Planning Commission Minutes

Planning Commission

Regular Meeting

June 3, 2009

7:00 p.m.

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

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

Approval of Minutes –May 6, 2009

Motion by T. Korfhage, supported by C. Gornowich, to approve the May 6, 2009 minutes as printed. Motion carried.

General Public Comment

There were no comments.

Case #08-548 – North Ridge Drive East Precise Plat

Chairman Hickey introduced the North Ridge Drive East Precise Plat agenda item.

Planner Wash related this project is essentially a repeat of what the city did on the west end of Northridge in 2008. Wash reviewed his staff report and noted the City has worked with the property owners/purchase option holders (Langlois et. al; Bossenbroek et. al.) regarding the precise plat process and a general future roadway alignment.

Wash indicated the precise plat process is not meant to include site plan review details. When site plans are submitted at some point in the future, specific public street design standards will be reviewed and refined.

Wash noted that a "notice of meeting" had been mailed to the 3 affected property interests: 1) Langlois et. al. – English Hills Golf Course; 2) The Engman Trust; 3) Walker Orchard Land Partners – Zach Bossenbroek.

Wash indicated that the Planning Commission’s action item is Step 2 of 3 in the precise plat process. The Planning Commission has in their packets a zoning ordinance that formalizes North Ridge Drive East as a precise plat.

Wash referred to the three exhibits included with the precise plat zoning ordinance. These exhibits included a legal description and two maps.

Also included in the Commissioner’s packets: a four-page document explaining the precise plat process; an email from Joel Langlois regarding his desires for the specifics of the future public roadway alignment; and a model motion.

Wash explained the procedural aspects of the precise plat, which is similar to a zoning ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission creates the road layout plan and an accompanying zoning ordinance and forwards a recommendation to the City Commission. Then the City Commission holds a public hearing and decides to approve, deny or modify the precise plat ordinance.

Wash related that the City has already adopted a precise plat zoning ordinance to ensure the two current dead-ends of North Ridge Drive between Walker Ave. and Fruit Ridge Ave. get connected at some point in the future.

The current precise plat process will ensure a continuous North Ridge Dr. from Fruit Ridge Ave. to the intersection of 4 Mile Road and Cordes Ave. The public roadway will be built either by Special Assessment District, as part of a site plan development process, or as a City of Walker Capital Improvement Plan project.

Member Byle asked why Bristol Ave. is not shown on the exhibits. Both Conners and Wash agreed that it should be identified between Sections 2 & 3. Planner Wash stated the change will be added to the exhibit.

Chairman Hickey asked if there were any changes made to the future roadway layout drawings. Scott Conners stated nothing has changed conceptually; however, there is a different right-of-way with the round-about at Bristol Ave.

Member Rypma asked if there were any conditions of approval. Wash stated no.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by C. Gornowich, to recommend approval to the Walker City Commission for the North Ridge Drive East precise Plat Zoning Ordinance, draft dated June 3rd, 2009. Motion carried unanimously 9-0.

Since the applicant of the next agenda item was not yet present, it was determined to rearrange the order of the next two agenda items.

Case #08-544 – Standale Downtown District Zoning Ordinance (SDD) – Public Hearing

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

Planner Wash reviewed the history of this important zoning ordinance, which began with the completion of the Downtown Standale Master Plan in 2007.

Wash stated the Ordinance Committee has reviewed several drafts of the SDD, starting in early 2008. The SDD was then reviewed twice by the Planning Commission: first on December 3rd, 2008 and then at a workshop with the Ordinance Committee on December 17th, 2008. The SDD next returned to the Ordinance Committee on January 21st, 2009. The Committee released the SDD to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) for approval of a public workshop. The City then held a DDA public forum on March 17th, 2009 to roll out the ordinance to the public and members of the Standale business community.

Planner Wash related that the most significant edits have been made to Section 94-177(A) (2) Site Plan Review and Special Exception Permits. He reviewed this part of the ordinance as follows:

1. When a new building is proposed, the building, use and lot shall be subject to all requirements of this district.
2. Existing buildings shall undergo site plan review by the Planning Commission to apply the requirements of this District when the following additions or changes are proposed.
   1. A footprint change of at least 5,000 sq. ft.
   2. A front façade change of at least 50% of the façade area.
   3. A change in building height.
   4. A change in front, side or rear setbacks.
   5. A change in land use that will generate significantly increased amount of vehicular traffic or pedestrian trips, based on data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual or other professional references.

Wash then reviewed the primary and secondary frontage areas that are established with the Standale Downtown District. He discussed mixed use development possibilities with commercial downstairs and living quarters upstairs in certain locations.

Member Gornowich asked when this ordinance would apply to a project. Wash stated not until a property gets rezoned to SDD. There was discussion about a future "mass rezoning" or a case-by-case rezoning process.

Gornowich asked, when properties are rezoned, when do the ordinance standards get applied? Wash stated if a site is starting with a "clean slate" the full effect of the SDD would be enforced. With existing buildings, the SDD would be enforced per Planning Commission review for setback changes, changes in traffic generation, or changes in vehicular circulation patterns.

Wash related that the SDD code gives the planning commission the ability to review projects on a case-by-case basis. Member Gornowich stated that if we don’t do a city-sponsored mass rezoning, how do we ever get this ordinance to achieve any real world results? Planner Wash stated after this ordinance gets adopted, the next big question for the DDA, City Commission and Planning Commission will be: Does the city sponsor a mass rezoning or only rezone properties on individual basis? Wash stated that he will work to ensure future rezoning decisions will not make any existing residential homes non-conforming uses.

Member Parent asked if a business is located on the main floor with residential units upstairs, can the stairway be located on the back side of the building? Wash stated there are many ways to provide access. Rear access may be preferred because resident parking will likely be in the rear. A side entry on a corner building sharing a common hallway might also be an option. Chairman Hickey stated that he didn’t want any open stair wells because of public safety issues.

Member Schweitzer asked about cross access? Planner Wash stated that there is a list of access management tools in the SDD code. Schweitzer stated that if McDonalds were to rebuild, he would like to see cross access between McDonalds and the Dolci strip center.

Hearing no other comments, a motion was made by D. Brown, supported by C. Gornowich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by M. Huizenga, to recommend approval to the Walker City Commission for the Standale Downtown District Zoning Ordinance, draft dated June 3rd, 2009. Motion carried 9-0.

Case #08-528 – Standale Retail II CPUD FASP Amendment for Signage Public Hearing - 4482 Lake Michigan Drive.

Chairman Hickey read the application requesting to amend the Meijer Commercial Planned Unit Development-Final Area Site Plan for the Standale Retail Center II, to allow ground and wall signage in excess of the zoning ordinance standards.

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

Planner Wash related that Jeff Hundley was present on behalf of the request. Wash stated that this is a follow-up to a 2008 site plan approval, as the signage package was not ready for approval at that time.

Wash reviewed the signage plans that the applicant seeks approval for as follows:

Planner Wash then compared the proposed signs with the signs approved and installed at 355 Wilson Avenue, another strip mall within the same Meijer CPUD. He indicated that Mr. Hundley’s proposal is less than what was approved for the 355 Wilson strip mall. Given that, staff is willing to approve the signage package as proposed with conditions of approval as noted in the staff report.

Wash noted the secondary ground sign at the internal intersection of the Meijer service drive and the M-45 driveway is somewhat difficult to recommend. Wash stated that a directional sign with a logo may be more effective at directing customers to the front door. If the planning commission approves this ground sign, it will have to adhere to the 5’ setback from all property lines.

Chairman Hickey stated he is concerned about a clear vision corner with this secondary ground sign location.

Member Brown asked what size the ground sign is at the strip mall at 355 Wilson. Wash stated the sign is some 37’ square feet.

Member Huizenga stated that the southeast monument sign setback must be set back 5’ from the property line. How far back is it from the curb radius and sidewalk? Huizenga wants to make sure there is adequate clearance.

Member Byle agrees with Planner Wash’s recommendation, but rather than a ground mounted sign, he prefers wall signage on the Meijer side.

Chairman Hickey asked how much signage is allowed for Chow Hound. It was determined to be approximately 96 square feet.

Member Korfhage stated that when driving into Standale, it looks messy and cluttered with too many signs. The Zoning Board of Appeals takes into consideration special circumstances. Member Byle agrees with Member Korfhage.

Member Brown asked if signage on the back of this building is permitted, is the other strip mall going to come back and ask for more signage on the back of their building?

Member Huizenga felt that what is proposed is more attractive than pylon signs. He likes the channel sign letters on the building and they are more tastefully designed than colored panels.

Jeff Hundley stated that their proposed monument sign on Lake Michigan Dr. is the same size as the Fifth-Third Bank to the west. The retailers have to survive. Hundley felt that with an 8’ wide by 4’ high sign, you can’t see the tenants well. With regard to the back signage, he is ok with putting tenants directly on the southeast corner of the building. He also is sensitive to the "too much signage" issue and does not seek to repeat it here.

Member Byle asked why the northeast monument sign can’t be moved to the northwest side of the site. Jeff Hundley stated that what is proposed is part of the 2008 site plan approval. They have already started wiring for this sign location. Jeff Hundley handed out copies of the signage plans to the Planning Commission.

Member Rypma stated that he doesn’t have a problem with what the applicant is proposing. He agrees with the comments that the Independent Bank signage is excessive. He feels that what is proposed on the back for this site is permissible. He does have a problem with a ground sign on the southeast side, but he felt that a monument sign would be better than a directional sign on a metal pole.

Member Byle prefers signage on the back of the building viewed from the Meijer side.

Member Korfhage feels there is still too much signage here.

Jeff Hundley stated that all signs are individual channeled letters.

Member Brown prefers the building signage, and the ground sign should be given up. She is concerned about precedent setting. Chairman Hickey agreed that others may ask for more signage.

Member Huizenga feels the identification sign is not warranted; he prefers the letters on the building. He doesn’t like the back lit sign on the south elevation.

Member Byle stated that he doesn’t like the southeast monument sign. He feels that the monument sign should not be located so close to the driveway. He is ok with the monument sign in front as long as there is clear vision. He is not comfortable with the rear wall signage. He prefers to bump up the directional signage instead.

Member Rypma stated that he doesn’t have a problem with the southeast corner monument sign as opposed to the signage proposed to the back of the building.

Jeff Hundley stated that he could take the signage off the back of the building and come back with something else. He stated that they need to compete with other signage that is already there. He doesn’t want to set a precedent either. He does a lot of development and provides high quality signage for the tenants.

Member Rypma stated that with the service drive there, it doesn’t make sense having signage at the southeast corner.

Member Schweitzer agrees with the rest of the planning commission. He is not enthused about the southeast monument sign. He prefers the directional signage as opposed to the signage on the back of the building. He felt that the frontage signage is ok and the northeast signage is ok.

Member Parent stated he is ok with the sign package as submitted. He agrees with Member Schweitzer regarding the directional signage instead of the ground sign.

Chairman Hickey stated that the developer will have to ask for more directional signage with more prospective tenants.

Member Huizenga stated that he could go with the whole thing if he could review the detailed print of the southeast monument signage. His concern is about visibility and traffic.

Jeff Hundley stated that he would be happy to come back to another meeting for further discussion and review.

Chairman Hickey asked if the planning commission is ready to approve the signage on the building tonight.

Member Byle stated he is ok with the northeast monument sign.

Planner Wash asked if the Planning Commission was willing to approve the east elevation wall signs as submitted. It was determined that the planning commission was agreeable to the northeast monument sign and the two signs on the east elevation, and the four signs on the north elevation facing M-45. They felt that the southeast monument sign should be tabled for more details.

There was discussion about the Chow Hound signage with two signs proposed and the fact that they have a bigger building space and signage allotment.

With regard to other tenants, Member Gornowich asked is there a possibility of separate tenant spaces? It was determined that there are a total of 4 tenant spaces proposed in the building.

Hearing no other comments, a motion was made by C. Rypma, supported by C. Gornowich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Motion by T. Korfhage, supported by T. Byle to table the southeast ground sign until the applicant returns with adequate site plan detail relative to setbacks from the sidewalk and curb plus a grading plan. Motion carried.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by C. Rypma, to approve the Standale Crossings FASP amendment for the Standale Retail II signage plan at 4482 Lake Michigan Drive, as the project does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance with the conditions of final area site plan approval for signage:

1. The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Planning Director’s letter dated 5-27-09.
2. Wall Signage Allowed: 288 sq. ft. Allowed on East Wall – as proposed on plan.
3. Ground Signage Allowed: 50.5 sq. ft. Number of Signs: 1 – Northeast corner ground sign as proposed.
4. All wall signage shall consist of backlit individual channel letters only.

Findings of Fact per Section 94-213(10):

Commissioner and Staff Update

Planner Wash related that we will cancel the June 17th and July 1st meetings due to lack of agenda items. The next meeting will be held on July 15th. Wash stated that upcoming items are: a Golden Corral Restaurant, proposed to be located at Old Orchard and Alpine south of Outback Restaurant; and a West Michigan Shared Laundry 22,000 sq. ft. addition.

Planner Wash related that the new Community Development Department will be officially up and running and on the Walker website as of July 1st.

Adjournment

Motion by A. Parent, supported by D. Brown, to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. Motion carried.

_________________________________ ___________________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary Walker Planning Commission