Planning Commission Minutes

Members Present: S. Versluis, D. Brown, M.A. Ferris-Young, C. Gornowich, J. Hickey, Chairman; C. Rypma, and T. Greeno. Absent: M. Houseman, and M. Huizenga. Also Present: F. Wash, Planning Director, and P. Dlouhy, Planning Asst.

Chairman Hickey opened the meeting and C. Rypma gave the invocation.

There were no comments at this time.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by D. Brown, to approve the May 17, 2006 minutes as printed. Motion carried.

Chairman Hickey noted that the agenda would be rearranged by moving the first case item to the end of the agenda.

Chairman Hickey read the application requesting a final area site plan amendment to allow the development of a proposed 17,862 square foot warehouse addition and 2,426 square foot office addition located at 2039 Walker Ct.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and plans and provided an aerial orientation to the site. He related that the site is dual zoned ML – Light Industrial and IPUD, Industrial Planned Unit Development, which is the reason for the final area site plan amendment. The applicant proposes to construct a 17,862 sq. ft. warehouse addition at the northerly end of the building and associated truck dock and 2,426 sq. ft. office addition.

Wash related that the plans have been reviewed at the site plan review committee and staff supports conditional approval of the project with the normal 5 sealed site plans to the planning department prior to issuance of a building permit.

Planner Wash referred to Scott Conners memo dated May 30, 2006 regarding detention information, which will be obtained via the storm water permitting process.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by C. Gornowich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

Rick Dunneback, D&K Engineered Construction, was present on behalf of the request. He indicated that the addition is proposed at the northerly end of the building and the office area is proposed where there is currently a loading dock that will be filled in and built with conventional block.

Chairman Hickey asked if the office building will match the existing building? Rick Dunneback stated that there will be masonry at the bottom and the façade will be dressed up.

Member Gornowich asked if the parking is adequate with the additions? She asked what the proposed use is? Dunneback related that there will be no new employees added. He stated this warehouse addition will be utilized as a staging area for kitchens and bars.

Chairman Hickey asked if Planner Wash’s items in the staff report have all been addressed? Planner Wash related yes.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by D. Brown, to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by C. Gornowich, to approve the site plan dated 4-12-06 for Merchandise Supply at 2039 Walker Court, as it does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance, with the following conditions of site plan approval:

Motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Hickey read the application requesting rezoning from AA, Agricultural to ORP, Office, Research & Parking for property located at 3530 Fruit Ridge Ave.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and related that all we are reviewing tonight is the rezoning request. He provided an aerial orientation of the site and surrounding land use and zoning as follows: North of 4 Mile (Alpine Twp.) is commercially zoned, west side of Fruit Ridge is industrially zoned, and the subject parcel on the southeast corner proposed to be rezoned to ORP is currently zoned AA. Wash indicated that banks are allowed in the ORP District. He related that property to the south is master planned industrial, and to the east, LDR, Low Density Residential.

Wash related that the proposed property is currently used as residential with homes close by, and Hofacker Equipment on the north side of 4 Mile.

From a procedural aspect, Wash related that any use in the ORP zone could come in for a site plan request. Wash indicated that the proper public hearing noticing has been done.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by C. Rypma, to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

The bank president from Choice I was present along with Architect John Fountain. The bank representative stated it was their intention to build a ChoiceOne Bank on the proposed property once rezoned. He felt the use is consistent with the master plan, and not spot zoning. He stated that the bank is a good daily use business.

The bank representative reviewed a conceptual plan of a ChoiceOne Bank consisting of a 3,000 square foot all brick and stone exterior drive thru bank building. He related that they propose driveways to be located 250’ from the intersection. He felt it would be a good fit in the neighborhood with Alpine Meadows, Creekside Garden Center, Hoffacker, Challenge Manufacturing, Irwin Seating and American Coating in the area. He stated that the building is designed to meet growth needs, and there is sufficient area to meet parking and stacking requirements.

Member Ferris-Young asked what the maximum height is from the ground to the top of the building? The bank president thought it was approximately 25 feet or less.

Member Gornowich stated that when we review the site plan for this project that the dumpster location be relocated as it is currently shown adjacent to 2 residential lots. She will also be concerned about screening from lights, etc. She assumes the bank will have an ATM lane with a 24/7 operation. Member Gornowich asked if the home on the lot is currently occupied? She posed the question, can the home be used in its present zoning classification? Her answer would be yes.

Chairman Hickey stated it could be used as is, but in our master plan it is designated as commercial. He asked how many locations ChoiceOne has? The bank representative stated 15 locations total with the current merger with Valley Ridge Bank in Kent City. He felt with the development to the south and west this would be a good location.

Member Gornowich stated that the only concern is whether right now is the time for the zoning change.

Member Brown asked, what will happen to the existing house on the lot now? The bank representative stated that it is currently being rented with the plan for the renter to move the house to another location.

The bank representative stated that they will look at the dumpster location during the site plan review as this moves forward.

Planner Wash stated that there are ordinance standards when a non-residential use is against an existing residential use. He related if the zoning is approved, when it gets to site plan review he will recommend that the mature vegetation on the easterly side edge of this property remain.

Member Ferris-Young asked if there would be an issue with the clear vision corner? Planner Wash stated that no structure can be built within the clear vision corner.

Steve Irwin, 3728 4 Mile stated he lives just east of the corner approximately 25 feet from the border line of the property. He stated that this use will be invasive to his property with intercoms, drive-up teller noise, etc. He feels this is spot zoning and the whole area should be rezoned, not just this parcel. He is against the rezoning.

Dick Gerke, lives next door to Steve Irwin, asked if this use fits with the updated master plan with regard to Neighborhood Commercial? He feels the entire area should be zoned for neighborhood commercial. He also feels this is spot zoning.

Art Chrysler, 3460 Fruit Ridge, stated he lives to the south of this, and his father owns the house to the south of the property line. He is concerned about the safety of his daughter and granddaughter and is not anxious to have this project at this time.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by D. Brown, to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Chairman Hickey asked, what will the bank hours of operation be? The bank representative indicated 8-5:30 Monday through Friday and Saturday 8-12.

Member Gornowich asked Planner Wash to give an explanation to the audience of spot zoning and how neighborhood commercial fits into the definition.

Planner Wash related that the current 1998 master plan shows this corner as Neighborhood Commercial with a description of Neighborhood Commercial in the text. He was uncomfortable with the Neighborhood Commercial designation as when you go to build, the end product is frequently a strip mall. In the Sub-Area #1 update, we have "down planned" this corner from Neighborhood Commercial to Office. Then there is no potential for this to be a strip commercial area, but rather an ORP zone, which includes uses such as banks, funeral homes, offices, etc. Wash felt that the edge of any community is difficult to master plan, but doesn’t feel spot zoning is valid as there are non-residential zonings surrounding this site.

Planner Wash referred to the rezoning checklist in the staff report, and noted that he felt it was not a spot zoning request.

Member Versluis stated that in considering the past proposals in this vicinity such as haunted house, a strip mall, etc. he feels that this is a good use for the site. Member Versluis asked Member Gornowich what she meant by timing? Member Gornowich stated that this parcel will drive the change to the south, and felt that maybe the Planning Commission should look at the entire strip. She felt that ORP is a positive move, but she is concerned for what exists.

Member Rypma stated that in 5-10 years this will be a different area, and this might be the start of that and feels that a bank would be a good neighbor.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by T. Greeno, to forward a positive recommendation to the City Commission for the rezoning request from AA, Agricultural, to ORP, Office, Research & Parking for property located at 3530 Fruit Ridge Ave. Motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Hickey read the amended application for rezoning for the four lots. Two of those previously requested for MH zoning have been modified to ML zoning requests.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and the updated application showing the current changes of the 2 middle lots. He related that the rezoning has been re-noticed to reflect these changes per the direction of the Planning Commission at the last meeting held on this request. He indicated that staff recommends the rezoning be granted, with findings noted in the staff report.

Wash reviewed the location of the subject parcels and surrounding land uses and referenced the minutes of the 4-19-06 meeting for review.

Motion by T. Greeno, supported by C. Gornowich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

Dan Hibma, 1701 Porter SW, Wyoming, stated that this has been a long road. He feels this is in compliance with the current master plan and future master plan and is asking for a favorable vote. He stated that he has done what the Planning Commission has asked this time.

Member Versluis asked if the clean up has been completed on this site? Chairman Hickey added that he would like to see a report on it. Mr. Hibma stated that 99.9 percent of the work is done, and the only thing left is one-third of an acre on the site plan, which is some concrete rubble from those buildings.

Chairman Hickey asked if it is the applicant’s intent to have more crushing there than what’s there now? Mr. Hibma stated it is under debate, but likely. Chairman Hickey stated that Hibma will have to come back with a site plan for the intended use of the entire property. Hibma stated that the plans went before the site plan review committee but that a traffic study was requested first. Chairman Hickey stated that these traffic issues and driveway will have to be addressed beforehand with MDOT and City staff. Mr. Hibma agreed. Chairman Hickey stated that when they come back for site plan approval, that Hibma will need to provide a clean up report.

Member Versluis stated that we have spent a lot of time on end uses in the master planning process with phasing as we move up Wilson Ave. to the north. Versluis asked if all of our efforts would be in vain if this is rezoned to industrial? Planner Wash stated that the master plan implementation will take time as the market shows that the planned uses are not there right now and it may take the full 20 years to get to the industrial/office uses. Member Versluis stated that he has always envisioned this as a North Wilson Commerce Park and he is a bit disappointed.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by C. Gornowich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by C. Rypma, to recommend rezoning to the City Commission for the westerly 750 feet of four parcels from AA Agricultural to ML Light Industrial & MH Heavy Industrial for the following properties:

Motion carried unanimously (7-0) Houseman, and Huizenga absent.

Chairman Hickey read the item for the proposed text amendment to amend Section 94-5 and to add Sections 94-357, 94-223, and 94-291 of Chapter 94 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Walker with respect to building facade requirements for commercial, office, and industrial buildings with the intent of implementing higher and creative building design standards, utilizing a tool box of facade treatments and materials.

Planner Wash reviewed a power point presentation including a general toolbox to assure design creativity and material quality in non-residential structures. Basic parts of the ordinance include 2 new definitions – facade, and residential zoning district; facade materials and colors; wall design; building entrances; tops and bases; roofs; industrial specific standards; site plan application materials; existing building applications; and housekeeping additions.

Wash related the basic parts. The definition of facade is any exterior wall visible from public view or adjoining a residential zoning district or use. He related that the purpose and scope statement is the finding of fact section: to increase compatibility, decrease "box" look, create a pedestrian scale, encourage design creativity, increase/sustain property values, balance owner rights with community interests, applies to all non-residential zoning districts. The key issues – facades – 80% toolkit list. The prohibited list: smooth concrete block/panels, 20% siding limit, maybe up to 50% smooth concrete and maybe allow steel siding up to 50%. Colors such as earth tones are preferred. Material quality on sides and rear of buildings. Walls – break up long, blank walls, utilizing the toolkit, and side and rear doors/windows.

Entrances – defined points of entry, use toolkit. Tops and bases – defined edges – toolkit. Roofs – conceal roof equipment, colors. Industrial Buildings – separate and more limited definition of "facade". Multi-tenant entrances. Planning Commission ability to modify standards based on findings of fact – list provided.

Different samples were provided by Houseman Construction and available for review including concrete block, brick, cultured stone, windows, shingles & shakes, and materials such as smooth concrete block/panels and vinyl siding.

Also provided were pictures of various buildings built by Houseman Construction and materials used on same as in the handout supplied with the packets. E.I.F.S. and Dryvit were normally used as accent materials and are similar to stucco.

Planner Wash asked the Planning Commissioners to consider all of this information and e-mail feedback to him and he will bring this issue back on the July 5^th agenda.

Members Versluis and Greeno really felt the ordinance would be beneficial. Member Versluis felt that he hoped this would push to a higher level of building materials.

Member Gornowich asked if only cases that come before the Planning Commission would have to abide by this ordinance? Planner Wash stated yes.

Members Rypma felt we need to be sensitive not to discourage small businesses without a lot of money from building in Walker. Member Versluis stated the small businesses could still build what they want within reason. It is the huge franchises with cookie cutter type buildings that he is most concerned about. Individuality of materials would make all the difference.

Member Houseman supplied the commission with a memo of his thoughts on the subject.

Member Ferris asked if the ordinance would be redone every couple of years due to color preference changes. She asked if the applicant could bring samples in with the requests? Planner Wash stated that colored renderings are part of the site plan application submittal.

Member Rypma asked how this would apply to remodeling? Planner Wash stated major remodels would come back to us for site plan review and, based on findings, the ordinance provides a list and flexibility.

Member Rypma asked how much more work will this add to staff? Wash stated he didn’t mind doing the extra work and no extra staff will be needed.

Planner Wash will gather information from the Planning Commission feedback and bring this agenda item back on July 5^th for further debate.

Motion by T. Greeno, supported by D. Brown, to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m.

Motion carried.

________________________________ __________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary

Walker Planning Commission