Text size: A A A

APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 11, 2016, 7:30 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
  (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 VanderHoff.
     
  3. Roll Call:
     
    Members Present: Bill Benoit, Garrett Fox, Dan Holtrop, Sandra Jones, Ed Kape, Mike Pemberton, Frank Vander Hoff,  and Johngerlyn Young
    Members Absent: Emily Bridson (with notification)
    Others Present:  Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Planner Joe Pung, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, the applicant and one resident.
     
    Motion by Fox, supported by VanderHoff, to excuse Bridson from the meeting.
     
  4. Motion Carried (8-0) –
  5. Bridson absent -
     
  6. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
     
    Motion by Commissioner Holtrop, supported by Commissioner Jones, to approve the Minutes of September 27, 2016.
  7. Motion Carried (8-0) –
  8. Bridson absent -
  9. Approval of the Agenda
     
    Motion by Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Commissioner Benoit,                                to approve the agenda for the October 11, 2016 meeting.
     
  10. Motion Carried (8-0) –
  11. Bridson absent –
     
  12. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.
     
    There was no public comment.
     
  13. Old Business
     
    Case #14-16 Cobblestone at the Ravines- Village East Condominiums – Final Site Plan Approval of a PUD Phase Located at 4333 Shaffer (applicant request tabling of action indefinitely)
    Benoit questioned if Cobblestone was asking for final site plan review and a Major Change to a PUD.  Schweitzer stated the request they made in writing to the community was for final site plan review for Village East Condos and it was during the work session discussion and the adjourned public hearing that they brought up the prospect of being able to rent. Schweitzer stated the letter that the commissioners received indicates Cobblestone decided to pull back on the rental concept and even action on the village east condos indefinitely.
     
    Benoit stated his concern about tabling something indefinitely is if we have already opened the public hearing and started a public hearing if and when the applicant comes back there is no requirement for notification. He stated if the commission denies the request they would have to start all over again. Schweitzer clarified if you table indefinitely then the public notice issue still has to be sent out for any subsequent meeting. Schweitzer stated the commission should open the public hearing, ask for comments, and indicate that there is a request to table indefinitely, then it is up to the commission to decide what they want to do. They don’t have to table indefinitely.
     
    Pemberton questioned if there was a way to have them withdraw their application and then they come back with a new application. Schweitzer stated he thinks that is probably what we will see eventually and he thinks it is a valid concern to just leaving it hanging indefinitely. Schweitzer stated the commissioners have a decision to make whether or not, based upon the information, if they are going to approve or deny or honor their request to table indefinitely.
     
    Young opened the public hearing.
     
    There was no public comment.
     
    Motion by Holtrop, supported by VanderHoff, to close the public hearing.
     
  14. Motion Carried (8-0) –
  15. Bridson absent -
     
    Motion by Kape supported by Benoit, to deny the application for Case #14-16 Cobblestone at the Ravines- Village East Condominiums – Final Site Plan Approval of a PUD Phase Located at 4333 Shaffer
  16. Motion Carried (8-0) –
  17. Bridson absent -
     
  18. Public Hearing
     
    Case#15-16 - Wildflower Creek Phase III - Final Site Plan Review of a PUD Phase; Pre-Preliminary Plat Review; and Consideration of a Change to a PUD Condition Located at 3633 52nd Street
     
    Pung stated the request is a three part request: it is a Final Site Plan Review of a PUD Phase; Pre-Preliminary Plat Review; and Consideration of a Change to a PUD Condition. Pung stated one of the changes they are seeking is to allow for all but one of the homes to have front load garages. He stated they would still be restricted for the balance of the overall development no more than 60% garages forward facing and 40% located in the rear. The second request is to permit the home on lot 102 to be setback further than 15 feet. The PUD requires a build to line of 15 feet. The way the lot is situated the topography (including a wetland area) is hard to put that house up to 15 feet therefore the request will be for this lot to allow the house to be setback further than the 15 feet.
     
    Pung stated the development was rezoned in 2003 to RPUD-2 the first phase was approved in 2004. In 2006 they came in with the first major change and the major part of that was to permit 40% of the homes to have front load garages. There were also other changes that had to do with the window orientation and area on the first floor. But the main one that would be visible from the outside was the allowance to have forward facing garages.
     
    Pung stated in 2015 the applicant came in with the next phase of the PUD and also a request for a major change for 60% of the homes to have a front load garage. Pung stated the current request would be to allow all but one home in this phase to have forward facing garages the 60/40 percentage will still hold true to phases one and two.
     
    Pung stated issues at the work session were some frontage lots on the streets that aren’t going to have any homes built on them are looking at being open space or easements identified as park land. One of the recommendations from the planning staff and engineering department was to incorporate those into the adjacent lots. Pung stated that would ensure from engineering standpoint there is a contact person if there are any issues that come up with regard to easement issues. Also it makes it easier for code enforcement if there are sidewalks not cleared, who will be responsible and how to get in contact with them. Pung stated there were a couple of lots that will be open space areas and then incorporated those into the adjacent lots. There is one area that will not be incorporated into an adjacent lot but that sidewalk will still have to be constructed at the time the road is constructed along with the portion of sidewalk along the existing house on 52nd Street.
     
    Pung stated the home located at 3855 52nd Street has an existing driveway out on to 52nd Street. As part of the original rezoning in 2003 that site plan called for the closing of the drive and creating a new curb cut onto the new Blazing Star Street. Pung stated that is also a condition of the approval to verify that this gets done. As part of the original rezoning and preliminary site plan approval it is also a restriction from the engineering department that the driveway will not be too close to the new road. If that driveway doesn’t get removed then the street is going to have to move because they will not approve it the way it is currently laid out without that driveway being removed.
     
    Pung stated there is berm and landscaping required along the 52nd Street frontage. Part of the landscaping includes a fence which the first phase does have the fence installed. It is not in the current recommendation  but we will put it in the recommendation to clarify that the landscaping, berming and fencing should be installed at the same time.  
     
    Pung reviewed the recommendation to the City Commission for conditional approval of the changes to wildflower creek PUD to permit up to 33 of the 32 homes in phase 3 to have forward facing garages and to permit the home in lot 102 to have a front yard setback of up to 65 feet with condition 1-6 and basis points 1-6.
     
    Pung also noted the recommendation for conditional approval of the final PUD plan dated October 4, 2016 with conditions 1-9 and basis points 1-6 adding condition 10 that the landscaping berm and fencing along 52nd Street are to be installed at the same time.
     
    Pung lastly noted the recommendation to the city commission for conditional tentative approval of the preliminary plat dated October 4, 2016. With conditions 1-9 and basis point 1-6 adding condition 10 that the landscaping berm and fencing along 52nd Street are to be installed at the same time.
     
     
    Chris VanderHoff was present.
     
    Young opened the public hearing.
     
    Jacob Elliott, 3871 52nd Street was present. He stated his concern is a road coming out on 52nd Street. There is a merge lane from E. Paris already coming from the east and he has a lot of accidents in front of his house already. With the road coming out to 52nd Street there will be even more accidents. He stated if they had a cul-de-sac it would be alright but if they want to put a road there he would suggest they bulldoze his house and his neighbor’s house relocate the drive to align with Bailey’s Grove retail drive on the south side of 52nd Street and consider a traffic signal. He has had so many accidents that have come up into his yard and he can only see a problem with the driveway going into the development. He indicated there is a hill going into the development.
     
    Motion by Benoit, supported by Jones, to close the public hearing.
     
  19. Motion Carried (7-0) –
  20. Bridson absent –
  21. VanderHoff abstaining -
     
    Pemberton questioned, after listening to Mr. Elliott’s concerns, has engineering reviewed the request. Pung stated engineering did the initial review and in 2004 there was a traffic study done. There was a proposal for a light at Bailey’s Grove drive further to the west it was subsequently installed
     
    Chris VanderHoff stated they did have to submit information to the engineering department as part of the application process to verify they have sight distances information. There is criteria for that from the Kent County Road Commission and the City of Kentwood  and they exceed the minimum sight line requirements.
     
    Fox questioned if we have any data on the corner Mr. Elliott discussed. Pung stated we would have to check with the police department they would have access to that.
     
    Holtrop noted that Mr. Vanderhoff had previously offered an early buildon lot 102 and that should be one of the conditions. VanderHoff stated he would be happy to build 102 before lot 103, so lot 103 can see the setback is different.
               
    Motion by Holtrop, supported by Benoit,  to recommend to the City Commission conditional approval of the changes to Wildflower Creek Planned Unit Development to permit up to 32 of the 33 homes in Phase III to have forward facing garaged and to permit the home on Lot 102 to have a front yard setback of up to 65 feet.  Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-6 and basis points 1-6 adding conditions 7. The developer offers to build lot 102 prior to building 103. As described in Pung’s memo dated October 6, 2016.
     
  22. Motion Carried (7-0) –
  23. VanderHoff abstaining –
  24. Bridson absent -
     
    Motion by Holtrop, supported by Benoit, to grant conditional approval of the final PUD plan dated October 4, 2016 as described in Case 15-16 Wildflower Creek Phase III. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-8 and basis points 1-6 adding condition 10 that the landscaping berm and fencing along 52nd Street are to be installed at the same time within 6 months of the first building permit being issued in phase III as described in Pungs memo dated October 6, 2016.
     
  25. Motion Carried (7-0) –
  26. VanderHoff abstaining –
  27. Bridson absent –
     
    Motion by Holtrop, supported by Pemberton, to recommendation to the City Commission conditional tentative approval of the Preliminary Plat dated October 4, 2016 as described in Case 15-16 Wildflower Creek. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-9 and basis points 1-6 adding condition 10 that the landscaping berm and fencing along 52nd Street are to be installed at the same time within 6 months of the first building permit being issued in phase III as described in Pung’s memo dated October 6, 2016.                                                         
  28. Motion Carried (7-0) –
  29. VanderHoff abstaining –
  30. Bridson absent -
     
  31. Work Session
     
    There were no work sessions
     
  32. New Business
     
    Motion by Holtrop, supported by Benoit to set a public hearing date of November 8, 2016 for: Case#16-16 – City of Kentwood 44th Street Rezoning – Rezoning of .25 acres of land from C-4 Office to R1-D Single Family Residential Located on the south side of 44th Street between Madison and Julivan
     
  33. Motion Carried (8-0) –
  34. Bridson absent -
     
  35. Other Business
     
  36. Commissioners’ Comments
     
    Kape stated 616 has a portable sign and questioned if they have a permit. Schweitzer stated he used his time for the year and was cited and now the sign is down.
     
               
  37. Staff’s Comments
     
    Schweitzer stated with the village east condo it raised a question of our 70/30 policy. Schweitzer stated he is trying to get the planning and city commission to meet fir ajoint meeting to discuss Form Based Code.
     
  38. Adjournment
     
    Motion by Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Commissioner                             to adjourn the meeting.
     
  39. Motion Carried (8-0) –
  40. Bridson absent -
     
    Meeting adjourned at 8:02p.m
     
     
                                                                Respectfully submitted,
     
                                                                Ed Kape, Secretary