Planning Commission

Planning Commission Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 6:30 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Meeting Minutes 2.1. Review Minutes from September 4, 2024 3. General Public Comment 4. Agenda Items 4.1. Case #24-016 - 1853 Pheasant Ave NW - Final Preliminary Plat Review for Proposed Pheasant Preserve Plat, Consisting of 18 Single-Family Residential Lots on Two New Public Streets - Koetje Builders & Developers LLC 5. Adjournment Page 1 of 28  City of Walker Planning Commission – Regular Meeting 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, September 4, 2024 at 6:30 PM Planning Commission Members Present: T. Schweitzer, T. Korfhage, E. Huizenga- Chase, T. Winkelman, P. Laurie, Dr. J. Taylor, S. Funke and P. Nolan Planning Commission Members Absent: R. Byrne Staff Present: Planning Director Paula Priebe and City Engineer Scott Conners T. Schweitzer opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Review Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2024 Motion by S. Funke, supported by E. Huizenga-Chase, to approve the minutes of 8/21/24. Motion carried unanimously. General Public Comment – None. AGENDA ITEMS Case #24-013 – PUBLIC HEARING – 1500 Wilson Ave NW – Final Area Site Plan Review (FASP) for Phase I of a proposed RPUD-2 Development. Phase I includes 45 Residential Units on Private Roads with Associated Site Improvements – Steve Visser Builders LLC Planning Director Paula Priebe introduced the request noting that this request is part of a larger Planned Unit Development. The approved Preliminary Area Site Plan for the overall project was displayed. She identified the portion of the site slated for a gas station, which received Final Area Site Plan approval by the Planning Commission. The review this evening relates to Phase I of the residential component of the plan and some related changes. P. Priebe displayed the site plan explaining that it consists of a 45-unit residential townhome development. The site is zoned RPUD-2, which is an appropriate zoning designation for a development of this type. The PASP was approved in late 2022. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-04-2024 Page 1 Page 2 of 28 The applicant met with the staff Site Plan Review Committee in early August and was provided feedback on the plan. The plans being reviewed this evening are the resubmitted plans following that feedback. P. Priebe indicated she would limit her comments to those items requiring additional explanation or scrutiny. P. Priebe recalled that the project on the corner has been approved. That developer was expected to install the initial infrastructure and access points to both Leonard and Wilson. There has been a delay in that project and the residential developer wishes to move forward. Therefore, the residential developer will install the initial infrastructure and the access to Leonard and to Wilson because the Phase I residential component does not have direct access to Leonard or to Wilson; it will be provided through the CPUD component of the development or through the future Phase 2 access to be located further north on Wilson. P. Priebe displayed the landscape plan relating that a residential project such as this has a number of required landscape components including landscaping along the public street frontage and along the boundary shared with a residential zone district. Adjacent to the public street frontage, an RPUD-2 development requires a 10’ minimum width landscape area with 1 tree and 8 shrubs for every 50’ of frontage. In this case there are wetlands that will be preserved and trees that will be preserved. Based on the exposed road frontage they are required to have 7 trees and 52 shrubs. The plans show 22 trees and no shrubs. The Planning Commission should consider if they wish to require the shrubs as a condition of approval or if the lack of shrubs could be accepted as a PUD benefit, given the additional trees proposed. P. Priebe noted that the project shares a property line with the Winchester Woods residential plat to the east. Along that line they are required to have a 20’ deep landscape buffer that includes 1 tree per 25’ of property line. In this case 24 trees are required and 37 are proposed. P. Priebe explained that they have recently run into issues with residential development street names. Therefore, they are being required to be on the plans at this level of review. The names are included on the plans and the plans have been provided to the Kent County Sherrif’s Office for review. Staff has recently heard back from the Sherrif’s Office and unfortunately there is an overlapping name and range of address numbers. They are firmly requesting that the developer change the street name to ensure clear and accurate dispatching in the event of an emergency. P. Priebe indicated that she is happy to work with the developer and Sherrif’s Office to ensure there are acceptable street names for the development. P. Priebe commented on density noting that the City of Walker uses Net Density when calculating density in residential developments. The plans show a density of 7.08 units per acre, which is higher than the Master Plan Community Character designation of Residential Growth 2-4 units per acre. The density is acceptable in this case because the PASP was approved before the City began using Net Density calculations. Secondly, this is only Phase I of this project and Phase II contains the majority of the City of Walker Planning Commission 9-04-2024 Page 2 Page 3 of 28 land area for this project, which will bring the net density of the overall project closer to the Master Plan designation. Finally, P. Priebe reiterated that the corner lot gas station development plan set was approved with conditions. Staff recommends that those conditions that apply to the public utility and drive entrances must be met by this project, which is taking over those components of the project. P. Priebe recommended that the Planning Commission grant approval, with conditions, of the 45-unit Phase I residential townhome development. P. Laurie noted that there is an inconsistency between the first slide displayed and the second slide; a road. He asked if that will be a permanent or temporary road. P. Priebe explained that there were some changes made at the time of the gas station FASP regarding access around lots 2 and 3 of the commercial area. Her recollection is that it is proposed as a temporary access road until the other permanent development occurs there and there will be additional access. P. Nolan clarified that initially the only access into this area will be off of Leonard. P. Priebe explained that both roads will go in with the initial development. If another commercial project comes in between the gas station and the Phase I residential they would remove the temporary road and install another one related to that development. T. Schweitzer asked that P. Priebe display and aerial image and provide those present with a better explanation of where this is relative to the existing development. P. Priebe displayed the Zoning Map and identified the area of focus as well and the access points. P. Nolan asked if the turn signal at Leonard and Wilson will have left turn signals in all directions. S. Conners replied affirmatively. He related that they are currently awaiting the mast arm signal poles. P. Nolan also wished to clarify that trucks will only be accessing the site from Wilson, not from Leonard. S. Conners replied affirmatively. Per his staff report, those improvements should be included in this FASP. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-04-2024 Page 3 Page 4 of 28 City Engineer Scott Conners reviewed his staff report. He noted that the plans should be sealed by a professional engineer. The second page of the submittal isn’t numbered and has numerous notes about constructing improvements per the Maverick FASP. As stated, those improvements should be detailed on the subject plan set since the Maverick development may never occur. S. Conners feels that can be handled administratively as a condition of approval. He related that there is a 36” storm sewer that flows east through the Dave Visser portion of Lewis Farms that should be shown as private. The easement appears to have been initially shown as public. It was likely from previous plans when there was going to be some public road investment occurring and more single-family homes. The easement should be rescinded or amended to be shown as private and the maintenance obligations would fall onto the association members involved with this PUD. S. Conners added that there is watermain loop shown in Highview Court that is suggested to go east into Winchester Woods Phase 4. However, when looking at the current PASP it is 1,000’ +/- away from the end of the cul de sac, which has been shortened dramatically since the initial conception of what the utilities would look like. It is important to be careful how that is described. It will still need to be looped but may not be looped into the development on the east side of that property line. S. Conners recalled that at one time both sites were part of one larger development plan that was split between Steve and Dave Visser. It will have to be confirmed that both halves still fit each other. In this phase the watermain should be looped into the Dave Visser development. The sanitary sewer and watermain plans will be reviewed administratively. S. Conners advised that there are improvements to Wilson that will be necessary to achieve the correct shoulder widths, turn lanes, etc. are in place. Those dimensions should be shown on these plans so that staff can work with MDOT to ensure everything is addressed. Finally, there are some sewer and water fees that are due related to the 2019 Leonard Street construction. The charges associated with the Maverick review should be paid with this proposed utility connection. S. Conners asked, should the Commission approve the FASP request, that the conditions of approval include the July 12, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Engineering reports to include those conditions of approval. T. Schweitzer asked if the roadway improvements over the Maverick property will be built to what was intended in the beginning. S. Conners replied that it is really up to the two developers to work that out together. The part that is public involves the public watermain and sanitary sewer. Staff will ensure that is done properly. T. Schweitzer asked if the Maverick improvements this developer will be responsible for includes the sidewalk along the east side of the entry drive. S. Conners wasn’t sure. It is shown on the plan which would seem to indicate it is proposed now. He suggested confirming that with the applicant. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-04-2024 Page 4 Page 5 of 28 Brandon Visser related that he has been leading the project for 4-5 years. Last year they spent extensive time with Kum and Go working out the details of their site plan knowing they wanted to logically work their way from their property to the north. They received their approval in January. Their project included approximately 60 pages of detailed plans. When Kum and Go made it known they were delaying their project it was a red flag for the residential portion because they wanted to keep the project moving. Since then, Maverick has kept the same representatives they’ve been working with on their project, which assures a good line of communication with them. They are currently working through some of the details to essentially flip flop their development agreement which said they would put in the improvements to benefit the residential portion of the development and in turn a certain amount of funds would be allocated for that. They are willing to do that and cost estimates have been generated. The Leonard St. entrance is obviously needed for the subject project, which includes the service road along the eastern edge of the property, the tapers and approach on Leonard, as well as the more extensive improvements on Wilson where they are adding a right turn lane into the development all the way from the intersection and a left turn lane in from the north with MDOT standard tapers, etc. None of the plans the Commission approved in January are changing in any way other than they are excluding the Maverick gas station site improvements. Because nothing is changing with respect to the right-of-way and approaches, they didn’t feel it was necessary to redraft the Maverick documents and extract them because they’ve already been approved and they thought it would keep it simpler vs. adding new plans to approved plans. Mr. Visser stated that he is more than happy to provide staff with additional details on the specific improvements but essentially all the improvements on Wilson and on Leonard will be made at this time. The access road was approved as a temporary access road along the north edge of Kum and Go so that the people residing in the subject community have easy access. That will be included in an easement that will allow them to construct a paved road to typical specifications. It just won’t be a permanent road. Mr. Visser commented on the two outlots stating that since they haven’t submitted for any approvals it would be probable that those plans will be slightly modified when a developer decides to build there in the future. Mr. Visser commented on the landscaping proposed along Wilson relating that they tripled the trees and eliminated shrubs. It isn’t really a game changing decision but their desire was to have the property have the appearance of more of a wooded site. Therefore, they are proposing a lot of native pine trees. They are providing sufficient space for healthy growth while trying to get as many in as possible. He recalled that they had made promises of trying to preserve the Wilson corridor as wooded and they would like to honor that promise as well. P. Laurie asked about the sidewalk along the access road to Leonard; will they be installing it? City of Walker Planning Commission 9-04-2024 Page 5 Page 6 of 28 Mr. Visser replied that they will install sidewalk from their development to Leonard, which will be the main pedestrian walkway. Motion by E. Huizenga-Chase, supported by Dr. J. Taylor, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. T. Schweitzer invited public comment. Dave Visser related that he is the property owner to the east that S. Conners mentioned. D. Visser stated that he believes there is a landscape plan for along the road to Leonard that they are putting in and that it shows they are going to buffer and landscape between his property and what they are doing, even though Maverick isn’t there. It doesn’t show on the map so he asked that that be confirmed. P. Priebe agreed that it doesn’t show on the map but that is her understanding. It is part of the approved Maverick plan that will be required to be installed as part of this development. D. Visser expressed his understanding. He stated that something that has likely changed over the years in this project is the access road that stubs to his property that he will have to connect to someday. He is somewhat concerned about that since he hasn’t laid out what they will do with the property. D. Visser also recalled that when he was before the Commission years ago, they had a big discussion about Phase 3 of Winchester Woods and making a connection all the way to Wilson. There were a number of people present that didn’t want to do that so they showed a cul de sac for a future Phase 4 which is shown on the map today. D. Visser stated that that, in his mind, has not changed; they want to keep Winchester Woods completely separate, as a separate residential development, the way it stands now, so they don’t have cross traffic coming through. D. Visser stated that is his plan at this point but he has done zero planning beyond that. D. Visser stated that they may come in with 80+ units and do something very similar to what is proposed here to connect to Leonard and to make that additional connection, which is something he has considered. D. Visser clarified that he isn’t proposing that at this time but has been waiting for four years to find out what would happen on the subject site. D. Visser stated that he is not opposed to the project before the Commission but he has to consider the future implications of that access road connection. P. Priebe responded to the matter of the road stub. In Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance there are requirements for stub streets to be created within residential developments at certain distances, as well as adjacent developments being required to connect to those stub streets. D. Visser recalled that someone asked him long ago what he thought he might do with his property. S. Conners mentioned condos during his comments. D. Visser stated that if City of Walker Planning Commission 9-04-2024 Page 6 Page 7 of 28 he were to develop single-family condos and has to connect to the townhome project being considered this evening, that is an issue. He understands there is an Ordinance but is a crash gate or emergency exit permitted and how is that handled. As he moves forward those will be important concerns that will make a big difference in his marketing plan and what he can do. Linda Merlotti, 1525 Browning NW, asked if they are able to get hard copies of the plans. P. Priebe replied affirmatively; copies can be obtained in the Community Development Dept. Ms. Merlotti asked if anyone is looking at the run off possibilities to the wetlands from all of the lawns that will presumably go in to this development. T. Schweitzer suggested the applicant’s engineer speak to how stormwater/runoff for this development will be handled. Ms. Merlotti explained that there is a lot of wildlife in the pond adjacent to her home and she is concerned about the pond becoming poisoned by nitrogen and other things people put on their lawns. Adam Feenstra, Feenstra and Associates, explained that the requirements of the City of Walker’s Ordinance say that all the runoff from a development needs to be captured in a detention pond. To accomplish that with this project the front yards all drain toward the street. Approximately two-thirds of the streets convey the water south, through the Maverick site, and to the large regional detention pond constructed years ago. The other third of the site was not within the area limits for that regional pond and since they don’t want to overload the pond, they are installing a smaller pond behind the units. There are rear yard catch basins behind some of the units to ensure they are collecting all the roof runoff and as much of the lawn area as possible. There will be a few limited locations where they may not be able to capture the runoff but the goal is to catch 100% of the runoff from the development and put it into the detention ponds. Brandon Nichol, 1309 Big Rox Ct., asked if the plans from a couple of years ago were changed from owner-occupied homes to apartments. Mr. Visser replied that the PASP was approved for the proposed use in 2022. Mr. Nichol expressed concern that D. Visser will change his plans for the property to the east from condos to multi-family and greater density. Where will all the traffic go? He asked why they don’t build condos. Why so many apartments and multi-family homes when there is a demand in Walker for single-family homes? City of Walker Planning Commission 9-04-2024 Page 7 Page 8 of 28 T. Schweitzer explained that the Preliminary Area Site Plan is the preliminary plan and it was approved for the use as proposed; apartments. They are now at the Final Area Site Plan stage. Mr. Nichol explained that he understood that. However, he is now concerned, based on D. Visser’s statements, that there will be additional multi-family adjacent to their single- family homes. T. Schweitzer replied that those comments don’t relate to the property in question. There are decisions he has to make in the future as to what he proposes. Motion by E. Huizenga-Chase, supported by S. Funke, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. P. Nolan indicated that he likes the project as it is proposed. His only real concern was the Maverick site and two other commercial sites and the traffic in and around that area. It seems to be that when those sites are developed those concerns will be addressed. S. Funke feels the project is acceptable. Previous concerns have been addressed and he would be comfortable moving forward. T. Korfhage is comfortable with the plan. It has been in process a long time. He also supports the additional trees vs. shrubs along Wilson. E. Huizenga-Chase agreed with respect to the trees vs. shrubs. Dr. J. Taylor expressed his support. T. Schweitzer was also in agreement. He recalled the request of S. Conners to include previous conditions of approval to ensure the Maverick conditions/improvements are reflected on the plans. Based on the application material provided, T. Korfhage MOVED to approve the Final Area Site Plan for Phase I of the RPUD-2 residential development for Steve Visser Builders LLC at 1500 Wilson Avenue NW (PIN 41-13-18-401-004) in accordance with the plan set dated 8/12/2024, 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 address all items outlined in the Planning Director’s report dated 8/29/2024. 2. The applicant shall address all items outlined in the City Engineer’s reports dated 7/12/2023, 1/10/2024, and 8/29/2024. City of Walker Planning Commission 9-04-2024 Page 8 Page 9 of 28 3. The applicant shall provide three sets of sealed, civil engineered site plans incorporating the recommended conditions to the Community Development Department, prior to the issuance of building or stormwater permits. 4. The Planning Commission approves the landscape plan along the Wilson Ave. frontage to include 22 trees and 0 shrubs. Findings of Fact per Section 11.02.G.5 • The PUD as described by the Final Area Site Plan set, dated 8/12/2024, does continue to meet the standards contained in the Preliminary Area Site Plan requirements (Section 11.02.C.7) of the Zoning Ordinance. • The Final Area Site Plan is in substantial compliance with the previously approved Preliminary Area Site Plan, consisting of maps and accompanying written materials. • The applicant has made provision, satisfactory to the Planning Commission, that open space areas on the plan have been irrevocably committed for that purpose and that maintenance plans are in place for those areas. • The PUD does comply with the uses permitted by the RPUD-2 district and the uses approved within the related PASP. SUPPORTED by Dr. J. Taylor. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission Discussion • P. Priebe advised there will be a meeting on 9/18/2024. Adjourned: 7:20 p.m. ____________________________________________ Administrative Approval Planning Director Paula Priebe ___________________________________________ Patrick Laurie Secretary – City of Walker Planning Commission City of Walker Planning Commission 9-04-2024 Page 9 Page 10 of 28  MEMORANDUM To: City of Walker Planning Commissioners From: Paula Priebe, AICP – Planning Director Date: September 12, 2024 RE: Case # 24-016 Final Preliminary Plat Review for 1853 Pheasant Ave NW To review the Final Preliminary Plat Plan for a new residential development featuring 18 single-family residential lots on new public roads with public water and sanitary sewer services, and to forward a recommendation to the City Commission on the Final Preliminary Plat Plan. Project type Final Preliminary Plat review Property addresses 1953 Pheasant Ave NW Parcel number 41-13-16-106-012 Lot size Approximately 10.05 Acres Zoning district SA Future land use / Residential Growth (2-4 u/ac) / Residential Growth (2-4 u/ac) Community character South of Richmond St NW, between Pheasant Ave NW and General location Whitmore Ave NW, and north of Blandford Nature Center Applicant name Koetje Builders & Developers Request and Proposed Land Use Randy Koetje of Koetje Builders & Developers is requesting Final Preliminary Plat review for a residential development featuring 18 single-family residential lots on new public roads with public water and sanitary sewer services at 1853 Pheasant Ave NW. This step follows the 12/20/2023 Planning Commission recommendation and the 1/8/2024 City Commission approval, of the Tentative Preliminary Plat review and the tentative approval by the Kent County Plat Board on 6/27/2024, which are the first steps in the platting process for a new subdivision, Page 1 of 8 Page 11 of 28 The following improvements are proposed as part of this development: 1. Eighteen single-family residential lots 2. Stormwater detention basin 3. Utility connections for all residential lots 4. Tree preservation easement to buffer existing homes from new lots Staff Analysis The following items have been provided for your review and reference in relation to this project: 1. Excerpts from the Zoning and Community Character Maps and other imagery 2. City Engineer’s Report dated September 12, 2024 3. Application for Final Preliminary Plat review and site plan set 4. Letters of approval from the Kent County Plat Board and the Kent County Drain Commissioner’s Office Final Preliminary Plat Review The regulations and procedure for platting is outlined in the City Code of Ordinances in Chapter 75 Land Divisions, with Section 74-37 laying out the final approval processes for preliminary plats. The graphic below outlines the plat process; final preliminary plat is the middle step. At this stage, “the planning commission and the city engineer shall review the preliminary plat and comments of the appropriate authorities and shall make a recommendation to the city commission as to final approval or rejection of the preliminary plat, including reasons for its recommendation”. The city commission has final authority to tentatively approve, approve with conditions, or reject a plat application. Zoning Review The applicant was scheduled for the 8/29/2024 Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) meeting. However, staff departments had few to no comments, so the 8/20/2024 meeting was cancelled. The plans being reviewed tonight are almost identical to the plans reviewed at the Tentative Preliminary Plat stage, with a few additional details added. The property is zoned SA Suburban Residential Single Family. The proposed use for platted single family lots fits well within the principal use in this district which is exclusively single-family dwellings. SA district standards, as found in Section 7.01 Schedule of District Regulations, are met or exceeded by the proposed final preliminary plat, including setbacks and minimum lot sizes. Page 2 of 8 Page 12 of 28 While the City of Walker has since shifted to use of net density calculations for residential developments, this project was initiated and the Tentative Preliminary Plat was approved under the former practical density calculations. Thus, it is appropriate to continue to use practical density for this project. The density of the proposed plat has been calculated by staff to be 2.24 units per acre. This was found utilizing the “practical density” calculation in the Walker Master Plan (Book 1, Page 44). Practical density is used for conventional developments and presumes that 20% of the total acreage of the site will be reserved for infrastructure. Total acreage for this site is 10.05 acres; 80% of that is 8.04 acres. Eighteen lots divided by 8.04 acres give us 2.24 units / acre, which is within the Master Plan’s Future Land Use designation for this site of Residential Growth at 2-4 u/ac. Sidewalks are shown on both sides of the new streets. The developer will put in the ADA ramps and areas not fronting a new lot. Sidewalks in front of new residential lots will be connected when the home is built. Easements Several different easements are proposed within the plat. Each new lot has a proposed 10’ wide easement for public and private utilities in the front yard abutting the front property line. Most lots (all lots except 8, 9, 17, and 18) also have a 20’ wide drainage easement in the rear yard behind the building envelope. A 12” storm sewer will be situated in that easement. A “tree preservation easement” is shown in the rear yards abutting the rear property line for lots 1-7 and lots 10-16. This is behind the building envelope and behind the 20’ wide drainage easement, and will buffer the new lots from existing homes along both Whitmore and Pheasant Avenues. Plans note that the tree preservation easement requirements are to be included within the plat restrictions. The developer provided the following language relating to these restrictions: Lots 1-7 & 10-16 are subject to permanent tree preservation areas. Tree preservation area regulations are as follows: a. All trees of 6” caliper and greater shall be preserved within the designated area. b. Home owner may remove dead & diseased trees if desired. c. Home owner may remove brush and undergrowth less than 6’ caliper if desired. d. Home owner may leave the ground in its natural condition or provide a manicured lawn area around existing trees. e. Homeowner may place fences, play equipment, pools, etc. within the preserve areas as long as trees are not removed to accommodate the appurtenance. However, if tree removal cannot be avoided, it must be minimized and any trees greater than 6” caliper removed must be replaced. f. Any tree that needs to be replaced within the preserve area shall be replaced with a min. 2” caliper deciduous tree or a 5’ tall evergreen tree. These easements must be recorded and copies of the recorded easements provided to the Community Development Department as a condition of approval for the Final Preliminary Plat stage of the process. Street Trees Chapter 74 of the Walker City Code of Ordinances includes regulations for subdivisions. Article IV of this chapter includes requirements for streets, residential blocks, and street trees. The Ordinance, in Section 74-90.1.b states 1. “Following the final plat approval of any subdivision for single-family residential Page 3 of 8 Page 13 of 28  development and before the issuance of any building permits, the developer shall pay a fee established by resolution of the city commission for each street tree within the subdivision required by subsection (b)(2) below. The fee shall cover the costs of the city for the purchase and planting of street trees within the subdivision, the maintenance and replacement of said street trees for at least one y ear after planting, and related administrative costs. 2. Street trees shall be planted within or along the right-of-way of any public street within any subdivision for single-family residential development. One street tree per approved platted lot shall be planted except that corner lots and through lots, as defined by the section 94-5 of the City Code, require the planting of two trees. The city will be responsible for purchasing and planting the street trees at an appropriate time based on seasonal conditions and for replacing trees within one year after planting.” It is the longstanding process in Walker that the developer will provide a street tree escrow check for the amount required prior to the City Commission’s review of the final preliminary plat. Resolution 19-512 set the fee per street tree at $450.00, but includes a provision to adjust this figure based on bids from suppliers. Due to increasing costs over the past few years, the Community Development Department is in the process of verifying costs to purchase trees. The total required street tree escrow amount for the required 22 trees (one per lot, two per corner lot, and two additional trees in front of the stormwater pond) for the Pheasant Preserve plat will be available by the time of the Planning Commission meeting on 9/18/2024. Recommendations I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval with conditions to the City Commission of the Final Preliminary Plat Plan for a new residential development featuring 18 single-family residential lots on new public roads with public water and sanitary sewer services at 1853 Pheasant Avenue NW (PIN 41-13-16-102-012), in accordance with the plan set last revision received 8/2/2024. The staff recommendation includes the following recommended conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall address all the items outlined in the City Engineer’s report dated September 12, 2024. 2. The applicant shall submit a final acceptance letter from the Kent County Plat Board, prior to the City Commission’s review of the final preliminary plat. 3. The applicant shall submit a draft document for legal review containing plat building restrictions and covenants, with language that speaks to the responsibility of co-ownership of any common areas by a homeowner’s association, prior to the City Commission’s review of the final preliminary plat. A recorded copy of the restrictions and covenants shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. The applicant shall submit recorded copies of the easements shown on the plan set (including those for public and private utilities, for drainage, and for tree preservation) prior to the issuance of any building permits. 5. The applicant shall submit a street tree escrow check in the amount of (amount to be provided at the Planning Commission meeting), prior to the City Commission’s review of the final preliminary plat. 6. The applicant shall submit a set of individual lot grading sheets consistent with the approved grading plan and MBO table, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. The applicant shall provide three sets of sealed, civil engineered plans incorporating the Page 4 of 8 Page 14 of 28  recommended conditions to the Community Development Department, prior to the issuance of building or stormwater permits. The Planning Commission has the discretion to modify, add to or remove any of the above recommended conditions of approval. ` Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Paula Priebe, AICP City of Walker Planning Director CC: Randy Koetje – Koetje Builders & Developers Todd Stuive, P.E. – Exxel Engineering, Inc. Page 5 of 8 Page 15 of 28 Excerpt from the Zoning Map: Site is zoned SA Suburban Residential Single-Family Excerpt from the Community Character Map: Site is designated Residential Growth (2-4 Units / Acre). Page 6 of 8 Page 16 of 28 Kent County Aerial Image of Site (Basemap = 2020 Aerial Imagery): Excerpt from Google Earth, facing north (imagery date 6/24/2022) Page 7 of 8 Page 17 of 28 Site Photos: (taken 12/12/2023) Existing conditions, street stub from Pheasant Ave facing west. Existing conditions, street stub from Whitmore Ave facing east. Page 8 of 8 Page 18 of 28  CITY OF WALKER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Paula Priebe, AICP, Planning Director FROM: Scott Conners, P.E., City Engineer DATE: September 12, 2024 RE: Pheasant Preserve – Final Preliminary Plat We have reviewed the Final Preliminary Plat for Pheasant Preserve located south of Richmond Street and between Whitmore Avenue and Pheasant Avenue. The plans were prepared by Exxel Engineering and dated 8/2/24. We offer the following comments: • We need to confirm that the backyard areas will have a redundant stormwater outlet. The idea here is that if the storm sewer becomes obstructed, there will be a second way for the water to escape and not impact the minimum building openings (MBO) of the existing or proposed homes. • The MBO for lot 18 is 736.0. The overflow elevation for the detention pond is 737.5, or 1.5’ above the adjacent homes lowest opening. This may not impact the home site, but we would like to have this confirmed to ensure that minor modifications on lot 18, which would own the pond, do not have detrimental stormwater impacts. It might be necessary to write in some restrictions • There should be an MBO table with the type of basement listed. This is very helpful for the Building Official as they review the proposed elevations and grading plan for individual homesites. We will be in attendance at the September 18th meeting to help the Planning Commissioners with any detailed questions that come up during this review. They may contact me directly at 616-791- 6792 or sconners@walker.city if they have any advance questions. Cc: Gary Postema, DPW Director Travis Mabry, P.E., Asst. City Engineer Meghan Sulka, Engineering Programs Coordinator Joel Morgan, P.E., Senior Engineer – Kent County Drain Commission Page 19 of 28  City of Walker . . . PIannlng C_ommlssmn Staff Contact: Paula Priebe Planning Director (616) 791-6879 Applicatlon gpriebe@walker.city or cdd@walker.city ALL SUBMITTED PLANS W 4243 Remembrance Rd, NW. ROLLED PLANS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Walker, MI 49534 Please c eck nature of request Rezone Request to Planned Unit Development Special Exception Use Review PreliminaryArea Site Plan Review (PASP) PUD - / Platting: _Tentative Preliminary /_ Final Preliminary Final Area Site Plan Review (FASP) PUD - Site Condominium Review Major Amendment to approved _FASP _PASP Condominium Site Plan Review Rezone Request _1 acre or less _ more than 1 acre Multi-Family Site Plan Review Commercial Site Plan Review New Construction - Industrial Park (non-platted) Commercial Site Plan Review Expansion — Master Plan Amendment Special Meeting Industrial Site Plan Review New Construction - industrial Site Plan Review Expansion — -5S I Current Zoning District: SA Suburban Residential Single Family - - Owner Name: Koetje Builders & Developers LLCAttn: Randy Koetje Owner Phone: 616-457-3450 Applicant Name (If different from owner): Same as Owner Applicant Phone: Applicant Email: Applicant MailingAddress: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Proposed 18 lot plat. Complying with the SA Suburban Residential - - Single Family zoning district. Section B Civil Engineer Name: Engineering Firm: Todd Stuive P E Exxel Engineering, Inc. Engineer Phone: 616-531-3660 Engineer Email: tstuive@exxelengineering.com Engineer Mai'ing Address" 5252 Clyde Park Ave. Grand Rapids, MI 49509 Architect Name: Architectural Firm: Nla N/a Architect Phone: Architect Email: Architect Mailing Address: Other persons, ?rms, or corporations having legal or equitable interest in the land (names and contact information): Page 20 of 28  STATEMENT OF FEE RESPONSIBILITY AND AGREEMENT I (we) the undersigned certify that the information contained on this application form and the required documents attached hereto are to the best of my (our) knowledge true and accurate. I (we) further grant access to the site to City of Walker staff and Planning Commissioners. | RE F PPLICA ND PR PERTY W E ED The applicant and property owner agree to pay the escrow charges that result from review of this project. Escrow fees shall be deposited at the time of application. A building permit may be withheld if a project has any outstanding bills. I have completed this application and have submitted with this application the appropriate fees and escrow monies and agree to the City of Walker Escrow Policy. I further grant access to the site to City of Walker staff and Planning Commissioners. *Owners Signature & Da (ifdifferent from applicant) Applicant’s Signature *THE PROPERTY QWNERMUST SIGN THIS APPLICATION Review Checklists of Zoning Ordinance Standards can be found on the City of Walker Website under Forms and Documents. Office Use Only Fee Amount: __ Date paid: Escrow Amount: Date paid: 8/00 Page 21 of 28 REGISTER OF DEEDS KENT COUNTYADMINISTRATION BUILDING 300 MONROEAVENUE, N.W. GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN49503 TELEPHONE(616) 632-7610 LYONS LISA POSTHUMUS County Clerk/Register J EROME CZAJA Chief Deputy Register June 27, 2024 Exxel Engineering Inc 5252 Clyde Park SW Grand Rapids, MI49509 To Whom This Matter Concerns: Tentative approval The Kent County Plat Board Met on June 27, 2024. located in the City of was given to the preliminary plat Pheasant Preserve, approval of all other units Walker. Tentative approval is given, subject to the of government receiving copies of the preliminaryplat. Sincerely, 1% C ief Deputy R- Page 22 of 28  OFFICE OF THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER Ken Yonker, Drain Commissioner June 28, 2024 Todd Stuive, P.E. Exxel Engineering, Inc. tstuive@exxelengineeringcom 5252 Clyde Park SW Grand Rapids, MI 49525 RE: Pheasant Preserve Section 16, T7N, R12W, City of Walker KCDC File No. 2005 Dear Mr. Stuive, The Drain Commissioner’sOf?ce pursuant to the Land Division Act, ACT 288 of 1967, and the published Development Drainage Rules has reviewed the preliminary plans submitted on June 11, 2024 for Pheasant Preserve. Preliminary approval is granted at this time. We offer the following comments that shall be addressed with the construction submittal: 1. Construction plans and design computations shall be submitted for approval prior to construction. Construction shall not begin until construction approval has been granted. A pro?le shall be included of all storm sewer and floodways in the construction plans. 2. Stabilization measures and soil erosion control measures for the protection of the storm sewer system shall be included on the construction plans. The following measures are required on backyard drainage swale and storm sewer structures: Detention facilities shall be the ?rst item of construction. All banks of the detention basin shall be graded, topsoiled, seeded, and covered with North American Green SC-150 erosion control matting. No soil laden water shall leave the site or into the wetlands. Place sumps at the inlet and outlet to the basin. Please place detail on the plans. Drainage swales shall be graded, seeded, topsoiled, and covered with erosion control matting, North American Green SC-150. The recommended minimum grade for backyard swales is 2%. Inlet protection around a yard basin shall be installed through the use of a ?lter sock, Filtrexx Inlet Soxx. The ?lter sock shall be placed around the perimeter of the yard basin at a 5—ftdistance with the area inside the 5-ft perimeter to be stabilized with erosion control matting. No under the grate silt sacks will be allowed in backyard yard basins. These types of sedimentation control measures have not worked in the past and typical . 775 BallAve NE 0 Grand Rapids - Ml 49503 - Phone (616) 632-7910 Page 23 of 28  result in failure. Silt-Saver with ?lter Frames shall replace these measures that perform at the surface and can be reused. 3. A county drain shall be established to provide for the future maintenance of the detention pond. Under Section .433 (5) of the Drain Code, a private drain may be established as a county drain by agreement between the landowner and the Drain Commissioner. Further, the developer shall deposit $2,500.00 with the drain of?ce for future maintenance of the drain. The City of Walker will maintain the internal storm sewer system. 4. The following design computations shall be submitted for approval: Detention basin storage volume calculations. City of Walker requires 100-year storage per their stormwater standards. Restricted outlet sizing Spillway sizing Provide downstream conveyance calculations of the existing 24-in storm sewer to which the outlet will be connecting to in Whitemore Ave and show that it has the capacity to carry the drainage. Storm sewer sizing and provide the HGLcomputations. HGL shall be started at the spillway elevation of the detention basin. Provide a completed LGROWDesign Spreadsheet showing that the Channel Protection Volume and T55 Removal have been met per the new standards. A drainage study map that shows contributing area to each component in the storm network. Include any offsite contribution. Provide no-net increase runoff calculations for the direct runoff being carried offsite speci?cally for Lots 8-9. No increase will be allowed. If you have any questions, please contact the Drain Of?ce. Sincerely, f". _ T L-L4-2.1}; J Wit/£14.43- , Angie E. Latvaitis Depu'tyDrain Commissioner Of?ce of the Kent County Drain Commissioner CC. ?le Plat Board Darren Vink, Road Commission Randy Koetje, Koetje Builders Scott Conners, City of Walker Engineer Travis Mabry, City of Walker Assistant Engineer Page 2 of 2 Page 24 of 28  SA WHITMORE AVENUE SA SA - S P P 7 6 5 4 2 1 3 SA RINGNECK DRIVE 8 RINGNECK COURT 18 9 Page 25 of 28 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 SA SA PHEASANT AVENUE 5252 Clyde Park, S.W. Grand Rapids, MI 49509 Phone: (616) 531-3660www.exxelengineering.com  WHITMORE AVENUE 7 6 5 4 2 1 3 8 RINGNECK COURT 18 9 Page 26 of 28 14 15 16 11 12 13 10 17 RINGNECK DRIVE PHEASANT AVENUE 5252 Clyde Park, S.W. Grand Rapids, MI 49509 Phone: (616) 531-3660www.exxelengineering.com  WHITMORE AVE. R Know what's below. Callbefore you dig. 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 RINGNECK COURT Page 27 of 28 RINGNECK DRIVE 10 18 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 PRELIMINARY PLAT-FINAL CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROAD DETAIL SITE GRADING PLAN ” PHEASANT AVE. 5252 Clyde Park, S.W. Grand Rapids, MI 49509 Phone: (616) 531-3660www.exxelengineering.com ”  City of Walker Planning Commission 9-18-2024 Case # 24-016: Final Preliminary Plat Review for 1853 Pheasant Ave NW Based on the application material provided, I move to table / recommend approval / recommend denial to the Walker City Commission for the final preliminary plat, called Pheasant Preserve, for a new residential development featuring 18 single-family residential lots on new public streets with public water and sanitary sewer facilities at 1853 Pheasant Avenue NW (PIN 41-13-16-102- 012), subject to the following conditions and based on the findings of fact noted below. Conditions of Final Preliminary Plat Recommendation of Approval 1. The applicant shall address all the items outlined in the City Engineer’s report dated September 12, 2024. 2. The applicant shall submit a final acceptance letter from the Kent County Plat Board, prior to the City Commission’s review of the final preliminary plat. 3. The applicant shall submit a draft document for legal review containing plat building restrictions and covenants, with language that speaks to the responsibility of co-ownership of any common areas by a homeowner’s association, prior to the City Commission’s review of the final preliminary plat. A recorded copy of the restrictions and covenants shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. The applicant shall submit recorded copies of the easements shown on the plan set (including those for public and private utilities, for drainage, and for tree preservation) prior to the issuance of any building permits. 5. The applicant shall submit a street tree escrow check in the amount of (amount to be provided at the Planning Commission meeting), prior to the City Commission’s review of the final preliminary plat. 6. The applicant shall submit a set of individual lot grading sheets consistent with the approved grading plan and MBO table, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. The applicant shall provide three sets of sealed, civil engineered plans incorporating the recommended conditions to the Community Development Department, prior to the issuance of building or stormwater permits. 8. Additional conditions: Findings of Fact 1. Per this conditional approval, the 18 proposed single-family residential lots will meet / will not meet the dimensional requirements of the SA, Suburban Residential Single-Family, zoning district per Section 7.01, Schedule of District Regulations. 2. Per this conditional approval, the engineering and infrastructure details will meet / will not meet the standards of Articles II and IV of Chapter 74, Walker Subdivisions ordinance. Motion made by: _______________ Ayes:__________ Support from: _______________ Nays:__________ Motion carried / failed Page 1 of 1 Page 28 of 28