Planning Commission Minutes

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

Chairman Hickey opened the meeting, and Member Rypma gave the invocation.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by M. Ferris-Young, to approve the September 5, 2007 minutes as printed. Motion carried.

There were no comments at this time.

Chairman Hickey read the application requesting site plan approval for a 35,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant industrial spec. building located at 4337 – 3 Mile Rd., N.W.

Planner Wash related that this item was tabled at the last meeting and staff was directed to work with the developer to improve the façade related details and building materials. Staff was also directed to encourage the architect to create a more comprehensive presentation of the material and samples.

Wash related that he had met with the applicants Bill Roy and Dean Rosendall, to discuss these tabling conditions for the project as they relate to the south and west building elevation, including the percentages of masonry and glass to metal, etc.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by C. Gornowich, to remove this item from the table. Motion carried.

Chairman Hickey asked if they removed the metal off the building as we were hoping to accomplish? Planner Wash stated that he and the applicant had a long discussion, and he asked the applicant to bring samples of the architectural metals and other building material samples, along with their 3-D building elevation presentation. Planner Wash related that the EIFS (stucco) in this Michigan climate may be problematic over the long term. Wash had requested that brick, block and glass be utilized on the south and west elevations.

Bill Roy, AIA, r2 Design Group, stated that he met with Planner Wash to determine the concerns of the Planning Commission. After the meeting he came to the realization and understanding of how important this corner is with the high visibility and it’s location in relationship to the industrial park.

Bill Roy stated that he doesn’t want a "tin can" look and wanted to incorporate some design aesthetics. He hoped to better define the materials via his 3-D model presentation. He felt that the building will have character and depth, not just a flat façade.

Mr. Roy reviewed material samples with the commission consisting of split-faced block and corresponding split-faced band, and metal panels.

Member Greeno commented that the metal vertical siding would be alright, but asked if it could be dark gray, and the areas in between the lower parapet with horizontal side panel in the off white for a contrast? Chairman Hickey added that the horizontal areas in the corners and in between could be the ivory white metal panels.

Mr. Roy related that they wanted to utilize a neutral look to attract tenants. He then reviewed the 3D model of the building elevations, the canopy, the block projections in front of the building, defined the building façade, depth, shades and character, when driving down 3 Mile Road.

Bill Roy indicated from their standpoint and client’s standpoint, he wanted an attractive look for the building using these materials with a nice appearance.

Chairman Hickey asked if this was a standing wall panel, not a standing seam panel? Mr. Roy stated that is correct. Hickey stated that this is not what he envisioned on that corner. He wanted to see something more upscale than metal siding. Member Huizenga agreed and felt this looks like a product used on a pole barn. Huizenga stated that this is a critical intersection. He would like to see something more high end on this corridor.

Member Versluis concurred. He doesn’t find these materials comparable with the materials used in the industrial park. Since this is the entryway to the industrial park, he needs the most high quality materials utilized.

Member Greeno asked if the metal siding comes in dark grey? He would like to see the dark grey metal siding with brick combination on the building. He is trying to eliminate the lower quality materials on the building.

Member Brown agrees with Member Greeno. She would like to see a little metal with more brick and block. Brown wants this to be a nice looking corner.

Dean Rosendall, of First Companies, stated that they want a nice looking facility to attract the right clients. He stated that this building has a high percentage of glass, masonry and architectural panels. He explained that this is a high end product. He is completely respectful of the planning commission’s thoughts. He doesn’t want a "tin can". He is trying hard to work on this for a nice looking building with parapets, etc. Rosendall stated that he can’t be competitive in the leasing market if he uses all brick materials. The building costs would be too high.

Member Huizenga stated that he is looking at this as a high quality corner to the industrial park, and he cannot tolerate the corrugated farm building materials.

Member Greeno stated he wants something that looks nice with particular appeal, and that he doesn’t know the costs associated with it. He felt that we changed the ordinance to move the City upward in appearance. He was the one who recommended the tabling of this project at the last meeting.

Dean Rosendall asked if they could be granted approval if the Planning Commission likes what they will do? Mr. Rosendall stated that the breakdown of materials on the south elevation is as follows: vertical siding 41%, masonry 20%, glass 27%, and horizontal siding 12%.

Planner Wash made sketch changes to the plan based on the suggestions from the planning commission, including the darker gray metal siding with vertical orientation, the dark grey shown on the remainder of the building would become lighter grey in the textured block, eliminating the lower quality metal panel.

Member Rypma reviewed the minutes from the September 5^th meeting with the tabling conditions as follows: The Planning Commission would like to see a revised, colored, exterior elevation that does not use metal skin on the south and west elevations. The primary materials on these elevations should be brick, block, glass and limited EIFS.

Member Greeno prefers that, but upon reviewing the metal siding decided that some of the metal siding was ok. He felt that block or brick where the regular siding is now on the front of the building (east and west sides), and corner panels and entry to the building can be something different.

Member Gornowich stated that the entry points should be concrete masonry (block), the corner element where the building number is located should be masonry. The vertical panels in the high quality metal panels would be ok. Gornowich asked for a description of the canopies? Bill Roy stated that some of the overhang is clad aluminum and faced to match the storefront. The awning is the same aluminum product.

Member Brown asked if the bottom stripe was in brick or block? The applicant stated block. Brown stated that she would also like to see the whole corner done with block, and vertical siding to balance it out.

Member Versluis wanted all masonry on the front and on the west side.

Member Greeno stated that he is willing to adjust to this metal siding, but no more than 41% on the 2 sides.

Member Rypma agrees with Member Versluis. This is one of the nicest industrial parks around. This site will look so much better and make a difference in tenants.

Member Gornowich stated her opinion above. She is ok with 41% on the south side elevation in the metal siding.

Member Huizenga stated that 41% is a high percentage of metal material. He referred back to the minutes that state brick, block and glass and limited EIFS. This is an extremely prominent corner. Huizenga felt if they do a nice job, they will attract the tenants.

Dean Rosendall stated that this site is technical and complex due to engineering issues. He felt that it is all they can do to build this and compete with other buildings for leases. Many others use these metal architectural panels.

Member Ferris-Young stated that she is happy with the higher quality metal with dark contrast, and if done right will have the appearance of brick. She asked for pictures of other buildings they have done for reference.

Chairman Hickey stated that 3 members would like to see a combination block and metal building, and 5 members would like to see a masonry building. Chairman Hickey stated that the developer can do different things with masonry.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by M. Huizenga, to table this issue for 2 weeks to the October 3^rd meeting, and for the applicant to have the site plan redrawn with what was asked for previously at the last meeting. A colored rendering and building samples are required. Motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Hickey read the application requesting site plan approval for a 47,407 sq. ft. multi-tenant building located at 3721 Northridge Dr., N.W.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and the site plan. He related that this is the second lot to be built on in the Fruit Ridge Industrial Park. The first building is under construction along with North Ridge Drive.

Wash reviewed the building elevations and indicated that there is a requirement for a landscape buffer Type C at the north edge of this building and the east side of the project. Wash related that he met with Dr. Langholz and through negotiations with Roger Faber, fencing is up on the perimeter with evergreen landscaping on the south end. Roger Faber has done what he was required to do as conditions for Lot #1.

Scott Conners reviewed his staff report and related that the engineering related issues have been solved. He would like to see an annual maintenance report for the detention basin as a condition of approval. Also, as a requirement, is the acceptance of the new public street. Scott mentioned that a real estate sign was blocking visibility on Fruit Ridge. Roger Faber stated that he moved the sign to another location on the property.

Mr. Faber related that industrial condos are located on the north side of Northridge, and over 55% have been sold as condos, and the southwest corner is being sold to Aunt Millie’s Bakery. Roger stated that the property owners will share in the cost of the maintenance for the pond.

Roger Faber related that the developer is trying to build a leased building. He stated that when they met with Planner Wash, there was to be no metal on the street side and on the south elevation. Faber stated that Mr. Wash felt that EIFS doesn’t weather well in Michigan. Faber stated that there are a lot of products that have trouble in Michigan. He felt that EIFS was no worse than other products.

Roger Faber reviewed the exterior finish building material samples with the planning commission. He proposed to use EIFS around on the south, east and west entrance with masonry and glass below. He felt it would tie the corner together. Split face block would be utilized on the front and a standard metal building panel on the east, west and north side. Faber stated that the panel can be reversed for a different look. He stated that it doesn’t have to look like a pole barn. He stated that the primary surface is flush with dimples. Faber related that the primary color is putty, with terra cotta colored diamonds. Faber stated that the lower part of the building would be split face block/masonry.

Chairman Hickey stated that there will be office projects on the east and west side of this property. He suggested some alternate design with metal panels above and followed by EIFS. Hickey suggested EIFS and brick combination. Roger Faber stated the EIFS is more monolithic structurally. He explained the stucco process. Chairman Hickey stated that he would like to see at least 4 windows added on the north elevation. Planner Wash sketched the windows on the elevation plans and noted the other building material changes that the commissioners suggested.

Member Gornowich asked if an agreement had been reached regarding the fencing and landscaping? Roger Faber stated yes, after the first meeting an agreement was reached on the landscaping. He related that they installed a 6’ chain link fence on the west and south property line, and spruce trees on the Langholz south line. Faber indicated that once Lot 3 is developed they will install the trees on the east lot line.

Dr. Langholz stated that he had a nice meeting with Planner Wash, Roger, and Scott Conners. He felt that the site looks nice with the fence and trees. He looks forward to trees going in on the east side when Lot 3 is developed. Dr. Langholz stated that he is happy to hear we are setting a high level of aesthetics with the development. He felt that the up front cost is worthwhile for a long lasting building. He felt that the building along Fruitridge (Lot #1) needs better aesthetics.

Member Gornowich asked about the dumpster placement in between Buildings 1 and 2? She has concerned for the adjacent residents, having gone through this herself. Planner Wash felt that this had been addressed through the site plan review committee and this was the best location for the dumpsters. Roger Faber added that it can be arranged to be picked up at the right time of the day.

Chairman Hickey suggested windows on the north elevation as well. Roger asked if he meant the 4x4 sq. ft. windows? Hickey stated yes. Hickey also suggested using horizontal siding panels. He stated that we don’t like the metal siding to begin with and would like to see something more creative. He suggested masonry.

Member Greeno stated that he would like a quality product maybe masonry with EIFS on the back. Roger Faber discussed costs of the different building materials. He explained the labor intensive costs associated with horizontal metal panels and that it would be cost prohibitive. Faber stated he was willing to add more EIFS.

Member Versluis felt that the horizontal siding would be better.

Member Rypma stated that this building faces another building and he is fine with the metal siding that is being proposed.

Member Gornowich agrees with Member Rypma since this building will face another building. She is not crazy about the first building that was built.

She asked how hardy plank siding would compare? Roger Faber stated that it is a cement product and susceptible to expanding and cracking in Michigan. Gornowich felt that aesthetically, the horizontal siding provides a better appearance if using a metal product. Faber stated there is an increased cost of framing with the horizontal panels and it has to be a heavier gauge. Gornowich stated that it is a matter of quality.

Chairman Hickey stated that it is the competition of square footage cost that drives the metal buildings.

Member Versluis stated that with a windstorm, he wants the building to be impervious to the wind and elements. The material should be high quality to insure a long standing building. Roger Faber stated that in the event of a tornado, the building would not stand anyway.

Member Huizenga likes the changes made with the EIFS and the added windows. He is ok with the current elevation with vertical panels.

Member Ferris-Young agrees with Member Huizenga.

Member Brown prefers that horizontal metal panels with EIFS, and would be ok with vertical panels if they were of a good quality.

Member Greeno stated that he is looking for better quality so he can feel good about the materials, not necessarily a preference for vertical or horizontal. He doesn’t like the inexpensive metal.

More discussion amongst the commission regarding the metal panels, including width, seams, cost, etc.

Member Versluis stated he is looking for quality buildings. He stated that the first building built used vertical siding. He felt that utilizing horizontal siding on this building might be unique.

Member Gornowich prefers quality materials and horizontal siding. She would like to see the buildings vary.

Member Ferris-Young is ok with the changes.

Member Huizenga felt that this building should be flipped so not to have the cookie cutter look. He has a hard time dictating the gauge of metal as it is not our scope.

Chairman Hickey felt that 5 members felt that a horizontal metal panel should be utilized, and 3 were ok with the vertical panel. Planner Wash added that the pros and cons should be considered. It would give a different look than the other building that is already built.

Member Rypma stated that there is only 1 neighbor in the area, and he has been taken care of. Rypma felt that this area would not be residential in the next 5-10 years.

Member Greeno stated that he prefers a good quality horizontal panel.

Member Versluis stated that quality should be the driving force for a lasting building.

Member Gornowich stated that quality was important. She was still concerned about the dumpster location. Planner Wash stated that was the best location and the dumpster enclosure has to be block instead of wood. He reviewed the landscaped Type C buffer toward the north even though it is master planned office, and between the Chrysler property to the north and this site. He stated that the Type C buffer is not shown on the plans and needs to be added.

Roger Faber stated that north of this building is an open field, and there is a drainage ditch to the north so he doesn’t want to fill it up with trees.

Member Huizenga stated that he is ok with the changes to EIFS and windows.

Member Ferris-Young concurred.

Member Brown agrees with Members Versluis and Gornowich for use of high quality metal materials.

Chairman Hickey stated that the numbers are 4-4 for the horizontal siding vs. the current vertical metal siding on the east and west elevations.

Motion by T. Greeno, supported by D. Brown, to table this item until October 3 to allow the applicant to come back with a revised drawing showing the horizontal metal on the building, or an argument for the vertical metal siding. Also, update the colored renderings showing the additional EIFS and windows. Motion carried unanimously.

Roger Faber stated that it is an appearance thing; the structure of the building will be no better.

Planner Wash related that the Planning Commission is facing a balance between economics and industrial development. Wash related that most of the standards for industrial architectural building design were removed from the zoning ordinance due to potential financial impacts on industrial projects. He is concerned about the long walls that face the public view. There is a call for raising the bar as far as quality goes. There is a fine balance. Planner Wash’s suggestions: 1) Make sure there is good presentation on public streets. 2) Make sure we are buffering the adjacent residents.

Planner Wash felt that Chairman Hickey and Jim Faber both had good comments on the different materials. He felt that it helps to bring in the building material samples for review.

Roger Faber stated it is one thing if an industry wants to make a name for itself, and another if it is a sign company or business that can’t afford to pay $6 or $8 more a square foot to lease a more upscale building.

Planner Wash stated that the Sub Areas 2, 4A & 4B will be on the next City Commission agenda on September 24, along with the recommendation on the 2 parcel rezone for Orchard Park.

Wash related that RFQ’s for the Standale redevelopment have been received.

Wash related that Aunt Millie’s Bakery is on the Site Plan Review committee agenda for tomorrow morning. He is not sure they will be ready to go on the October 3^rd agenda.

Motion by T. Greeno, supported by D. Brown, to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. Motion carried.

____________________________ __________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary

Walker Planning Commission