Planning Commission Minutes

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

Chairman Hickey opened the meeting and C. Rypma gave the invocation.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by M. Ferris-Young, to approve the minutes of June 20, 2007 as printed. Motion carried.

There were no comments at this time.

Chairman Hickey read the request for site plan approval for a concrete crushing operation on Parcel B, located at 2648 Wilson Ave./4560 New Era Drive on the former Fenske landfill site.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and related that the Planning Commission recently approved New Era Drive as a public street, and the Consumers Concrete site plan was also approved on 6-20-07. REGIS orientation was provided of the site, north of the Grand River and west of Wilson. Wash related that this is a large piece of property; a former landfill site before us for redevelopment.

Planner Wash reviewed the major site plan issues, including the DEQ regulatory issues, regarding putting this type of operation on a capped landfill. Wash then reviewed the historical site map showing the general boundaries of the original landfill operations.

Randy Feenstra, P.E., Feenstra & Associates, stated that he talked with the DEQ and submitted a stormwater management plan. They need to have a certified industrial stormwater operator on site, then MDEQ will issue the permit. He stated that he doesn’t have the results yet regarding slope stability on the proposed concrete piles.

With regard to stormwater ponding on the landfill, Chairman Hickey asked whether there would be grassy areas between piles? Mr. Feenstra stated no. He stated that the entire site will be stabilized with crushed concrete. Feenstra talked to Price and Company about 70,000 lb. loaders going over the capped landfill. Feenstra reviewed a typical cross section showing a 12-14" surface of crushed concrete on the top, then a geotextile grid (13 x 200), followed by 6" of crushed concrete, then non-woven fabric followed by the existing 2’ clay cap. (trash is underneath). Feenstra stated that generally after this amount of time, the landfill has done most of its settling. Feenstra stated that this grid will help stabilize the entire 10 acre concrete crushing operation.

Chairman Hickey asked is it the intent to dress up this 2’ clay cap? Randy Feenstra stated yes, and it is certified by the DEQ. Feenstra stated that he hasn’t taken any soil borings as he does not want to disturb the cap.

Chairman Hickey asked if water would penetrate through the geotextile fabric? Feenstra stated no, not with the crushed concrete. Hickey asked if this fabric would be utilized over the entire site? Feenstra stated not in the grassy area on the perimeter of the site. A grid material sample was inspected by the planning commission. Feenstra indicated that the mesh grid has bi-directional strength.

Chairman Hickey asked what would be done on the site in the access drive to protect that from deteriorating? Hickey feels that during a rain storm it will cut down 6" of mud and the trucks will not be able to go on the clay. Feenstra stated that the interior roads and adjacent land will be level. Hickey asked how will they protect the interior road with the rain and the clay? Scott Conners added that it is difficult to tell where the roads and grassy areas are on the current site plans. Scott asked will the developer treat all of these areas with crushed concrete? Randy Feenstra agreed.

With regard to the cross section drawing, Chairman Hickey asked how much abuse will the crushed concrete take before it digs into the clay? Feenstra stated that it will not do that.

Member Rypma asked where will the mesh and concrete go? Feenstra stated to the 300’ stretch of black top off of New Era Dr.

Planner Wash stated that the planning commission needs these changes detailed to the site plans. Scott Conners added that there are some details to be worked out. We will need specifications of the 12"-14" of concrete. Since the material can erode off the site, erosion control will be necessary. A soil erosion permit and detention can be worked out. Scott stated that we need a determination on the load capacity, etc. of the grid material. We want to take a proactive approach and maybe limit potential loads, etc. Conners related that City of Walker Geotechnical Consultant, Chris Chruishank is working on this.

Chairman Hickey suggested that Chris and Randy work together. Chairman Hickey advised Randy Feenstra to have the slope analysis and subsurface information when he comes back. Feenstra stated that he hasn’t heard from Soils and Structures yet.

With regard to run off or settling, Scott Conners stated that we will work with the DEQ to sign off before a soil erosion permit can be issued. Siltation basins will have to be cleaned out. The City doesn’t want to see particulates going into the river. Scott related that he is pretty comfortable that we will come to some agreement. They will meet with the DEQ to coordinate a plan.

Member Versluis is concerned about the "due care" obligations, if fail safe measures fail, does the City have ongoing due care obligations? Scott Conners stated that The City is actively involved during the construction phase. Once the site is vegetated and paved the "due care" obligations of the land owner continue. The City will have to come up with some way to monitor potential problems. Versluis felt this is problematic due to the close proximity to the Grand River. He felt that something quite egregious could happen. He wondered what our responsibilities are in the future.

Scott Conners stated that we have put our best foot forward, and there are many determinations to make this a much safer project. If we move forward to approve this site plan, there should be a condition that the City receives copies of all on-site "due care" reporting.

Chairman Hickey pointed out all of the conditions of approval noted in Planner Wash’s staff report to be adhered to.

Member Rypma asked how can the planning commission get info on what kind of materials were put into the landfill? Scott stated "from the developer".

Member Huizenga asked if we have the specs on this type of grid material, and what will the maximum height of the concrete piles be? He wants to make sure the City conducts due diligence. Scott Conners stated 35’, maybe 28’, and a design has to be in place that works.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by C. Rypma, to table this project pending submission of geotechnical data and review by the City’s geotechnical consultant. She wants to make sure all the items are addressed first until staff feels ready to place the case back on the agenda. Motion carried.

Chairman Hickey read the application requesting to amend the final area site plan for the Greenridge Square CPUD to construct a 5,000 sq. ft. retail strip center building at 3320 Alpine Ave.

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

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and the site plan and gave a REGIS orientation to the site, showing Center Dr., Alpine Ave., Target, Perkins, and Circuit City. Wash related that this was the former Ameribank site; the building has since been torn down. Wash reviewed the site plan and the Circuit City driveway on Alpine Ave., which utilizes City-installed temporary bollards that restrict left hand turns and have reduced crashes. The developer will make this a permanent structure via an MDOT permit with a pork chop concrete island, with no left hand turns at the Circuit City Drive.

Wash related that this site is within the Green Ridge Square parking lot. A 10,000 sq. ft. building site plan was previously approved for this site but was never built. A 5,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail building is now proposed. Colored building rendering elevations were handed out to the Planning Commission. Scott Conners reviewed his staff report, and felt comfortable with what was proposed.

Ken VanTine was present, representing the developer, and reviewed the site plan. He related it is proposed as a small 2-tenant retail center, with brick shown on all 4 sides of the building, with the top third in EIFS. He has 2 prospective tenants who have not signed yet. Mr. VanTine related that they have matched the signage that was previously approved for the Ameribank.

Chairman Hickey asked if they would have a pylon sign? Member Gornowich thought it was a monument ground sign, not a pylon sign. Planner Wash reviewed the signage plans and indicated that the applicant is improving the signage by replacing the pylon sign with a ground sign with a masonry base and 2 plastic inserts for business names, and a decorative top with address numbers.

Chairman Hickey questioned the placement of the sign on the back part of the curvature of the hill with the landscaping. Planner Wash related that the new flowering pear trees should not block the sign.

Chairman Hickey asked if the parking was adequate? Planner Wash stated that it meets the new parking ordinance.

Member Greeno asked if all of the glass utilized on the front of the building would be a concern in the winter months? Mr. VanTine stated that is what the developer wishes.

Member Gornowich asked if there was potential for outdoor seating and would the applicant have to come back? Planner Wash stated if it were like Quiznos with a couple of tables, then no. If a liquor license was granted or a large outdoor patio was proposed, then they would have to come back to the planning commission.

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

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by S. Versluis, to approve the Greenridge Square CPUD final area site plan amendment for The Shoppes at Greenridge Square site plan, signage plans and building elevations at 3320 Alpine Avenue, as the project does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance, with the following conditions of site plan approval:

Findings of Fact (Section 94-213-(10):

The Shoppes at Green Ridge Square Site Plan:

Complements the intended use and design of the Greenridge Square CPUD.

Does plan for efficient vehicular and pedestrian movements.

Doe offer an exterior elevation, landscaping and signage plan that will

complement the site and neighboring properties.

Motion carried unanimously 7-0.

Chairman Hickey read the application. The realigned development team has requested revisions to the approved Preliminary Area Site Plan for the Orchard Park MPUD. Amendments include a change of development phasing plus a revised preliminary area site plan and road/building layout for District E, the tourist-oriented retail area.

Planner Wash referred to letters that the Planning Commission received from Gary Smith, Land Planner of Bird Houk, and a bio received today from Jim Bossenbroek, owner and applicant for the project. These letters are in response to questions in a letter dated 7-18-07 from the City Manager.

Gary Smith reviewed a power point presentation including review of the existing application, identifying changes within the new application, examples of relationship to the City of Walker land use master plan, planning vs. real estate planning, and Q&A. Smith reviewed the site map including challenges with the existing ravine and power lines. He related that the focus is on District E tonight.

Gary Smith reviewed the current master plan and a conceptual plan with the changes shown, as to how Cabela’s wants to be situated on the site.

Mr. Smith then reviewed the changes in functionality in the District E master plan, and changes to the project phasing as Cabela’s wants to be first.

Smith reviewed the pros and cons of the old site plan vs. the new site plan. He focused on the new site plan and related that the pros consisted of good access, more cohesive site design, more continuity between uses, better connectively/walkability, and one ravine road crossing.

Smith stated that the con is Cabela’s expensive location. How does this relate to the land use master plan? He reviewed the exception from the land use master plan dated August 16^th, 2006, on pages 35, and referencing items from pages 36, and 39. Smith stated that they still intend on developing a high quality project.

Smith felt they have provided a good layout with a good cohesive design starting around the retail speculation proposed and tried the best they can to break up the parking. He related that the old preliminary area site plan was less walkable, disconnected, more auto dependent, and larger infrastructure required. Smith stated that the new preliminary area site plan shows a more cohesive design, less relying on automobiles, more walkable, less degradation to the ravine, and better synergy between the variety of uses.

Smith then reviewed the planning vs. real estate economics, and related that there is a long-standing tug of war between municipalities and developers. He stated there are 2 sides to every coin, and he sees 2 potential problems from the municipalities. He related that bad planning and architecture creates traffic congestion and negative commercial (like Alpine Ave.). He stated that bad real estate economics could leave the project to fail leaving a lot of dark boxes or seeing second or third tier tenants. He gave an example of Dublin Village Center where they had good planning and architecture, but bad real estate and economics. Smith cited problems such as small retailers, very few retail anchors one good anchor, the movie theatre, but no visibility.

Gary Smith stated that the water park is not a synergistic use with shops. It will survive on internal business. It will not generate much traffic for small shops. Smith related that Cabela’s provides greater weekend traffic but shops need daily traffic generated by medium anchors to survive. Cabela’s is a free site and higher paying retail is necessary along the expressway to support the necessary infrastructure costs and make the project work.

Smith then reviewed changes of the project phasing. He stated that Cabela’s was slated to go first with the town center 3 years ago. During this time the retail market for town centers has cooled off. There is also increasing pressure with the East Beltline site. They have users now for District E – Cabela’s has committed along with interest from some users who want to be near Cabela’s.

Smith related that the thing that is not changing with this submittal is the high quality of architecture and design, no disposable buildings, and the high quality of landscape standards. Cabela’s is still the major tourist oriented anchor. Gary Smith stated that it is planned now in a more synergistic and cohesive manner.

Chairman Hickey stated that he doesn’t have a problem with Cabela’s moving over to the corner. He asked what do the changes mean in terms of square footage with regard to the changes from big box to medium box? Smith stated that a big box like Cabela’s ranges from 130,000-190,000 sq. ft., and medium boxes from 25,000-50,000 sq. ft. Chairman Hickey suggested 25,000-40,000 sq. ft. maximums for the medium boxes.

Chairman Hickey asked Mr. Smith to define the water park? Smith related it was a water park hotel. Hickey stated that we discussed that entire area being entertainment or tourist oriented. Chairman Hickey stated that Bristol Avenue is not a thoroughfare, and they would be doubling the traffic. Hickey stated that he prefers to see the water park where the 3 boxes are designated along the expressway. Again, he has no problem with Cabela’s moving. He would have a problem with the water park locating east of Bristol Ave., and he does have a problem with the big boxes along the interstate.

Planner Wash stated that he has 2 clarifications: The City of Walker doesn’t do theoretical planning, and the Sub Area #1 master plan update was heavy with positive public involvement. In Gary Smith’s letter, he said the staff supplied misinformation to the Planning Commission, which is incorrect and offensive to the Planning Department and the City of Walker.

Planner Wash reviewed his staff report including the staff analysis of the amended preliminary area site plan and recommendations as follows:

Walker Orchard Land Partners LLC is now the applicant and James Bossenbroek is the owner of the site. Tom Carter and Trademark Properties are no longer part of the project.

Under "Conceptual Master Plan/Preliminary Area Site Plan", Planner Wash related that the original preliminary area site plan and District E Plan were tied to detailed site and building design standards. The planning commission found, in the resolution of approval on October 4^th, 2006, that the preliminary area site plan application was consistent with the recently approved Sub Area #1 Master Plan Update.

Wash reviewed the questions for Planning Commission consideration as follows:

Planner Wash related that the town center was the original project. He understands the important role of economics, but District E was planned as something different; an entertainment-tourist oriented district. He feels that the preliminary area site plan amendment would be consistent with the original intent of the Orchard Park MPUD project plus the Sub Area #1 master plan update if the three "District E" large box buildings backing up to I-96 were replaced with a water park hotel, a business hotel and other tourist-oriented or entertainment uses.

Wash stated that the new plan with box buildings totaling 170,000 sq. ft. is significantly different than what was originally proposed and approved. He feels that with these big boxes, we will get Alpine Avenue style buildings and users. He asked, is this consistent with the master plan? Wash feels standard retail big boxes were not master planned or originally proposed for District E, or anywhere within the Orchard Park development for that matter. Wash stated it is not consistent with the original intent of the Orchard Park MPUD project or the Sub-Area #1 Master Plan Update.

As far as the phasing goes, Wash related that he does not have a problem with the changes. He does want to make sure that regardless of the phasing plan, the design and development of Districts A and B will remain consistent with the original Orchard Park MPUD Preliminary Area Site Plan as approved.

Wash related that with respect to the Development Standards Matrix, this very important zoning component remains largely the same, except for a reduction in Northridge Avenue setbacks for buildings from 50’ to 30’.

A review of the letter from Bill Kozak dated June 18^th, 2007, indicated that the proposed revisions to the Orchard Park PASP will not affect any material changes on the public water, sewer or roads from that shown on the original plans. Scott Conners will comment on this letter.

Wash stated that he strongly recommends that the applicant submit an updated list of required public water, sewer and storm water appurtenances and facilities prior to any approval of amendments to the Orchard Park PASP.

Wash referred to the letter from Jeff Heald dated June 19, 2007, which addressed impacts of the original traffic study created by revisions to the Orchard Park PASP as proposed. Mr. Heald notes that his letter addresses changes in trip generation given a reduction in retail square footage from 670,400 sq. ft. (on the original PASP) to 440,000 sq. ft. on the revised PASP. The uses of the retail building remain the same. Wash will leave the detailed response to Mr. Heald’s letter to Pete LaMourie, the City’s traffic engineering consultant and Scott Conners.

Wash strongly recommends that the planning commission require the applicant submit an updated list of required public street, signal and intersection improvements prior to any approval of amendments to the Orchard Park PASP.

Wash strongly recommends that the planning commission require the applicant to submit an executed letter of commitment from Cabela’s to purchase property in District E and build a regional-scale Cabela’s store prior to any approval of amendments to the Orchard Park PASP.

Planner Wash strongly recommends that, before taking any action on this application to revise the Orchard Park PASP, the planning commission first:

Wash recommends tabling this request at this time, to allow staff and the City Attorney to draft a revised resolution for the consideration of the planning commission, based largely on comments received tonight from the planning commission.

Scott Conners then reviewed his staff report dated July 12, 2007, and related that traffic is the biggest issue. From a traffic generation standpoint, with the change to the Tourist Oriented area at the southeast portion of the site, will have a tourist draw but will be accompanied by more traditional retail. He agrees with Metro Transportation’s analysis of the modification that states that these changes will actually result in a reduction in the number of total trips. He does, however, take exception to the statement that the 2006 TIA will still address the proposed traffic impacts. Scott Conners believes that the change in use to general retail will require signification modifications to the traffic distribution model, specifically Bristol Road between Three Mile and Four Mile is likely to see more traffic than in the initial report. Staff believes that full improvements of this roadway will be essential to the success of the project and the safety of the existing Bristol Avenue corridor.

Scott Conners stressed the need for the Northridge extension to connect from Bristol east and north to Cordes and Four Mile. With the adjustment in trip distribution, we believe that additional traffic will utilize the Alpine and Four Mile intersection as a way to and from the site. Conners stated that we will need to insure that Northridge is extended to Cordes before Phase I becomes fully operational. More review of the Alpine and Four Mile intersection may also be warranted.

Scott referred to a single parcel along Bristol that does not seem to be included in the PUD boundary and almost touches the proposed Cabela’s building and impedes access to the back of the building. He felt that it needs to be included or redesigned to work around the lot.

Scott Conners reviewed several critical subjects for continued review in an effort to streamline the next step in the approval process. These include: Configuration of Walker Avenue; Four Mile Road intersections; and Water Distribution.

Scott Conners related that the KCRC has been working closely with both Walker and the developer in looking at the long-range needs for Four Mile Road. He indicated that KCRC has secured dedicated grant funding to aid in the reconstruction of Four Mile Road to a 3-lane section. The developer will be required to pay a significant portion of the local match on those funds which totals approximately $650,000 plus reimburse for necessary right of way at both Walker and Bristol. The intersections of Four Mile and Walker and Four Mile and Bristol are recommended to be included in the necessary infrastructure improvements for Phase I.

Conners indicated that additional right of way will be needed along Four Mile Road from this developer. A condition of any site plan approval will necessitate that the developer gift a 17’ additional feet of right of way to the KCRC and that 10’ of trail easement be provided to the Kent County Parks Department.

Conners noted that in lieu of placing sidewalk along 4 Mile Road, the developer should be responsible for the local match (20-30%) of the Four Mile Road trail that is currently under design. This trail can be coordinated into the Orchard Park design and negate the need for public sidewalk.

City Engineer Conners related that the revised phasing plan may allow for a stepped approach to roadway improvements. Staff believes that the only improvement that may be postponed with Phase 1 would be the widening of Four Mile Road. Intersection realignments will be required at Bristol and Walker in preparation for the widening that would precede development of the Phase II properties. The widening of Bristol from Three Mile to Four Mile (excluded in the initial TIA) should also be required in the initial road improvement phase. The costs for the improvements required in the 2006 estimates will all need to be recalculated based on various design changes and the current economic climate.

Member Huizenga asked with respect to the ring road vs. the revised road if there were advantages or disadvantages in terms of traffic distribution.

Scott Conners stated that there are some aspects of the new plan that are creative, but it is hard to say if it is better that the original from a traffic standpoint.

Chairman Hickey stated that Bristol Avenue should be included in infrastructure improvements. Scott Conners agreed.

Chairman Hickey stated that he has heard nothing from the Pulte property owners, except a water park from this developer. There has been no application filed.

Member Greeno stated that when the Pulte property gets developed, the planning commission needs to look out as far as 20 years, as we don’t want to make mistakes. Greeno felt that on 4 Mile Road from Alpine Ave. to Fruit Ridge should be 4 lanes with a 5^th lane for the turns. He stated that it should look like Lake Michigan Dr. and work with the KCRC, the City of Walker, and MDOT to make it happen. Greeno stated that he doesn’t want the project to be 70% empty, he wants it to be successful for everybody. He felt that the Pulte owners should participate in the infrastructure costs to Bristol.

Scott Conners stated that we have made a lot of progress looking at 4 Mile and Bristol roads trying to point out the weak spots. With the County’s help, we could come out with help for 4 Mile and Bristol.

Member Greeno asked what the developer’s idea of "entertainment" means to them in the commercial area?

Gary Smith apologized to Planner Wash about the implication that he was misleading the planning commission and that it was not purposeful, and he did not mean the master plan was not valid. Smith thought he was complying with what was in the master plan. Planner Wash stated his apology was accepted.

Jim Bossenbroek stated that there are two indentations on the plan, one on Bristol – Lowell Hilton ½ acre lot residential, and one on Walker where the Consumers Power piece has to be rezoned as well.

Jim Bossenbroek stated that he thinks we all agree that we want Cabela’s. He has a letter of intent, but cannot make it public at this time. He will have a conference call with Cabela’s tomorrow and invited the City Planner or City Manager to join in. Bossenbroek stated that he does not have a signed contract until he knows what he can do here. He stated that he cannot violate the Freedom of Information Act, etc.

Jim Bossenbroek stated that the problem is that we need to build a lot of infrastructure to make this happen, (e.g. 4 Mile, Bristol improvements). There are price tags associated with all of this. The problem is there is no funding until the bonds are financed by TIFA and there is a tax revenue stream that supports the bond issues. They have Cabela’s, hotels and medium size boxes, all uses that the market shows attractive, which shows assets, supports the bonds, which permits the infrastructure. He stated that it is a big domino effect. If he can’t get the type of development the market supports, then no Cabela’s.

Jim Bossenbroek stated that the State or City doesn’t have funds, and it boils down to the strength of the project. With respect to Bristol Avenue, let the traffic consultants see what they can come up with. Bossenbroek has talked with Jeff Chamberlain about a special assessment district. He stated that they need North Ridge Drive flowing through the whole project.

Member Greeno stated that he doesn’t want District E changed from the entertainment district, and he wants to know from the developer what type of entertainment they are looking at. Jim Bossenbroek stated that he doesn’t know what we have in mind with the entertainment district. Maybe there is a difference in view. There are looking at a hotel, water park and shopping.

Chairman Hickey stated that he doesn’t understand the east of Bristol location for the conceptual water park. He suggested that it go in the area of the 3 boxes; it can be split into 4 boxes, then maybe it meets the criteria.

Member Greeno asked about the green space regulations? He doesn’t see a lot of green space in the plan now. Jim Bossenbroek stated that there is a specific amount of the site that is undevelopable. If we mean more attractive recreation when shopping, etc., Chairman Hickey suggested that they take a look at a park. Member Greeno stated that we need places to play and relax in, an area designated for that. Bossenbroek stated that we are not to that level of detail yet. What we have is a walkable attractive environment for those shopping areas and they will get premium rents, etc.

Jim Bossenbroek stated that a water park out of Valparaiso, Indiana was interested in doing a hotel on the site. Bossenbroek stated there is a trail that goes to small shopping areas. He indicated that they do not yet have a wetland determination for feasibility of some areas.

Member Greeno stated that he wants to hear that the 3 boxes are not retail oriented. Bossenbroek stated that it could be another anchor for the town center. He related that they are faced with financing problems of how to fund the infrastructure. Once built the project becomes a destination, and they have a lot more choices of who to bring in. Bossenbroek stated that they have 2 department stores on which they do not have final commitments yet in the town center until Cabela’s commits.

Chairman Hickey asked, doesn’t Cabela’s drag 8-10 businesses with them when they come? Bossenbroek stated 1 or 2 hotels, 1 or 2 restaurants, and strip development.

Member Ferris-Young stated that the old preliminary area site plan is like Dundee, Michigan vs. the new preliminary area site plan. Cabela’s is showing us where they want us to be, which is the real reason that the ring road is moving.

Jim Bossenbroek stated that things have changed. The first focus is on Cabela’s, which drives the infrastructure improvements.

Chairman Hickey stated we are not changing the architectural portion of this. Jim Bossenbroek stated no, all architectural standards stay the same.

Member Rypma stated that he was trying to get a handle on the big box. Bossenbroek gave some examples of stores as follows: Meijer – 220,000 sq. ft.

J.C. Penney – 105,000 sq. ft., Best Buy – 45,000 sq. ft., Staples – 25,000 sq. ft., Cabela’s – 130,000 sq. ft. Member Rypma asked what the maximum sq. ft. is on these "medium" boxes in District E? Bossenbroek stated that the thought process should be how do we integrate these stores? If we had J.C. Penney integrated with Best Buy, it would work well, and why wouldn’t that be better use and more attractive and generate more smaller shops than a Michaels, and a Bed, Bath, and Beyond. Bossenbroek stated that he is not discounting the isolated box plan as there are places that integrate larger boxes very well with other uses that are more attractive and have more value than separate medium size boxes.

Member Rypma asked if these would be integrated under one building with several uses? Jim Bossenbroek stated it could be an "L" configuration with another next to that, creating parking and tying in with smaller shops.

Member Huizenga asked, is J.C. Penney a town center use or an entertainment use? Bossenbroek stated that J.C. Penney is a higher level store than a Target that draws other fashion types.

Chairman Hickey stated that the City Commission will meet on the 425 agreement next Monday, July 23rd, 2007. Once we have direction from the City Commission, we will have a better idea on what to do with the revised preliminary area site plan.

Member Ferris-Young stated that the footprint size is as important as the raw size. She would prefer a J.C. Penney than some other users.

Member Greeno stated that over the past meetings, we have asked for a description of the 3 or 4 boxes, what they might look like? Bossenbroek stated he doesn’t want a field of brick boxes, he wants different elevations with complementary materials and different materials utilized.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by C. Gornowich to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

Jim Alderton, 2519 Powers, N.W., stated that he is confused. It seems like we have gone through a process over the past few years, and now this has changed and it is not a good plan. He stated that Tom Carter had a good plan. He thought there was something in place. With the water park on the east side of Bristol, the traffic will go down Bristol to 3 Mile to the neighborhoods. He likes Cabela’s, but feels this plan is not unique. If Cabela’s is the key part of all of this, it amazes him that Cabela’s has not contacted the City. Mr. Alderton stated that we have one shot to get this right. His daughter drives through this area every day to Kenowa Hills High School, and he wants her to be safe.

Doug Haisma, 1414 – 4 Mile, stated that he is glad to hear the concerns. He stated that 90% of the traffic to and from this site will use the Walker exit. If all of this happens, this area will explode. We need to protect the residential areas. They will need to build 5 lane roads. The State of Michigan says it will not widen the overpass on Bristol and we will need 4-5 lanes. He is also concerned about safety for the high school students and children. He is against the 425, using his tax dollars for the developer’s gain. This doesn’t have to be developed, it could be left as a corn field. Haisma felt that this plan is a stretch from what the people wanted. The town center was a walkable plan. This is not the perfect little town center feel they were looking for. Bristol and 4 Mile improvements have to happen now. The residential phase was supposed to happen in Phase I.

Michelle Gryka, 3455 Walker Ave., suggested why not put Cabela’s next to the Walker exit and felt that this would solve problems.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by T. Greeno, to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Chairman Hickey stated let’s wait to see what the City Commission does first with the 425 agreement. Then the phone conversation with Jim Bossenbroek, Cabela’s, and City staff, and come back and deal with the issues we have concerns about.

Member Greeno stated that when we looked at this project three years ago, we knew there would be changes. We understood there would be traffic. He lives near the project. We must make sure the original master plan stays in context. We need to be patient and understand. If the 425 is approved, the infrastructure is going to be done first. The infrastructure has to be negotiated with the City and these folks. Greeno feels that we are all in favor of moving this project forward, and their success is the City’s success.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by M. Huizenga, to table this item until the City Commission makes a decision on the 425. Motion carried unanimously.

Planner Wash stated that he will let us know the outcome of the City Commission meeting. A decision could be made on the 425 next Monday. It was determined that the planning commission will have a work session on the Orchard Park PASP on August 1^st, 2007.

Wash indicated that the public hearing for Sub-Areas 3A and 3B for the Master Plan Update will be held on August 15^th, 2007.

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