Planning Commission Minutes

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

Motion by T. Byle, supported by D. Brown, to approve the September 17, 2008 minutes as printed. Motion carried.

There were no comments at this time.

Chairman Hickey read the request from property owner Visser Brothers, who seeks Planning Commission approval to apply for stormwater and soil erosion permits to construct a stormwater detention basin on property zoned MPUD at the northeast corner of Leonard and Wilson, which is the former Lewis Farms project site.

Planner Wash related that this plan is a work in progress subject to engineering and site plan review. The proposed detention basin may or may not service the entire build out of the property. Visser Brothers is asking for permission to apply for soil erosion and storm water permits. The basin is speculative. Zach Voogt is present with the calculations. The basin may change as different project phases come in the future.

Dale Visser, of Visser Brothers, Inc., was present. He related that they are uncertain as to when they will build the project due to the economy. However, he wants to build a detention pond now to service the entire site in the future. He has time now for his workers to get it done, get the grass established, etc. They will improve the pond in the future if necessary with site plan reviews.

Chairman Hickey asked what changes from the original pond that was proposed? Zach Voogt stated that the essential concept and components are still there; the pond is in the same place and is sized based on the current plan, and is based on land use and the storm water ordinance. If more storm water detention is necessary, Visser Brothers will make the pond as big as they need to. Zach Voogt stated that from a soil erosion aspect, it is good to get the pond in and vegetation established now.

Chairman Hickey stated that we are not approving anything in Phase I now; we are only concentrating on the pond tonight. Hickey felt it was a good idea to have them put the pond in now, subject to engineering department permits.

Member Huizenga asked if they will fence the pond due to safety issues? Zach Voogt related for aesthetic purposes they will have water in the pond, and yes, they will be utilizing a fence.

Member Schweitzer asked if the limit of the detention pond was to the outer set of contours on the plans? Zach Voogt reviewed the shaded existing wetland area on the plans and related that it is behind the shaded area. Schweitzer asked where they would be storing the materials? Chairman Hickey suggested storing them in the future Phase 4 area. Zach Voogt agreed that Phase 4 might be a good place for storage.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by T. Schweitzer, to allow the Vissers to apply for storm water and soil erosion permits in order to construct the detention pond as illustrated on the site plan dated 10-15-08. The storage of spoil materials is allowed in the future Phase 4 area.

Chairman Hickey read the application requesting final area site plan approval of the Commercial Planned Unit Development for Phase I, consisting of a 15,000 sq. ft. office building, located at 2150 Alpine Ave.

Planner Wash indicated that this is a construction plan for Phase I of the commercial development along Alpine Ave. Planner Wash reviewed MSN Map oblique images of the site. The proposal includes the 15,000 sq. ft. office building along the southeasterly corner of Avastar Parkway and Alpine Avenue. Associated onsite improvements plus public utility extensions through the Avastar Park property are shown on the plans.

Planner Wash stated 2 issues require clarification:

1. Will the developer pay for the water line extension?
2. What is the storm water system detention plan? There is still outstanding soil boring information.

Wash indicated that the developer is asking for a storm water variance but has not provided specific information.

Wash reviewed the staff report which included stormwater and bioretention techniques that could include one or more of the following, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer:

• Infiltrative planting beds

• Rain gardens

• "Stormceptor" type infiltrative catch basins/manholes

• "Leaky" stormwater pipe

• Porous hardscape, either asphalt or concrete.

Wash related that any of the above must be verified based on soil boring results.

Wash also reviewed the conditions of approval noted in the staff report, including

• Onsite roadside signage limited to one ground sign.

• Colored concrete hardscape/sidewalk should be used at the main entrance intersection of Alpine Ave and Avastar Parkway.

• 69 parking spaces required with 25 spaces reserved for future parking.

• Colored building facades.

• First floor windows clear glass requirement.

• Final landscaping should be approved by staff based on the outcome of soil borings and analyses will determine extent and placement of landscape plantings.

From a planning standpoint, he recommends conditional approval.

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

Planner Wash reviewed the building elevations.

Member Huizenga asked about the colored concrete sidewalks? Planner Wash reviewed the site plan and location of the decorative corner accent treatment. Member Byle asked if the applicant would have to tear up the existing sidewalk in order to install the decorative corner treatment? Planner Wash related potentially or the developer could include the decorative brick or block treatment in the planting areas.

Mark Tomasik, Innovative Design, reviewed the façade material samples with the planning commission, including decorative block that looks like brick, and a clear glass sample.

Mark Tomasik reviewed the storm water concerns and related that there is sand on part of the site but they have not received the environmental studies back yet. Once the report is back, they will make a final decision on a storm water system design. If the soil borings come back good, they will let the water infiltrate on the site. If not, the water will go directly to the storm sewer.

Chairman Hickey asked if they went 15’ down with the borings? Mark Tomasik stated that the southern most point of the property contains sand. Toward Alpine there are some peat soils. There may be contamination here. They are waiting for the report and will finalize the storm drainage once the report comes back. Darrel Herweyer added that it seems to be a benign situation. He expects that the new borings will mirror that situation. Chairman Hickey suggested that the developer work closely with Scott Conners on this situation. Herweyer agreed.

Member Gornowich asked what kind of storm water variance is being requested? Mark Tomasik provided storm water calculations and related that future hard surfaces will be less than 50% of existing conditions. If soils are contaminated, the water would go directly to the storm sewer. If good, they will keep the majority of the storm water on the site via infiltration.

Mark Tomasik related that he will work with Scott Conners on the final details.

Planner Wash stated that if the soils are not good, there will be no detention; it will be a straight pipe into the conveyance system.

Chairman Hickey asked what storm water zone they are in? Planner Wash stated it is on the border of a B/C Zone. If there is good soil, they might meet the storm water requirements. Planner Wash stated that the developer is asking for leniency on detention if the soils are compatible. However, specific information remains outstanding.

Planner Wash stated that a project goal is to use rain gardens, green roof, etc.

Member Schweitzer asked what would be impacted downstream? Planner Wash stated that the Cogswell Drain meanders to Turner then to the Grand River. This site is a B/C Zone, classified as heavy industrial or vacant on the edge of the Grand River flood plain.

Wash stated that he prefers to go with the first option of putting water back in the ground. If not, the second option is direct conveyance to move the storm water off the site.

Chairman Hickey stated if the report comes back and they can’t do an infiltration system, do they have the ability to hook into the adjoining property?

Darrel Herweyer, DAR Realty, stated that he is working with another office site for the project. He feels strongly that there are low levels of contamination. As you go north on the other sites, they will use the Cogswell Drain. With the present plan, they are reducing the amount of water that goes into that drain. Mr. Herweyer stated that Mark Tomasik has designed, with the owners of the facility, to maximize and encourage storm water movement with the plans they have. There may be issues of foundation stability as they go west.

Chairman Hickey asked if there were funds left in the Brownfield to help with stormwater issues? Jack Buchanan related yes.

Member Gornowich asked, with regard to storm water quality, what is the determining factor for the green roof? Mark Tomasik stated the cost factor. Mark stated that they may do a partial green roof. He said the rain garden would include plantings that absorb water and he planned to include it in a nice break area making it environmentally friendly. Tomasik stated that they will get the soils report back on October 24th. Member Gornowich asked, if the soils are good will they implement a rain garden and green roof? Mark Tomasik stated yes, if the cost factor works out.

Darrel Herweyer stated that he is not sure about the green roof with the maintenance factor, failures of those, etc., unless it is a small green roof.

Planner Wash stated the developers are hoping to use some low-impact development techniques.

Planner Wash then reviewed part of the last paragraph in Scott Conners report dated October 8, 2008 which states:

"Previous discussions have suggested that the Planning Commission may be willing to grant a storm water variance if the developer does everything possible to maximize their infiltration through low impact development techniques like leaky pipes and rain gardens. The planning commission should know exactly what is proposed in deciding whether to grant that variance".

Darrel Herweyer stated that the worst case scenario is a reduction in the amount of water to the Cogwell Drain. He felt that they are making a significant amount of improvements to the local drainage situation.

Member Huizenga stated that there are still unknowns. Planner Wash stated it is up to the planning commission if they need more information. He stated that the planning commission can approve just the site plans so they can apply for a permit to start the footings. The planning commission might then wait until the November 5th planning commission meeting for the answer from the developer and staff regarding any storm water variance.

Darrel Herweyer stated there may not be a need to request a variance.

The north development won’t happen unless this situation gets resolved. They will deal with economic conditions and use leaching wherever they can; otherwise they will utilize a closed pipe system.

Chairman Hickey felt that the planning commission cannot make a decision without that soils report and final decisions from the developer.

Darrel Herweyer stated that there will be a closed pipe system to the Cogswell Drain, reducing the storm water by 50%. The other option is a leaching system. He doesn’t want to run into issues as they go north to make the site too expensive to build.

Member Byle stated that if they use an infiltration system or closed pipe system, he doesn’t think they will have an issue.

Member Schweitzer stated, in terms of contamination, he does not expect the entire site, but only a portion of the site will be affected. Then maybe they can use infiltration. Mark Tomasik agreed.

Planner Wash explained the decision tree as follows: The first question is the storm water zone (B/C line) to determine if they need detention. What are the results of the soil boring report? If clean, they might not have to come back to the planning commission. What is the final engineering plan? It will come together during the storm water permit process.

Member Brown stated if contaminated soil, there will be a closed pipe system anyway. Planner Wash stated yes, but the first question is the storm water zone.

Planner Wash stated that he hasn’t heard anyone say the site needs an underground system for a 100-year flood. Wash stated that we need to look at the report, and match it with the zone. If a variance is needed, they will come back on the November 5th planning commission agenda. If soils are contaminated, a closed pipe system may be required. Planner Wash stated that the current plans show use of an infiltration system on that site. We would otherwise be reviewing plans that show a closed catch basin system.

Member Byle stated we can either approve an infiltration system, or if soils are contaminated, go to a straight pipe system. A storm water variance would be permitted if soil borings come back bad.

Darrel Herweyer stated that there are metals in the soil. He would like to have approval tonight and not have to come back in November. Mr. Heyweyer felt this could be handled in house with Scott Conners and Planner Wash.

Member Gornowich asked about the 66 parking spaces as a condition of approval? Planner Wash stated the planning commission can allow 66 as shown as actual parking with 25 future spaces.

Mark Tomasik indicated that they don’t need the extra spaces and would prefer to put green space in there now. If they need the parking in the future, they can always put it in.

Planner Wash explained the parking ratios as follows: 90 employees – 1 space per 2 employees, and 1 – 300 per the square footage of the building for a total of 69 spaces.

Member Gornowich agrees with the 66 spaces with the green space. She sees shared parking opportunities with the future sites.

Member Byle asked about the turning template for garbage trucks? Mark Tomasik stated the trucks back into heading west and make the turn to get out.

Member Rypma asked what the rationale is for having clear glass on the first floor? Planner Wash stated it is a best urban design practice. Mark Tomasik reviewed the glass showing a slight tint to the windows and felt that these are more energy efficient. Planner Wash stated as long as you can see through the glass.

Member Byle asked if looping or not looping the water main is an issue? It was determined they would not be boring under Alpine Avenue. Jack Buchanan stated that they will connect with Alpine Ave. along the service drive on the west side then routed over that parcel to Voorheis.

Member Rypma asked if the soil borings indicate an environmental issue, will they drain directly into the drain? If not Zone C, they will need some detention. Are we fine without having them come back on November 5th?

Planner Wash stated that if they are in Detention Zone B and required to do detention, then they would have to ask for a storm water variance. Wash suggested adjourning the public hearing to the November 5th meeting.

Darrel Herweyer asked if they know what the ultimate closed pipe system will be, why do we have to go through this process now?

Chairman Hickey stated that the planning commission will have to make the determination on November 5th.

Member Rypma recapped as follows: If the site allows for an infiltration system with leaching basins, they can proceed. If soil borings come back bad, there will be a closed pipe drainage directly into the drain. If a variance is necessary, they will come back to us on November 5. They will have 66 parking spaces with future spots as green space now.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Byle, to adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2008. Motion carried unanimously.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by C. Gornowich, to approve the Avastar Park Phase I CPUD Final Area Site Plan for a 15,000 sq. ft. office building and associated improvements, as identified on the applicant’s site plan packet that is cover dated 10-1-08 and including material submitted by the applicant regarding the exterior building facades, landscaping, lighting and buffering.

The applicant’s FASP submittal does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the Sub Area #3A Master Plan for South Alpine Ave.

Conditions of Phase I Final Area Site Plan Approval include:

• Developer agrees to all conditions noted in the City Planning Director’s staff report dated October 8th, 2008, except as modified by the Planning Commission for parking.

• Developer agrees to all conditions noted in the City Engineer’s staff report dated October 8th, 2008.

• Additional conditions: If the site allows for an infiltration system with leaching basins, they can proceed with storm water permit applications, provided that detention is not required. If soil borings come back bad, there will be a closed pipe drainage directly into the drain. If a variance is necessary, they will come back to the planning commission on November 5. They will have 66 parking spaces with future spots as green space.

Findings of Fact per Section 94-213(6) & (7)

The Avastar Park CPUD Phase I Final Area Site Plan:

• Complements the existing businesses along South Alpine Avenue.

• Does plan for efficient vehicular movements and pedestrian access.

• Does offer a landscaping, lighting and signage plan that will complement the site and neighboring properties.

• Will function as a desirable and sustainable redevelopment project for the south Alpine Avenue corridor.

• Is consistent with the Avastar Park Preliminary Area Site Plan.

Motion carried 7-0.

Chairman Hickey read the request for site plan approval for a 1,800 sq. ft. office building located at 1534 Pannell, N.W.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and provided site orientation of the Bristol/Pannell Street area.

Wash related that Mast Greenhouse is an existing operation with multiple buildings on the property.

Planner Wash indicated that the office building is proposed within the required front yard setback. The applicant has received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the setback.

Wash reviewed the site plan showing the proposed building in relationship to the existing buildings on the site.

Planner Wash related that Scott Conners had questions with regard to detention on the site. The applicant is asking for a storm water variance.

Member Gornowich asked what the rationale was for granting the front yard setback variance? Chairman Hickey stated that the building will align with other buildings on the site. Gornwich stated one of those is a non-conforming house.

Tyler Korphage of the Zoning Board of Appeals, stated they agreed that it was a consistent setback.

Rick Pulaski, of Nederveld Associates, stated that they have received a variance for the front yard setback. He indicated that Scott Conners wanted them to look at service to the building with sewer and water. He indicated that sanitary sewer along the south side will have to be in an easement.

Mr. Pulaski indicated that Mr. Mast wants to add employees. He reviewed the site plan and the brick building materials with a standing seam roof. Pulaski related that architectural plans were submitted to the planning commission.

Rick Pulaski stated that the 1,800 sq. ft. building will house 5-7 offices for the greenhouse operation. He indicated it is not a large building and a small improvement to the site.

Rick Pulaski stated that Scott Conners had 2 issues: Storm sewer and storm water storage.

Mr. Pulaski stated there is no conventional detention now and the business has been there a long time. He felt that they can detain the new improved area and leave the rest alone.

Andy Mast was present and explained the onsite rainwater collection with a weekly well water usage table and re-use system. Andy stated that the State has requested monitoring of the water they are taking out of the ground.

Rick Pulaski stated that they are requesting that the pipes be left alone, and if required, only detain what is being added to the site.

Pulaski has asked for a storm water variance on storage. They do not want to have to go through a 10-year storm analysis, as the existing tank system is already working.

Member Huizenga asked if the exterior light over the door would shine to the road? Pulaski stated it is a ground reflecting light under the canopy for the key entrance.

Member Brown asked if the house on the site was a rental? Andy Mast stated no, at the present time it is vacant. He plans to use it for an intern house or for a grower to live in and monitor the site.

Andy Mast stated that if they have a 2" rain, he can contain it in the underground tank system. He explained that the roof water goes into the tank which overflows into the creek if there is more than a 2" rain event. Water that is re-used is not discharged to creek directly, as internal chemical scrubbers clean the water for recycling, according to Mr. Mast.

Member Rypma stated that he doesn’t see much additional storm water impact with this office addition. Planner Wash and the planning commissioners concurred.

Planner Wash reviewed the questions from Scott Conners report dated October 7, 2008, as follows:

Does new rainwater run through the existing storage tanks thus pushing clean water out through the overflow or is there a bypass built into the system?

Does the process of capture and retreatment allow fertilizers and other contaminants used at the facility to be discharged downstream during extreme rainfall events?

Does the existing storage system meet the intent of the first flush requirement of our storm water ordinance?

If the planning commission is satisfied with these questions they should, at a minimum, require an overall plan of the site showing existing storm sewer sizes and location. A storm water permit is required for confirmation that the existing storm sewer can handle the 100-year storm event and that buildings are safe in the event of a 100- year storm event. The planning commission may also want to consider requiring first flush protection at the downstream end of the facility if the underground storage system does not provide that protection.

Motion by T. Byle, supported by C. Rypma, to approve the site plan dated 9-26-08 and the architectural plans dated 9-25-08 for the Andy Mast Greenhouses office addition at 1534 Pannell Street NW, as they do meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance, with the following conditions of site plan approval:

The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Planning Director’s letter dated 10-07-08.

The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Engineer’s letter dated 10-07-08.

Addition condition: Storm water variance granted. No additional detention required, no storm water permit required.

Motion carried 7-0.

Chairman Hickey read the request for site plan approval for a 22,833 sq. ft. building to house multiple industrial businesses, located at 3707 North Ridge Dr., N.W.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and the site plans. Building 1, 2, & 3 need a recorded cross-access and shared driveway easement as a condition of approval. If sold, each lot will require access to shared driveways as built.

Wash related that the Langholz’s live east of the Lot # 3 building. Dr. Langholz said he doesn’t prefer windows on the back sides of the building. Dr. Langholz was also concerned about storm water drainage from their property onto the Lot #3 site. It was determined that the drainage all comes onto the Visser property and Langholzs were content with this.

Planner Wash related that the addition of six Cleveland Flowering Pear trees to the west of the Lot #1 building will, in time, buffer and soften the existing long wall of that site.

Wash related that from a planning staff standpoint, the site plan review checklist items have been addressed.

Planner Wash reviewed Scott Conners comments. Maintenance is required in the bottom of the storm water pond. It has to be cleaned out or the outlets will plug up.

Roger Faber indicated that the ingress/egress document has been drawn up by Randy Feenstra and it has to be recorded.

Mr. Faber stated that they are keeping with what was approved before on Lots #1 and 2 with respect to landscaping and fencing along their east property line.

Faber stated there would be no windows or lights on the back side of the building and no exit door. On the north elevation, the emergency exit door will have to have lighting.

Mr. Faber agreed that the curb line needs to be restored in front of Aunt Millie’s Bread outlet. He related that it will be improved with curb and gutter. Planner Wash related that a DPW permit is required to fix the curb line.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by D. Brown, to approve the site plan set cover dated 10-03-08 for Lot #3 of the Visser Brothers Fruit Ridge Industrial Park North, proposed for location at 3707 North Ridge Dr., as it does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance, with the following conditions of site plan approval:

The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Planning Director’s letter dated 10-06-08.

The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Engineer’s letter dated 10-08-08.

Additional condition: No exterior lights or windows on the north or east sides of the building, except for exit door lighting with a full cut off fixture.

Motion carried 7-0.

Planner Wash reviewed the items for the November 5th meeting including the new retail strip center on the Meijer outlot between Walgreen’s and 5th/3rd Bank. Also more billboard review.

Wash related that he met with the Standale DDA Subcommittee (Cyndy Stek, Dave Felton, Terry Schweitzer) regarding the Draft Standale Downtown Ordinance. It was forwarded to the Ordinance Committee and will hopefully be on the planning commission agenda in December.

Motion by D. Brown, supported by C. Gornowich, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried.