OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
GRAND RAPIDS PLANNING COMMISSION
October 10, 2002
1:30 P.M., RM. 201, DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Members Present: Chairperson Robert Zylstra, *Janet Sanders, John Stivers, Peter Carlberg, Marilyn
A. Titche, Kim DeStigter, Patrick A. Miles, *Shaula Johnston, Jim Doezema and Student Member
**Jeanine Myles
Members Absent: Student Member Christina Carlson
City Staff: Planning Director William F. Hoyt, City Attorney Stanley Bakita, Val Lazdins, Marv
Lummen, Jim Parr and recording secretary Carol Gornowich
* Ms. Sanders and Ms. Johnston arrived following the approval of minutes.
**Ms. Myles was present for the business meeting and left prior to the regular Commission meeting.
BUSINESS MEETING:
Approval of Minutes of September 26, 2002 - Mr. Miles MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
OF September 26, 2002. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeStigter. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.
Approval of Minutes of the Master Plan Meeting of September 26, 2002 - Mr. Miles MOVED TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MASTER PLAN MEETING OF September 26, 2002.
SUPPORTED by Mr. DeStigter. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED.
·
Discussion - Mr. Hoyt circulated a summary of the previous meeting's
discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the Commission.
Points 1-3 relate to the diversity and unique backgrounds of the members. The positive aspect of that is
better decision results. Mr. Hoyt noted that the Commission tends not to call the question until there is
some consensus. That may actually be in conflict with retaining individual perceptions. Mr. Carlberg
noted that often times they hear from the public that the Planning Commission already has their mind
made up. Having diversity gives the public/applicants hope for the future that a Commission member(s)
will agree with them. Mr. Stivers stated that there are a lot of components to the projects and gauging
whether there is a consensus likely produces the best results.
All agreed that point 4, discussion improves projects, was accurate.
Mr. Hoyt felt that the process should be reviewed as to how staff and the Commission interact and how
staff interacts with the public. In many cases the standards are not clear. Any place problems can be
identified provides an opportunity for improvement.
Mr. Zylstra feels that the process encourages dialogue and dialogue leads to compromise. The proposals
are not all yes and no answers. The dialogue and compromise create the stipulations of a motion.
There was discussion regarding the Elmridge Plat recently before the Commission. The Commissioners
felt they were put in an uncomfortable position as arbitrators between the parties involved. Ms. Titche
noted the lengthy letter submitted at the time of the hearing and no opportunity to read it. Mr. Hoyt felt
the Commission allowed themselves to be put in the uncomfortable position. He gave an example of
how the mayor runs his meetings keeping discussion to what needs to be addressed.
Mr. Zylstra suggested that in the future the parties be left to work out the details and advised not to
return until they have.
Mr. Hoyt suggested that there could be more dialogue at the time the public hearing is scheduled. As a
City policy, a connection is desired. Therefore, if that has not been established at the time the public
hearing is requested, the Commission could decline scheduling the public hearing until it is.
Mr. Bakita commented that that case involved an area of law that he does not have full knowledge of
and could not provide clear-cut advice. In the past the applicant's went to the Engineering Dept. and
were told where the connection would be and no one questioned it if they wanted their plat approved.
Once the public hearings were introduced, these things became issues. The Commission heard the
applicant and the issues and he prepared his advice. The plans presented then changed and he was not
fully prepared to offer advice. The Commission was being manipulated by both parties.
Mr. Hoyt indicated that it is up to the Planning Commission to protect themselves. If that creates a
hardship for staff or the developer, so be it. If more information is necessary or if it is a policy issue, he
suggests tabling. The Commission can provide direction as to what they would like to see and leave it
up to legal staff for review and Planning staff to determine if the objectives can be met.
Mr. Zylstra agreed that the Commission does set public hearings quickly. Possibly if there were more
review of the issues, those things could be addressed prior to the public hearing.
Mr. Hoyt agreed. When staff presents a proposal for public hearing they feel the issues have been
addressed or can be addressed prior to the public hearing.
Mr. Doezema noted however that part of the Plat Act is that approval must take place within 60 days of
filing.
Mr. Hoyt responded that they are trying to address that. The City of Kentwood says that a plat is not
complete until it is set for public hearing. The time doesn't start until the public hearing is set.
There was additional discussion relating to street configuration and the direction provided in the master
plan. Some proposals involve dedicated right of way and others like Celebration Village it may be
necessary to demand a public service road.
Mr. Carlberg has often heard that controversial issues should be tabled more often. He questioned what
the down side to that would be, besides delay to the developer.
Mr. DeStigter agreed that they should table more often if they aren't provided with the proper
information. He feels that the Commission should provide specific direction as to the information
desired so that the questions can be addressed at the next hearing.
Mr. Lazdins felt that the Elmridge Plat was a good example. Staff had no control over the applicant
providing information at the last minute. Staff is also put in an uncomfortable situation in making a
recommendation to the Commission when new plans or changes are introduced. He feels that if the
Commission is uncomfortable, the matter should be tabled based on the lack of opportunity to review
the new information.
Mr. Hoyt agreed stating that the Commission should be comfortable with their decision.
Mr. Stivers suggested that they change their practice. The Planning Commission can hold a public
hearing and vote on it at the following meeting. If the circumstances warrant, a decision could be made
at the public hearing. If it becomes common practice that the vote is not expected at the public hearing
then the developer will not expect it and the process may be more complete.
It was noted that there are some communities that operate in that way and it would be possible for this
Commission. There was discussion as to whether the public hearing would remain open. Mr. Bakita
advised that it should be left open if additional information is requested. Public comment can be limited
to the new information. Mr. Carlberg suggested that the citizens also be advised they can submit
comments in writing.
Mr. DeStigter indicated he was not in favor of the suggestion. It takes 30 days to get on the agenda and
another 8 weeks to go to the City Commission. He feels that is unfair to the developer. A lot of
development is timing.
Mr. Zylstra agreed and noted that the same results could be achieved through tabling.
Mr. Hoyt stated that in Kentwood they have a meeting for the big projects to provide direction, similar
to the three applications heard by this Commission at the previous meeting. Those requests were just for
general direction.
Ms. Johnston indicated she likes being presented with the general plans. She is not in favor of making
everyone wait two weeks for a decision. Some projects do not warrant that. She is more in favor of
tabling more often when further information or discussion is necessary.
Mr. Hoyt suggested testing this idea of tabling more often. If the two meeting practice isn't made policy,
staff could still suggest or inform the developer that the Commission is likely to table.
Mr. DeStigter felt that the Commission should be specific as to what additional information they are
looking for when tabling.
Mr. Bakita noted that from his perspective, he sees the Commission struggling with plans they don't
like. He understands the cost involved in drafting plans. However, if a developer knows that the
Commission will likely table, they may be prepared with an alternative plan. Staff could even make that
suggestion to them.
Mr. Lazdins indicated that he does recommend that developers make an informal presentation to get
initial input and direction. He feels that minimizes the need for tabling also.
________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1026 Division Ave., South - Permitted with Approval - Request of Sandi Vegter to establish used-car
sales. (PWA 34-02)
Mr. Lummen explained that this is a Permitted with Approval review for a used car lot. The property is
zoned C-4, heavy commercial, which is the only zone in which used car lots are allowed and subject to
Permitted with Approval procedure. The surrounding area consists of R-3, C-1 and C-2 zoning. There
is a mix of old and new commercial uses along this stretch. In particular, a car wash, fast food
restaurant, Home Repair Services, NW Auto, and what appears to be an auto repair facility.
Immediately north of the subject site is a residence and north of that is a vacant parcel. To the south is a
new auto repair facility. There are some vacant lots and residences located to the rear of this property.
Mr. Carlberg questioned whether the small strip shown on the map is a rear access or easement.
Mr. Lummen responded that according to the map that access is there. There is an existing curb cut but
it doesn't appear it has been used in some time. It is grown over with trees, brush and weeds.
Mr. Carlberg wondered if that would be included with an approval.
Mr. Hoyt indicated it would be possible to add a condition regarding the easement/access from the rear.
Mr. Lummen presented the proposed site plan and explained that the applicant has also submitted a
letter of description regarding the number of vehicles on site, hours of operation and future growth.
There is an existing two-stall garage that is currently being converted to an office building. Mr.
Lummen explained that there was barbed wire along the top of the front fence and that has been
removed upon the request of the business association. The side and rear fences do have barbed wire
remaining. The surface of the site is not dirt. There is old asphalt in deteriorated condition.
Mr. Carlberg questioned whether the plan is to keep the chain link fence and gate where it is.
Mr. Lummen responded that it is his understanding that the fence will remain.
Sandi Vegter was present to discuss the proposal. She gave a brief history of her business endeavors
explaining that she purchased 1266 Godfrey in 1998 and started a salvage yard, towing company, used
car sales, detail shop and repair shop. They ran out of room very rapidly because all of these businesses
succeeded. The reason she started so many things at one location was in case certain areas were not as
successful as others. In 2000 she purchased JBS Towing/1601 Blaine and obtained a Zoning variance to
open that location as an impound lot. The purpose of the Blaine property is to store impounded vehicles,
repair shop for the resale vehicles and a towing company. In 2002, she purchased the subject site. Ms.
Vegter circulated photos of the site as it was when she purchased it. She has since cleaned the site up
and would like to open a used car sales operation here. She proposes green space along the sides and
front. The back portion of the property is to remain vacant for the time being. New asphalt will be
installed from the back of the building to the front, water and sewer have been hooked up and drainage
is currently being installed. When they complete the catch basins, the asphalt can go in. Ms. Vegter
explained her plans for improving the building including new windows and fieldstone along the front
and landscaping.
Ms. Vegter explained that the proposed use of the property includes buy, sell, trade and display of used
vehicles. The proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Saturday
11 a.m. to 2 p.m. She will be the only employee to start, with plans to add another in the near future.
Improvements to the property include replacement of windows, doors, floors, paint, furnace and lighting
within four months. When she purchased the property she was aware that it had formerly been used as a
car lot and thought the use was legal and moved her vehicles there. She then found out approval was
necessary. She has obtained her State license for this site, which was transferred from the Godfrey
property.
Mr. Zylstra asked what her intentions are for the rear portion of the property.
Ms. Vegter responded that she would like to asphalt that portion within two years and hopes that within
five years she can include vehicle repair. She noted that she also has interest in the vacant parcel but
doesn't have the resources at this time to purchase it.
Mr. Carlberg questioned whether she planned to use the easement at the rear.
Ms. Vegter responded that she was not aware it was there. She has no plans to use that access. The
fencing will remain the same with the exception of replacing the front gate.
Mr. Carlberg wondered how appealing the site would be to have vehicles displayed behind a fence and
wondered if there were any alternatives. The fence may imply that this is a dangerous neighborhood.
Ms. Vegter responded that she has removed the barbed wire as requested by the business association.
Within two days of removing the barbed wire she was broken into. There were no break-ins prior to
that. At this point she plans to keep the fence. There are other new businesses moving into the area and
she hopes that in the future the fence won't be necessary but at this point she doesn't feel that is the case.
Ms. Johnston questioned when the landscaping/green space would go in.
Ms. Vegter responded that the area would be prepared within the next four months but because of the
season none of the plantings will go in until spring.
Mr. Lummen suggested the landscaping be placed on the outside of the fence and the fence moved back
some.
Ms. Vegter responded that she picks up trash daily from outside the fence and she is concerned that the
plants would be ruined. She feels it will be better maintained if she places it inside the fence.
Ms. Vegter submitted letters of support.
Mr. Lummen reviewed the letters and informed the Commission that two of them are included in the
packet and one is new.
Dave Jacobs of Home Repair Services was present to comment. He noted that there are eight businesses
operating behind chain link fences in this area. He is concerned that this gives a bad impression. The
fences collect trash and encourage weed growth. The neighborhood is not dangerous. The business
association meets monthly and reviews crime statistics and the crime incidents in this area are not that
serious. HRS has never been broken into. Three years ago that site was also completely fenced in.
They do maintain two fenced areas on the property but they have been set back from Division and where
they are near the sidewalk, there is landscaping on the outside. South of Hall, there are two dealerships
operating without fencing. Mr. Jacobs suggested that she be requested to move the fence back to just
behind the building. This would allow her a fenced area for security and also assist in improving the
looks of the neighborhood.
Sarah Smith stated that she is present as the Executive Director of SEECA and as a citizen who has
worked with both the Madison Square Business Association and the South Division Business
Association to bring viable businesses to the area and to improve the appearance of the businesses. She
has met with Ms. Vegter and discussed concerns about the barbed wire and some cosmetic issues such
as lighting. Ms. Vegter was very cooperative. Ms. Smith feels that as a resident of the area, Ms. Vegter
will be a cooperative business person and will work with the business association as she does in
Roosevelt Park. In order to change the face of the community, that is what is needed in this area.
Rita VanderVen of Grand Rapids Opportunities for Women spoke on behalf of Ms. Vegter. She has
worked very hard and has done an excellent job in the Roosevelt Park area. She will do everything she
can to make this a viable business. Ms. VanderVen submitted her letter of support.
Mr. Zylstra invited Ms. Vegter to respond to comments. He noted the support that has been offered as
well as the concerns about the fence.
Ms. Vegter responded that she would be willing to move the fence to the back of the building. She will
be on site everyday and she feels that will be noticeable compared to the empty site seen now. If she
places the fence behind the building she can move her cars to the back at night until she feels
comfortable leaving them out.
Mr. Zylstra felt that was a very cooperative spirit.
Mr. Carlberg questioned her plans for lighting.
Ms. Vegter responded that what is there now is not very good. She does have lighting changes planned
but they are not drawn in yet because she understands there are certain requirements in relation to the
residential property next door.
Ms. Vegter also clarified that she would move the front fence to just behind the building and she will
install the gate in that area for getting the cars in and out. She is not sure who installed the side yard
fences and if she takes them down then the neighboring business to the south would no longer be fenced
in. She doesn't feel the residential property would be opposed to having the fence between their
property and her business removed. Their driveway runs along the side property line.
Mr. Zylstra felt that if the front fence were moved back the side fences could remain.
Ms. Sanders questioned whether the pole building is part of this request.
Mr. Lummen clarified that it is not part of the request.
Mr. Doezema questioned whether the plan submitted is adequate for the Commission to approve.
Mr. Hoyt noted that it is acceptable as amended by discussion.
Mr. Doezema MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
approves the request of Sandi Vegter to establish a used car sales 1026 Division Avenue South
with the following conditions:
1. That plans submitted by the applicant, signed and dated by the Planning Commission
Secretary, October 10, 2002, as amended by discussion, shall constitute the approved plans for this
project.
2.
That final development and construction drawings shall substantially conform to the
approved plans and shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Director prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. A final landscape, lighting, paving, and signage plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Director prior to City approval of a business license.
4. That the front or west half of the lot is to be paved within six months of approval by the
Planning Commission.
5. That the rear or east half of the lot is to be mowed and free of tall weeds and brush at all
times.
6. No barbed or razor wire is to be used for fencing anywhere on the site. The fencing along
Division will be moved back to just behind the building and the fence along the sides will be
removed (to the extent that it is owned/controlled by the applicant) easterly, to line up with the
rear of the building.
7.
Only the washing, waxing and vacuuming of vehicles is to be done at this site.
8.
No vehicles are to be repaired at this site. Any future proposal for automobile repair is
subject to Permitted with Approval procedures established in Section 5.30 through 5.35 of the City
Code.
9. No disabled, non-operating vehicles are to be stored at this site and any such vehicles
currently on site are to be removed within 15 days of Planning Commission approval.
10.No outside storage of vehicle parts is allowed at this site.
11.That stormwater management provisions shall be reviewed and approved by the
Environmental Protection Services Department prior to issuance of a paving permit.
12.That the Planning Commission approval shall commence and be in force on October 25, 2002.
13.There shall be no access to Sheldon St. over the easement that benefits this property.
SUPPORTED by Ms. Titche.
Ms. Sanders wondered if the Commission could impose a time period in which she must make the
fencing change (condition #6). She suggested six months.
Mr. Zylstra responded that he doesn't feel she will be in operation before the site is prepared.
Mr. Doezema ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT OF IMPOSING A SIX-MONTH TIME PERIOD
RELATING TO CONDITION #6.
Mr. Carlberg wondered if it is necessary to impose the condition of no barbed wire if the applicant is
willing to move the fence to the east.
Mr. DeStigter agreed. He feels that stipulation can be eliminated. On the other hand, if there is a
security issue, the applicant could return to have that amended.
Mr. Hoyt suggested that #6 read: No razor wire is to be used for fencing anywhere on the site.
Barbed wire is permitted provided the fence is moved to the rear of the building.
Mr. Doezema ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT TO CONDITION #6 that no razor wire shall be
used for fencing anywhere on the site. Barbed wire is permitted provided the fence is moved to
the rear of the building as previously stated.
Mr. DeStigter commended the applicant on what she is doing here. She is not only meeting the
requirements but exceeding them. Seldom is an applicant cooperative in a request to move fencing
back. He feels she is doing what she can to improve the appearance of the site and that the Planning
Department should scrutinize the proposed plantings for the front of the property and keep in mind the
issues that are typical to a street wall in order to make this something that will start to be a great benefit
to her and encourage others in the area to follow suit.
Mr. Carlberg indicated he is less concerned about plantings and more interested in a nice setting to
display the vehicles.
Mr. Stivers questioned whether there is an ordinance concerning barbed/razor wire.
Mr. Bakita responded that there is in a residential area. With regard to the barbed wire he suggested a
sunset provision that would require her to come back for the continued use after a period of time. If she
returns for the auto repair at the rear, that could be the time to place the condition of removal of the
barbed wire if the conditions in the neighborhood warrant that. It is not a limitation on the underlying
use but a condition that relates to what is perceived as a safety need at this time. The applicant is likely
the type of person that would remove the barbed wire if it isn't necessary but there is no guarantee she
will continue to operate from this location.
Mr. Doezema AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE SUNSET CLAUSE FOR A
PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. SUPPORTED by Mr. Carlberg.
There was discussion as to whether the time period should be two or five years.
Mr. Zylstra called for a show of hands as to the time period. FIVE YEARS was approved with a vote
of 5-4.
Mr. Zylstra called the question on the motion. YEAS: 9. NAYS: 0. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Zylstra complimented the applicant on what she is doing here and thanked her for her cooperative
efforts.
Mr. Hoyt clarified that she will work with staff regarding the landscaping, lighting and signage.
Ms. Vegter noted with regard to condition #2 that she has already been issued a building permit.
________________________________________________________________
1236, 1406, 1412, 1430 Bradford St., NE - Permitted with Approval - Request by Kent County to
remove houses. (PWA 36-02)
Jim Parr explained the these are properties that Kent County has been purchasing along Bradford
throughout the 10-year development plan indicated in the packet. They have been purchasing the homes
as they become available. They have been involved in the purchase process since 1992. There are
currently four homes to be removed. A letter included in the packet explains all that will be removed. A
neighbor has asked whether the existing landscaping could remain as an additional buffer and
screening. Mr. Parr explained that he visited the site and there is quite a bit of screening from the
existing homes. The County proposes to use this as a green buffer zone and propose little or no
development in their 10-year plan. Concerns that staff has noted is the loss of residential housing and
that the County did not meet with the neighbors to discuss the proposal. It was noted that there is more
traffic along Bradford and with the increased speeds there is concern that this is another access road for
the premises owned by the County. One resident called and stated that he had an incident with a
released prisoner who wanted to use his phone and he is concerned that removing the houses will add to
that threat.
Mr. Parr stated that at this point staff does recommend demolition, with the stipulation that the existing
vegetation remains. Kent County agrees to that stipulation.
John Denhof, Purchasing Director for Kent County, explained that this has been a 10(+) year project, as
the properties have become available. The property owners have been informed that the County is
interested in their property at market value, if they are planning to sell. They would like to remove the
four that they have acquired. They have gone through a public notification process that the homes are
available for moving to another location. They were successful in doing that with one home in the past
but there has been no interest in that since.
Mr. Denhof responded to Mr. Zylstra that they have owned these homes for over two years. They were
purchased from the residents and were occupied until the County purchased them.
Mr. Zylstra questioned their long-term plans for the frontage on Bradford.
Mr. Denhof responded that as the properties become available they would like to purchase them. They
would be used mainly as a buffer because of the 24/7 operation. Their goal is to own all of the homes
along Bradford for a good buffer.
Mr. Stivers indicated that the plan shows a new Co-op Extension on Bradford, south of the existing
MSU Cooperative, and asked if that is part of this plan.
Mr. Denhof responded that the Co-op is currently located in an existing building and will be contained
within that existing structure.
Tom Jacobs, Kent County Facilities, responded that the MSU Cooperative Extension is currently in the
building on the corner. Since this plan was developed they acquired the library headquarters property.
That building is vacant and the plan is to move the MSU Cooperative into the library building. They
would not be located on Bradford as shown in the existing plan. The intent for the building on the
corner of Fuller and Bradford is removal also.
Rupert McGinn, of NEECA, was present to comment. He feels 1412 and 1430 look too good to be
demolished and they are concerned about demolishing viable housing in their area. He would hope that
the houses are saved in some way. It is customary for a developer to hold a meeting with the neighbors
to explain their plans and he feels they should be required to hold such a meeting prior to approval.
When the mental health facility was made into a work release program there were two meetings held
and the residents were assured that prisoners would not be released on Bradford, they would be sent
through the hospital property. Now people are coming through from the jail site. That should be
addressed. If the prisoners don't have enough money for cab fare they should be routed toward Ball for
the bus stop or get them over to Fuller through the hospital property. Mr. McGinn recommends the
Planning Commission hold off on their decision in order for the applicant to hold a neighborhood
meeting.
Paul Tatreau stated that he lives across the street from the houses proposed for demolition. He is not
familiar with the condition of 1236. 1412 is a good wood frame structure, 1430 is a brick structure with
a breezeway and attached garage, and 1406 is definitely a candidate for demolition due to substandard
construction that has been covered up with siding. He is not aware of the process the County goes
through in marketing the homes for relocation but he feels if they were offered to someone for $1 there
would be interest in moving them. It would be a little more difficult to move the brick home but it is
possible. Perhaps if a meeting is held, some of these items can be discussed. Mr. Tatreau noted that
when someone is incarcerated any cash they have is taken away from them and upon release they are
issued a check. A check is worthless for cab or bus fare. At one time a suggestion was made to provide
them with a bus pass and subtract the amount from the check to provide them a way out of the
neighborhood.
Tom Mort of 1265 Bradford stated that when he bought his property he knew Kent County was in the
area but he moved into a neighborhood with residences and doesn't want to live across the street from a
parking lot. He would like to see a definition of exactly what a green space is and that it will be
maintained that way as opposed to an expansion five years down the road. He is also concerned that
demolishing the houses will decrease his property value. He feels the neighbors should be compensated
on an ongoing basis because this is something that will accrue over time. At this point he is opposed to it
because he would like to maintain this neighborhood. He would like some clarification on "green
space". He would also like to see a study done by the City as to the likelihood of decreasing property
values.
Mr. Hoyt indicated that the City Commission held a meeting in the neighborhood and one gentleman at
1417 Bradford had commented that he is not opposed to the demolition but he was concerned that the
trees and landscaping remain to provide a nicer setting across the street.
Mr. Zylstra stated that his opinion is that residences make a better buffer than a green space. He is
somewhat offended that the County purchased the properties, allowed them to deteriorate, and now
wants to demolish them for a buffer zone. That doesn't make good sense. This is an R-1 area and he
feels residences would make a better buffer. Some of the homes can be used and others can be restored.
The vacant lots could be used for infill and the neighborhood brought back again.
Mr. Carlberg noted that the property is zoned R-1A and obviously the Planning Commission has acted
to down-zone at the request of the neighborhood association.
Mr. Hoyt noted that from a historical perspective this is nothing new that the County is proposing. This
has been in their plan for 12-15 years and they have been before the Planning Commission in the past
and stated that as the homes became available they would purchase them. They have stated, in terms of
the Master Plan, that their intent is to leave this as green area. What they are hearing now is that the
Planning Commission is concerned in maintaining the housing stock. They have been proceeding down
this course and advising the Planning Commission of that for some time. What they are hearing now is
different then what they heard before.
Mr. Jacobs responded. He noted that they were before the Planning Commission in 1988 for permission
to demolish a house and again in 1992 for the demolition of four houses and 1997 for another house.
This proposal is for four houses.
Mr. Carlberg questioned what went into those spaces.
Mr. Jacobs responded that green space went in. The houses were demolished and the lots are
maintained as landscaped properties. There are no proposals to build on those sites.
Mr. Denhof responded regarding moving the homes. If in fact there is some economic reason to move
these homes they wanted to be sure to provide that opportunity for anyone interested. They would
welcome that opportunity but have not had any interest.
Ms. Sanders noted her concern about the comments pertaining to inmate release.
Mr. Denhof felt that the Sheriff should address prisoner release. That issue has been addressed in the
past and there have been meetings held. He would leave it up to the Sheriff to determine whether there
was a need for another meeting. Mr. Denhof also noted that there have not been neighborhood meetings
in the past regarding the removal of the houses and there were no previous concerns voiced that they
were aware of.
Mr. Carlberg MOVED TO DENY. There was no support for the motion.
Ms. Sanders MOVED TO TABLE to allow the applicant an opportunity to hold a neighborhood
meeting to address the concerns.
Mr. DeStigter noted that as Mr. Hoyt has indicated, there has been a history of approving the demolition
of the homes. He feels, from a planning perspective, that it is better to have houses on both sides of the
street rather than having the policy of demolishing one side of the street and mitigating with
landscaping. Mr. DeStigter stated that he did not want to oppose the County right now but suggested
they may wish to change their policy. If there is a consensus amongst the Planning Commission he
suggests that the County consider changing their view and keeping the houses and constructing new
homes on the vacant lots as infil for their buffer rather than landscaping. He does understand that that
position would come as a shock to them after being approved in the past.
Mr. Zylstra agreed with Mr. DeStigter's position and noted that this is obviously a different Commission.
Mr. DeStigter asked for the opinion of the other Commission Members.
Mr. Carlberg stated that he was impressed with the houses on both sides of the street. He feels these are
great starter homes and most have the potential for being fixed up. He doesn't feel that the proposal
meets the first three standards of the Permitted with Approval procedures. As to the issue of safety, he
questions what would be a better buffer. Homes that have fences and gardens etc. make good barriers.
Open green space is not quite as good.
Mr. Zylstra stated that his motion would be to deny and request that the County rethink their priorities
and consider infil and establishing more residences on that side of the street. He is not sure what tabling
the request will achieve.
Ms. Sanders stated that whether the request comes from the County or a private individual there are
concerned citizens. The tabling is not a rubber stamp but an opportunity for them to meet with the
neighbors and convince this Commission that this is what should be done.
Ms. Titche disagreed. She feels that in time there may be a desire to expand. She feels keeping them in
one location would be better even if they move up to the street 20 years from now. They are there and
she doesn't feel it would be advantageous to move the entire facility or have more than one facility. This
is a good amount of area for possible future expansion.
Mr. Stivers stated that his feeling is generally the back property line is a better transition than the center
line of a street. However, the precedent has been established by the applicant and prior Planning
Commission approvals. There is a major stretch along Bradford between Benjamin and Carlton that is
currently open and the County goes basically to the street. His biggest fear is that the transitions happen
piece meal and the remaining houses become less desirable and the progression of the neighborhood is
that the houses fall one by one. The only thing he would be comfortable with at this point is removal of
the two houses that straddle the existing exits onto Bradford unless the County comes back with
ownership to all of the properties and a plan they can consider, rather than doing it piece meal.
Mr. Doezema stated that he finds it surprising that one has to gain approval from the Planning
Commission to remove an improvement on property one owns. He does feel sorry for people on
Bradford that have houses left there. If the County can't demolish these houses and do what they want,
the County wont be too eager to offer anything for the houses of those that are left. His feeling is that
the houses are not very marketable at this point because they do back up to the jail and the County is the
only interested buyer. If the request is denied at this time they will have no desire to purchase the
remaining homes in the future. He feels the proposal should be approved.
Ms. Johnston SUPPORTED the motion to table. She is not ready to vote one way or the other as there
are unresolved issues and she would like to see the County deal with those issues.
The question was called. YEAS: 7. NAYS: 2 (Doezema, Titche). MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Zylstra invited additional comments from the Commission.
Mr. Miles stated he has gone both ways. He is considering the precedent of the previous approvals but
also agrees with the stated concerns. He will wait for another presentation.
Mr. Carlberg noted that the Permitted with Approval standards state that no use shall be permitted unless
all of the findings are made; that it will not be detrimental or endanger public health, safety and general
welfare. He doesn't feel that finding can be made. As to the second point, that the use would not be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, he feels their actions are
diminishing the property values. The knowledge that they are out there trying to buy these homes is
actually lowering property values. What generally happens is people think their property will be taken
any way and feel they should get out now. This is a model of how this happens. Although previous
Planning Commission decisions let them do this before, that is no argument for government realizing a
mistake and changing course. The other standard he feels is not met is that this use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. He believes maintenance
and property improvement will decrease with the establishment of this use.
Mr. Zylstra agreed with Mr. DeStigter's comments. He would like to see the County re-evaluate their
priorities and possibly fill in the entire street with housing in the future. If the County meets with the
neighbors and comes up with some long-term ideas that would be advantageous to the community that
can be considered. Mr. Zylstra stated that another thing that comes to his mind is how they have been
treating housing removal requests when it comes to church parking lot expansions. He would have a
hard time approving this when some of those have been denied.
Mr. Stivers noted that this complex puts a lot of traffic onto a street already in need of improvements. If
the ruin of these houses creates more employment within this complex, which is likely, then some form
of road improvements may benefit the homes on the north side of the street.
Ms. Titche stated that the County has been at this location for a very long time and it can be kept that
way. She suggested that a boulevard could be created here to improve the street and they would still
have room for future expansion.
Ms. Johnston thought the idea of a boulevard was intriguing. She does feel they need to work through
some of the issues with the neighbors.
Mr. Hoyt indicated that he feels the meeting with the neighbors is a good idea. There has been some
precedent established with the plan that was laid out in 1988. He also cautioned the Commission not to
make what they consider factual statements as to property values without supporting information. That
should be documented with evidence and there is no clear case of that here.
________________________________________________________________
1209 Leonard St., NW - Permitted with Approval - Request by Bravokilo, Inc., for a drive-through at a
new restaurant. (PWA 35-02)
Mr. Lazdins made the presentation explaining that this is a Permitted with Approval for the demolition
of a Burger King restaurant and reconstruction of a new, updated Burger King with drive-through. The
deliberations of the Commission should include review of the eight Permitted with Approval Standards.
Mr. Lazdins described the property as being in a C-2 district on Leonard NW. There is an alley at the
north end of the property that actually splits the property. There is a small parking lot just north of the
alley, located in the R-3 zone, and they have no plans to alter that portion of the site. The proposal from
the developer is one of consensus and compromise. The discussions have been cordial and successful in
terms of resolving the issues. There are however, issues that have not been resolved and those relate to
circulation. One issue raised is the access point onto Garfield with a right out movement only. The
Traffic Safety Dept. has concern over the proximity of the right out movement to the center-point of the
intersection of Leonard and Garfield. The concern is, given the fact that the restaurant is turned and the
drive-through window is now proposed for the east side of the building, it could become a short cut
going against the flow of traffic to access the drive-through. Traffic safety also feels it is too close to the
intersection. The other item of concern is the opening of an access point in the parking lot. There is
potential for stacking in front of the order and pick up window and the concern is that cars backing out
of their parking spaces will come into contact with those cars waiting. In addition, there is an access off
of Garfield from the alley creating three entries that all converge at the drive-through lane. Another
recommendation relates to the narrow strip that separates the drive through lane from the bypass lane off
the alley. One thought is to narrow the landscape island and push the entire building and site back so
that there would be enough room at the front for a grass parkway and trees along Leonard. Some other
changes include angling some of the parking spaces.
Mr. Lazdins explained that the West Grand Neighborhood Assoc. has submitted a letter raising four
concerns. Those concerns are the entrance and exit point opposite White St., trash throughout the
neighborhood, ventilation of the restaurant and lighting. Mr. Lazdins indicated that staff has worked
with the applicant to keep the lighting at a residential level by limiting the height of the fixtures,
reducing the illumination levels and the use of sharp cut off fixtures.
Ken Jones of Wightman Petrie was present representing Bravokilo. This site has been a good site to
work on and they have enjoyed a very good working relationship with staff. Bravokilo operates
approximately 40 sites in the Muskegon, Holland and Grand Rapids area and approximately 120 overall
in Michigan and Indiana. Mr. Jones presented a photo of the existing building and site and indicated
that it was developed prior to the drive-through restaurant concept and has approximately 80 seats,
which are not all necessary. Bravokilo has owned the site for less than a year and are proposing
redevelopment to make it work according to the new prototypical business and operation plan. Mr.
Jones presented a color version of the proposal showing the building re-oriented and reducing the
parking spaces from 44 to 37. The queuing area of the drive-through has been improved and they are
eliminating one access point on Leonard. The Garfield access closest to the corner has also been
reduced to a right out movement only. The proposed building is 3200-sq. ft. with approximately 53 seats
due to the changes in the fast food business. Drive through has become the most significant component,
comprising approximately 60% of their business. Mr. Jones indicated that they do plan to meet all of the
landscaping and lighting requirements and will continue to work with staff on those items.
Mr. Jones feels that there is really only the one issue of circulation and access that remains unresolved
and they continue to try and improve upon that. He presented photos of the street explaining that there
is one west and one east bound lane on Leonard with a left turn lane that is quite narrow and occurs just
east of White St.. Parking is permitted on the south side of Leonard. Mr. Jones provided a depiction of
how the delivery vehicles will get in and out of the site using the curb cut on Leonard. There are no
problems they are aware of with that movement but need to provide as many alternatives as possible.
The current loading takes place using the alley.
Mr. Carlberg questioned the left turn lane on Leonard.
Mr. Jones responded that the turn lane serves those traveling west on Leonard wishing to turn south on
White and those eastbound on Leonard that wish to turn north on Garfield.
Mr. Jones continued his presentation explaining that in the discussions with staff and Traffic Safety the
suggestion was made to continue the use of the alley for loading. Bravokilo is concerned with that
recommendation because of the geometry of the site. Traveling past the site, westbound in the alley, is
not permitted and the east end of the alley off of Valley is not accessible for trucks without going over
curbs and yards. Staff has offered "no parking" zones on Valley if Bravokilo is willing to consider this,
but that is not the only problem for them. There are significant private improvements up to the right of
way line including a retaining wall, trees etc. It is also not uncommon that a vehicle may be blocking
the alley at the time of a delivery.
Mr. Jones responded to Mr. Carlberg indicating that the loading door is at the west end of the building
and the loading will take place from the front access isle-way. Mr. Jones responded to Mr. Zylstra that
the loading takes place during off peak hours. That could be early to mid morning or at night. The best
time is determined by Bravokilo and the particular store manager.
Mr. Jones explained that the site plan proposed by staff is identical to theirs with the exception that staff
has incorporated an isolation island in the front parking field and an extension of the alley isolation
island. The problems they have with that is that currently they enjoy four full accesses to the business
that depends upon drive-through traffic. As configured by staff, the concern is that they will be down to
one entrance only and two exits. They request two full access points and one right-out only. Staffs
primary reason for adding the two islands is because of the concern of in and out traffic conflicting with
drive through traffic. As staff proposes the access layout, customers will have to enter the site and go
one way to enter the parking field. Mr. Jones feels that people will enter off of Garfield and they will go
against one way traffic. He feels that would be more of a conflict then people having problems with the
drive-through lane.
Mr. Zylstra questioned how essential the right out curb cut is near the intersection.
Mr. Jones responded that there are roughly 12,000 cars per day on Leonard and during peak hours they
expect to see approximately 120 cars in and out of their site. There are very good reasons to consider as
many alternates for access as possible. Generally speaking left turns are the issue and right turns
generally create less conflict in traffic. Their calculations show the level of service that traffic engineers
use to gauge the effectiveness of their approach geometry. The level of service for this site at the
Leonard St. access is the worst and the wait will be approximately 90 seconds. As people wait they
become impatient and make unsafe decisions. Anything they can do to cut down on the waiting time and
left turns makes the site safer. The reason for the right out is to allow two vehicles to exit the site during
the same traffic gap, which reduces the congestion of the site and elevates the level of service of the
site. It also reduces the chance of drivers making a mistake.
Mr. Jones concluded his presentation stating that they plan to meet the standards in every way and are
willing to accept that on every site there may be unavoidable conflicts. They feel that is their
responsibility and are willing to accept that and make the best site plan possible.
Mr. Zylstra invited public comment.
Joyce Urioste and Linda McRoberts commented. Ms. Urioste explained that she occupies the home
directly behind the dumpster location. The interest and the convenience spoken about are that of Burger
King and not the residents. The loading begins at 5 a.m. everyday. Ms. Urioste stated that her concerns
are that she no longer has access to her off street parking because of parking barriers in the alley
installed by Burger King. When she spoke to them about removing them they claimed no
responsibility. She has also suffered property damage caused by employees and the managers again will
take no responsibility. The employees get out at 1 a.m. and tend to hang out around the dumpster area.
One incident involved them climbing on top of the dumpster and spray painting her personal property.
The issue she has is the placement of the dumpster. She is also concerned about the noise at night from
the drive through. The music and cars and loitering on the property are disturbing. Trash accumulating
along the outside of her 6-ft. fence is also a concern. She would like to see Burger King take
responsibility for these problems. Ms. McRoberts agreed with the comments.
Mr. Zylstra questioned whether they feel the changes proposed will help the situation.
Ms. Urioste responded that she doesn't think so. The kids use the alley in order to stay off of Leonard
and as proposed and testified to, the alley access will be busier.
Mr. Stivers asked whether moving the do not enter sign closer to the dumpster area would be beneficial
to the residents on Courtney.
Ms. Urioste thought it would be beneficial.
Mr. Zylstra invited Pat Bush, Traffic Safety Director, to comment.
Mr. Bush stated that they have worked through different options with this site. Historically, there have
been traffic difficulties with the drive through and the traffic on Garfield and Leonard. Mr. Lazdins'
plan shown in the packet did address all of the concerns. The differences between the developer's
proposal and what staff recommends were pointed out. Mr. Bush explained that the main objection to
the right out curb cut is the proximity to the Leonard St. intersection. They feel this will cause a conflict
with Garfield traffic. They also believe people will use that right out lane to access the site if they turn
onto Garfield off of Leonard. Staff will not issue a construction permit for that drive.
Mr. DeStigter questioned how far it would have to be moved back to be acceptable.
Mr. Bush responded that in general 50 feet is a good separation between a major street and a busy drive.
Mr. Lazdins noted that the McDonalds site on the south side of the street has a similar configuration
with their access 40-50 ft. back from the intersection.
Mr. Bush stated that the other main difference in the plan is the opening and the crossing of queue traffic
in the drive through lane. Staff is concerned that someone exiting a parking space will come into
contact with someone in the drive through lane. It is an all around confusing situation. It is important
not to cross the queue traffic of a drive through lane with opposing traffic or pedestrians.
Mr. Zylstra noted that the applicant had an issue with the access to the site from Garfield and the
tendency they expect of people to go across traffic in the parking lot.
Mr. Bush responded that that is why they laid out the lot with angled parking all the way around so that
when they enter the site off of Garfield they would be going against the grain of the parking and it would
tend to direct them around the building. Knowing the restaurant and the neighborhood, they have many
repeat customers who know the layout and which way to go in. It doesn't matter which layout is
preferred, there is always the person who will make the wrong move.
Mr. Stivers questioned the existing parking striped in the alley.
Mr. Hoyt responded that that is a separate lot.
Mr. Stivers questioned how the one way alley midstream was established.
Mr. Bush responded that his understanding is that the do not enter sign was put up as a result of
neighborhood complaints that Burger King customers were traveling west through the alley at high
speeds. The sign was installed to push their traffic out to Garfield. Legally, one could go either way in
the alley.
Mr. Stivers noted that the applicant made a point about traffic getting back onto Leonard and providing
the right out onto Garfield. Mr. Stivers questioned how important it is to have two ways out of the site,
one onto Leonard and one onto Garfield.
Mr. Bush responded that the Leonard St. traffic is heavy during the morning and afternoon rush hours.
He doesn't feel that the developers proposal and argument makes sense because at the same hours that
people will be having difficulty turning out of their drive, people will also be having difficulty turning
from Garfield. At the same time traffic will be queued on the site it will also be queued on Garfield.
With the access so close to the intersection, no one will be able to get out of the driveway because it will
be blocked by the traffic on Garfield.
Mr. DeStigter requested that Mr. Bush address the developer's proposal to widen the entrance at the
alley.
Mr. Bush responded that the entrance to the alley to ease the flow into the site is important. He doesn't
feel widening the alley access would be a major concern but it may be necessary for the City to look into
making it a one way alley from west to east on the west side of the Burger King site to prohibit the
Burger King traffic from using the alley as an access point.
Mr. Doezema questioned whether there is enough room for a full size delivery truck to access and
maneuver under staff's proposal.
Mr. Bush responded that there is more than enough room from the Leonard St. access. The alley access
was researched as a secondary means of access in case circumstances prohibited them from access at the
Leonard St. curb cut. They recommend that the deliveries take place from Leonard and the alley would
be an alternate access.
Mr. Stivers questioned whether staff's proposal had the same or fewer number of parking spaces.
Mr. Bush responded that he believes that number is the same.
Darlene and Susan Meyers addressed the Commission. Darlene Meyers stated that they live behind
Burger King and her main concern is the lighting, which now shines directly into her bedroom and other
rooms of her home. Susan Meyers feels it would be nice if they could move the dumpster back to where
it was before, as children do climb on it and onto the neighboring fences. The dumpster was previously
located at the corner near the existing drive through. When located in that area they didn't experience
any problem with mice as they do now. Another concern is the drive through speaker, which they have
had to request be turned down. Darlene Meyers stated that she is not opposed to taking it down and
rebuilding as she realizes they need a better arrangement.
Kathleen and Greg Merrill of 1228 Courtney commented. Mrs. Merrill stated that when they purchased
their home they were not informed that Burger King drive through would be open 24 hours and they had
to learn to deal with that. Those hours were not lucrative to Burger King and they have scaled them
back. Noise is a big issue for them. They can hear what individuals are ordering from inside their
home. They have called many times asking that they turn the speaker down and have always received a
negative response. They are concerned about moving the drive through near the alley. The exhaust
from the vehicles also causes concern. They like to use their back yards. They realize that Burger King
and the traffic are there now, but with this proposal it moves everything closer to the residences. Mr.
Merrill stated that another issue is that currently they can see the landscaping from their property and if
the proposal is approved they will have the view of a cinder block building. It is not that Leonard
provides a scenic view but there is some advantage to being able to determine the road conditions of the
major street before departing their property. Mrs. Merrill stated that not only is there the "do not enter"
sign near Burger King, there is also a "one way" sign near Little Caesars that appears to be a City sign
that points east. Mrs. Merrill stated that they have off street parking at the rear and when Burger King
has their morning shipments they block the alley. Traveling through Lentz parking lot is the only way
they have out of their off street parking area at that time. Mrs. Merrill feels that another issue of concern
is that Leonard is a very busy street and left turns from Garfield and from White are difficult. White St.
is the main thoroughfare for the fire department to cut through to Walker. She feels a traffic light at that
intersection would be very beneficial. There is no light between Tamarack and Walker and speeds are
high. It is difficult as a pedestrian to get across the street. The ventilation of the restaurant is also
another problem and they can smell the odors. Car stereos that shake their windows are also disturbing.
Mr. Carlberg questioned whether the drive through window has been there all the time.
Mr. Merrill responded that it has been there since they purchased their property. He is concerned about
the drive through placement because as it stands now traffic is backed up to Leonard in the parking lot
waiting. If the proposal is approved as submitted, the stacked cars will be blocking the access to the
parking area.
Joyce Braymen stated that she lives at the top of the alley. She noted that there was testimony regarding
removing parking spaces on Valley to help the trucks enter and exit. There are currently only six spaces
on Valley and seven houses share those. She doesn't feel that a business owned by someone out of the
area should take parking away from the residents of the area. Ms. Braymen stated she has lived on the
alley for 35 years and her children were young when the one way signs were installed at the corner of
the alley and Valley and near the Little Caesars' property. Burger King installed the do not enter for
traffic heading west. The one way sign at the corner of the alley and Valley was removed when Leonard
was under construction. The alley was paved and used to help traffic when the street was closed. That
sign was never put back up. If laid out as proposed she has no issues. However, with the current
loading in the alley it blocks the exit from the alley and the only way they have out is through Lentz
property. She doesn't feel Lentz should have to provide a driveway for Burger King. Ms. Braymen
stated that as long and they plan to reconfigure things she recommends that the parkway area be
enlarged. Currently the snow that the plows throw up onto the sidewalk is either shoveled back into the
street or they don’t shovel at all. She feels it would be nice for them to create an area where they can
shovel their snow. Staff has suggested a hedge along the sidewalk and she feels that will create an
additional problem with snow removal.
Rachel Hood of the West Grand Neighborhood Association stated that the letter from the Association
was written on Wednesday and since then they have heard from residents on Garfield regarding traffic
concerns and residents that are unable to exit White St. On the south side of the street, between White
and Garfield, there are a couple of businesses both of which have parking in the street making visibility
difficult already. Ms. Hood made suggestions offered by residents. Suggestions were to make exits
from Burger King right turns only, to re-install the yellow blinking light that had been at the intersection
of Leonard and Garfield and to place the focus of entering and exiting the Burger King site on Garfield
rather than Leonard due to the peak traffic times. Other concerns noted were the odors, trash, etc.
Mr. Zylstra noted that traffic circulation seems to be the major concern and he is unsure whether a
decision can be reached today.
Mr. Jones responded to comments. He noted that Bravokilo is not aware of any issues that may have
been brought up to managers. Mr. Fitzpatrick, VP of Operations, and Mr. Longley, Director of site
redevelopment are not aware of those issues mentioned relating to crime, noise etc. They would be
happy to discuss those issues with the residents after the meeting. Mr. Jones stated that, with their
experience with the redevelopment of existing Burger King sites and development of new, they have
heard some of these same concerns. They take these comments seriously and try to incorporate as many
protections into the planning and site plan as possible. One thing that is not good for business is to
constantly deal with complaints from neighbors. It is better to plan for ways to off set that. They
understand that lighting is a big concern and are happy to incorporate that into their development plans.
They are willing to look into relocating the dumpster. The current owner inherited the site with the
dumpster in the current location and has not heard any complaints. It would be more beneficial to the
operation as well to have the dumpster closer to the building and they will give that a good review. Mr.
Jones commented about the concerns relating to the alley. They do not want to use the alley for loading,
they prefer to do that on their property. They would like the use of the alley for access to Leonard via
Garfield. They also have no problem with shifting the site further to the north as suggested by staff and
they have no objection to changing the angle of the parking spaces or moving the right out curb cut
further to the north
Mr. Jones stated that generally they are not opposed to any of the concerns and suggestions raised with
the exception of closing off the front bay of parking by extending the traffic island down. He does
understand Mr. Bush's approach but their logic is that they are responsible for what happens internal to
their site. They stand by their concern and conviction that if the access is not allowed, people will have
conflict and they will be relegated to one access to their site. McDonalds has three access points and
they currently have four. They need to remain competitive and operate at the highest level they can.
The relocation of the Leonard St. entrance was at the request of the City and they reluctantly agreed.
They continue to maintain that this site plan is the best they can hope for on this site. Another issue to
consider is the size of the site, the location and the geometry of the site. It is not an optimum site to
work with but this will provide a new store, new landscaping and safer traffic patterns.
Mr. Jones responded to Ms. Sanders regarding the size of the site. This is a small site compared to
others they have but they feel they can make it work and are committed to doing that.
Mr. Zylstra stated that his feeling is that the Commission would not be inclined to pass this today but to
make a decision at the next meeting. He feels that a lot of the neighbors concerns can be addressed and it
seems that most of these things can be worked out. Mr. Zylstra suggested they work with staff to
develop a final print to act on at the next meeting. He questioned how critical the timing of the plan is.
If the Commission proceeds today the proposal may be denied because of some of the traffic issues, etc.
He felt the proposal would be more favorable if some of the issues were addressed and presented at the
next meeting.
Mr. Jones responded that the biggest concern is that they do have time constraints and agreements with
Burger King as to when they start and complete. Normally, when they begin work on a site they are
looking at approximately 50 days from demolition to having an operational location.
Mr. Zylstra responded that the Commission would fully intend to act upon the request at the next
meeting.
Mr. Fitzpatrick responded that they understand they need to address the issues. The challenge will be
for Mr. Longley as to building in the snow.
Mr. DeStigter noted that there were a lot of important issues raised. In general there needs to be a
balance between the residents and Burger King in terms of the alley traffic pattern and how it is used.
Access to the site and circulation in general are major issues and it seems that neither plan presented
works great. He wondered if there could be a third option not yet explored. One suggestion would be to
have more of the traffic exit onto Garfield rather than Leonard. Snow removal should also be taken into
consideration and there should be a location for that. The concern of the neighbor that their off street
parking has been blocked should be addressed as should the one way sign issue. The deliveries create
several issues. Currently they seem to be blocking alley traffic and their plan does improve upon that
but Mr. DeStigter would like the delivery situation clarified and the different options for delivery
clarified. The applicant should be prepared to address the issue of odors, which may be able to be
handled with the type of equipment used. Noise is also an issue and there is an existing noise
ordinance. Noise has been an issue in many drive through situations. Mr. DeStigter feels the lighting
concerns can be simply addressed with the use of cut off fixtures. The location of the dumpster should
also be explored. Mr. DeStigter concluded his comments stating that the street wall was not even
discussed.
Ms. Sanders stated that she feels the entire project needs to be taken back to the drawing board. Moving
the building itself may resolve some of the issues. She also noted concern that they count the alley as an
access point and wondered where that stands from a legal point of view.
Mr. Lazdins noted that the next meeting is scheduled for October 24. However, there seem to be a lot of
issues to address and he isn't certain that can be done prior to the date that the packets need to be sent
out. It may be necessary to carry this over to the November meeting as he wants to be certain that what
is presented to the Commission is well thought out.
Mr. Miles offered his comments. He feels that with the number of issues raised today he could not vote
in favor of the proposal. Possibly with some thought to redesign his opinion could be changed.
Mr. Carlberg doesn't feel this proposal meets the Permitted with Approval Standards. The Planning
Commission must be able to say that this use will not cause harm and he feels that would be difficult to
say here. He too feels the project should go back to the drawing board. He would have to see a lot of
changes before he would be in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Zylstra stated that he agrees with the comments made by Mr. DeStigter. He feels the right out exit
onto Garfield and the proximity to the intersection is a major problem and he would like to see that
eliminated. Mr. Zylstra does agree with the applicant that extending the traffic island in the parking lot
will likely block off the parking at the front. He feels that the issues of lighting, smells and dumpster
location can all be resolved.
Mr. Stivers stated that he is familiar with some of the other Burger King sites and has seen the bump out
parking location (at the NE corner of the building) being a physical structure. That may be a good
compromise.
Ms. Johnston stated her concern with the noise issue and wondered whether the noise ordinance would
address that.
Mr. Hoyt responded that it would have to be measured to determine if there is a violation. It seems that
the problems identified relate to the existing arrangement. In terms of technology it may be that with the
new building some of the problems will be solved.
Mr. Doezema feels that whatever they decide upon will be better than the existing situation. The
internal circulation problem is hard to deal with because of the size of the site. He agrees that the
applicant is ultimately the one who has to deal with it.
Mr. Carlberg MOVED TO TABLE. SUPPORTED by Ms. Sanders. YEAS: 9. NAYS: 0.
MOTION CARRIED.
It was clarified for the applicant that the proposal will be placed on the agenda again when the issues
have been worked out with staff.
________________________________________________________________
1740 and 1750 Leonard St., NE - Zone Change - SR Special Residential to PUD Planned Unit
Development to allow a car wash and auto oil change. (ZC 19-02)
Mr. Lazdins explained that the proposal is to rezone 1740 and 1750 Leonard NE from SR to PUD to
permit the development of a car wash and oil change facility. The property is located at the corner of
Leonard and Plymouth and is the former location of an Old Kent Bank. The applicants are interested in
redeveloping the site. There is single family residential to the south and to the west. There is a
shopping center northwest of the property and a fire station across the street with a credit union located
behind that.
Mr. Lazdins presented the proposed site plan and explained that the automatic laser car wash would be
located furthest west on the property with office space, a double bay for oil change and 3 do-it-yourself
car wash stalls following in that order to the east. There is an existing curb cut on Leonard as well as on
Plymouth. Cars that come off of Leonard pass through the property along the edge of the property. The
location of the vacuum units is at the front of the property.
Mr. Lazdins explained that the site was designated in the Master Plan for commercial use. However,
there is some reference in the text portion of the Master Plan that mentions the desire to use office space
in these areas as a transition to residential.
Mr. Carlberg asked for clarification as to what is located directly to the west of this property.
Mr. Lazdins responded that there is a house directly to the west.
Mr. Lazdins indicated that he has received some correspondence as well as telephone calls regarding this
proposal. There was also a petition submitted that has been distributed to the Commission. A phone
call from the neighbor directly south of the property expressed concern that if this SR property is
rezoned to permit commercial activity then neighbors want all other SR properties converted to
commercial. They don’t want just this one designated commercial and then allowed to creep into a
residential neighborhood, change it all or not at all.
Mr. Lazdins clarified that the petition was from people of the NEECA Neighborhood Association who
indicate their opposition or support.
Jim Zigler of Wolverine Building was present to discuss the proposal. He indicated he is present to
answer questions.
Mr. Zylstra asked how this proposal might affect the residential property to the west.
Mr. Zigler responded that the site plan before the Commission is the second they have submitted. Staff
reviewed the original site plan and this is a compromise site plan to address the concerns of the
residents. They have moved the building closer to the front and placed the vacuum units at the front to
distance the noise generating portion of the operation from the residences to the south. They will be
providing landscaping along the southern area also.
Mr. Lazdins agreed with Mr. Zigler stating that the applicant has made changes in an attempt to address
concerns.
Mr. Zylstra questioned whether the laser wash generates much noise.
Mr. Zigler responded that it does not.
Mr. Carlberg asked about hours of operation.
Mr. Zigler responded that the business owner did provide a letter of explanation. His understanding is
that the three do-it-yourself bays would be a 24 hour operation and the oil change service and laser wash
would be open during normal operating hours, which he believes is 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Mr. Stivers noted that often times with a PUD proposal there is a great amount of detail provided. He
questioned if there were plans for what the building may look like.
Mr. Zigler stated that it was his understanding that they were before the Commission for a zoning
approval not site plan approval. They are willing to work with staff as to the building itself and site plan
enhancements. It is the concept they are interested in getting approval on today.
It was noted that the letter from Mr. Flikkema, the business owner, states that the hours of operation
would be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., which is common for this type of operation.
Rupert McGinn of NEECA was present to comment. It was his understanding that when a PUD is
approved it includes where a building will be placed and what the landscaping treatments will be, etc.
The applicant did meet with the neighbors a couple of months ago and they were told at that time that it
has been the feeling of the North East Land Use Plan that there was never any thought to that site being
used commercially. Since the Northeast Area Land Use Plan was developed it was decided by the
Planning Commission that commercial development would be restricted to the area between Carlton and
Fuller. This area was to be used for offices. He feels that in order for them to succeed they will need to
draw a lot of traffic and that is a concern due to the busy intersection. The major concern is that this is a
residential area. There is residential to the south and across the street. The neighborhood association
asks that this proposal not be approved. They informed the applicant that this isn't the right place for
this operation. Mr. McGinn also noted that there is some concern as to environmental issues relating to
the oil change operation.
Greg VanderVen of 1732 Leonard stated that his is the property immediately west of the site. He is
opposed to the request and agrees with Mr. McGinn that the subject site was always meant for office
use. Mr. VanderVen noted that he has been working with the bank in an attempt to sell his property at
the same time.
Mr. Zylstra opened the floor to Commission discussion or presentation of the resolution.
Ms. Sanders MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
waives the 10-acre minimum site size and recommends approval of the proposed PUD District per
plans submitted, subject to the following conditions:
1.
That plans submitted by the Wolverine Building Group, dated and stamped by the
Secretary of the Planning Commission on October 10, 2002, shall constitute the approved plans
for this project.
2.
That final development and construction drawings shall substantially conform to the
approved plans and shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Director prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
3.
That the final landscape, lighting and signage plans shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4.
That storm water provisions meet the requirements of the City's Environmental Protection
Services Department.
There was no support for the resolution.
Mr. Zylstra noted that he omitted giving the applicant an opportunity to respond to comments.
Mr. Flikkema addressed the Commission. He indicated that the proposed structure would either be brick
or a colored block building with a pitched roof. They would attempt to tie into the residential look. Mr.
McGinn noted that there is a lot of residential in the area. That is what this type of operation is about.
People do not travel to wash their car. This is about service to the neighbors. Mr. Flikkema stated that
he has been a north east resident all his life and his brother/partner resides on Leonard NE. They feel
their proposal would enhance this corner. He is aware of other interested parties such as gas stations and
fast food restaurants. The operation they propose is not an automotive store. They do not tow in cars
and there are no cars sitting on the property. This is a quick serve operation and when it is closed there is
nothing around. If there is a concern as to trash related to the do-it-yourself operation, he feels that
being open 12 hours a day should address that. The oil change employees are not busy 12 hours a day
and they would be responsible to maintain the grounds. He feels his proposal would be a benefit to the
area and an enhancement to the neighboring properties. Mr. Flikkema noted that when someone inquires
with Westdale about the property they are told that this is a commercial site. Mr. Flikkema stated that
he doesn't feel noise would be an issue. As to the number of vehicles this may draw, he recalled that this
is the former site of a bank and the peak traffic flow per hour for a bank is approximately 120 cars per
hour.
Mr. Zylstra didn't feel that traffic was an issue, it seems it is the type of business that is the concern.
Ms. Sanders feels that the proposal is a good idea and that they could do a good job, but in another
location. The neighbors desire it remain SR as evidenced by the petition with 10 signatures.
Ms. Sanders MOVED TO DENY.
Mr. Lazdins indicated that if the Commission chooses to recommend denial that the PUD review
standards be followed. It is not just neighborhood opposition that should be a factor.
Mr. Doezema MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO DENY stating that the property is
reasonably zoned SR (Special Residential). Furthermore, the PUD standards require a site of 10
acres in size, which can be reduced if the reduction reflects the purpose of the PUD ordinance.
The purpose is to take a piece of property and preserve open spaces and wood lands. The
proposed site plan does not meet the standards and if the PUD were approved, that site plan
would also be approved. The property can be used as zoned and re-zoning PUD doesn't make
sense. SUPPORTED by Ms. Johnston.
Mr. DeStigter commented. He feels the applicant would do a great job but agrees that this is not the site
for a car wash, so close to residences.
The question was called. YEAS: 9. NAYS: 0. MOTION CARRIED.
________________________________________________________________
Mr. Carlberg left the meeting.
2737 and 2761 Leonard St., NE - Zone Change - R-1 One-family residential to PUD Planned Unit
Development to allow office buildings. (ZC 20-02)
Mr. Lummen presented the request explaining that the property is located at the northeast corner of
Leffingwell and the on/off ramp for I-96. Mr. Lummen also described the surrounding uses as a PUD for
the Spectrum project, an office PUD, a church, medical offices and single family homes on Leffingwell
and Leonard as well as to the north.
Mr. Lummen described the proposed plan as a two-story, 20,000 sq. ft. office building and a single
story, 10,000 sq. ft. office building. Mr. Lummen pointed out the location of the parking area and the
storm water retention basin. Mr. Lummen provided views of the building elevations. The east side of
the single story building is proposed to face the residential properties on Leffingwell. The main entry
would be located on the south side of the building. The two-story building will have the entry on the
south façade. The proposed are unique office buildings with wrap around porches.
Pete Lazdins of Design Plus was present to discuss the proposal. Tim Johnson was also present to
discuss land use issues and Shirley Walner from Wade Trim was present to answer questions relating to
the traffic report.
Mr. P. Lazdins indicated that Mr. Lummen did a nice job describing the site and site plan. The two
buildings each have a footprint of 10,000 sq. ft. The smaller building was placed in the northeast corner
of the site adjacent to the residential area. The two-story was placed further west near the off ramp and
interchange. All of the setbacks are met for the PUD; in fact they have actually met or exceeded them.
They propose a landscape berm consisting of both deciduous and conifers for the screening aspect
throughout the year. Architecturally, they have tried to be consistent and compatible with some of the
adjacent buildings in the area. As Mr. Lummen pointed out, the appearance is not that of a traditional
office building. When comparing some of the footprints, they are using a lot of the residential scale,
including broken rooflines, in order to be compatible with surrounding buildings.
Mr. P. Lazdins explained that they did an analysis of some of the adjacent office uses across Leonard in
terms of scale. The insurance company building footprint is twice the size of this proposal. The church
located across from the proposed parking lot is roughly four times larger at 40,000 sq. ft.
Mr. P. Lazdins stated that they met with the neighborhood group in August. Mr. Hoyt also attended that
meeting. They discussed some of the grading issues. The existing site grading is fairly flat and has a
natural slope from the north to the south, which is good for this site. There is an existing culvert on
Leonard that slopes from the north to the south and all of the storm water could exit the site via the
culvert. One of the neighbors did indicate a concern about flooding problems to the north. From that
standpoint, all the water generated from this site will stay on the site and exit to the south. They have
also met with Randy Lemoine and they will use best management practices. They have established a
ridgeline in the center of the site. The storm water will be taken to the north to a storm water detention
pond with a pre-treatment basin to collect silts and oils from the parking lot. It will then be taken via a
pipe or swale to a storm water pond, ultimately exiting across Leonard.
Tim Johnson explained that they are aware that the Master Plan says this area should be single family
but there aren't reasons listed as to why this particular property should stay in that category. They feel
there are a number of reasons it should be office rather than single family.
Mr. Johnson explained that one concern of the property owner is how this would impact the neighbors.
They have taken the time to meet with the neighbors and present their plans. There were approximately
ten citizens in attendance as well as Mr. Hoyt and Commissioner Rabaut. Some of the concerns voiced
at that meeting were the impact on property values, the impact on the neighborhood and whether this
would result in more offices moving up Leonard and taking away from the single family neighborhood.
Mr. Johnson presented a photo showing some of the land use patterns.
Mr. Johnson explained that they feel office use works well at this interchange for a number of reasons.
It duplicates the pattern of land use approved on the south side of Leonard where there are single family
homes backing up to a church and the medical office building. In terms of how this might affect
property values, they contacted the Assessors office. They were informed that several of the homes that
back up to the church and the medical office building have increased in value by approximately 30%
since 1998. Mr. Johnson indicated that they would expect that with the construction of the proposed
office buildings and the detail that would be put into them, that the homes that back up to this property
will maintain or increase in value. In reviewing the PUD ordinance, that is one of the standards, that the
PUD will not diminish the value of property in the neighborhood.
Mr. Johnson explained that compatibility between uses depends on good design. The property owners
are committed to working with the neighbors to provide a good buffer. They propose landscaping but
are willing to work with the neighbors in terms of trees, berming or fencing if that is the desire. There is
a distinct break in character on Leonard from the west side to the east side of the interchange. To the
east there are large canopy trees, curbs, sidewalks, well kept single family homes and a very distinct
neighborhood feel. To the west there are fewer trees, predominantly office and a church and some
houses that are small in nature and are all rental units. There is a real distinction between the two
neighborhoods. Mr. Johnson provided photographs showing the character difference from the east to the
west. The character of residential is not between Leffingwell and I-96. He feels the proposed office
building will provide a good transition from I-96 into the single-family area to the east. The history of
the property values in the area shows stability and they expect that the homes abutting this property and
those to the east will maintain their value.
Mr. Johnson distributed copies and read the top 10 reasons they feel it is appropriate to rezone the
property. 1) The character of the area west of Leffingwell is non-residential. The predominant uses are
office and church. 2) If vacant, this site next to the I-96 interchange would not be planned for single
family residential. 3) Vehicle turning movements and traffic noise along Leonard at I-96 are not
desirable for a long-term single family residential neighborhood. 4) The three houses on Leonard
between Leffingwell and I-96 are rental, which doesn't lend to long term single family use. 5) Office
use of this site is compatible with nearby offices. 6) Office use creates a transition from I-96 to the
residential uses east of Leffingwell. 7) Leffingwell provides a distinct separation between the singlefamily neighborhood to the east and the office area to the west. 8) Office uses will not create traffic
problems on Leonard, as evidenced by the traffic study that was performed. 9) The design of the
Bakeman office PUD ensures minimal impact on nearby residents and will significantly improve the
appearance of Leonard west of Leffingwell. 10) Office use of this site would duplicate the land use
pattern existing on the southwest corner of Leffingwell and Leonard where well kept single family
houses abut medical office buildings.
Mr. Johnson stated that in conclusion, the PUD rezoning being requested gives the Planning
Commission greater control over what takes place there. In summary, they feel they meet the PUD
standards and request a recommendation of approval to the City Commission.
Mr. Doezema indicated that the Planning Commission just denied a request for a PUD on a site less than
10 acres in size. He asked how reducing the 10-acre requirement is consistent with the PUD ordinance.
Mr. Johnson responded that the ordinance does give the Planning Commission the flexibility to reduce
that if the standards of the ordinance are met. Section 5.25 says that the district may also be used in
those situations where the use of another district would not provide sufficient control. The PUD allows
the Commission to make sure that what is presented is what they get. There is not a great deal of
opportunity for open space on the project although they have tried to provide it. There are some reasons
to consider reducing the size of the PUD from 10 acres. The open space in a PUD often refers to open
space for residential use. Often times open space is not associated with office use, it is more associated
with residential uses.
Mr. Doezema questioned whether a landscape plan has been submitted.
Mr. Johnson responded that they haven't detailed in terms of size and type of trees. That would likely be
provided with a final submittal. The yards there now do have a pretty good setback. They are providing
what may be considered open space at the front with the pond. They would like to install trees along the
street that would imitate the same canopy affect to the east. The landscaping along the back will be
sensitive to the residential property.
Shirley Walner, Professional Transportation Engineer from Wade Trim, stated that they did a traffic
study that looked primarily at the intersection of Leonard and Leffingwell and specifically at the east
bound left turn movement. The left turn lane extends approximately 250 ft. to the west and then
converts to a west bound left turn lane that enters the State Farm and surgical center site. There are very
few problems with the east bound left turn queue during morning peak hour. The traffic flow is really in
the other direction. Maximum queue in the morning peak hour is approximately 70 ft. or three cars. In
the afternoon peak hour there is approximately a half-hour period where the queues do fill up the
existing storage which ends near the vicinity of the proposed site driveway. Ms. Walner indicated that
the report was done for a general office use and medical office use is more of what is planned for this
site. That would have approximately 1/3 fewer trips during the afternoon peak hour. Traffic from the
site adds less than one car length to the east bound left turn queue. As far as the queue to turn into the
site, the queue should be less than one vehicle at all times. The signal at Leffingwell will provide gaps
for the turn movement into the site. One recommendation they did make is that the left turn lane in the
area of the site be designated as a two-way left turn lane. That way when the demand is high for the east
bound left turn at Leffingwell, it can overflow and would not exceed the designation of the turn lane.
The area west of the storage area can then either be used for properties on the north or south as demand
dictates.
Ms. Walner pointed out that when the traffic is peaking for the east bound left turn, the site entry traffic
is not at the peak. The site entry peak will be in the morning peak hour as people come to work and the
first visitors arrive at the office. In the afternoon peak hour the majority of the traffic will be exiting the
site and will not have a need to store in the center turn lane.
Ms. Walner clarified for Mr. Doezema where the left turn lane makes the transition for the east bound
left turn and the west bound left turn.
Mr. Doezema noted that if marked differently it could be used for left turns both ways. He questioned
whether there was a recent traffic light installed on Leonard.
Ms. Walner responded that a light was installed within the last two weeks but she was not sure whether
it was yet in operation. The advantage of that new signal is that it will regulate how the flow comes in
from west to east in this section. That will provide some additional regular gaps and it is likely that light
is coordinated with the signal at Leffingwell. The signal at Leffingwell is coordinated with the signals at
Leffingwell and Knapp and Leffingwell and the East Beltline. With that coordination the ability to
access the side street properties in between the signals will improve.
Mr. Zylstra invited public comment.
Dave Berrevoets of 1287 Leffingwell stated that his property is along the north boundary of the subject
site. His parents purchased the property in 1947 and there was only a car path on the property. He and
his wife purchased the property from his parents over a year ago. Mr. Berrevoets indicated that they
have not been made aware of anything going on with this property. The statement that the water flow is
north to south is not correct. Mr. Berrevoets provided pictures of a retaining wall on his property that
was completely washed out from the flow of water from the northeast corner of the subject property.
Last summer when Leffingwell was widened, the construction company put in an 18-inch catch basin
and even that didn't solve the problem and the wall washed out again. He has spent a considerable
amount of money to put that wall in. Mr. Berrevoets provided another photo showing the top of the wall
at eye level, which shows a 2-3 ft. drop. If the berm proposed is not directly on the edge of the property
it will continue to wash the wall out yearly. Another concern he has is that they will be removing a large
tree. That tree has been there for many years and the root structure is extensive. There are some 50 ft.
walnut trees and the limb structures are 20-25 ft. The berm they are describing is 25 ft. and if they start
taking limbs off and disturbing the roots, one of the trees will be in his house one day. The traffic
situation also causes him concern. There have been occasions when he has come home at 4 p.m. and
been directly in front of the on ramp to I-96, blocking a full lane of traffic, waiting to turn left. Only
three or four cars turning left make it through each light. When the Kent Skills Center and Charter
School release, exiting onto Leffingwell is difficult. Most of the traffic exits to the west off of
Leffingwell and as soon as the light changes then the Leonard St. traffic going west is heavy. He feels
that is a traffic hazard for the proposed office buildings. Mr. Berrevoets stated that his main concerns are
the water shed problems and the tree situation. As previously stated, no one has discussed this with
them.
Mr. Zylstra asked if he had any plans of developing the rear/west portion of his property.
Mr. Berrevoets indicated he has no plans to develop. He feeds wild deer on the property and he
maintains it as his parents bought it. The title still lists the property as agricultural.
Mr. Doezema questioned whether the small triangular property was his also.
Mr. Berrevoets responded that he doesn't know who owns it.
Mr. Doezema asked, despite the concerns noted, how he would feel looking out the window at an office
building.
Mr. Berrevoets responded that he feels the proposed buildings do look nice. He likes the efforts made at
providing a residential look. He would however appreciate a 6-8 ft. privacy fence, which would also
help to alleviate any noise from the site. He would prefer that it not be constructed of wolmanized
lumber. As a licensed builder he is aware that wolmanized lumber does rot. Mr. Berrevoets noted
another concern having to do with the detention ponds. He is concerned with ducks and geese and
mosquitoes and asked what guarantee the residents have that these ponds won't attract these things.
Mr. Doezema noted that the pond might reduce the water problem.
Mr. Berrevoets responded that if they don't get the berm up against the property line the water problem
would remain.
Mr. Hoyt noted that as a licensed builder he is likely aware that if the slope of the land is changed it is
likely trees will have to be removed to do that.
Mr. Berrevoets stated that if the berm comes up some and the peak of the berm is placed 5 ft. away from
the property line and sloped back, there will be no need to remove trees.
Rupert McGinn of NEECA commented. He stated that the two doctors did make a presentation to the
Board a couple of months ago. One unfortunate thing that is always brought up with a development
near an expressway is that if they can't build there, they may get something worse. That puts fear into
the people, including the residents on Leffingwell. There are some nice homes on Leonard and he
resents the comment regarding the homes west of Leffingwell. Those homes are beautiful. Mr. McGinn
stated that he did inform the doctors that there is a City Commission policy that good houses are not
destroyed, they are moved. There have been no comments as to saving these homes. The other issue
discussed was to use the land zoned for Spectrum/Blodgett. The Planning Commission forced Blodgett
to purchase every property on Leffingwell and therefore every piece of property is owned by Spectrum.
He doesn't understand why a doctor's office could not go into that area, as those are now absentee
landlord rentals. Mr. McGinn feels that the people there feel threatened and are worried what will
happen if they oppose the request. One problem in particular is the location of the building furthest
north and the proximity to the east property overlooking a swimming pool and other properties. The
NEECA Board didn't know what stand to take on this issue.
Lou Wagner of 1230 Leffingwell stated his home is on the east side of the street, the first house after the
corner. He commented on the testimony of the property values increasing by 30% since 1998. Inflation
plays a factor in that increase and he feels that the residential properties have likely lost some value. He
is concerned with the traffic issue. He currently has a problem getting out of his driveway due to the
Charter School, the athletic fields and Kent Skills. Mr. Wagner stated that the new light has been a big
help exiting the expressway onto Leonard. There is an existing traffic problem and they don't need that
to get any worse. Mr. Wagner feels the location of the proposed lube/oil and car wash before the
Commission earlier would be a good location for this type of office building. He noted that the property
across the street on the east side of Plymouth is also being developed and there is a large development
taking place on the east side of the Beltline. That property should be used, as opposed to coming into a
nice residential area with a desire to construct office buildings.
Clarence Bleeker of 1233 Leffingwell stated that his property abuts the subject site. With the berm as
proposed they will get all of the rainwater as will the property next door, which is lower. He too would
like to see a good privacy fence installed if this is approved. He would also like more information as to
how the ponds work. He questioned whether water would remain in the ponds or drain off.
Mr. Hoyt responded that his understanding is that they are detention ponds where the water runs in
during the rain event and is then released slowly.
Mr. P. Lazdins responded that that has not been determined yet but that is the direction they discussed.
Mr. Bleeker is concerned about standing water attracting wild life to Leonard St. He sees no reason to
take a good residential area and cut it up for commercial use. Those are good homes; both rented, with
good renters and good property maintenance. He doesn't see the reason to demolish the houses.
Mr. Doezema asked that if the drainage issues are solved, how he feels about the proposed structures.
Mr. Bleeker responded that the proposed structures are good looking. He doesn't feel offices belong in
the residential area. He has been a resident there for 32 years and the area has been built up over the
years. His opinion is that allowing commercial uses to come in does lower property values of their
homes.
Mr. Johnson responded to comments. He indicated that there have been no final engineering plans
prepared regarding water drainage. They are committed to making sure the stated concerns are
addressed. They are not permitted by law to drain their water onto someone else's property. The
applicant's would be agreeable to a fence if that is desired. With regard to traffic, the traffic study shows
only 6% will come on Leffingwell from the north. The majority of the traffic will come from the west
on Leonard into the property. The peak times for the office will not be the same as the peak traffic hours
of 4-6 p.m. They do not feel this will add to the queue that does occur during 4-6 p.m. Property values
are sometimes ones opinion. Factual information has been provided showing that values have been
increasing.
Mr. Miles MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
waives the 10-acre minimum site size and recommends approval of the proposed PUD District per
plans submitted, subject to the following conditions:
1.
That plans submitted by Design Plus dated and stamped by the Secretary of the Planning
Commission on October 10, 2002, shall constitute the approved plans for the project.
2.
That final development and construction drawings shall substantially conform to the
approved plans and shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Director prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
3.
That final landscape, lighting and signage plans shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4.
That storm water provisions meet the requirements of the City's Environmental
Protection Services Department.
SUPPORTED by Ms. Titche.
Mr. Zylstra indicated that he is torn on this proposal.
Ms. Johnston stated that she is not in favor of waiving the 10-acre requirement for commercial
construction in a residential area. Although the Master Plan is not clear as to this specific parcel, the
goal was to keep the area residential. She doesn't feel comfortable changing that. It is not compatible
with the existing R-1 uses or the area.
Mr. Doezema stated that during the Master Plan hearing he questioned how the lines are drawn in and
whether they were with pinpoint accuracy. Although it is Master Planned as R-1 he feels it is unrealistic
to think that property next to a highway entrance ramp will be developed in an R-1 fashion. The
existing houses likely pre-dated the highway and to say that it will continue to be R-1 is not realistic. He
feels they have a nice plan and that it is a pretty good transition. He would like them to consider the
fencing and the berm and possibly some street improvements in terms of the left lane, making it two
way. A deceleration lane might also be a consideration in that area. This is a tough piece of property to
develop as R-1 and that is the reason he would consider waiving the 10-acre requirement.
Mr. Zylstra questioned whether he felt the conditions of the resolution were sufficient if Traffic Safety
approval was also required.
Mr. Hoyt indicated that Traffic Safety had an opportunity to look at the proposed plan and they did not
recommend a deceleration lane. That is something that can be taken back to them.
Mr. DeStigter noted that water problems can sometimes be resolved with a development. If this
proposal is approved, he would like to see some assurance that that is the case here. He noted that
approving this proposal would block off any future access to the westerly portion of the properties to the
north in terms of considering future development. He wouldn't mind seeing what could be done to
provide access as an option for the future.
Mr. Hoyt didn't feel that was a good idea no matter how the subject property is developed due to the
access from Leonard. If future development of that area is considered, he feels access would be better
off of Leffingwell.
Mr. P. Lazdins indicated that they did look into that. Topographically, it would be difficult to develop
that area.
Mr. DeStigter questioned why the residents were getting the parking lot as a neighbor rather than
placing the parking along the expressway. He feels that if this is to be considered as transition, the nice
looking building should be placed next to the residences and the obtrusive parking next to the
expressway.
Mr. Hoyt responded that the neighbors with the pool did not want the building immediately adjacent to
their property. Placing the two-story office building next to the houses is more obtrusive to the
residents.
Mr. Zylstra stated he is torn on this request. They have designed great looking buildings and a nice site.
He has some problem with breaking up the residential area. He feels the site is more residential in
character than the applicant has presented. Traffic is a huge issue. He isn't sure how he would vote. He
suggested that the Commission may not want to make a decision today.
Mr. DeStigter agreed with Mr. Doezema's statement that it is not likely someone would develop
residentially along the expressway. On the same token, there are two houses there and the property does
function as residential now.
Ms. Johnston MOVED TO TABLE. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeStigter.
Mr. Miles asked what the reason for tabling is.
Ms. Johnston indicated that she would like more information on the storm water issue and traffic issue.
This is not an easy decision. The proposed buildings are beautiful and have a residential look. The
problem is that the use is commercial and the Master Plan dictates the site as an R-1 area.
Mr. Zylstra stated he would like to visit the site again and consider how redevelopment as residential
would work. New residential development along I-96 is taking place.
Mr. DeStigter didn't feel it necessary to consider future residential development of the site. There are
two existing residential structures on the site.
Mr. Zylstra noted that the lot is quite deep and future residential development could involve a few
duplexes or townhouses.
Mr. V. Lazdins indicated that that type of development would require rezoning as well.
Mr. Hoyt asked if the reason for tabling is to come up with other uses for the site or to provide the
applicant an opportunity to respond to neighbor concerns.
Mr. Bakita indicated that it is acceptable to table for the simple reason of needing more time to consider
the proposal.
Ms. Johnston responded that she would like the applicant's to address the citizen concerns. She would
also like more time to consider the overall proposal.
Mr. Hoyt summarized the concerns as storm water drainage, traffic, site relationship to the neighbors
(berm, fencing, landscaping, loss of trees), and concern with the location of the building.
The question was called on the motion to table. YEAS: 4. NAYS: 4. MOTION FAILED.
Mr. Zylstra noted that the resolution as read remains on the table.
Ms. Sanders indicated that the biggest concern for her is the property owner on the corner and the storm
water. She feels they will be able to address that concern and that this would be a great transitional
development. The design does fit with the neighborhood.
Mr. Stivers stated that he feels for the residents on Leffingwell. Between the East Beltline commercial
and institutional development and the location of the I-96 ramp, Leffingwell's fate was dictated long
ago. Mr. Stivers agreed with Mr. Doezema that this property is not ideal for residential use and this may
be one of the better ways to allow a transition to occur.
The question was called on the original resolution. YEAS: 4. NAYS: 4. MOTION FAILED.
Mr. Miles again read the original resolution. Ms. Titche provided support.
Mr. Doezema suggested additional conditions and AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE: 1)
addressing the issue of the fence along the residential property lines and 2) Traffic Safety review
the left turn lane suggestions and the suggestion of a deceleration lane. SUPPORTED by Mr.
Stivers.
Mr. Miles felt the Commission should vote on the resolution as written.
The question was called regarding the proposed amendment. YEAS: 5. NAYS: 3. MOTION
CARRIED.
The question on the resolution as amended was called. YEAS: 5. NAYS: 3. (Johnston, Zylstra,
Miles). MOTION CARRIED.
________________________________________________________________
Houseman Ave., NE - Public Street Extension - from Carrier Creek Blvd. north to a cul-de-sac
approximately 250 ft. south of Coldbrook St. (PU 10)
Mr. Hoyt made the presentation indicating this is quite unusual. To his knowledge there have been no
street extensions in the last 16-17 years. The code does provide for Commission approval for a street
extension. The proposal is to extend Houseman. Houseman, between Coldbrook and Carrier Creek is a
paper street. There was a previous proposal to rezone this parcel for apartments and that proposal was
defeated. The neighbors then requested the area be considered for rezoning to R-1A and that has taken
place. The area is developed primarily as single family residences. The parcel was subdivided in the
past and the proposal before the Commission today is to create a cul-de-sac between Coldbrook and
Carrier Creek and develop single family residences on a total of 9 lots around the cul-de-sac. The lots
would be approximately 55 ft. wide and 130 ft. deep. That lot size is larger than some in the area or at
least of the same size as others in the immediate area.
Mr. Hoyt indicated that there were a number of issues identified in the neighborhood meeting that was
held. Some of the City Commissioners wanted to be sure the neighbors had information about this
proposal and therefore the neighborhood meeting was held. There were some concerns about leveling
the property and the topography changed to provide for the building sites. Some years ago this was clear
land and over the years the trees have grown up. Citizens have gotten used to having a treed lot in their
back yards. This will be a significant change for them. On the other hand, it does provide more single
family home ownership opportunities in the neighborhood. Mr. Hoyt feels this also reflects positively on
the neighborhood itself. The fact that there is a market for new single family houses suggests this is still
a good, strong single-family market. With regard to reshaping the lots, Mr. Hoyt feels this provides a
good opportunity for dealing with storm water run off. There is a large retention area proposed and a
system that will drain all of the sites into the retention basin. There will also be a retention wall along
the northern portion adjacent to existing residences to prevent any water from entering and pooling on
their property. That water will be captured and directed back to the drainage area. There will also be a
catch basin independent of the drainage system that will drain any excess water out to the street. There
is a substantial amount of vegetation that will remain. Because of the severe change in topography, a lot
of re-grading will be necessary.
Mr. Hoyt indicated that the retaining wall will not be a flat wall but will be stepped back. The neighbors
have requested some low-level plantings in front of that wall and the developer has agreed to provide
some landscaping along those three lots.
Mr. DeStigter asked what would happen with the easement that goes to the north.
Mr. Hoyt responded that it is a public right of way. The land could be vacated, and if so, it would be
split between the properties adjacent to it.
Mr. DeStigter questioned whether there would be any advantage to keeping it.
Mr. Hoyt responded that he didn't feel there was.
Mr. Zylstra noted that a previous proposal by Genesis generated a lot of neighborhood concern. He
questioned the attendance at the neighborhood meeting regarding this proposal.
Mr. Hoyt responded that there were roughly 15 in attendance. There were a number of concerns and
many did not want to lose the woods if they didn't have to. They understood that a lot of the trees would
be removed. There were comments that they would much rather have single family development as
opposed to the apartments proposed. One resident did comment that she would be happy to see this
property developed as it is beginning to collect junk. This would help clean that up.
Norm Caterburg was present to discuss the proposal. He indicated that Mr. Hoyt presented the proposal
well. They feel the single-family development will be a good use of this land.
Mr. Stivers asked for clarification as to the steps involved in this process.
Mr. Hoyt responded that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City
Commission.
Mr. Stivers questioned whether the Planning Commission would see a proposed plat in the future.
Mr. Hoyt responded that this is a legal plat and does not require re-platting. They will slightly adjust the
lot lines but the plat is basically as originally platted. What is being requested is for City approval to
extend the street. They will pay for and construct the street and they must do that to City standards. The
review is primarily to insure that what they are doing is consistent with City standards.
Mr. Stivers noted that there has been a general request from the City Commissioners to hold public
hearings on things very similar to this. He asked if it was the feeling of staff that the neighborhood
meeting satisfied that request.
Mr. Hoyt responded that the meeting today was noticed as a public hearing. The neighborhood meeting
was in addition to this public hearing to get the information out to the area residents.
Mr. Stivers MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this resolution shall
constitute RECOMMENDED APPROVAL of this street extension with the following conditions:
1.
The Planning Commission recommends opening Houseman Avenue from Carrier Drive to
approximately 250-ft. north into a cul-de-sac.
2.
That sidewalk be installed on the west and east side of the public street (including lots A
through I) pursuant to the standard City requirements.
3.
That the plan meet the requirements of the storm water management office.
4.
Amend soil and sedimentation permit: That the developer, per his offer, provide plantings
to screen the proposed retaining wall, if desired by the owners of lots 34, 35 and 36 of Carrier
Creek Subdivision No. 1, and that such plantings be installed prior to the issuance of a building
permit for any new residential structure.
SUPPORTED by Ms. Titche. YEAS: 8. NAYS: 0. MOTION CARRIED.
________________________________________________________________
DISCUSSION:
·
Ms. Johnston indicated that, prior to leaving, Mr. McGinn requested she inform the Commission
that he has received several phone calls from people in the northeast area regarding the design and look
of the two restaurants at Celebration Village. He has received several complaints about the look of the
buildings and the citizens don't understand why the Commission accepted the corporate design. It is out
of sync with the village concept.
Ms. Johnston indicated that she is not sure about the Starbucks building but she does recall that the
Commission struggled with the IHOP building.
Mr. DeStigter stated that the problem is that they have no standards by which to say no. He feels what
they have pushed so far has been a stretch.
·
City Engineer Bill DeYoung stated that he was present to make a favorable comment regarding the
Houseman project but that was not necessary.
ADJOURNED: 6:30 p.m.
__________________________________________
John Stivers
Planning Commission Secretary
__________________________________________
Date