Planning Commission Minutes

Members Present: M. Huizenga, M. Houseman, M. Ferris-Young, D. Brown,

C. Rypma, Vice Chairman; and T. Greeno. Absent: J. Hickey, S. Versluis, and C. Goronowich. Also Present: F. Wash, Planning Director, S. Conners, City Engineer, and P. Dlouhy, Planning Asst.

Vice Chairman Rypma opened the meeting and Member Huizenga gave the invocation.

Motion by M. Huizenga, supported by D. Brown, to approve the minutes as printed. Motion carried.

There were no comments at this time.

Vice Chairman Rypma read the application requesting site plan approval for the construction of a new building for a powerhouse to service a new shredding mill located at 2001 Turner, N.W.

Planner Wash provided REGIS orientation to the Padnos site. He reviewed the staff report and the plans and related that the applicant plans to add a shredder building and powerhouse as shown in yellow. The site plan also notes drainage and stormwater improvements.

Wash then reviewed the Staff Analysis and Recommendations - Condition of Approval: The applicant is to supply MDEQ approval letter to staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Also as a condition of approval, the applicant must submit 5 sealed site plans, plus digital copies of the site plan in Adobe Acrobat form, to the planning department prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Scott Conners then reviewed his staff memo dated 4-12-07, and related that his only condition is that he recommends conditional approval upon Kent County Drain Commission approval. Scott reviewed the plans and indicated that north of the yellow box at the east- west corner containing the Cogswell Drain, and he wants to make sure that the Kent County Drain Commission is ok with this area.

Larry Ensing, of GMB Architects-Engineers, and Craig Schrotenboer, of Padnos were present on behalf of the request.

Vice Chairman Rypma asked the applicant to explain the project.

Craig Schrotenboer stated that the process involves the shredding and turning of industrial scrap and auto scrap into 3- inch fragments and hauled into the foundry then used in products.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by M. Huizenga, to approve the site plan dated 4-9-07 for the Padnos shredder and powerhouse building, 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 6-0.

Vice Chairman Rypma read the request for final area site plan approval for Phase 1, consisting of 28 condo units and located south of 3 Mile Road and east of Kinney Ave.

Planner Wash gave a REGIS orientation to the site and reviewed the staff report. He related that this is the residential PUD Preliminary Area Site Plan that was rezoned in 2006. Wash reviewed the plans and indicated that Mr. Visser proposes 28 condo units in Phase 1. The site improvements include sidewalks, street trees, stormwater ponds, public utilities and private streets.

Wash related that there is an outstanding bill issue relating to Richview Estates Plat 3, which is being discussed with the City Manager and is not applicable to tonight’s discussion.

City Engineer Conners reviewed his staff report of April12, 2007, and indicated that he will be working closely with the developer’s engineer on the frontage improvements along Kinney with curb and gutter and appropriate drainage. He indicated that this plan does not fully address the detail needed for that design.

Scott stated that a complete design is required and review of the public utility plans which happens after planning commission approval. Conners stated that sidewalk and curb elevations are a critical part of the stormwater design. He recommends that this be a condition of approval.

Conners related that all proposed contours on the map should be connected with the existing contours to show positive drainage across this site. He indicated that there is a significant concern in the area of Pond #1.

Conners expressed concern about the site’s main entrance sign and is requiring a sight distance design using AASHTO standards, relating to the location of the proposed sign and necessary visibility.

Conners indicated that the proposed mini traffic circle proposed at the intersection of Meadow Springs and Meadow Woods is private. He still needs to review detail on the plans to ensure proper maneuverability for emergency vehicles and large trucks.

Scott Conners then reviewed the requirement that the full 3" bituminous pavement section be in place prior to construction of any of the individual condo units.

Member Huizenga asked if this is a new requirement or code for us? Scott related that it is new for us and is based on past experience with other condo developments such as Sylvandale.

Member Rypma asked, in the past have the roads been completed or graveled or tarred only for the base coat? Scott related that the base coat, then later the final coat. Scott stated that Dave Visser has a good track record of doing that. Member Rypma asked, wouldn’t the pavement get damaged by the truck traffic? Scott stated that he would rather damage that layer then fix it, because if you damage the underneath layers it hurts the life cycle of the road. He’s seen that happen in the past and condo owners are upset because their roads don’t hold up very long.

Member Rypma asked if this was a new policy? Scott stated that it is a new addition to it.

Member Greeno asked Mr. Visser if he would be able to purchase this small triangle of property that is for sale adjacent to his and incorporate it into this development? Mr. Visser stated that he was asked back in 2006 to look at this property, and he found that it was so small and expensive that the economics would not justify the purchase.

Member Huizenga stated that this area is prone to water issues. He asked Scott Conners if he was comfortable that the retention and detention will work with the goals of water management on the site? Scott deferred the question to Zach Voogt. Voogt stated that there is a lot of detention, and the ponding is dammed up with a culvert being utilized. He reviewed the detention pond along that drain, and the location of the 2 wet ponds that will be utilized as site amenities with nice landscaping around there with vegetation. Voogt related that the whole point is to have zero impact on drainage.

Member Huizenga asked how the big pond to the east will drain? Zach Voogt stated that dry pond will drain to the west into the other northwest pond where the outlet controls the structure. Voogt explained that there is an existing farm tile draining into the wetlands into that ditch and the pipe controls the water level in the wetlands. Scott Conners added there is a delicacy to this situation with an 8" pipe going one-half mile to the east, because if the pipe is enlarged there may be problems. Scott stated that this will be a balancing act so as not to cause a negative impact on adjacent property owners.

Member Huizenga asked if any of the wet areas are considered regulated wetlands? Zach Voogt stated yes, pointing out areas adjacent to the ditch and near the Carlson residence.

Vice Chairman Rypma asked if we have a lot of issues with drainage in this area? Scott Conners stated yes, when we get heavy rains, he has spent much time in this area. Member Houseman recalls that 4 years ago there was a storm that caused some erosion in the culvert. Scott agreed and stated that he wants to make sure this takes care of the existing problems and hopes to make an improvement in the drainage. Vice Chairman Rypma asked if the detention and retention are big enough? Scott stated that they are still working out all of the details. Zach Voogt stated that he can’t make any promises, but they can add a small amount of additional detention through the grading process.

Scott Conners felt that the critical thing is the elevation of these condos. Zach Voogt stated the minimum building openings (MBO’s) are required and will set above Kinney Ave. elevation. Zach related that there is an existing barn on the Carlson property that is 3 inches above the centerline of Kinney Ave. Scott stated that we will need to take great care in the curb and gutter process.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by M. Ferris-Young, to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

The Carlsons, 2490 Kinney, stated that they live directly south of this proposed development. They are interested in protecting their investment. Mary stated that she realizes that this is a difficult design, and the plan is not final. She stated that they have the potential of having water issues and is concerned about drainage. Scott Conners stated that the opportunity for regional detention has passed by. He is looking at taking care of this project. He is requiring a storm water permit after the Planning Commission approval. He stated that one of the ponds is right next to her house, and he is planning on zero impact. The water level would not rise 1 inch higher and he is hoping that it doesn’t get any worse. Mr. Carlson asked what type of buffer zone will be used as a transition between their property and the detention pond? Planner Wash referred that question to the developer. Wash stated that from a landscaping standpoint, it is not required for a large buffer between 2 residential properties. If the Planning Commission requires a berm, it may cause more problems with drainage.

Dave Visser stated that in the landscape plan, they felt it should be left more natural so there will be no major changes by the Carlsons. Visser stated that in Phase 2, to the south is closer to their property, and he has no good answers now. After Phase 1 detention is in, he is planning on zero impact from an aesthetics and from a water standpoint. Visser stated that he had talked to Planner Wash about trees and landscaping which will involve every condo unit. He stated that he doesn’t want to change anything for these neighbors.

Dave Visser stated that he has condensed the project and pushed it off of Kinney Ave. which is going to better the project. Again he stated that he plans on zero impact taking his buildings off of Kinney Ave. and following the topography on the land the best they can.

Member Greeno asked if they planned to bring the water back through another drain? Zach Voogt stated that they will follow the existing drain. Greeno asked where the beginning and end of the curb and gutter will be? Zach Voogt stated 100 feet south of the entrance, and as other phases kick in, eventually all the way to the property line. Planner Wash stated that Sheet 2 of 6 of the plans gives a better explanation of reserve areas for detention and areas where they are putting in a fountain, and utilizing wetland plants in the wet areas as a rain garden or wet meadow design.

Motion by D. Brown, supported by M. Houseman, to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Member Houseman asked that it be a condition that Dave Visser, prior to approval of Phase 2, review the landscape plan with the Carlsons?

Member Huizenga stated that with all of these outstanding drainage issues, he is not sure he is comfortable recommending approval at this time.

Scott Conners stated that he will make sure that details are provided as part of the stormwater permitting process. Planner Wash added, if the stormwater permit doesn’t happen, we will be seeing this Phase 1 project again at the planning commission level.

Dave Visser stated that he cannot spend all of the money for engineering now without approval first by the Planning Commission. He is willing to work together with the Planning Commission on this.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by T. Greeno, to approve the final area site plan for Phase 1 of 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 Area Site Plan Approval:

The following Findings of Fact from Section 94-213(7)(e)

♦The FASP for Phase 1 conforms to the City of Walker Master Plan.

♦ The FASP for Phase 1 is in compliance with the approved PASP.

♦ A significant part of the site is not planned for open space preservation.

♦ Traffic controls and access management are not adequate.

♦ The plan addresses pedestrian movement.

♦ The plan complements existing uses in the area.

Motion carried 6-0.

Vice Chairman Rypma read the agenda item for proposed text amendment to amend Article XIV Sign Regulations of Chapter 94 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Walker.

Planner Wash indicated that this is a public hearing. He stated that he doesn’t plan on getting through all of these amendments tonight. He related that this has been before the Ordinance Committee for about 6 months now. Wash explained the reasoning behind the ordinance amendments. He related that this is the last part of the urban design ordinance amendments, relating the size of signs to the size of the building, reducing the overall sizes of the pylon sign, what kind of sign allowed in a residential development, etc.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by M. Huizenga, to open the public hearing.

Motion carried.

There were no comments.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by M. Huizenga, to close the public hearing.

Motion carried.

Planner Wash gave an overview of the ordinance amendments including graphics that the planning commission received. He broke it down into the main changes to the ordinance beginning on Page 1, starting with definitions of community entrance sign, direction sign, freestanding/pylon sign, ground-mounted sign, and wall mounted signs; purpose and intent section.

Wash then reviewed the sign measurement on Page 2 with the height and setbacks of pylon signage, and clarified how to measure the height of the sign. Then he used the residential community entrance sign to Riverbend Meadows as an example. He related that we can put a 4’ tall x 6’ wide monument sign of decorative material and name on it. The thickness will be 2’ wide (in depth), with the maximum square footage in relationship to the size of the building. It used to be that 500 sq. ft. of frontage on the road = 750 sq. ft. of sign. We have now reduced the amount of maximum sq. ft. based on the size of the front wall of the building. Wash related that pylon signs would no longer be allowed in non-commercial, such as office districts.

Member Brown asked if we could eliminate pylon signs in Standale altogether? Wash related that between Kinney and Wilson Ave., the properties might be rezoned to a Standale Downtown District, where no pylon signs would be allowed. Wash related that the ordinance is trying to eliminate signs like Independent Bank has in Standale.

Member Greeno asked about wall signage for strip malls? Planner Wash stated that there is a separate section for strip malls, based on frontage on the building rather than the lot frontage.

Wash reviewed the new design, construction and location standards 1-6 and part of 11. Wash indicated that directional signs with a logo are allowed with a maximum of 2’x2’ and 3’ tall. A question asked - if directional signs could be at the Planning Commission’s discretion? Planner Wash will make note of this.

Wash related that under permitted signs and signboards. No. 6 "Are community entrance signs as permitted in Section 94-409 of this Article….

Member Huizenga thanked Planner Wash for all the hard work and effort put into this. Huizenga then reviewed his comments regarding backlit canopy signage. Planner Wash related that canopy signage equals a wall sign’s square footage and counted as a sign. Huizenga suggested shoebox fixtures should be required in all projects, and any billboards to use downward facing illumination, as billboards cause light pollution.

With regard to wall mounted signs, he reads that as no signage permitted facing the highway i.e. the Grand Rapids Press building – if done well, this can be attractive. Wash related that for advertising and/or way finding purposes, per Planning Commission approval, could be added to the ordinance. Huizenga’s last suggestion was to eliminate all pylon signs. Wash related that the draft only allows them in commercial districts, C-1 through C-4, none in office or industrial. The draft does significantly reduce the size, height and setback of pylon signs, but does not eliminate them all together.

Member Houseman would also like to review the signs in industrial districts facing the highways like I-96 on a case-by-case basis.

Member Gornowich’s comments were then reviewed as follows: reader boards – Wash stated we can tighten up the language and related that 30 seconds is typical; they are not allowed in residential. The 2’ width – we have already covered that. Base materials – brick or block. Corner lots – split up the signage.

Non-structural signs are: political, garage sale, development signs.

Wash asked if there was further direction from the Planning Commission on this? Otherwise we will table this item and allow staff to add these suggestions to the draft ordinance.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by M. Huizenga, to table the sign ordinance amendments. Motion carried unanimously.

Wash reviewed the upcoming items for the May 2^nd agenda to include: Grand Rapids Press addition, Andy Egan, and Fenske site with road location approved by MDOT.

Member Houseman announced that his last meeting would be May 17^th, as he will be relocating to Alpine Township.

Motion by T. Greeno, supported by D. Brown, to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.

Motion carried.

__________________________ ____________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary

Walker Planning Commission