Planning Commission Minutes

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

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

Motion by C, Gornowich, supported by D. Brown, to approve the May 21, 2008 minutes as printed. Motion carried.

There were no comments.

Chairman Hickey read the application for rezoning from SA, Suburban Residential Single Family to ORP, Office, Research & Parking, to allow the future 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 provided site orientation with surrounding zoning and land use. He related that this item was tabled on May 21, 2008 in order for Tim Allspach to come back with information regarding the property east of 1039 – 3 Mile Rd. as to whether the property owner was interested in having their property rezoned to ORP. A letter from Terrance and Susan Knoll, of 1009 – 3 Mile Rd. N.W., dated May 29, 2008 was submitted, indicating that they would be interested in rezoning of their property in the future but not necessarily at this time. They are in support of the rezoning for the project.

Tim Allspach, of TJA Architecture, had discussed the rezoning prospect with the Knolls at 1009 – 3 Mile Rd., but it was probably a bit premature to rezone at this point due to their concerns about taxes and property value. Tim stated that he talked with Kelly Smith, City Assessor, and that she was willing to write a letter to the Knolls that their taxes would not increase if rezoned to ORP.

Chairman Hickey asked Tim Allspach for his opinion on the small parcel at 1125 – 3 Mile Rd. also proposed for rezoning. Tim related that the layout for office in Phase 1 was for the property owner, and Phase 2 had shown a dental office on 1125 - 3 Mile Rd., which would require the most amount of parking. Tim mentioned that the property owner to the west of this 1125 - 3 Mile Rd. had inquired about rezoning her property at the last meeting.

Tim related that he would still like to have 1125 – 3 Mile Rd. included in the rezoning as the frontage still meets the needs for office, but he doesn’t want that to be the contingency of whether 1039 – 3 Mile Rd. gets rezoned or not. Tim indicated that 1125 and 1039 are being sold as a whole package.

Member Gornowich read the letter from the Knoll’s for the record.

Chairman Hickey asked if we do not rezone the property to the west (1125) can they still put a looped road in there? Planner Wash stated that it would be difficult to loop the road due to the topographical features. A private road via site condo might be the best process, with an 800’ cul-de-sac requirement for 1039 – 3 Mile Road.

Member Byle asked if this would be a public road or private? Planner Wash stated that a 6% grade, given the on-site topography, would be difficult for a public road. Member Byle thought it could be done. Tim Allspach related that the cul-de-sac would be 735’ in length.

Member Brown felt that the church is a good stopping point for the ORP.

Member Huizenga stated with the letter from the Knolls, he doesn’t want to consider a zone change for 1009 - 3 Mile at this time. He felt that 1125 - 3 Mile should be excluded from the zoning and keep 1039 - 3 Mile for this rezoning to ORP. Members Gornowich, Schweitzer, and Byle agreed.

Member Schweitzer stated that he wants to be compliant with the master plan. He felt there is some rationale to extend to the west line of 1039 – 3 Mile and not any more. Therefore he does not want to include 1125 - 3 Mile.

Member Byle asked if we did rezone the house to the east at 1009 - 3 Mile, would it be like the ones on Pannell Road? Planner Wash stated, yes the home would become non-conforming.

Member Rypma stated that he doesn’t have a problem with the rezoning, he is ok with 1039 and prefers to leave 1125 residential. Chairman Hickey agreed.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by C. Gornowich, to recommend only the rezoning of 1039 - 3 Mile Road, N.W., from SA Residential to ORP, Office, Research & Parking to the City of Walker Commission. Motion carried.

Planner Wash introduced Mike Hucul from CBS Outdoor. Wash related that the issue started at the Zoning Board of Appeals, when Mike wanted to put a "Tri-Vision" mechanical billboard in and asked for an interpretation of the Sign Ordinance Section 94-406(d)(8) & (10) as it relates to no blinking, flashing, scrolling, etc.

Planner Wash indicated that the Zoning Board of Appeals upheld staff’s interpretation that Tri-Vision billboards are not allowed and directed Mr. Hucul to the Ordinance Committee to consider language regulating Tri-Vision billboards. The Ordinance Committee has referred this issue to the Planning Commission to discuss whether we wish to amend the ordinance to allow these technologies or not.

Mr. Hucal discussed new billboard technologies, such as mechanical, changeable copy Tri-Vision boards and digital screen boards with the planning commission. Mr. Hucul reviewed examples of Tri-Vision boards and digital screen boards and explained the differences. He related that there would be no greenhouse gases associated with the signs/billboards and digital boards are controlled electronically via computer through their offices.

Member Huizenga asked about other surrounding communities ordinances? Mike Hucul stated that Grand Rapids has worked with them to trade existing residential areas for industrial areas with regard to sign/billboard locations.

Member Schweitzer stated that Kentwood’s current ordinance is very similar to Walker’s with no moving parts of the sign, with a proviso that the wording can’t change more than 1 time a day.

It was determined that Grand Rapids allows for an LED sign to change every 3-5 seconds.

Mr. Hucul gave examples of where some of these Tri-Vision and digital screen boards locations are in Grand Rapids along 131 and I-96. He stated that new concerns are valid. He related that new technologies can be connected with the Federal Highway System with road messages and Amber Alerts.

Mr. Hucul then provided the planning commission and staff with a 4-page memo from the US Department of Transportation and an 11-page handout of the advantages of digital billboards with the Amber Alerts, "Wanted Information" and emergency information. Hucul reviewed several highlighted paragraphs going back and forth between the 2 memos.

Chairman Hickey stated that Cascade Twp. has a "no more billboards" policy. Mr. Hucul stated that they have a 21-billboard capacity with no new ones allowed.

Member Brown stated that she feels that unless they are way finding or for Amber Alerts, they otherwise add visual clutter along the highways.

Member Huizenga asked if Mr. Hucul is asking for permission for both Tri-Vision and LED? He asked how frequent would the LED message be refreshed?

Hucul stated every 6-8 seconds, which are the federal guidelines and would be appropriate. Mr. Hucul stated that the LED technology costs $250,000 and if rebuilt it is closer to $500,000. He related that the Tri-Visions are older but they still use them. Member Huizenga asked how many do we have in Walker? He thinks a cap on the number is a good idea. Huizenga felt that 6-8 seconds is too frequent, and if we permit them they should be consistent with what we have at 30 seconds.

Member Gornowich stated that these signs/billboards don’t benefit cities or communities. She understands the Amber Alerts and disaster information, but felt they are not benefiting Walker in any way. She sees them as a distraction. She would like to take time and read this information handed out tonight more thoroughly before a final opinion is given.

Member Schweitzer stated as far as the billboards, he is not a proponent of them. He questioned whether there should be a consideration whether a community distinguishes between on-site and off-site signs. The code allows some of these now and this applies to billboards as well. Some studies have found that they are a traffic hazard. He would also like to have more time to read the studies. Generally, he felt that they are a distraction to the driver. For a place of worship or business, they change once a day, which is enough for on-site. For off-site it doesn’t necessarily related to the ability to communicate a business. The "government-highway seek alternate routes", Amber Alerts -

all of these are being addressed in another manner. Member Schweitzer stated that he doesn’t see a compelling reason to change the ordinance based on what they have. He needs more information to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Member Byle agrees with Member Schweitzer’s comments. He would like more time for research. He is not a fan of the new billboard technology.

Member Rypma asked what the difference is between the Tri-Vision and LED uses? Mr. Hucul explained that the Tri-Vision mechanically changes messages, and the LED changes copy digitally.

Planner Wash stated that from a planning standpoint, for directional purposes, they are advantageous. In most cases, billboards are just for pure advertising. He would like to cut down on the clutter and visual distractions. Wash stated that Walker’s billboards are capped in number due to spacing standards.

Member Rypma stated that 8 seconds was too frequent for message changing and that it should be 30 seconds apart. He stated that he is not opposed to them and they don’t bother him visually while driving. He doesn’t like the clutter, and feels that the message boards would be more dangerous than flipping advertising every 30 seconds. He is not against them if properly spaced. He felt that these would be better looking and maintained than what we have now.

Chairman Hickey directed Planner Wash to survey other communities and come back and review and discuss in 1 month and have a decision within 2 months.

Chairman Hickey stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals determined that these new technologies are not allowed. He would like to read up on and study this issue also.

Mike Hucul stated that Grand Rapids has 180 signs and feels that they promote community growth.

Member Gornowich stated that since the electronic copy is changed from a remote location, she asked if there are any problems with hackers? Mr. Hucul stated they have 3 firewalls to prevent hackers, and they have safety measures to go blank if tampered with.

Mr. Hucul stated that if the planning commission needs more information to please let him know.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by T. Byle, to table this issue for 2 months for more information. Motion carried.

Planner Wash discussed the upcoming agenda items for the June 18 agenda, including the Standale Walgreens and Bristol Ridge #2, Final Preliminary Plat. Also discussed was Avastar Park ceremony on Monday at 11:00 a.m., Cummings 4 Corners redevelopment, and upcoming ordinances relating to Standale Downtown Ordinance. Terry Schweitzer volunteered to be part of the Standale Downtown Ordinance Review Committee.

Motion by D. Brown, supported by C. Gornowich, to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried.

_______________________________ ______________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary

Walker Planning Commission