Planning Commission Minutes

Planning Commission

Regular Meeting

May 21, 2008

7:00 p.m.

Members Present: J. Hickey, Chairman; D. Brown, C. Gornowich, M. Huizenga, S. Versluis, T. Byle, T. Schweitzer. Absent: C. Rypma. Also Present: F. Wash, Planning Director, S. Conners, City Engineer, P. Dlouhy, Planning Asst, and J. Nelson, Building Official.

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

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Byle, to approve the minutes of May 7, 2008, as printed. Motion carried.

There were no comments at this time.

Chairman Hickey read the request for various zoning ordinance amendments involving fences, day care and signs.

Building Official, Jeff Nelson was present on behalf of the building department amendments for questions.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report including the summary of changes as follows:

Chairman Hickey asked if the sign amendments included the tri-vision billboards? Planner Wash stated no and that we would be discussing billboards at the next planning commission meeting.

Chairman Hickey asked Jeff Nelson if a 5’10" fence would be allowed in a residential district? Jeff stated it depends on the location, but the ordinance states that no fence in a residential district shall exceed 6’ in height.

Member Versluis asked Jeff Nelson if the soil erosion changes will have any impact on the mineral mining ordinance or add strength to it? Jeff stated these changes were generated by the building department to establish a "30 days after final inspection" seeding requirement.

Member Schweitzer asked with regard to the recommendation on the day care in the rear yard, if consideration was given to fencing the play areas? Jeff Nelson clarified that the State requires that they be enclosed with a fence.

Member Huizenga asked if this 30-day seeding requirement was consistent with other municipalities? Jeff stated that they all have seeding requirements with respect to establishment of yards.

Member Versluis asked Jeff Nelson if the fencing rules apply to farmed agricultural property? Jeff stated that agricultural property has different regulations, and if the property is 5 acres or less and not a general farming operation, then a variance is required for a fence.

Chairman Hickey asked if the signage can be any bigger than 6 sq. ft. for a home business sign? Jeff stated that 6 sq. ft. is the limit and it has to be on the face of the homes.

Member Brown stated that the daycare on Kinney and Thornwyk has a playground in the front yard. Will it have to be moved to the back yard? Jeff stated no, it will become a non-conforming use once this ordinance is in place.

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

Christie VanDenBand, 2335 Glenvalley, distributed pictures of her neighbor’s fence, with the bad side plus graffiti toward her property. She asked what could be done and could the ordinance be revised to have the good side of the fence facing the neighbor’s property?

Jeff Nelson stated that we have no current regulation on which way the fence should face.

Chairman Hickey asked if we could send this to the Ordinance Committee for review to have the good side of the fence facing the neighbor? Planner Wash and Jeff Nelson agreed that this item will be reviewed by the Ordinance Committee.

Motion by D. Brown, supported by C. Gornowich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Member Gornowich recommended starting a fence permit process to track fence installations and prevent problems from occurring.

Chairman Hickey asked Jeff Nelson to take a look at the fence situation at 2335 GlenValley.

Member Huizenga asked if illuminated signs were allowed for home occupation signs on the house? Planner Wash stated no, they have to be non-illuminated.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Schweitzer, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Commission of the Zoning Ordinance amendments as noted above. Motion carried 7-0.

Chairman Hickey read the rezoning request from SA, Suburban Residential Single family to ORP, Office, Research & Parking, to allow the development of a three-phased office park for property located at 1039 Three Mile Road, N.W., and 1125 3 Mile Road, N.W.

Planner Wash related that Tim Allspach of TJA Architecture is representing the project.

Wash reviewed the staff report and provided site orientation. Wash related that this proposal does not include the church. Wash related that the property to the east and west is zoned SA Residential. One lot to the east is office zoned. The master plan shows Low Density Residential with a cluster of office off to the side. Wash asked the planning commission if this is an area where we might consider rezoning to ORP? This would be the "line in the sand" for office zoning. He related that the church was split off and sold. 1125 3 Mile is proposed for a dental office in Phase 2. From a staff standpoint, these rezonings could be viewed as consistent with the master plan and surrounding land uses.

Planner Wash then reviewed the submitted site sketch showing a Phase 1 office building and a speculative plan for future office in the back wooded area. Phase 2 consists of a dental office, potentially on 1125 – 3 Mile Road.

Chairman Hickey asked if there is sufficient water pressure at the top of the hill? Scott Conners stated he wouldn’t rule that out and that is why they are building the water tank on 4 Mile. Tim Allspach stated that has been discussed with Zach Voogt. Tim related that there is a tap for water with a valve box to the west of the proposed entrance. Tim stated that Zach indicated it is a 16" main.

Tim Allspach explained how the project came into being. Bob Wright, the property owner, is currently located next to WZZM with a software business. He is contemplating building here. The property is more than he wants for his building so he wishes to split off the front part for his building. Tim stated that they took it to the next architectural level to look at future use of the site, which is why there is more detail here than for a typical rezone. Tim stated that the site is deep and they want to make sure that access to the north would work and determine what Mr. Wright wants for his phase.

Tim related that in 2005 another party looked at this property and had some soil borings taken. If the test samples had shown sand, the other party would mine the hill out of this property to use for a residential plat. Since the character of the borings didn’t show high quality sand/soil, Tim felt that the site would be more practical for office development with an 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. usage. The steep grades will incur higher excavating costs. From a visual standpoint, Tim Allspach felt that with the church usage in the front, ORP site condos would be a good use. With the property to the west rising another 30 feet, they will create a screen between the office zone and the existing residential property to the back.

Tim Allspach related that he met with many of the neighbors and received positive feedback about the project. Tim indicated that the dental office, doctor offices, etc. would all be built as using a residential design, and would meet the needs of the neighborhood and fit in. Tim related that there would be a 100’ setback between this parcel and the parcel to the west. Tim reviewed his architectural rendering with a vision of this parcel with ORP zoning and professional offices.

Chairman Hickey asked if there would be a public road to those buildings? Tim stated it would be a private road per site condo requirements with City of Grand Rapids utilities. Tim related it would be a 25’ road raised from 6-8% grade and condominiumized with a maintenance agreement for the road.

Chairman Hickey asked if there would be a second access for emergency vehicles? Tim Allspach indicated that they considered looping the road in Phase 2, but the area behind the proposed dental office goes 50’ straight up.

Tim stated that in a discussion with Planner Wash regarding the layout, the ordinance requirement is a maximum of 800 feet cul-de-sac length. This would be 750 feet from the centerline of the cul-de-sac.

Member Gornowich asked the rationale for including 1125 3 Mile Road? She asked why not the residential property to the east? Tim Allspach stated that another owner currently owns the property to the east. Tim felt that an all brick front would fit with the character and scope of the neighborhood and provide an excellent use. Member Gornowich is trying to think of it from strictly a rezoning at this point and that it could be something else. Gornowich stated with the 100’ lot width of 1125 – 3 Mile requirement and the grades, scale wise this would be maximizing the neighborhood use.

Motion by M. Huizenga, supported by D. Brown, to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

Dawn McDonald, 1145 3 Mile, asked how this rezoning would effect their taxes, and would this rezoning extend any further to the west? Planner Wash stated that the rezoning would not go further to the west, the property on the opposite side of the street is zoned residential. With the land use and topography, it is a good place to stop the office zoning where it is proposed, then no more. Wash stated that no commercial zoning would be allowed. He indicated that a person is taxed on the use of their property, subject to the judgment of the City Assessor. Dawn McDonald asked if the church could come back and be rezoned? Planner Wash reviewed all of the properties to be rezoned, excluding the church. He related that the church would have to come back to the planning commission if they wished to be rezoned. Chairman Hickey added that it would have to be rezoned to Office, Research & Parking. Right now the church is not selling their property.

A resident asked if creating 100-130 parking spaces would add to safety and traffic issues in that area? Chairman Hickey stated that 2 accesses would be necessary. If it were a dental office, they can only see approximately 50 patients during the day. Hickey stated that there were more cars going into Home Depot across the street. Chairman Hickey doesn’t expect that this development will cause that much more traffic. The resident asked about the time frame of the project and stated that there is a lot of empty office space in the area now. Chairman Hickey stated if the owner wants to build, the building will happen shortly. Due to the economy it might be awhile before the other buildings are built.

Tim Allspach stated that there is currently no interest to develop the other phases until there is a need to purchase and develop and it could be 5-6-7 years. He wanted to lay out the property for the neighbors to see what may potentially be there in the future.

Mike McDonald, 1161 3 Mile, stated that he talked to Tim Allspach, who was nice enough to have discussion with. Mr. McDonald is representing the homeowner at 1187 3 Mile on the hill directly west of this proposal and asked how much space will be between those buildings and her? There is a significant slope and the concern is if they flatten out the steep slope there will be a cliff between here and her home to the west.

Planner Wash stated that the rear setback between office and residential is 35 feet. Tim Allspach added that they would save the natural features and the hill, and pull the office buildings close to the cul-de-sac and keep the perimeter natural. Tim Allspach agrees with Planner Wash that they would want to save the woods as it is a nice feature for an office building and it is critical with setbacks and grading issues to stay back. Chairman Hickey added that if they come back with a site plan, we would be sensitive to the neighbors. Tim Allspach agreed.

A resident, 1106 3 Mile, asked what the maximum size of the parking lot would be for the dental office in Phase 2?

Tim Allspach indicated the dental office would be 2,700 sq. ft. with 12-16 parking spaces. With the grades, he can’t go back further and he can’t get a 25’ wide drive with the width in the rear of the property. Planner Wash stated parking is based on the number of doctors.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by C. Gornowich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Member Schweitzer asked if there were non-residential uses allowed with the current zoning of the property? Planner Wash stated there are several special land uses allowed but no office uses are allowed in the residential district.

Schweitzer stated under the present zoning there is a 35’ rear yard setback for building and parking. Planner Wash stated for building only. Building setbacks could be parked within, subject to buffering areas.

Member Schweitzer asked about side yards in an office district? Planner Wash stated they are flexible. With the Phase 2 dental office and a home nearby, we would require the maximum landscape buffer requirement in the code. Member Schweitzer stated that the property just east of the proposed site and east again of that it looks like it was drawn on the lot line. Under the current zoning requirements he wouldn’t see that happen again. Planner Wash related that parking lot has been there for a long time, prior to the current buffer requirements.

Member Versluis stated that the newest medical office building on 3 Mile was done nicely and he anticipates the same at this location.

Member Gornowich asked whether we have heard anything from the property owner to the east? It was determined that the owner was not present.

Tim Allspach stated that property owner, Bob Wright talked to the property owner to the east and that he wanted to sell. This could be a loop to the office there. When the time is right they might be interested in this property.

Chairman Hickey asked if we don’t rezone Phase 2 at 1125 – 3 Mile Road, would there be a hardship? Tim Allspach stated that they are trying to maximize the property. They feel that the property is worth more if it meets neighborhood services, and offsets costs for development of Phase 1. If we include a buffer zone between residential and ORP, what hardship would that cause? Tim stated that the buffer zone would not have to match the end to the west. There is a large buffer zone between Phase 2 and to the residential, 50’ to the north, and 50’ on the lower half of the lot that can’t be seen. Tim stated it is 20’ to the building and the parking is not scaled on the plans. There is a 10’ strip where you could plant trees.

Planner Wash stated that a 15’ area of green and landscaping is required. There are mature trees on site and next door. The parking lot would have to be cut to allow a bigger buffer on that side.

Member Byle asked if there was a rental home on this property now? Tim stated that it must be rented right now.

Member Huizenga stated that it makes sense for Phase 1 and the property to the east makes sense to him. He would like to rezone 1039 – 3 Mile Road only. Members Brown, Byle, Schweitzer, Hickey and Gornowich agreed.

Member Gornowich would like this item to be tabled to give Tim Allspach the opportunity to speak to the neighbor to the east of 1039 – 3 Mile Road about including his property in the rezoning. Member Schweitzer would also like to include them to be part of the rezoning as it makes more sense to tie to the east for that second access. Chairman Hickey agreed.

Member Byle stated that if the property owner of 1009 – 3 Mile Road puts into writing that he was agreeable, he would be ok with it.

Member Versluis stated he feels ok about ORP zoning for Phase 2. He is also ok with Phase 1 and 3.

Member Huizenga stated that the planning commission doesn’t need to hold up this request for rezoning. But he likes the idea of tabling for 2 weeks.

Chairman Hickey asked staff to provide a memo from the Assessing office to the commission on the property to the east (1009 – 3 Mile Road) with regard to paying higher taxes if rezoned to ORP.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Byle, to table this agenda item until the June 4^th planning commission meeting in order for Tim Allspach to contact the property owner at 1009 – 3 Mile Road about the property to be included in the rezoning. Motion carried.

Chairman Hickey read the request for site plan approval for a 24,750 sq. ft. manufacturing addition located at 3110 Wilson Dr. (Wilson Commerce Park)

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and the site plan and related that he is glad to see an industrial building addition. Wash related that the building addition will be used as a warehouse with a new overhead door at the southeast corner. Wash related that the plans were reviewed by the site plan review sub-committee and everything has been met. The only condition was to add a truck turning template to Sheet 1 for the new truck dock as a condition of approval.

George Dressander, of Rockford Construction, was present on behalf of the request. In response to a question about an existing catch basin, Mr. Dressander indicated that it would be removed. Mr. Dressander stated that he met with City staff and has taken care of the details. He related that the 24,500 sq. ft. addition will be used for warehousing for local furniture manufacturing.

Dressander related that the existing building is used for production work. The parking requirements have been met. The turning radius information was forwarded to the City Planner and City Engineer.

Chairman Hickey asked if the man-hole in the parking lot is removed, how will they catch water in the parking lot? George Dressander said it will be removed and a new one installed within 50 feet of the old one.

Chairman Hickey asked since there is manufacturing in there now and storage, have they provided for a fire wall? George Dressander related no with these use groups, they don’t have to have a fire wall.

Chairman Hickey asked if the building will be sprinkled? Member Byle stated yes, the applicant has gone before the Building Code Board of Appeals.

Chairman Hickey asked since the addition is facing a public street, doesn’t it require additional architectural treatment? Planner Wash stated that the city and planning commissioners reduced standards in industrial zoned areas in the architectural zoning code. Brick, block and glass are required in commercial districts.

Scott Conners stated that he still isn’t convinced with the truck turning template and would like clarification to show how this is feasible. Scott asked if they would be front entering trucks? George Dressander stated yes, and reviewed the truck turning movements to Scott’s satisfaction.

Member Gornowich asked if they couldn’t retrofit the addition to the back with another drive? George Dressander stated that it doesn’t work with the grade changes.

Scott Conners stated that he doesn’t want a situation like we have on Remembrance Road where trucks back up on the street.

Member Gornowich asked if we got a response about the grading adjacent to the high tension power tower? Scott stated that he knows that they have an issue there and he thinks we should confirm that. George Dressander stated at one time they were going to build a retaining wall. Now it is just a matter of some grading instead of a retaining wall.

Member Byle asked if Consumers Power has an easement on the property? Mr. Dressander stated yes, only on Vista Manufacturing. Scott stated that if it is going to have an impact, we just want to have it covered and confirmed with the operator of the tower. He felt it should be a condition of approval.

Member Byle stated that Consumers Power will ask for a retaining wall at the edge of the pavement.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Schweitzer, to approve the site plan dated 5-9-08 for the Vista Manufacturing expansion at 3068 & 3110 Wilson Dr. as it does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance with the following Conditions of Site Plan Approval:

Motion carried 7-0.

Chairman Hickey read the application for site plan approval for a 19,920 sq. ft. manufacturing addition located at 3044 Wilson Dr.

Planner Wash related that this request is down the street from Vista Manufacturing in the Wilson Commerce Park.

Planner Wash reviewed his staff report and the site plan. He indicated that the addition is proposed to the north end of the building and it will be a warehouse addition to the existing manufacturing. Truck dock improvements are also planned. Wash related that there is a crushed concrete area for fire trucks to turn around. The new paving meets the parking requirements. All requirements from site plan review committee have been addressed.

Scott Conners reviewed his staff report including the new 5’-0" drainage easement along the west portion of the site which should be recorded with a copy provided to the City for our records. The survey and design of the catch basin should be revisited to address the parking lot flow rim elevation of 720.25’ and area immediately adjacent is shown at elevation 723’. These 2 items should be addressed prior to a building permit being issued.

Rick Dunneback was present on behalf of the request. He related that the existing loading dock will be filled in and a new one added. Rick stated that a drain easement has been recorded with the county and he is waiting to get it back. The contours on the plans can be changed to address Scott’s elevation concerns. Dunneback related that the addition is for warehousing with storage inside the building.

Member Gornowich asked for clarification on which loading dock is being closed? Rick Dunneback explained the west side of the building will be closed and filled in and paved over to the existing grade.

Member Byle asked if the trucks will have tight maneuvering? Rick Dunneback stated it should work.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Byle, to approve the site plan dated

5-5-08 for the Kenona Industries expansion at 3044 Wilson Drive, as it does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions of site plan approval:

Chairman Hickey read the request for an amendment to the Green Ridge Square CPUD to allow the demolition of the vacant Cracker Barrel Restaurant and construction of a new 15,000 sq. ft. Bio-Life building located at 540 Center Dr.

Planner Wash reviewed his staff report and the plans. He provided site orientation and surrounding land uses and related that this is the former Cracker Barrel site.

Wash related that Don DeGroot from Exxel Engineering was present on behalf of the project.

Planner Wash reviewed the signage plans and related that the applicant wishes to use the existing pylon sign, with an 80 sq. limit, adjacent to I-96. The signage proposed at I-96 is an extra pylon sign and the sign ordinance only allows 1 pylon sign per site. The wall signage is proposed at 51 sq. ft. The new pylon sign adjacent to Center Drive varies from the zoning ordinance regulations with regard to width, base, and ground clearance requirements.

Wash reviewed the building elevations showing face brick as the primary material. The secondary material is an aluminum composite panel. Rooftop HVAC units are enclosed. Wash recommended that the standing seam metal panel on the south elevation be changed to either aluminum composite panel or face brick. Wash related that the parking will wrap around the building.

With regard to the landscaping plan, Planner Wash stated that the displaced 5" maple along Center Drive should either be replanted consistent with the new sidewalk or replaced with a 2.5" caliper Autumn Blaze maple as a condition of approval.

Scott Conners reviewed his staff memo including the following:

Don DeGroot related that he agrees to the changes that Planner Wash and Scott Conners have asked for in their staff reports. He will change the drawing to show brick on the south elevation to the roof line, then aluminum composite panel.

Don DeGroot stated that the grade changes are marginal. He will work with the

detention to Scott Conner’s approval.

Mr. DeGroot stated that Bio-Life proposes a 15,000 sq. ft. building. Parking is shown for typical standards at 142 spaces. He is hoping to maintain a majority of the landscaping along Center Dr. and install sidewalks. He agrees with the conditions of the landscaping and lighting plans as conditions of approval.

In response to a question regarding No. 4 in Scott Conner’s memo, it was explained to Member Huizenga’s satisfaction.

Member Schweitzer asked about hours of operation? Don DeGroot stated he doesn’t know. They will have 60 stations for donors plus employees.

Member Brown related that she has been to Bio-Life on Lake Michigan Dr. and explained the process to the commissioners.

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

There were no public comments.

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

Member Byle questioned the need for the pylon sign along I-96 and stated that an 80 sq. ft. sign would not be legible. Planner Wash stated that given its location, he has no problem with the existing pylon sign. He also felt that the hybrid pylon ground sign along Center Drive will be attractive and is ok with it.

He does question the placement of a light pole adjacent to the internally illuminated new pylon sign at the Center Drive driveway.

Don DeGroot stated that the pylon sign along the highway was not part of the original submittal but part of the original PUD. It is important for this facility to have vision off the highway with this existing 80 sq. ft. pylon like Cracker Barrel had.

Planner Wash stated that what is allowed by ordinance is 1 pylon sign or 1 ground sign, and shown are 2 pylon signs (1 extra).

Member Gornowich is not opposed to the highway signage.

There was much discussion about the signage with the majority thinking that either 1 pylon or 1 ground sign should be allowed.

However, Member Versluis stated that this is a very complex area and should have good signage and was in favor of the pylon along I-96 and all signage requested by the applicant.

Don DeGroot stated that the applicant wants the signage along I-96.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by S. Versluis, to approve the site plan and associated materials submitted by Biolife Plasma Services located at 540 Center Dr., as it does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions of site plan approval:

letter dated 5-12-08.

Motion carried 7-0.

Frank Wash reviewed the items for the next planning commission meeting for June 4^th, including the tabled Tim Allspach – 3 Mile rezone, and a billboard discussion. He hasn’t heard back from "A Better Bean" yet.

Motion by D. Brown, supported by C. Gornowich, to adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

Motion carried.

_____________________________ __________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary

Walker Planning Commission