Dexter Considers Another Planned Unit Development in Central Business District

At its February 27th meeting, the Dexter City Council completed a review and discussion of the Kentwood Place Planned Unit Development (PUD) Conceptual Site Plan Review application. The purpose of the review is to provide feedback to the developers from the city’s stakeholders and decision-makers. It allows the developers to refine and improve site plans before requesting formal approval from the city.

The Kentwood PUD is an all-residential development proposed for two parcels in Dexter’s Central Business District (CBD), located at 3165 Baker and 8020 Forest. Developers Kent Brown and Pam Byrnes-Brown submitted the PUD application through their company, 3165 Baker, LLC, in early November 2023.

The proposed development includes four 2.5-story buildings and requires combining the two connected parcels. Two of the buildings would have five residential units, one would have three units, and the other would have two units, for a total of fifteen new residences in downtown Dexter.

As proposed, the development violates several zoning requirements for that location. Some of those deviations include building height, off-street parking, and setback requirements. Additionally, according to Dexter’s Community Development Manager Michelle Aniol, the Baker Road property requires a mix of residential and commercial use.

Following an in-depth presentation from the applicant’s consulting firm and comments from the applicants themselves, council members asked questions and provided comments that generally mirrored those previously given by the city’s Planning Commission during their formal Conceptual Site Plan Review in December 2023.

While there were several comments and opinions from both the Planning Commission (PC) and the Council, one concern shared by some members of the PC and the Council that the developer’s application for a PUD, “Appears to be an attempt to circumvent the Zoning Ordinances,” according to a summary of the Planning Commission’s December comments included in the council’s meeting packet.

Other comments indicated an appreciation for the building’s design and the way the development would facilitate additional walkability for pedestrians. Some PC and Council members appreciated the density offered by the development, while others suggested that the density was not ideal.

The developers did not respond to STN’s questions and request for comment and it is unclear if they plan to consider input from the council and/or move to the next step in the process.