Planning Commission Minutes

Members Present: J. Hickey, Chairman; C. Gornowich, S. Versluis, T. Byle,

C. Rypma, D. Brown. Absent: M.Huizenga, and T. Schweitzer. Also Present: F. Wash, Planning Director, S. Conners, City Engineer, and P. Dlouhy, Planning Asst.

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

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by T. Byle, to approve the June 18, 2008, as printed. Motion carried.

There were no public comments at this time.

Chairman Hickey read the application requesting a revision of the original site plan approval for the 11,300 sq. ft. medical office building located at 1195 Wilson.

Planner Wash related that the Foot & Ankle building was approved at the southwest corner of Leonard and Wilson. The plans have been in the works with sanitary sewer details being completed with Grand Rapids. Planner Wash stated that Chris Nye sent building elevations over which were changed from what was originally approved; which was a modern corner building with glass toward Wilson Ave. wrapping around to Leonard Street.

Planner Wash reviewed the changes proposed to the building facing Leonard Street, roof-line change, facing Wilson Ave. corner and, a gabled roof with hidden HVAC. Wash related this is considered a major amendment to the approved site plan. He related that the planning commission is looking at the four walls of the building and related site impacts. He felt that this is a significant change and wanted to bring the plan back to the planning commission for review.

Chris Nye stated that he struggled with issues on the site. This is a desirable corner with a long, narrow, and irregular shaped lot with difficulty fitting what they wanted to do on the site. He has met with Frank Wash twice previously on the vision for what the City wanted to see for this site with pedestrian friendly access, landscaping, view of the building from the corner, and a nice elevation. After they met he spoke with the developer who owns the parcel directly to the south between this site and the Advantage Health. The developer was not open to a shared driveway. They ended up with an approved site plan and elevations. It became clear that Foot and Ankle representatives were not happy with the building as approved. They recommended the revisions to the elevations, symmetry and look of the building. Chris Nye stated that they shifted gears with the design to accommodate the owner’s wishes. They pulled out the old approved building and did the best they could with this one.

Chairman Hickey asked if the 5’ canopy overhang on Wilson had changed? Chris Nye stated no, it was a 5’ overhang before and this design is more standard with 2-3’ at the center of the property. Hickey asked if the parking was in the same location? Chris Nye related that the drop off area has changed due to the symmetry of the building. The canopy will not work with this layout and had to be shifted to accommodate the centrally located patient entrance.

Member Gornowich asked Mr. Nye if he could identify the building materials for us? Chris Nye handed out and reviewed the manufactured stone product samples with the planning commission. Member Byle asked if they use mortar adhered to a stud wall? Mr. Nye stated yes.

Member Gornowich asked why there is no entry point on the north elevation, at least for appearance? Chris Nye stated due a sequence of events, the building ended up facing south. Gornowich stated that it makes sense to have a drop off for this type of practice. However, the proposed design now places an obvious "back side " wall on Leonard Street.

Planner Wash stated that originally there was a functional entrance on the north side and focal point on the corner. This is why he wanted the planning commission to review this new plan, as that design has changed.

Planner Wash reviewed the original north elevation plan facing Leonard and the east elevation facing Wilson, and the building oriented toward the corner. Wash stated that they wanted to establish the corner and they had done a good job in making an architectural statement. Wash reviewed the new elevations and the entry point that has been shifted to the center of the building, the sidewalks were eliminated on the north side of the building, there is still a permanent sidewalk, but not interconnecting walks. Wash felt that the corner should still be a landscaped focal point.

Member Byle stated that it looked like the back of the building facing Leonard St. Chris Nye stated that he tried, but they couldn’t make it work. All patrons will enter from the parking lot, and the egress meets code. It is really a matter of functionality. The foot doctor will not have patients walking around to the rear of the building.

Member Byle asked if there will be multiple tenants on the first floor? Chris Nye indicated 2-3 tenants on the first floor. Byle asked if there would be an internal hallway? Chris Nye stated yes, it would be a shared lobby and bathroom area.

Member Byle agrees with Member Gornowich in that he doesn’t like the now obvious back of the building facing Leonard St.

Planner Wash reviewed the internal layout. He used a template and showed how flipping the building would work. There was much discussion by the planning commission on this sketched layout. Planner Wash then added a second "front door" on the Leonard St. side of the building. Chris Nye stated that due to the geometry of the building and configuration of the site, they couldn’t make it fit facing Wilson Ave. Nye stated that he wants to keep the pedestrian flavor of the building.

Member Gornowich stated that she didn’t like the idea of parking on the Leonard St. side. Chris Nye stated that he could flip the building facing Leonard with 2 rows of parking. Chairman Hickey agrees with Member Gornowich. He doesn’t want to lose the drive on the north side and the ability to get out of the building with emergency access. Chairman Hickey asked Mr. Nye to put the drive back on the south side. Planner Wash again suggested flipping the building. Member Gornowich stated that the intent was for pedestrian access for the corner. She suggested a door on this side facing Leonard to give the appearance of an access. Member Byle suggested a second back driveway.

Member Brown suggested a courtyard outside the door facing Leonard St. for employee use.

Member Versluis felt that flipping the building might make it better. Member Brown agreed. Member Versluis stated that this building doesn’t have the appeal from the street, and will now have a problem with parking out front.

Chris Nye stated that it makes sense to him to flip the building to address the issue.

Planner Wash stated that the planning commission could add a second front door on the Leonard St. side, keep the landscaping plan consistent with what was approved, add a small sitting area, and keep the design intent of a corner building site. He drew a quick sketch on the site plans and displayed it using the overhead camera.

Member Rypma stated he is ok with it as Planner Wash presented it.

Member Versluis stated he is still not pleased with the side facing Wilson Ave. It is an attractive building but it doesn’t show the building off.

Chris Nye discussed the construction of surrounding buildings. He felt that the proposed east elevation, from an architectural and design standpoint, is more interesting and complex than other buildings in the area.

Member Brown felt the proposed building is good either way.

Member Gornowich prefers it as now drawn by Wash, with changes noted on the sketch.

Member Rypma asked if we could add the courtyard on the east elevation? Planner Wash stated yes, and he will work with Chris Nye on a focal point of at the corner using landscaping and the ground sign..

Member Byle also supports the plan amendments as sketched.

Member Versluis liked the architectural style of the first plan, but felt that this is acceptable and complimentary to the corner and he is happy to have them in the City.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by C. Gornowich to approve the site plan as presented with the changes made by the planning commission and Planner Wash, and staff to work with the applicant on the landscaping and revisions to the plans, including double doors on the north building elevation as drawn by Planner Wash. Motion carried 6-0.

Chairman Hickey read the application requesting site plan approval for a 6,208 sq. ft. addition to the existing building for a race track storage and a racing pit service area, located at 2500 Turner Ave.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and gave site orientation with Hillside to the northwest. The site is bordered by a mature residential area. The addition is proposed to the southwest corner of the existing building. Planner Wash related that there are numerous items on the site plan review checklist that have not been completed. He asked the planning commission to focus on the architectural details of the plan. Wash related that the C-2 zone falls under the architectural ordinance. Wash reviewed the proposed elevations and a Sketch Up model. Wash related that the elevations contain blank walls with no material types specified. He related that there should be brick, block and glass on the building facing the neighborhood and interior lot.

Scott Conners stated that there is not a lot of engineering to review. He will be looking at detention when a more complete site plan is submitted. The plans submitted date to when Delta Plex originally came in for site plan review.

Joel Langlois stated that the 6,208 sq. ft addition would be used for race track storage for temporary track systems. Langlois stated he doesn’t have the space for 64 pieces of track inside.

Joel Langlois related the addition would be a tan steel building similar to the small ribbed green building. He related that the addition sits in an area 8’ below Hillside Dr.

Chairman Hickey stated the wall is 256’ long with no windows. Joel Langlois stated there are currently no windows from the Hillside view. Langlois related that there are square arch windows on front of the building of the arena, and the addition is below grade.

Chairman Hickey stated that the Planner’s report dated July 9, 2008 has items listed as not completed on the checklist. Hickey reviewed this list with the applicant, including the necessary variance from the zoning board of appeals and completing the checklist with all of the items listed.

Chairman Hickey stated that he wants some detail on the Hillside Drive wall, as there are no windows shown.

Planner Wash stated that the information on the site plan is not current and the checklist has not been completed. Wash related that the architectural ordinance standards of the Hillside Drive wall are the main issues for this plan.

The consenus of the planning commission was for the applicant to add windows to the south wall and provide for a decorative metal roof.

Member Rypma asked with the existing metal building, is Langlois required to follow our architectural standards now? Planner Wash reviewed the section in the ordinance pertaining to this requirement and indicated that the planning commission has the flexibility to modify and approve. Member Rypma asked what type of façade? Planner Wash stated now it is a big metal barn facing a public street and mature residences. The addition is dropped down below road grade and we have an opportunity to improve the architecture with windows and striping of the metal consistent with what is there now. The architectural ordinance requires more than a big blank wall.

Member Byle stated he would like to see landscaping added with islands and trees. Joel Langlois agrees with the landscaping on the Hillside Drive frontage.

Planner Wash suggested windows with color variations. The site plan we have isn’t reflective of what is currently on the site.

Scott Conners added, given the grade challenge, we might want to look at a decorative roof system. Chairman Hickey suggested a standing seam? Scott agreed.

Member Byle asked if evergreens were precluded in the right-of-way? Planner Wash stated yes, but with this wide right-of-way, maybe landscaping is better than windows. He agrees with Scott about the decorative roof. They also need to work on the landscaping on Hillside.

Scott Conners stated that since we have a wide right-of-way, he will make an exception for evergreens.

Member Rypma stated he would like to see a better site plan that addresses the architectural material issues. Planner Wash stated that they could be on the August 6th planning commission agenda and concurrently go to the zoning board of appeals for the setback variance.

Scott Conners stated that he needs new topos and grade information on the plans.

Planner Wash will work on the number and location of trees. He is not clear whether this addition is proposed in the right-of-way. He wants to make sure the building is proposed on Joel Langlois property, not in the City right-of-way.

In response to a question about having a fire suppression system, Planner Wash stated the building is currently sprinkled and the addition will be sprinkled as well. He will check out the details.

Chairman Hickey wants to see something on the 40’ side of the building facing the parking lot to dress up the building. He suggested 3 windows on the south elevation with architectural treatment and landscaping.

Member Gornowich stated she might consider waiving some of the material requirements and beefing up the landscaping instead. Planner Wash stated they should cluster the Hillside landscaping.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Byle, to table this item until August 6^th to give the applicant the opportunity to meet all of the conditions of Frank Wash’s staff report dated July 9, 2008, and Scott Conner’s report dated July 9, 2008, plus contingent on being granted a setback variance from the zoning board of appeals. Motion carried 6-0.

Chairman Hickey read the application requesting rezoning from C-3, Highway Commercial to CPUD, Commercial Planned Unit Development. The applicant is also requesting Preliminary Are Site Plan Approval to allow the development of 4 buildings, involving 6 acres of land in front of the existing Avastar Park facility. The CPUD plan proposes a mixture of retail, restaurant, and personal service establishments. The property is located at 2150 Alpine Ave.

Applicant Jack Buchanan gave a powerpoint presentation including photos of the former GM/Lear Plant and the restoration with the current Avastar development. He posed questions such as: Is Avastar consistent with the City of Walker Master Plan? Is the DAR proposal compatible with the master plan? Mr. Buchanan related that 1.5 Million Dollars was spent on the interior of the building, $700,000 on the roof, $700,000-$800,000 on the inside floor and fire suppression system.

He showed photos looking to the north and northeast on Alpine from the site and stated that he wants to continue the momentum. He asked is Avastar consistent with the master plan? He thinks so. He stated that this is a public-private partnership between the City of Walker and Alpinist Endeavors. Mr. Buchanan related that they have a 1.5 Million Dollar Brownfield loan plus Avastar, a rezoning agreement, and a tax deferral.

Mr. Buchanan stated that in order to make it a viable project, he sold the condo units, the commercial frontage has to meet the standards and that he can’t deviate.

Jack Buchanan stated that they have restored the old GM/Lear plant to the highest standards. It will create 500-1,000 jobs in the near future, reestablish a viable community, and the need to complete the project in a reasonable period of time, and make a return on their investment.

Mr. Buchanan posed the question, is the CPUD plan consistent with the "essential" requirements of the master plan for the Sub-Area 3A? He thinks it does. He felt that it will have a cohesive identity or sense of place. Buchanan stated that it will enhance the business climate with DAR’s plan. It will increase sustainability of housing. There will be a softer transition between uses.

Mr. Buchanan reviewed his proposed site plan included extending roads and service drive across into the sites, establishing a gateway and an identity. It will enhance and develop social centers, address social issues in a depressed area, enhance and protect natural features.

Mr. Buchanan posed the question, "Is the DAR proposal compatible with the City of Walker’s master plan? He thinks so. Mr. Buchanan stated there are numerous challenges to developing the front lots. Alpine Ave. currently is not suitable for zero setback development with no prospects for revitalization in the foreseeable future. The lots are too small for multi-story, mixed-use development with no parking. Buchanan felt that this area is still very depressed and is of little interest to developers. He stated it is difficult to attract retail and commercial tenants to this area. Buchanan felt that DAR developer is the best for spec development. Mr. Buchanan thinks this is not an urban environment and not a downtown. He stated that it has to be convenient.

Jack Buchanan reviewed Figure 11 and 12 of the City of Walker Master Plan Sub-Area 3A for the streetscape south of Hillside. He then reviewed the site plan of what he felt will work. He reviewed the benefits of the proposed DAR development as follows: Essential to the successful development of Avastar Park. It creates a significant number of new jobs in the area, which he felt complies with all essential requirements of the City master plan. High quality construction in keeping with Avastar’s high standards. It will harmonize beautifully with Avastar Park concept and greatly enhance the revitalization of the Sub-Area 3-A Corridor. It will promote residential development in the area. Owners and tenants of the Avastar Plant will expect retail services here. It will strengthen the financial viability of our public-private partnership. It can be implemented immediately. It will help facilitate the prompt completion of the Avastar Project with a great beginning to a revitalization project. Mr. Buchanan is asking for support for his project.

Chairman Hickey stated that he is the Chairman of the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, and has worked with Mr. Buchanan for a successful Avastar project and he is proud of it. Chairman Hickey stated that he has also sat in many Master Plan Committee and Citizen Focus Group meetings and explained what we would do with this Alpine Sub-Area. The idea that this CPUD proposal meets the City’s Master Plan is questionable. Chairman Hickey emphasized what they told the citizens of Walker with the rejuvenation of Alpine Ave. Hickey stated that we have carried this picture of 8’ sidewalks, upfront 2-story buildings, etc. He will not let the faith of the citizens be deprived of what we represented at those meetings. Chairman Hickey stated that this plan can be modified by moving one building close to the street, the other 3 buildings can also be moved up. This can be accomplished and be attractive. He applauded Mr. Buchanan on his salesmanship. He feels that if they move the buildings 40’ forward it could work out. Mr. Buchanan disagreed with the setback. The plan that calls for zero setbacks was approved in the Sub-Area 3-A Master Plan. Chairman Hickey referenced projects on Wealthy Street in Grand Rapids, and in East Grand Rapids that have been successful.

Jack Buchanan stated that the website shows the Sub-Areas 1, 2, & 3-B have been done with a consultant very thoroughly and the City ran out of money when it came to South Alpine –Sub-Area 3A, and the City did not have the benefit of a consultant and the City drew up a plan for this area. The City came out in August, 2006 and presented the concept to the audience. There was no public feedback on the 75 cards. They did not have anything to say about the zero setback as to whether it would work.

Mr. Buchanan stated that if his proposal is not approved, there will be empty parking lots for a long time, and moving those buildings up will be difficult to have a great project. If we put the buildings on the edge, and the City puts the boulevard in, the buildings will be in the way. Moving them back will leave room for the boulevard. He asked them to approve the plan as presented.

Chairman Hickey stated that we need "x" amount of feet for the sidewalk and road. If in 15 years we develop a parking lane on Alpine Ave., we are in the right spot. Hickey felt that we need to discuss this and come up with an agreement.

Daryl Herweyer, DAR Realty, stated that he has built spec buildings for 35 years and gave the East Beltline and 3 Mile Road as an example for a successful development. He was skeptical about this project at first and is now amazed what has been accomplished with Avastar so far. Herweyer felt that he couldn’t get financing with the buildings pulled to the street. He felt that people do not want to park behind the buildings, and they want multiple entries into the project. He doesn’t think the same conditions exist as the projects in Grand Rapids and East Grand Rapids.

Chairman Hickey stated that he wants it to be successful. He told the citizens what we want to do with this area. He wants to make it the best for them and for the citizens of Walker.

Motion by S. Versluis, supported by T. Byle, to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

A resident, 2165 Alpine Ave., stated that he is happy with the plans. He doesn’t see it viable for the buildings to be close to the street.

Chairman Hickey stated that he envisioned residential on this site upstairs in the buildings, and in 10 years when we can afford to put the boulevard in, development encourages development. He gave examples of the Standale- DDA with the new buildings we have approved and the success of it.

Tyler Korfage, 2717 Garfield, stated that when the Lear Plant went out he was thrilled to see Avastar go in. He urged the Planning Commission to get together with Mr. Buchanan on this. He doesn’t agree totally with both sides. He stated that this area is an eyesore now.

A resident, 851 Ferris, is excited about the development here. She thanked the planning commission for standing by the master plan and hopes they can come up with a compromise, as there is potential for this area. This is a desirable part of the city and doesn’t want to happen what’s happened north of 3 Mile on Alpine.

Mr. Buchanan is hoping for a compromise to do what is right. People have raved about what they have done. He is in favor of something that works.

Planner Wash suggested that 3 planning commission members sit on a design committee to try to reach agreement with the developer.

Member Byle told Mr. Herweyer and Mr. Buchanan that he felt the zero setback would work. He asked them why they felt it wouldn’t work?

Mr. Herweyer stated that he has to have a strip mall concept and feels it will be a more successful development. Herweyer felt that parking in the rear of the storefronts will not work, and drive thru’s are impossible to create in this situation. There are topography issues, and stairs to the back of the buildings creates ramps and unattractive issues. In the real world their own plan is what they want. Architecturally they want to be able to see through to the Avastar Park with a pedestrian walkway and connectivity to the site.

Mr. Herweyer stated that there is an abandoned easement in the 60’x200’ area but the storm drain pipe is still there. Scott Conner stated that we can work around that. He stated that there is a drainage issue that will need to be dealt with. Herweyer stated that doesn’t change the property or change the problem with sale ability.

It was determined that the sub-committee will consist of planning commissioners: Tom Byle, Curtis Rypma, Carol Gornowich, Jim Hickey, Planner Frank Wash, Engineer Scott Conners, Developer Jack Buchanan, Realtor Daryl Herweyer, and Architect Mark Tomasik.

Member Rypma asked, didn’t the master plan show multi-story brick buildings for this site? Planner Wash stated yes, that this comes from the Renaissance Zone Agreement exhibits that show where the buildings will be. We have a contract with Mr. Buchanan and we should not quickly bend from what is in the master plan or the Renaissance Zone Agreement. Planner Wash related that this is an urban part of Alpine Ave. Member Rypma would like to see the Renaissance Zone Agreement. Planner Wash to provide. Wash stated that this is urban design with details to enhance the corners of Alpine and Avastar Parkway. The infrastructure is in place for the next layer of master plan implementation. The two buildings need to move to frame the corner.

Scott Conners stated that the planning commission should look at the visibility issue, the new roadway and street name was changed, the sidewalks are to slow people down, and give them some identity.

Member Rypma stated the southern most building could have a zero setback. He asked if this was solely due to the grade?

Mr. Herweyer stated that the grade is flat. Raising the barrier to the customer will diminish success.

Member Byle asked Mr. Herweyer for a list of successful developments he has developed. Mr. Herweyer stated there is a successful recent development at the northwest corner of Leonard and Fuller in Grand Rapids.

With regard to storm water detention, Scott Conners stated that there is significant flooding downstream and he wants the developers to be aware that detention may have to be done on the site. Scott related that this is a "B/C" storm water zone. He will need calculations submitted to him that will determine what needs to be done or what they are willing to do here in terms of detention on the site.

Member Byle asked if soil borings have been done to see if there was filtration?

Planner Wash stated that money has been set aside to do borings in the Brownfield loan for environmental testing.

Jack Buchanan stated that borings have already been done. The borings were sent to Rob Berrends of Exxel Engineering for review.

Planner Wash stated that from a staff standoint, Jack Buchanan has completed a minor miracle with the Avastar Project. He feels that from a staff standpoint, we are close and need to hammer out the details to make this CPUD more consistent with the Sub-Area 3-A Master Plan and the Renaissance Zone Agreement.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by T. Byle, to adjourn the public hearing. Motion carried.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by C. Rypma to table the project, subject to review by the aforementioned planning commission subcommittee. Motion carried.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by D. Brown, to adjourn at 10:05 p.m. Motion carried.

________________________ __________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary

Walker Planning Commission