Planning Commission Minutes

Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 20, 2006
7:00 p.m.
Walker City Commission Chambers – 4243 Remembrance Rd., N.W.

General Public Comment

There were no public comments.

Approval of Minutes – September 6, 2006

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by S. Versluis, to approve the minutes of September 6, 2006, as printed. Motion carried.

Case #06-452: Trademark Properties/Orchard Park PASP/Rezoning –tabled 5-17-06

Chairman Hickey read the request and related that the Planning Commission will review the revised Preliminary Area Site Plan for the Orchard Park Mixed Planned Unit Development (MPUD).

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by C. Rypma, to remove the item off the table. Motion carried.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and power point presentation and related that Orchard Park is proposed between I-96 and 4 Mile Road, and Walker to Bristol. He related that this is a complex project and contains 239 acres of land.

Wash reviewed the history of the request including the following: The planning commission held and closed the public hearing on the preliminary area site plan and rezoning on March 29, 2006. Over 100 people were in attendance, and 11 people offered public comment, with some in support of and some against the project.

Wash related that the developer’s design team and the planning commission then conducted a site plan work session on May 17, 2006. The planning commission provided the developer with a list of revisions to the preliminary area site plan that would better address the direction provided in the 2006 Sub-Area#1 Master Plan Update.

Planner Wash indicated that Walker staff and the developer’s design team next conducted a two-day site plan review committee workshop at City Hall on August 31 and September 1, 2006. In attendance were experts from the Kent County Road Commission, City of Grand Rapids Water and Sewer Departments, and local trail/open space/walk-ability activists. A significant list of amendments and alterations were recommended to the Orchard Park developers, and were summarized in his staff report dated September 1, 2006.

Wash reviewed the procedural aspects of this request. He related that he has received community impact reports that cover projects costs and revenues from the following departments and agencies: fire dept., police dept., court, building dept. income tax dept. assessing dept., clerks dept., DPW, Kenowa Hills Public Schools, The Rapids/ITP – public transit, and parks and recreation dept.

Planning and Engineering reports are included as well.

Wash has also received an independent review of the revised site plans by Val Lazdins, the City of Walker’s planning consultant, and an independent review by Pete LaMourie of Progressive AE, the City of Walker’s traffic consultant, of the traffic impact study submitted by the developer.

Planner Wash recommends from a staff standpoint to table the request to create a formal resolution for either approval or denial, based on direction from the planning commission.

Wash then reviewed the results of the community impact analysis. The building dept. indicated that $533,375 would be generated in permit fees, with no new staff. Wash related that with regard to property tax, the property rate provided by the developer inflated to 11.7 million/year instead of the 5.9 million/year. The tax assessment administrative fee would be $58,000 per year, the land value projections are too low, and recent sales comparison, and personal property tax is unknown. Wash prepared and reviewed the parks and recreation plan –with recommendations for new neighborhood parks planned within Districts A, B, and D and new community wide parks facilities to be added either along the power line greenway that bisects the site or within District E. The Rapid – Busing provided and report stating property tax revenue might offset any future bus route costs.

Staff presentations will be given later in the meeting by the fire chief, police chief, income tax administrator, DPW director, and clerk.

Val Lazdins reviewed his memo and indicated that the current plans are a marked improvement from the initial submittal. He indicated that there are still issues that he pointed out to the Planning Commission as follows:

Realignment of Baumhoff to connect up with Northridge.

With regard to the lifestyle component in the commercial areas north of Northridge, the building locations are too close to each other and the street. There is deficient public space which begins to erode the project. Lazdins felt that the townhouses are further apart than the commercial development. This should be focused on and addressed.

The sidewalk widths should be increased from 5’ to 6’ and at least 12’ wide within the town center. Val stated that in District A, make sure that a 10’ setback for the townhouses does not impact the design intent. Val related that with regard to the architectural offsets, eliminate the wall surface requirement from the guidelines. Chairman Hickey stated if they don’t put in the offsets, do we change materials? Val stated that we could.

Val stated that the parking requirements are in conflict. One area states to put the building close to the street, and the other says put parking up to the street. This is not reflected on the plans.

With respect to signage, the way it is written, Frank Wash would be making decision on the pylon signs. Planning Commission standards should be written into the regulations or pylon signage should be prohibited.

With regard to Area E, the proposed buildings along I-96 are too close to the property line. The rear service area faces I-96 and there is little room for screening.

Lazdins stated that he has an issue with the phasing, as Phase I encompasses the commercial portion and residential falls into the second phase. We need to think about how we guarantee we get a mixed use, phasing with residential. The location of sidewalks and more specific landscaping will come later in the process.

Member Houseman asked for clarification of the location of the residential units along 4 Mile and the distance of parking?

Lazdins stated that they need to maximize and create street frontage, realign Baumhoff Road, reduce gaps between office buildings, and make 4 corners by bringing the frontage up to the street edge (Baumhoff).

Member Houseman asked, what should we require with the distance between townhomes? Chairman Hickey stated if the buildings are farther apart, doesn’t that allow for green space? Val stated that we have to balance what we are trying to do. For more of an urban feel, we need to tighten the spaces down using the street. There is not a lot of suburban green space in this style of housing.

Member Huizenga asked, where Val squared the buildings up, how would that scale up to compared with downtown Holland? Val stated this would be bigger than what is downtown.

Chairman Hickey stated, with the urban housing, we should make a distinction in building materials for resale value. Val stated that we could create a different façade for each unit type.

Chairman Hickey asked again about green space farther apart between the townhouses? Val stated that in the architectural design standards, the townhouses are located near the sidewalks. He felt that they should be raised up with a stoop so not at eyelevel for visual privacy between the pedestrians and the townhouse unit. Chairman Hickey stated that we have a PUD ordinance that allows some tweaking of the plan.

Next, Pete LaMourie reviewed his memo and the traffic flow graphics simulation developed by the applicant’s engineer. Pete related that this was a lengthy review over many months to make sure that the analysis was properly within the City criteria. He reviewed the traffic impact study considering before and after the development with road improvements, in the future without the project, and with the project and identified what type of road improvements are necessary to accommodate a project of this size. Currently there are over 10,000 trips per day at Walker Ave. and 4 Mile Road. Pete stated that there would be quite an addition of traffic to this area with 70-80% off of I-96. The study area consisted of the project location down to 3 Mile and Walker and 4 Mile to Alpine, including the intersections in between.

LaMourie stated that based on the analysis and many comments and concerns, there will be a significant amount of improvements necessary to the street network that the developer must address. Also needed is MDOT’s comments of the I-96 improvements.

Pete LaMourie reviewed the projected roadway improvements for the overall study area of 3 Mile to Walker, 4 Mile to Alpine, and proposed Northridge extension. Based on the existing traffic now, improvements are needed now without the project a follows: Left hand turn lanes on 3 Mile at Walker, 4 Mile & Walker potential signalization. He reviewed areas of improvement with the project, including Northridge Dr. from Walker to Bristol Ave. designed as a boulevard section. Baumhoff as a typical 4 lane road section south of Northridge. Pete LaMourie stated that the applicant is proposing improvement to Northridge Dr. and Walker Ave. as that area will have to accommodate dominant percentages of traffic. Several round-about intersections have been placed on site in order to keep speeds down and to create safe intersections for both vehicles and pedestrians. He reviewed the patterns of the free flow lanes from I-96 and Walker Ave. into the project.

Pete LaMourie reminded the Planning Commission of significant issues such as:

• Final analysis of Walker/Northridge intersection alternatives
• Timing of funding of improvements at Walker/4 Mile, and Bristol/4 Mile
• MDOT review of preliminary approval of proposed improvements at the interchange.
• Addressing of vehicular weave concerns on Northbound Walker Ave.
• Further input and review from MDOT and Kent County Road Commission re:improvements to 4 Mile/Alpine (M-37)
• Decision on extending Northridge east to 4 Mile Road at Cordes
• Other reviews and clarifications for site access point operations

Chairman Hickey asked about access from Dreamscapes to this site? Pete LaMourie talked to the developer about this, and they want the interconnection and that it needs to be on the plans. He stated that it has to be designed so as not to be a cut through route.

Chairman Hickey stated that there was limited access from 4 Mile into this site with Baumhoff as the major access. He now sees 5 access points on the plan. He feels that this is a lot of driveways.

Pete LaMourie stated it has increased from what we’ve seen. He didn’t think the housing along there will not general traffic at commercial levels.

Chairman Hickey stated that he didn’t want that many driveways, and suggested that we take a closer look at the internal circulation. Pete stated that the majority will go south and west to the interchange. A small percentage will go out to 4 Mile and left on Walker Ave. rather than using internal circulation. Chairman Hickey felt that people traveling to the tourist-oriented destination from the north will put a lot of extra traffic on 4 Mile Road. He stated that we will have to see what the 4 Mile study says.

Pete stated that you have to compare the trip distribution percentage, what percentage of traffic is coming in from different directions compared to that percentage of pedestrians to the tourist-oriented area will have a draw from all over. That compared to the 4,000 coming from other directions is minimal.

Pete related that the key is the connector at Cordes and 4 Mile. Chairman Hickey stated that he would like him to discuss that connector with the Planning Commission and to look at Bristol/4 Mile traffic with left hand turns on Bristol vs. 4 Mile to the project.

Jeff Heald, of Metro Transportation, gave a presentation of a simulation model of Northridge Dr. utilizing roundabouts, boulevard section of Northridge west of Walker, with basic signalization with dual lefts and rights, and free flow right turns off Walker Ave. ramp.

Chairman Hickey asked about a Northridge to Fruit Ridge connection? Jeff stated no, not at this point, as a subsequent analysis would have to be done during peak hours.

Member Houseman asked since Northridge to the west is currently a truck route, how would that impact the new Northridge to the east? Scott Conners stated that he looked at that with the Kent County Road Commission and no, this would not be a by-pass. Scott stated that they will try to discourage truck traffic from going into here from westbound Northridge.

Jeff Heald showed another concept model of the same Northridge intersection at the future of the project to build out utilizing 2 free flow lanes, no westbound or eastbound left turns with 2 or 3 right turns with 2 through lanes going north and south. Also shown was a northbound right turn and westbound left turn.

Member Gornowich asked for thought on the weave issue from Dreamscapes project. Jeff stated that is something they will have to take care of with MDOT and the City.

Member Houseman thought is was a good fix for 5-10 years and when the volumes kick up on Walker Ave. there will be excess capacity before we get to long term future potential development.

Jeff Heald stated that from the standpoint of signal coordination, it is difficult to coordinate with all jurisdictions.

Member Huizenga asked which model is safer? Pete LaMourie stated that anytime you eliminate direct left hand turns you have a safer design. Pete related that the modern approach within the last 5 years is to use roundabouts, as the crash history is pretty exceptional, as it forces 25-30 mph speeds eliminating many fatalities and significant injuries. Member Huizenga stated that is 5 years out, what happens if there is 25% more traffic after that? Pete stated that we can ask the developer to design roads 10 years out. We have asked for Level of Service C, building additional capacity. He stated that whatever we build, 30 years from now will have capacity problems. Pete related that roundabout peak hours are design at Levels A & B.

Chairman Hickey stated that Year 2011 will be here quickly. We are asking for help to do it right now. If this project goes in, surrounding areas will become popular.

Scott Conners then gave an overview of his memo dated 9-13-06. He related that this project has been 2 years in the making and he is proud of the participation level from Kent County Road Commission, GVMC, MDOT, and the trails people. He related it is a nice group with diverse opinions.

Scott used color-coding in his memo to address concerns according to severity, along with a power point presentation. He reviewed street network and connectivity and related that the developer has worked well with the City and its input into design of all public streets. Contract negotiation where the City takes control of the final design and construction of the critical infrastructure will need to be coordinated in the final area site plan conditions.

Scott indicated that the developer is aware of and agreeable to the following improvements:

The need to square up Bristol/4 Mile intersection by moving the north side of Bristol to the east, and realignment of the Walker/4 Mile intersection. This is necessary to facilitate signalization at this point.

Scott Conners indicated that Baumhoff needs to be straightened out or connected to west end of loop road in which case it should be made public. This was generally accepted by all parties involved in the work groups. Also, that a dedicated left turn lanes non NB and SB Bristol at 4 Mile, complex access points on 4 Mile, and SB Baumhoff at 4 Mile.

Address distance from east end of loop road to Bristol/Northridge intersection in greater detail as distance needs to be adequate for stacking and allow for safe turn movements.

Concerns with number and types of access points on Walker and 4 Mile, which is reasonable if they are designed correctly and attention to detail of same.

Roundabouts should be strategically located and consider adding one at the north access point on Walker and one at the east side of loop road. Developer to continue to explore the most appropriate geometry for this key intersection.

Consider linking Dreamscapes medical complex with Northridge only if positive connectivity is achieved, taking cut-through traffic into consideration.

Northridge/Bristol intersection needs to be at a location that will allow for expansion of Northridge to 4 Mile/Cordes. This will be coordinated with the developer of the English Hills PUD.

Northridge from Bristol to 4 Mile/Cordes needs to be built during Orchard Park development. It is necessary to force this road connection east in order to complete the vision of a Northridge extension. This can be accomplished via a construction agreement, special assessment district or other mechanism to ensure project success. This should be coordinated as part of the Orchard Park development.

Northridge/Cordes/4 Mile intersection needs to address left turn movements into condos and future office via possible location of roundabout or boulevard with Michigan left for safety concerns.

Scott Conners reviewed sanitary sewer and watermain improvements including the need for a water tank along 4 Mile Road and noted in his staff memo.

Scott also reviewed the stormwater and environmental, including Brownfield requirements and mass grading issues.

Also reviewed was the pedestrian and non-motorized transportation including the County development of a 4 Mile bike trail with a loop within complex through the detention pond area and linking downtown area and tourist area with same, walkability aspects of the plan, as agreed to by the developer.

Standard sidewalk detail are shown for downtown areas showing how strollers, bikes, rollerblades, skateboards, will be handled, and bikerack location.

Public restrooms to be discussed as part of the final area site plan.

Need to link downtown area with tourist area for pedestrians, and a possible skate park in the complex.

Next, Fire Department Chief Bill Schmidt reviewed his report and related that he spoke to the Deputy Chief in Easton, Ohio who indicated he had 42 calls per year and 400 EMS calls. Schmidt related that they did not change any of their response policies or procedures for the Easton facility. Schmidt related that the only problem Easton encountered was access to the parking garages due to the height of their fire trucks. They offered the following suggestions for us:

• During construction, make sure fire alarm and suppression systems are properly inspected.
• Be sure the firefighters responding to the property, including mutual aid companies, familiarize themselves with the location of fire department connections, fire hydrants, etc.
• Make sure the addresses are properly located on each place of business.
• Suggest exterior strobe lights, visible from the street or other driving surface that the fire department might use for access that would activate in that occupancy.

Chief Schmidt stated with this project and the future development of English Hills he will probably have to add a fire truck to the fleet.

Chairman Hickey stated that by adding 650 units to the Pulte project, this will increase the EMS response? Chief Schmidt stated yes, the police department is the primary EMS responder, and the fire department backs up when the police department is not available. Hickey asked if Schmidt would require 4-5 employees and 1 truck in Ward 2? Schmidt stated a minimum of 9 people to staff or 6 more for 24 hours. The pay would be $440,000 added to the budget including the 35% fringe benefits.

Member Versluis asked if Station 2 would become inadequate? Bill Schmidt stated it would need modification and approximately $470,000 to remodel Station 2. Schmidt stated it would be difficult to add to because of the topography.

Member Rypma stated it is currently not manned 24/7? Chief Schmidt stated that is correct, but it should be 24/7. Otherwise it is 6 minutes to the station and 8.5 to 9 minutes average response time.

Police Chief Lindstrom-Garcia gave her report and related that they evaluated the following shopping centers, as there is nothing in Walker such as is proposed:

Woodland Mall, Rivertown Crossing Mall, Lansing Mall, Birchwood Mall, Easton Town Center.

Chief Lindstrom-Garcia indicated that their research has determined that malls/shopping centers of similar size and scope have had little initial impact on the Police Departments servicing them. However, the impact generally grows and is more visible to the local police agency generally 3-5 years after the initial opening of the sites. Therefore the expected impact on her department should be minimal. Current staffing may able to address the first year or two, then 1-2 officers plus equipment may be necessary, and 2-3 more people by 2011.

Chief Garcia-Lindstrom felt that if traffic improvements don’t happen at 4 Mile and Walker, there will be problems at this intersection and on Alpine.

Chairman Hickey stated that the Court, Police and Fire Departments will need more people and room.

The 59th District Court report dated 9-12-06 was referenced and is included with the staff reports.

Julie Blok, Income Tax Administrator, gave her report and referred to page 34 of the community economics section of the developer’s preliminary area site plan report. She came up with a figure of $646,115 for projected income tax generated vs. the developer’s report of $859,022. Julie related that the actual tax collected per resident return (household) is $548. She felt that the number of employees per square foot and average annual salary appears high. The exemptions of $750 per taxpayer was not taken into account in original analysis. The average exemption per return is based on 2-4 exemptions per return filed. With 280 units of housing planned v. 3,119 new employees projected, it is not reasonable to assume that one-half of the new employees will be residents.

Mark Koning, DPW Director, stated that his budget is based on the number of miles of streets, and they are supported by the Act. 51 report with $30,000/mile per major street with the City contributing $4,000 per road. He related that the State transportation fund will increase as well. Planner Wash added that Northridge and Baumhoff will be public roads and that decision was made because of maintenance concerns and flexibility of street design for interior roads.

Rob Zeitter, Business Manager for Kenowa Hills Schools, gave his report and related that there would be no windfall to the schools. Out of $7,000 per student, 5,000 is raised in property taxes, and the State gives them $2,000. He felt that there would probably be more benefits to the State. Other benefits are building and site debt retirement fund, which is a separate levy to pay off bond to debt. If we are generating more money each year with the tax base we bring in they can use that to pay interest and principle. With the type of housing being contemplated, he doesn’t foresee additional students based on experience of enrollment and demographics. If the plan shifts to another type of housing, due to market demands, it may have an impact.

Sandy Wisniewski, City Clerk, indicated that they do not currently charge for business licenses, however this project would add up to 900 plus businesses than we have now. She related that it will create more paperwork with voter registration, etc. She stated that the City has no liquor licenses at this time.

Attorney Butler stated that he has a procedural item to review. In looking at the development materials, it looks like we would not discuss the development agreement until after the rezoning. He feels that the development agreement should be negotiated prior to City Commission approval of the rezoning.

Dick explained that the purpose of the development agreement is to determine the obligations of the parties regarding infrastructure improvements, etc.

Attorney Butler stated that when he looked at the site plan, the extension of Northridge Dr. extends in the Consumers Power easement. As a general rule, public right-of-way should not extend into the Consumers easement. What is permitted to be done within the Consumers Energy easement, what restrictions, etc. when going through the dedication of the public right-of-way as proposed by the developer?

Tom Carter, of Trademark Properties, stated that he has spent $1 million dollars and 4 years of working on this project, collaborating with staff and City of Walker consultants. The level of detail is tremendous and staff has done a great job of assessing risks. His concern at this point is trying to get the rezoning to have a viable project. The process is normally to take on information in an amount that can be processed. He feels that they are not going to be able to stay in the race with the East Beltline project in Grand Rapids. They have exceeded the levels of quality that are in the Walker Zoning Ordinance, and exceeded what Scott Conners requires. Carter related that they have developed a mutual respect and trust. If they have failed on tax generation projections, they want to work with staff to make sure it is accurate.

With respect to the level of detail on the site plan, Carter stated that no one can predict what it will look like in its entire form as it is outside of their ability to control at this point. Carter is humbly asking for rezoning at this point.

In looking at the history and interaction with the people, he needs to see positive movement soon as they are at serious risk.

Chairman Hickey stated that it is the consensus of the Planning Commission to move this rezoning request forward.

Chairman Hickey stated that he will ask for a resolution to come to an agreement shortly. Planner Wash suggested October 4th.

Member Houseman encouraged everyone to expedite the rezoning. Member Gornowich agreed.

Chairman Hickey asked, does the Brownfield have to be addressed before rezoning this? City Manager VanderMeulen stated that we should meet soon and get those issues resolved.

Attorney Butler stated that the development agreement negotiations will take a minimum of 2 months.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Greeno, to table this request to October 4th until a formal resolution is prepared by the City Attorney with Findings of Fact and a list of conditions. The resolution will also set a timeline on the development agreement, etc. Motion carried unanimously 8-0.

Commissioner and Staff Update

Attorney Butler stated that the MPUD Ordinance that was recommended for approval a few weeks ago has been broadened for single family with the minimum area, height, and bulk requirements and these changes should be referenced in the document.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by T. Greeno, to favorably recommend and add the revision to amend 94-218 of the MPUD Ordinance regarding minimum floor area for single family. Motion carried unanimously.

Adjournment

Motion by T. Greeno, supported by C. Gornowich to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried.

____________________________ __________________________

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.