Planning Commission Minutes

Present: M. Huizenga, C. Gornowich, J. Hickey, Chairman; T. Byle, C. Rypma, and S. Versluis. Absent: T. Schweitzer and D. Brown. 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. Gornowich, supported by M. Huizenga, to approve the September 3, 2008 minutes as printed. Motion carried.

There were no comments at this time.

Chairman Hickey read the request for site plan approval for an approximately 16,000 sq. ft. retail building at 4696 Lake Michigan Dr.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report. He gave the history of this site including 2 rezoning hearings and staff’s site plan review. Wash related that the site is directly across from Uccello’s on M-45, Rosedale Cemetery to the west, and vacant property east to Meijer. Wash related that Craig Hondorp, ASLA, Progress A&E, was present on behalf of the request.

Planner Wash related that staff has been working with the Goodale’s, Meijer, and Goodwill on the service drive, as well as working with MDOT regarding Ferndale at M-45 becoming a public road via the local access management plan. Wash related that the service drive curve and extension meets with the service drive’s dead end into Ferndale on the Meijer site.

Wash reviewed the area of wetlands at the front of the site. He indicated that the applicant proposes to construct a retail building for a Goodwill Store of some 16,704 sq. ft. Goodwill also plans to incorporate several LEED and LID features in the design, including rain gardens and pervious concrete.

Planner Wash related that we need a recorded copy of the cross access easement to the Goodale property to the east and to the Rosedale "backlot" to the south as a condition of approval. Wash related that the early cross access easement and shared driveway will initiate a service drive through the Goodale property to the Meijer development.

Wash stated that landscaping is an issue, and provided sketch examples with the staff report, consisting of trees near the right-of-way plus two landscaped pods with retaining walls similar to the proposed ground sign base.

Planner Wash related that the ground sign matches the ordinance requirements. He reviewed a rendering of the proposed ground sign.

Chairman Hickey stated that a major gas line easement runs across this property from a northwest to southeasterly direction diagonally under the driveway.

Member Byle asked if the gas lines were shown on the drawings? Scott Conners stated that he has seen them on other drawings. Planner Wash reviewed the utility plans showing the location of the gas line easement. Member Byle felt that every sheet should show the gas line locations to avoid potential construction accidents.

Member Huizenga asked about the southbound road access easement and what the parcels to the south look like? The cross-access is required because the back property has no frontage. Wash felt that the service drive aligns well for good truck maneuvering, as shown by the turning templates.

Member Versluis asked Scott Conners to explain the wetland formula to mitigate? Scott Conners stated that if the developer brings in a certain amount of wetland fill, they need to mitigate. Scott explained the ratios to Member Versluis’ satisfaction. This is an MDEQ permit issue.

Chairman Hickey stated that when Meijer went in, they put in a detention pond. There is a tiny lake where Bill Burke has a storage building on Pat Goodale’s property. The water runs that way toward Sullivan Lake.

Member Rypma asked Scott Conners about Item No. 4 in his staff memo regarding no stormwater calculations. Conners stated that he received some revised calculations. Scott related that they will be utilizing porous concrete with stone underdrain as a low impact development technique. His concern is for zero impact on the neighbors. Scott related that he will work through the detention via the stormwater permit process, which is a balancing act. Low impact techniques are part of that balancing act. The Planning Commission has to decide if they are comfortable with that.

Craig Hondorp stated that Goodwill is trying to achieve LEED certification, not only for the building but the site with low impact development and energy efficiency. He related that this store is taking a different approach, gearing toward the GVSU college crowd.

Mr. Hondorp reviewed the plans showing the entry off of Lake Michigan Dr. as part of the shared access with the future shared drive to the south. He indicated that the paving will stop a few hundred feet short of the south property line. The driveway is off of that shared access road with the front of the store facing Lake Michigan Drive. Mr. Hondorp related that the donation drop off is located at the southeast corner of the building with the loading dock on the back of the store. The truck traffic will pull in and back up to the loading dock.

Mr. Hondorp related that they will utilize porous concrete with a stone bed, which will hold several hundred cubic yards of rainfall storage. He stated that there are existing site wetlands and woodlands that would be maintained as well as the back end of the site.

Mr. Hondorp introduced the rain gardens as a pretreatment for storm water coming off the access road and the site The rest of the water would percolate into the stone base. He indicated that the amount of wetland fill is .31 acres. They were able to obtain an MDEQ wetlands permit for the first plan submitted and they resubmitted the plan and it has been approved. The impact is slightly less than what was in the original plan. The wetland permit had expired and they had to resubmit it.

With respect to lighting, Mr. Hondorp related that they will use metal cut-off fixtures, 20’ tall poles with 3’ bases. The proposed monument sign was moved back due to fiber-optics and site distance issues. Because of the way the grade falls off to the wetlands, they will utilize a retaining wall. Mr. Hondorp stated that he doesn’t have any problems with Planner Wash’s conditions of approval, with the additional landscaping, recorded easement documents. Goodwill will work with the DPW in terms of the DDA lighting and irrigation.

Mr. Hondorp stated if the porous concrete alternative is a "budget buster", they would be looking at asphalt with underground storage under the parking lot.

Their preference is for the porous concrete as opposed to impervious asphalt.

He reviewed the building elevations and indicated that the building materials used are brick on the corners, entry on the east elevation, around the donation drop off, and on the west elevation at the corner. The lower level below the blue band consists of clear glass, and above it translucent glazing. The masonry is earth tone colors. EIFS material in the tan-beige color range will be utilized.

Mr. Hondorp related that he will provide any additional drainage calculations that Scott Conners needs as a condition of approval.

Chairman Hickey asked if a geo-textile product would be used to keep separate between the stone and surface of the parking lot? Mr. Hondorp explained yes, that the porous concrete looks like a "rice cake" made out of concrete. Hickey asked if oil would be filtered through that system first? Mr. Hondorp stated yes, part of the filtration in terms of water quality is the rain garden design.

Member Rypma asked if rain gardens would be maintained or the vegetation mowed? Mr. Hondorp stated that the rain gardens on the east side shows a seed garden with sedge grasses and native wildflowers, and would be mowed once a year.

Member Gornowich asked how much experience do we have with this type of porous concrete? Scott Conners stated that we have none, but Eaton Rapids has experience with porous concrete. There are benefits to it such as no need for detention underneath, not as much snow and plowing. It does have to be maintained (vacuumed once or twice a year). Member Byle added that porous concrete is used a lot in Denver, CO. He related that the freeze-thaw hasn’t been an issue as water doesn’t sit there, it goes through. Member Gornowich asked, how do we maintain the integrity of the porousness over the years, as the plows will come in and do damage? Member Byle stated that a small patch wouldn’t be detrimental. Scott Conners added if they use a tar mixture for the fix it could be a problem. We require a stormwater maintenance agreement and would require maintenance once a year. Currently, we do not require verification that they do the maintenance. It was determined that the owner would be responsible if the storm water maintenance agreement is violated.

Chairman Hickey asked why they are stopping the driveway short of the property line to the south? Craig Hondorp stated that they didn’t feel it was necessary. They are 300’ short of the property line. Chairman Hickey asked if we would be in a position to accept a gravel road? Scott Conners stated that we do not know how, when, or if the property to the south will be developed.

Member Byle stated that if the road extends west from the gas station, this developer should pay for their portion of that road. He asked if staff was ok with the location of the dumpster? Planner Wash stated it was discussed at staff review. Craig Hondorp added that they wanted the dumpster closer to the building, but when they checked out maneuverability, the other option north of the loading dock worked better. Trucks will be coming during off hours when the parking lot is not full and can maneuver ok. Planner Wash stated it is not perfect but acceptable, given the turning template model.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by C. Gornowich, to approve the site plan dated 9-8-08 for Goodwill at 4696 Lake Michigan Drive (PPN 41-13-30-100-001), as it does not meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance, with the following conditions of site plan approval:

Motion carried unanimously 6-0.

Chairman Hickey read the application requesting site plan approval for a 70.53 sq. ft. wall sign on the east elevation of the building facing US-131, located at 2122 Turner, N.W.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report. He indicated that when we modified the sign ordinance we talked about wall signage, where it was allowed, and how many signs. Wall signage is only allowed on the front street side of the building and only on the front wall. Wash related that this building has 2 fronts, on Turner and the back fronts on US-131. This request is before us at the planning commission, as noted in the sign ordinance.

Planner Wash stated the two issues. The Turner Avenue frontage has existing wall signage. It is limited to 80 sq. ft. according to the code. If we provide them the ability to have another wall sign on US-131, they would be over 80 sq. ft. allowed. A variance would be required.

Planner Wash then reviewed photos of the existing wall sign on the southwest corner of the building; the existing pylon along US-131, and the existing pylon along Turner Ave.

Planner Wash stated from a staff standpoint, the business has a reasonable amount of existing signs. If permitted, the applicant would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a square footage allowance for this second wall sign..

Member Huizenga stated if we were to take out the pylon sign on US-131, then put an attractive sign on the building, it would be less cluttered. Planner Wash stated that if you swap pylon signs for the wall signs, you would be back to "square one" with the square footages, as they already have a wall sign on Turner. The pylon sign is visible from US-131.

Member Gornowich asked when Planner Wash did the billboard inventory, did the existing rear pylon sign count? Wash stated no, this is on-site signage. Gornowich asked if they took that one down, would this open up enough space for another billboard? Planner Wash stated there has to be 1,000 feet between billboards. Wash related that this is likely a non-conforming pylon sign along US-131.

Member Versluis felt that too much signage is overkill. He gave examples of other sites with too much signage that he felt is an eyesore.

Member Gornowich stated given the site conditions and distances, she would like to hear from the applicant.

Bobby Graff, United Rentals, stated that the wall sign letters would be internally illuminated and be more attractive.

Member Byle stated that you can’t see the proposed wall sign from the expressway because it is behind the berm. Chairman Hickey added that you can’t see the building from the expressway and he doesn’t feel that the proposed sign will help.

Chairman Hickey stated that the applicant could appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He suggested that the applicant illuminate the existing pylon sign.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Byle, to deny the request for a wall sign facing US-131 for United Rentals at 2122 Turner Avenue NW, as it does not meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance for signs with the following findings of fact:

Motion carried unanimously 6-0.

Planner Wash related that there will not be a meeting on October 1^st.

He reviewed the upcoming items for the October 15^th agenda including Avastar CPUD FASP; Andy Mast Greenhouse addition; Fruit Ridge Industrial Park Lot 3 spec. building; and possibly T-Mobile cell tower at the Mines Golf Course.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Byle, to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Motion carried.

____________________________ __________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary

Walker Planning Commission