Planning Commission Minutes

Planning Commission

Regular Meeting

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

7:00 p.m.

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

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

Approval of Minutes – June 3, 2009

Motion by T. Byle, supported by A. Parent, to approve the June 3, 2009 minutes as printed. Motion carried.

General Public Comment

There were no comments.

Case #09-561 – Alpine Congregation of Jehovah Witnesses Church – Site Plan Review

Chairman Hickey read the request for site plan review for a 4,136 sq. ft. single story church building located at 2129 Wilson Avenue. (PPN #41-13-07-376-005).

Planner Wash reviewed the site plan and staff report. He related that the site is located on the west side of M-11, north of Richmond. The parcel is vacant and has been cleared. Wash related that churches are allowed by right in the AA, Agricultural District subject to site plan review by the planning commission.

Wash related that access will be located on M-11, which is a state highway. He related that Kent County Road Commission and MDOT are involved regarding the driveway and sewer and water issues. Wash indicated that this is not a rezoning or special land use, just a site plan review. Wash related that this item has had staff review. A staff memo dated 6-25-09 includes a punch list of items to be revised prior to planning commission review, most of which have been addressed.

Planner Wash related that Scott Conners had a few issues as noted in his staff memo. Scott then reviewed his staff memo dated July 8, 2009. He related the following concerns:

1. The stormwater calculations for the site on Sheet C3.0. do not appear to cover the minimum requirements. It does appear that the site allows for adequate volume, but the calculations need to be redone to show the amount of detention required and the amount of detention proposed.
2. There are two elevation datums on the plan ranging from 760-770-780 and others are labeled around 95. These two datums need to be coordinated into one system.
3. The plans do not call for any storm sewer to collect stormwater and deliver it to the detention areas. Scott described various methods which are acceptable practices.
4. The existing contours are washed out on the site plan, which makes it difficult to ascertain if the proposed contours will match up with the existing contours within the site boundary. Notably on the south side of the property, the applicant needs to take special care to ensure that drainage is not blocked or adversely impacted for the neighboring property owner.

Member Huizenga stated that it is unsettling for him that the stormwater hasn’t been done correctly. Scott Conners stated that the stormwater plan will have to be improved to make sure it meets ordinance criteria.

Member Byle asked if the detention volume was sufficient for the site? Scott Conners stated if the detention is correct , it should be in the "ball park"; otherwise they will have to make the ponds deeper.

Craig Willison/P.E., of 9159 Vergennes, Ada, MI, was present on behalf of the request as the plan engineer. He agreed with Scott Conners comments in the staff report. He will provide the storm water calculations and elevation datums, which was an oversight on his behalf. He stated that it will be low impact design stormwater system. Mr. Willison indicated if they have to add stormwater volume, they will add it on the north side of the property. They can slow the water down and come up with the proper numbers. Mr. Willison stated that the contours will match to protect adjacent land owners.

Chairman Hickey asked about access management for the site? Planner Wash stated that access management is hard to do with a church and residential sites. MDOT will require coordination with the developer and the home to the north with respect to the taper and geometry of the driveway.

Scott Conners stated that the driveway radius has to stay entirely on the church property. If that curve extends to the other frontage, they will need to have a letter from the neighbor saying he is ok with it. Scott related that the taper may encroach within the right-of-way on the neighbor’s property to the north, and they will not need approval from the neighbor on that. Member Byle agreed with Scott Conners.

Planner Wash stated that the timing of paving and driveway work will have to be coordinated with the neighbor so they can access their driveway.

Chairman Hickey asked if the applicant purchased this property from the neighbor? The applicant stated no. Hickey asked if there will be an infringement on the property to the north for the taper? Scott Conners stated that the driveway was shifted to the south and it now ends at the property line. All they need now is coordination. Scott stated that the taper can expand in the right-of-way, but cannot infringe on the neighbor’s property.

Craig Willison stated that they moved the driveway 5-6 feet to the south. It should now be 2 feet off of the property line. Mr. Willison felt this should be safer for the neighbor. Chairman Hickey added that should give the neighbor a chance to safely get out of his driveway.

Member Rypma asked what the usage schedule will be for the building? Paul Siegel stated weekdays from 7-9 p.m., and Sundays from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. and again in the afternoon.

Planner Wash reviewed the photometric plan. He indicated that the foot candles were high and he recommended eliminating the northeasterly pole and realigning the 3 remaining poles. Wash stated that the foot candles should drop down to zero at the property line so no lighting is pushed on residential property. Scott Conners agrees with Planner Wash’s report. He would like to minimize the impact to the neighbors.

Planner Wash then reviewed the landscaping plan. He stated that the buffering requirements from residential-to-residential are not aggressive. He recommends a buffer of evergreen species of tree that surround the existing house. He felt that as long as they are watered properly, either blue spruce or white pine would be sufficient.

Member Parent asked how tall the trees are when they are put in? Planner Wash stated there is a 5-6’ requirement when put in.

Member Brown asked how wide is the frontage north of the drive, and will the approach be across the frontage? Scott Conners stated the frontage is 110’ and yes the approach will be across the frontage. Member Huizenga added that MDOT will make that determination. Member Korfhage stated that the church frontage is 111’ and it falls in line with the front of that house and a little further north.

A question about the overall acreage of the subject property. Scott Conners related that there are 2.75 acres.

Member Huizenga asked about the overall dimensions of the proposed sign? He felt the wood frame construction may deteriorate over time.

Planner Wash related that what is proposed is too large of a sign. It would have to be a maximum of 6 feet wide instead of 8 feet. Wash suggested losing the columns on the sign.

Chairman Hickey asked if this was the standard type of sign for their churches? Paul Siegel, developer, stated yes. Hickey suggested steel or plastic posts of a smaller size.

Planner Wash stated that if the applicant could shrink this sign down to 6’ wide, then he could approve it. He added that the masonry base requirement is a minimum of 18" tall.

Member Huizenga stated that he feels the wood parts of the sign will deteriorate, but if it meets the specifications he is ok with it.

Chairman Hickey stated that the church signs he saw on Fruit Ridge and on Baldwin in Jenison still looked good and are approximately 10 years old.

Member Huizenga stated that a dumpster is not noted on the site plan. He doesn’t want a problem for neighbors, etc. Paul Siegel stated that they are not proposing that type of dumpster on site; and people in the church take care of the maintenance.

Planner Wash then reviewed a colored rendering of the building showing brick veneer on the building. Wash related that the limitation for ground signage in a residential district is 24 sq. ft.

Paul Siegel related that the building materials will consist of brick up to the soffits, with aluminum facia, and brick veneer.

Andrew Poore, 2133 Wilson Ave., stated that he is the neighbor directly north of this proposed church. The turn lane will be located in his front yard. He is concerned about losing 15’ of his front yard/ditch.

Chairman Hickey stated that the ditch won’t be affected too much. Member Byle stated that the white line is 12’ from the center line. They will not leave him with a ditch that he can’t mow.

Mr. Poore stated that he is also concerned about the curb 5’ off the property line. Member Byle stated the radius will come back 2’ from the property line. Mr. Poore stated that he has trouble getting out of his driveway now with the traffic on M-11, and he is concerned that it will be worse. Chairman Hickey stated that the tapers should help him.

Mr. Poore asked how many people will be going in and out in the evenings? Paul Siegel stated that they have 90 members. Hickey stated approximately 40-50 cars will be going in and out of the driveway. Mr. Poore stated that he has seen too many accidents on M-11. He is concerned about the safety of his family.

Chairman Hickey suggested that Mr. Poore talk with the developers about his driveway. Mr. Poore stated that he has been talking with them.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by T. Byle, to approve the site plan packet for the Alpine Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses at 2129 Wilson Avenue NW (PPN 41-13-07-376-005), as it does meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance with the following Conditions of Site Plan Approval:

1. The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Planning Director’s letter dated 7-6-09.
2. The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Engineer’s letter dated 7-8-09.
3. The property be buffered with 5-6’ blue spruce pine trees.
4. No dumpster use on site.

Motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner and Staff Update

Planner Wash related that the Standale Downtown Ordinance passed second reading as did the North Ridge Precise Plat. In August, he will try to organize a meeting between the Planning Commission, City Commission and DDA to decide what we do with the ordinance. Do we rezone piece by piece or rezone all at once?

Wash discussed the RV park situation at the Hibma campground on Wilson. Wash stated that Hibma had been issued a residential driveway permit by MDOT for the use of their property. Once you open a site up to the public, it is no longer a residential drive. Wash stated that he sent an email to MDOT and recommended enforcement be followed regarding whether the permit is still valid.

Member Huizenga felt that having an open house for the conceptual campground was too much.

Planner Wash stated that there are 2 points:

1. MDOT issue – public safety issue – enforcement activity for the driveway.
2. He asked D. Hibma for a project timeline. Hibma indicated that they wanted to have an open house first to see if there is any interest in a campground. Trees were grubbed in the floodway, which may be a MDEQ issue.

The August 19th agenda will include: Orchard Hill Church – private school Jeff Hundley – signs for the Standale Retail Center.

Adjournment

Motion by A. Parent, supported by D. Brown, to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. Motion carried.

__________________________________ _________________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary

Walker Planning Commission