|
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 5, 2006
7:00 p.m.
Members Present: S. Versluis, D. Brown, M. Ferris-Young, C. Gornowich,
M. Houseman, J. Hickey, Chairman, C. Rypma, and M. Huizenga. Absent: T.
Greeno. Also Present: F. Wash, Planning Director, and P. Dlouhy,
Planning Asst.
Chairman Hickey opened the meeting and Member Rypma gave the
invocation.
Approval of Minutes
Motion by M. Houseman, supported by C. Gornowich, to approve the
minutes of June 21, 2006, as printed. Motion carried.
Case #06-464: Text Amendment/Architecture and Building Design
Standards – tabled 6-7-06 (Public Hearing held and closed on 6-7-06)
Chairman Hickey read the proposed text amendment, which would 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 architectural treatments and
materials.
Planner Wash gave background information and stated that staff was
given direction to put together a draft Building Design and Architecture
Ordinance. After several months of refinement at the Ordinance
Committee, it was forwarded to the Planning Commission for a public
hearing. We held the public hearing on June 7, 2006 and there were no
public comments. Planner Wash had asked for comments from the Planning
Commission in the interim and has received several helpful responses.
Planner Wash posed the question, "do we want the ordinance at all?"
If so, he will review the basic categories and identified problem
areas. He related that the ordinance is crafted in pieces and we can
check off things we are ok with and get to the points we need to
address.
Member Houseman stated that from his experience in the building
industry, this type of ordinance makes him nervous because of the
ramifications. He stated that it could be good and benefit an area, but
we would be wielding a power that affects the economics. It also puts us
in a capacity of picking colors, which is a lot of responsibility and he
doesn’t want to design someone’s building. He doesn’t like pole barn
metal or vinyl siding, or duct work in the fronts of buildings.
Member Rypma asked if there was an exception for industrial
buildings? Planner Wash related yes. He asked how many buildings would
be affected? Planner Wash stated that most site plans are good. 10-20%
would be challenged to meet the ordinance. Wash indicated that this
ordinance was written based on community standards but still needs to be
fine-tuned by the Planning Commission.
Member Gornowich stated that this is another design tool for us.
We’ve done things in the past that we didn’t have the authority to do
and now this gives us the authority.
Member Ferris asked if we can pick and choose application of the
standards? Planner Wash stated that we need to set reasonable standards
and stick to them. He related that he is working on the sign ordinance
now using a community standard-based methodology.
Wash began to review the proposed ordinance with Section 1. Amendment
of Section 94-5 – Definition of Façade. This gives a description of what
we would be regulating with a clarification and definition of zoning
districts (not residential).
Member Houseman asked, where there is a parking lot or area servicing
the premises, will it be enforced on all 4 sides? If so, he feels this
will be an economic challenge. Planner Wash related that there is a
separate definition for façade in the industrial district, which is more
relaxed, whereas there is a more strict definition for office and
commercial.
Member Ferris agreed with Houseman in that not all 4 sides should be
involved.
Member Gornowich stated that if we don’t keep it the way it is
written, then we don’t have the authority to speak to the sides and
backs of buildings. In the case of the Arsulowicz /Dollar General, the
sides and back gave us the biggest problem. Planner Wash related that
was a CPUD.
Member Versluis stated that the primary entry for the Standale
businesses is on the back side of the buildings. He feels this is
important for aesthetics to beautify and make attractive these entry
points. Planner Wash stated not to think of Standale between Wilson and
Kinney as he is writing a Central Business District for that area.
Rather, think of Alpine Ave. or Remembrance Road.
Member Huizenga stated that the approved but not built O’Charley’s is
a prime example with multiple entrances on all fronts, and he would like
to see that happen on the building. Member Houseman felt it should only
apply to what is visible from the entryway and should be explicit.
Member Rypma asked if we can vary this in a PUD? Wash stated that we
have the flexibility to alter the standards or change any of the
dimensional, signage or parking in a PUD. If the standard zoning is
tough, the applicant might choose the PUD process. Member Rypma asked
Planner Wash if he was ok with this? Wash stated that he likes the
flexibility of well-written PUD codes.
Member Versluis stated that he has no strong objections for some
flexibility within the PUD process. He just doesn’t want the developer
to not abide by the design standards and that it be construed as less
stringent. Planner Wash stated that there would be PUD flexibility but
not lowering the standards.
Member Houseman stated that we got Dollar General to better their
façade and enclose the HVAC via the PUD process without this ordinance.
Member Versluis stated that he traveled through Iowa and parts of the
mid-west and noticed many Dollar General stores with very nice facades,
so he knows they can be done with class. He really wasn’t happy with the
one approved here. Member Versluis feels that this is one of the more
important ordinances, and he would rather move into the direction of
more design integrity than less, with sides of the buildings being
included. He stated that Lowe’s and Home Depot can be done with brick
and done well.
Member Houseman asked, if we don’t like it, can we change the
ordinance? Planner Wash stated that if the plans meet the standards of
the ordinance, they should be approved, whether it’s a Dollar General or
not. However, Zoning Ordinances often evolve over time.
Moving on to Page 2 of the proposed Ordinance, Sec. 94-357 (a)
Purpose and Scope – Planner Wash reviewed the list of 9 findings of
fact, which lays out the framework. Wash related that these standards
are intended to balance the property owner’s right to develop land with
the cultivation of urban environments that are built to human scale,
create an attractive street frontage, and incorporate means and
materials that enhance visual interest, economic value and private
market sustainability within the city. Wash reviewed the applicable
zoning districts (excludes residential). The following language was
added to this section as follows: "The Planning Commission has the
discretion to modify these standards but in no way diminish the intent
of this Ordinance.
With regard to (1) Façade materials and colors, Planner Wash reviewed
this section and reviewed the list of allowable materials. It was
determined that the wording should be changed as follows under a.: "A
significant percentage of the building façade must be constructed from
one or more of the following materials". Under Section b.: Smooth-faced
gray concrete block and smooth-faced tilt-up concrete panels are
prohibited. (The word prohibited was changed to discouraged). Also added
to the list of materials under xiiii.: Decorative steel siding, fascia
or panels. Under Section c. add "Metal siding with metal fasteners
exposed are prohibited as primary exterior surface materials. These
sidings may be used as trim materials covering no more than twenty (20)
percent of the façade. (remove "covering no more than twenty (20)
percent of the façade").
Members Rypma, Ferris-Young, and Gornowich, Hickey, and Brown
indicated that they were not in favor or regulating building colors.
Members Versluis and Huizenga took more of a conservative approach to
color selection and indicated that they would take offense to a purple
building next to an earth tone color building. Member Versluis felt that
wording should be added in this section to reflect that "the façade
colors should compliment existing or adjacent structure as determined by
the Planning Commission." There was consensus as to this change. Under
Section d, it was determined that the following wording be removed
"Façade colors shall only be earth tone colors or muted landscape colors
(e.g., blues, grays, greens, burgundy, etc.) with a low reflectance.
Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including
primary colors. Replace with the following language: "Façade colors
should compliment existing or adjacent structures as determined by the
Planning Commission."
With respect to (2) Wall designs and features, Planner Wash related
that the intent is to utilize architectural facade features to break up
long blank walls. Item iv. "Recessed Entry" was added to the list with
subsequent renumbering of the remaining items on the list.
Member Huizenga stated that the new Meijer in Standale would not have
met the 50 feet rule with the parapet feature. Planner Wash stated that
there is flexibility within the PUD.
Under (3) Building entrances, Wash reviewed the feature choices to
incorporate on the building facades as noted in the ordinance. Wash
related this shows where to get into the building and avoid the box
look. He referenced that the Planning Commission made Dollar General put
in a covered entry. It was determined to add the following Item xi. "Or
other applications as approved by the Planning Commission."
Wash then reviewed (4) Bases and top treatments (anti-box categories)
with options as noted in the ordinance. It was determined to add under
Section b, Item iv. "Other applications as approved by the Planning
Commission.
Under (5) Roofs, Section a. "Parapets or similar" was removed and
replaced with "Screening devices shall be used to conceal flat sections
of roofs and rooftop equipment, such as HVAC units, from public view".
Member Houseman suggested this change as a parapet adds weight and
expense to the roof.
Under (6) Industrial buildings, Planner Wash related that "façade" as
used in this section, shall mean any exterior wall of a building that
faces and is visible from a public or private street, a freeway, or an
adjoining residential zoning district or residential use. Wash related
that we need entrances for each industrial tenant to break up a large
buildings.
With respect to (7) Building elevation plan submittal requirements,
"At the time of application for site plan review or PUD site plan
review, the applicant shall submit the appropriate number of copies of
the proposed building elevation plans (add) "and or colored renderings"
and materials. Also add after the last paragraph "Presentation of
material samples to the Planning Commission is encouraged."
Wash reviewed (8) Renovations and alterations to existing buildings.
He related that this section applies only when a site comes before the
Planning Commission for site plan review.
Planner Wash indicated that he will bring this draft version with
changes back to the Planning Commission on August 2nd for further
review.
Commissioner and Staff Update
Frank Wash reminded the Planning Commission of the upcoming meeting
on July 12th from 6:30-8:30 p.m. on the Standale Master Plan. He is
looking for feedback on a downtown plan.
The July 19th Planning Commission meeting is cancelled due to a lack
of agenda items.
Adjournment
Motion by M. Houseman, supported by C. Gornowich, to adjourn at 9:50
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.
|
