Planning Commission

Planning Commission Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, May 21, 2025 at 6:30 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Meeting Minutes 2.1. Review Meeting Minutes from March 5, 2025 3. General Public Comment 4. Agenda Items 4.1. Case #24-015 - PUBLIC HEARING - 1204 4 Mile Rd NW - Preliminary Area Site Plan Review for a Proposed RPUD-1 Development of 30 Residential Condominium Units in 2 and 3 Unit Buildings on a New Private Road with Public Utility Improvements - Matthew Frain 5. Adjournment Page 1 of 111  City of Walker Planning Commission – Regular Meeting 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, March 5, 2025 at 6:30 PM Planning Commission Members Present: T. Schweitzer, Dr. J. Taylor, J. Patin, T. Winkelman, E. Huizenga-Chase, S. Funke, M. Ratering, and P. Nolan Planning Commission Members Absent: R. VerHeulen Staff Present: Planning Director Paula Priebe and Assistant City Engineer Travis Mabry T. Schweitzer opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Review Meeting Minutes of February 19, 2025 Meeting minutes from February 19, 2025 will be reviewed at the next meeting. General Public Comment None. Case #25-001 – 3130 Alpine Ave NW – Final Area Site Plan (FASP) and Special Land Use Review for a proposed 3.249 sq. ft. quick-service restaurant with drive- through and outdoor seating area, Green Ridge Holdings LLC Motion by S. Funke, supported by P. Nolan, to remove the item from the table. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Director Paula Priebe recalled that this project was discussed at the February 5, 2025 meeting. There were a number of items the Planning Commission asked for more clarification on. She recalled that the request is for a new outlot in front of the former Toys R Us/current Crunch Fitness building for a new quick-service restaurant with a drive-through window. P. Priebe clarified that the applicant will provide more detail on the drive-through; it is a pick-up window and not a traditional drive-through. The items the Planning Commission asked for more information on were cross-access and shared parking agreements; staff review and feedback on the signage plan; information on how the drive-through window operates without a menu board or order taking station; the amount of stacking space for cars at the drive-through window; and City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 1 Page 2 of 111 more information regarding the rogue power line and confirmation that electric service is safe and appropriate for the new outlot. P. Priebe related that the applicant has provided a large document from the time this PUD was originally created that covered easements and cross access. It has not been reviewed in its entirety. However, she has briefly looked through it and reviewed several points. It appears to cover the entire development. It may be worth further legal review to ensure it covers everything needed for this potential new outlot that wasn’t part of the original PUD. That could also be addressed by new agreements. With respect to signage, P. Priebe noted that she addressed the signage in her report. A hard copy of the Zoning Administrator’s review of the signage has been provided to Commissioners and the applicant. They are requesting a monument sign, a number of directional signs, wall, and window signage. P. Priebe explained that the proposed directional signage is permitted. The proposed wall signs are in excess of what the Ordinance allows. However, both she and the Zoning Administrator feel that the requested wall signage is in line with what has been approved for similar businesses in this area. With respect to the window signage, a few of them appear to cover the entire window, although it was difficult to determine that completely. Again, they feel the window signage is reasonable with respect to PUD benefits that have been granted previously. The proposed monument sign is a concern of she and the Zoning Administrator however. The Ordinance talks about the height being determined by the difference in grade from the nearest roadway or parking lot. In this case, there is a berm where the proposed sign would be sited and putting that sign atop the berm would provide great visibility for the applicant but is not in keeping with what has historically been granted in this area. P. Priebe stated that her recommendation is that the Planning Commission grant all of the wall and window signage as a PUD benefit but not the free- standing monument sign. The applicant could instead include their sign on the existing multi-tenant sign of the shopping complex. P. Priebe related that when she investigated the drive-through window and how it operates she reviewed McAlister’s website and locations to provide some examples. Examples were displayed on the screen. With respect to stacking, P. Priebe deferred to the applicant for additional detail. P. Priebe indicated that she provided information regarding the power line that was a concern. She displayed an image provided by the Director of the Department of Public Works showing the approximate location of the power line. It does cross the subject property at the far east side. The plans for the proposed development indicate that they would have underground power coming directly from Alpine to their location and would not be utilizing that power line in any way. P. Priebe explained that the power line remains a concern that needs to be addressed. The City Attorney provided proposed language as a condition of approval if the Planning Commission chooses to move the project forward; “The electric distribution service to the property shall comply with all City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 2 Page 3 of 111 applicable State laws, regulations, and codes, including the National Electric Safety Code.” P. Priebe explained that they are limited as to what they can require from the Planning and Zoning components. The power line is a major concern but barely touches the subject site and is in no way being disturbed by the subject development. Therefore, tying it to this approval is not something she would recommend. Finally, P. Priebe explained that for this project to move forward the Planning Commission would need to act on 1) the amendment to the Preliminary Area Site Plan (PASP) for the new outlot and the FASP, and 2) Special Land Use approval. P. Nolan asked who located the power line. The information provided indicates it was done by a private company. S. Conners explained that the layout became available through an old permit through Consumers Energy. There was a record shared that helped to indicate where it is located. It isn’t much more detailed than what P. Priebe displayed on the screen. P. Nolan asked if they can require that the location be verified by Miss Dig. S. Conners feels they would be crossing into the territory of “we can make an argument”. The City Attorney has stated that we can make an argument for anything they feel is important. He is also realistic about what they can defend and argue. S. Conners stated that it remains a critically important issue to him but the City Attorney states that as it relates to an outlot on the westerly side of the Crunch Fitness lot he would be comfortable with the condition previously stated. M. Ratering noted that the owner of the Crunch Fitness lot obviously has a financial interest in this project. He asked the magnitude of the burden of having Miss Dig get this in their system properly. Is it a huge ask? S. Conners replied that he doesn’t know what the cost would be. However, what happens if it doesn’t get in their system? There was already an injury further north on Weatherford Dr. where someone had issues with a private electric line in a box. He is concerned with what happens if it doesn’t get fixed. That is a cost that can’t be quantified. M. Ratering understood. From a practical, legal point of view, his question is whether it presents insurmountable blockades to the proposed project vs. something that might be inconvenient but not debilitating to the project. His assumption, based on the City Attorney and Planning Director’s feedback is that it isn’t a viable requirement. It would be interesting to have a better understanding of what that undertaking would look like. S. Conners stated that he doesn’t feel it is unrealistic. The City Attorney is engaging with attorneys for several of the different property owners. Part of the difficulty is figuring City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 3 Page 4 of 111 out which group owns what and who is responsible. The bottom line is that there is an electric line that is a concern. It would be irresponsible of him not to express these concerns. The cost to relocate the line is likely a bigger number. If Consumers Energy were to get involved and they work together to ensure it is under the Consumers Energy umbrella so they can locate it with Miss Dig that is likely the biggest number but also the right answer. M. Ratering understands that if the line starts failing that will be on whoever is paying for the power to figure that out. As long as they know where it is for the purpose of Miss Dig he suggested that solves most of the safety issues related to this project. S. Conners reviewed his report. He noted that there is an OEA document in the latest submittal that he feels is important to have reviewed legally to ensure a brand new outlot still qualifies for all of the cross-access easements. The second item in the report relates to the electrical issue. The Planning Commission is aware of the Engineering Department’s opinion on the matter. There is also the condition recommended by the City Attorney. The Planning Commission can ask for continued efforts to work together, reach out to Consumers Energy, etc. The final item in the report relates to the two-way traffic in the drive aisle next to the drive-through. He noted that P. Priebe found the Holland example and he also spoke with people in Lansing about McAlister’s. He feels it remains a valid discussion item and offered to assist the Commission during that discussion. Engineer Matt Cole, Roosien & Associates, noted that he provided a letter in response to the tabling items last month. He felt P. Priebe provided accurate information and he provided additional information. With respect to how the pick-up window works, it is not a typical drive-through operation with four steps. A patron goes on line or uses their app and places their order and pays. An estimated time that the order will be ready is provided. The patron goes into the lane, provides their name, and receives their order. If the order isn’t ready, the patron is directed to pull forward and park and someone brings the food out. As a result, this operation is much faster than a typical drive-through operation, which is why they only need 80’ of stacking vs. 200’. Mr. Cole related that he shared the Commission’s concern with the team and they are confident the proposed layout is fine and doesn’t need to be adjusted. Mr. Cole also asked the percentage of orders that are pick-up, which is approximately 35%. Mr. Cole indicated that they also touched on the cross-access and shared parking. He reached out to the owner’s attorney for insight on how it works rather than reading through the 80-page document himself. The attorney informed him that all of the partners have to unanimously agree to any changes to the parking and shared access and that has been done. As far as those entities are concerned, the building is approved to be constructed as shown. They would also become a member of the OEA agreement and will share in the cost of maintaining the driveways and parking lots. As previously discussed, there is more parking on the overall site than is needed, which is why they are looking to utilize the land by bringing in another business. His understanding is that Target has their own lot City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 4 Page 5 of 111 and does their own maintenance. Mr. Cole acknowledged the discussion regarding the electric line. Last month he was under the impression that the line was on the west side of the building. They’ve verified that it is actually along the east side of the building and right along the property line. Nothing they are doing with this project will pose any danger to that line. The power for their site will come in from Alpine. Finally, with respect to signage, he felt P. Priebe provided a good explanation. He noted that they have provided additional detail on the small directional signage through the site. The elevations depicting the building signage were provided for the last meeting and nothing has changed there. They are also requesting the monument sign near the road. He agreed that there is a big slope there but the base of he sign is only about a foot higher than the road edge. As you go to the south the land goes up and is about 4’ higher than the road. Mr. Cole indicated that both the property owner and operator are present to answer questions. J. Patin noted that between the signage and plan set it appears two different plans were provided, at least with respect to the layout of the drive. Mr. Cole indicated that he didn’t bring the signage map. He has the architectural drawings and he has coordinated those to make sure the site plan is accurate. P. Priebe displayed the plans side by side. J. Patin stated that there are only minor differences but different enough that the curb structure on the southeast side looks different. The drive in looks to be from the east rather than the south. Mr. Cole indicated that was an old layout provided to the architect. Since then, they’ve changed it to make it flow better. Obviously, they didn’t get the updated drawing to the sign company. The plan displayed on the left is the proposed plan. J. Patin appreciated P. Priebe providing the example of McAlister’s Deli in Holland. The location in Wyoming doesn’t have a pick-up window. One of the big differences is the location in Holland is within its own parking lot vs. this location having the shared parking lot. In relation to that, he has some questions on the decision for the location of the structure and having the south drive going through. Aside from the pedestrian/vehicle interactions, which S. Conners indicated the applicant could speak further to, it is the oncoming traffic of those turning north to go into the drive vs. those heading west from the parking lot; the interactions are basically going head-on there. He understands it is a parking lot and speeds are typically slower but it is a safety concern he has. He asked if they considered pushing the building toward the northwest corner of the site and having a single, one-way drive going through the edge. It eliminates the parking spaces on the far edge at the northwest side of the property and has a single drive lane through there instead. He doubts that those parking spaces are currently utilized by the existing businesses there because they are so far away. J. Patin asked City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 5 Page 6 of 111 the rationale for the proposed location and if there were previous iterations that considered that. With respect to previous iterations, Mr. Cole explained that they received the concept plan from McAlister’s corporate architect in Alabama. It is the plan that corporate has approved and they favor and wished to proceed with. Mr. Cole worked with that plan in comparison to the Zoning Ordinance for this municipality and advised them what they could have. He was not involved with different versions of the site layout and he isn’t aware of whether the architect did that. However, the existing main north/south traffic corridor in this parking lot are right up along the building and at the west edge of the existing parking lot. The thought was not to impact those and create any conflicts. The rest of the drive aisles are east/west and none of them are very major until you get further to the south in front of Chucky Cheese, which is where there is a connection to the service drive. In this plan they are putting in a new connection to the service drive to improve access to McAlister’s. If someone is heading east and wants to turn into the drive-through it isn’t much different than if someone were heading east and then wanted to turn into a parking space on the left side. They don’t feel it is a safety concern and no one brought it up as such during the staff site plan review. E. Huizenga-Chase responded to J. Patin in agreement that it is difficult to envision it going there in the empty lot but it isn’t much different than having cross-access easements between businesses. One thing she thought of is the Chick-fil-A at the East Beltline and 28th St. It was plopped in the middle of the parking lot, essentially like the proposed. Until they redid their drive-through this past year you had to park further away and walk through the drive-through line, which does have a longer stacking distance whereas this is a quicker pick-up window. J. Patin asked for further explanation. E. Huizenga-Chase explained that Walker tries to have cross-access easements between businesses so there is more than one way to get in and out of the property. As proposed it allows traffic to continue around it. There is still a main street but she feels they can look at it similar to the Chick-fil-A she mentioned; different turning movements are still possible through there even though it was plopped in the middle of a parking lot. J. Patin related that he was on that site recently and knows that that parking lot can be pretty chaotic. E. Huizenga-Chase feels that the difference between the drive-through and pick-up window operations speaks to that. Mr. Cole added that if someone is going to Crunch Fitness will they be driving through there, past McAlister’s. It makes more sense that they have two shorter routes. They don’t anticipate a lot of conflict there and that it will be efficient. City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 6 Page 7 of 111 E. Huizenga-Chase would envision people either going past Panera and traveling south rather than taking the curvy, longer road around such as if you were going to Olive Garden or Buffalo Wild Wings. Mr. Cole agreed. This is the long way around and you have to pass another building with more cars. S. Conners indicated that in the spirit of redundancy that access needs to be maintained. If people parking along the property line of McAlister’s and Crunch Fitness, there are a lot of folks that will go straight west to get out to that street to access the public road system. J. Patin indicated that he would go west to avoid the pedestrian interactions in front of the storefronts. He felt Mr. Cole made a good point that the interactions exist with parking spaces but, as stated, these are supposed to be in and out fast for McAlister’s so that is multiple vehicles vs. a single vehicle going into a parking space. S. Conners asked questions related to the OEA document. If Consumers Energy were to decommission or disconnect the power line if the legal issues got messy or if it was damaged and broken, how would the OEA treat electric to all of the parcels because they are all connected. If the line was decommissioned, does the OEA agreement speak to how that would be replenished for those businesses? Mr. Cole replied that he doesn’t know the detail on that. His understanding is there will be a change in the area where there is parking and cross-access and all members had to agree to it. At the same time, they aren’t supposed to withhold their agreement if there isn’t a good reason. If the utility line going to Crunch Fitness had a problem and they need new electric run from Alpine it wouldn’t be a problem for them to put it under the shared areas. S. Conners noted that the lighting for the parking lot comes from that line. Is there a requirement to maintain that level of lighting? There has to be something to maintain landscaping, poles, sprinkling systems and things like that. He is wondering if eventually everyone is going to get pulled into this issue if it doesn’t get resolved. He feels that is where it is headed. Ray Bacall, stated that he owns Alpine & 96 LLC, which is Crunch Fitness, as well as Chuck E Cheese Holdings. His understanding is the utility is controlled by Green Ridge and Consumers. Mr. Bacall stated that his brother is the leasing agent for the entire shopping center and manages it for the Green Ridge ownership. They continue to learn more daily about the utility. In his case for Crunch Fitness and Chuck E Cheese, they are billed by Green Ridge and they pay them. His understanding is they have their own transformers. He again stated that they are all learning about the utility situation and are City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 7 Page 8 of 111 all confused about who owns what. If there is a problem in the future, he isn’t sure who is responsible. With respect to the OEA, they are all involved. All of the decisions are made by Green Ridge, Target, and himself. If one of them don’t agree, nothing could move forward. S. Conners asked if the access mentioned by J. Patin becomes an issue and they find out that it doesn’t operate as intended, would the OEA agreement prohibit the ability for Crunch Fitness or McAlister’s to put up signs and prohibit two-way traffic along the south side of the building. He asked if McAlister’s could potentially get into a spot where they can’t fix it later because it is part of an overall agreement. Now a new owner is being added to the mix. Mr. Bacall clarified that they aren’t adding a new owner; they are adding a new tenant. He will continue to own the lot and McAlister’s will lease it. S. Conners explained that the City never knows when the properties change hands. That lot could be sold off and he wants to be sure they think through the ability to back track a bit in terms of that access. The Planning Commission may wish to include that restriction now. T. Winkelman noted that construction of this building will reduce the amount of parking. He asked if they are confident they will have enough parking for Crunch Fitness. Mr. Bacall replied yes. The ownership groups discussed it and they have enough parking for all uses. Crunch Fitness has also signed off on it. The attorneys for the different groups went through the OEA and they agreed that there is enough parking for Chuck E Cheese, Crunch Fitness and McAlister’s. Their understanding is that most of McAlister’s business is during the day with a lighter dinner business. There is enough parking for the entire shopping center because it is shared amongst everyone. M. Ratering clarified that all property owners and tenants are aware that this project is proposed. Mr. Bacall agreed. M. Ratering noted that there is no one here expressing concern over their parking. He related that he drove through the site last week and it appeared somewhat busy. What stood out to him that all of the spaces on the outer ring haphazardly had snow pushed into them so the parking lot looked full but a large number of spaces were unavailable due to the snow. It looked like the snow piles could easily be consolidated if necessary for parking. He isn’t worried about the amount of parking based on that observation. Motion by S. Funke, supported by E. Huizenga-Chase, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 8 Page 9 of 111 T. Schweitzer invited public comment; there was none. Motion by S. Funke, supported by E. Huizenga-Chase, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. T. Schweitzer asked Commissioners if there are any concerns with the lot split and parcel dimensions. There were no concerns expressed. T. Schweitzer recalled discussion from the previous meeting regarding sidewalk connecting the new site with the surrounding area. He suggested there are really only two options; east to connect to Crunch Fitness or to the northwest to connect with the Taco Bell sidewalk. P. Nolan asked if it is required that new businesses have a sidewalk. He has seen a number of locations where sidewalk is intermittent because of vacant adjacent space. If sidewalk is required, are they required to go the 500+ ft. all the way to Center on their side of the road or could it be required that they have sidewalk on their site and perhaps a cross walk to the sidewalk near Taco Bell so it isn’t a sidewalk to nowhere. P. Priebe explained that the intermittent sidewalk occurs when a property is developed or redeveloped. Sidewalk is typically required along the public street and, depending on where it is, potentially to the building. In this case that is a private road. If this were a new PUD, sidewalk would be required throughout. There is sidewalk along the existing buildings and Taco Bell added it when it came in. The Planning Commission could waive that requirement as a PUD benefit or it could be required in a variety of iterations. P. Nolan asked if Taco Bell installed sidewalk even though they weren’t required to. P. Priebe replied that she didn’t go through that history so she isn’t able to answer that question. S. Conners added that from a public standpoint they wouldn’t typically require it on an interior private road like this but they wouldn’t discourage it. It would not be something a permit is issued for. He noted the sidewalk at Taco Bell stating that if it was permitted and that was a public driveway, the sidewalk would have gone through the driveway. If the Planning Commission were to push for sidewalk here, staff would look for it along Alpine Ave. because that is the only public frontage they have but it isn’t really their public access. Given the location and uniqueness, S. Funke stated that he would be comfortable waiving the sidewalk requirement as a PUD benefit. City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 9 Page 10 of 111 Others agreed. T. Schweitzer moved on to signage, which has been further clarified this evening. P. Priebe’s comments and those provided by the Zoning Administrator provide further perspective. He feels it comes down to the question of the free-standing sign. He asked the applicant if there has been conversation with the owner of the multi-tenant sign to have McAlister’s identified on that sign. Paul Gold, Echo Retail, stated that the entity that will operate this McAlister’s is Southern Rock Restaurants, which based out of Franklin TN. They are the largest franchise group in McAlister’s system with 160 stores across ten states. He essentially handles all their real estate. He explained that he doesn’t operate their stores but put the deals together, the locations, and site selections. He explained that there have been some discussions regarding representation on the shared pylon sign as a fall back position. The answer was that there is a penal that could be needed for a future use. There was cooperation that if that was the only option that at least on a temporary basis they could discuss it but it wouldn’t necessarily be a permanent situation for McAlister’s. P. Nolan understands their desire for a free-standing sign near the road. It is elevated and they are roughly 180’ from Alpine so it isn’t immediately visible when driving by. If approved, he would anticipate requests from Chuck E Cheese, Crunch Fitness, and others. He isn’t certain signage there is truly necessary. T. Schweitzer noted that the applicant has provided clarification on their model with respect to the drive-through stacking lane. However, there may still be some concern about the traffic movement through there. J. Patin stated that he hadn’t realized the Holland location was a former Steak ‘n Shake. If the user here changes and it is a more typical drive-through then it likely wouldn’t be sufficient. He also stated that he has not been to a McAlister’s and asked if the pick-up lane is signed to indicate it is not a typical drive-through. Mr. Gold related that he had a conversation with one of the directors of this McAlister’s group about that issue. If someone sits in that lane longer than two minutes they are directed to pull ahead to one of the designated parking spots for pick-up. Mr. Gold stated that he has been to many McAlister’s locations and at any given time there is one or two cars in that pick-up line and many times there are zero. It is a convenience that somewhat evolved out of Covid. People didn’t want to go into restaurants and that is how many restaurants stayed alive. The people that come through the lane thinking you can order at the window are given a pamphlet to educate them on how the pick-up works and would be directed to a parking spot. P. Nolan asked how many McAlister stores there are corporate wide. City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 10 Page 11 of 111 Mr. Gold replied that he doesn’t know the answer to that. There are corporate stores and there are franchisees in the majority of the county. His estimate would be that there are over 500. This group, Southern Rock Restaurants, owns 160. When they bought the rights to develop in western Michigan they inherited the store on Byron Center. They are just getting started in this area. They have done one in Portage and Holland and are under construction in Muskegon. They are very interested in expanding in Grand Rapids. P. Nolan asked if pick-up windows are present at all stores and is it likely at some point that there will be a corporate change to a typical drive-through. Are there any that operate like that now. Mr. Gold replied that there are none that he is aware of with the Southern Rock Restaurant group he works with. There have been no discussions about making that kind of change. Operating a drive-through with an on-site menu board is a completely different business model. He can’t imagine implementing that for this group. The pick-up window alone required some changes but that was a survival response to Covid. However, rarely will they do a location today without a pick-up window; it is that critical. Approximately 30-35% of their customers use the window. They accepted the Byron Center location because that is how they got the rights to develop in western Michigan but they wouldn’t have done that today. M. Ratering asked the typical amount of time between an order being placed on the app and the customer being told they are ready to get in line. Mr. Gold wasn’t able to answer that. M. Ratering explained that the reason for asking is that there is a blind spot near the dumpster where someone may order and park facing the drive-through and then with poor visibility pull out to go across the way to get to the pick-up lane. Mr. Gold explained that when they order on the app or the website, they receive an estimated pick-up time so they know approximately when to come. He feels the majority of the customers will go directly to the lane and if they are in the lane for more than two minutes, they are directed to a pick-up parking space so they don’t bog down the lane. T. Winkelman recalled that Chick fil A was used as a comparison. Based on his experience, the mobile ordering line is always substantially less, if not empty, at a variety of locations he has tested. He feels the proposed can work. With respect to the access or the cross traffic, an inclination to go from the west to Crunch Fitness was mentioned. When looking at the site plan, the existing east/west access is to the south of this site yet his mind thinks that the new access is the primary drive. In reality, this whole site is really tucked up into that corner further to the north than what it looked to City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 11 Page 12 of 111 be when he first saw it. He still feels that he could travel from the west if wanting to go to Chuck E Cheese or Crunch Fitness in the way he normally would and that may provide some of the relief from that east/west traffic concern he initially had. T. Schweitzer suggested, at the very least, if they are accepting of this layout that they would want to condition it upon the February 20, 2025 letter they’ve provided explaining how their operation functions as opposed to the more typical drive-through variety. With respect to the movement of traffic along the south side of the building, one way to perhaps address most of the concerns would be to make the cross hatched area that identifies a striped island an actual landscape islands. Mr. Cole deferred to Mr. Bacall as that is more of a shopping center issue. McAlister’s would have no problem with that. Practically speaking he feels having connectivity with the shopping center creates better flow from the operator’s perspective, although obviously sensitive to the safety concerns. E. Huizenga-Chase suggested that instead of cutting the drive off with an island that they request the islands be changed to raised islands. It would provide somewhat of a separation between the businesses and restaurant while not blocking off the cross- access. J. Patin indicated he would be supportive of a slight redesign on that portion. It was mentioned that primary traffic for the facility to the east would primarily be coming from the north and from the west for McAlister’s, which raises the question of why you couldn’t split that. E. Huizenga-Chase explained they would have to go back to the OEA for agreement of that change. It may also create some issues with maneuvering some of the parking spaces. Mr. Cole indicated that they could remove a couple of the parking spaces here and there. Additionally, that way the trash enclosure wouldn’t be in the middle of the parking lot either; it would actually be adjacent to a landscaped area. Mr. Cole clarified that he was speaking of the suggestion for the landscape islands along the east side. E. Huizenga-Chase clarified that her suggestion was to change the hatched islands to raised islands, like they have in the area of Crunch Fitness and Chuck E Cheese, with no change in dimension or location. That way they wouldn’t have to go back to the OEA for a change in the parking lot. J. Patin clarified that he was supportive of the suggestion made by T. Schweitzer. He does agree with the raised island. City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 12 Page 13 of 111 E. Huizenga-Chase suggested that if raised it creates an imaginary boundary and retains the cross-access. M. Ratering added that not having them raised, particularly when a parking lot isn’t very full, creates a place for people to cross diagonally, which will form habits. He also likes the suggestion of having it raised. T. Winkelman recalled that a suggested potential condition was involving working with the City in good faith on the OEA agreement pertaining to cross-access and the power line. Based on the application material provided, S. Funke MOVED to approve the Special Land Use for McAlister’s Deli at 3130 Alpine Avenue NW (PIN 41-13-01- 301-006) to permit a drive-through/quick pick-up window at a new quick service restaurant in the CPUD district, in accordance with the application received 12/30/2024 and update received 2/21/2025, subject to the following conditions and based on the findings of fact noted below. Conditions of Special Land Use Approval 1. The electric distribution service to 3130 Alpine Avenue NW shall comply with all applicable State laws, regulations, and codes, including the National Electric Safety Code. 2. The Planning Commission waives sidewalk along the property line as a PUD benefit. 3. All parties to the OEA agreement shall continue to work in good faith with each other and pertinent Walker City staff regarding continued efforts with Consumers Energy, cross-access, and matters of the like. 4. The applicant shall adhere to all conditions contained in the City Engineer’s report updated February 25, 2025. 5. There shall be raised curbing islands to create a noticeable boundary between the McAlister’s parcel and the remainder of the large parking lot along the east border of the subject parcel. Findings of Fact per Section 18.09 • The establishment, maintenance, location, and operation of the drive-through use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public; • The drive-through use is compatible with the intent of the zoning district and will not change the essential character of the surrounding area; • The drive-through use will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes permitted, will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the area, and will not result in any significant adverse impact on the natural environment; City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 13 Page 14 of 111 • The establishment, maintenance, location, and operation of the drive-through use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in that district; • Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary services or facilities have been provided such that the drive-through use will not place demands on public services or facilities in excess of capacity; and • The drive-through use will, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the zoning district in which it is located, conditions imposed on approval, and all other applicable provisions of law, ordinance, or statute. SUPPORTED by J. Taylor. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Based on the application material provided, E. Huizenga-Chase MOVED to approve the Amendment to an Approved Preliminary Area Site Plan and the Final Area Site Plan for a new 3,249 sq. ft. quick service restaurant and associated site improvements at 3130 Alpine Ave NW (PIN 41-13-01-301-006), subject to the following conditions and based on the findings of fact noted below. Conditions of Final Area Site Plan Review Approval 1. The lot split and parcel dimensions are approved per plans. 2. The Planning Commission waives sidewalk along the property line as a PUD benefit. 3. Signage is permitted per plans, except for the free-standing monument sign, as a PUD benefit. 4. The drive-through stacking lane is approved per plans. 5. The electric distribution service to the property shall comply with all applicable State laws, regulations, and codes, including the National Electric Safety Code. 6. The applicant shall address all items outlined in the City Engineer’s report dated February 25, 2025. 7. The applicant shall provide three sealed sets of civil engineered plans incorporating the recommended conditions to the Community Development Department, prior to the issuance of building or stormwater permits. 8. All parties to the OEA agreement shall continue to work in good faith with each other and pertinent Walker City staff regarding continued efforts with Consumers Energy, cross-access, and matters of the like. 9. There shall be raised curbing islands to create a noticeable boundary between the McAlister’s parcel and the remainder of the large parking lot along the east border of the subject parcel. Findings of Fact per Section 11.02.G.5 • The Major Amendment to the Approved Preliminary Area Site Plan to add a new outlot as described in the Final Area Site Plan set dated February 14, 2025 City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 14 Page 15 of 111  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, as amended herein with a new outlot, consisting of maps and accompanying written materials. • The PUD does comply with the uses permitted by the CPUD district and the uses approved within the related PASP. SUPPORTED by P. Nolan. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Case #25-003 – 3415 Northridge Dr NW – Amendment to the Approved Final Area Site Plan for a new 1,728 sq. ft. accessory building, Atlantic AE Planning Director Paula Priebe introduced the request and displayed the existing Amazon distribution facility site plan. Amazon has requested an amendment to the Approved Final Area Site Plan to add a 1,728 s. ft. accessory building designed to scan delivery vehicles before departing the site for their routes. The site is zoned IPUD as part of the larger Northridge East PUD Preliminary Area Site Plan (PASP) amended in February of 2020. The existing Amazon facility Final Area Site Plan (FASP) was approved in October of 2020. P. Priebe stated that this is a relatively minor project to bring before the Planning Commission. However, under Article 11, there is a list of minor amendments to an approved plan that can be reviewed administratively. The eleventh item in that list of allowable administrative approvals states “the addition of accessory buildings or structures provided that: 1) the accessory building or structure is not more than 500 sq. ft. in area, 2) is not designed for human occupancy”. P. Priebe referred to the site plan and grading plan identifying the proposed location for the new accessory structure. The applicant’s representatives are working with a number of different Amazon facilities across the country to implement this new building on many of their sites and do not have a local representative. Due to the limited nature of the request, P. Priebe gave them approval not to be present this evening. In their absence, she asked that they provide a memo explaining what the project is, which was provided to the Planning Commission. P. Priebe read the provided project overview for the record – This project proposes adding a small, single-story building to the parking lot of the existing Amazon warehouse, DGR8. The purpose of the building is to house delivery van scanning equipment which looks for problems with the vans as they drive through the building. It is an automated vehicle inspection station, pre-engineered, metal building with roll doors on both ends. The building will be unmanned. It will have electrical and low-voltage service running to it from the existing warehouse. Delivery vans already serving the facility will drive through at low speeds without stopping, through the building on their way to the queueing areas where they are loaded for their delivery routes. Only delivery vans already serving the warehouse will utilize this new City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 15 Page 16 of 111 structure. No new vans are being added to the fleet because of the project. The vans will enter and exit the parking lot from the same locations, in the same directions that they currently use but will be routed through the new building on their way to be loaded. Each van will pass through once per day and they will not stop and there will be no additional idling as part of the project. P. Priebe stated that they have a very large fleet. In their verbal explanation to her they are working to better their operational maintenance of their vehicles through this automated scanning system. It is being implemented across the nation. P. Priebe indicated that she has no concerns with the proposed amendment and recommended approval. Motion by J. Patin, supported by M. Ratering, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. T. Schweitzer invited public comment; there was none. Motion by M. Ratering, supported by J. Patin, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Based on the application material provided, M. Ratering MOVED TO APPROVE the amendment to an approved Final Area Site Plan for a new 1,728 sq. ft. accessory building at 3415 Northridge Drive NW (PIN 41-13-05-200-026), based on the findings of fact noted below. Findings of Fact per Section 11.02.G.5 • The plan as described by the amendment to the Final Area Site Plan, received 1/23/2025, 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 PUD does comply with the uses permitted by the IPUD district and the uses approved within the related PASP. SUPPORTED by J. Patin. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Case #25-004 – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Planning Director Paula Priebe explained that the RPUD-3 section of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 11.09, was a new addition to the updated Ordinance adopted in February 2024. As the new section was being put to use for the first time with the Vista 45 project, staff realized that a few changes are necessary for this section to function well and ensure high-quality development. City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 16 Page 17 of 111 As currently written, the Ordinance states that the Planning Commission shall not have the authority to waive standards of the area, height, bulk, and placement requirements of this Section. P. Priebe explained that this section includes requirements that it essentially match what is seen in the downtown Standale area with the slip street in between and parking in the front. It was very prescribed. That requirement limits the flexibility that the PUD is intended to provide. In the amendment being considered, that statement remains. However, more flexibility is being provided within the content of the standards. The height standards must still be met. There is more flexibility for the Planning Commission to approve a project that doesn’t prescribe to the very fixed layout of the sidewalk, greenbelt, slip street, parking, sidewalk, and building. P. Priebe displayed the red-lined version of that Section of the Ordinance and explained the proposed changes. She noted that many of the sections remain unchanged. The amendments would apply to both small and large sites. T. Winkelman asked if Walker continues to consult with McKenna. P. Priebe responded affirmatively. T. Winkelman expressed his support for the amendments. Motion by S. Funke, supported by E. Huizenga-Chase, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. T. Schweitzer invited public comment; there was none. Motion by S. Funke, supported by E. Huizenga-Chase to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. P. Nolan MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT to Section 11.09 of the Walker Zoning Ordinance, to adjust the requirements for RPUD-3 developments, based on the findings of fact noted below. • Section 11.09 of the Walker Zoning Ordinance, as amended herein, remains in substantial compliance with the intent and purpose of Article 11 to provide requirements and standards for planned unit developments to allow for flexibility in regulation and variety in design while ensuring compatibility with adjacent land uses. SUPPORTED by J. Patin. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 17 Page 18 of 111 Discussion • P. Priebe related that the proposed amendment, along with the Vista 45 rezoning and the Brightside Lane rezoning will be presented to the City Commission on March 10, and the second reading on March 24. • At this point there will not be a meeting on March 19th. A confirmation email will be distributed the week of March 10. Adjourned: 8:11 p.m. ____________________________________________ Administrative Approval Planning Director Paula Priebe ___________________________________________ Jacob Patin Secretary – City of Walker Planning Commission City of Walker Planning Commission 3-05-2025 Page 18 Page 19 of 111  MEMORANDUM To: City of Walker Planning Commissioners From: Paula Priebe, AICP – Planning Director Date: May 15, 2025 for the May 21, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting RE: Case # 24-015 PASP Review for 1204 4 Mile Rd NW To review the Preliminary Area Site Plan application for a proposed RPUD-1 development with a total of 30 condominium units on a new private street, and to grant approval, with or without conditions, deny, or table the PASP request. Project type Preliminary Area Site Plan review Property addresses 1204 4 Mile Road NW Parcel number 41-13-02-252-010 Lot size Approximately 8.55 Acres Zoning district RPUD-1 Future land use / Residential Existing Density / Neighborhood Preservation Community character General location West of Alpine Avenue, South of 4 Mile Rd Applicant name Grand Forks Holdings LLC Request and Proposed Land Use Grand Forks Holdings LLC is requesting Preliminary Area Site Plan review for a residential condominium development featuring 30 residential units with public water and sanitary sewer services on new private streets at 1204 4 Mile Rd NW. If the PASP is approved, the Applicant will need to return to the Planning Commission for approvals of the Final Area Site Plan (FASP) and the condominium plan and documents. The property is currently vacant and partially wooded. The following improvements are proposed as part of this development: 1. Thirty residential units in a new condominium association 2. Two new private streets and an extension of an existing private street, as well as a new public cul-de-sac at the north terminus of Ipswich Dr NW 3. Stormwater detention areas Page 1 of 7 Page 20 of 111 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 May 13, 2025 3. Application for Preliminary Area Site Plan review 4. Site Plan Rezoning Request The site is zoned RPUD-1 Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development. Often, a Preliminary Area Site Plan (PASP) request comes to the Planning Commission alongside a rezoning request; this site already has appropriate PUD zoning, so this review focuses only on the PASP. Preliminary Area Site Plan Review For a PASP review, according to Section 11.02.C.5, “at the public hearing before the planning commission, the applicant shall present evidence regarding the following characteristics of the proposed development: 1. The general character and substance of the proposed planned unit development. 2. The objectives and purposes to be served by the planned unit development. 3. Compliance with applicable regulations and standards. 4. The scale and scope of the development proposed. 5. Development schedules. 6. Compliance with the city’s general development plan, and the effect of the PUD on the city’s general development plan. 7. The impact of the planned unit development on public utilities, facilities or services, on surrounding properties, and on the natural environment. 8. The economic impact of the planned unit development on surrounding property values or the city as a whole. 9. The impact of the planned unit development on existing woodlands and wetlands. 10. Status of ownership or control of the PUD such that there is a single person or entity having responsibility for completing the PUD in conformity with the approved plan.” The Planning Commission is encouraged to review the documents provided by the Applicant and to explore any concerns or review the above statements with the Applicant at the Public Hearing. The applicant met with the Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) regarding this project twice. The applicant initially applied in August 2024 and met with the SPRC on 8/15/2024. At that time the applicant was given a long list of items needed before the project could proceed to the Planning Commission. They resubmitted again in April 2025 and met with the SPRC on 5/1/2025 and were provided feedback on the updated site plan submittal. The applicant has addressed several of the staff concerns related to planning, zoning, and miscellaneous topics raised at the SPRC meeting within the resubmitted plans. The density is within the range specified in the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Sidewalks and streetlights are shown on the plan. Parking requirements are exceeded. Landscaping on the plan shows street trees as well as buffer trees on the north and southwest sides. Accordingly, I have the following additional comments to offer: Street Names and Addresses: The City has encountered a few issues with street names and addresses on recent projects, so these elements are now being reviewed as part of site plan approvals. The developer provided their selected street names on the plan set as requested. These plans, including street names, have been shared with the Kent County Sheriff’s Office - 911 Page 2 of 7 Page 21 of 111 Communications Center for their review and approval. The proposed new street names have been shared with the KCSO but we have not yet received feedback regarding the proposed street names. Access to the Site: This property has a 4 Mile Rd NW address but does not abut 4 Mile Road. As required by City Ordinances, a new development of this size must have at least two different means of access, to provide redundancy in case of emergencies or maintenance needs. This is especially important at this location where both access points are the former dead end terminus’ of other developments, one public and one private. Access point one is through a cul-de-sac extension of Ipswich Dr NW. Ipswich is a public road and the cul-de-sac extension will be public, while the other new or extended roads in the development will be private roads. The second access point is via the English Hills Condominiums immediately to the west. The roads in both the English Hills and English Ridge Condominium developments are private roads. The applicant has submitted a legal memo asserting their rights to utilize these private roads to gain access to their parcel and future development thereupon, through a series of recorded express access easements along with the reserved developer rights in the condominium master deed. The legal memo is included in the packet and I encourage the Planning Commission to review this document. Upon review by the City Attorney, we are recommending that the City require the developer to enter into a development agreement with the City as a condition of approval. Such development agreement would require the developer to physically construct both access routes prior to the issuance of any building permits, require certification to the City from the developer’s attorney that the development has valid access rights, and condition any future building permits on the continuation of the existence of both access routes. This is a condition of approval. Wetlands: The site has identified regulated wetlands as well as unregulated wetlands and a stormwater detention basin near to those wetlands. The Applicant provided a memo from EGLE stating that they did a pre-application meeting and that a permit is required for the project as proposed. This is sufficient information for the PASP review. Stormwater calculations and wetland permits will be required at or as a condition of approval with the Final Area Site Plan review to come as a future step in this process. Road Network: Article 13 in the Zoning Ordinance provides regulations for neighborhood design and includes a section on required connections. As stated in Section 13.03.D, new road networks must connect to all existing public streets and stub streets that abut the lot. This site does by connecting to English Hills Dr at an existing stub street in the English Hills Condominium development. 5.c Creation of new stub streets. For any development that includes the construction of new roadways, stub streets must be built to connect to all property lines that are 300 feet or longer. One stub street is required for every 300 feet of property line, though the minimum distance between stub streets shall only be 150 feet, to give flexibility in design. The Planning Commission may waive or alter this requirement, including allowing a non-motorized pathway connection in lieu of a stub street, if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission there is a physical, legal, public safety, or environmental preservation reason why a connection is not possible. Page 3 of 7 Page 22 of 111 According to this requirement, the development should have a stub street along the northwest road extension of English Hills Drive, as this road extension exceeds the 300’ minimum and as there is currently vacant land to the immediate northwest that could possibly be developed. As the road is adjacent to the property line, set back 17’ and with only sidewalk and grass separating the two, if the currently vacant area is ever developed and a new road connection is needed, it could be made without a stub street being placed at this time. I am comfortable with the Planning Commission waiving this request due to the location of the road. PUD Benefits Requested: The Planned Unit Development process allows for some flexibility in regulation of land development in line with the purpose of the Planned Unit Development districts as stated in Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance. No PUD benefits are being requested. Recommendations I recommend that the Planning Commission grant conditional approval of the PASP for new residential development featuring 30 residential condominium units on a new public and private streets at 1204 4 Mile Rd NW, in accordance with the plan set last revision dated 5/6/25, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer must begin working with the City on a development agreement with the City, in accordance with the City Attorney’s input, to ensure the project has two points of access, prior to this project returning to the Planning Commission for Final Area Site Plan review. 2. Additional conditions: __________________ 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: Jennifer Taylor – Grand Forks Holdings LLC Matt Frain – Matthew Frain Builders Dave Hanko – Feenstra & Associates Inc. Page 4 of 7 Page 23 of 111 Excerpt from the Community Character Map: Site is designated NP Neighborhood Preservation Excerpt from the Zoning Map: Site is zoned RPUD-1 Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development. Page 5 of 7 Page 24 of 111 REGIS Image of Site (Basemap is 2023 Aerial Imagery): Page 6 of 7 Page 25 of 111 Site Photos: (photos taken on September 4, 2024) Existing conditions, facing north from Ipswich Dr NW . Existing conditions, facing east from the intersection of English Hills Dr NW and Golfview Dr NW, facing the stub street of English Hills Dr NW. Page 7 of 7 Page 26 of 111  CITY OF WALKER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Paula Priebe, AICP, Planning Director FROM: Scott Conners, P.E., City Engineer DATE: May 13, 2025 RE: Windermere Condos We have reviewed the Final Area Site Plan for Windermere Condos located off Ipswich Drive, but with an address of 1204 Four Mile Road. The property owner is Grand Forks Holding LLC. The plans were prepared by Feenstra & Associates and dated 5/6/25. The request is at the Preliminary Area Site Plan (PASP) stage of review. Much of the engineering detail will be reviewed as the plan matures to Final Area Site Plan (FASP) status. Most of the comments from our site plan review session have been adequately addressed for this PASP discussion. We offer the following comments: • There is a note suggesting a 20’ public utility easement between the proposed and existing English Hills Drive. This easement will also be adjusted to include shared access between the two condominium associations. This is a PASP level item for discussion. We will be in attendance at the May 20th 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 Page 27 of 111 Page 28 of 111 Page 29 of 111 Page 30 of 111 Page 31 of 111 Page 32 of 111 Page 33 of 111 Page 34 of 111 MEETING MEMO TO:All Interested Parties FROM:Grand Forks Holdings and Matt Frain Builder DATE:May 5, 2025 SUBJECT:Community Meeting for Proposed 30-Unit Condominium Development COMMUNITY MEETING DETAILS Date: March 20, 2025 TIME: 6:30 PM - 7:30 PM Location:Holiday Inn Walker, 2280 Northridge Dr NW, Walker, MI 49544 Attendees: Grand Forks Holdings representatives, Mark Hanish, 61 residents (primarily from English Hills community) PURPOSE To discuss the proposed 30-unit condominium development by Grand Forks Holdings and address community concerns. DEVELOPMENT FEATURES 30 Total Units - 4 triplex buildings (12 units) - 9 duplex buildings (18 units) UNIT FEATURES - 2 Bedrooms - 2 Bathrooms - 2 Stall Garage - Barrier Free Page 35 of 111  - No steps to enter home or on main floor - Bathrooms accessible with no curb shower - Larger doorways - Open Kitchen Design - Walkout Unfinished Basement (optional finish for additional living space) Design Philosophy - Designed to complement the neighboring communities - High-quality design and modern features to enhance community's overall appeal - *Concept rendition pictures are subject to change* ESTIMATED PRICE RANGE -$395,000 - $435,000 Price is subject to change based on real estate market and finishing choices of the buyer at time of sale* Price is based on current market conditions and subject to change* KEY DISCUSSION POINTS Traffic and Road Access - Opening of Alpine to 4 Mile access route - Potential increase in through traffic in established neighborhoods - Need for additional traffic control measures - Access will be off English Hills Dr/Golfview and Ipswich - Ipswich access will be used for construction purposes Infrastructure Considerations - Questions about road maintenance responsibilities Page 36 of 111 - Questions about existing road capacity to handle additional traffic - Developer will establish a road maintenance agreement with neighboring HOAs - Construction traffic to use Coventry Dr and Ipswich Dr Neighborhood Safety - Resident safety, children and pedestrians - Impact on emergency service access - Traffic speed in residential areas Environmental Impact - Loss of natural surroundings and green spaces - Preservation of local wildlife habitats - Development plans include sidewalks and landscaping to maintain the area's character - Development seeking opportunity to include additional green space for the community TENTATIVE PROJECT TIMELINE (TBD based on permitting) - Land infrastructure development to begin: August 2025 - First phase completion: May 2026 - Full project completion: December 2027 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT - Strict construction guidelines will be followed - Limited working hours - Updates to keep the community informed Page 37 of 111 HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION - The development will be managed by an HOA - Intention to collaborate with current English Hills HOAs - Same private property management firm to ensure cohesive maintenance, landscaping, and community guidelines DEVELOPER INFORMATION Grand Forks Development and Matt Frain Builders are siblings native to the westside of Grand Rapids Teaming up to build barrier free housing in the community Contact: Jennifer Taylor | 616-295-4786 | jennifer.taylor@gforks.com NEXT STEPS A follow-up updates to be distributed after development plans and permitting is complete. *This memo is intended to summarize the discussion points and does not constitute official minutes of the meeting.* Page 38 of 111 Page 39 of 111 Page 40 of 111 Page 41 of 111 Page 42 of 111 Page 43 of 111 Page 44 of 111 Page 45 of 111 Page 46 of 111 Page 47 of 111 Page 48 of 111 Page 49 of 111 Page 50 of 111 Page 51 of 111 Page 52 of 111 Page 53 of 111 Page 54 of 111 Page 55 of 111 Page 56 of 111 Page 57 of 111 Page 58 of 111 Page 59 of 111 Page 60 of 111 Page 61 of 111 Page 62 of 111 Page 63 of 111 Page 64 of 111 Page 65 of 111 Page 66 of 111 Page 67 of 111 Page 68 of 111 Page 69 of 111 Page 70 of 111 Page 71 of 111 Page 72 of 111 Page 73 of 111 Page 74 of 111 Page 75 of 111  PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: ORP NOTES: 30 LOCATION MAP 29 ARM-MULT 28 24 25 26 27 STATISTICS 23 RPUD-1 22 R D LS 21 I L H SH TYPICAL UNIT LI 11 20 G EN PARKING 10 19 Page 76 of 111 9 12 8 RPUD-1 18 13 ENGLISH HILLS DR 7 17 6 LANE 14 REGENT BE 5 RK 16 SH IR E 4 RI DG E 15 RPUD-1 3 PRIVATE ROAD CROSS SECTION 2 ARM-MULT 26' BITUMINOUS VALLEY GUTTER SECTION 1 GO SCHEDULED ACTIVITY LF VIE W DR R Know what's below. Callbefore you dig. www.CALL811.com SA LEGEND PASP - WINDERMERE 1204 4 MILE RD NW, WALKER, MI NORTH SA IPS H WIC DR eenstra & Associates, Inc. P1 CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 3145 Prairie St SW Phone: 616.457.7050 Grandville, MI 49418 www.feenstrainc.com Page 77 of 111 Page 78 of 111 Page 79 of 111 Page 80 of 111 Page 81 of 111 Page 82 of 111 Page 83 of 111 Page 84 of 111 Page 85 of 111 Page 86 of 111 Page 87 of 111 Page 88 of 111 Page 89 of 111 Page 90 of 111 Page 91 of 111 Page 92 of 111 Page 93 of 111 Page 94 of 111 Page 95 of 111 Page 96 of 111 Page 97 of 111 Page 98 of 111 Page 99 of 111 Page 100 of 111 Page 101 of 111 Page 102 of 111 Page 103 of 111 Page 104 of 111 Page 105 of 111 Page 106 of 111 Page 107 of 111 Page 108 of 111 Page 109 of 111 Page 110 of 111  City of Walker Planning Commission 5-21-2025 Case # 24-015: PASP Review for 1204 4 Mile Rd NW Based on the application material provided, I make a motion to approve / deny / table the Preliminary Area Site Plan for a new residential development featuring 30 residential condominium units on new private streets with public water and sanitary sewer services at 1204 4 Mile Rd NW, PIN 41-13-02-252-010, subject to the following conditions and based on the findings of fact noted below. Conditions of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Approval 1. The developer must begin working with the City on a development agreement with the City, in accordance with the City Attorney’s input, to ensure the project has two points of access, prior to this project returning to the Planning Commission for Final Area Site Plan review. 2. Additional Condition: Findings of Fact per Section 11.02.C.7 [select what is applicable] 1. The proposed development does / does not conform to the city’s Master Plan including by having residential density within Master Plan’s designated density range. 2. The proposed development does / does not conform to the intent and to all regulations and standards of the Zoning Ordinance, as applicable. 3. The proposed development will / will not be adequately served by public facilities and services such as streets, police and fire protection, and water and sanitary sewer services. 4. The common properties, individual properties, and all other elements of the PUD are / are not so planned that they will achieve a unified system with open space and all other elements in appropriate locations, suitably related to each other, the site, and the surrounding land. 5. The location of proposed uses, layout of the site, and its relation to the street shall / shall not be such that traffic to, from, and within the site and assembly of person in connection therein will not be hazardous or inconvenient to the project or the surrounding area. 6. The mix of housing unit types and densities is / is not acceptable in terms of convenience, privacy, compatibility, and similar measures. 7. The planning commission did / did not determine that noise, odor, light or other external effect from any source whatsoever which is connected with the proposed use will not adversely affect adjacent and neighboring land uses. 8. Streets were / were not determined to follow topography and be properly spaced, that the property has adequate access to public streets, and that suitable street connections to adjacent parcels were provided. 9. Major pedestrian circulation is / is not provided for within the site, interconnects all residential areas and community areas, and provides a logical extension of the pedestrian ways from outside the site. Motion made by: _______________ Ayes:__________ Support from: _______________ Nays:__________ Motion carried / failed Page 1 of 1 Page 111 of 111