Case #07-497 – Grand Rapids Press – 3100 Walker Ridge
Dr. - Public Hearing
Chairman Hickey read the request for site plan approval for a 10,833
square foot building addition with 6,956 sq. ft. of canopy for a cart
loading operation for the packaging center located at 3100 Walker Ridge
Dr., N.W.
Planner Wash gave a REGIS orientation to the site on Walker Ridge Dr.
cul-de-sac, I-96 to the South. The northwest end of the building is
where the addition is proposed.
Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and related that the plans
were reviewed at the site plan review committee. He indicated that they
approved the proposed relocated access drive on the west side of the
building.
Wash indicated that staff supports approval of the project with the
condition of 5 sealed site plans, etc., containing all of the conditions
of approval, submitted to the planning department prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Scott Conners has accepted the plans and has nothing to add at this
time.
Bob Pierce, Operations Director for the Grand Rapids Press, was
present and indicated that they are changing the way they distribute the
paper. He related that it is changing from a youth carrier to an adult
oriented system. Currently one-third of the papers are dropped at street
corners for youth carriers to pick up. With the new system there will be
9 different remote distribution centers where the adult carriers will
pick up at these centers.
Mr. Pierce related that there will be an expansion of their existing
dock. It will look like the original building, with larger trucks
backing up to the docks where carts with bundles of papers are loaded
onto the trucks and delivered to the distribution centers.
Motion by C. Rypma, supported by M. Ferris-Young, to open the public
hearing.
Thee were no public comments.
Motion by S. Versluis, supported by M. Houseman, to close the public
hearing. Motion carried.
Motion by M. Houseman, supported by D. Brown, to approve the site
plan dated 4-24-07 for The Grand Rapids Press building addition at 3100
Walker Ridge Drive, NW as it does meet the standards set forth in the
City of Walker Zoning Ordinance, with the following conditions of site
plan approval:
The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Planning
Director’s letter dated 4-23-07.
The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City
Engineer’s letter dated 4-26-07.
Motion carried 8-0.
Case #07-498 – Andy Egan Co. – 2001 Waldorf St NW –
Site Plan Review
Chairman Hickey read the application for site plan approval for a
125’ x 208’ addition to the shop area located at 2001 Waldorf St., NW.
Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and provided a REGIS
orientation to the site. He related that the applicant proposes a 26,000
sq. ft. building addition to house additional pipe fabrication
manufacturing space plus new truck docks. Planner Wash related that
since Andy Egan owns the lot to the north at 2040 Walker Ct., new paving
is planned on this adjacent lot to improve truck access for the addition
at 2001 Waldorf. Therefore, a cross-access easement is required in case
the adjacent lot is sold in the future.
Wash indicated that staff supports approval of the project with a
cross access easement document be recorded between 2001 Waldorf and 2040
Walker Ct. with copies of same submitted to the planning dept. with the
5 sealed site plans, etc. prior to issuance of a building permit.
Scott Conners related that this site is unique in that it is out of
room for detention. He indicated that the design includes 3 proposed
leaching basins encased in stone and sand to encourage stormwater to
recharge the groundwater table. Details will need to be worked out via
stormwater permit process. As far as the stormwater outlet at the east
end of the site, it falls into an existing drainage course and that
should be labeled. Determination needs to be made whether this is a Kent
County drainage easement with permission to make modifications to Lot 7
of Waldorf Industrial Park.
Member Rypma asked if the applicant has divided those 2 parcels of
property?
Andy Jasper stated that there will be a new fence with new gates.
Andy Jasper added that the fence will be reconfigured and they will move
the truck docks from the west side of the building to the north end of
the building.
Member Rypma explained that you cannot have an easement to yourself
on your own property.
Planner Wash stated that if sold, the cross access agreement will
need to be recorded and a copy submitted to the City of Walker.
Motion by C. Rypma, supported by M. Houseman, to approve the site
plan dated 4-18-07 for the Andy Egan Co. building addition at 2001
Waldorf Ave NW, as it does meet the standards set forth in the City of
Walker Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions of site plan
approval:
The applicant aggress to all conditions noted in the City
Planning Director’s letter dated 4-23-07.
The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City
Engineer’s letter dated 4-26-07.
If the property at 2040 Walker Court is ever sold, an easement be
recorded for cross access with copies provided to the Walker
Planning Department.
Motion carried 8-0.
Case #06-476 – Land & Co. – Site Plan Review – tabled
12-6-06
Chairman Hickey read the request for site plan approval for a
proposed Consumers Concrete on Parcel A, and concrete crushing on Parcel
B, for property located at 2648 Wilson Ave., N.W.
Planner Wash reviewed the past history of this request and related
that it was tabled December 6, 2006, in order for the applicant to
either work out the shared driveway access with Shoemaker or obtain a
driveway permit from MDOT. The applicant has applied for and received a
driveway permit from MDOT for the driveway location.
Planner Wash asked the Planning Commission to consider if the New Era
Dr. meets the location for a new public street noted in the Master Plan
Update Sub Area #2. If approved, then Scott Conners and DPW can then
work with the construction drawings and approve the construction.
From a site plan standpoint, the plan proposes 2 projects: Parcel A –
Consumers Concrete Batch Plant, and Parcel B – Concrete crushing
operation with several piles of raw material and crusher on site. DEQ
permits are involved as well for wetlands and floodplain.
Motion by D. Brown, supported by M. Houseman, to remove this item
from the table. Motion carried.
Dave Hanko of Feenstra & Associates was present and indicated that
Parcel A will not be located on the landfill area and shouldn’t be an
issue. Mr. Hanko stated that there would be no grading on the site as
they do not want to disturb the landfill cap. He reviewed the area of
the sanitary force main and talked to Kent County Health Dept. and felt
it was a good area for a community septic system, and they will set up
something to address maintenance.
Member Houseman asked how the placement of the drain field was
selected? Dave Hanko said through Kent County Health Department.
On Parcel B, Chairman Hickey asked, what is being done to protect the
cap? Dave Hanko stated that if they put down a crushed concrete surface
over the clay cap, it should be ok. Member Houseman felt that eventually
they will drive down to that cap and he doesn’t think it will stay
there. Houseman stated that he doesn’t know how thick the cap is. Scott
Conners agreed. He felt that the stone will migrate down, and there
would be less of potential cap damage with paving. He also doesn’t know
how deep the cap is.
Mark Westra, from Rose & Westra, stated that the cap thickness varies
from 18" to 3’. He felt that by utilizing sand, geotextile fabric,
crushed concrete, then gravel will significantly minimize the impact on
the landfill cap.
Scott Conners stated that the typical crushed concrete is ok. Where
there are pollutants in the ground is different. If we are going to
encourage storm water into the ground, how will the landfill material be
protected, with plastics, etc?
Chairman Hickey asked if there are piles of crushed concrete, what
will stop the concrete sludge from going into the river? Dave Hanko
stated that we will capture run off from those piles via a dyke on the
lower area of the site using stone filter where water percolates
through. Dave Hanko stated that the DEQ has approved their site plan.
Scott Conners asked, how would the water get out below this outlet
pipe? Is it trapped underneath? How is it cleaned out?
Member Huizenga asked, if we get a 100-year rain event, where does
the dyke fit in with the location of the cap? Does it run along it or
outside of it? Dave Hanko stated that it is on the clay landfill cap.
Planner Wash stated the dyke is not proposed on the westerly side of
the property.
Member Greeno asked, how deep before the water runs over the dyke?
And what is the dyke made of? Dave Hanko stated that the dyke is made of
porous material such as sand and stone, which acts as a filter and stops
the flow. The dyke will hold water back from getting to the river.
Member Greeno asked is the material on top of the clay cap? Member
Houseman added that the water will be filtered and should not go through
to the cap. His concern is that the cap is kept intact.
Chairman Hickey is concerned that the sand will plug the dyke and
after a period of time it may not drain. He would like a better
understanding of this as he does not want to pollute the river.
Member Versluis asked what happens to the contaminated material under
the cap? He is very concerned as it is so close to the river and it is
hard to regulate the depth of the materials and weight of the
stockpiles.
Member Houseman stated that they have their environmental consultant
from Rose & Westra.
Member Huizenga asked, how do we know that they will not penetrate
that cap with the heavy equipment, etc.? He also asked about treatment
of roads around those piles as with a clay base, the trucks will sink
into 18" of clay.
Mr. Westra stated that sand, geotextile fabric, crushed concrete will
be spread to minimize that load.
Chairman Hickey asked, what about contaminated crushed concrete? Mr.
Westra stated he can’t answer that.
Member Houseman asked about the status of those landfill cells? Mr.
Westra stated that the landfill was active for several decades. Westra
felt that it was probably static with very little methane gas. He
thought it would hold its elevation as it was capped to handle the
weight of the material. Member Houseman asked what is underneath the
cell? Mr. Westra indicated rock and clay with fine river sediment laying
on the rock.
Chairman Hickey asked what was buried in those cells? Westra stated
that he would have to refer that question to the applicant, but it was
his understanding there was a lot of construction and demolition
materials and regular trash. Chairman Hickey stated if so with an 18"
layer of clay plus 100,000 ton of rock 35’-40’ tall, it will surely
compress that landfill cap. Chairman Hickey is also concerned that the
stored concrete will be pushed out into the surrounding area and into
the river.
Mr. Westra stated that it will settle with a vertical force, and
should not go into the river. Chairman Hickey is very concerned about
the materials getting into the river.
Member Rypma asked if it was feasible for the City to have its own
environmental company person look at it?
Scott Conners stated that we rely on the DEQ experts when there is a
debate on something like this. If we are concerned, we could use a
consultant, but would need more data. Conners stated that 18" concerns
him as that much would have to be taken off to put a road in.
Member Huizenga is suspect of potential leaching. Scott Conners added
that there is real danger of what it will do to any membrane that
encases the polluted landfill material. The huge piles of concrete will
likely move the landfill material sideways.
Dan Hibma stated that this is all entirely through the DEQ.
Member Houseman stated that the applicant has been extremely patient
and he doesn’t want to delay him.
Chairman Hickey stated that somebody should monitor that review as we
all have our doubts about it.
Member Greeno asked if we dig down can we fill it with something that
will stay there, like concrete?
Chairman Hickey stated that the Brownfield Authority would be
interested in the concrete crushing that is within the landfill limits.
Chairman Hickey asked if New Era Drive is in the right location? He
asked if we should be approving the Consumers Concrete Plan for Parcel A
with this in mind? Chairman Hickey stated that Parcel B needs more
study. The Planning Commission concurred.
Chairman Hickey asked with regard to Parcel A, where is the extra
material going to be stored for the concrete batching plant? Tom Thomas,
of Consumers Concrete, stated that the raw materials such as course
aggregate stone are stored in bunker areas with concrete partitions then
moved via loader to a hopper. Each bay holds 5-6 double loads consisting
of 250 tons per compartment. Chairman Hickey asked what are they
constructed of? Mr. Thomas stated a concrete floor with concrete walls
that act as dividers. He related that they work closely with the DEQ
regarding the storm water retention areas. Thomas explained the washing
out of trucks method. Thomas stated that Parcel B will be a collection
site, then concrete will be reprocessed on their site.
Member Rypma asked if the storage was not approved right away, where
would they put the excess? Mr. Thomas stated that they would like to
coordinate with Parcel B, as they do not have a strict time frame.
Member Houseman asked without the crushing operation, would they
still want to put the plant there? Mr. Thomas stated they would have to
modify their business plan.
Scott Conners stated if B went away or was delayed, we could help
them out with a dumping site that could be removed to another site on
Parcel A.
Dave Hanko, of Feenstra & Associates, reviewed the road plan.
Chairman Hickey asked what happened to the road situation where the
road ran along the Shoemaker property? Dan Hibma stated that he was
asked to work with the Shoemakers for joint access. It was not able to
be worked out after several meetings.
Planner Wash referred to Sheet 105 where space is reserved for a
future cross access connection to Shoemaker property when that property
develops.
Chairman Hickey related that going back to the M-11 Access Management
Plan, if they cannot agree to access to that road, they cannot close
access to Shoemaker’s drive. Planner Wash stated that even if it is a
unilateral agreement, it needs to get recorded.
Member Huizenga asked how do we work through that? Planner Wash
reviewed the plan for improvements to New Era Dr. and giving Shoemaker
internal access. The City of Walker cannot force that to happen when the
property owners do not agree. A public condemnation process could be
looked at but is generally unacceptable from a political standpoint.
Chairman Hickey stated that no one is comfortable with the way it is
now. He suggested that staff, Hibma and Shoemaker work together on this
for an agreement. He is still unhappy with this situation.
Dan Hibma stated that we had extensive discussion on this in
December. It would be nice to have access, but it didn’t work out. The
other choice was to get the MDOT permit. They went back to MDOT, did all
of the engineering borings etc. and MDOT will give us the permit.
Member Huizenga stated that he is looking out for the citizens, and
in the long term doing the right thing for the community.
Member Houseman asked, can the cross access area be deeded and
recorded as a City road? Scott Conners stated no, and it doesn’t make
good planning sense for more stacking room, for turns, etc.
Dan Hibma stated that there was a lot of effort to make this work and
it didn’t work out. He would like action tonight to move ahead.
Dave Hanko reviewed the road plan to include adding of a lefthand
turn lane 250’ into the site (northbound), then a 660’ taper. They will
be widening Wilson 1,000 feet to Butterworth and putting a lefthand turn
lane into their entrance between Shoemaker. Their driveway will help
Shoemaker traffic going in and out of their site. The improvements to
Wilson are over one-quarter mile long.
Chairman Hickey stated that we need to have an acceleration lane in
order to pull out into traffic from New Era Drive. Dave Hanko stated
that there is a 50’ taper to the existing lane and was built according
to MDOT specs. Hanko respects Mr. Hickey’s opinion but disagrees as MDOT
would not issue a permit if it wasn’t safe.
Member Houseman asked, what avenues does the applicant have if MDOT
approves an acceleration lane? Chairman Hickey stated that the applicant
can go to MDOT with a bond. Member Gornowich stated that she doesn’t
think that adding an acceleration lane would hold up the permit.
Dan Hibma stated that there are wetland constraints on the property
that would be involved with an acceleration lane. Chairman Hickey stated
that we are just looking for the best situation for the people of
Walker, as the traffic down there is terrible.
Member Rypma asked do we have the authority to request an
acceleration lane? Chairman Hickey stated that we do have the authority
and it makes sense to put one in there. Planner Wash stated that we
could support that with good findings of fact. MDOT may say no via their
permitting process.
Member Huizenga gave practical examples of heavy loaded truck traffic
on M-11 and lefthand turns into the site with the existing speed limits
and oncoming traffic. His intuition says that it doesn’t make sense. He
is looking out for the citizens and feels that from a practical
standpoint, a 150’ acceleration lane is necessary.
Planner Wash suggested tabling and having a City traffic consultant
determine the need for a traffic acceleration lane at this location. He
will talk to Pete LaMourie and MDOT. Member Houseman asked if this could
be accomplished within 2 weeks? Planner Wash stated yes, we could table
until we get findings of facts for this specific issue. Planner Wash
stated that the Parcel B environmental issues will take time to figure
out.
Scott Conners stated that Parcel A is close with a 2-4 hour review
for Pete LaMourie to look at the acceleration lane with MDOT. He
concurred with Planner Wash that Parcel B will take more time.
Chairman Hickey stated that the applicant should come back to the
Brownfield Authority with a clean site. He suggested the first meeting
in June for a target date. The Planning Commission has public health and
safety issues in mind, and the Brownfield Authority wants to close this
out.
Mr. Westra stated that with regard to the hazardous waste pile, the
DEQ has a deed restriction filed. With respect to the second portion,
there is a more generous remedy of the site including the landfill and
former leaching storage tanks and asphalt plant. They are working with
the DEQ to identify areas of contamination that need to be addressed
based on final use of the property.
Member Huizenga asked if the DEQ has approved this use over the 18"
landfill cap? Mr. Westra indicated that Terry Hartman of the DEQ has
looked at it.
Planner Wash stated that the site plan should be worked out with the
DEQ. Then determination of the feasibility of the site plan on Parcel B.
If these plans get approved, then follow up with the Brownfield
Authority to get it closed out.
Dan Hibma suggested that we invite Terry Hartman of the DEQ and Randy
Feenstra to the next meeting on this subject.
Member Greeno asked if New Era Drive will be able to support trucks?
Scott Conners stated that the road will be built to City specs. Member
Greeno asked if it meets the standards? Scott stated it will.
Member Versluis asked, when a developer proposes a road like New Era
for this development, do they have to anticipate Lots C through J, and
what that development would do to traffic with industrial uses? Planner
Wash stated that issue was included in the traffic impact study and
reviewed by MDOT.
Planner Wash stated that he should know about the acceleration lane
in 2 weeks, the rest will take longer.
Chairman Hickey asked about the prospects of sidewalks along M-11?
Scott Conners stated yes on New Era Dr., but on M-11, we would need
50% build out. It is not a pedestrian friendly area now, and there may
be issues with the trail coming out in this area. He related that this
is a big picture issue.
Motion by C. Rypma, supported by C. Gornowich, to table this item to
allow staff to investigate feasibility of adding a southbound
acceleration lane onto Wilson Avenue, plus additional site plan details
to be added to the Consumer’s Concrete site plan. Further analysis will
be required from the MDEQ regarding the proposed concrete crushing
operation over an existing capped landfill on Parcel B. Also for staff
to arrange a meeting with Dan Hibma, Mr. Shoemaker, and staff regarding
a shared driveway agreement. Motion carried 9-0.
Commissioner & Staff Update
Planner Wash reviewed the upcoming agenda items for May 16th
including Grand Rapids Water Tower on 4 Mile east of Hendershot,
Courtyard Villas RPUD-2 on Wilson Ave., and possible Orchard Park
update.
Planner Wash related that the Former Lear Plant on Alpine Ave. (Avastar
Park) should be full by the end of the year with users such as Haviland,
Grand Rapids Spring and Wire, and Amstore.
Adjournment
Motion by T. Greeno, supported by D. Brown, to adjourn at 9:15 p.m.
Motion carried.
___________________________ __________________________
Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary
Walker Planning Commission
The City
of Walker, Michigan