Planning Commission Minutes

Members Present: M. Ferris-Young, M. Houseman, C. Gornowich, Vice-Chairman Rypma, M. Huizenga, S. Versluis, and T. Greeno. Absent: J. Hickey, and D. Brown. Also Present: F. Wash, Planning Director, S. Conners, City Engineer, and P. Dlouhy, Planning Asst.

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

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Greeno, to approve the minutes of May 2, 2007, as printed. Motion carried.

There were no comments at this time.

This being Member Houseman’s last meeting, Vice-Chairman Rypma presented Member Houseman with a Resolution of Appreciation for his years of service on the Planning Commission.

Planner Wash related that the applicants, Jim and Steve Bossenbroek, owners of the 240-acre project are present to give an update to the Orchard Park site plan. Ken Sikkema is also present acting as a liaison regarding State issues.

Planner Wash stated that the applicants will be reviewing the originally approved preliminary area site plan, a conceptual site plan showing the possible location of buildings, current ideas and a conceptual plan of the southeasterly 100+ acres of the site.

Jim Bossenbroek reviewed the previous plans and stated originally Phase 1 at the northwest corner, consisting of 70 acres, was designed to be a 300-400,000 square foot town center. Then north of that a residential use that was being worked on last year. What has changed is that Cabela’s is anxious to build a 130,000 sq. ft. retail store. Originally the plan was a ring road with outlots along the edge. Cabela’s said it is not the style they want and they want to be closer to I-96 for better visibility, so Cabela’s was moved to the southeast corner.

Jim Bossenbroek reviewed a new conceptual plan showing the proposed location of Cabela’s along I-96 with large box retail uses. Also included are main street ideas within this "tourist oriented" part of the site.

The second phase will contain the town center and residential. Jim Bossenbroek feels this is more attractive than the original plan. He indicated that the town center users would be restaurants, fashion retail, and main street users. He indicated that there are no changes to the northwest area. He felt that once the infrastructure is put in, the rest will evolve. Bossenbroek related that large department store users are proposed on the northwest side and they will continue to fill in the pieces.

Bossenbroek stated that there was concern about the timing of residential at the City Commission meeting on Monday night. He related that it is not changing. He stated that the current residential market is one-third of what was here three years ago. They have to be careful, but still feel a residential market for townhomes will be there as shown on the original preliminary area site plan.

Bossenbroek stated that Mike Levin of Urban Retail Properties in Chicago has been a partner with Trademark since 2005. Trademark is no longer involved in the project as there is more business in Texas and Tom Carter was spreading himself too thin. He gave examples of Urban Retail Property developments i.e. quality malls and town centers in Florida and in Branson, Missouri. He stated that the quality, zoning requirements, etc. of Orchard Park will not be changed, and this will be a high quality project.

Ken Sikkema stated that Jim Bossenbroek came to him with a 425 concept. His role is to get answers to the questions and act as a state liaison. He is enthused about the project with the jobs and revenue it will bring. Mr. Sikkema gave his email address and phone number for any questions we may have: ksikkema@comcast.net; phone no. 517-243-5897. He wants to help in order for this to be a win/win for everyone and sees this as a positive step for the community.

Vice-Chairman Rypma stated when Tom Carter was here he showed photos from other projects to see what he had developed. Rypma asked if Bossenbroek could e-mail us some pictures? Bossenbroek stated that he would e-mail photos of the Woodlands in Houston, and Easton in Columbus. He reiterated that the quality is the same as what Carter talked about. He mentioned that along the interstate there is a different kind of building and design improvements proposed. He is putting money in the budget for aesthetics.

Member Versluis stated that, at Monday night’s City Commission meeting, he was not that impressed with some of the tenants and felt this wasn’t the unique concept we had before us previously. Bossenbroek stated that he has a letter of intent from Coldwater Creek; other possibilities are Main Street, Talbots, Anthropology, and J. Jill. Versluis stated that he wants Orchard Park to be unique and originally planned and improved. He felt that the other type of developments this developer mentioned were not unique.

Member Greeno stated that Mike Levin has been involved with the project from the start and he is the one who goes out and gets the prospective businesses. Greeno is extremely happy and has a good comfort level with how the project will go.

Member Houseman stated that when we first looked at this project, we were concerned about big boxes and didn’t want them in the tourist-oriented part of the PUD. He also feels the retailers will want to be near Cabela’s. He felt that the Planning Commission should take a close look at non-tourist oriented big boxes around Cabela’s.

Member Huizenga stated that the square footage of the big boxes are exponentially greater than what was previously submitted. Jim Bossenbroek stated that the design standards would not change. Steve Bossenbroek added that they were proposed at 25,000-35,000 square feet, and the boxes on the south side are proposed at 15,000-30,000 for a total of 160,000 square feet. Steve Bossenbroek stated that the small shops add up to a square footage of 110,000 square feet and the shops along the expressway about 160,000 square feet.

Member Houseman remembers that typically hotels and other service uses are associated around Cabela’s over in Dundee.

Member Greeno stated that a committee was created from the City Commission meeting on Monday night and comprised of Comm. Barb Holt and Comm. Chuck Deschaine. The concern was the timing of residential along 4 Mile Road. The Committee will meet with Mr. Bossenbroek with a timetable of when that northwest residential portion will be developed.

Jim Bossenbroek stated that the infrastructure alone is twenty million dollars and the roads have to go in first. He has to create vertical construction in order to support the bonds for the roads. He stated that he has had serious discussion with water park people who generally follow Cabela’s. He felt that at the northwest corner will have other non-Cabela type users.

Planner Wash stated that when we approved the Preliminary Area Site Plan, it was expected to be revised to some extent. However, we will be going back to what we approved in the preliminary area site plan packet as far as design standardsand project intent/concept, and the City will hold firm to them. When it comes down to the arrangement and sizes of the buildings, that will be a final area site plan decision by the Planning Commission.

Vice-Chairman Rypma read the above-noted tabled item.

Motion by Member Ferris-Young, supported by C. Gornowich, to remove this item from the table. Motion carried.

Planner Wash provided a REGIS orientation to the site. Wash related that this item was tabled on 5-2-07 to allow staff to discuss traffic issues with MDOT and environmental issues with MDEQ. Terry Hartman and Dave Wyzerbecki from MDEQ are in attendance. Wash felt that Terry Hartman could fill us in on the history of the Fenske Landfill, and have a Q & A session with Commissioners. Wash related that the second issue had to do with putting in an acceleration lane on Wilson Avenue. Wash indicated that staff met with Dan Hibma and the Shoemakers this morning about the shared driveway and it appears that it will not work out.

Wash reviewed the plans and indicated when Shoemaker develops his property there will still be a cross access easement to build their driveway to the new public street called New Era Drive. Wash related that the contours on the map are shown in red, and where the sewer system is located it is at grade. He felt there is no quick resolution for Parcel B, and we will do fact finding with Terry Hartman.

Terry Hartman reviewed the plans showing the proposed location of the concrete operation with its close proximity to the Grand River. Mr. Hartman provided a history of landfill activities on the site, built in 1979. He related that it was built as a Type 2 refuse landfill receiving solid waste, industrial waste and some sludge. He stated that it was not lined and established in clay. He stated that the site was closed in 1987 and certified closed and accepted in 1992. At that time of closure one of the restrictive covenants limited the uses for 15 years. As far as regulations on it now, there are no restrictions. He stated it is not uncommon to put structures on these landfills. The main concern is the methane. He related that there are methane vents into the atmosphere and he wants to make sure they are maintained. The clay surface and percolating stormwater might cause stability problems.

Member Huizenga asked if the 18-36" of clay cap is adequate for this type of concrete crushing operation? He stated that he questions the impact of piling concrete and rebar over the capped landfill on a continuing basis. He wants to make sure that this is an appropriate use for the site.

Mr. Hartman indicated that the cap is probably between 18-24" of clay with a 3-6" top soil layer. He stated that the proposed concrete crusher roadways will be established with crushed concrete where materials are going to be stored. Major damage could be prevented, however, something could penetrate the clay cap. The good thing is someone will be on the site on a regular basis to monitor the the cap.

Mr. Hartman stated that he doesn’t think this is a bad use. Statutorily there is not a thing MDEQ can do about it. Someone maintaining and monitoring the landfill on a regular basis will be helpful.

Member Versluis asked, does anyone know definitively what is buried there? Mr. Hartman stated no, as it was prior to establishment of landfill regulation and they did not have hazardous waste regulations at that time.

Member Huizenga asked what is sludge? Mr. Hartman stated from wastewater treatment facilities.

Dave Wyzerbecki of the MDEQ also provided some history of the site. He stated that Land & Co. has due care obligation with regard to the monitoring of methane. This will be an ongoing obligation to ensure acceptable exposures to chemicals and hazardous wastes that might be in that landfill. It will be occupied and monitored. If something happens the property owner of record will have to deal with it.

Member Gornowich asked, do those obligations stay with Land and Co.? Mr. Wyzerbecki stated any subsequent owner would have due care obligation for monitoring and documentation of same to show that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Planner Wash asked, what would this developer needs from MDEQ in order for the Planning Commission to approve a site plan?

Mr. Wyzerbecki indicated that the MDEQ issues involve soil erosion, flood plain, and water issues that may need permits, as well as the old issues that need to be resolved.

Planner Wash asked MDEQ for a list of what the landowners need from a state level.

Scott Conners related from an engineering standpoint, letting water into the ground and crushed concrete and stone, he wondered if the areas outside the landfill were acceptable and the areas inside the landfill not acceptable? Mr. Hartman stated yes. There is a certain amount of water to deal with. Conners stated that a soils engineer should give us a maximum pile height and loads and how that might impact the clay landfill cap. Mr. Hartman agreed. Hartman stated that there is slight potential for something to go array. He would rather see a golf course there or a ski hill. Scott stated that there will be a lot of activity on the site, with a lot of storage and machinery that might scrape the cap off. He asked how do they address that?

Member Rypma asked if there is no objection for a concrete crushing operation on the cap? Mr. Hartman stated that is probably a good thing. Rypma asked if the DEQ monitors or does inspections? Mr. Hartman stated no, they do not inspect closed landfills that have closure. Mr. Wyzerbecki stated that with the due dillegence aspect they will be checking, and if the cap is damaged the owner would be responsible. Wyzerbecki stated that Land and Co. has been very cooperative thus far and wants to be proactive vs. having to fix something after the fact.

Member Rypma stated in 5 years when the concrete crushing is gone and they have damaged the cap, then what? Mr. Wyzerbecki stated it is the land owners obligation to monitor and repair any damage to the landfill.

Planner Wash thanked Terry Hartman and Dave Wyzerbecki for coming to the meeting tonight.

Planner Wash stated that we have the MDOT/M-11 engineering issue to address with Pete LaMourie and Wade Trim.

Scott Conners reviewed his memo of 5-9-07 and referenced Pete LaMourie’s memo of 5-10-07, and related that, with regard to the proposed improvements to Wilson Ave., that we have had multiple discussions with MDOT and our traffic consultant Pete LaMourie. Adding an acceleration lane may trigger other improvements that might eventually render an acceleration lane as ineffective.

Scott explained that the length of the acceleration lane would essentially result in extending of the existing eastbound lane section from Butterworth west to New Era Drive. Vehicles traveling south on Wilson may use a New Era Drive deceleration lane to spread out to the new 2-lane section, rendering the acceleration lane ineffective. Scott indicated that if the Planning Commission wants to move forward with recommending an acceleration lane, the traffic impact study should be updated to discuss the anticipated heavy truck volume from the site.

Dan Hibma’s traffic engineer discussed the Wilson Avenue access and stated that the acceleration lane is not warranted at this time.

Planner Wash and Scott Conners reviewed the overhead and next steps to be taken as a result of the MDOT discussion to rule out an acceleration lane and/or a traffic signal as follows:

Scott stated that we have to find the best way to treat this development. He felt that there will be accidents here with or without this development.

Planner Wash asked if the trip generation model is accurate for the uses proposed for the site? He felt it was based on more of a light industrial site. Planner Wash stated that we need answers to the above and will wait until we get the rest of the info to MDOT and see what they say before we can make a decision regarding an acceleration/through lane.

Member Greeno asked what the timeline is on this? After more discussion it was determined it could take 2 ½ weeks to a month to get the necessary information and review time.

Member Houseman asked what types of trucks and tractor trailers would there be? Member Houseman stated that they could adjust the light at Burton to create a longer gap. Scott stated it depends on the turning movements at Burton. Houseman felt that a single unit semi/box truck with a 35 foot long articulated trailer would have more of an excel-decel characteristic than the weight. A 55-65 semi foot will require more gaps in site distance down the road.

Planner Wash stated, from a staff standpoint, this is an important issue. If the Planning Commission wants a final answer on the acceleration lane issue, it should require the 3 items noted. Then we would have all of the information we need for an acceleration lane and traffic light warrants. Wash related that it is good to start with a complete study so that we don’t have so many unknowns for future projects on this site.

Member Houseman stated that he felt that MDOT will measure this again. Other than this situation he felt that Dan Hibma has worked hard on this plan. The issue with Shoemaker is at least settled. Houseman stated that we should leave it to MDOT via the permitting process.

Member Ferris-Young asked if the M-11 driveway couldn’t be retrofitted by MDOT? Scott Conners stated once MDOT signs off on this that will be it.

Planner Wash stated that we can finalize the traffic study now or later when a heavy industrial user comes in. He prefers to do it now. Member Ferris-Young asked if this will save time down the road? Planner Wash stated that the traffic study data is current and Mr. Hibma can amend the current traffic study instead of starting over in 2 years.

Member Huizenga stated that he felt it was his duty to look out for the citizens, and in doing so he is looking for comprehensive data. He felt that we need to be proactive as this is an accident-prone area. He stated that we are not holding up the concrete business. He wants to make sure this data is compiled and we do the right thing.

Dan Hibma felt it was unreasonable to table this item again and that we are holding him up.

Member Greeno stated that we need to do the right thing and make sure everyone is safe to the extent reasonably possible.

It was determined that the updated traffic study and review of same could take up to a month to complete.

Member Gornowich referred to all of the items listed in Scott Conners memo and wondered if Mr. Hibma was holding us up. Scott stated that he is getting more comfortable with the items being addressed.

Motion by M. Huizenga, supported by S. Versluis, to table this item in order for the following Items 1-3 to be completed in an updated traffic study:

Motion carried 6-2 (Nays: Houseman and Ferris-Young)

Vice-Chairman Rypma read the above-noted request for approval of a site plan submitted by the City of Grand Rapids for a 500,000 gallon elevated water tank approximately 150 feet tall in the rear half of an existing 7.7 acre parcel located at 3074 – 4 Mile Road.

Planner Wash gave an aerial orientation to the site, and related that it is located on the south side of 4 Mile between Hendershot and Peach Ridge. He stated that Ridgeview Stamping is located to the south, the existing home owner to the east are the Scheiners who are here tonight, along with representative Mike Oezer, P.E. of Progressive A & E is the Design Engineer. The site is zoned AA, Agricultural, master planned LDR, and this is considered an "essential service" according to the Zoning Ordinance.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and related the City of Grand Rapids is proposing a 500,000 gallon, 155-foot tall water tank plus a service drive and an overflow pond. Extension of a 16" public water main will accompany the new water tank.

Wash related that the City of Grand Rapids has filed 2 variance requests to the Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding the proposed split and height issue.

Mike Oezer stated that he is representing the City of Grand Rapids and is seeking site plan approval for this elevated tank.

Mr. Oezer related that this tank has been part of the City of Grand Rapids master plan for many years. He indicated that this is a west high pressure district and will aid in adding pressure for fire supply.

Mr. Oezer reviewed the plans and related that the tank would go in the back portion of the 4.2 acres. The house in the front was intended to be split off and re-sold. He stated that the 2 variances that are applied for deal with the split issues.

The intent is to connect the future 16" water main from Bristol to Fruit Ridge on 4 Mile Road. He related there will be a 12’ driveway for access. There will be screening along that driveway with 23 spruce trees to shield the property on the east side.

Mr. Oezer related that he met with the Scheiners to the east and Phil Hilton, and has a letter of support from Mr. Hilton. Oezer reviewed the small parking area near the tank and related that the water tank will be fenced with a lockable gate on the driveway 100’ into the property.

Scott Conners reviewed some history and related that this tank has been in the long range, 5 year water master plan. He stated that we need this tank to service Walker, and we are coordinating the tank with Grand Rapids Water Department, as they are our water department. He stated that it is long overdue. The booster pump on Bristol was built in anticipation of this tank happening.

He stated fortunately this property became available at the right place/right time.

Member Greeno stated with this being so close to the high school, he envisions kids climbing the water tower. How will this be prevented? Mr. Oezer stated that there is no outside access and there are door alarms on any doors to the tank.

Vice-Chairman Rypma asked if the home to the west was not wanting the same amount of landscaping? Mr. Oezer stated that no, the one they control will eventually be sold.

Eric Susey, representing City of Grand Rapids, stated that 4 trees will be added to the current home site, and the prospective buyer will be shown what will be on the site.

Mr. Oezer related that a number of mature trees around the home will remain. Also, there will be one vehicle per day, 7 days a week checking the tank.

A question was asked about having the City of Walker logo painted on the top of the tank? JoEllen Thompson, City of Grand Rapids, stated that traditionally they are not painted. They plan to paint the tank a sky blue color. Scott added that the cost of paint and materials comes back to us in the local water rates.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by T. Greeno, to approve the site plan for the Grand Rapids Water Tank project at 3074 – 4 Mile Road, N.W., as it does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions:

Motion carried 8-0.

Vice-Chairman Rypma read the request for rezoning from A, Single Family Residential, to RPUD-2, Residential Planned Unit Development, to allow the development of Courtyard Villas of Standale, consisting of (2) 6-unit residential buildings located on the west side of Wilson Ave. between Chesterfield Blvd. and West Grand Blvd.

Planner Wash gave an aerial orientation to the site and related that the proposal is on 3 parent properties consisting of a 1.26 acres located west of Wilson Ave. between West Grand and Chesterfield. Wash reviewed his staff report and the plans and indicated that Mr. Hanson proposes to construct two 6-plex, owner-occupied condominium buildings. Each unit would have 3 bedrooms, with 3.5 people per unit projected. He had asked the developer to go the neighbors prior to this meeting and review the plan.

Wash related that accessory site improvements include a storm water pond, public utilities, sidewalks and new driveways that are in compliance with the Wilson Avenue Access Management Plan. The gross density of this project is 9.52 units per acre (12 units/1.26 acres).

Wash indicated that under the PUD process, Mr. Hanson is requesting the allowance of 6-plex buildings to meet the density allowances of the ARM zoning district; plus a reduction in rear setbacks from 40’ to 36’. Wash noted that if the parent lots remain zoned A – Single Family Residential, a maximum of 5 units might be accommodated on the 3 parent parcels (420’ of road frontage/90’ frontage) requirement per "A" lot. The master plan is designated as MDR, medium density residential.

Wash reviewed the procedural aspects of the request relating that Planned Unit Developments are a 3-step process.

Wash reviewed the staff analysis and recommendations including traffic management and related that there are 2 points of ingress/egress onto Wilson Ave. With regard to pedestrian movement, a new public sidewalk is proposed along the entire Wilson Ave. frontage. The sidewalk design should extend through the proposed M-11 driveways.

The plan meets the standards of the parking ordinance, but he is concerned about the lack of guest parking. Wash related that it is his recommendation to reduce the total of onsite units to 10 and create open spaces for a central park feature for children and additional guest parking.

Wash related that finalized building elevations should be submitted prior to any Final Area Site Plan review.

A finalized site landscaping, irrigation, slope stabilization and street tree plan should be submitted prior to any Final Area Site Plan review.

Scott Conners reviewed his staff memo of 5-9-07, and the 4 items including minimum building openings, shortening the sanitary sewer approximately 100’, ensure that the overflow from the pond is directed to the roadside ditch in Wilson Ave. Scott related that the designer should confirm the safety of the existing home at the southwest corner of Wilson and West Grand. The parking area in front of each garage has been increased from 19’ to 23’. We usually require 25’ depth of condominium unit driveways, but will accept the 23’ due to difficult dimensions of the site.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by M. Houseman, to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

Beth Mlynarcheck, 620 Cloverdale, stated that she has lived here for 33 years, they own a double lot, this is a low density residential street, and doesn’t think the proposal for condos is appropriate, and doesn’t want rental units with the whole area surrounded by single family. She owns property on Cedar Run Ct. and there are larger lots. With 36 possible bedrooms they could have 72 vehicles there. Beth asked how tall the fence will be along the back retaining wall? She stated there will be no green space to play one. Beth related that she can’t picture a road and driveways to those units. The traffic on Wilson is dangerous and this property is situated on a hill. She asked if the tree line would be left on the back. Beth was hoping that the single-family residential zoning would stay there.

Oliver McKerchie, of 632 Cloverdale, asked what is he supposed to tell his small daughter when they clear out the woods behind their house?

Justin Meisner, 748 Cloverdale, stated there are too many homes proposed on a small area. They can barely get out to Wilson Ave. now.

Vice-Chairman Rypma asked how many home sites would be allowed currently? Planner Wash stated 4 single family homes without a variance, with a variance of 20’ - 5 lots maximum.

Karen Schwaiger, 4408 West Grand, stated that she prefers houses vs. rentals.

Mike Thomasma, 644 Cloverdale, stated that he wants the zoning to remain residential with 4-5 homes, as he is concerned about the traffic getting onto Wilson.

Steve Pepper, 652 Cloverdale, stated that making turns in and out of this property onto Wilson will be very dangerous with the hill.

A resident on Chesterfield asked how much space is proposed between the backyards and the decks? He is concerned about the trees coming out. He asked if this was the best use for the property since it seems crowded for the space they have?

Michael Slaughter, 4343 West Grand, stated that he is concerned about changing the fundamental character of the area. He realizes that the developer is entitled to a wish list. Michael stated that all change is compelling, and Wilson Ave. is a disaster. He felt that adding a new mixture such as this to an established neighborhood will upset the equilibrium. Michael doesn’t feel any homes should go in here because of safety issues. He stated that not every inch of land should be developed, and he recommends turning down the rezoning.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by M. Ferris-Young, to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Applicant Steve Hanson stated there is no retaining wall proposed. He reviewed the plans showing a small retaining wall 3-4’ around the telephone pole. He stated that he will keep the trees as much as possible. Hanson related that the units are not being sold as rentals. They are townhouse condos controlled by an association and manager. He stated that the market is not conducive to single family, and the price point for this number of units works for him, but would not for single family. Hanson felt that this look would go along with plans for the Standale area. He related that it will be landscaped and look better than if developed for single family homes. He stated that if he can’t keep the trees, he could buffer with evergreens.

Vice-Chairman Rypma asked if it was the intent for this to be a condominium association? Hanson stated yes, owner-occupied. Rypma stated that once purchased, it is not difficult to rent the units out, and it wouldn’t be any different than in a single-family neighborhood. Hanson stated that the cars would be parked in the garages and it can be stipulated in the documents. Rypma was concerned about the lack of open space and parking and referred to Planner Wash’s recommendation of a reduction of units to 10. Hanson suggested 11 units with an area for open space.

Scott Conners stated that he envisions Wilson Ave. to become a 5-lane section or boulevard at some point, and this will cause these driveways to be closer to these homes. Member Versluis stated that there would be more flexibility with single family homes with setbacks and allow more potential for widening. Scott stated that there are pluses and minuses with less driveways with this configuration and with a 1-way road will take away the 90 degree turning movements.

Steve Hanson stated that the single-family setbacks would be the same as this per MDOT.

Member Ferris-Young asked if this rezoning is tied to this site plan? As a former condominium owner, she is very concerned that this is not enough parking and they should have an additional 8-10 spots. Mr. Hanson stated that people will be required to keep their cars in their garages. He also wants it to look good with the landscaping. He will not be able to accomplish that with single family.

Member Huizenga stated that Medium Density Residential allows up to 8 units per acre, and this applicant is asking for 9.5 units per acre. He feels he is pushing the envelope from rear setbacks to density, and clearly the neighbors do not want this high density. Planner Wash stated that the master plan says up to 8 units, and there is no open space provided on the current plan. A lower density would have open space, and they need overflow parking.

Member Houseman stated that he agrees with Mike Slaughter’s comment, in that not every property needs to be developed. Under this configuration, he doesn’t know this is the proper way to develop and he cannot support the density and the layout. He suggested a possible redesign with the road toward the back pulling the units forward with more parking, and create a little green area with pleasant gardens and a play area.

Mr. Hanson stated that he is willing to be creative, but he just wants to develop the property.

Scott Conners stated that we have looked at the "do nothing" option. The City owns some of the properties that front along Wilson so the road can be widened in the future. A proactive approach would be for the City to purchase this property and the City has tried in the past, but the numbers were too high. Another possibility would be for the neighbors to purchase the back half and the City to purchase the front half.

Planner Wash stated that the master plan is a guide, and this plan may or may not work. From a City standpoint, we are not suggesting the property is not buildable unless proven; otherwise it is considered a buildable lot.

Member Rypma is concerned about the density. He asked how long the applicant has owned this property? Mr. Hanson stated 2 years. Members Huizenga and Greeno agreed that the density is too high.

Member Ferris-Young agrees with Planner Wash’s recommendation to reduce the units to 10 for extra green space and parking.

Member Houseman is concerned with density, and suggested moving the units forward with a road in back.

Member Gornowich agrees with all of the comments made regarding the plan presented, and all of the comments about Wilson Ave. She also is concerned about changing the integrity with this lot into the neighborhood without changing the character of the neighborhood. She suggested that the developer be creative and work with the neighbors.

Member Greeno stated that once Wilson is widened, he is concerned about how this will fit with the character of the neighborhood. He also suggested working with the neighbors.

Vice Chairman Rypma stated he realizes the developer’s desire to maximize the number of units, and felt that there are too many proposed now. He could put in 4-5 now and keep the character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Hanson asked how many units could he build then? Member Greeno stated 8, and felt that we should table this for the developer to incorporate more green space and recreation area and increase the parking for the guests, and with the future Wilson Ave. 5-lane build out how that fits in with the character of the neighborhood.

Member Houseman cautioned that he doesn’t want to sell false hopes.

Member Versluis stated he wonders how safe a project like this could be with traffic backing up to the south on Wilson and potential dangerous situation, the density, with no opportunity for deceleration.

Scott Conners stated that if the neighbors were interested, the property could be appraised and the City could buy the land and sell off the back half to the neighbors. All neighbors present raised their hands in support of this option.

Motion by M. Houseman, supported by M. Huizenga, to table this item, for staff and the developer to work with the City Manager’s office to explore the purchase of the property, with a potential sale of the back one half of the property to the neighbors. Motion carried 8-0.

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