and we are just bringing them all together putting marketing plans together. Discussion ensued. 
    Fox questioned the number of employees. Anderson stated there will be around 6 employees to begin with and after the body shop is approved there will be around 12 employees. Fox questioned if they are all master mechanics. Anderson stated they will all be stated certified. Discussion ensued. Fox questioned if they are anticipating any renovations. Anderson stated there will be minor renovations nothing structural. Fox stated since sales is secondary does the dollar amount matter regardless of the amount of sales. Pung stated there isn’t a dollar amount, the way it has been described they are going to be doing vehicle repairs. As long as they are repairing more vehicles than they are selling. Sales will be restricted to that 1500 square foot display area.
    Schweitzer stated Mr. Anderson mentioned an expansion in the future. He questioned if that is solely for the body shop or also involve and expansion of the indoor display area. Anderson stated the body shop, the expansion would  be off of the back of the facility. Discussion ensued .
    Case#3-17Mosley School of Cosmetology – Special Land Use and Site Plan Review for a Commercial School – Located at 4450 Breton Ave SE
    Pung stated the request is for Special Land Use and Site Plan Review for a Commercial School. He stated it will be located in a commercial planned unit development. He stated the applicant wishes to operate a cosmetology school.
    Pung stated they are looking at occupying a 4400 square foot tenant space within the existing Bretwood center retail center. He stated based on their operation statement they intend to have morning and evening sessions with up to 28 students in each session. Pung stated there is more than adequate parking on site.
    Fox questioned whether there will be 3 teachers. Mosley stated there will be 2-3 teachers, for every 20 students there has to be one instructor. Fox questioned if there is a way to control the odor of some of the chemicals being used. Mosley stated they have ventilation systems.
    Benoit stated for manicurist and pedicurist they have to have specific ventilation systems. He questioned whether that would that be required for the schools. Mosley stated with the cosmetology program it is a 1,500 hour program. Only a small amount less than 4% are nails which include manicure, pedicure and artificial nails. They will teach the minimum requirement by the State. Mosley stated they are not going to be very large on the nails service they offer the public. They aren’t offering manicure and pedicures, hair services only.
    Pemberton stated he is excited to see more go into that particular strip mall.
    Jones questioned how many stations they anticipate having. Mosley stated she will have 12 salon stations. There will only be 14 students at a time on the clinic; 12 on clinic, One at the dispensary and one at the front desk. Jones asked if they will have one classroom. Mosley stated they will have one classroom and that one classroom will seat 14 students and one instructor. Discussion ensued.
    Case#4-17Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Regarding Wireless Communications
    Schweitzer stated there was a wireless communication plan that was adopted a number of years ago. Schweitzer stated rather than the tall towers back then the technology is going smaller to the point where we have been working with vendors on our zoning and regulatory ordinances working with the City Commission. Schweitzer stated first we are going to amend the zoning ordinance to specify that any wireless communication facility that is in the public ROW is not going to be subject to zoning.
    Schweitzer stated the City Commission is looking at the fact that wireless communication is a service in the area but it is one that as time has gone on things are really technogically driven. Schweitzer stated the Mayor doesn’t want to see a proliferation of structures in the public ROW.
    Schweitzer stated City Commission said they will allow for poles or towers with an antenna on it within the public ROW up to a 40 foot height. We also have a lot of structures that are in the public ROW already telephone poles and consumers energy, street lights etc. Discussion ensued.
    Schweitzer stated since it has been 16 years since we came up with the regular tower regulations we have learned that the equipment enclosure and the regulations will continue to put a premium on colocation. Schweitzer stated if you have a tall tower, we want them to have room for 4 carriers. He stated if you have that many carriers, you will have that many structures or cabinets of equipment that will go with it at the base of the structure. Schweitzer stated with that in mind one of the proposed regulations is to increase the amount of area that could be devoted to the equipment storage on the base of the unit and beef up the landscape screening requirement and to maintain and have a fence around the area.
    Schweitzer stated we are also looking at being more explicit in giving the planning commissioners review authority for the tower locations that are going to be on private property. We will  put it within their authority to require, to the extent possible, that it is disguised or there is stealth to it so that it blends into the background rather than being very obvious in an area.
    Pemberton questioned whether towers on public property would have same restrictions. Schweitzer stated that is correct. In order to limit the number of structures colocation is still required. Pemberton stated there is revenue involved. He stated restrictions have to be there so that we don’t have nothing but antennas showing but valuable revenue with all entities involved. Discussion ensued.
    Holtrop questioned why this is not an essential public service. Schweitzer stated to be considered and essential public service you are talking about fire, police, emergency services that are critical to the community, public water public sewer etc. Schweitzer stated this is an important service as far a wireless service through the community but at this point we are saying that is doesn’t rise to this level. Discussion ensued.
    Benoit stated item 10 on page 9 it states that the applicant shall post a performance guarantee in a satisfactory form to the city in an amount that shall cover one hundred percent of the cost of removing the tower in the event that the applicant fails to complete the removal of the abandoned tower within the prescribed time period. Benoit questioned if this will be at the time of installation. Schweitzer stated that is correct. Benoit stated this will be a moving target. Schweitzer stated our general regulations already gives the planning commission the authority to require performance guarantees for requirements of the City. Schweitzer stated the Attorney felt rather than rely upon the general provision he wanted to make it very clear to those that were coming in with towers that they are going to have to provide a performance guarantee with it. IF the tower goes obsolete we don’t want it standing in the middle of a field and going into disrepair Discussion ensued.
    Fox questioned how often is this amendment is updated and if there will be a plan moving forward to review the wireless communication on a regular basis. Schweitzer noted that these are the first amendments to the original regulations. We may wish to re-visit the wireless plan
    Case#5-17City of Kentwood Rezone – Rezoning properties located at 4412 Madison, 4420 Madison, 4413 Julivan and 4417 Julivan from C4- Office to R1-D Single Family Residential
    Schweitzer stated we would like to rezone these properties; 4412 Madison, 4420 Madison, 4413 Julivan and 4417 Julivan from C4- Office to R1-D Single Family Residential.  Schweitzer stated in the past we have had things come up where mortgage lenders are hesitant or will refuse to issue mortgages on properties that are not zoned residential.
    Schweitzer stated we contacted the 4 property owners and told them what we are trying to do and a couple of the property owners stated they thought they were zoned residential from the beginning and they do have residential mortgages. Schweitzer stated these properties have been zoned office since 1976.
    Schweitzer stated he overlooked these properties when the two 44th Street frontage properties were proposed for rezoning to R1-D Single Family Residential. If you put all four of these properties together and aggregate them this would be enough to create an office site. Schweitzer stated this is one of the reasons why we wanted to have the property owners aware of what was going on he spoke to 3 of the 4 and will talk to the 4th property owner before the public hearing. If they don’t want to be rezoned we will respect their wishes. But it is to the benefit of those who are living there and if they want to sell the property and the next homeowner comes in and wants to get mortgage financing it will be more straightforward.
    Commissioners were fine with the request and offered no additional comments.
  16. New Business
    No new Business
  17. Other Business
  18. Commissioners’ Comments
    Kape stated he went to the parade and Christmas tree lighting and it was very nice and festive.
    Jones, Pemberton, Benoit, Fox wished everyone a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
    Holtrop stated he noticed a lot of activity on 44th used to be the Grand Valley Health Plan. Pung stated he said office use is going in there. They came in for interior remodel.
  19. Staff’s Comments
    Schweitzer asked the commissioner if they would be open to attend one of the park and recreation meetings to discuss the non-motorized plan they meet on the 2nd  Monday of the month at 5:15pm and the Recreation Center on 48th Street. Schweitzer stated if they are willing to consider we will set up a time to coordinate. Commissioners agreed they would like to attend a meeting.
    Schweitzer stated the applicant withdrew their application for the Christian Athletic Center Rezoning and to put up a tower at 36th and Shaffer.
    Motion by Commissioner Jones, supported by Commissioner  Pemberton, to adjourn the meeting.
  20. Motion Carried (7-0) –
  21. Bridson and VanderHoff absent -
    .Meeting adjourned at 8:40pm
                                                                Respectfully submitted,
                                                                Ed Kape, Secretary