Planning Commission

Planning Commission Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:30 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Meeting Minutes 2.1. Review Meeting Minutes from February 7, 2024 and February 21, 2024 3. General Public Comment 4. Agenda Items 4.1. West Standale Redevelopment Plan - Work Session #2 5. Adjournment Page 1 of 20  City of Walker Planning Commission – Regular Meeting 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 6:30 PM Planning Commission Members Present: T. Schweitzer, Dr. J. Taylor, M. Davey, T. Korfhage, P. Laurie, E. Huizenga-Chase, S. Funke, P. Nolan and T. Winkelman Planning Commission Members Absent: Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Frank Wash, Planning Director Paula Priebe, City Engineer Scott Conners, and City Attorney Jeff Sluggett T. Schweitzer opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Review Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2024 T. Korfhage requested corrections to pages 30 and 34: Pg. 30 - Based on the application materials provided (revision date 1/5/2024), M. Davey MOVED TO GRANT TEMPORARY TENTATIVE APPROVAL of the Preliminary Area Site Plan for the River Ridge Townhomes project (Project) for a new residential development featuring a total of 162 units in 24 4-unit buildings and 11 6-unit buildings, with public water and sanitary sewer services at 330, 350, and 740 Greenridge Drive NW (PIN: 41-13-01-176-020, 41-13-01-251-006, and -023), conditioned on the following: Pg. 34 – T. Korfhage suggested “consideration of this project” should be added after “Table” to reflect that it was the project, and not any particular motion, that was being tabled. Motion by E. Huizenga-Chase, supported by Dr. Taylor, to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2024 meeting as amended. Motion carried unanimously. General Public Comment Attorney Pat Lennon thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration of this application. It has been a long road, working on this for nearly two years at this point. As the Planning Commission considers their decision this evening, he would ask that they look back and think about the fact that the applicant has been through four public City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 1 Page 2 of 20 hearings, has hosted a property tour for Commission members, hosted neighborhood meetings, and participated in multiple working meetings with City staff. Mr. Lennon added that the applicant has made three major revisions to their plan and incurred incredible expense related to consultants and reports throughout the process. They have done everything, and more, that they’ve been asked to do by the City. Their application satisfies the requirements of the Ordinance and they believe they have demonstrated that in every step of the process. If the Planning Commission has additional information they desire, the applicant’s team is present this evening to provide that. Mr. Lennon asked that the Planning Commission look favorably upon their application. He believes there is an understanding of where they stand with respect to the draft motions and the conditions included. There were four conditions they did not feel were appropriate. At the end of this process, they would seek Preliminary Site Plan approval subject only to the first condition in the draft motion. In the meantime, they are prepared to provide any information possible that assists in reaching a decision. They appreciate the patience and civility of the citizens they know are not excited about this project, even though they believe the law permits it. Amy Hall, 363 Greenridge Dr., wished to highlight some things that stood out to her from the last meeting. She stated that this is something that concerns her from a policy and planning standpoint. The applicant is charged with compliance to the City’s Master Plan and the development shall conform to the City’s Master Plan or any part thereof. The current Master Plan may not match with the current site plan. A new Master Plan was adopted in 2020 and it would be wise to table this and go back and do what was indicated would be done; a public process to review the Master Plan for this site and this general area. The developers are the ones proposing to put water there, not the City. They would have to have a plan for that. I think your questions are better put to the developer. You might want to interrogate them over that. We all had ideas to put this area as neighborhood preservation and open space but we didn’t define it as well as we should have. The Planning Commission has a substantial amount of discretion for how much you ask for up front. There is a history of stormwater management here that is foundational to the Grand Rapids region and somehow that needs to be very carefully studied. I am particularly concerned with the middle water course. We need to carefully study this water course to make sure we don’t impact those homes downstream. Do you handle that at the Master Plan level? I think we could to make sure that we are setting standards for whoever owns and develops this property. I have expressed a list of things we may want to cover in a Master Plan update for this site and this is one of them, and I think it’s pretty significant. Ms. Hall stated that these are the City’s experts giving their feedback and it is important to keep at the forefront in making these decisions when you have the power to do so. Barry Nobles, 3669 Timber Creek Ct. in the Timber Creek Condominium Association, thanked the Planning Commission/City for whatever role they played in having Kent County work to secure the bank of the stream, at least part way down. Mr. Nobles feels they did a wonderful job. He lives in a location where he happens to see three bends City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 2 Page 3 of 20 and the rocks in there for the bends. There was a lot of snow and a fairly slow melt. The water level during the slow melt came up to about three quarters of the rocks that are currently there held at grade. Mr. Nobles wonders what another 160+ units would do to the work and money that has been expended to do it. His guess is that the rocks in place would all be undercut and if there is a great amount of water in a short time, all the work that has been done will be undone. Ian Bresky, 3239 Springbrook Dr., stated that the Planning Commission has been sent some drone footage of the water. He has been a resident on Springbrook since 2022 and his property has a flowing stream that starts in the apartments west of North Center Dr. and water from the adjacent property owned by the developers also drains into the stream. The stream flows from behind his house, around the side and into a pond in front of the house. The area is constantly wet. The pond in front of his house sends excess water under Springbrook Dr. into a continuing stream across Springbrook down to West River Dr. The PASP under consideration has the water overflow from the planned detention pond being dumped into the stream above his house, which will add water into the stream along lower Springbrook Dr. The water ends up in York Creek east of West River Dr. With just a light rain the stream expands dramatically on both sides of Springbrook and the erosion it causes continues to grow. Trees along the bank of the stream are being undercut as the stream widens. He doesn’t anticipate that improving. The PASP should be denied because the water issues are too much to take a risk on. Logan Norton, 362 Dakota Dr., noted that he submitted an email to the Planning Commission. He also sent F. Wash an email asking if a proposal is ever denied. His response was that denials are rare as most projects adjust their plans to meet the Zoning Code and Master Plan. Mr. Norton asked where those adjustments are. They did make a big change in December but they believe that was to get around the moratorium. What if they made a change that no longer required the recommended conditions? They’ve been complaining about the conditions but haven’t been willing to make changes that may not require detention ponds or grading so far into the buffer zone. All of the concerns are completely ignored because they are so stuck on the plan they’ve presented. If they were to compress the buildings toward North Center and maybe bring buildings a bit south or maybe limit it to the hill on Greenridge and pull it up a bit there wouldn’t be water draining into Mr. Dresky’s pond and a pond wouldn’t be necessary at the end of the old driving range. Instead of doing something to either complete the conditions or make them no longer necessary they are pursuing their plan. That is their choice. Adjustments are typically made to comply with Zoning and the Master Plan. If this is approved and it gets to FASP, it will be too late to make those adjustments. If the well study comes back and says this will destroy every well, worst case scenario, it won’t be possible to take buildings off the plan. This is the time for the action to be taken, whether it is to table or deny. Mr. Norton stated he would obviously prefer denial. There is a lot of revision that could be done with this plan that would make it something the neighborhood could be happy with. Mr. Norton feels it is very telling when they held their neighborhood meeting the day after they submitted all their City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 3 Page 4 of 20 documentation to the City. That speaks to their opinion of the neighbors’ concerns and opinions. Bill Allen, 345 Dakota Dr., wished to talk about the Master Plan and how it addresses what should be done with the Greenridge Square undeveloped property. The Master Plan specifically states that the goal for this property is to create a heart of the neighborhood in the Alpine/Bristol Neighborhood Cluster. The heart of the other three Neighborhood Clusters evolve around parks and community centers. The only other uses in the Greenridge Square development are housing units and retail properties. There are no parks or community centers and the only remaining property to create a heart of the neighborhood is this property. If the PASP is approved, it will be cutting the heart out of the Alpine Neighborhood Cluster. Mr. Allen stated that it is imperative that this be denied because the Master Plan specifically designates this area as the future heart. Mr. Allen asked that the Planning Commission vote accordingly. Christine Longcore, 377 Dakota Dr., revisited the June 21, 2022 meeting. Residents from Greenridge, Kingsbury/Gage, Timber Creek condos, and Meghan Korik all offered concerns about this proposed development. Ms. Longcore stated that they understand the developer owns the property and has the zoning to build the project. However, many of the concerns raised is that they don’t believe the land is actually buildable without irreversible damage to the environment and the community. The Planning Commission issued a list of ten items the developer must do before the project could get approved to prove the project won’t destroy the adjacent neighborhood. Ms. Longcore noted it is approaching two years since the developer was given those directives and they still haven’t completed many of them. Ms. Longcore also understands it may not be normal to have these requirements placed on a PASP but this isn’t a normal property. It is unique, with unique challenges. It is not far fetched to suggest that the development will exacerbate existing drainage issues in the area that could flood many of the existing homes. It happened not far away on 4 Mile after the York Creek Apartments were built. Alpine Township had to buy a number of homes and demolish them. Ms. Longcore asked if Planning Commissioners leaning toward approval of the PASP are prepared to put the City at risk for having to buy flooded homes and having to demolish them and risk destroying the neighborhood as residents know it today. Ms. Longcore asked that the Planning Commission either deny or table this proposal unless and until the developer produces the documentation required by the Planning Commission. The developer should prove they can build this development without damaging the environment and community. Steve Teitsma, Civil Engineer with Progressive AE, wished to clear up some misconceptions. There are a few things that have been mentioned that aren’t completely accurate. He also wished to point out that there have been drastic changes to the plan and they have reduced impervious area and moved buildings out of the buffer, which are huge benefits to improving the stormwater. In addition, they’ve worked closely with the City Engineer and the Drain Commission Office to follow their guidelines City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 4 Page 5 of 20 and standards to ensure this is an acceptable development and to protect the downstream property owners. Mr. Teitsma also pointed out that the approval they are seeking is for the Preliminary Area Site Plan, which doesn’t mean there are no further opportunities for review; there is an opportunity at Final Area Site Plan. Mr. Teitsma invited questions from the Planning Commission. Melanie McDonald, 374 Dakota Dr., related that she lives in one of the homes that directly overlooks phase 3 of the development. Ms. McDonald explained that her comments are directed to phase 3 concerns related to the community character and the buffer zone. Since homes bordering phase 3 are situated well above the development, community character is a major concern. The elevated position makes any transition, visual blight, or noise barrier between the homes and the development extremely challenging, if not impossible. Ms. McDonald is also concerned about the 150 ft. buffer zone that isn’t actually 150 ft. of protected open space as called out in McKenna’s Master Plan report and identified on the approved Greenridge Square PUD. Within the buffer zone are the dry detention basins that may never be dry. The phase 3/north phase is located 40 ft. from their house in a River Ridge apartment building exposing them to unsafe and nuisance conditions. The applicant has more than once referred to their effort to move the south end basin away from the neighbors. What about the north end detention basin? The 40 ft. proximity of the basin to their home, as well as the apartments, needs further evaluation. Ms. McDonald urged the Planning Commission to recognize those concerns, as well as all of the other issues associated with this development, and deny the current River Ridge PASP. Case #23-028 – 740, 350, and 330 Greenridge Dr NW – Preliminary Area Site Plan Review for a Residential Townhome Development Featuring 162 Units – CWD Real Estate Investment, Jade Pig Ventures, and River Ridge, LLC Motion by T. Korfhage, supported by S. Funke, to remove the project from the table for consideration. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Director Paula Priebe noted that her report includes a short cover letter summarizing the history of the case to date and options for the Planning Commission moving forward. As is standard practice, draft motions have been prepared for the Commission based on the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for approval of a PASP. A short summary of those standards has also been provided. In the PUD Chapter of the Ordinance there is a Section for application review and approval procedures, which outlines what must be submitted with a PASP application. There is also a Section for Planning Commission review (94.213(3)g.) P. Priebe briefly reviewed the standards for approval. She also reviewed the two additional standards for a Residential PUD (94.214.b.) T. Schweitzer briefly summarized that the Planning Commission has held the public hearing, has received additional public comment during the related meetings, and has City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 5 Page 6 of 20 received a substantial amount of written and emailed comments. The Planning Commission has appreciated the feedback from the community and takes it very seriously. This evening is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to deliberate on the project. P. Laurie addressed the engineer’s comments. Water is an issue; it is an issue today without this development. Development can actually improve the system. He feels they need to let the experts make the determination. A water study is necessary but isn’t typical until preliminary approval has been granted. He empathizes with the neighbors as he has water issues on his own property. If the system can be improved upon, that will be better for everyone vs. leaving it as it is. If you put a park in you still have all the water run off. P. Laurie addressed the comment related to making this park space. He noted that there is a park to the west of Alpine and another on 3 Mile. His opinion is that another isn’t needed behind this commercial area of Alpine. He noted that a previous iteration had traffic from the development traversing through the neighborhood to the east and that has been changed with traffic directed to Alpine. Therefore, there is no detriment to the traffic within the neighborhood. As previously noted, this has been on the books for 20 years when the golf course closed. They developed the first section and this is the final section. Economies have made it so that it has taken this long. P. Laurie feels the proposed development fits. He would prefer to see more single-family homes next to the existing single-family homes but then those homes are close to the commercial development. He doesn’t feel that would be desirable for a homeowner, especially if the only access is from Alpine. He feels the project fits. E. Huizenga-Chase asked if the engineer could provide more information on the water study and how they will prevent impact on existing homes. She was also interested in the work done with the Drain Commissioner to date. Steve Teitsma clarified that they are not proposing a connection to the middle water course, which was mentioned previously. They are only looking at the Alpine Walker Drain and the unnamed tributary to the south. Not only are they not proposing a connection to the middle water course, they are directing the water that would have gone there to a detention basin. They are honoring the watershed divide between the Alpine Walker Drain and the southern drain. They aren’t moving water from one watershed to another, which it seems some are assuming. They are honoring the existing water courses and how water functions and moves today. They engaged with the Drain Office early and often to talk about how they want the stream to be treated, which is the big concern. It has had work done on it and it is degraded. Mr. Teitsma appreciates P. Laurie’s comments and added that the applicant is willing to take it a step further and provide a larger basin on the north end to provide regional detention, which would further help the degraded stream. Mr. Teitsma stated that they have worked closely with the Drain Office as well as the City Engineer. They use the Lower Grand River Organizational Watershed’s design guidelines. It is their goal as engineers to try to mimic the natural hydrology as much as possible. They look for opportunities to put City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 6 Page 7 of 20 green infrastructure in. They are looking to improve water quality, channel protection, and flood control. In addition to it being the right thing to do, it is all part of the Ordinance and they are fully on board with that and committed to it. At this point in the preliminary process, they have validated that they can do what is required by Ordinance on their property and meet those requirements. E. Huizenga-Chase asked if they anticipate having to do work on the unnamed tributary further to the south due to water from the detention pond going that way. Mr. Teitsma replied no. There are no plans for any downstream improvements on that. The detention basin is put in place to help meter the release. They are actually releasing significantly less rate into that water course, which should help the downstream conveyance. T. Korfhage asked if the Drain Commission had anything to say about the south water course. He asked what that is rated to handle. Is it wet all year? Is it a creek? Mr. Teitsma replied that the Drain Office did not comment because that isn’t under their jurisdiction. It shows up as a blue line on a map, which is about the extent of it. Currently that water course has 23 CFS headed to it from the subject property. With the development, they would put 33 CFS into it without any detention. By putting in detention, they reduce that to 2 CFS. T. Korfhage asked what it is handling now. Mr. Teitsma stated that he doesn’t know because they don’t monitor that. T. Korfhage asked if the additional flow will change it; the course, the banks, the level? Mr. Teitsma replied no. It is his opinion that the discharge from the detention basin will not change that water course. Water is currently draining there from the site; currently 23 CFS. If the site is developed, without detention, it would contribute 33 CFS to that drain. Since they are providing detention between the development and the water course it goes down to 2 CFS. There is existing flow that is coming from the west that will remain as is. They aren’t stopping what is going into that water course today. The development will not have an impact on the water course. The reduction in the flow rate from the proposed development is somewhat insignificant. T. Winkelman recalled from the last meeting that Ms. Schulz talked about requests from the Commission for additional studies and the applicant wouldn’t want to spend $30,000 to do an additional study because the project keeps moving. He feels they are getting closer to what the project could be. He asked what would be gained if that study were to occur. He would assume it is additional analysis of some of this information. What additional information would be available at the FASP if that study were to occur? City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 7 Page 8 of 20 Mr. Teitsma wasn’t certain what study he was referencing. Essentially what occurs is they get down into more and more detail. As they develop the plans, different things come into play. Geotechnical is one example. They want to do more geotechnical work to ensure the soils will support a house. The client doesn’t want to spend that money at this point if they don’t have a project. There are a number of different studies that would occur after a PASP approval to aid with the design and get into further detail. T. Winkelman asked what kind of advanced studies that could occur would help inform the water flow at FASP. Mr. Lennon believes he recalls where Ms. Schulz was coming from when she made that statement. What she was emphasizing was that it is important to know where the buildings would be, where the roads would be, etc., which are established in the preliminary plan, so they can then proceed to do the analysis that would be undertaken in connection with the final plan. Her point was that if this was going to be tabled so they could do those studies before they get the preliminary approval, someone might then say the buildings should be moved in one direction or another and those studies would have to be done over. T. Winkelman expressed his understanding that customarily some of this is what comes through as part of the final process. Given the sensitivity of the project, he believes it is a question of whether any of this belongs in the preliminary. T. Schweitzer agreed. It is gauging whether the information available allows them to make a good decision. T. Korfhage agreed. The problem is that they aren’t looking at just one building. He recalled that Lincoln Lawns took nearly two years to approve due to the plethora of similar questions that had to be answered. If they aren’t cautious now, how can they be cautious later is where they are coming from. T. Winkelman summarized his understanding. If considering the Maverik gas station on a flat piece of land where there really aren’t any issues the Commission would likely feel comfortable allowing them to figure it out closer to final vs. during the preliminary review. T. Korfhage agreed. T. Winkelman asked if it is a spectrum of sensitivity or risk they are considering here. T. Schweitzer stated that in terms of the testimony they’ve received and information provided by staff and the applicant, this is their best attempt to address those, short of getting into the real detail that takes place when you go into the Final Area Site Plan. As P. Laurie pointed out, water drainage is a key part of this project, which is why asking City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 8 Page 9 of 20 these questions of their engineer is appropriate. Ultimately, they have to decide if they have enough information at this point and is the condition sufficient to be able to highlight what needs to be done and expect that it will happen. T. Korfhage noted that one of the issues that has come up quite often in this consideration is the Master Plan. If a motion is to be made to approve, including the finding that this conforms to the Master Plan, he would ask how this current plan conforms when the Commission has multiple questions regarding conformity, along with a professional opinion requested by the Planning Commission that it doesn’t conform to the Master Plan. There are also two elected officials that have been on this Commission questioning the adherence to the Master Plan. It is also the opinion of the Assistant City Manager that this should probably be tabled and reviewed under the moratorium. If saying this adheres to the Master Plan, he would like to know how you discount what the Planning Commission asked. They asked opinions of a professional firm used in the Master Plan and the response was basically no. When looking at it, you can say the current Master Plan may not be reasonable but the project doesn’t conform to the current Master Plan and should therefore be reviewed under the moratorium. T. Korfhage agrees. That is one major finding of fact that has to be defined. Another that he finds disturbing is that common open space preservation areas and private elements shown on the PASP are/are not so planned that they will achieve a unified system with elements in appropriate locations, suitably related to each other, the site, and the surrounding land. In his opinion, there is little to no continuity with the surrounding properties, other than across North Center Dr. Numerous times during his tenure on the Commission it has been common to use a major road as a transition point from one land use to another. Thus, he feels the planned high density residential may not be seen as a transition. T. Korfhage stated that his main concern is conformity to the Master Plan, which they should take to heart. This project originally came in above the moratorium density and they got it below that density. The intention of the moratorium was not to have projects altered to avoid the delay; it was to review the 4 or 5 areas around the city and make a determination as to what is best for the city and the neighbors. There is unified opposition and there are elected officials that have stated opinions. T. Korfhage asked if they are doing what is best for the City. The moratorium was put in place to figure out what is best. P. Laurie appreciates the comment about North Center Dr. being a buffer and single- family homes going on the subject site. However, then the desire would be to route them through Greenridge and Dakota, etc. and then the neighbors are going to be expressing opposition because of the traffic. T. Korfhage agreed. From a planning standpoint, the logical thing to do would be to put traffic through the neighborhood; that would be the relief. P. Laurie added that the water issue is still a factor and you can’t put a detention pond in someone’s yard. City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 9 Page 10 of 20 T. Winkelman requested P. Priebe display the slide with the requirements; 94.213(3)g. Point three is that the project should be adequately served by public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage courses, water and sanitary sewer services, etc. Drainage courses is sensitive in this case. T. Schweitzer noted it is in there for a reason. With any development that comes to the Planning Commission, drainage is likely number one. The City Engineer would likely agree with that. That is why the City has enacted ordinances, hired professional staff to develop the standards and enforce them as they go through the review process. The civil engineer for the developer makes the proposal, feedback is provided by the City Engineer as to whether it is feasible. T. Schweitzer asked, based on the level of information provided, what S. Conners’ determination is at this point. S. Conners replied that there is a very aggressive stormwater ordinance that covers these kinds of things. From staff’s perspective they use that as a guide because those are the rules. The Planning Commission can take that a step further when looking into concerns such as the southern waterway. He feels they’ve done that. They’ve asked for additional information and they could ask for a study. The developer hasn’t really provided any kind of a study but there was some talk about it. It is now time to make a decision based off the Planning Commission’s request and what they’ve provided. T. Schweitzer asked if the intent behind the study would be to provide additional perspective on what the issues may be. S. Conners clarified that he prefers not to use the term study because it is actually just a bit more analysis of the information. T. Korfhage asked some difficult questions about that and those are difficult questions to answer because you want to speak the same language back and forth. A good example would be to look at the size of the existing water course. Look at the places where it goes into a storm sewer and see what size those are. Mr. Teitsma mentioned a few things about potential flow from their site. Those are the things staff would be looking at moving forward. In general, with the Ordinance, those numbers would go down. It would be able to handle everything below a hundred- year storm, which is the high end of what is designed for in Kent County and West Michigan, with lower flows. The developer’s job is to prove that mathematically. It isn’t to that point yet but the Commission can continue to ask those kinds of questions. T. Schweitzer asked if that type of analysis is covered in the regulations as it moves from preliminary to final area site plan. S. Conners replied it would be required for as little as a storm water permit. The trick here is that the northern stretch, which is about 2/3 of the site, involves the Drain Commission and collaboration with Alpine and Plainfield Townships. The southern portion doesn’t require the Drain Office to be involved. It is just a simple, natural water City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 10 Page 11 of 20 course; the kind of thing you’d expect to see in a neighborhood where one of the streets starts with the word spring. There is a lot of water in there and it is moving through. It is part of the draw and attraction. When the neighborhood was originally developed it was likely very difficult to put it all together around all those springs so a water course was created at that time. Additionally, part of the Greenridge Apartments water is collected, detained, treated by detention, and then released into that water course. If this development was to be approved, they can’t fix what happened with that development; they can’t fix any water that gets in from the Target area or hotels or anything like that. They can only be asked to fix what is in their perimeter. Mr. Teitsma felt the question was also asking if the level of detail they’ve provided to this point is adequate or normal for a preliminary site plan. He asked if S. Conners feels they’ve provided that level of detail. T. Winkelman recalled that one of their conclusions was that the development will actually lessen the watershed. Mr. Teitsma agreed. S. Conners eluded to that as well. The improvements they are proposing do improve the drainage and the water course. Mr. Teitsma asked if what they’ve provided to date is what is typically provided at this preliminary stage. M. Davey asked S. Conners if waiting for more studies at the preliminary site plan stage is unusual or unreasonable. S. Conners replied unusual but not unreasonable. T. Schweitzer recognized that their review relates to meeting the requirements of the PUD and conformance with the Master Plan. As he reads through the Master Plan provisions as it relates to this property, he feels it generally does address the standard in terms of being consistent. The density involved and the transition through the site from multi-family on the west side of North Center Dr. and the type of development they are proposing here, compared to the plan approved 30+ years ago, is much better. It provides a better transition. It is a step down. It isn’t exactly like what is due east of it but where do define at what point it transitions and how it transitions from one use to the other. In his mind, what they are proposing does provide that transition and the opportunity to address the storm water issues associated with this particular site and also to work together with the partners to the north where they’ve seen so much degradation of the water course and some improvements of late. T. Schweitzer senses that more is needed and he feels this is responsive to the Master Plan guides put forth in the text. E. Huizenga-Chase recalled from the last meeting that they discussed moving the townhouses closer to North Center Dr. She asked if that was discussed further with the developer. City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 11 Page 12 of 20 S. Conners replied that they had a discussion two meetings ago where staff offered those ideas to try to limit their conflict with the buffer and move their detention to the west. They actually did those things. He believes that was the only change they made before the last meeting. It is up to the Commission if that is something they are happy with or not. T. Schweitzer recalled from the minutes that toward the end of the meeting there was discussion about a 50 ft. setback they are showing now and whether that could be reduced. E. Huizenga-Chase agreed that was what she was referring to. Mr. Lennon recalled that Ms. Schulz was open to that idea of moving the structures closer to North Center. The reason they are positioned where they are is the setback required by the Ordinance and not necessarily because of a design decision. If the Planning Commission prefers to have them move closer, and if engineering permits, they would be open to that. T. Schweitzer asked staff if a reduction of that setback is an option as a PUD benefit. P. Priebe explained that within the Ordinance the regulations such as setbacks and other things always fall back to an underlying zone district. For an RPUD-2 it falls back to ARM Residential Multi-family District, which has a minimum front yard setback of 50 ft. Within the PUD process, the Planning Commission has a good amount of discretion to work with the developer to find solutions to unique challenges that may arise with complicated sites. The Planning Commission could choose to change that requirement within the PUD benefit process. T. Schweitzer recalled that when that was brought up that S. Conners advised keeping in mind that making that adjustment may have some ripple effects, such as on road widths. S. Conners agreed. The developer had said it would make it a lot better if they could narrow up the roads. It was more of an urban Grand Rapids type of grid. Walker isn’t Grand Rapids. S. Conners believes that at the Site Plan Review Committee, with all the industry experts, there would be a big no to that. The cross sections they have now are already what they consider to be the minimum. Staff has already required some things to ensure an Amazon truck can turn around and garbage trucks can turn around. You can’t have a situation where those vehicles just get stuck. You have to provide adequate, safe access. If someone is having their family over for a holiday, that doesn’t mean it is okay to block an ambulance from getting to the next 10-15 homes. That isn’t something there would be much staff support for. City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 12 Page 13 of 20 E. Huizenga-Chase asked if this would be added to the sidewalk gap list because there are only sidewalks on one side of the street. S. Conners replied that if it is desired on both sides of the street within the development it should be asked for now. In a private development it would be extremely rare to spend public money to build sidewalk. Historically the Planning Commission has looked for compromises within private developments like condominiums or apartments. They can change that at any time and go back to requiring the complete streets philosophy with sidewalk on both sides. T. Korfhage asked P. Priebe to bring up the Master Plan description for this area. P. Priebe indicated she would pull that up. She wished to read something to clarify her earlier explanation regarding the Planning Commission’s flexibility to adjust requirements. She read from Section 94-216.b, which is included in the Commission’s packet. The area, height, bulk, and placement requirements as determined by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Section shall not be less than the minimum standards contained in the Table, which would be the 50 ft. mentioned, except as provided in Section 94-214.c. and unless the applicant demonstrates and the Planning Commission determines that a better or more appropriate design can be achieved by not applying the minimum standards contained in this Section and that adherence to those standards is not required to ensure the health, safety, welfare of the inhabitants or users of the development or adjoining property. Therefore, the Planning Commission could determine that it does not negatively impact the health, safety, and welfare of the site or neighbors to reduce the front yard setback in favor of preserving other portions of the site. T. Schweitzer reminded the Commission that a zoning map has very precise lines and a master plan is more general. He cautioned against trying to be very precise in terms of applying the Master Plan. T. Korfhage argued that one of the findings of fact is that the project conforms to the City’s Master Plan. T. Schweitzer doesn’t feel what is shown is a very precise graphic that you would be able to measure out and follow. It is more in terms of the concept of getting the open space between the two. Dr. Taylor feels the water issue has been sufficiently discussed and what he is hearing is that they will be held to the requirements and the applicant indicates they can meet those requirements. He recalled saying a couple of weeks ago that if both sides conceded a bit the project would likely get built. He somewhat feels that way now. He appreciates the neighbors taking the time and being respectful. He doesn’t blame them City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 13 Page 14 of 20 for expressing their concerns. It is unique and he feels the Commission has addressed that as such. M. Davey agreed with T. Schweitzer that he believes the project meets the Master Plan in terms of density, zoning, and greenspace, and the transition of using townhomes as opposed to putting up large apartments. He feels it provides a nice transition. With respect to the water, it isn’t unusual or unreasonable to approve a PASP and then have the comprehensive drainage plan prepared. P. Laurie asked if they approve the preliminary and they do the engineering for the drainage and it comes back and has issues what are the next steps? The developer is saying they can do it but if the study says it isn’t feasible then what are the next steps. City Attorney Jeff Sluggett advised that if the Commission were to adopt a conditional approval, similar to that discussed at the last meeting, one of the conditions was that the storm water issue needed to be addressed to the Planning Commission’s satisfaction before this moved forward to FASP. Obviously, there are standards of reasonableness, most of which would be in the Ordinance S. Conners mentioned earlier, but until those are met to the Planning Commission’s and Engineer’s satisfaction it doesn’t move forward. T. Korfhage noted that others know where he stands on conformance to the Master Plan. Another concern is that when you ask an applicant to do something and they don’t do it, it is typically frowned upon. There are things that were requested and not provided; an overall stormwater impact study was requested twice as a condition of tabling, a private well analysis, coordinated with the Kent County Health Department, wetland survey update, contact the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources to have them conduct a species analysis, a current topographic survey, a new plan sheet must be completed showing the existing forest cover via an aerial image overlaying the updated site survey and large diameter trees (over 12” diameter) must be called out. The motions including those conditions were passed unanimously, twice. Are they now willing to give that up? They were required twice, unanimously, and now they’re just saying that goes away? S. Funke agreed with T. Korfhage regarding the fact that they asked for these items on two different occasions going back as far as 20 months ago regarding the private well analysis, wetland delineation, and making contact with the DNR. The applicant has affirmed to staff that they intend to move forward with what they provided so far and that is their right. Until that has been provided, he can’t support approval of the preliminary at this point. P. Nolan stated that he doesn’t have a problem with the project. He feels it fits the Master Plan overall. He believes it is a reasonable transition as proposed. Unless he is misinterpreting, he believes he understands the difference between preliminary and City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 14 Page 15 of 20 final. This is a request for preliminary approval. He doesn’t feel it is unreasonable for the Planning Commission to ask for further study, understanding they aren’t likely to invest a lot of money into further studies if, in the end, they are denied. His opinion would be that to ask for the further studies as part of preliminary approval would be acceptable. T. Winkelman indicated that he agrees that there is alignment with the Master Plan. The most recent iteration is what they have to work with. He believes the concerns about the potential water impacts and additional studies are important enough in this sensitive area that he would hesitate to approve the PASP. T. Winkelman recalled that at the previous meeting there were five conditions in the draft resolution. The applicant has asked the Commission to consider removing conditions 2-5. Mr. Sluggett advised, to the extent there is a desire to at least move forward on a discussion to consider a motion to conditionally approve, regardless of what the conditions may or may not be, he would suggest, given the tie vote that occurred at the last meeting, that a motion to conditionally approve be prefaced by a motion to renew the motion for conditional approval and then the Commission can discuss what conditions they are or are not thinking about, if someone is so inclined to make that motion. If the Planning Commission is leaning toward another motion, that action isn’t necessary. Based on the application materials provided (revision date 1/5/2024) E. Huizenga- Chase MOVED TO DENY the Preliminary Area Site Plan for the River Ridge Townhomes project (Project) for a new residential development, featuring a total of 162 units in 24 4-unit buildings and 11 6-unit buildings, with public water and sanitary sewer services at 330, 350 and 740 Greenridge Drive NW (PPN:1-13-01- 176-020, 41-13-01-251-006, and -023) based on the following: 1. The Project does not conform to the City’s Master Plan as to the natural feature preservation goal articulated by the preserved open space overlay on the site on the Community Character Map and within the Community Character Map footnotes. 2. The common open space, preservation areas, and private elements shown on the PASP are not planned so that they will achieve a unified system with elements in appropriate locations, suitably related to each other, the site, and the surrounding land as it does not maintain the Master Plan for the preserved common open space land. 3. The failure of the applicant to provide or address specifically identified information that the Planning Commission requested; tree survey, maintaining the 150 ft. buffer area around the property edge, a wetland survey conducted during the growing season, overall stormwater impact analysis, endangered species study, private well analysis, and remaining concerns about the City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 15 Page 16 of 20  stormwater mechanisms and facilities proposed and the impact on the same site and downstream drains, water courses and properties. SUPPORTED by S. Funke. Mr. Sluggett clarified that the basis for those determinations is the entire record that has been presented to the Planning Commission. E. Huizenga-Chase responded affirmatively; the complete record before the Planning Commission. She requested a roll call vote. P. Priebe explained that a positive/yes vote is a vote to deny the project. A negative/no vote is a vote against the denial of the project. YEAS: 5 (Taylor, Korfhage, Funke, Huizenga-Chase, Winkelman). NAYS: 4 (Davey, Laurie, Nolan, Schweitzer). MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Discussion • The new Zoning Ordinance goes into effect on 2/8/2024. • The next meeting on 2/21/2024 will be a Master Plan work session held at Fire Station 2 from 5:30 to 7:30 with City staff and a large team from the consulting firm. Adjourned: 8:00 p.m. ____________________________________________ Administrative Approval Planning Director Paula Priebe ___________________________________________ Patrick Laurie Secretary – City of Walker Planning Commission City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 16 Page 17 of 20  City of Walker Planning Commission – Regular Meeting *4101 Lake Michigan Dr NW* *Joint Work Session Meeting* Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at *5:30 PM* Planning Commission Members Present: T. Schweitzer, Dr. J. Taylor, P. Laurie, E. Huizenga-Chase, S. Funke, P. Nolan and T. Winkelman Planning Commission Members Absent: T. Korfhage, M. Davey City Commission Members Present: Mayor G. Carey, Commissioners S. Gilbert, T. Burke, J. Babcock, R. Deschaine Zoning Board of Appeals Members Present: B. Boelens, R. Byrne, R. Smith, D. Harland Walker Downtown Development Authority Members Present: D. Brinza, D. Prato Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Frank Wash, Planning Director Paula Priebe, City Engineer Scott Conners, and Zoning Administrator Meghann Gorby T. Schweitzer opened the meeting at 5:35 p.m. General Public Comment Chris Meyer, Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, commented on behalf of JAG Development. He reviewed the history of Walker property development for the Goodale family. He expressed frustrations with the delay in approval of the pending Vista 45 Commercial Planned Unit Development caused by tabled PASP and rezoning requests and the moratorium on higher density residential development. The developer has spent a great deal of time and resources in planning for this development and requested that the City complete the Master Plan amendments prior to the expiration of the moratorium so as not to cause further delay to the developer. Dave Netti, Dave Netti Homes explained that he is forced to move his business located at 1300 Walker Village Drive due to the building being recently sold. He has invested in the vacant property located at 4064 Remembrance Road for relocation to a new building. Through the process to plan for development, he expressed frustration with the cost and zoning ordinance requirements. He asked Walker leadership to consider the burden these requirements place on small business owners. City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 1 Page 18 of 20 Master Plan 101 Information Session Mr. Christopher Khorey, planning consultant for McKenna, provided an overview of the Master Plan as a policy document. The Future Land Use Map and Community Character Map provide guidance on zoning changes and on key development sites. The Zoning Ordinance is local law and serves to implement the Master Plan. C. Khorey further explained the proposed new amendments being worked on at this time, including expanding sections on key development site with “essentials” and “aspirations”. The Master Plan should provide guidance to evaluate new Planned Unit Developments (PUD). West Standale Redevelopment Plan – Review and Revision C. Khorey explained the five PUD options that could be utilized on the West Standale Development Site: CPUD, RPUD 1-3, and MPUD. More information on each can be found in the Zoning Ordinance. Further, the Zoning Ordinance Article 13 contains neighborhood design standards which will apply to new developments such as is expected in the West Standale area. C. Khorey also explained a first draft of a conceptual sketch plan for the West Standale area, to replace the one currently in the Master Plan. He explained the different areas of the sketch plan and compared the number of residential units and commercial square footage to that in the latest Vista45 development proposals. The room was then divided into five stations. Board members were mixed into groups to walk through four stations: Mixed Use, Residential, Transportation, and Natural Features. A fifth station was provided for discussion with members of the public in attendance. Groups spent 15 minutes at each station to identify needs and discuss aspirations related to each topic. After going through all four stations, the McKenna staff member at each station provided a brief report back to the full group on the discussion which took place. Mixed Use: Mr. Adam Cook with McKenna noted shared desire for a cohesive and transformative project in this area. A gateway feature was desired. Groups wanted to see development oriented toward the BRT stop. People wanted to see a pocket park integrated into the development and wanted the development to have a strong brand or identity with architectural features. Residential: Ms. Danielle Bouchard with McKenna shared that groups were interested in mixed building materials and rooflines to differentiate the development from “Anywhere USA”. The general layout of the McKenna sketch concept plan was supported. When discussing amenities on the site, groups supported EV chargers, picnic areas, package lockers, bike path connections, and sport courts/pool. City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 2 Page 19 of 20 Transportation: C. Khorey explained that groups wanted to see LaSalle Avenue, as the north-south spine road for the development, to extend all the way to O’Brien Rd SW. As to the design of the new section of LaSalle, a three lane road was supported within the primary development area, with a two lane road as it transitioned to the south beyond Blain’s. The internal intersections should be well designed to be safe for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. Bike trails received positive support, while bike lanes did not. Natural Features: Mr. Aayush Patel with McKenna shared that groups discussed required buffering around the numerous wetlands on the site. Bike paths were desired in the woods and marshy area. As to how groups wanted the paths and any potential parks to look and feel, a balance of natural areas and “developed” area was supported. Public Table: Mr. Jeff Keesler of McKenna reported that discussion of housing supported the need for higher density and traditional neighborhoods with stoops and rear garages. Bike paths were popular. There was support for creating a traditional downtown area in Walker, whether on this site or another location perhaps at Remembrance and Leonard. Mr. Keesler also summarized the visual preference survey boards and noted which options received the most votes for each section. Mr. Khorey gave the Developer Representative an opportunity to speak in response to the meeting that just took place. They chose not to respond at this time. Mr. Khorey summarized next steps: McKenna and Walker staff would utilize the feedback received at this meeting to refine the conceptual sketch and prepare written “essentials” and “aspirations” for the area. Those updates will be heading back to the Planning Commission for further review in the next month or two in order to meet the Moratorium deadline of May 5, 2024. Adjourned: 7:46 p.m. ____________________________________________ Administrative Approval Planning Director Paula Priebe ___________________________________________ Patrick Laurie Secretary – City of Walker Planning Commission City of Walker Planning Commission 2-7-2024 Page 3 Page 20 of 20