Planning Commission

Planning Commission Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 6:30 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Meeting Minutes 2.1. Review Meeting Minutes From September 6, 2023 3. General Public Comment 4. Agenda Items 4.1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Temporary Moratorium 4.2. Update on the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Process and Upcoming Master Plan Amendment 5. Adjournment Page 1 of 23  City of Walker Planning Commission – Regular Meeting 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 6:30 PM Planning Commission Members Present: T. Schweitzer, S. Funke, Dr. J. Taylor, M. Davey, S. Gilbert, T. Korfhage, D. Harland, and P. Laurie Planning Commission Members Absent: T. Byle Staff Present: Planning Director Paula Priebe and City Engineer Scott Conners T. Schweitzer opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Review Minutes from the August 16, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Motion by S. Funke, supported by T. Korfhage, to approve the minutes of the August 16, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. General Public Comment – None. Agenda Items Case #23-017 – 3370 Northridge Dr NW – Final Area Site Plan Review (FASP) – Proposed 43,200 sq. ft. Industrial Building and Associated Site Improvements – Vision Real Estate Investment Planning Director Paula Priebe introduced the request for Final Area Site Plan Review. The site is currently zoned IPUD Industrial Planned Unit Development. The site is located on Northridge Dr. NW, across from Hendershot Ave. This FASP is for Lot 7 of the Northridge East PASP. The proposal is for a 43,200 sq. ft. industrial building for up to three tenants, along with utilities, parking, landscaping, and other site improvements. The overall IPUD was approved in 2019. P. Priebe related that the applicant met with the Site Plan Review Committee in early August and most of the comments and concerns identified were addressed at that time. There is one remaining item which relates to a proposed ingress/egress easement near the east drive where the interior drive pushes south of the property line to allow for the drive to align with Hendershot. The proposed easement should be recorded before any building permits are issued. P. Priebe displayed the overall IPUD plan and identified the location of the Amazon facility and the subject site. The proposed easement location was also identified. P. Priebe related that there are three PUD Benefits requested. They are requesting 120 sq. ft. of wall mounted signage to be split over the three units. Staff has no concerns with that request. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-6-2023 Page 1 Page 2 of 23 They are also requesting 71 parking spaces to allow for significant variations in future tenant manpower requirements, which is more spaces than would be required as the minimum. The final request is for a waiver of some landscape requirements due to the transmission mains along the south property line and the extreme topography along the west line. There are trees proposed along the road, drive, and front of the building. Staff feels that is an appropriate request but it is up to the Planning Commission to determine whether it is appropriate. P. Priebe noted that the site is zoned IPUD and the Future Land Use is identified as Business with a Community Character designation of Enterprise, which is for industrial use. Images of the existing site conditions were displayed. City Engineer Scott Conners related that they reviewed the site plan and all items identified during Site Plan Review Committee have been addressed. Adam Feenstra, Feenstra & Associates, was present on behalf of the request. He felt Ms. Priebe provided an accurate description of the project. They’ve gone through a few iterations of what they wanted the site to look like. The client wanted to span the curve to keep the building frontage close to the road and as attractive as possible, which is how they arrived at the proposed layout. As mentioned, they need to try to align the truck entrance up with Hendershot for safety reasons. They are in the process of getting an easement from Viking Products, located to the south. They are looking at potentially tying in some future parking with this drive so it may be shared access. Everyone is positive about the location; it is a matter of procedural issues before that is signed. T. Schweitzer asked if 4 Mile is a truck route. S. Conners related that there are no restrictions on 4 Mile Rd., which is a County road. Northridge is part of the City’s truck route system. T. Schweitzer invited questions from the audience on the project; there were none. He noted that the project appears straight forward. He suggested they consider the requested PUD Benefits. Commissioners were comfortable with the requested sign square footage. They were also comfortable with the proposed number of parking spaces and the waiver request of some landscaping requirements along the south and west property lines. Based on the application material provided, T. Korfhage MOVED TO APPROVE the Final Area Site Plan for a new 43,200 square foot industrial building for up to three tenants and associated site improvements at 3370 Northridge Drive NW (PIN 41-13-05-200-021), subject to the following conditions and based on the findings of fact noted below. Conditions of Final Area Site Plan Review Approval 1. The applicant shall record the proposed ingress/egress easement for the east drive and submit documentation to the Community Development Department, prior to the issuance of building or stormwater permits. Findings of Fact per Section 94-283 • The dimensional arrangement of buildings and structures conforms to the required yards, setback, height, and other regulations of the IPUD zoning district. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-6-2023 Page 2 Page 3 of 23 • The proposed buildings and structures have a compatible relationship to the site terrain, landscaping, open space, and the other structures, existing and proposed. • Proper site drainage will be provided so that removal of surface waters will not adversely affect regulated natural areas, neighboring properties, or the public storm drainage system. • The provisions for vehicle parking and for vehicle and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets will not create hazards to safety and will not place demands on public services or facilities more than capacity. Drives, streets, and other elements have been designed to promote safe and efficient traffic operations within the site and shall provide safe and efficient vehicular access to and from the site considering adjacent streets and curb cuts. • Exterior lighting will not create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets, nor damage the value or diminish the usability of adjacent properties. Lighting will be adequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site. • Plant material will be used to enhance the appearance of the site, to screen unsightly or harsh elements and to provide visual relief from large monotonous features such as parking lots. Landscape buffers will be preserved or provided to ensure that proposed uses will be adequately buffered from one another and from surrounding public and private property in compliance with the requirements of Section 94-344. • All buildings and structures will be arranged to permit sufficient access to emergency vehicles. SUPPORTED by Dr. Taylor. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Case #23-018 – 2150 Northridge Dr NW – Final Area Site Plan Review (FASP) – Proposed 15,660 sq. ft. Light Manufacturing Facility and Associated Site Plan Improvements – Wilde Holdings LLC Planning Director Paula Priebe introduced the request for Final Area Site Plan Review (FASP) The subject site is part of the larger Walkerview PUD. It is currently zoned IPUD and is located on the south side of Northridge Dr., just east of Shippers Dr. Proposed is a 15,660 sq. ft. industrial building along with associated site improvements. P. Priebe recalled there was a previous application for a project on lots C-9 and C-11; three lots were combined. As part of the original Walkerview PUD they were designated as commercial lots and zoned CPUD. Last year there was a proposal for a larger industrial user and those parcels were rezoned to Industrial. That project since fell through and the lots are again three separate lots with Industrial zoning. P. Priebe related that the applicant met with the Site Plan Review Committee in early August and was provided feedback on the plan. The applicant addressed all staff comments and concerns related to planning and zoning. The plans as presented meet the Walker Zoning Ordinance regulations as to use, setbacks, conformity with the approved PASP, Phase 1 parking, loading, landscaping, and lighting. The site plan was displayed. P. Priebe noted that the lot is small/narrow and located where the road curves. Two entrances from Northridge Dr. are proposed. The truck dock is on the northwest corner. P. Priebe noted that there are two phases proposed; the Planning Commission is considering Phase 1 today. Phase 2 includes a loading space, additional parking, etc. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-6-2023 Page 3 Page 4 of 23 P. Priebe related that the applicant is requesting one PUD Benefit; to defer some parking and part of the east buffer landscaping until the building use requires more than is currently provided. P. Priebe displayed an image of the lots that were originally part of the CPUD, which are now Industrially zoned. They are also designated Enterprise in the Community Character map in the Master Plan. Images of existing site conditions were displayed. City Engineer Scott Conners reviewed his staff report dated August 30, 2023. He noted that the downstream storm sewer serving this lot hasn’t been constructed yet. It is a private storm sewer that will run across Walkerview Lots I-4 and I-5. The plan shows this as “by others”. S. Conners believes there is a bit of a debate between the developer and the new property owner about who will pay for that, which is up to them to work out. If the request moves forward, the applicant should provide the storm sewer easement across the south side of their lot so that lot C-11 can be served by storm sewer in the future. Finally, the proposed truck turning movements on this site are very tight. This is not a situation where it will be desirable to have cars or trucks waiting on Northridge for an opening to back in; that should all be maintained on site. If there are any unforeseen issues, it will be the developer’s responsibility to find a solution and not impact public health, safety, and welfare by parking on an industrial corridor. T. Schweitzer recognized that the loading area in Phase 2 won’t be serviced by the same size truck as shown for Phase 1. S. Conners agreed; it will have to be a much smaller truck. Adam Feenstra, Feenstra & Associates, related that Ascent Cabinetry is currently based in Ada and is looking to get into standardized cabinetry lines and are proposing a manufacturing facility on the subject site to expand their operations. They are hoping to expand to Phase 2 in a few short years. Given that it is a cabinetry shop they need quite a bit of space for each employee to work and for material storage. They don’t anticipate a large number of employees and even less in Phase 2. Mr. Feenstra’s understanding is they will begin with 10 employees in Phase 1 and Phase 2 will increase that number to approximately 16, which is why they are requesting the deferred parking. They know that their maximum occupancy in the building will be relatively low. They also recognize that if they were to ever sell the building there should be an appropriate location to add more parking for a higher intensity use, which is why they are requesting the deferred parking. Mr. Feenstra addressed the loading docks and truck turning. He explained that following Mr. Conners’ initial comments they eliminated one parking space along the front of the entrance and pushed the landscaping buffer in a bit so a truck coming in can make the turn easier. The turning template for getting into the dock shows that they should be able to get up to the sidewalk, or just past it but not into the street, in order to get their trailer straight to back it into the dock. He agreed that for a full semi it will be tight but it should be workable. They wanted a similar size for Phase 2 but there is a very large drop off to the site. To make the lot big enough for them to utilize they had to make some concessions on the truck turning. With respect to the loading area in the 2nd phase, it is simply an overhead door for smaller things. Any of the actual loading dock operations would occur at the front. Mr. Feenstra responded to Dr. Taylor explaining that the operation will be kitchen cabinetry. They currently do primarily custom work and are looking to expand into the semi-custom arena where they have standardized sizes that can be shipped pre-assembled to job sites. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-6-2023 Page 4 Page 5 of 23 T. Korfhage asked the number of trucks anticipated daily. Mr. Feenstra replied that in terms of finished product they don’t anticipate more than one or two trucks a day. Raw materials will likely involve a couple more trucks daily. It won’t be 30 trucks a day, which is why they are only asking for two docks. It is a medium sized facility and two docks should handle their current and future needs quite nicely. T. Schweitzer asked if the Planning Commission is considering both phases or just the first. P. Priebe replied that at this time it is just Phase 1. An approval in a PUD is good for two years. If the applicant happened to be ready to move forward and act on Phase 2 within that two-year window, theoretically they could move forward. However, in her discussions with them she anticipates that will be an addition that will come back at a later date. T. Schweitzer invited questions from the audience; there were none. S. Funke feels it is a good project, although he would prefer more space for the truck turning. Overall, he feels it is a good project and use for the space. Based on the application material provided, S. Funke MOVED TO APPROVE the Final Area Site Plan for a new 15,660 sq. ft. industrial building and associated site improvements at 2150 Northridge Drive NW (PIN 41-13-03-600-034), subject to the following conditions and based on the findings of fact noted below. Conditions of Final Area Site Plan Approval 1. The applicant shall address all the items outlined in the City Engineer’s report dated August 30, 2023. 2. The applicant shall provide 3 sealed sets of civil engineered plans incorporating the recommended conditions to the Community Development Department, prior to the issuance of building or stormwater permits. Findings of Fact per Section 94-283 • The dimensional arrangement of buildings and structures conforms to the required yards, setback, height, and other regulations of the IPUD zoning district. • The proposed buildings and structures have a compatible relationship to the site terrain, landscaping, open space, and the other structures, existing and proposed. • Proper site drainage will be provided so that removal of surface waters will not adversely affect regulated natural areas, neighboring properties, or the public storm drainage system. • The provisions for vehicle parking and for vehicle and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets will not create hazards to safety and will not place demands on public services or facilities more than capacity. Drives, streets, and other elements have been designed to promote safe and efficient traffic operations within the site and shall provide safe and efficient vehicular access to and from the site considering adjacent streets and curb cuts. • Exterior lighting will not create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets, nor damage the value or diminish the usability of adjacent properties. Lighting will be adequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-6-2023 Page 5 Page 6 of 23 • Plant material will be used to enhance the appearance of the site, to screen unsightly or harsh elements and to provide visual relief from large monotonous features such as parking lots. Landscape buffers will be preserved or provided to ensure that proposed uses will be adequately buffered from one another and from surrounding public and private property in compliance with the requirements of Section 94-344. • All buildings and structures will be arranged to permit sufficient access to emergency vehicles. SUPPORTED by D. Harland. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Case #23-019 – 1200 4 Mile Rd NW – Major Amendment to the Approved Final Area Site Plan (FASP) to Reduce the Number of Buildings from 42 to 37 and the Number of Units from 552 to 550 – English Hills LLC Planning Director Paula Priebe recalled that the plan went through PASP and FASP. There is an approved FASP and the development team has been working through the conditions, utility connections, and different components related to moving the project forward. Some of those have come back to the Planning Commission, including amending the Precise Plat for Northridge Dr. They are present this evening requesting a Major Amendment to the approved Final Area Site Plan. The action requested of the Planning Commission is to review the proposed amendment to change the building type, reduce the number of buildings from 42 to 37 and the number of units from 552 to 550. P. Priebe explained that there are two areas in this proposed development. Area A is the portion between the new section of Northridge Dr. and 4 Mile and Area B is everything south of Northridge Dr. All of the proposed changes are to Area A; the northern portion. It would adjust Area A from 24 buildings, each with 8 units and a private garage for each unit, to 19 buildings, each with 10 units and 6 private garages available per building. No changes are proposed to the street layout, utilities, or anything in Area B or other site amenities. P. Priebe displayed the Area A section of the plan. The buildings removed are shown outlined; buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. There have been adjustments to the parking also. There is some additional parking overlapping where a building used to be. Some garages were removed from the plan, there is additional surface parking and there are still some garages proposed but not every unit proposed has a garage now. There is a change to the number of parking spaces as well as the amount of impervious surface as part of the changes. P. Priebe displayed the updated plan noting that all buildings shown have the new footprint and new parking. Area B remains unchanged. The new plan proposes six garages per building with parking in front of the garages, as well as surface parking adjacent to the buildings on each side, and an interior hallway connecting the buildings and allowing anyone access to the garage parking; they aren’t connected to any particular unit. P. Priebe noted that the applicant provided a narrative of the proposed changes. She summarized that there are now more units per building than there were previously. The building will look a bit different than previously proposed. Renderings of the buildings were displayed. P. Priebe related that the development team came to Site Plan Review Committee and spoke with staff. From a planning perspective, she doesn’t have any real concerns with the proposed changes. The overall numbers are very similar to what they were. The proposed changes warrant return to the Planning Commission for approval. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-6-2023 Page 6 Page 7 of 23 S. Conners related that they didn’t prepare a report because there isn’t an engineering component to the request; it is a zoning and land use preference. T. Schweitzer asked if there is sufficient area outside of the garages for parking a vehicle without impeding the sidewalk. S. Conners replied that it is his understanding that those dimensions haven’t really changed. 25 ft. is what is typically required as a minimum, which allows for parking a standard pickup truck and still being able to walk in front or behind it safely. Jesse Lewter, Wolverine Engineers and Surveyors, felt P. Priebe addressed most of the proposed differences. Overall, for the parking on the norther half, Area A, they have a reduction of 48 spaces, which still exceeds the required number of parking spaces per the Ordinance. The impervious area was reduced by approximately 100,000 sq. ft. The benefit of that is additional green scape. Two units were eliminated by reducing the number of buildings. Other items that were adjusted include the alignment of Northridge Dr. The wetland impacts remain as they were previously. Lighting remains the same as it was before other than minor modifications moving things out of drives, etc. Storm layout and pond locations remain the same as previously approved. They modified the sidewalk crossings slightly, eliminating two of them and changing the layout to provide a safer walk, which was based on communication with staff. They have added a couple of hydrants on the site based on feedback from staff and water and sewer were slightly modified based on communication with Grand Rapids. Mr. Lewter indicated that they are asking to defer the coordination of the construction schedule to the Development Agreement, which will come at a later date with the City and communication with the City Engineer. T. Schweitzer asked, with the reduction in parking spaces, if it remains that residents will not have to walk across the private drive to access their units/parking. Mr. Lewter replied that they’ve done a standard parking layout, which allowed for similar parking around all of the buildings. They noted that the original layout had an excess of parking due to the ten garage spaces and then ten exterior spaces in front of each garage, as well as surface parking spaces. They found that there was an opportunity to reduce the parking and not waste that space. T. Schweitzer referred to the narrative, which explained why the change from 8 units to 10 units per building and the size of each of the units. He asked that Mr. Lewter explain that for all present. Mr. Lewter explained that what it came down to was that the developer didn’t feel the previously proposed larger units would be a viable option. The newly proposed building footprints are nearly the same size but the units are slightly smaller, which allows for more units per building and making the project more viable. They didn’t feel they would be able to lease the larger units and the desire is for a successful project with nearly 100% occupancy. T. Schweitzer noted that Area B remains unchanged. He asked if those units are larger. Mr. Lewter replied that they are larger, but not significantly. They are smaller than what was originally proposed for the units in the norther half. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-6-2023 Page 7 Page 8 of 23 T. Schweitzer recalled that there was information in the report regarding project phasing. He asked that Mr. Lewter explain that to those present. Mr. Lewter explained that the project phasing is slightly up in the air because they are currently trying to bid the project out. They would like to get input from the contractor that will be doing the work as to how they feel they can phase the site in such a way that has the smallest impact on residents, emergency access, etc. At Northridge Dr. and 4 Mile there is a small section that connects to the English Hills condominiums. They continue to propose that in a very quick manner so that the disruption to them is as minimal as possible. It may not be the first item that gets done but access remains from the blue route shown on the plan, which would allow construction vehicles into the site without disturbing the condominium residents. T. Schweitzer invited questions from the audience. Stanley Gronek, 3334 Golfview Dr., asked for clarification on how there is a reduction of two units since the 19 buildings total 190 units and the 18 buildings have 16 units each. His calculations come to 478 total units. He also asked if Area B is the first to be constructed, which seems to be the case based on the site plan. Mr. Gronek asked if the changes involve a reduction in terms of the overall development costs, which he recalled to be approximately 45 million dollars. He asked if the proposed changes have increased the cost of the project. Mr. Gronek asked if the applicant, John Hennessey, is a resident of Walker or Indiana. As a resident he would like to know who to address any concerns to. Rene Curtis, 3313 Ipswich Dr. NW, related that she is a 27-year resident of this beautiful area. Ms. Curtis asked if the existing park will remain undisturbed. Ms. Curtis also wished to ensure she wouldn’t be hearing a lot of noise from the sports court proposed. Ray Toren, 3303 Ipswich NW, indicated his property is directly east of the activity center Ms. Curtis mentioned. Based on his last internet search, the tennis courts and pickle ball courts for the City of Walker were closed due to problems with users. He asked for confirmation of that. It was confirmed that the courts are closed. Mr. Toren asked the difference between the pickle ball court here that will be directly behind his house and the City’s courts that were closed. Mr. Toren also feels that more units per building may lower their housing values. Janice stated that she is a concerned citizen. The income level of tenants they are seeking has her concerned. She works in a hotel in Grand Rapids that has turned into a flop house due to lack of housing. Three quarters of the hotel guests are long-term residents. The residents are paying $400 a week for a room. They have up to 5 people in the room and two animals. Based on the rents proposed, they will be charging less than $300 per week for the lower priced units and approximately $450 for the higher rents. Janice related that they deal with the Grand Rapids Police on nearly a daily basis. She hopes that the City of Walker is ready to beef up their police department. David Lightfoot, President of the English Hills Condominium Association, stated that from the beginning they’ve had mixed emotions. There has been some excitement knowing they would have a top-of-the-line development next to them. Looking at the plans it seemed like it was going to be very high-end, much like the other Red Hawk developments all over the Midwest. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-6-2023 Page 8 Page 9 of 23 When looking at the summary of the development the Planning Commission received, it now talks about 855 sq. ft. with rents ranging from $1,100 to $1,800. That is concerning with respect to what they will have next to them. That is not market value in Grand Rapids. There is a small apartment complex at the entrance to the condominiums and the rents are far higher than that. At $1,100 there will be hundreds of cars, trucks, and motorcycles coming for those rates. He questions whether that is high end. Mr. Lightfoot stated that they are also concerned about when this will begin. He reviewed the sequencing, they keep waiting, and see a small amount of action. The sequencing mentions something happening in October of this year. They would like to know what is happening in terms of time. Access to their homes is also a concern and the high traffic volume that will be involved with 550 units. Will there really be a connection to Bristol to take some of the traffic in a different direction? It will be very difficult with that number of units with only one additional access to 4 Mile. Mr. Lightfoot again stated that they were led to believe it would be a high-end development and they now have concerns whether that will actually be the case. Mr. Lewter responded to the comments. With respect to the change to the number of buildings and units in the northern portion of the site, those numbers are spelled out on Sheet C3.15 and C3.0. T. Schweitzer recalled that in the northern portion there will be 19 buildings with 10 units per building. He asked the count for the southern portion. Mr. Lewter replied that the southern portion is 18 buildings with 20 units in each. The southern buildings have not changed at all. Mr. Lewter addressed the concern regarding complaints during construction. He related that they do have the developer’s contact information that they have tried to provide to residents in the area. Mr. Lewter believes he has provided his cell phone number to most that live in the community. They are happy to make that information available again. Mr. Lewter stated that not only will the park that is there remain but they will be donating a couple acres of land to make it larger. He identified the area to be donated. With respect to noise and activity, the idea behind some of the features such as a pool, club house, pickle ball, etc. is to keep residents happy, attract new residents and get a higher clientele. The idea is to provide amenities to keep residents happy, fill the property, and prevent it from becoming a lower level of clientele due to the need to lower rents in order to fill the units. Mr. Lewter stated that these are higher quality units. They are not base level stone work. This is new construction with new construction techniques. The buildings are not intended to appeal to the lower class; the middle class is the target audience. While $1,100 may seem like a relatively low rent, that would be for the studio or one-bedroom units. $1,100 for a one-bedroom is not cheap, even by Grand Rapids’ standards. They are fair prices for what they intend the target market to be. Mr. Lewter commented on the time line. They would love to begin breaking ground in the fall with actual building construction beginning in the spring. They are working to finalize approvals through EGLE and Grand Rapids. With respect to access and traffic counts, they have done a traffic impact study and he believes they’ve met all of the requirements. There is a future connection from Northridge to Bristol that is part of the City of Walker’s plans. They anticipate that connection will be made in the future, which is how they’ve designed their layout. There will be another access point to 4 Mile that is further to the west. Dr. Taylor expressed his understanding of the concerns expressed. However, he doesn’t view the proposed as a big change from what was previously approved. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-6-2023 Page 9 Page 10 of 23 M. Davey agreed. The density remains relatively the same. The infrastructure is the same. The question is whether it remains a high-quality development and it appears to be so. He is in support. T. Korfhage agreed. He is always interested in hearing concerns from neighbors. In the Area B portion of the development, the closest structure to the border of the property is 700+ ft., which is quite a distance. In Area A it is approximately 400 ft. He also appreciates the environment and open space but this is needed in Walker. He would prefer single family homes but that isn’t what is needed right now; entry level is needed. He also doesn’t feel it is a big change and he is supportive. P. Laurie had nothing further to add. S. Gilbert doesn’t feel the change is insignificant. Through the initial process there was a selling point made, particularly in this part of the development, that each unit would have a garage and it would be a certain level of development. That being said, do the changes continue to meet the qualifications of what they would consider approvable on the site and he believes it meets that threshold. To the price point aspect, in looking at rates around Walker and some of the existing apartment buildings, this is toward the upper end of that mark for a one-bedroom. He is in support. S. Funke had nothing further to add. He is in favor. D. Harland agreed. He thanked those that came out to voice their concerns. The changes seem fine; it is a reduction in buildings. He agreed with S. Gilbert with respect to the rents; $1,100 is not bottom of the barrel. He is in support. T. Schweitzer stated that he is largely in agreement with fellow Commissioners. The reason it has come back is the proposed change. It isn’t a large change in the number of dwelling units and the reduction in parking associated with that results in more green space on the overall site. There is always some uncertainty when there is development of property around you and how that will impact property values. The developer has stated their intent for a high-quality development. Sometimes that is not necessarily in terms of what the rent is but rather the amenities and design of the project. T. Schweitzer feels they’ve been responsive to that and have respected the borders where existing neighbors are located; they aren’t moving any closer to that. He feels this will be just as good of a project as previously approved. With respect to timing, if they are putting it out for bid now, they will be fortunate to get it started this year. Realistically it may be spring. The scope of the Planning Commission’s review is whether this is consistent or similar to the prior approval? Based on the application material provided, T. Korfhage MOVED TO APPROVE the amendment to the Final Area Site Plan for the English Hills multi-family residential development at 1200 4 Mile Road NW (PIN 41-13-02-100-059) with changes to Area A regarding building type, building size, number of units, number of garages, and number of parking spaces, in accordance with the plan set last revision received dated 8/16/2023, based on the findings of fact noted below. Findings of Fact per Section 94-283 • The amendment to the approved English Hills FASP as illustrated and described by the original FASP and in this amendment continues to meet the standards contained City of Walker Planning Commission 9-6-2023 Page 10 Page 11 of 23  in Section 94-184, 94-214, and 94-216 of Walker Zoning Code and continues to meet applicable standards for review. • The FASP as amended herein remains in substantial compliance with the previously approved English Hills PASP and FASP, consisting of the maps and accompanying written materials required under Section 94-213 of the Walker Zoning Code. SUPPORTED by D. Harland. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Staff & Planning Commission Comments • The next meeting will be September 20th. Adjourned: 7:45 p.m. ____________________________________________ Administrative Approval Planning Director Paula Priebe ___________________________________________ Patrick Laurie Secretary – City of Walker Planning Commission City of Walker Planning Commission 9-6-2023 Page 11 Page 12 of 23  MEMORANDUM To: City of Walker Planning Commissioners From: Paula Priebe, AICP – Planning Director Date: September 20, 2023 RE: Case # 23-020 Amendment to Chapter 94 Article II to add a new Section 94-40 to Impose a Temporary Moratorium To review the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, and to recommend approval, with or without conditions, or denial, to the City Commission. Project type Zoning Ordinance Amendment City Commission Ordinance On Monday, September 11, 2023, the Walker City Commission passed Ordinance No. 23-672 to amend Chapter 2, Article I of the City Code of Ordinances to add a new Section 2-1 to impose a temporary moratorium on the issuance of any building permits, demolition permits, land divisions, land combinations, lot line adjustments, or other similar approvals for designated properties. The full Ordinance is included in the attachments for review. The moratorium applies to residential development of land at a proposed density of 3.5 or more units per acre. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment The City Attorney prepared a complementary ordinance to put the temporary moratorium into the Zoning Ordinance. This amendment, if approved, puts a six month pause on all permits related to residential developments of 3.5+ units per acre. During the six-month period, the City will continue to work on the ongoing Zoning Ordinance Rewrite process as well as a amendments to interpret and clarify sections of the Master Plan. As with any amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, this amendment will have a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission and carry a recommendation to the City Commission for adoption. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this request. Paula Priebe, AICP City of Walker Planning Director Page 1 of 1 Page 13 of 23  CITY OF WALKER KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN (Ordinance No. ) At a ______ meeting of the City Commission for the City of Walker held at the City Hall on ____________, 2023, beginning at p.m., the following Ordinance was offered for adoption by City Commissioner ____________ and was seconded by City Commissioner ____________: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 94, ARTICLE II OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF WALKER, MICHIGAN, TO ADD A NEW SECTION 94-40 TO IMPOSE A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ZONING APPROVALS, REZONINGS, PERMITS, VARIANCES, LICENSES, OR OTHER SIMILAR APPROVALS FOR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. THE CITY OF WALKER (the “City”) ORDAINS: Section 1. Amendment. That Chapter 94, Article II of the Code of Ordinances, City of Walker, Michigan, is hereby amended by adding a section, to be numbered Section 94-40, which such section shall read as follows: Section 94-40. Temporary Moratorium. (a) Findings. (1) The zoning and land use provisions of the City of Walker regarding the residential development of land at a proposed density of three and a half (3.5) or more units per acre (a “Development”) have not kept pace with neighborhood development patterns, the scale, placement, and intensity of buildings and associated structures, and the allowable uses of land for such Developments. (2) The City finds that given on-going growth in the City, such Developments increasingly require more detailed interpretations of the City’s adopted Master Plan, raise watershed sustainability and stormwater concerns, create an enhanced need for buffers for adjacent parcels at lower density levels, and impact future road development needs and infrastructure requirements. (3) The City is currently in the process of amending large portions of the City Zoning Ordinance and it is anticipated that the first reading of the proposed 1 4866-6396-5821, v. 2 Page 14 of 23  amendments will take place in December of this year. In addition, the City is undertaking targeted master plan updates to be substantially completed by March 2024 and which are to include the consideration of designating certain higher-density developments as recommended for special exception reviews; addressing residential owner-occupied/rental ratios; expanding upon text associated with sketches in the master plan; updating maps; clarifying and interpreting future land use maps and developing associated text for higher-density residential areas. (4) Given the current reviews already being undertaken by the City, the City finds that it is desirable to incorporate into these efforts a review and the drafting of potential revisions with regard to zoning approvals, rezonings, permits, variances, and similar matters for Developments. (5) Imposing a moratorium, on a limited temporary basis, is reasonable and necessary in order to allow time for the review of potential amendments to the Code of Ordinances or Zoning Ordinance as well as to forestall efforts to create what may soon become nonconforming uses and structures. (6) During this moratorium period, the City Commission and Planning Commission will continue to investigate potential modifications to the Code of Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance regarding Developments and related matters. (7) This new Section 94-40 will supplement and be interpreted consistently with City of Walker Ordinance No. _______. (b) Administrative Action. A moratorium is hereby imposed upon the approval or issuance of any City permit, zoning compliance permit, license, zoning approval, rezoning, variance or similar or other approval for any Development as defined above. During the moratorium term as specified in this Ordinance, no City official, employee, agent, body, board, commission, or agent shall issue or approve any such permit, zoning approval, rezoning, license, variance, or other approval. (c) Exemptions. This Ordinance and the moratorium imposed herein shall not apply to: (1) Any construction or development that, as of the Effective Date of this Ordinance, has obtained approval of all zoning compliance permits, zoning approvals, rezonings, variances, or similar approvals as required by the Zoning Ordinance to complete the construction or development. 2 4866-6396-5821, v. 2 Page 15 of 23  (2) Any interior renovations or interior remodeling not involving changes to the exterior structure or footprint of a residence or building. (3) Any proposed construction or renovation of decks, gazebos, sheds, pools, or similar accessory structures. (4) Any other structure or use similar to the two exemptions listed in subsections (1) and (2), above, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. (5) Any development involving on-going construction that has been completed to a “substantial character” as determined by the Zoning Administrator. (d) Term of this Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall remain in effect for six (6) months following the effective date of this Ordinance. Prior to the expiration of this moratorium, the City may extend the moratorium to allow sufficient time to complete any such amendments to the ordinances. (e) Appeals. Any applicant seeking a permit or approval to which this moratorium applies may appeal the application of the moratorium to the City Commission. The appeal shall be in writing and identify in detail why the moratorium should not apply due to unique circumstances affecting the subject property. The City Commission shall schedule and hold a hearing to consider the appeal and its decision shall be issued in writing within a reasonable time thereafter. Section 2. Savings Clause. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any whole or subsection, chapter, paragraph, sentence, or clause is declared void or inoperable for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not void any or render inoperable other part or portion of this Ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon the expiration of seven (7) days following the publication of lawful notice of its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Walker. 3 4866-6396-5821, v. 2 Page 16 of 23 The vote in favor of this Ordinance adoption was as follows: YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT/ABSTAIN: ORDINANCE DECLARED ADOPTED CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of an Ordinance adopted by the City Commission for City of Walker at the time, date, and place specified above pursuant to the required statutory procedures. By: Deborah Goudy City of Walker Clerk 4 4866-6396-5821, v. 2 Page 17 of 23  CITY OF WALKER KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN Ordinance No. 23-672 At a regular meeting of the City Commission for the City of Walker held at the City Hall on September ll, 2023, beginning at 7:00 p.m., the following Ordinance was offered for adoption by City Commissioner Gilbert and was seconded by City Commissioner Burke: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE I OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF WALKER, MICHIGAN, TO ADD A NEW SECTION 2-1 TO IMPOSE A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS, DEMOLITION PERMITS, LAND DIVISIONS, LAND COMBINATIONS, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS, OR OTHER SIMILAR APPROVALS FOR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. Page 18 of 23 THE CITY or WALKER (the “City”) ORDAINS: Section 1. Amendment. That Chapter 2, Article I of the Code of Ordinances, City of Walker, Michigan, is hereby amended by adding a section, to be numbered Section 2-1, which such section shall read as follows: Section 2-1. Temporary Moratorium. (3) (1) The provisions of the City of Walker Code of Ordinances regarding building permits, demolition permits, land divisions, land combination, lot line adjustments, or similar approvals for the residential development of land at a proposed density of three and a half (3.5) or more units per acre (a “Development”) have not kept pace with neighborhood development patterns, the scale, placement, and intensity of buildings and associated structures, and other regulatory matters (e. g., environmental impacts and infrastructure needs). 4859-0899-1101, V. 3 Master The (2) and City enhanced future Plan, impact increasingly need finds raise formore watershed require buffers given thatroad detailed for on-going needs growth sustainability development adjacent and City, atof infrastructure parcels in stormwater the interpretations lower the concerns, suchCity’s density create Developments requirements. levels, adopted  (3) The City is currently in the process of amending large portions of the current City Zoning Ordinance and it is anticipated that the first reading of the proposed amendments will take place in December of this year. In addition, the City is undertaking targeted master plan updates to be substantially completed by March 2024 and which are to include the consideration of designating certain higher—densitydevelopments as recommended for special exception reviews; addressing residential owner—occupied/rental ratios; expanding text associated with sketches in the master plan; updating maps; clarifying and interpreting future land use maps and associated text for higher—densityresidential areas. (4) Given the current reviews already being undertaken by the City, the City finds that it is now desirable to conduct a review and the drafting of potential revisions of the portions of the City of Walker Code of Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance with regard to building permits, demolition permits, land divisions, lot line adjustments, land combination,or similar matters for land Page 19 of 23 on which a Development is proposed. (5) Imposing a moratorium, on a limited temporary basis, is reasonable and necessary in order to allow time for the review of potential amendments to the Code of Ordinances or Zoning Ordinance as well as to forestall efforts to create what may soon become nonconforming uses and structures. (6) During this moratorium period, the City Commission and Planning Commission will continue to investigate potential modi?cations to the Code of Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance regarding the Developments and related matters. (b) Administrative Action. A moratorium is hereby imposed upon the approval or issuance of any City building permit, demolition permit, land division, land combination, lot line adjustment, or similar approval for any Development as defined above. During the moratorium term as speci?ed in this Ordinance, no City official, employee, agent, body, board, commission, or agent shall issue or approve any such permit or other approval. 4859-0899-1101, v. 3 (1) Any Zoning Ordinance construction approvals, Ordinance, to or rezonings, has obtained theor approval complete variances, development as of or construction zoning similar of all that, the Effective approvals as compliance Date of permits, development. required zoning by this the  (2) Any interior renovations or interior remodeling not involving changes to the exterior structure or footprint of a residence or building. (3) Any proposed construction or renovation of decks, gazebos, sheds, pools, or similar accessory structures. (4) Any other structure or use similar to the two exemptions listed in subsections (1) and (2), above, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. (5) Any development involving ongoing construction that has been completed to a “substantial character” as determined by the Zoning Administrator. (6) Any land divisions expressly required by the Michigan Land Division Act, Public Act 288 of l967, MCL 560.101 et. seq. (d) Term of this Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall remain in effect for six (6) months following the effective date of this Ordinance. Page 20 of 23 Prior to the expiration of this moratorium, the City may extend the moratorium to allow sufficient time to complete any such amendments to the ordinances. (e) Appeals. Any applicant seeking a permit or approval to which this moratorium applies may appeal the application of the moratorium to the City Commission. The appeal shall be in writing and identify in detail why the moratorium should not apply due to unique circumstances affecting the subject property. The City Commission shall schedule and hold a hearing to consider the appeal and its decision shall be issued in writing within a reasonable time thereafter. Section 2. Effective Date. Pursuant to Sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the City Charter, this Ordinance is declared by a vote of not less than five (5) members of the City Commission to be an emergency ordinance for the reasons described herein. As such, this Ordinance shall be given immediate effect. Notice of the Ordinance’s adoption shall be published in the newspaper in the manner permitted by law. 4859-0899-1101, V. 3  The Vote in favor of this Ordinance adoption was as follows: YEAS: Mayor Carey, Commissioners Gilbert, Babcock, Grooters, Deschaine, and Burke NAYS: None AB SENT/ABSTAIN:Commissioner Huizen,q,a~Chase ORDINANCE DECLARED ADOPTED CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of an Ordinance adopted by the City Commission for City of Walker at the time, date, and place speci?ed above pursuant to the required statutory procedures. Page 21 of 23 Byigrlognoeh 67 Deborah Goudy City of Walker Clerk 5% 4859-0899-1101, v. 3 Memorandum TO: City of Walker FROM: Christopher Khorey, AICP, West Michigan Manager SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Review and Adoption Schedule DATE: August 2, 2023 In conjunction with the Staff Working Group and Zoning Ordinance Subcommittee, McKenna has developed a full draft of an update City of Walker Zoning Ordinance. The draft is currently being reviewed by the Staff Working Group, and simultaneously McKenna is adding graphics and formatting. Following is the schedule for the review, revision, comment, and eventual adoption of the updated Zoning Ordinance: • September 29: Full formatted draft, with graphics, submitted to Subcommittee for review and comments. • Late October: Final Meeting of Subcommittee to Recommend Draft to Full Planning Commission • November (Date TBD): Joint City Commission/Planning Commission/ZBA meeting to discuss key aspects of updated Zoning Ordinance. • December (Date TBD): Zoning Ordinance Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council • January (Date TBD): City Commission Consideration of Adoption The Zoning Ordinance includes the following major policy amendment. While City leaders are encouraged to review the entire draft Ordinance and provide feedback and proposed revisions, these are the most crucial areas for discussion: • Updated Proposed Zoning Map o Consolidation of Commercial Districts o Consolidation of Industrial Districts o Overlays • Section 2.01.B: Commercial Use Definitions • Article 5: Permitted Use Tables by Zoning District • Section 6.04 High Intensity Industrial • Section 6.05 Telecommuting, Home Occupations, and Home Based Businesses Page 22 of 23  • Article 7 Schedule of Regulations (Setbacks, etc) • Article 8 Overlays (Standale, Alpine, Remembrance) • Article 10 Residential Density • Section 11.09 RPUD-3 • Section 11.12 MPUD • Section 12.02.H Minimum Parking Requirements • Section 12.06 Lighting • Section 12.07 Landscaping • Article 13 Neighborhood Design • Section 15.02 Accessory Structures • Section 18.05 Subdivisions Please note that there is also a placeholder for Short Term Rental policies in Section 6.14. These policies have not yet been developed, and that process may take place separately from the rest of the Zoning Ordinance. We look forward to working with City leaders to move the Updated Zoning Ordinance towards adoption. City of Walker · Updated Zoning Ordinance 2 Page 23 of 23