Planning Commission Minutes

REGULAR MEETING
March 17, 2004

Members Present: M. Houseman, T. Greeno, C. Rypma, J. Hickey, S. Versluis. Absent: C. Gornowich, and M. Slaughter. Also Present: D. Schmalzel, Planning Director, S. Conners, City Engineer, and P. Dlouhy, Administrative Aide.

Chairman Hickey opened the meeting and gave the invocation.

Approval of Minutes – March 3, 2004

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by T. Greeno, to table the approval of the minutes of March 3, 2004. Motion carried.

Case #04-374: The Mines Golf Club – Site Plan Review

Chairman Hickey read the above-noted application requesting site plan approval to allow the development of an 18-hole public golf course and associated training and practice facilities on property located on the north side of O’Brien Street, east and west of Covell Avenue.

Planner Schmalzel reviewed the staff report and the plans and related that part of this project is located in the City of Walker and part in the City of Grand Rapids. Planner Schmalzel reviewed the drawing showing the limits of the property and indicated that approximately 93 acres on the east side of Covell is in the City of Grand Rapids and the rest with a few holes and training/practice facility is located on about 72 acres in Walker.

Planner Schmalzel related that because this project is located in two different municipalities, the developer must obtain approvals in each City. He indicated that the applicant met with the City of Grand Rapids on February 26, 2004 for a permitted with approval and special use request and again on March 11 where final approval was granted conditioned upon site plan approval in the City of Walker.

Planner Schmalzel related that if this project moves forward, there would be discussions between the two cities to make sure there is coordination and cooperation with proposed site improvements (common driveway standards on Covell, tunnel construction requirements, etc.).

Planner Schmalzel related that the plans were reviewed at the site plan review subcommittee on February 12, 2004. He related that most of the site improvements will be in the form of clearing and grading in selected areas of the properties. The City Engineer has addressed these concerns in his memo of 3-10-04. Planner Schmalzel related that the only building proposed would be for a range building along O’Brien. A temporary modular building is proposed to be placed on the site short term with a permanent building within a year or two. Zoning Board of Appeals approval is necessary for this temporary building. Planner Schmalzel related that there are 2 parking areas proposed on the Walker property. He related that there needs to be an additional plan showing capturing of stormwater, the parking spaces meeting all of the requirements, parking lot access along Covell has to be consistent with Grand Rapids. He related that with respect to the section of Covell Ave. north of O’Brien, we have a Borderline Agreement with the City of Grand Rapids.

Planner Schmalzel related that another concern is the tunnel proposed under Covell Avenue, and there are issues with guardrails and safety. As far as the plan itself, staff is comfortable, realizing that storm water permits will have to be issued.

Planner Schmalzel related that there has been discussion with the developer about the possibility of providing trail access through the site along or through the Consumers Energy property. The developer is willing to work with the City and trail groups to coordinate and connect trails for an eventual link to the Millennium Park area and Kent Trails. He related that what has been provided is in acceptable form, and staff recommends approval of the project with conditions.

Member Versluis stated that he is concerned about safety issues considering the fact that the property is undermined. He asked if there were any concerns using this property for a golf course? Scott Conners stated the sink holes we are seeing are slow moving type. If they were talking bout a lot of structure and building we would be more concerned. He feels that the developer will protect his investment and will have to keep an eye on it. He stated that there is no active mining or pumping of water. They do not anticipate anything getting any worse than it has been. Member Versluis stated that he is not opposed to the use, he wants to make sure there are no hazardous conditions.

Scott Conners stated that we can’t make any guarantees but the developers are aware of the concerns.

Chairman Hickey stated that when we developed the Master Plan we designated this area as park land. He stated that he worked in the gypsum mines when he was 22 years old and is very familiar with the tunnels, and doesn’t feel it will be a problem.

Member Versluis stated that there is some settling on O’Brien road and other areas, and again reiterated that he wants to make sure it is safe.

Chairman Hickey asked Member Versluis if anything has been approved for sand mining in this area? Member Versluis replied no.

Dan Schimmel, developer, stated that he did not have a lot to add. Since the meeting with Grand Rapids there has been one change in the maintenance building shown behind Westrate’s house on the plan. The Grand Rapids Planning Commission has asked them to move that behind the first green behind the training facility and behind the hill of #1 fairway. It is intended to run parallel to #1 fairway with a road back to that. He related that one concern was the parking lot adjacent to a home on O’Brien. They have agreed to berm and screen so if cars are there after dark, lights do not go across the road on O’Brien. He indicated that he talked with Denny Lidel from the trail group. He feels this is a good corridor to connect and that it is achievable, and he is working with Jay Steffens in Grand Rapids and Roger Sabine from Kent County Parks.

Mr. Schimmel stated that they will make sure the sink holes are filled in, and indicated that they have liability insurance to take care of liability issues.

Chairman Hickey asked what will happen to the vacant property to the northwest, and will it be developed? Mr. Schimmel stated there is a 24-30 acre parcel with no plans to develop as yet. He related that the mines go under a good portion of that. He thought that possibly 1 or 2 home sites might be developed with access that parallels the fairway with an easement across back there. Chairman Hickey asked if the access was off of O’Brien? Mr. Schimmel stated no, it is off of Covell. Chairman Hickey asked if they would be losing the archery facility? Mr. Schimmel stated that there was no agreement on leasing terms so they left.

Member Houseman stated that in the minutes from the City of Grand Rapids meeting there were concerns about golf balls going in the direction of houses. Mr. Schimmel stated that was on City of Grand Rapids property on holes #13, 14, and 16. He related that he met with property owners and showed them where the tees/greens were in relationship to their perspective homes. Mr. Schimmel indicated that they will probably adjust the second tee location and resubmit to the City of Grand Rapids for approval. He indicated that the tee box on #14 and 17 has been moved appropriately to meet with the approval of the adjoining property owners.

Mr. Schimmel stated as far as Walker goes, there is 1 house near the driving range and they will screen near the Kole’s house.

Member Versluis referred to a comment made in the City of Grand Rapids from Mr. Zylstra regarding the existing vegetation. He asked, is there a lot of change in the topography and will the grading be changed? Mr. Schimmel stated that he doesn’t want to move a lot of dirt with the cost of excavation and all. He wants to take a minimum amount of trees down and prefers to have buffers along the roads and homesites. He wants to keep the nice visual features with minimum clearcutting. He felt it would be beneficial for some of the junk trees to be removed.

Chairman Hickey stated that Lake Michigan Dr. will be improved this year. He asked if any thought was given to having sidewalks on O’Brien? Mr. Schimmel stated that there has been a lot of discussion because of dual cities, but he isn’t sure how to take care of all of that. He stated that Covell is rated at 10,000 cars per day, south of Covell and Lake Michigan Dr. was rated 2,500 cars in 2002, and south of Fulton is 1,500 cars. Mr. Schimmel stated that Dave Young of the City of Grand Rapids says it is sufficient to handle traffic with no major road improvements. He feels the road counts will go up as Millennium Park develops.

Dan Schimmel stated that he agrees with a bike path or trail system and hopes to connect corridors through the power lines. As far as sidewalks from Butterworth to O’Brien to Covell, some think it is a good idea and some do not, and he is not going to commit to it.

Chairman Hickey related that this is not a public hearing but if there are comments from Walker residents, he would entertain those comments at this time.

Bob Martin, Walker resident, stated he hopes we will table this issue until we have all of the answers from the DEQ about the undermined areas. He stated that this development will cause ecological damage by clearing trees. He stated that this land was deemed unsuitable for a zoo. He stated the property is extremely hilly and full of sand and feels that removing the root systems and sand with excavating would create more sink holes and watering the golf course will also add to the sink holes. He stated that this land has been sitting since the 1880’s for a reason. He is vehemently opposed to this proposal. He asked the Planning Commission to go and look at the area. He felt there would be issues with drinking on a public golf course.

Derek DeWitt, 33 Covell, S.W., stated that Dan Schimmel has worked very well with the neighbors to address the concerns. He stated that this is beautiful land and he is afraid of trees coming out in order for there to be putting areas and greens. He stated there will be severe excavating creating hazards and effects on the lower Grand River water shed.

Mrs. VanderBent, a resident of Grand Rapids handed in a copy of a geological survey done by Stan Vinton and asked the Planning Commissioners to read it. Mrs. VanderBent indicated that it reviews the 5 layers of tunnels, gypsum shale and salt, sink holes, standing and flowing water and impacts from human activity. She stated that flowing water is dangerous to the support columns as it drains from sand to soil down to the mine tunnels. The report indicates that human activity will accelerate the collapse, and that the golf course cannot support buildings. She felt that 2 people in a golf cart with clubs will cause sink holes. They do not recommend building permanent structures over the site. She requested tabling this issue and reviewing this study in order to make an informed decision.

Member Houseman stated that he wanted to see this report as he is aware of it being used with other nearby developments. He asked Scott Conners if he was aware of any sink holes? Scott related that he should talk to Dan Schimmel about that. He is aware of sink holes as you drive down O’Brien. Mr. Schimmel stated that the last active one is west of O’Brien half way between Covell and Butterworth on the side of the hill. He offered to get the Planning Commissioners copies of the report if they so wish. He stated that there are mines under this property and the expressway. There is shale and bedrock, and according to the geological report it is 30-50 inches thick. Some water might find its way eventually getting through the 50-80 feet of clay and solid rock before it gets to the mines. He stated that they will find the best place to put the clubhouse and structures. He has all of the economic loss if something happens and he is willing to take on that burden.

Member Greeno stated that he has concerns but feels that Dan Schimmel will be investing a lot of money here and he will make sure where the building will go, not in a sink hole area. He is slightly uneasy about the project.

Member Houseman stated that he is trying to see what damage it could do to the surrounding neighbors and doesn’t see the impact. Given the choices and looking at the master plan, they wanted parks and recreation because of that.

Member Versluis stated that they have the right to build this in an agricultural district. Chairman Hickey added with site plan review.

Planner Schmalzel related that this has been approved at the City of Grand Rapids with conditions that have to be satisfied by staff.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by T. Greeno, to approve the site plan to allow the development of the portion of the 18-hole golf course and practice and training facility located within the City of Walker, north of O’Brien and east and west of Covell subject to the application package dated 3/10/04 and the following conditions:

Motion carried 5-0. (2 absent)

Case #03-353 – Orchard Ridge #4 – Final Preliminary Plat

Chairman Hickey read the above-noted application requesting final preliminary plat approval for the fourth and final phase of the Orchard Ridge subdivision located at the northeast corner of Kenowa and Richmond. This phase contains 26 lots.

Planner Schmalzel reviewed the staff report and the plans and related that this completes the final phase with a loop around the east side of the property and stubbed to the vacant property to the east. He indicated that the proposed plat complies with the lot size and frontage requires of the A zoning district.

Planner Schmalzel related that the plat notes make reference to the provision of sidewalks and street trees on individual lots to be installed by the homeowner. These should also be included in the plat restrictions.

Planner Schmalzel related that these plans were reviewed at the site plan review subcommittee with only one minor stormwater issue which will be addressed in the detailed construction plans.

Planner Schmalzel then reviewed the procedural aspects of the platting process.

Staff recommends approval of the request with conditions.

Motion by by M. Houseman, supported by C. Rypma, to forward a favorable recommendation for final preliminary plat approval for Orchard Ridge #4 subject to the plan dated 2/16/04 and the following conditions:

1. The notes regarding sidewalks, street trees, and streetlights be shown on the plat plan and be incorporated into the subdivision’s plat restrictions and a copy of those restrictions be provided prior to the City Commission considering the final preliminary plat.

Motion carried unanimously.

Case #00-120 - Blossom Trail – Tentative & Final Preliminary Plat

Chairman Hickey read the above-noted request for both tentative and final preliminary plat approval for the first phase of the Blossom Trail subdivision located on the east side of Sunset Hills Avenue, north of O’Brien. This phase contains 24 lots.

Planner Schmalzel reviewed the staff report and the plans and the history of this request relating that this PUD rezoning was originally approved in 2000. In 2000 and 2002, the applicant received approval of the tentative preliminary plat, but those approvals expired as the applicant did not proceed within one year of approval. He indicated that this project is now proposed to contain 24 lots with access from Sunset Hills Ave. south of Harmon Park. He stated that this phase will include a 3-acre open space park area that will be linked to Harmon Park through the start of a trail system that will eventually loop through the entire project. He indicated that the applicant is now requesting for the third time, approval of the tentative preliminary and the final preliminary plat approval. He stated that the plat continues to comply with the overall PUD plan for the property and the applicant has obtained approval from the Kent County Plat Board and the Kent County Drain Commission.

Planner Schmalzel stated that the plans were reviewed at the site plan review subcommittee meeting on January 29, 2004 where a few changes were requested. The major issue was with the proposed park area to the east of the lots. The applicant planned to locate the detention area within the proposed park which left most of the park area for stormwater management. The plans have been changed to relocate the detention area to the location originally proposed at the southwest corner of the property. The City Engineer’s comments are noted in his memo of 3/10/04. Staff recommends approval with conditions.

Member Rypma stated that he has worked with Craig VanAssen on another development and asked if he should abstain from voting? It was determined to allow Member Rypma to participate in voting since he did not represent the applicant with this development.

Chairman Hickey asked if the easement along there is for the gas line? Ron VanSingel stated yes.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by S. Versluis, that a favorable recommendation be made to the City Commission for tentative preliminary plat approval for phase 1 of the Blossom Trail subdivision subject to the plans dated 3/8/04 and the requirements of the City Engineer’s memo dated 3/10/04. Motion carried.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by S. Versluis, that a favorable recommendation be made to the City Commission for final preliminary plat approval for phase 1 of the Blossom Trail subdivision subject to the plans dated 3/8/04 and the requirements of the City Engineer’s memo dated 3/10/04.

Motion carried.

Case #03-335: Pulte Land Company – English Hills

Chairman Hickey read the above-noted agenda item requesting reconsideration of the preliminary area site plan for the project as a result of discussion at the City Commission meeting on March 8, 2004.

Planner Schmalzel reviewed the history of this request including approving the preliminary area site plan in December 2003, and a recommendation on approving the rezoning to RPUD-2. He indicated that on March 8, 2004 the City Commission considered the first reading of the rezoning request. After much discussion, the City Commission referred it back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the preliminary area site plan. Planner Schmalzel related that there were residents at the meeting who didn’t want the City Commission to relinquish any of the English Hills park land in exchange for the new proposed park at the northwest corner of the property. These residents had submitted a petition re same. The developer agreed to revise the site plan as a result of this discussion.

Planner Schmalzel related that all other conditions of approval would remain the same, and this change in the park is minor in nature.

Member Greeno asked, what happened to the 2 parks? Chairman Hickey stated that we kept the 3.4-acre park and gave up the 8.8-acre park. He related that the City Commission decided to keep it as the people in the neighborhood wanted to retain that park, and there was a petition from these neighbors.

Member Versluis stated that the City Commission looked at the recreation area at the top and they wanted to leave the existing park where it is as the other park would be undesirable with the wetlands and they didn’t see it as a fair trade.

Member Houseman stated that he feels it is ridiculous this has happened with all of the work the Planning Commission has put into it. Member Greeno agreed.

Jean Wodarik, of Driesenga & Associates, explained the original plan for the 8.8 acre park at the north west end of the property in exchange for the 3.4 acre park and addition of the 1.1 acre triangular piece for a neighborhood park. She related that there was a single ball diamond proposed, with tennis courts by the community building as their amenity package.

Member Houseman stated it is hard to believe we are ending up with the old park instead of a new beautiful park that will serve so many more people. Member Greeno agreed.

Member Versluis felt that those neighbors will grow to dislike the new neighbors going into the old park. He also agrees it is a beautiful piece of property at the top of the hill and feels it should be left as a neighborhood park.

Member Rypma stated that he recalled that the existing neighbors didn’t want their children to have to walk way over to the new park, and he can agree with that for safety reasons. Member Versluis added that it wouldn’t be convenient or accessible.

Planner Schmalzel stated that the City Commission’s direction was to leave the existing English Hills Park and not have the new park to the north.

Member Houseman disagrees and stated that he cannot support that change. Chairman Hickey reiterated that the City Commission sent it back to us because about 70+ neighbors wanted to keep the park.

Member Greeno stated ok, then he wants the other park with the ball diamond and tennis courts as well.

Member Rypma stated if 70+ neighbors want to keep the park, then why not keep it. Member Greeno insisted that we also want to have the 8.8 acre park to the north as well.

Bob Dunstan, of Pulte Homes, stated that the 3.4 acres would serve those existing and the new residents would come in and be taken care of with a clubhouse, tennis courts and pool. He doesn’t think they could give up an additional 2-3 acres for another park. They already have 12 less units with this proposed plan.

Member Rypma stated how does Pulte feel about this? Bob Dunstan stated he understood that a lot of residents felt strongly about keeping the existing park. The wetlands area is extremely wet and the City Commission didn’t think they were getting a comparable area. Mr. Dunstan felt that the road configuration is better. He clarified that one ball diamond area to the north and a kids play area was proposed. He related that they are not opposed to helping support putting in the new structures with the outlying fencing and helping with some of the improvements to the park. Mr. Dunstan related that they were going to put in a brand new playground in the triangular property. He related that the City has only an easement to the park and he reviewed the little sliver of property that is owner by Langlois/Pulte.

Scott Conners stated that an accurate easement needs to be obtained to clean that up.

Dennis Thompson, who lives at the end of Ipswich, stated that there was an agreement that if the City maintained the access that Bruce Langlois would provide access. He stated that the City spent money on the park for a jungle gym with a slide. He related that this park is used by residents and about 20 kids play soccer, they walk dogs, fly kites, and chip golf balls. He started the petition with 80 signatures to keep this park. Mr. Thompson stated it would have been a ¾ mile walk to the northern park. In the current park they have softball teams 3 nights a week. No one has complained about traffic since they paved the road.

Chairman Hickey asked, what if 2 dozen more people from this new development use this existing park? Dennis Thompson stated that he doesn’t have a problem with that. Chairman Hickey stated that we are going to give up an 8.8-acre park that 300-400 people could use for a 3.4 acre park. Mr. Thompson stated that was ok with him.

Member Rypma asked Mr. Thompson if people park down the street in front of his house or in the street? Mr. Thompson stated only if the gate isn’t open.

Bob Dunstan stated that the walking trails will be a nice buying feature, and with the existing clubhouse planned on 4+ acres he feels this will be a nice facility for the residents. He stated that he is committed to dedicating the triangle for right of way or fix easements and he will work with us for the right of way.

Chairman Hickey stated that he wants to make sure the City of Walker owns the property they are driving across to get to the park.

Member Houseman stated that we are giving the neighborhood their own private park. We have had the opportunity to get a bigger park for many more people. He thinks this is a waste as they have worked very hard, and they kept the road shut at Coventry. Right now we are looking at 80 neighbors. He feels we are sending this back for the wrong reasons.

City Commissioner Barb Holt stated that the City Commission still holds to the keeping of the park, and that we just have a difference of opinions. She stated that the City Commission respects the work that the Planning Commission does and feels that once in a while they have a difference on opinions and hopes this can be worked out.

Chairman Hickey stated that we didn’t take away the park totally we just made it a little smaller. He felt we did well for the Coventry residents getting them access out through the old K-Mart parking lot. He felt that 600+ people could use the park to the north and these Coventry residents as well. He wants to send this back the way they did before.

Member Rypma asked if there was any way to reconfigure this plan with 2 ballfields? Jean Wodarik stated that we have been fine tuning this plan for over a year now, and they have to follow the grades and they are dealing with topography changes, ravines and wetlands. Bob Dunstan added that he doesn’t know how to reconfigure the road layout to the northwest, and that in the new revised version they created some nice looped pods.

Planner Schmalzel stated that he doesn’t know if there is a need for 2 ballfields.

Chairman Hickey stated the developer should come up with something better showing 2 ballfields or parks; otherwise this goes back to the City Commission on Monday night the way it is.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by T. Greeno, to not approve the request to amend the preliminary area site plan for the RPUD-2 project for Pulte, and send this back to the City Commission the way it was originally approved and explain our position. Motion carried 5-0. (2 absent)

Other Business

Chairman Hickey asked about getting 2 more Planning Commission members soon.

Adjournment

___________________________ __________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary
Walker Planning Commission

Government  |  Departments  |  Community  |  Resource Center
Contact Us  |  Search  |  Site Map  |  Home  |  Site Use Policy

The City of Walker, Michigan
4243 Remembrance Rd. NW
Walker, MI  49534
(616)453-6311
City Hall hours: Mon-Thursday from 7:30am to 5:30pm. Closed Fridays
All information © 2010 City of Walker

Contact Us!
If you would like to leave general comments about the website, click here.
Click here to report technical problems with the website.