Planning Commission Minutes

Members Present: M. Ferris-Young, D. Brown, M. Houseman, C. Gornowich, J. Hickey, Chairman; C. Rypma, T. Greeno, and S. Versluis. Absent: M. Huizenga.

Also Present: S. Conners, City Engineer, F. Wash, Planning Director, and P. Dlouhy, Planning Asst.

Chairman Hickey called the meeting to order, and C. Rypma gave the invocation. Member Rypma prayed for Member Huizenga and his current health condition.

There were no comments at this time.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by C. Rypma, to approve the minutes of the November 1^st, 2006 meeting as printed. Motion carried.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by T. Greeno, to remove this item from the table. Motion carried.

Chairman Hickey read the application for Tentative Preliminary Plat for Central Place, a proposed subdivision containing 15 lots, located north of Mission St., east of Kinney and an extension of Stark Ave.

Planner Wash gave a power point presentation and reviewed the procedural aspects of the request and that this is step 1 of 3, dealing with the preliminary site design and site analysis. Wash reviewed the staff report and gave a project update relating that the project had been tabled on 6-21-06 due to 3 concerns: wetland/drainage issues, further review of Stark Avenue extension, and better buffering. Included with the staff reports were Engineering, Police and Fire reports.

Wash related that the new developer, Dan Engelsma of Engelsma Homes, met with the neighbors on site, and has since revised the site plans with a reduction in the number of lots from 18 to 15. The developer has improved the buffer, and has completed a storm water and wetlands management plan.

Wash related that staff has recommended a conditional approval and forwarding to the City Commission.

Kevin Knibbe, developer for Engelsma Homes, and Dan Engelsma, President and founder of the company were present on behalf of the request.

Mr. Engelsma gave the background and history of his residential company, and related that he has built in the Grand Rapids area for many years. He related that they purchased the subject property last summer and built a home on Kinney Ave. He reviewed examples of homes built by his company and types that could be built in this proposed development, including 2 story homes and ranch style, daylight basement design with 2-stall garages, custom cabinetry, natural and brick or stone front exterior options, etc, price range $230,000-$300,000. The market will determine the prices of homes in Central Place.

Mr. Engelsma related that he had reviewed past Planning Commission minutes and has held discussions with staff regarding concerns about the east end of the property. He reviewed the plans and related that the past plans showed lots on this east end, and this is now a natural flood plain area handling the run off. There are now 4 lots proposed on the east end of the property. He reviewed the proposed detention basin on the east end of the property and that it will address drainage concerns.

Engelsma then reviewed the 10’ landscaped buffer easement and the 10’ conservation easement and the southwest and north sides, where vegetation and trees will be untouched. The additional 10’ will be completed after the final grading of the plan for a total of a 20’ buffer. Mr. Engelsma stated that he understands the concerns of the Mission Street residents regarding back yard flooding. He feels with more detention this will be worked out as well.

Paul Hendershot, the developer’s engineer, then summarized the traffic report and related that the proposed development is expected to generate 20 trips during the morning peak hours and 19 trips during the afternoon peak hour. Vehicles are not expected to cut through the existing neighborhood to the south of Mission Street to access Leonard St. or Remembrance Road, as this would be a very inefficient route. The majority of the trips to and from the development will either access Kinney Ave. via Mission St. or Fenwick St., or will access Remembrance Road via Stark Ave. or Fenwick St. The amount of trips generated by the residential development is minimal, therefore minor traffic volumes will be added to these streets.

Chairman Hickey asked if there would be an outlet to Kinney? Planner Wash stated that at this point there is no option to connect to Kinney.

Member Versluis stated that the house on Kinney is not typical of what he has seen Engelsma build. He asked if the examples shown by the developer would be ones actually built? Mr. Engelsma stated that the house on Kinney was a unique situtation with a smaller $159,000 home which is not typical of what they would build at $200,000 – $240,000 + the lot. ($60,000-$65,000).

Member Gornowich referred to the first point in Scott Connors memo dated 11-28-06, regarding the 10’ landscaped buffer being in conflict with the 20’ drainage easement that surrounds Stark Court West. Scott stated yes, the developer is ambitious about putting in the 10’ buffer. He felt it could be worked out with the developer putting in as many trees as he can without jeopardizing the building envelope size or the backyard drainage swale.

Chairman Hickey asked about the water situation? Scott Conners explained the need to model the 100 year storm and would like to see that in this development. He felt this was underway and would have to be tweaked to make that happen.

Chairman Hickey referred to Item 3 in Scott Conners memo, and felt that the traffic shouldn’t be a problem in this development with 2 access points. Scott stated that the volumes shouldn’t be any higher than 150 trips per day. (15 lots = 150 trips). Scott related that the police and fire reports recommend making Stark a through street. He felt that cut through and by-pass traffic will be very limited, with mostly local traffic. Hickey stated that the cul-de-sac connection to Stark Avenue at a 90-degree connection would allow for a stacking of 2-3 cars. Conners stated that he doesn’t want to see any more than 90 degrees at this connection.

Member Brown stated that on Mission and Stark, looking to the north, there is currently quite a bit of water there where the road is proposed. Conners stated that the area next to 3895 Mission is a storm water drainage area that flows to the east, and there is flood plain loss there. The area will need to be filled in and Lot 15 needs to be accounted for in the storm flood plain easement on that lot with small drains to the backs of those lots.

Member Greeno stated that last time we reviewed this, we talked about the drop of the road to a reasonable grade from Mission on up to the other side. Scott Conners stated that a 6% steep grade is the maximum allowed and felt that this grade was 4%. The developer’s engineer agreed that it is a 4% grade.

Member Versluis asked, what is and what is not allowed in the conservation easement, and who monitors it? In the past, he felt that nothing could be built within a conversation area. Scott Conners stated that buildings cannot be built in this do not disturb area, and no trees disturbed. He related that it is monitored by the DEQ.

Member Versluis stated that he is glad to see that Engelsma Homes will be building, as they have good craftsmanship and will build a beautiful home.

Chairman Hickey opened the meeting for a limited number of public comments, as significant public testimony was taken on 6-21-06.

Cathy Farhat, 1755 Stark, stated that she is not opposed to this development. She is intensely opposed to the opening of Stark and has previously provided a petition with 80 signatures regarding same. She feels that cul-de-sacs are still desired, she treasures the quietness, and the Planning Commission still approves them. Their safety will be compromised with the additional traffic of 150 cars per day, and there are no sidewalks and no shoulders. The streets are used by the elderly and disabled to take walks, stroller rides, dog walks, etc. She feels it is currently adequate for them. People will short cut on Stark, and destroy the integrity of the neighborhood. She stated that change for the sake of change always isn’t change for the better.

Jean King, 3845 Mission, stated that she has questions about the water issue with the 40’ wide river behind her house. She asked, has the DEQ been notified and what was the recommendation? What will happen to the water in this area?

Scott Conners stated that he looked at this area, and the beauty of the new layout presents much more than wetlands (floodplain). With a big storm he wants adequate areas to be protected, and this developer has gone above and beyond the requirements. They have worked with the DEQ on this area. Scott related that Bob Day of the DEQ has reviewed the plans and proposed fill of the drain, and that was Day’s only recommendation. Jean stated that she has concern with Lot 15 and its close proximity to the drainage easement and the house there, as well as all of the existing houses. She asked, will a retaining wall protect Lot 15 from the water? She is concerned about water coming back up into their yards, fearing a funneling effect, a gush of rain and the stream swells quickly.

Mr. Engelsma stated that they have given the first option to sell that lot for what they have into it to the neighbors. If they are not interested in purchasing it, Mr. Engelsma has an obligation to develop it in a manner that follows the City of Walker Ordinance.

The developer’s engineer stated that adjacent to Lot 15, there will be a retaining wall to minimize the impact along that line. He explained that it is a flood plain and floodway with fast moving water along the drain, then it fans out. Any fill that would be in there gradually will be outside of that flood zone. He related that the 100 year flood plains goes right through there.

Scott Conners stated that he took the applicant’s stormwater 100-year analysis and it shows how far that expands. He stated that Jean King will be most affected, with most of her back yard under water for a short time. He wants to make sure that with Lot 15, that the existing high water level doesn’t get any higher.

Member Gornowich asked, how do the residents south of this development feel about this Stark connection? Jean King stated that she feels the cul-de-sac makes for a nicer neighborhood and prefers to have a cul-de-sac. She asked if it was possible for Lot 15 to be moved to the cul-de-sac?

Member Houseman stated that the new Lot 15 is at the same elevation as Jean King’s property at 738’-739’. He felt that if we get a 100-year floodplain event, that it will spread to Lot 15. Scott Conners stated that we have to make sure that we have zero impact. Member Houseman asked if we could create a better screen between the 2 lots or work with the DEQ? Scott related this development will not flow freely as it does today. He indicated that water will be directed to this new area via storm sewer and detention behind Lots 13 & 14 behind the back yards to accommodate water in order to build on Lot 15. Scott stated the drainage will be addressed on Lot 15 or will not be allowed to be buildable. Scott related that their engineer will seals the plans in the final step. Member Houseman stated he expects zero impact or he will not support it.

Member Rypma asked if a storm sewer could be utilized in there? Scott Conners stated that it should remain a natural low area with ditches, which is an integral part of drainage. He related that the current thinking is to go back to these ditches instead of storm sewer. Member Rypma asked, with the conservation easement, isn’t there a lot of room for the water to go?

Mr. Engelsma stated that with regard to Lot 15, they were going to leave it at its original elevation to keep it natural. If that is what Member Houseman wants, they can do that. He offered that lot to the neighbors at a reasonable price. Member Houseman stated it wasn’t an ultimatum. Mr. Engelsma felt that they tried to give the neighbors more. He stated that the engineering will take care of it. Member Houseman stated that the engineering will have to be creative to make this work on Lot 15 without impacting the existing yards of Lot 100 & 101.

Mr. Engelsma agrees with the zero impact.

Member Greeno referenced the 2 letters from the fire and police department and that they both are in agreement that Stark should be a through street for emergency purposes. Greeno doesn’t feel that cut through traffic will be a problem. Member Houseman asked in which direction a cul-de-sac would go? Who would get 100% of the traffic? North or South?

Scott Conners stated that he is looking traffic-calming for various areas around the City with regard to roundabouts, speed humps, and road narrowing on purpose. He related that Fenwick is on the radar screen for traffic calming with narrowing of the intersection and tapering down. He stated that he will be working on this with this neighborhood if they buy into it.

Mr. Farhat, 1755 Stark Ave., stated that the City allowed these builders to build a house on Kinney Ave. before this project came to be, and that could have been an access. He stated that the residents rely on the Planning Commission to take care of them. He asked, why would they take 2 acres in the middle of this congested area when there is 70% of vacant land to utilize? He asked, why couldn’t this be a parkland?

Chairman Hickey stated that he has been on this Planning Commission for 20 years and has always taken into consideration the safety of the citizens of Walker. He stated that we also have to listen to the developer who owns the land. We achieve a balance by applying our ordinances.

Member Houseman stated that by opening up Stark to Old Mission is not a straight run, it is curved. Member Rypma stated it has always been the intent to connect the dead ends of Stark.

Motion by Gornowich, supported by M. Ferris-Young, to recommend approval to the Walker City Commission for the tentative preliminary plat dated 11-21-06 for the Central Place Plat, as it does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Subdivision Regulation Ordinance with the following conditions of tentative preliminary plat approval:

The following Findings of Fact:

The onsite wetlands will be protected under a conservation easement dedicated to the City of Walker.

Motion carried unanimously 8-0.

Chairman Hickey read the application for final preliminary plat approval for Phase I of Summerbrooke Estates, containing 25 lots and located east of Kinney, and south of Leonard St.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report, the plans, and gave a power point presentation. He reviewed the procedural aspects of the request and indicated that this is step 2 of 3. He related that some time ago the project was held up for a variety of reasons, the main reason was the street connection under the power lines.

Wash indicated the project proposes 25 lots south of Leonard and east of Kinney with public street extension of Macey and Sydney Drives with no connection to Sunrise Lane or 10^th St. due to power lines and wetlands.

Chairman Hickey asked about access to Kinney? Planner Wash stated there will be Phase 2 access to Kinney via Thornwyk.

Developer Rick Miller and Matt Cole of Focus Engineering were present on behalf of the request.

Matt Cole reviewed the changes from a couple of years ago, and related that there is no connection to 10^th Street to Sunset Hills Plat. They will connect Sydney Dr. out to Kinney, and in Phase 2 to Thornwyk Dr.

Matt Cole related that storm sewer is difficult in the final preliminary plat, and if we proceed we will begin at that point. Matt Cole stated that the Drain Commission did approve all previous drainage issues on East Avery Ct., and they ran catch basins down every third lot. Where it abuts East Avery Ct., they will lower the water 1’ to catch basins. The Drain Commission wants a floodway to the north over to Sunset Hills Estates.

Scott Conners reviewed his memo dated 11-28-06, and related that they did try to get a street connection to the east but the power lines hung too low. They met with Consumers Power and Walker staff and it was determined unfeasible. Conners related that part of the detention for this development is in Arbor Estates #1, and part of this area is master planned into that detention pond. He related that the plan lacks some grades along adjacent property lines. Conners has asked for additional and proposed grades so as not to affect existing or future backyard drainage situations. In the grading and soil erosion plan is where we would look for master grading plan. New catch basins are required for Lots 10 through 18, with proposed contours at 1’ intervals. Rim elevations are needed for all back yard catch basins along the west side of Sidney Drive and compared to the proposed grades to ensure positive drainage in these backyard swales.

Matt Cole stated that they did have 1’ contours on those lots as Arbor Estates is so flat. Matt stated that the proposed catch basins are bowl shaped, and he doesn’t perceive any other problems with this.

Chairman Hickey stated that we rely on Scott Conners for the drainage resolutions. Conners stated that there is a difference of opinion of 1% to 2% on back yards across swales and drainage easements as they have designed ½% fall which is minimal. He would like a little more slope there. He wants to see that the water gets to the catch basins with a 1’ of fall in those backyards.

Chairman Hickey asked if we are comfortable with 4 or 5 cul-de-sacs for 40 lots? Planner Wash stated yes, with short cul-de-sacs there is no harm done.

Member Rypma asked, what about Macey going through to Sydney? Wash related that street connection means that we have redundant and intelligent access to sites. He feels there is a primary interconnection of streets here. Scott Conners added that staff was satisfied with redundant access as shown.

Member Gornowich asked if there was concern with the length of Sydney, a temporary cul-de-sac, until future connection to Thornwyk? Scott Conners stated that typically we use the first phase of the plat, typically 25 lots, knowing that in the second phase we will get the future connection.

Member Houseman stated that he was concerned about the grades on this plan.

He reviewed the bowl on Lot 16, and the drainage pattern from Lots 10-15 moving to the north in that direction. Scott Conners reviewed the drainage patterns of these lots and indicated that the grading and erosion plan doesn’t have the elevations and he would like to see the rim elevations. With no grade change, he wants to make sure it doesn’t negatively impact the neighbors. He would like the developer to put in sock-under drain.

Matt Cole stated that they had all of the rims elevations done, grades and heights were all set, and maybe that layer didn’t get turned on.

Member Houseman suggested tabling for drainage detail.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by T. Greeno, to table this item for 2 weeks to get the drainage detail, etc. worked out with Scott Conners. Motion carried unanimously.

Scott Conners stated that he would like to see 1’ of fall across the back property of each lot line unless the sock with pea gravel under drains are utilized between catch basins as suggested by Matt Cole.

Planner Wash stated that this item will be renoticed for the December 20^th meeting.

Chairman Hickey read the request for site plan approval for a proposed 24,457 sq. ft. industrial building for property located at (proposed address – 3731 Northridge) Lot #1 of Fruit Ridge Industrial Park.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report, the plans, and gave a powerpoint presentation and related that this is the first proposed industrial building for Visser Bros. Industrial Park. This is the construction of Northridge Drive to the east. This will be site plan review for a speculative building. The applicant added windows and brick/block on the bottom of the building as an accent. Staff concerns included the west wall façade and a buffering/fencing plan for the Langholz lot.

Member Gornowich mentioned when we approved the beginning of the early connection we directed staff to pursue further connection with other property owners. She asked where staff was at with that? Planner Wash stated it is moving slowly and that we have not engaged Consumers Power or the other property owners yet. Chairman Hickey added that the east end of Northridge will have a big effect on this.

Roger Faber, Architect representing Visser Bros., stated that the proposal is for a 24,500 sq. ft. spec. industrial building on 2.44 acres. Faber stated that there is a market for smaller industrial businesses. He then reviewed the list of concerns.

Scott Conners added that all but 1 of the concerns have been addressed. He deferred this issue to Randy Feenstra, the concern about access to this site while

Northridge is being constructed. We had asked for a separate access so that the new road area is not contaminated. Roger Faber stated that they did try to address around the north end of the detention pond.

Faber indicated that with regard to buffering of the Langholz property, they are perfectly fine putting in a 6’ chain link fence along the north property line about 450’ or the landscaping going up the east property line adjacent to the residential property. He indicated that the fence can be put in at this time but can’t landscape until the development is complete.

Faber stated that on Sheets A1 & A2 they have added the overhang and split face block.

Roger Faber asked if the neighbor Dave Langholz would write them a letter in terms of what they want in terms of fencing, and landscaping?

Planner Wash reviewed these areas on the north-south property line and the east-west property line where the fencing is proposed.

Chairman Hickey asked if staff and Roger Faber would meet with Mr. Langholz and work out the concerns as noted above. Mr. Langholz agreed.

Mr. Langholz stated that he is concerned about a minimum sound barrier, acceptable lighting and safety, and hopes to come up with an agreement with a buffer berming with some vegetation for sound and light and some form of fencing for security. He is hoping to achieve a mutually acceptable way.

Mr. Faber stated that they are not willing to do both fencing and Level C landscaping, as the developer does not think that both are necessary.

Member Houseman felt that we need to get the fencing and landscaping with a less stringent buffer of landscaping.

Member Rypma asked, why is fencing and landscaping too much? Mr. Faber said the expense of it.

Mr. Langholtz stated that he prefers to meet and resolve. Planner Wash added, if it reaches an impass, he will bring the issue back to the Planning Commission.

Member Ferris-Young asked for an example of Type C landscaping? Planner Wash related 8 evergreen trees + 8 evergreen shrubs per 100’.

Member Greeno stated he would like to see lighting like what the University of Phoenix has. Member Houseman stated that is what they are proposing.

In a discussion about the building façade, Chairman Hickey stated that there was total of 7 windows proposed, with brick around the bottom of the building. Roger Faber added the overhang on top. Chairman Hickey stated that he would like to see more windows.

Member Houseman asked Mr. Faber how much a window would cost? Mr. Faber stated that a 4x4 window would cost $200. Houseman asked Mr. Faber to add 6 more windows.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by C. Rypma, to approve the site plan dated 10-26-06 for Lot #1 of the Visser Bros. Inc. Fruit Ridge Industrial Park North, proposed for location at 3731 North Ridge Drive, 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 8-0.

Pete LaMourie and Val Lazdins were present and gave a power point summary. They introduced the project team which included the City of Walker, MDOT Grand Region, GVMC, Kent County Road Commission, and the Consultant Team: Progressive Architects & Engineers and LSL Planning.

Pete indicated that they put together an M-11 Access Management Plan over the last 2 years. The overall idea of the MDOT plan was to make M-11 a safer corridor section and preserve roadway capacity as long as possible.

Pete LaMourie reviewed a brief summary including the topics, "Why did we complete this Study and Plan", Study Goals and Objectives, the Purposes of Public Workshops, What is Access Management? What are the Steps Needed to Create an Access Management Plan, What are the Benefits of Access Management? Safety, and Key Techniques: Safety. Capacity, Aesthetics, How are Concepts Implemented? Policy Changes. How do we Apply the Access Management Ordinance?

Member Houseman asked if there were any significant changes from the last plan? Pete LaMourie stated there were no substantial changes.

Val Lazdins stated that the timing is good as this is coming to a completion as the master plan is also coming to completion. He related that this could be part of the master plan update. Once the master plan is adopted and the Access Management Plan is accepted, then a zoning ordinance amendment should be considered.

Two representatives from MDOT were present if there are any questions.

Chairman Hickey asked Pete, Val, and MDOT reps to be available for the next agenda item since it involves M-11.

Chairman Hickey read the application for site plan review for a proposed Consumers concrete batch plant on Parcel A, and permanent concrete crushing on Parcel B, for property located at 2648 Wilson.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and related that we are combining the Consumers Concrete and concrete crushing files into one review to allow us to plan comprehensively. This includes the New Era Drive and improvements to M-11. The Phase I review tonight is for the general road layout and M-11 issues. In the future, we will conduct a detailed review of the 2 site plans.

Randy Feenstra was present on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the main issue was the road, not the site plans. He has talked to MDOT, and has tried to work with Shoemaker for joint access, but couldn’t reach an agreement. He reviewed a schematic of the proposed New Era Dr., which is now a fixed location, the 660’ tapers and 250’ turn lane on M-11, with no grades yet. Feenstra then reviewed the letter from Kara Stein of MDOT, concurring with the Wade-Trim traffic report dated 7-7-06, which study recommended the following:

Mr. Feenstra reiterated that they tried to work with Shoemaker on this proposed recommended access, to no avail.

Chairman Hickey asked Mr. Hibma to elaborate on the discussion with Mr. Shoemaker. Hickey felt that the Shoemaker location would be ideal.

Dan Hibma stated that he met with Mr. Shoemaker 2-3 times and they came to an impasse. He offered to have the property appraised and Shoemaker had a different thought in mind.

In answer to a question, how will this road affect M-11, Mr. Feenstra stated that the site distance from Shoemaker to this site at this point had the best site distance.

The applicant’s traffic engineer reviewed a summary of her report and related that, based on the ITE’s handbook, there were only 2 samples for heavy industrial uses. She found a higher trip rate for a general light industrial use, with more supporting data in the ITE Manual.

Member Houseman asked, with the speed coming down the hill, would it be safe? The traffic engineer indicated yes, based on the design speed. Houseman asked, what about truck acceleration? The traffic engineer stated yes, they took that into account.

Member Ferris-Young stated that she cannot see trucks pulling out of there with concrete without having huge back ups. Member Houseman added that he is concerned about limiting access to make it safer, as we’ve got to allow trucks to come out. Scott Conners added that the traffic study looked at that.

Chairman Hickey discussed the future internal access north to Burton for future residential development. He stated that the driveway the applicant is proposing now is 300’, which in contradictory of the Access Management Plan of 350’ to be safe, but that puts them into the wetland and Grand River floodplain.

Chairman Hickey reviewed the number of daily trucks going in and out of Shoemaker (25), the sand mining (50-80), Ready mix (90), and concrete crushing (40). We have to make sure that the lefthand turn lane can accommodate the stacking, and the righthand turn lane to the American Legion Club.

Chairman Hickey stated that we have a choice of putting in a combined driveway with the Shoemakers or infringing on filling in the wetlands. He stated that every chance we get to combine driveways as noted in the Access Management report, we should. Hickey felt that this is 41 acres of a 192-acre development, and we are going to have a lot more traffic going out. The first thing to look at is public safety. The site line of 45 mph from the legion post gives time for trucks to pull out and cross 2 lanes.

Chairman Hickey asked, why did the site owners bring in concrete to crush? Hickey stated that we need a letter stating that this property is clean and that it is premature for Kent County to issue a permit for a driveway that is dangerous or that is in the wetlands. Hickey felt that this is the first test of the Access Management plan with a reduction between driveways from 300’-400’. We shouldn’t approve any road that would endanger people. He felt that the only thing that makes this not work is money. Hickey asked, how much money is a human life worth?

Member Houseman asked Keith Skilton of MDOT if the permit had been issued? Mr. Skilton related no. Hickey stated that aligning the driveway with Shoemaker is a good future for Weller and the internal road north to Burton. Houseman stated that Shoemaker will benefit from both sides.

Dan Hibma stated that this is the best site distance access point, and the public and private engineers agree.

Member Houseman asked, in the negotiations was Hibma willing to put the driveway in at his expense? Hibma stated yes.

Member Houseman asked Keith Skilton from MDOT what was his stance on this? Keith stated that as part of the Access Management study, he would like to see shared driveways with Shoemaker and Fenske combining driveways. However, Mr. Skilton stated that the Access Management study is not law at this time. He agrees with the data the consultant gave us regarding the site distance. They will compromise from 350’ to 300’ spacing based on reduced speed.

Dan Hibma reiterated that this is the best location for the access and MDOT has to give reasonable access if no other access can be obtained, and Shoemaker did not agree to shared access.

Member Houseman asked Mr. Skilton, is there authority to force the situation? Mr. Skilton stated yes, the City can close the Shoemaker access. Houseman stated that he would like to see shared access with Shoemaker and this proposed access, and that the Shoemaker site would be a better site. Mr. Skilton stated that if it goes to the Shoemaker site, we would need a study to make sure it meets MDOT requirements.

Chairman Hickey stated, if MDOT hasn’t issued a permit yet, this could still happen. For the welfare and safety of our people, he feels that MDOT should not issue the permit until the driveway is in the right place.

Member Houseman stated that he felt that Land & Co. has done an outstanding job in trying to do what the City and residents have requested.

Chairman Hickey stated that there is a resolution to this problem and it ought to be taken.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by C. Gornowich, to table this issue in order for the developer to work out an agreement with the adjacent property owner for shared access or provide the City with an MDOT curb cut permit, and any of the open Brownfield issues to be resolved. Motion carried 8-0.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by M. Houseman, to accept the M-11 Access Management Plan. The next steps will be routed through the Ordinance Committee and master plan update process. Motion carried 7-1. (Hickey – no)

Frank Wash reviewed items on the next agenda for December 20, 2006. He also related that the next master plan for Sub-area 3B is scheduled for January 10, 2007.

Motion by T. Greeno, supported by D. Brown, to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Motion carried.

______________________________ ______________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary

Walker Planning Commission