Planning Commission Minutes

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

Chairman Hickey opened the meeting, and Member Rypma gave the invocation.

There were no comments at this time.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by C. Rypma, to approve the minutes of June 6, 2006, as printed. Motion carried.

Chairman Hickey read the request for site plan approval to allow the construction of an 8,120 sq. ft. Family Dollar Store located at 3450 Remembrance Rd., N.W.

Motion by Member Houseman, supported by D. Brown, to remove this item from the table. Motion carried.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report. He related it was tabled on May 17, 2006 to allow the developer time to refine the exterior of the proposed structure.

Wash indicated that Mr. Faber has amended the site plans according to the tabling conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, as follows:

Wash reviewed the amended site plan including colored exterior facade plans, including the quality masonry facade with windows added and ground sign with masonry base, and the pedestrian access with sidewalks around to the front door.

Chairman Hickey felt that the wall signage should be more in line with what Alfano’s Pizza has. Planner Wash stated that based on the signage ordinance allowance of 1.5 square foot of signage for every 1’ of frontage, the sign shown is much less than what they could be asking for. Wash stated that they also could have designed a pylon sign, and this is a ground sign.

Member Houseman asked if this was a CPUD sign? Planner Wash stated no, rather a C-1 zone and they are well within the ordinance requirements.

Chairman Hickey asked the applicant if they would coordinate their signage with Alfano’s Pizza in terms of size? He felt it would look more uniform for this area.

Roger Faber, of Visser Brothers, stated that he is representing D.E.G., and David Josey is present from the Family Dollar Real Estate Department. Mr. Faber stated that Alfano’s Pizza doesn’t have as much street frontage as they do.

Mr. Josey stated that would be a corporate decision, as they use the same standard sign all over the country. He stated that they forewent the pylon sign for the ground sign, but he would ask corporate about the wall signage. Chairman Hickey asked if he would do that, as again he would like to see the wall sign the same size as Alfano’s Pizza.

Mr. Faber stated that they have met the parking setback requirements, barrier free requirements, and they have enlarged and increased the number of windows, and met with the conditions noted in the Planner’s staff report.

Chairman Hickey asked if we were covered with the landscaping? Planner Wash stated yes, the site will have Juniper hedges along the edge of the parking lot and street trees.

Member Houseman asked if the truck movements and access for the dumpster were looked at? Planner Wash stated yes, they looked at it with the repaving of the drive, and from a staff standpoint, they were set. The recorded ingress/egress comes along the south side of Alfano’s Pizza to the northeast, and they would not interfere with the ingress/egress and leave onto Remembrance Road.

Roger Faber stated that he will get with their corporate office on the wall sign and get back to Frank Wash.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by M. Houseman, to approve the Family Dollar site plan packed dated 5/25/06, the wall signage plans dated 11/23/05 and the ground signage plans dated 5/31/06, as they do meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance, with the following conditions of site plan approval:

Director’s letter dated 6-05-06.

Motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Hickey read the request for rezoning of approximately 37 acres from AA, Agricultural, A, Single Family Residential, & MH Heavy Industrial, to RPUD-1, Residential Planned Unit Development for property located east of Kinney Ave. and south of 3 Mile Road. Also requested is Preliminary Area Site Plan approval to allow the construction of the proposed Meadow Springs condominiums, consisting of 63-duplex buildings (126 units).

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and the plans and gave an orientation to the site, with 3 Mile Road to the north, old railroad tracks, industrial around the northerly perimeter, new subdivision to the southeast. The request includes 1 large lot to the south, 1 piece along the railroad right of way, and 1 piece on the side of the power lines. There are wetlands on the property, and the Nolan Drain bisects the property. The wetland and flood plain area need to be addressed prior to final area site plan approval.

Wash related that the plans have been reviewed by the site plan review committee. Scott Conners indicated that we have everything we need at this point. However, fully engineered plans will be required prior to any final area site plan approval.

Wash stated that the request is for rezoning to RPUD-1, and the applicant is seeking a front yard setback reduction from 35’ to 25’. If the Planning Commission moves to approve, the Planning Director’s conditions should be part of the approval. Wash related that this is a public hearing and the mailing and newspaper notices have been sent out accordingly.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by M. Houseman, to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

Dave Visser stated that he has been working with staff over the past couple of months on the project. Zach Voogt, of Moore & Bruggink is present to answer any engineering related questions. Mr. Visser reviewed the plans and indicated that he is proposing 2-family duplex units with a unique layout on the property with 2 ingress/egress. There will be a landscaped split entrance off of Kinney and include retention, fountains and extensive landscaping for a higher end condo project. He reviewed architectural renderings of what the buildings might look like, with 3 stall garages, and end units with garages laid out for more privacy. Visser stated that they wanted to be affordable and bring in creativity and design with units starting in the range of $150,000 - $250,000+ depending upon amenities such as 4 -season sunrooms, cathedral ceilings, and architectural features.

Chairman Hickey asked if it was possible to get a spot in here for future access to Fruit Ridge?. He would like to see an easement on the plan. Dave Visser stated that when he met with staff, they didn’t see that as a viable option at this point. Planner Wash added that in the past there was a mixed land use idea and building a road between Kinney and 3 Mile Road but that is a lost opportunity. Wash stated that the street system may not come together like we want it to as now we have a private road system with dual access on Kinney.

Dave Visser stated it would be a huge infrastructure cost to bring a road to grade to get in and out to 3 Mile. He doesn’t want to scare the future condo owners with a major road coming in off of 3 Mile. Planner Wash stated that this is proposed as a multi-phased plan, and the last phase could be where the road issue would be studied in greater detail.

Member Huizenga asked if sidewalks would be adjacent to the road without a parkway? Dave Visser stated yes as the setbacks will be 25’ rather than 35’. Planner Wash stated that he always likes a parkway with street trees, etc. and this would be a good follow up discussion with DPW and Engineering.

A question regarding snow removal and where the snow would be stored was asked. Dave Visser stated that the association would hire out the snow removal to be taken off site, similar to Walker Village Condos and Bristol Bridge Condos.

Member Houseman stated that he prefers to have space between the parkway and the street. He would like to see more creativity in the road design, and would like to see the developer acquire the triangular parcel zoned ML on Kinney Ave. and then add 5-6 more units. Member Versluis agreed.

Planner Wash would like to see sidewalks on both sides of the streets. In previous condo projects sidewalks butt right up to the street.

Member Rypma asked Member Houseman what he meant by more road creativity in the project? Member Houseman stated he would like to see a slight curve in the road, which will slow people down and give some character.

Dave Visser stated that as they work on the building designs they have tried to incorporate creativity into the building design interiors.

Member Greeno stated that he would like to see a small park for kids to play somewhere in the development. Dave Visser stated that there is potential for a walking trail that goes to the north and a possibility of a park off of that trail. He stated that a park was never discussed at the staff level.

Chairman Hickey asked if the grass will be maintained where the Consumer Power easement is located? Dave Visser stated yes, via the association.

Member Gornowich stated if the applicant does pick up the triangular piece of property to the north, north of the storm water detention could be an area to be used for a park in conjunction with the trail.

Stan Hendricks of 3894 Mission asked, is the developer or association going to pay to widen Kinney Road?

George Maves, 2760 Kinney, stated that he is concerned about traffic north of the railroad tracks on Kinney. He has been hit going in and out of his driveway. He felt that Kinney will not handle the traffic. He asked how far the walking trail will go, as there is only between 200-400 feet before reaching the overnight delivery business/fence?

Mrs. Bob Maves, 2760 Kinney stated that they tried to buy a piece of the abandoned railroad and was told it would land lock the property. She stated that they do not have enough storage space on their property for 2 tractors and gardening equipment. Their property line is next to the railroad easement. She asked, where are they supposed to go? They would like to straighten out the back corner of their lot to give them more space. They have lived there for many years and don’t want to move.

Bill Haeshutter, 2565 Kinney, stated he is concerned about traffic as he has observed speeders going 45-50 mph on Kinney, and he doesn’t want to see Kinney going to 4 lanes. He is concerned about the double entrance/exit on Kinney.

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

Chairman Hickey asked how long the decel/accel lane is proposed for? Zach Voogt stated it will be 6’ wide the entire length of the project along Kinney with curb and gutter. This developer is building this piece of the infrastucture on the one side of the road with curb and gutter. Scott Conners added that the other side of the road may be a City project, and the curb lines would be put in now. Scott related that when this becomes a 3-lane section it will become better, and it was never intended to have 4 lanes on Kinney.

Chairman Hickey asked if the large retention pond will hold the water for the entire district? Scott Conners stated that there is a high impact with the flood plain, and he is trying to preserve and provide the exact same volume and additional detention for their development. Chairman Hickey asked about the problems on Kinnrow? Scott Conners stated that the detention will not help drainage problems upstream. Chairman Hickey asked where the water goes from the development to the east? Scott gave a detailed explanation and related that it ends up in the Nolan Drain. He then reviewed his memo dated 6-15-06 and related that our storm water master plan calls for regional detention at this location as part of any future development. Grading will be a difficult task and minimum building openings with regard to walkouts, daylights, and standard basements will need to be addressed, as well as a comprehensive drainage analysis. Access will need to be addressed for another means of ingress and egress when the property to the south is developed.

Member Gornowich asked if we can do anything for the Maves such as contact information as to who owns this triangular piece of property? Frank Wash stated that this information would be available to the neighbor via the Assessor’s Office.

Member Greeno asked if Dave Visser buys that triangular piece of property, would he be willing to help the Maves? Dave Visser stated that he would be happy to work that out if he can.

Mr. Maves asked if there was any consideration given to the "time bomb" across the street (H.B. Fuller)?

Motion by C. Gornowch, supported by S. Versluis, to recommend approval of the rezoning from AA, A and MH to RPUD-1 to the City Commission for the Meadow Springs Project. Motion carried unanimously.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Greeno, to approve the preliminary area site plan for the Meadow Springs RPUD-1 project, as it does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance, with the following Conditions of Preliminary Site Plan Approval as follows:

The following Findings of Fact (Section 94-213-(3) apply:

• The proposed RPUD-1 plan confirms to the City of Walker Master Plan.
• A significant part of the site is planned for open space preservation
• The plan addresses pedestrian movements according to Planner Wash’s staff report.
• The plan complements existing uses in the area.

Motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Hickey reviewed the request for consideration of a tentative preliminary plat plan for Central Place, a proposed subdivision containing 18 lots and located north of Mission St., east of Kinney and with an extension of Stark Ave. to the south.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report, the site plan and site orientation as well as site characteristics. He also reviewed historical photos before Mission Plat went in showing wetlands in relationship to current back yards, etc. He also reviewed a soil map consisting of complex, loam and muck, as well as a contour map showing the 12’ grade difference between the frontage on Kinney back into the site. Wash related that the underground hydrology tends to stay, and we are trying to preserve the wetland on the east end. Wash related that the master plan calls for Low Density Residential uses, and the yield of 18 lots on 6.9 acres of buildable land equals a net density of 2.6 units/acre. He related that this is a mature neighborhood area with all surrounding residential.

Planner Wash stated that the connection of Stark has been planned for many years and that staff is recommending a Stark connection. He realizes that this is controversial. One of the things we find with traffic is the more street connectivity we have, the more traffic can be dispersed. Safety and traffic congestion is the issue. Wash related that the developer has provided a wetland analysis from King and McGregor and a conservation easement should be placed on the east side of the site. Wash indicated that the site is heavily wooded and that a perimeter be maintained around the site via a conservation easement.

Scott Conners then reviewed his staff memo dated 6-15-06 including proposed alignment of Stark Avenue and he is comfortable with what is proposed. He also is in agreement with the entrance points as shown on the plans with a 75’ radius on each side with stop signs as controls at both locations. Scott felt that Stark Court West should be modified to eliminate the reverse curve situation. Also that the Stark Court East portion of the plan be eliminated from 7 lots to 4 lots to keep the natural low area and flood plain storage in place. He related that conservation easements should be provided for all wetland areas.

Member Houseman stated that he is concerned about the east end with no place for the water to go and agrees with the City Engineer’s recommendation. He has seen pictures of the wetlands backing up significantly in the neighbor’s back yards. Scott Conners stated that we really don’t have a good outlet in this area. Member Houseman asked about the fill for the road? Scott related that it will have to be filled several feet to get a road through there.

An attorney for the developer stated that they are seeking to get a motion for tentative preliminary plat with the conditions in Frank Wash’s letter dated 6-6-06 and is in agreement with his report with the exception of the northerly boundary, Lot 13. Since it is a corner lot with 2 front yard setbacks, they cannot do a 20’ buffer around this lot. The attorney stated that the project needs to be reviewed based on the zoning ordinance, master plan and subdivision control codes. He stated that they agree with the conditions in the City Engineer’s memo and to preserve the trees around the perimeter with a 20’ buffer.

Ron Antuma, of Roosien & Associates, reviewed the plans and stated that the homes to the north have existing drainage issues. The water at the northeast corner is being trapped and not getting to the wetlands efficiently. He indicated that they will add a catch basin from the inlet on the west side. They will have to raise the site up significantly. The water will travel from the west to the east and discharge into the wetland area. Where they will extend the storm sewer is quite low where Stark dead ends now.

Member Greeno asked if we can straighten out the road so that Lot 13 can have the barrier? Ron Antuma stated that he tried quite a few scenarios to make this work but was difficult. Scott Conners added that it has to be lined up for traffic calming measures, and Ron did the best he could.

Chairman Hickey asked Scott Conners to explain the 4 vs. 7 lots situation? Scott reviewed the plans and related that we have requested that 3 of the 7 lots be eliminated on the Stark Court East portion in order to enlarge the conservation area to protect the flood plain area with the poor outlet.

Mr. Thompson, Kinney Ave., stated that he is concerned about raising Stark Street as it will cause water problems. He stated that the wetland area had already been raised 4 feet many years ago. He feels that raising it even higher will flood the area with no way for the water to get out. Rather than a cul-de-sac toward Kinney Ave., he suggested make it through to Kinney.

Kathy Farhat, 1755 Stark, doesn’t want to see Stark extended for the following reasons: 1. Safety reasons – narrow road with no sidewalks. 2. Feels that property values will be lowered if they lose their cul-de-sac. 3. Quality of life will be hurt by traffic and noise. She suggested making Lot 13 wider. She stated that they have had no problems with fire trucks getting in and out without a cul-de-sac.

Chairman Hickey asked if there was water on Stark all the way to the end? Scott Conners stated that he is not sure.

Jean King, 3845 Mission, stated that she has seen water issues. She reviewed pictures taken last fall with the Planning Commission showing flooding in rear yards and run off, standing water 8’ from her deck, and pictures looking east, north and to the west. She indicated that this development is 2 feet higher at its highest point and equal to their lowest point. She stated that water can’t go anywhere and is standing year around. She agrees with Scott Conners’ recommendation to eliminate 4 lots.

Member Versluis asked, does it ever dry up behind Jean King’s property? Jean King stated that the creek bed is always there and is muddy.

Bruce Packard, 1725 Justin, stated that he is very concerned about drainage. He has daylight windows and has had water flood his basement in the past. The water flows slow and if elevated, will flood his homesite and he will have a drainage ditch issue.

Tom Marcusse, 3859 Mission, stated that he is in support of not building back by the wetlands. He feels the 20’ buffer should be more like 30-40’ to give them privacy in their backyards.

Joe Wilson, 1578 Trinidad, stated that his sump pump runs every 2 minutes during a rain. There are cattails in the very wet area, and he can’t see building that up and making it more wet. He also supports the City Engineer’s recommendation to eliminate those lots.

Paul Andrews, 1566 Trinidad, stated that in the past the retention pond at the north corner of Mission Plat was reduced by half the size, and then eliminated. They are now proposing a retention pond to the north. He stated that these are registered wetlands. He felt that they have had enough basement flooding, etc.

Dave Pichocki, 1750 Stark, stated that he didn’t know there was a wetland back there until recently thanks to his neighbors. He is concerned for children and safety issues and feels that Stark should be kept as a cul-de-sac and go through Kinney instead.

Sue Cichon, 1824 Stark, stated that her grandchildren play here, and feels that cut through traffic will worsen.

Jim Stacy, 1723 Stark, stated that turnarounds have not been a problem for fire trucks, and he is concerned for children and animals. He turned in a petition with 60 signatures that Stark not be made a through street as it will reduce their quality of life.

Christine Green, 1560 Kinney, asked if all of the trees will be taken out? She would like the tree line preserved for privacy. Member Gornowich asked Planner Wash to show the 20 foot no disturb buffer around the property of which he did.

Scott Kowlasky, 3873 Mission, stated he bought because of the woods and he agreed with Marcus and the Kings that the east side should remain untouched. He would like to see the buffer doubled from 20-40 feet. He asked, what will be done to the drainage ditch to channel the water out if the road goes through and who will maintain the buffer zone? He asked what the minimum square footage and type or style of homes would be?

A resident on Stark Street stated that there is a 12 foot difference between the property on Stark and the east end, and an 8 foot different between the new Stark St. and the Old Stark, and we will end up with a 8 foot ramp. He is concerned for the safety of the young children.

Sue Moran, 3909 Mission, stated that she lives to the west of this property and has enjoyed the woods. She is concerned about their water problems, has a new sump pump, and feels that this new development will make her situation worse. She asked that they extend the buffer from 20-40 feet. She doesn’t want the development to go in, as Stark is a quiet little street and should stay that way.

Member Brown asked if a 4-way stop sign could be placed at Fenwick, as people don’t always stop here? Scott Conners stated that was looked at the Traffic Committee and it was recommended against. He stated that they are looking at a traffic calming program and has proposed some solutions there.

Chairman Hickey stated that Stark Ave. will be extended for safety reasons and fire truck maneuverability. He suggested that the applicant go back to the drawing board and look at the drainage situation and Scott Conner’s solution on the east side of Stark.

Member Houseman agrees with Chairman Hickey, and can’t support the plan as is. They need a much larger drainage area. He felt it prudent for the developer to go back and examine removing the 4 lots.

Member Greeno stated that for fire safety reasons, the road has to be extended. The wetland/drainage situation has to be addressed as well.

Chairman Hickey asked if Scott Conners would work with the applicant on this request, and he agreed to it.

Planner Wash stated that we will renotice this item when it comes back on the agenda.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by C. Gornowich to table this item for the reasons as noted above. Motion carried.

Planner Wash stated the he would like building design code comments prior to the next meeting on July 5^th where this will be further discussed.

Wash related that the master plan meeting for the Standale Central Business District redevelopment plan will be held on Wednesday, July 12^th from 6:30 –8:30 p.m.

Motion by T. Greeno, supported by D. Brown, to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried.

___________________________ ___________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary

Walker Planning Commission