Minutes Archive

Overview ~ Cascade Community Foundation ~ Downtown Development Authority ~ Library Advisory Board Planning Commission ~ Township Board ~ Zoning Board of Appeals

Planning Commission Minutes

MINUTES

Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission

Monday, September 18, 2000

7:30 p.m.

ARTICLE 1. Chairman Beahan called the meeting to order.

Members Present: Beahan, Burns, Lewis, Nuerenberg, D. Richards, E. Richards, Robinson, Snyder.

Members Absent: Parrish (excused).

Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Planner Otey, Admin. Assistant Thompson and those listed on Supplement #1.

ARTICLE 2. The agenda was approved on motion by Member Robinson and supported by Member Snyder. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the September 5, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted on motion by Member Robinson and supported by Member Nuerenberg. The motion carried.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a Type I Special Use Permit in order to construct a 24’ x 40’ accessory building at 4900 Quiggle.

Planner Otey related the applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to construct a 24’ x 40’ salt storage bin at 4900 Quiggle. The salt bin would be used in conjunction with his landscaping/snow plowing business. Staff related she referred to the accessory building requirements when looking at this request. The building does meet all the setback and height regulations of the zoning district. The parcel is 24 acres in size. Any property containing more than six acres can have up to three accessory buildings. The size of this proposed accessory building is 960 s.f. There is another landscaping business in the area and also there are quite a few accessory buildings in the area also. This would not require a new curb cut. Planner Otey recommended approval of the request.

Mr. Sneller, the applicant, related this is a semi-permanent structure. It will be covered with a fabric over the top. If in the future he decides he doesn’t need it, the cover can be taken off. The fabric cover is a ten year fabric.

Member Lewis asked if the building will have a floor. Mr. Sneller responded it will sit on a concrete slab and have six foot walls around it.

Chairman Beahan asked how much salt would be stored in it. Mr. Sneller responded a semi-truck load. It will be replenished as needed.

Member Lewis asked Mr. Sneller if he will be selling salt to other contractors. Mr. Sneller responded no, this is for his own business use.

Member Robinson questioned using the bin without the cover. He related if the salt is exposed to the weather it couldn’t be used. Mr. Sneller responded he would only remove the cover if he decides not to use the structure as a salt bin.

Member Snyder asked what color the salt bin will be. Mr. Sneller related he is considering green to match the color scheme of the other buildings.

Member Burns asked Mr. Sneller if he is able to keep the salt from getting into the environment? Mr. Sneller responded yes, that is why he is putting the structure up.

Member Lewis supported by Member Snyder moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

Planner Otey related she received no comments in regard to this request.

Member Lewis supported by Member Nuerenberg moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Chairman Beahan asked Planner Otey if there should be a time review on this. Planner Otey related she did not feel it necessary.

Member Robinson asked if you decide not to use the structure in the future what could it be used for. Mr. Sneller responded if he were to remove his business he could take the cover off and park equipment in there during the winter.

Member Nuerenberg related he is concerned about the environment and the building will have cement walls except for the doorway. He asked how close to the river or stream would it be. Mr. Sneller related it would be covered on three sides and have a water proof cover. He is nowhere near a stream.

Member Nuerenberg asked is there anything that needs to be involved with the DEQ. Planner Otey responded no.

Member Nuerenberg again asked how far from water would it be. Mr. Sneller responded 600 – 800 feet. There is a stream west of Quiggle. Planner Otey responded there is nothing in the area.

Member Robinson supported by Member D. Richards moved to approve the request for a 24’ x 40’ salt storage bin at 4900 Quiggle Avenue and noted this is the last accessory building allowed on the property.

Member Lewis asked what difference would there be from this being a temporary building or a permanent building? Mr. Sneller related his comment was if he was not going to use it in the future as a salt storage bin he could pull the cover off and use it for equipment storage.

Member Lewis related he is asking that question of Staff. Planner Otey responded related there are other greenhouses operations similar to this in the township.

Member Lewis related his neighbor several years ago wanted to put his car in this type of structure and use it as a garage. Is there any type of precedent? Planning Director Peterson related we are treating this as we do any other accessory building.

Member Lewis related he will support the motion because it is in the agricultural area.

The motion carried.

The applicant requested a Type I Special Use Permit to co-locate Nextel communications antennas on an existing tower at 6425 – 28^th Street.

Planner Otey related the antenna is located behind the D & W grocery store in the Cascade East shopping center. The tower is 100 feet high and this applicant plans to co-locate at the 90 foot level. The applicant will also be leasing a 12’ x 20’ parcel to place their electronic telephone equipment. CenturyTel owns the tower and they will allow the co-location. The parcel to be rented for the equipment shelter is currently fenced and landscaping. Planner Otey related she does not feel any additional landscaping would be required. Planner Otey recommended approval of the Special Use Permit and location of their equipment cabinet with the condition that site plan approval be good for one year.

Member Burns related this came before us when the tower on the township property went up. Member Burns related he hates to see another tower. He remembers being told this tower was too short to permit another co-location. Planning Director Peterson related this tower was built to have co-locators on it. The company who was going to build on it said it was too low for their system.

Member Burns asked but it is okay for this system. Planning Director Peterson responded every company is built a little bit differently. He does not think we can lump them together and say it is too low. It did not fit their system. He hopes it does fit the Nextel system.

Toben DeVree represented Nextel. He related Planner Otey summed up the request very nicely.

Member Lewis asked will this satisfy your needs to get good coverage in Cascade Township. Mr. DeVree responded as of right now this is what they need to fill a void. They wanted to be at Burton and Cascade Road but due to the zoning restrictions this is satisfactory.

Member E. Richards related he is delighted to see this co-location. He then asked do you have an existing facility on the township tower? Mr. DeVree responded no, it did not fit our needs.

Member E. Richards asked is this it or are you going to come back here for more co-locations? Mr. DeVree responded they do have two applications in the process but they are not for this area.

Planner Otey related they will be back for some co-locations.

Member Lewis related there are so many players he does not know all of them. He would like a list of the applications and who is on which tower at the present time. Planner Otey responded she will compile that information for the next meeting.

Member Lewis supported by Member Robinson moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

Planner Otey related she received a letter from Joseph McGuire of 6303 – 28^th Street in support of the co-location.

Member Robinson supported by Member Snyder moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Member Nuerenberg questioned why this applicant is able to co-locate on this tower. Mr. DeVree responded there are height needs as to how far signals will carry. Each company has individual tower players the in area and it depends on the proximity of other towers to this height. If the only tower we have in the area is 90 feet that would not be sufficient. Further to the west we have another tower. That’s why we can use this one. We wanted a stronger signal to the northeast.

Member Nuerenberg related you are talking about a grid? Mr. DeVree responded yes.

Member Nuerenberg asked why are you able to co-locate there when somebody else is not. Mr. DeVree responded because we have other facilities in the area.

Member Snyder supported by Member D. Richards moved to approve the co-location at 6425 – 28^th Street with the condition that site plan approval is subject to Section 21.03 of the Zoning Ordinance (one year time limit, etc.).

Member Nuerenberg related he has a Nextel phone. He needs to make sure you are aware of that and he may need to withdraw from this vote.

Chairman Beahan related he saw no conflict of interest.

The motion carried.

ARTICLE 6. Case #00-2344: Golfview PUD Amendment

The applicant requested the removal of one of the requirements from the PUD Ordinance. Section X.4 requires that the existing billboard along Cascade Road be removed before any site work on Phase 4 or 5 takes place.

Planning Director Peterson related we talked about this at our last meeting. He then pointed out the Phases for the project as listed in the Staff Report. Planning Director Peterson related at the time this project was approved, the applicant indicated they were attempting to get the billboard removed. At the last meeting the applicant explained his difficulties in accomplishing the billboard removal. The Planning Commission asked the applicant to provide the following items: 1) written communications between the applicant and billboard company showing what the applicant has offered in order to get the billboard removed; 2) the billboard company’s written response to the offer; and 3) any other written record on how the applicant has attempted to comply with the PUD requirement to remove the billboard. There are several letters attached to the Staff Report explaining the history of the situation and a letter from the applicant offering the billboard company $50,000 to purchase the billboard. Given the inability to come to a purchase agreement and the Township Board being unwilling to pursue a condemnation proceeding, the applicant is making this request for removal of the condition.

Planning Director Peterson related if the Planning Commission recommends to the Township Board that the condition be removed from the PUD, the billboard would continue to be non-conforming. If the billboard loses its non-conforming status it will still have to be removed from the property. Planning Director Peterson recommended if the Planning Commission removes the condition we should make it perfectly clear that it doesn’t waive the non-conforming status of the billboard. It would still be treated as all the other non-conforming signs are. And, it would not change the phasing of the PUD.

Member Neurenberg referred to the letter from the attorney of Warner, Norcross and Judd. He related the attorney is stating the billboard company would be willing to beautify their billboard. He asked who would they need to contact for that - would that be the Township? Planning Director Peterson responded he is not sure what it would mean to beautify the billboard.

Member Nuerenberg related it does need a paint job. They could clean it up a lot. He would like to press them on that point.

Member Burns asked for an explanation of why you can’t move the billboard to a better location. Planning Director Peterson responded moving the billboard would require a variance and the billboard would lose its non-conforming status. He does not believe that is what the intent of that section of the ordinance is all about. The intent is to have non-conforming signs come into compliance not prolong their existence.

Chairman Beahan related even if they only wanted to move it somewhere along Cascade Road it would be a whole new site and the billboard could last who knows how long. This way it could rust away.

Member Burns asked can’t they repair the sign if it starts to rust? Planning Director Peterson responded they can do general repair but nothing that exceeds a certain percentage of its value.

Mr. Veneklasen related he agrees with Planning Director Peterson. He questioned the beautification offer. The sign has been there for 60 years. There is a big tree that grew around it. We cut the tree down. He doubts the billboard will blow over. We also offered to move it somewhere else on the property. Otherwise, we have done everything that we can do at this point.

Member Lewis asked why do you want to remove the condition at the present time. Mr. Veneklasen responded that lot adjacent to it can’t be sold. We have somebody that wants to buy the lot. Secondly, we have to begin the process of designing those buildings in the back for FTCH.

Member Lewis asked if this is done it would not change the sequence of that structure. Mr. Veneklasen related he understands that. The Lacks facility from the exterior standpoint is probably within two weeks of completion. It will have the final coating of asphalt and the exterior will be done. The facility has totally been redone to where it can be occupied. We have 65,000 s.f. being occupied now for tenants. They are in and operating. We have accomplished that. The trees are in and the grass is green. The road is in. FTCH will be in next May. We hope to keep that schedule. We are designing office buildings in front for a couple of people. The whole thing will come together fairly quickly.

Member Lewis asked if this is approved this evening, does it not mean you can begin work on Phases 4 and 5? Mr. Veneklasen responded I understand the process.

Member Lewis related the Lacks building looks very nice.

Member E. Richards related he has generally been supportive of the project and has no desire to delay it. He would like the billboard removed. Our Zoning Ordinance says that if you have a substantial change of use on the property it loses its grandfathered status. He understands the rights were given away by a previous property owner. If we wait for it to fall down we could wait a long time. The only mechanism we have is through the PUD process. It seems to me the applicant has made a good faith effort. Member E. Richards related he has no idea what that billboard is worth. He believes for the good of the township it should go.

Mr. Veneklasen related the billboard people don’t want to get rid of it. They told him we do not give them up. That is how they make money. They fight like mad to keep them. They have a perpetual easement and there is no way to get rid of it that way. We have no option other than the condemnation process. We have tried everything. We tried to get a response from them. Mr. Veneklasen related he called their attorney. He said he would not give a written response. They are pretty much straight forward in what they say. Mr. Veneklasen related he is willing to try anything but he doesn’t think there is anything he can do.

Member Snyder related he thinks we have a unique situation here. The billboard is right in the main entrance to an office park. It couldn’t be in a worse location. We won’t see it go down in our lifetime. He is in support of re-locating the billboard. He realizes that way it would lose its non-conforming status. He would rather have it moved than sitting where it is. For the good of the whole development, it should be moved to a corner of the parcel.

Chairman Beahan related we wouldn’t be any better off with it somewhere else.

Mr. Veneklasen related there are a lot of strong feelings the other way. We are going to try to landscape around it the best we can.

Member Snyder related it could be placed on the little corner by the power lines.

Chairman Beahan asked right at the entrance to Cascade Township you want a billboard?

Member Lewis related we are not talking about moving it.

Member Lewis supported by Member Nuerenberg moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

Planning Director Peterson related no comments were received.

Fay Johnson related he has looked at the billboard for 60 years and is one of the least obnoxious things in the township. It doesn’t create traffic, noise or dust. Let’s live with it.

Member Robinson supported by Member Nuerenberg moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried.

Member Robinson asked Staff his understanding when we talk about landscaping around that sign there is a certain amount of view that has to be maintained. Planning Director Peterson responded there is a vision easement from the billboard to the eastbound traffic on Cascade Road. Anything out in front of that would be limited to something that the billboard company would permit.

Member E. Richards asked did you speak with our manager about starting a condemnation suit? Planning Director Peterson responded yes. The feeling was that they didn’t want to proceed down that road. They wouldn’t be able to stop at one and would have to do all of them. There are around 26 billboards in the township and probably half are non-conforming. The Township Board was not interested in pursuing that process.

Member E. Richards related he doesn’t understand that. This is one in a PUD. He doesn’t understand why we can’t proceed against just that one.

Planning Director Peterson related the only similar example is when Barnett’s did their building expansion and triggered the same section of the Zoning Ordinance and they went to the ZBA and their one billboard was allowed to stay because of a permanent easement. And the one which is to run out in seven years they agreed to remove after the seven year period was up.

Member E. Richards related he finds that deeply frustrating. A landowner has granted a permanent easement. They said they would like to get rid of it but can’t. If that is the case, we will never be able to invoke this section of the Zoning Ordinance. Our ordinance says if there is a change in use that property (reads that section). I think what it says is if they change the use they have to come back before us.

Planning Director Peterson agreed.

Member E. Richards related if we accept the recommendation of Staff we are giving up on that billboard.

Member Nuerenberg asked wasn’t there an issue of discrimination as well? Planning Director Peterson responded yes.

Member E. Richards related this billboard sign is subject to a PUD and would be different than the others. He doesn’t understand why we are not getting rid of all of them.

Member D. Richards related if she is following what Eric is saying some one got some money for this permanent easement. If you can sell a permanent easement to a billboard company I assume you would get more money than selling a ten year easement. Then every billboard would be untouchable forever. How can someone sell something forever and not own the property forever?

Planning Director Peterson related that is true. You questions are valid.

Member E. Richards related the price Mr. Veneklasen paid for the property was diminished somewhat by the existence of that billboard. They knew the billboard was there. They knew they took it subject to this easement. That was why we required the removal of the billboard. The billboard can hold up Mr. Veneklasen. Our only leverage is through this PUD process. When I vote on these things I try to do what is the most fair and what is good for Cascade Township. Member E. Richards related he believes we have the power to require compliance. He found the wording on the billboard last year offensive. He appreciates the difficult position Mr. Veneklasen is in. He is more inclined to exert pressure and is disappointed with the Township Board’s decision not to pursue a condemnation situation. He intends to vote against this.

Chairman Beahan asked if the Township Board is aware of the Planning Commission’s feelings on the condemnation process. Planning Director Peterson responded we brought it to them before it came to the Planning Commission when that was an option for Mr. Veneklasen. I guess we never relayed to them the Planning Commission may think this is a good idea too. We brought it to the Board right away and they were not interested in proceeding down that path.

Member Robinson asked what about the Township Attorney. Planning Director Peterson responded he isn’t necessarily against it but laid out the issues of what would be involved if the Board went down that road.

Member Robinson asked have we pursued all the alternatives? If we vote for this we give up all leverage. He believes the applicant has pursued all the avenues he can.

Planning Director Peterson related really this vote is a recommendation to the Township Board.

Chairman Beahan related this is more of a housekeeping matter? Planning Director Peterson responded yes, that is what he asked for.

Mr. Veneklasen related if you remove this condition from the PUD, does that preclude us from trying? He asked can’t we still go after them with the condemnation suit?

Member Lewis asked did they look at it from the way Eric did with the change in the land? Planning Director Peterson responded the Board knows that is why the condition was put in to begin with. They are fully aware of that.

Member Lewis asked when this was approved by the Board were they aware of the possibility of the conditions and was it pointed out to them that the use of the land is changing. Planning Director Peterson responded yes.

Member Nuerenberg related in your opinion is it worth our trying again? Planning Director Peterson responded he does not know. He has been trying hard. He is not sure what else there is to try.

Member Nuerenberg related he hates to give up the opportunity to have a billboard removed.

Member Lewis related this is nothing more than a recommendation to the Township Board from us. If they are aware of the change of land use on the property and this is what we would like to pursue, we can still take it out of the PUD.

Member E. Richards related the flip side is true also. If we vote to reject Staff’s recommendation and deny the application that too is just a recommendation to the Board and they are free to over rule us on that.

Member Robinson related if we turn this down tonight it does not hold up the applicant. The only thing it would up is the sale of one lot.

Mr. Veneklasen related they want to start building within six months.

Member Lewis related (reading from the PUD Ordinance) you can’t build until you are finished with Phases 1, 2 and 3.

Mr. Veneklasen related we also have things going on for two lots which could be started within six months.

Chairman Beahan asked does that mean Phases 1, 2 and 3 will be completely done by that time? Mr. Veneklasen responded Phase 3 is not done yet. It is being drawn right now. Phase 1 is almost done and Phase 2 will be done in May. Phase 3 won’t take too long to do.

Chairman Beahan asked will they be done before Phase 4 starts? Mr. Veneklasen responded that is a possibility.

Chairman Beahan asked you are saying that is a possibility? Mr. Veneklasen responded we can always come back in and ask.

Member Lewis stated the PUD requires occupancy permits for Phase 3 has to be granted by the Township before Phase 4 is begun.

Member Robinson stated a delay of a month or two is not holding you up for Phases 4 and 5.

Member Nuerenberg related do you have somebody buying a lot in Phase 4? Mr. Veneklasen responded yes, and we are in negotiations for Phase 5. We are waiting for this to get done. We are working with a couple of possible tenants right now that would take one or two buildings.

Member Nuerenberg related he is going to propose changing the PUD to make this billboard removed prior to Phase 5 instead of Phases 4 and 5. That would give him and us more time to pursue condemnation.

Member E. Richards asked would you prefer to bring this to a head now? When will the Board be acting on this? Planning Director Peterson related October 18 or 20.

Member E. Richards supported by Member Lewis moved to deny the request and forward that recommendation to the township Board for their consideration with the knowledge that the Board is obviously free to overrule our recommendation if they so desire. Member E. Richards stated he is thinking we as a Planning Commission should make a statement that the PUD as drafted should be enforced and require the removal of that sign.

Member Lewis stated at the same time we would be telling the Township Board to begin the condemnation process.

Member E. Richards related he would accept that as a friendly amendment to his motion.

Member Nuerenberg asked should there be something else in this motion to allow the developer to pursue his venture if the Township Board denies this request?

Member E. Richards related he would not accept that as an amendment to his motion.

The motion carried with Member Nuerenberg casting a nay vote.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

Watermark: The applicant requested Preliminary Development Plan review in order to amend the Watermark PUD Ordinance to add 5.14 acres of land to the existing PUD for the development of a swim center.

Golfview: The applicant requested Preliminary Development Plan review in order to amend the Golfview Office Park PUD Ordinance. The applicant would like to delete 2.98 acres of land and add it to Watermark. The applicant would also like to reduce the square footage of the health club by 25,000 s.f. and increase the office use by 25,000 s.f.

Planner Otey presented the site plan. She related these are two separate developments and two separate PUD amendments and the request does seem to overlap. The applicant was before the Planning Commission on August 7 for basic plan review. There is a letter in the packet from Consumers Energy. They would be leasing 2.16 acres of property to Watermark for the swim center. Their approval of that is contingent upon the lease agreements between Consumers Energy and Watermark. Golfview would like to delete 2.98 acres of land from their project. They would also like to reduce the square footage of the health club by 25,000 s.f. and increase the office use by 25,000 s.f. Currently 10,000 s.f. of health club space is being rented. There seemed to be a little confusion at the August 7 meeting as far as who was proposing what and who was required to do what. The swim center is a Watermark project. Because of that Golfview could not count that square footage as part of the health club requirement. There were two major concerns expressed at that meeting. One was parking. The other was intensity of uses at the Golfview project. The applicant believes 170 spaces would be needed for the swim center. The green area marked on the site plan contains 74 spaces. Parking area H (larger blue/green area) contains 142 spaces for a total of 216 spaces for the swim center. Area J provides clubhouse and restaurant parking of 105 spaces. Future parking area I provides 40 spaces. They could construct those spaces in the future. There would be a total of 256 spaces for the swim center. Planner Otey related she feels that with parking provided in Areas G, H and I there will be adequate parking for the swim center. She also feels the swim center would be a good addition to the Watermark project and may help Golfview to achieve their 25,000 s.f. for health club. Golfview is also requesting removing 25,000 s.f. of health club and turning it into office. When this project was originally approved the applicant stated they could develop a health club and that would disburse traffic during the peak hours. It would also allow some parking to be shared on site. Staff feels that if approved for the 25,000 s.f. of office that amount should be eliminated somewhere else in the project. The increase of 25,000 s.f. of office would increase the intensity of the project. Staff related keep in mind what we are doing is talking about an amendment to the PUD to include that increased office use in the PUD. The applicant would still have to come back for site plan approval for the swim center. Staff feels the two recommendations can be made separately. This is also a recommendation to the Township Board.

Member Robinson related he concerned about the traffic situation and that the swim center will add considerable traffic in and out of the project from what was originally proposed. Planner Otey related it will add traffic but not during the peak hours.

Member Burns asked if we eliminate the 25,000 s.f. are we in compliance with what we originally approved? Planner Otey responded no, you would be increasing the intensity of the project. The 25,000 s.f. could be another office building.

Kevin Einfeld related he is excited to be here to present the swim club. He is glad for the residents of Cascade Township and the project has been well received with a high level of interest. He commented on parking. He believes they have an adequate number of parking spaces. Ben Emdin is here for questions about the pool. His office is right in the entrance of Galbraith. This project is really designed for the future. Our project is a summertime project.

Mr. Veneklasen related Kevin and I were working on the health club part of this and eight months ago put our heads together. We sat down and said what do we need? We looked at a pool and tennis courts, soccer fields and play area. We thought it would be a great fit. We were looking for something everyone in the township could use. We are getting a few calls every week from people who want to sign up. But to lose 25,000 s.f. of the project would be almost impossible. We had to pay for the property in useable square feet when we paid for it. That’s difficult. I would propose instead of a 25,000 reduction a 20,000 s.f. reduction. We have 11,000 s.f. in a gymnastics facility. They moved in today. They are in and that gives us something. We are still hoping to do a corporate fitness center. As a compromise it is impossible to lose that much square footage of rentable space.

Mr. Veneklasen related the point we are trying to make is that traffic wise with the left turn lane the added square footage of office would have a minimum affect on traffic and intensity. If you reduce it to 20,000 s.f. we can live with that.

Member Lewis related 10,000 s.f. is already taken up by the gymnastics people? Mr. Veneklasen responded correct.

Member Nuerenberg supported by Member Snyder moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

Planner Otey related no comments were received.

Bill Bos Jr. asked where on the Consumers Energy land is the property coming from. If it is south that is deeded back to him. Planner Otey pointed it out on the site plan. Mr. Bos related he believes it is in the proper place.

Member Burns supported by Member Nuerenberg moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Member Lewis related everybody on this Commission feels very positive about the swim center. He does not see any problem in making the land swap as requested.

Watermark: Member Lewis supported by Member Robinson moved to amend the Watermark PUD to add 5.14 acres of land into the PUD and the ability to delete it from Golfview.

Planner Otey related there is letter in your packet from Consumers Energy stating their approval to lease the property to Watermark.

The motion carried.

Golfview:

Member Lewis related this is more difficult than the first part. It is a good idea regarding the exchange area. He knows that if the applicant asked for this initially we would have a different PUD than what it is. Once it got to the Township Board level a building was added that the Planning Commission had taken away. Adding 25,000 s.f. of office space gets into the density issue. It will introduce a larger number of people into the area that have demands for banks, fast foods, etc. We wanted to keep Cascade Road as it is. He is not really pleased. He appreciates reducing the offer to 20,000 s.f. but he would like to see it down to 10,000 s.f. of office space. That would be a step in the right direction. That is the size of the office building on Cascade Road. He would rather put the ball in the applicant’s court and let him figure out how to do that. He is not opposed to a swimming pool. He is willing to go for that.

Member D. Richards related she feels the same way as Member Lewis. She felt from the beginning that any developer could say we are going to put offices in there and they would be successful. Number of us wanted that. This particular office developer was going to give us back a health club and removal of a billboard. We are learning we probably can’t get rid of the billboard and have a medium sized health club. Why didn’t he do this from the beginning? She is not willing to say yes to any more office space in there.

Member Robinson related he will go along with that. We started off several years ago with 100,000 s.f. of health club, then it dropped to 35,000 s.f. and now to 20,000 s.f. He does not want any more additional office space in that area.

Member Burns related he is in favor the compromise the applicant is proposing and will support that.

Chairman Beahan related he would like to talk about signs. Right now there is a sign for the gymnastics operation at the corner. Mr. Veneklasen related the signage is going to meet the ordinance. Bear with us just a little bit while we feel it out there.

Chairman Beahan related there is a large red trailer with your logo on the side of it. It does not look like it is being used. Mr. Veneklasen related there is a road right there.

Chairman Beahan related the steps have not been up to it for a couple of weeks. No one has been in there since. It is not at a point where it can be used for anything. If it is an office for your construction site that is one thing but I think it is there as an advertisement for the sign. Chairman Beahan recommended using it or moving it. Mr. Veneklasen related he will check that out.

Member Lewis supported by Member D. Richards moved that the applicant’s request to reduce the square footage of the health club be denied. The motion carried with Members Burns and Nuerenberg casting nay votes.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a Type II Special Use Permit to operate a landscape nursery with limited retail at 5044 Cascade Road.

Planning Director Peterson related the property is located in the northwest corner of the Township where Spaulding and Cascade Road comes together near the border of Ada township. This is the former Holstege Celery Farm parcel which is accessed from Cascade Road in Ada Township. Mr. Holstege sold the back half of the property to MDOT for wetland mitigation of M-6. This is the left over parcel with the greenhouses on it. The applicants have been working on this for some time. There is a bank going up on the corner of Spaulding and Cascade in Ada Township and next door to the west another small office complex is developing. Access comes through that office development. No new curb cuts would be required. The applicant has been contacted by Ada Township and is working with them. There is a copy of the letter from Ada Township in your packet supporting the request. This is a Type II Special Use Permit where the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Township Board. Planning Director Peterson then went through the criteria to be considered as listed in the Staff Report. Planning Director Peterson related the applicant would be selling only materials grown on site. Ada Township does not allow retail sales along Cascade Road. A couple of people have stopped into the office to inquire about this. Eastmont Meadows subdivision is concerned about lighting. Planning Director Peterson recommended approval pending approval of the variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Ross Pope related he represents the owners of the property and is available for questions.

Member Lewis asked where would the retail take place? Mr. Pope responded there really wouldn’t be retail. Our customers would go there and look at the materials that will be installed.

Chairman Beahan asked how big of a business do you have in Ionia and other places? Mr. McCallum related they are renting a building from Eastbrook and have an 88 acre farm in Ionia. They grow some plant materials there also. They may put up another greenhouse building in the future.

Chairman Beahan asked how many employees would you have. Mr. McCallum responded ten. That is about the size he likes. They run three big tree spades and have two landscaping crews.

Chairman Beahan asked do you do winter snow plowing? Mr. McCallum responded no.

Member Lewis supported by Member Nuerenberg moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

Planning Director Peterson related he had a couple of visits from people in Eastmont Meadows.

Terry Cross asked if the ownership of this property changes after the retail right is passed, would the new owners have the right to have a retail operation there? Planning Director Peterson related any approval would stay with the property. If they wanted to expand they could come back to us and ask.

Chairman Beahan asked if the business ceased operation for a period of time would the Special Use Permit expire? Planning Director Peterson related if they ceased operation for a period of time it may expire. Also, ordinances could change and it could be a non-conforming use.

Mr. Cross asked how is the property zoned now? Planning Director Peterson responded agricultural. Mr. Cross then asked how can you house new equipment without building new buildings? Ross Pope related the existing buildings are large enough to house the equipment. The buildings are 40 x 170, 40 x 60 and 40 x 40.

Mr. Cross asked with having the office building in front of you on Cascade Road will that be cumbersome? Mr. McCallum responded the road has been designed for truck usage.

Mr. Cross asked do you anticipate retail sales? Mr. McCallum responded no. They will grow trees and shrubs. They like to go to Florida in the winter.

Robin Graham asked are they going to be taking trees out that are already back there? There is a huge beautiful tree where she can see it. Mr. Pope related that is not coming down.

Mrs. Graham asked you are only going to sell things that are grown there? Mr. McCallum responded yes. The retail items will be those grown there and sold to individuals for the landscaping projects we do for them. Planning Director Peterson then read the regulations for retail sales out of the Zoning Ordinance.

Mrs. Graham then asked where does the landscaping operation adjoin the property? Planning Director Peterson related at the north property line in Ada Township. Nothing will be on the west property line except for what is there right now. Mr. McCallum related eventually we would like to get a wind break. Right now haven’t really decided where to put it. That would be quite a few thousand feet from you. We can plant 25 foot tall trees. We need to block the wind.

Mrs. Graham asked if they would be putting up any more buildings? Mr. McCallum responded no, not at this time.

Planning Director Peterson related they would have to come back to us to put up any more buildings.

Mrs. Graham asked what kind of changes are we going to see. Mr. McCallum related the buildings are already there. The equipment is inside. You may see more plants and shrubs growing.

Mr. Pope related there will be the same amount of activity as before.

Mr. Holstege related he sold the muck to MDOT. They are going to turn that into a forested wetland. There will be plenty of trees in the neighborhood.

Member Robinson supported by Member Nuerenberg moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Member Robinson supported by Member Burns moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the Township Board pending the needed variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals and noting that this project is in compliances with the Ada Township regulations. The motion carried.

Planning Director Peterson highlighted the new ordinance:

Member Lewis supported by Member Snyder moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

There being no one present to speak on the matter, Member Snyder supported by Member Robinson moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Member E. Richards questioned the bike rack specifications. He asked they must be designed to meet all these? Planning Director Peterson responded yes, if they have a bike rack.

Member E. Richards then questioned the provision about covering the bike rack when bikes would be there for a long time. Planning Director Peterson responded they would have to provide some sort of shelter such as an overhang.

Member E. Richards related it might be more than necessary to require a protective area over a bike rack. Planning Director Peterson related it is not that big of a deal.

Member Nuerenberg related it would be like at an apartment complex. Member Nuerenberg related he could envision a place like Prevo’s or D &W where the bike rack would be under the over hang.

Planning Director Peterson related you could take out that provision.

Member E. Richards related he would like to see that taken out.

Member Nuerenberg related he has been looking at shopping centers. You wouldn’t put a bike rack in the parking lot to mix with the cars. You wouldn’t put it behind the building where the dumpsters are. It seems to be more convenient to put it by the front door under the overhang of the building.

Member E. Richards questioned the parking. He related it seems there is too much or too little. Planning Director related that is the current regulations. The "current" column shows what is out there.

Member E. Richards supported by Member Nuerenberg moved to forward the amendments with a favorable recommendation to the Township Board as drafted with the exception that Section 19.13(4) c dot #5 be stricken. The motion carried.

The applicant requested Tentative Preliminary Plat review of a new seven (7) lot single family plat located on the northwest corner of Buttrick and 36^th Street.

Planner Otey related this plat will be called Apple Hills East #2. It is the vacant piece of property on the corner of Buttrick Avenue and 36^th Street and is zoned R-1. The minimum average lot size is 30,000 s.f. if served with public water or sewer. This plat will be served with public water. Each home will have a private septic system. The average lot size in this plat is 35,393 s.f. The lots will have direct access to 36^th Street or Buttrick Avenue and will need to receive a Kent County Road Commission driveway permit. The Township will require some of the driveways to be shared to reduce the number of curb cuts along 36^th and Buttrick. We have asked the applicant to work with the township on the shared driveway plan. Planner Otey related the following driveways should be shared: 38 – 39; 36 – 37; 35 – 34. Driveway 34 would have access off 36^th Street and not Buttrick Avenue. Three driveways would be on Buttrick instead of 5 and one driveway would be off 36^th Street. The Fire Department has reviewed this plan and found no problems or concerns. The Township Engineer’s review letter was received today. He has a few comments. The bike path does run along the west side of Buttrick and the south side of 36^th Street. The developer will have to apply for a permit prior to doing any cutting into the bike path. The Master Plan recommends this area for low density residential. The applicant is proposing for the whole site to comply with the entire Master Plan. The area within the existing and future utility boundary areas be connected to public water and sewer.

Planner Otey recommended approval for Tentative Preliminary Plat with the stipulation that the developer agree to participate in a SAD should sewer be extended to that area. Planner Otey related she did ask the developer to place a statement in the deed restrictions recognizing the close proximity of the airport and to use building techniques to help muffle noise. After the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Township Board they would have to see it within 60 days. Following Township Board review they would submit the plans to the other public agencies for review. Following approval from those agencies, it would come back to the Planning Commission for final review.

The applicant, Don May, was present.

Chairman Beahan asked Mr. May how he felt about the shared driveways. Mr. May related there would be the same amount of cars going in and out either way. He related he does not understand the rationale about the shared driveways. Chairman Beahan responded it is the proximity to the intersection and speed of cars going up and down. Mr. May related the first drive would be 500 feet from the corner.

Chairman Beahan responded the speed limit is 55 through there. There was a fatality there this summer. He is sure Staff explained they would like less curb cuts.

Mr. May asked about a four way stop at that intersection. Chairman Beahan related we have asked for that numerous times.

Member E. Richards related his understanding is there has to be five fatalities at an intersection to get a four way stop.

Mr. May related the barn will come down.

Chairman Beahan asked if the barn has asbestos siding and if there was something special to do when taking it down? Mr. May related he does not know.

Planning Director Peterson related he will check that out with the building department.

Chairman Beahan asked when do you plan on starting this project? Mr. May responded the house will be fixed up within the next few weeks and the barn will go down as soon as possible.

Chairman Beahan asked if a demolition permit would be needed to remove the barn. Planning Director Peterson responded yes.

Chairman Beahan related his feeling is go with the shared driveways. Mr. May related it may be tougher to sell the property..

Member E. Richards related the bike path runs along here too. It is almost a little disconcerting when on a bike and close to a driveway people pull up to edge of the road to see traffic.

Planning Director Peterson related shared driveways would mean fewer turning conflicts whether bikes or cars.

Member Robinson supported by Member Lewis moved to forward a favorable recommendation for tentative preliminary plat approval and suggest there be a deed restriction regarding the proximity of the airport and shared driveways. The motion carried.

None presented.

Member Robinson supported by Member Nuerenberg moved to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 10:09 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Burns, Secretary

GB:MJT

Government  ~  Departments  ~  Community
Business  ~  Reference Desk  ~  What's Happening
Help  ~  Home  ~  Search  ~  Site Map

Comments? Feedback? Questions? Click here to send an email.

Site Use Policy

This page last modified 06/08/04.
All information © 2003-2004Cascade Township, Michigan