|
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
May 18, 2005
7:00pm
Members Present: S. Versluis, D. Brown, C. Gornowich, M. Houseman,
Vice-Chairman; T. Greeno, M. Slaughter, and C. Rypma. Absent: J. Hickey.
Vice-Chairman Houseman opened the meeting, and M. Slaughter gave the
invocation.
General Public Comment
There were no general public comments at this time.
Approval of Minutes – May 4, 2005
Motion by M. Slaughter, supported by S. Versluis, to approve the
above-noted minutes as printed. Motion carried.
Case #04-383 – DVK Construction – 2907 Northridge Dr.
Vice-Chairman Houseman read the request from DVK Construction for a
1-year extension to his site plan, which was approved on 6-2-04. Motion
by M. Slaughter, supported by C. Rypma, to approve the 1-year extension
with the stipulation that all previous conditions of 6/2/04 apply.
Motion carried.
Case #05-419: Standale Lumber – Site Plan Review
Vice-Chairman Houseman read the request for site plan approval to
allow the construction of a 4,800 sq. ft. lumber shed and a 5,880 sq.
ft. warehouse addition on the existing site, located at 4100 Lake
Michigan Dr.
Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and recommended conditional
approval with the submittal of 5 sealed site plans to the planning
department prior to issuance of a building permit.
Scott Conners reviewed his comments from his staff memo dated 5-11-05
regarding compliance with the storm water deficiencies on the site with
a small detention pond on the southwest corner of the site. Also, the
18” storm sewer on the south portion of the site be extended 150’ east
to Tallman Creek.
Roger Lamer, of W.L. Perry & Associates, was present and related that
the owners have no objections to extending that sewer, and they will
work with Scott Conners on it. Mr. Lamer stated that from the plans that
were reviewed by staff, they have since shortened the building by 2 feet
in order to accommodate the trucks.
Scott Conners related that new sanitary sewer will run in between
these 2 buildings, and he is working with the City of Grand Rapids and
they will have to build that sanitary sewer, and no permits will be
issued until after that gets done. Member Versluis asked what the time
line is for the Grand Rapids sanitary sewer project? Scott related that
it is being designed now, it will be bid out in the fall or winter and
should be in use by next summer.
Vice-Chairman Houseman asked the applicant if he was ok with putting
in the 150’ of storm sewer? Mr. Lamer stated yes, and they plan to
utilize some of the unused material from the Grand Rapids project as
backfill for their project.
Scott Conners stated this should be done in conjunction with their
storm sewer and work with them.
Member Versluis stated that Standale Lumber is an important part of
the business community and supports their efforts.
Motion by C. Rypma, supported by T. Greeno, to approve the site plan
packet dated 5-9-05 for Standale Lumber, as it does meet the standards
set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance with the following
conditions of site plan approval:
1. The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Planning
director’s letter dated 5-10-05.
2. The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Engineer’s
letter dated 5-11-05.
Motion carried unanimously.
Case #05-41: Walker Roadhouse CPUD – Public Hearing
Vice-Chairman Houseman read the request for a Commercial Planned Unit
Development amendment for preliminary and final area site plan approval
for a 1,040 square foot addition to the west side of the existing
building, located at 3272 Remembrance Rd., N.W.
Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and gave a power point
presentation. He related that this proposal is for a redevelopment
project on the corner of Remembrance and Leonard. The developer proposes
to redevelop the existing two-story building and construct a 1,040 sq.
ft. addition to the west side. Also proposed are pedestrian
improvements, vehicular access, site aesthetics and signage. Wash
related that the property is zoned CPUD and the proposed Rite Aid
building was never built.
Wash related that the issues are: the canopy overhang encroaching in
Leonard Street right-of-way, shared parking/shared driveway easement,
and cross access easements, concrete internal islands, overall parking,
and work with the neighbors on the parking lot signage.
Wash felt that this regeneration process and plan was progressive and
creative. He explained the procedural aspects of the request, and
related that the site plan review committee has reviewed and approved
this plan. Staff recommends conditional approval of the proposed CPUD
plans.
Scott Conners then reviewed his staff memo dated 5-11-05, including:
obtaining a 10’ sidewalk easement, decorative lighting in the parkway
consistent with the lights along Leonard St., striping of the parking
lot, waiving of stormwater detention in lieu of all leaching basins be
reconstructed and maintained to provide new stone around the perimeter
of the structure. A stormwater permit will still be required to ensure
maintenance plan be in place for the leaching basins; handrail/canopy
issue – agreement drafted by our City Attorney to ensure the owner
maintains an insurance policy and takes full responsibility for those
structures.
Member Brown asked if the applicant owns the small building out
front? Wash indicated no, it is not involved in this application.
Rick Pulasky, of Nederveld & Associates, was present and related that
they are in total agreement with everything stated in Planner Wash and
Engineer Conner’s reports. He stated that this is a vast improvement to
the building and Cornerstone Architects did a great job with the
renovation plans. Rick felt that the traffic improvements, striping,
green spaces and grassed area are all assets to the site. Mr. Pulasky
stated that the drainage works fine now, and would like to keep the
current system in tact there now and just clean it up. He doesn’t want
the added expense of taking up the parking lot. Pulasky said the
sidewalks and lighting are good.
Vice-Chairman Houseman asked, why are they confident that they don’t
need to upgrade the drainage situation? Mr. Pulasky stated that soil
borings were taken on the site, and the soils are suitable and works
fine now and doesn’t need improvements. Houseman asked if they would be
repaving and restriping the parking lot? Mr. Pulasky assured them that
they were. Houseman stated that he agrees with Scott Conners regarding
replacing the stone. Mr. Pulasky stated they would replace the stone
when they repave the lot.
Scott Conners stated that he cannot waive the stormwater
requirements, but would like to see the structures repaired. A
stormwater permit would still be required to maintain these leaching
basins.
Member Gornowich asked if there was a good reason to waive the storm
water requirements? Scott Conners stated that given the elevation of the
water he is not sure about soils being suitable as there is not a lot of
capacity depth-wise to absorb the water. Rick Pulasky stated that the
runoff decreases into the leaching basins and he feels it works just
fine.
Member Rypma asked if the leaching basins were a fairly common type
practice in Walker? Scott Conners related that the soils in Walker tend
to be clay, it is not a common practice elsewhere, but in Walker it is
accepted. Member Rypma asked Mr. Conners if he was aware of any problems
here, and Conners stated no.
Motion by M. Slaughter, supported by C. Gornowich, to open the public
hearing. Motion carried.
Kevin VanBuren, 3284 Remembrance, owns the ice cream store and 2 of
the storm basins that we referred to in the proposal. He feels that he
should not have to clean these basins out. He also wants to make sure
that the back parking lot is paved. He is sharing a driveway with the
restaurant, and feels it is a good project for the City.
Shawna, builder owner of 3280 Remembrance, stated that a car cannot
back up behind this restaurant building in the two designated parking
spaces without hitting her building.
The Cornerstone architect stated that he will work with the spaces or
remove them to make it work out. He felt that there is a generous
corridor to the south of that to have enough spaces. He related that
they are willing to pave the entire site and work out the drainage as
well.
Leigh Patten, Allison Street, and owner of property at 3260 Leonard
St., stated that he hopes they can keep the lighting situation under
control with the neighbors.
Planner Wash related that we only allow fixtures that keep the
lighting on their property with a shielded fixture.
George Hoffacker, 3250 Remembrance, asked if there is a zoning change
for this property? Vice-Chairman Houseman stated no. Mr. Hoffacker
stated that he is concerned about changing the elevations as he has the
lowest point on his property and doesn’t want water in his basement.
Scott Conners stated that the applicant will raise everything up 1.5
inches and could wedge where needed, and it shouldn’t be a detrimental
impact.
Motion by M. Slaughter, supported by T. Greeno, to close the public
hearing. Motion carried.
Member Versluis stated that it is nice to see this renovation project
and it will improve this area.
Member Slaughter stated that the drainage will have to meet with
Scott Conners satisfaction.
Member Greeno stated that he appreciates the repaving the parking
lots and the new striping.
Member Rypma stated that he is excited about the project.
Member Houseman felt it will be a good project, and stated that he
has never seen any drainage issues in this parking lot.
Member Houseman asked about the sidewalk easement? Scott Conners
stated that we should be able to come to an agreement.
Member Versluis asked for clarification on the two parking spots?
Scott Conners reviewed the parking and related that the two spots should
be cross-hatched on the plans unless staff could work with the developer
for a safe resolution.
Motion by C. Rypma, supported by T. Greeno, to approve the
preliminary and final area site plan CPUD amendment for the Walker
Roadhouse project at 3272 Remembrance Road, as it does meet the
standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance, with the
following conditions of approval:
1. The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Planning
Director’s letter of 5-11-05.
2. The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Engineer’s
letter dated 5-11-05.
3. The applicant repave the entire site and work with staff on the 2
questionable parking spaces.
4. The stormwater drainage issues be approved by Scott Conners.
And the Findings of Fact (Section 94-213-(7)(e)):
- This CPUD amendment conforms to the City of Walker Master Plan.
- This project will be adequately served by public facilities and
services.
- Traffic controls and access management are adequate.
- This plan addresses pedestrian circulation.
- This plan complements pre-existing uses in the area.
Motion carried unanimously.
Case #05-417: Legends Run RPUD – Public Hearing
Vice-Chairman Houseman read the application requesting rezoning of
property from AA, Agricultural to RPUD-1, Low Density Residential
Planned Unit Development. Also requested is Preliminary Area Site Plan
approval for a site condominium project, Legends Run, containing 13
single-family home sites on a 3.88 acres located at 610 – 4 Mile Road,
on the south side of 4 Mile Road, east of Alpine Ave.
Planner Wash reviewed the staff report, a power point presentation,
including an aerial overview showing adjacent parcels in the area of
Alpine Ave., 4 Mile, City of Walker to the south and Alpine Twp. to the
north, Kingsbury/Gage neighborhood, and the former nursing home site.
Wash related that the request is to rezone from AA to RPUD-1 for 13
single- family home sites. He stated that this is a public hearing. Wash
explained the site condo process as a way to split and divide property.
He reviewed the preliminary area site plan showing 13 single family
sites over 3.3 units per acre with lot widths ranging from 60-119 feet.
Wash showed the area on the plans where the developer proposes tree
preservation. He related this project contains a private street.
Wash reviewed the issues of the project which include: public water
and sewer, density and lot sizes (if no water and sewer) will be cut in
half, buffering for the neighbors, and drainage.
Staff recommends tabling until a solid utility plan for water and
sewer is available. Wash stated that the number of homes and lot sizes
will be directly affected by the availability of public water and sewer.
Scott Conners stated that the private road has the same standards as
a City road with a 30” concrete curb and gutter road, with sidewalks
built along the throat of the entrance road to the beginnings of Lots 1
and 13. With regard to sewer and water, the sewer is serviced by the
North Kent Sewer and Plainfield Water System. He discussed the need for
a $10,000 escrow account for exploration or negotiation of these
utilities. Stormwater retention will require an extensive report in the
final area site plan process.
Member Versluis asked why this was proposed as a site condo project,
as he usually associates a site condo proposal with unique topography or
site aspect to justify it. Planner Wash explained that usually the PUD
is the design controller, and the property owner has the right to choose
how to divide the land. Wash related that in a typical plat, the site is
engineered and the whole site is taken out (trees, etc). He related that
the developer is trying to nestle these homes in the woods without
wrecking the site. There are more design options with a site condo
project vs. the normal platting process.
Member Versluis stated that the lot widths are not justifiable in a
site condo project. The concensus of the commission was to keep the 90’
lot width requirement in place.
Rick Pulasky, of Nederveld & Associates, stated that the reason they
chose a site condo project was that a plat needs a public road and since
this is in 2 municipalities, they won’t plow the roads. Also there will
be an association with this site condo project, which gives the owners
more controls.
Mr. Pulasky related that the entrance into Alpine Twp. was approved
by the Kent County Road Commission. Mr. Pulasky stated that originally
they had 2 thoughts about developing this project. The first included 8
units x 4 acres = 32 units. Instead they went with this project which
works out better with the land and keeping the wooded sites with private
road, low impact and little grading, keeping the trees and existing
buffering for the neighbors which is a big improvement over what is
there now.
Mr. Pulasky stated that he understands that the water and sewer is
the biggest issue, but he wanted to determine what chances they have for
this proposal before they go ahead with the water and sewer study.
Planner Wash stated that the master plan shows medium density up to 8
units per acre as a guide, and the applicant is downing the master plan
to a lower density.
Motion by S. Versluis, supported by C. Gornowich, to open the public
hearing. Motion carried.
Resident of 3610 Meghan Ct., Alpine Twp., stated that he mailed a letter
in opposition of the rezoning as there are only 7 houses on Meghan Ct.
and feels that 13 houses would be out of character for the neighborhood.
He is concerned about flooding problems downstream. He foresees only 3
or 4 houses to be built.
Jeff Thompson, 3639 Meghan Ct., showed a current aerial taken from
the Walker website. He related that the average lot size is 27,000 sq.
ft. His concern is keeping the character of the houses that are there
now. He stated that the retention pond will be about 80 feet from his
house and he is concerned about mosquitoes.
Page, of 563 Kingsbury, stated that her property backs up to the
southeast corner of this property. She asked what the requirements are
for keeping the trees? Planner Wash stated that the buffering
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for residential is 20’. He reviewed
the green “no disturb” area on the plans. Page asked if they would be
notified of this request again? Planner Wash stated yes.
Mary James, 3650 Meghan Ct., stated that 13 home sites is too many,
she is concerned about her property value, buffering, flooding and
drainage issues, and doesn’t want this property rezoned.
Ray Jones, 3650 Meghan Ct., stated that he agrees that 13 homes are
too many. He is concerned about the taking out of trees now.
Planner Wash stated that the homes on Meghan Ct. were put in as
splits and there was controversy about putting those homes in there. He
related that a formal subdivision often has deed restrictions with open
spaces not part of somebody’s lot. They are trying to keep the natural
vegetation on the lot.
Member Gornowich asked the neighbor on Kingsbury what her lot width
was? Planner Wash reviewed the aerial showing 55-60’ lot widths on
Kingsbury.
Motion by S. Versluis, supported by D. Brown, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Member Houseman stated that water is the main issue and will be an up
hill battle. Scott Conners stated it will take effort with 2 government
agencies and will take time and money which is why we should have a
$10,000 escrow in place.
Rick Pulasky stated that if lot size is an issue then pursing water
and sewer might not be feasible.
Member Houseman stated that the master plan is a guideline and things
change in 8 years.
Rick Pulasky stated that if they come back with smaller lot sizes and
abandon pursing sewer and water, is this an issue?
Member Houseman suggested that Mr. Pulasky come back with a
preliminary determination from the Kent County Health Department on well
and septic.
Scott Conners stated if we envision this moving forward, that 90-foot
lots with just water could be worked out through Plainfield Township,
but the sewer issues are more difficult. He also stated that wouldn’t
allow the interim trees to remain.
Member Slaughter stated that not every piece of property can be
developed the way it is imagined.
Motion by M. Slaughter, supported by C. Gornowich, to table this item
until the applicant comes back with a reconfigured plan that addresses
public water and sewer details. Motion carried.
Commissioner and Staff Update
Planner Wash gave an update on the Master Plan contract including
scope of services to Langworthy-LeBlanc, which will go to the City
Commission on Monday night.
Wash related that we will be canceling the June 1st Planning
Commission meeting.
Member Versluis asked if the logistics of the master plan areas of
study are as follows:
1. Walker Avenue, 2. South Walker, 3. Alpine area. He also asked if we
will tackle these progressively one after another? Planner Wash related
that because of public noticing requirements, they will be handled one
at a time. A draft plan will be available to the public and he will post
the draft on the website. Wash related that the scope of services
include 3 meetings, a neighborhood introductory meeting, drawings with
the architect, and a final plan for the neighborhood.
Adjournment
Motion by T. Greeno, supported by D. Brown, to adjourn the meeting at
9:00pm.
____________________________ ______________________________
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 © 2012 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.
|
