Planning Commission Minutes

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

Acting Chairman Rypma opened the meeting and Member Versluis gave the invocation.

Motion by D. Brown, supported by T. Byle, to approve the minutes of October 15, 2008, as printed. Motion carried unanimously.

There were no comments at this time.

Acting Chairman Rypma read the request for a storm water variance for the project located at 2150 Alpine Ave. Rypma related that the public hearing was adjourned and is still open.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and related that the Phase I site has been determined to be in Stormwater Zone B. He indicated that the developer’s stormwater plan and variance request should include the following:

Rob Lamer, Exxel Engineering, was present on behalf of the request. He distributed the drainage variance request report to the planning commission and reviewed same.

Rob Lamer reviewed the drainage history. The existing site is currently a parking lot, which is entirely impervious and provides no pretreatment or detention, with direct connection to the Cogswell Drain. It was determined that the site is in Zone B which requires pretreatment, detention and restricts the site runoff of a 100 year rain event to 0.13cfs/ac. Lamer indicated that previous discussions, meetings and meeting minutes between the Developer and the City staff indicate that the City would look for a site drainage design which would be closer to Zone B. Based on those meetings, the Developer’s understanding was that the level of soil contamination needed to be determined and the site drainage design would be a hybrid Zone B/C which would: reduce the site runoff rate and improve the stormwater quality. However, the drainage design would not necessarily provide a "full blown" Zone B design with detention.

Mr. Lamer indicated that the site as designed is less impervious by 0.51 Ac. Detention is provided for the first 0.5" of runoff. Infiltration is provided in some areas and through the underdrain pipe, except where the pipe extends to the building. The first 0.5" of runoff is restricted to a 2" diameter orifice. There is an overflow pipe that can accept more than the 10-year event. An overland route is provided for all additional runoff and larger events. The peak flow off-site for the 100-year event is 6.50 CFS. This flow is 40% less than the current peak flow of 10.95 CFS.

Rob Lamer stated that the variance request is for the following:

With respect to future site design, it is the understanding of the Developer that the site design rationale above will be applied to the remaining site plans for Avastar Park.

Member Rypma asked for Scott Conner’s opinion of the variance request? Scott stated that the site is all impervious today, and considering the fact it is in Zone B, the site as proposed may not affect the drain that much. On the stormwater map, Zone C does not require detention. Scott felt that they will improve the drain with this plan to a certain extent.

Rob Lamer stated that the site is not Zone B, but rather Zone C. He is trying to meet Scott Conner’s request. To design per Zone B, the pretreatment for the first one half inch of water runoff, the size of the basin would need to be 6 times of what they could provide and they would not be able to build the building that are asking for and would not fit on the site.

Scott Conners stated that from the very beginning we have been arguing whether the site is in Zone B or C. His concern is to get the water away from the Grand River flooding downstream on Turner Avenue. Scott stated it was determined this is in Zone B and the back part is in Zone C. He related that there was an error on the map. The planning commission appears willing to work with the applicant on a variance.

Scott Conners stated that Rob Lamer did a great job on this. Scott stated that he is supposed to enforce the ordinance so we do not have problems down stream. He felt that it is difficult for him to give a recommendation. He stated that this is obviously an improvement, but not we have in mind for a raw-land, Zone B site.

Member Byle stated, from his perspective, the applicant is only providing 16% of the required detention in Zone B. Based on previous discussions, he is ok for this site, but not on the next parcel.

Member Rypma stated that the variance request is only for the insurance building site. Planner Wash stated yes.

Darrel Herweyer, DAR, stated that if the property to the north is treated differently than the property to the south, it will never be a viable project. It would take hundreds of thousands of dollars to take care of that piece of property. Herweyer stated that they are looking for a successful project with successful leases. If they can’t produce the project at a viable cost, they can’t do the project. It can stay a blacktopped property and undeveloped. He will do as much as possible to make the situation better.

Planner Wash stated that the planning commission has approved everything but the drainage plan. He stated that, based on previous planning commission comments, there wouldn’t be a requirement for full detention on this site. The commission had asked the applicants what improvements they were going to make, and they gave us a soils report and a detention plan and to understand how their drainage plans are different from the ordinance requirements. Wash stated that, with respect to the contaminated soils, there is a challenge here of the improvements the developers are willing to make. Wash stated that he was not intending to make them put in a $300,000 storage system, which might make the site unbuildable.

Member Schweitzer stated much depends on the soils information and contamination levels, which would limit what they could do with onsite detention/drainage. He doesn’t know how that would apply to the balance of the property.

Darrel Herweyer stated that the soils become wet and more loamy as you go north. He stated that there are structural soil issues with the property to the north. There are soil issues with peat content. They are experiencing difficulties in costs associated with what is there now.

Scott Conners stated that based on a few soil samples, there could be different levels of contamination all through the site. If an underground leaching system was used, there is potential of putting too much water underground with more contamination.

Member Korfhage stated that he sees a good faith measure extended by the applicant. He said we have to do what is in the best interest of the City. Korfhage asked if we would be compounding any problems with runoff with this development? He feels it is in the best interest for the City to approve this stormwater variance.

Member Byle stated that he understands the contamination and they prefer to pipe the water with no detention. If there is good sand on Parcel C, there shouldn’t be a problem. Byle doesn’t want to see 16% detention on the site to the north if infiltration is possible. If the borings look clean on the parcel to the north, leach basins and "leaky pipe" can be utilized. Herweyer added if soil content does not allow that, and if he has to do underground detention for Parcel C, then no one would develop the site.

Member Schweitzer stated that we are reacting to information we have. If more detention is forthcoming on Parcel C, the applicant needs to get more information to us when that plan is before the commission.

Rob Lamer stated that the property to the north hasn’t been engineered yet. This is the first piece of the puzzle. Lamer stated that the Kent County Drain Commission doesn’t recognize leaching basins as much as detention basins. Mr. Lamer stated this is a template so when they go the property to the north they know how much property to leave for detention. Lamer stated that the cost is $6 cu ft. x 18,000 = approximately $120,000 for underground detention just for this insurance building site. Lamer thought that the site to the north would cost even more.

Planner Wash felt that, if the developer follows the same methodology as they have for this site, show existing conditions, requirements under the code, then show a stormwater plan, then he expects to see something similar to this for the next CPUD project site.

Darrel Herweyer stated that they will do everything they can to achieve the best possible compromise or variance in order to be able to develop the site.

Planner Wash stated that the commission and developer have always talked about improving existing conditions. Darrel Herweyer is concerned that we will require an underground detention system. That has never been identified as a necessity on this site. Each site will have to be studied. We are trying to maximize improvements to stormwater without a full-blown underground storage system.

Darrel Herweyer stated that the sand is much shallower and the water table is high on the other sites. Rob Lamer added that you can’t store if the water table is high. Planner Wash stated that in the Phase I report– only 3 borings have been taken to the north. Lamer stated that there is a 2’-4’ water table depth to the north.

Member Byle stated that he is ok with what is proposed tonight. He is not ok with 16% for the rest of the site. However, Byle is not suggesting underground storage at Zone B levels for the balance of the site.

Scott Conners stated that it appears the planning commission would like the developer to maximize detention without an underground detention system.

Acting Chairman Rypma asked if we have granted similar variances in the past? Scott stated yes. Scott felt that perhaps we should amend our stormwater ordinance so we don’t have as many variance requests. Member Rypma stated that if we have done this on other sites, he looks for hardship cases and thinks this request fits for a variance. Rypma feels this is a reasonable proposal.

Scott Conners stated we have a problem downstream on Turner Ave. The applicant is doing everything they can to develop this site and minimize impacts downstream. Member Byle added it will be better with this project than it is today.

Acting Chairman Rypma stated that this is likely not to make it worse. Scott stated it is likely to be a minor improvement with not a lot of other options on the site. Scott felt that we need to look at each site individually and look at the implications.

Member Versluis stated that he is very sensitive when it comes to drainage issues. However, he felt that this is one of these areas that we may need to grant a variance.

Motion by T. Schweitzer, supported by T. Byle, to approve the storm water variance for Phase I of the Avastar Park final area site plan to:

The applicant will be required to apply for a stormwater variance for each additional site.

Motion carried unanimously (6-0).

Acting Chairman Rypma read the application requesting an amendment to the Final Area Site Plan for the Standale Crossings/Meijer CPUD. The site plan proposes a 13,252 sq. ft. strip retail building located at 4482 Lake Michigan Dr.

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and the plans, including building elevations. He related that this item has been though the site plan review process and staff review. Wash related that this site was somewhat pre-engineered and is the last vacant outlot in the Meijer CPUD.

Wash related that the plans propose a multi-tenant retail building that meets the standards of the architectural ordinance. Jeff Hundley is proposing a creative building with changes in height and decorative roof features. Wash related that building material samples are available for review.

Wash related that there is a staff recommendation for clear glass on the first floor on the north and east elevations. The glass should be clear, non-mirrored, non-reflective material that offers only a light UV tinting, which is a best design practice for retail sites.

Planner Wash stated that the applicant hasn’t addressed signage and may want to come back to the planning commission later for additional wall signage. This should be a condition of FASP approval.

Scott Conners reviewed his staff memo with the following concerns:

Planner Wash stated that the cross access easement is existing. Wash related that the applicant will have to do a split and the site will end up with a Lake Michigan Dr. address.

Jeff Hundley, one of the owners of the development, was present. He provided responses to Scott Conners staff memo as follows:

With respect to signage, Mr. Hundley stated that the tenant space to the east is without frontage on Lake Michigan Dr. They would not qualify for wall signage under the sign ordinance. He would like to add signage on the back of the building with individual channel letters. He is willing to work with staff on this.

Hundley stated that the intent is to start construction as soon as possible.

Planner Wash stated that Hundley does a good job with signage and will work with him to meet the ordinance intent the best we can. The east wall faces the Walgreens building. If they want signage there, that would be extra and require planning commission approval. The applicant might also want extra signage for the anchor tenant on Lake Michigan Dr.

Acting Chairman Rypma asked if the applicant follows the sign ordinance, he wouldn’t have to come back to the planning commission? Wash replied yes. However, the planning commission can approve the signage within the CPUD. The ordinance states that wall signage should be proportionate to the building wall.

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

Randy Disselkoen stated that this is a great project, and anyone in this economy should be commended for building.

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

Member Schweitzer asked if interconnection with Walgreens is planned for the future? Planner Wash stated that there are non-compete clauses with Meijer and Walgreens and it is probably not going to happen in the near future unless Meijer buys the Walgreen’s site.

Member Byle stated that the applicant should mimic the same driveway configuration that 5^th-3^rd Bank has. He doesn’t like the truck turning movement now and feels that the easterly driveway should be moved back to the south.

Jeff Hundley stated that the truck turning templates used were conservative. He prefers not to move the driveway if they don’t have to, as prospective tenants prefer quick and easy access to the building.

Member Korfhage stated that he prefers the driveway moved back to the south, but if the applicant is following the rules, he can’t argue with that.

Planner Wash and Member Byle made some sketch adjustments to the site plan showing the possibility of the driveway moved back to the south, and a larger throat/widening of the driveway and a longer radius to enable delivery truck movements.

Acting Chairman Rypma asked Scott Conners his opinion on the driveway? Scott stated that he agrees with Member Byle and likes lining up the driveway to the south like the 5^th -3^rd Bank.

There was much discussion about relocating the driveway and most of the planning commissioners concurred with Member Byle’s suggestion to move the driveway to the south. There was concern noted over the site using 5^th-3^rd Bank property for truck maneuvering and turning.

Scott Conners felt a condition could be imposed that the developer work with staff in relocating the easterly driveway as far back to the south that they can.

Acting Chairman Rypma stated that he doesn’t have a problem with where the driveway is located now. He is glad to get a good retailer in there.

Member Brown asked who the tenants will be? Jeff Hundley stated that he cannot say at this time.

Acting Chairman Rypma asked if we move the driveway to the south, would it impact the connection to Walgreens? Planner Wash stated no, the further back from M-45 the better for the easterly driveway location.

With regard to the ground sign, Member Schweitzer asked if the developers were looking at the clear vision corner, as the sign appears to be 2’ off the setback line and the ordinance requires 5’. Planner Wash stated yes.

Member Versluis asked if Meijer has input into these outlot buildings? Planner Wash stated yes, with all of the non-compete clauses plus a site plan review.

Motion by T. Schweitzer, supported by T. Byle, to approve the Standale Crossings final area site plan amendment for the Standale Retail II site plan and building elevations at 4482 Lake Michigan Drive, as the project does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance, and the Conditions of Final Area Site Plan Approval:

The Standale Retail II Site Plan:

Motion carried unanimously (6-0).

Planner Wash stated that this is continued discussion on the new billboard technologies. The questions is, should the city consider modifying the zoning ordinance to allow new billboard technologies? He related that this would be a procedural recommendation to the Ordinance Committee.

Applicant Mike Hucul, CBS Outdoor, was present, along with Gary Johnson, of Billboards by Johnson and GR Outdoors.

Mr. Hucul felt that the community is requesting the digital LED and mechanical Tri-Vision Billboards. Local businesses are advertising with them currently. Hucal stated they are saving greenhouse gases because no trucks are used, and advertising is strictly done via computer. He felt that these can be used for amber alerts, emergencies and would benefit the City.

Mr. Hucul referenced the new LED sign locations on US-131 north of 28^th Street, and on M-6 in Gaines Township. These technologies are moving quickly and they would like to be in the City of Walker. He is open to any suggestions.

Gary Johnson, of Billboards by Johnson and GR Outdoors, stated that he works with the manufacturers of LED signs. He referenced the letter to Frank Wash regarding concerns he had, and the need and importance of looking at this situation.

Johnson stated that the City currently allows LED on-premises signs. He wants the same right for off-premise signs. He shared some uses including apartment rental LED signs which have been beneficial for prospective renters and landlords.

Randy Disselkoen stated that smaller retailers in the community are losing their businesses. He felt the LED signs would be an asset to retailers and feels this is something we should support.

Member Schweitzer referenced the 2008 Billboard Study put together by Planner Wash and the numerous billboards in the community already. He doesn’t see anything compelling to do more than what is currently allowed in the Zoning Ordinance.

Member Versluis stated that he doesn’t see these new billboard technologies as assets to the community and doesn’t want to change what exists now.

Member Brown agrees with Members Schweitzer and Versluis. She doesn’t mind way-finding billboards, but felt that we have been bombarded with advertising and doesn’t think we need them.

Member Korfhage stated that he likes the idea of "get one, take down 2"; otherwise he likes our ordinance the way it is now. He felt this could be revisited in 5 or 10 years.

Member Byle asked what is going on in other municipalities? Have there been lawsuits? Mr. Johnson referred to 3 pending litigations because the ordinance does not address LED’s. There was a lawsuit with the City of Wyoming to get one LED billboard on US-131.

Planner Wash explained how we justify LED’s on-premises. He stated that they are only allowed with a black background with red numbers on a digital reader board.

Planner Wash asked, does the commission want to amend the ordinance or not? Regulating the new technologies mean allowing them.

Mr. Johnson stated that the question came up with reference to MDOT 1972 Billboard Act. The State of Michigan allows LED signs. Member Schweitzer added, provided that it’s allowed in the municipality, as Michigan is a home rule state.

Member Korfhage asked Member Versluis what he politically thought the people in Walker want? Korfhage asked, what if Cabela’s wants one, what will we do?

Planner Wash stated there is a difference between on-premise vs. off-premise signs.

Member Rypma stated he is not opposed to LED and Tri-Vision Billboards. He feels we will have to address this one way or another in the future. He felt that the billboards off of I-96 look pretty good.

Member Versluis stated that he is not opposed to billboards, just elaborate ones, as they are an inherent distraction to drivers. Versluis stated that 80% of accidents involve a distraction and there are so many distractions out there with work projects, cell phones, plus the distraction of billboards. He is concerned with the safety element. These signs are highly technical and elaborate. He doesn’t see having more elaborate signs as a positive direction for the public safety and welfare.

Mr. Johnson stated that safety is important. There have been no reports of accidents relating to LED Billboards. He felt the larger problem is cell phones.

Member Versluis stated that the issue before us is billboards, and he is voicing his opinion.

Member Byle stated that we will be dealing with this in the future.

Acting Chairman Rypma stated that the City of Grand Rapids changing time is every 5 minutes.

Member Versluis stated he is not anti-business. He is concerned about public safety.

It was pointed out that 3 planning commissioners are missing tonight for a vote.

Mr. Johnson stated that for amber alerts and emergency issues, this is a great way to notify the community. Johnson stated it is a also a cheaper way of advertising.

Motion by T. Schweitzer, supported by S. Versluis, to recommend to the City Commission/ Ordinance Committee, not to pursue an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow tri-vision or digital/LED billboards. The basis for the recommendation is that there is already adequate provision for off site signs consistent with the provisions of the State of Michigan Highway Advertising Act, as evidenced by the 2008 City of Walker Billboard Study. An additional basis is the discussion that took place at the November 5, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Motion failed 3-3. Opposed: Members Rypma, Byle , & Korfhage.

Motion by T. Byle, supported by T. Korfhage, to table this item until a full board returns at the November 19^th meeting. Motion carried unanimously.

Planner Wash reviewed the items on the next agenda to include: Northridge Precise Plat East and the billboard item.

Motion by D. Brown, supported by T. Byle, to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried.

________________________ ____________________________________
Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary Walker Planning Commission