Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by M. Ferris-Young, to approve the
May 3, 2006 minutes as printed. Motion carried.
Case #06-456: DEG Development/Family Dollar – 3450
Remembrance
Site Plan Review
Chairman Hickey read the request for site plan review to allow the
construction of an 8,120 square foot Family Dollar Store located at 3450
Remembrance Rd., N.W.
Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and provided an aerial
orientation to the site and surrounding land uses such as Walker Village
Condos, Alfono’s Pizza, former D&W, and new strip mall.
Planner Wash stated that we need to make sure that the landscaping,
sidewalks, shared access, and access to the front door are addressed.
The proposed use is allowed by right in the C-1 District.
From a staff analysis and recommendation standpoint, Wash reviewed
the 3 conditions as noted in the staff report as follows:
The southwest wall is currently proposed with a metal panel
exterior. This side faces the Alfano’s Pizza building, but that may
change in the future. A recommendation that the SW facade material
be masonry block to match the other three sides.
The windows on the northeast wall are proposed to be covered on
the inside. The window closest to Walker Village Drive should not
have an inside film covering.
The proposed 32 sq. ft. ground sign should be a condition of
approval. The sign should have a masonry base. The address numbers
should be placed on the base. Walker Zoning Ordinance height
restrictions will apply.
Scott Conners related that all of his concerns from the site plan
review committee meeting have been addressed.
Roger Faber, Architect representing DEG, stated that Frank Wash did
an excellent job of reviewing the proposal. Faber is working with
Feenstra on the engineering. Faber stated that the parking is in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, and they meet the barrier free
access and interior requirements. Faber stated that the standardized
sign drawings were provided by Family Dollar and the ground sign plan
needs to be submitted. Faber stated that the ground sign plan could be
made a condition of approval before the sign permit is issued. Faber
related that this is a 1-acre site and a permitted use. He is available
for questions.
Chairman Hickey stated that the Alfono’s Pizza, the gas station, and
Huntington Bank, and the strip mall are all good-looking brick
buildings. He emphasized that this proposed type of building does not
fit with the neighborhood, and it needs more glass and windows on 3
sides of the building. Hickey felt that Family Dollar has a reputation
of staying 4-5 years and then moving out of the building. If this is the
case, he wants the building to be able to be utilized as nice looking
office building. Hickey asked the applicant to go back to the drawing
board and dress up the building and make it a better fit with the
neighborhood. Hickey would like to see a colored rendering of a
good-looking building along with the signage plans.
Motion by M. Houseman, supported by T. Greeno, to table the request
to give the applicant an opportunity to address the conditions in the
staff report as noted above.
Expand the windows on the northeast wall of the building.
The southwest elevation to include split face masonry instead of
metal. The northeast and northwest side to include more windows, and
improve the appearance of the facade on the northwest side of the
building.
Improve the appearance on the southwest end of the store to
include brick all around the building.
Motion carried unanimously.
Member Greeno asked that we give the applicant a copy of our proposed
building facade ordinance for a better understanding of what we are
looking for.
Mr. Faber asked if they were talking about the window that faces the
gas station? Member Houseman stated yes, and the inside of the windows
on the north should not have a translucent film covering.
Case #06-452: Orchard Park – Work Session
Planner Wash referred to the Planning Commission report including the
categories of parks (Neighborhood Parks and School lots), Community-Wide
Parks, and Regional Parks, and that the Orchard Park area needs
assessment, along with recommendations for new neighborhood parks and
school lot facilities planned within Districts A, B. and D, and new
community-wide park facilities should be added either along the power
line greenway that bisect the site or within District E.
Wash related that the PASP that was submitted is a major economic
development project. He related that the community impact analysis is
moving forward and the traffic study should be done by June.
Val Lazdins of LSL Planning was present, along with Sharon Vokes,
retail advisor, Tom Carter, of Trademark Properties, Jim Houk and Gary
Smith of Bird-Houk.
Val Lazdins gave an overview of his May 15 memo offering an analysis
of the current preliminary site plan when compared to the Sub-Area #1
Master Plan. Lazdins stated that he looked at the features of the master
plan and from a land use standpoint fits well. Lazdins felt there was a
need for more residential. Discussion lead to the addition of 2 rows of
housing setting back off from 4 Mile Road and angled and the need for
more housing within the project such as more residential town homes and
a location for senior housing was suggested near Baumhoff extended.
Tom Carter seemed resistant toward the residential component of the
plan and was inclined towards a purely retail site. He did, however,
indicate that they would be willing to make the residential component of
the plan work. He felt that retirees would like to live here, similar to
the downtown Holland area.
Frank Wash stated that we have an architectural drawing of the site,
but we need to look at the drawing critically and get site plan details
on it. He related that the master plan is our guide. The plan needs to
be pedestrian-friendly with good street connectivity. The residential is
an essential part of this plan and the master plan. Wash suggested
increasing the number of diversity and units.
Jim Houk stated when planning the site, they have been dealing with
parameters and constraints with one having a big ravine which divides
the site into 2 areas. With the high power lines, economically they
cannot be moved. Houk stated that District B is a long and narrow site,
which is not ideal to design. With having to match 4 Mile Road across
Baumhoff, and part of the master plan is to have Northridge Dr. continue
and extend to the west in order to take the pressure off of 4 Mile Road.
Frank Wash stated that with respect to the internal street grid, we
are looking at an artist rendering shown as Phase I. In the preliminary
area site plan we need more than what is shown. Tom Carter stated that
Bird Houk is doing the master plan for this development. Val Lazdins and
Tom Carter held a debate about the major street going through. The
pedestrian link and cross sections were the next layers.
Mr. Carter stated that he agrees with Val Lazdin’s main street
connection. He related that he is going to a convention in Los Vegas
next week where he will try to secure the tenants. He plans to add
density as the market dictates.
Sharon Vokes stated that the small tenants would benefit from an
anchor store and suggested moving the "Cabela’s" site over into the main
retail area. Both Carter and Houk emphatically stated that would not
happen and the site needs to stay where it is in order to get Cabela’s.
Lazdins agreed that it would be a challenge to integrate Cabela’s, as
it has its own unique look, but it should blend with the others. Sharon
stated that the objective for an anchor is to have good visibility
without being a stand- alone as typically women will shop at the retail
stores and men at Cabela’s.
Member Houseman asked if it was still looking like Cabela’s would be
coming as we have no clue if they are or not? He stated that it would
ruin the home town feel by moving a "big box" into the village center.
It was the concensus of the Planning Commission not to be in favor of
moving the "potential Cabela’s" site.
Lazdins stated that this is basically a life style center with stand
alone pieces that are not integrated. Design details can help remedy
this situation.
Tom Carter stated the Grand Rapids market size easily accommodates 1
more regional shopping center as it is located in a triangle with
Woodland Mall and Rivertown. It is the only piece with highway access in
the Grand Rapids market with good demographics.
Chairman Hickey stated that his wife would shop at both Cabela’s and
the retail shops. He stated that 10,000 people will move into the Grand
Rapids area because of the medical coming in, and they deserve housing.
He felt that we need 2 rows of housing to get 1,000 of these people
moved in. Hickey stated that in all of the master plan meetings, the
people liked this plan. We knew about the constraints of the ravine and
straightening out of Walker Ave. Chairman Hickey stated that he was
somewhat disappointed with Val Lazdins’ and Sharon Vokes’ reports. He
stated that we don’t want the project condemned, and the developer has
designed the project with the best people. He asked if anything had been
done with the connector road from the Dreamscape project?
Member Houseman stated that he doesn’t want parking on the internal
street as it will ruin it. He felt that we need to plan Phase 1 first.
Tom Carter felt there was an opportunity to double the townhomes and
reorient them to 4 Mile Road.
Member Ferris-Young asked what the parking numbers would be for
Cabela’s? Tom Carter indicated 1,200 parking spots. (4.5 spaces per
1,000).
Member Greeno felt that he would like to see housing mixed into
Districts B and D, as it would be a neat place to live. Member Gornowich
stated that downtown Grand Rapids is going back to residential near
retail.
Tom Carter stated that he is waiting for his residential consultant
to come back with the market analysis, as he doesn’t feel good about it.
Member Houseman stated that from a site plan standpoint, he would
like to see a better street grid, and he likes the round-a-bouts as it
is safer and doesn’t bottle up traffic. Mr. Carter stated that he may
eliminate 1 or 2 of the round-a-bouts. Scott Conners stated from a staff
perspective, he is waiting for the traffic study. Carter will work with
Conners on that.
Planner Wash stated that, with the pre-existing geometry and
floodplain where Walker and 4 Mile come together, intersection details
will need to be worked out. Wash felt there were too many round-a-bouts
on the plan and suggested maybe 1 focal round-a-bout.
Member Gornowich agrees with the desire for more residential. She
suggested integrating residential into the site by pulling the 2 roads
together into the Dreamscapes site with residential. The Planning
Commission concurred. Gornowich stated that in the master plan
discussions, there was more of a desire to have residential. Bird Houk
stated that they need a residential market study done first.
Member Houseman commented that the street connection needs some work,
but felt that the overall project looks good. He wants a residential
component with pockets of residential to be worked out.
Jim Houk stated that a cluster of residential inside might work
better than along 4 Mile. Otherwise, he felt that they could pull some
green space off of 4 Mile and cluster some residential as noted earlier.
Member Greeno stated that he doesn’t want the inner core changed. He
would like to be able to park somewhere and spend the day there. Tom
Carter stated that they may be over parked by 18%, and they would have
to wait for the parking analysis.
Member Rypma stated that with regard to the residential along 4 Mile,
the parking in the back yard is not attractive. He would prefer moving
the residential down. Planner Wash stated that the plan would never get
approved without a well-planned residential presence along 4 Mile Road.
Wash suggested spinning the buildings along 4 Mile so the sides face 4
Mile. Wash asked, what about the inclusion of senior housing? Tom Carter
stated that would be located in another area. Wash asked about parks?
Jim Houk stated they would be located near the amphitheater.
Val Lazdins stated that there needs to be better integration between
the lifestyle center and the residential component.
Tom Carter stated that they are in a competitive foot race with the
Beltline, if the streets and circulation pattern will accommodate
traffic and what we need long term, he would like to move forward as
they are meeting with prospective tenants in 3 days.
Member Houseman traced a street connectivity idea on the plans. Val
added that we need to integrate the parcels in accordance with the
master plan. He stated that the cinema cuts off connection to all of the
other parcels. Scott Conners added that a one way road system is
friendlier through there. Mr. Carter agreed. Carter stated that with
every 10 units that get pre-sold, you build 20.
Chairman Hickey asked, what is the next step? Mr. Carter stated that
they will go back and work on the site plan. He would like to address
the idea of saying, can we really zero in on it? Then bring it back as
uses warrant via a phased plan.
Scott Conners stated that he likes turning the houses on 4 Mile and
clustering them. He felt they can link the pedestrian trail through
there as well.
Jim Houk proposed to redraw some of the plan to incorporate the
required residential. Tom Carter stated that he doesn’t want residential
near the cinema due to the noise factor of teens hanging around.
Val Lazdins stated that the developer needs to search for ways to
make this plan fit with the master plan.
Sharon Vokes stated that the street appears to almost go through the
project. She felt they could get more retail if it did go through. She
again suggested angled parking spots along the "main street."
Val Lazdins suggested a front loading street on 4 mile. He stated
that additional parks could be designed off of the main park.
Lazdins indicated that the regulating plan and pattern book should be
rewritten more to City codes and regulations, as the PUD plan will
include everything it needs to be approved. He is recommending that the
City not adopt it the way it is written as there are internal conflicts
with design features, etc. Lazdins suggests a simpler document. He
stated that we need more architectural detail such as, what does the
façade look like, cornice line, what is the height, location of entry,
windows etc.?
Tom Carter stated that it was specific to maintain the quality of the
project.
Frank Wash added that he would follow up with the applicants
regarding administrative guidelines.
Tom Carter stated it is their intent to go to the convention next
week and get prospective tenants, and come back in a month or so with
those tenant names.
Scott Conners stated that there are a lot of engineering details
remaining. The traffic study is the most important. Frank Wash added
that we will have the 2011 Study from Jeff Heald within 1 month. Scott
stated that we need detail where all the roads go, developments
agreements, etc.
With respect to impacts on neighboring property values, Sharon Vokes
stated there should be an upside to property values if this goes in. It
should be easy to demonstrate.
Member Houseman asked, what about water? Scott Conners stated that
they are going to meet with Grand Rapids who have completed a utility
master plan. He will ask them to assign someone to this project. Once
the traffic study is done, we will know the off-site scope.
Chairman Hickey asked about the impact of this proposal with the
Standale market? Sharon Vokes stated that these are 2 unique markets and
Standale shouldn’t be impacted by the Orchard Park Plan.
Frank Wash related that the Brownfield is in process.
Frank Wash then recapped with the list of revisions to the plans that
the applicant should be working toward as follows:
1) Design an internal network of connected streets, linking into a
pedestrian-friendly "Main Street" of mixed uses, within Districts A, B
and D.
2) Refine the residential uses along 4 Mile Road to create functional
pods or blocks. Draw the residential areas into the "center" of District
B. Add parks and trail connections. Add a senior housing use. Include
housing "downtown" for that niche market.
3) Be very careful with the number, placement and design of proposed
traffic circles.
4) Re-align the Walker Avenue and 4 Mile Road intersection.
5) Include enough future 4 Mile Road right-of-way, based on the 2011,
2015 and 2030 4 Mile Road traffic studies that are underway. This will
refine the residential component along 4 Mile Road.
6) Ensure a logical road and pedestrian connection to the Dreamscapes
high density residential rear area.
7) Redefine what is Phase I of this project. Provide details for
Districts A and B. Provide infrastructure connectivity outlines for
District D. The rest of the site can stay as "bubbles" for now.
8) Refine the regulating plan submittal for Phase 1. Edit the content
for an efficient administrative process.
Motion by T. Greeno, supported by C. Gornowich, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:50 p.m. Motion carried.
______________________________ _______________________________
Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary
Walker Planning Commission
The City
of Walker, Michigan