Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, May 17, 2004
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Richards called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Jones, Koessel, Lewis, Logue, MacAllister, McDonald,
Richards, Robinson,
Members Absent: Goldberg (excused).
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Admin. Assistant Thompson
and those listed on Supplement #1.
ARTICLE 2. Chairman Richards led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ARTICLE 3. The agenda was approved on motion by Member Lewis and
supported by Member Robinson. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Minutes of the May 3, 2004 meeting were corrected on
page 9, Article 8, paragraph 5. The sentence shall read: "…is
it where the new street is?" With that correction, Member
Robinson supported by Member Jones moved to approve the minutes as
corrected. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 5. Case #04-2637: David Corp
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a Type I Special Use Permit to add 472 s.f. to
an existing accessory building at 5662 Whitneyville. This will bring
the total square footage to 1,336 s.f.
Planning Director Peterson related the building is existing. The
site plan shows where it is located on the property. This would be a
small addition off the back of the accessory building. The addition
would be for storage and a pony stall. This would be an "open
air" addition - a roof with no walls. It would increase the size
of the building by 472 s.f. The existing building is non-conforming
due to placement. The addition would not increase the non-conformity.
In light of other accessory buildings in the area and other similar
uses, the addition is acceptable and Planning Director Peterson
recommended approval of the addition.
Member MacAllister asked there would be no walls at all. Planning
Director Peterson responded right, it would be just open with a roof.
Member Lewis related he did not get a chance to read the definition
of accessory building and asked if this structure would be included.
Planning Director Peterson responded yes, because of the posts and
roof.
Member Robinson asked is it true according to the definition in the
Zoning Ordinance, carports would be considered accessory buildings.
Planning Director Peterson responded if they are added onto a house
they would not be an accessory building. A building with a roof is
considered to be an accessory building. It does not need to be
enclosed by walls.
Mr. Corp pointed out there is going to be a divider wall in there.
There will be no poured floor.
Chairman Richards asked if the roofing material would be consistent
with the existing building. Mr. Corp responded yes.
Chairman Richards asked if there would be additional lighting. Mr.
Corp responded there would be no additional electricity.
Member Lewis supported by Member Koessel moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planning Director Peterson related no comments were received.
Member MacAllister supported by Member McDonald moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Lewis related it is a non-conforming building and even
though this addition would not make it more non-conforming, we are
improving upon a non-conforming structure. There is a school of
thought which says it should not be done because it is non-conforming.
Member Lewis related he recognizes the location is in an area where it
won't bother too many neighbors. It is 60 feet from the front yard.
Member Lewis related is more comfortable leaning to the fact the
location would allow me to vote for approval on this issue.
Member Koessel supported by Member McDonald related based on Mr.
Lewis' comments, we approve the Special Use Permit for a 472 s.f.
addition with the following conditions: 1) the building not be
involved, directly or indirectly with any business, trade, occupation
or profession; and 2) any lighting for the building be downcast.
Member MacAllister noted the location of the barn from the property
line is not noted on the site plan. She would like that added in the
future.
Chairman Richards related very good point.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 6. Case #04-2635: Whitneyville Fellowship Church
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a Type I Special Use Permit to construct a
2,000 s.f. accessory building at 4935 Whitneyville Road.
Planning Director Peterson related the Church would like to have an
accessory building to use as a fellowship hall. It would be the only
accessory building on the property and would be roughly 2,000 s.f. in
size. The building would be set back a minimum of 20 feet on the north
and 44 feet from the south property line. The building would not
require any kind of change in the church use of the property. The
building would not increase the number of seats or members. This
building is 13-1/2 feet to the mid-point. One neighbor did stop in and
was in favor of the request.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the Special Use
Permit.
Member MacAllister asked how the new building would be accessed.
Planning Director Peterson related there would be no new curb cut for
the building.
Member MacAllister asked if there would be a pathway and asked if
it was not drivable or level? Planning Director Peterson responded
there may be a crushed concrete path to the building. They are not
going to have a parking lot back there.
Member Koessel asked is there is going to be plumbing, heating and
cooling facilities in the building? Planning Director Peterson related
the applicant can address that. He is not sure if they plan on doing
that right away but it is set up so the building could accommodate
those items. They are not adding seating capacity.
Member Koessel asked what defines whether it would need additional
parking if it is going to be used on a regular basis. Planning
Director Peterson responded we understood it will not increase the
need or add additional members. Will be used from time to time for the
existing church.
Member Robinson asked if the architecture will be consistent with
the residential accessory buildings. He asked what is that referring
to. Planning Director Peterson responded it will be vinyl sided with
asphalt shingles. Member Robinson asked if there is another accessory
building on the property. Planning Director Peterson responded no.
Jim Groendyk, pastor of the church was present. He related they
will install heating and plumbing in the building. At this time they
are not considering any additional parking. The building will not be a
great distance from the present parking area. They probably will put a
drive in, not necessarily asphalt, for handicapped use or to unload
supplies to the building. No parking will be permitted at building
itself. The present parking lot is approximately 50 feet away.
Chairman Richards asked why not attach this building to the church
building. Pastor Groendyk responded we intend to put a kitchen in the
accessory building. Their belief is we do not have food other than
communion in the church. They need to have the building detached from
the church itself.
Chairman Richards asked would the building be used when you are not
using the main sanctuary. Pastor Groendyk responded that is correct.
It would be used for youth group, and classrooms occasionally and
occasionally for special programs, or a banquet. The building will be
used by our youth group on a weekly basis and maybe a couple of dozen
times for special occasions during the course of a year.
Member Lewis asked are the flags out there where the building is
going to be. Pastor Groendyk responded yes.
Member Lewis supported by Member Koessel moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planning Director Peterson related a neighbor stopped by and she
was in favor of it.
David Haner of 4939 Whitneyville related that was probably his
mother. They strongly support the addition. The church needs it and
they have been good neighbors.
Member Robinson supported by Member McDonald moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried.
Member Koessel related he certainly is not opposed to what they are
suggesting they would like to do. He is struggling with the ordinance
as it relates to this. He does not remember having this type of
Special Use Permit before. The building seems like it is an extension
of the church. There is some potential for banquets. He wants to know
if the Commissioners are comfortable with this fitting into our
ordinance. He asked wouldn't this be two buildings on one parcel?
Planning Director Peterson responded he does not think it is a lot
different than what we have approved in the past. We have had
residential buildings that had plumbing and heat. We have had
temporary uses and churches go to the Zoning Board of Appeals only
because they are temporary. Our regulations talk about accessory uses
being incidental to the principle use. He does not think this request
is out of line. A church is a permitted principle use. A banquet use
would be accessory to their principle use.
Chairman Richards related he is not as concerned as Member Koessel.
Normally our concern is using the building as a second house on a
single lot. He does not see having heating, plumbing and lighting
being used for residential purposes. The main church building would
not be either. He is not particularly troubled by it. Planning
Director Peterson related you could recommend the applicant get an
interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals if you are
uncomfortable with Staff's interpretation.
Member Koessel asked how would we determine the parking
requirements for banquet use. Planning Director Peterson responded we
don't compute banquet use for parking in relation to churches. The
parking is determined by their seating capacity.
Chairman Richards related he doesn't think the accessory building
would double the numbers of cars for the church.
Member Lewis related he had the same thought as Member Koessel had
for a while. He referred to the church on Cascade Road that wanted
portable classrooms for teaching purposes. This building would be set
far back from the road and the neighbors seem to have no problem with
it. If this is approved, he would like to see the recommendation
included that there would not be any residential use in the building
in the future.
Member MacAllister recommended in the future they not add any
parking for that building. We are approving it with the assumption
parking will not be placed there around the building in the future.
Member Koessel asked how is the access going to be gained to this
building from the church. Pastor Groendyk responded the ground is very
sandy. People have driven back there for years without any type of
gravel there for a driveway. People could occasionally drive back
there to drop off supplies. It may be required to have handicapped
access to the building. Those people would unload and drive their
vehicles back to the parking lot.
Member Lewis asked you want a condition on the approval that there
not be any additional parking? Member MacAllister responded correct.
Member Koessel related when the other church on Cascade Road used a
neighboring home for Sunday School, they were required to have a
walkway that was handicapped accessible. There ought to be a
reasonable way to get a wheel chair back there. Planning Director
Peterson related when they build this the building code will take over
for handicapped access.
Member Lewis supported by Member MacAllister moved that the request
for a Type I Special Use Permit for a 2,000 s.f. accessory building be
approved with the condition no additional parking be created because
of the addition of this building.
Member Robinson asked does that mean they cannot add any parking
spaces in the future as far as the church is concerned? Member Lewis
responded they can come back here and request more. Placement of the
building should be consistent with the plans submitted.
Chairman Richards asked would that be the proper enforcement
mechanism? Planning Director Peterson responded yes, as a result of
this building the applicant won't add any more parking.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Case #04-2628: Ajax Paving
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a Type II Special Use permit to have a
temporary concrete batch plant located at 3675 Kraft Avenue.
Planning Director Peterson related this is a temporary batch plant
to be used for the 36th Street extension and for work being done at
the airport. He pointed out the location of the proposed batch plant
on the map. The application states it will be used for 1-1/2 years.
Our permit process allows for one year and the Township Board can
grant extensions. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation
to the Township Board. The Township Engineer reviewed the plans, and
his comments are summarized in his letter. The largest outstanding
item seems to be the site restoration plan. Staff will work with the
applicants as they are ready to leave the site for the best way to
restore it. The Fire Department has reviewed the plans and approved it
with minor conditions. There is an old trailer on the site that the
Fire Department is asking to be removed. It is not in the location of
the batch plant. It seems to be a pretty optimal location for the
airport. The 36th Street extension is under construction right now.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the site plan and
recommended the Planning Commission pass along a positive
recommendation for approval of the Special Use Permit to the Township
Board.
Chairman Richards verified that the site restoration plan is not
completed at this time. The applicant's materials say the disturbed
landscape will be restored to its original appearance. Planning
Director Peterson related this is the standard package that they
submit. The site is not really something they could restore. He wants
to make sure we have a stable site from a soil erosion perspective.
Chairman Richards suggested we tell the applicant how it should be
done now.
Member Jones related it is a fair sized site and there are a lot of
things that can be done. He wants a final grading plan to be submitted
to the Township Board and the Planning Commission for final approval
now. Planning Director Peterson related we could require a performance
bond for site restoration if you feel we need something to guarantee
it would be done after they are gone. Our engineers could work out the
specifics of the restoration plan.
Member Robinson related after the applicant has completed the
project is not the time to set up a restoration plan. He asked what is
the definition of natural resource? It says in the applicant's
materials the operation will not involve the removal of natural
resources from the premises. Planning Director Peterson related they
will bring in the materials to be processed.
Member McDonald asked if there are any nearby streams, creeks or
runoff areas. Planning Director Peterson responded there is a drain
that works its way down to the river from the airport. That is the
reason for the soil erosion control permit to keep that on site.
Donald Oliver was present representing Ajax Paving. He related they
are bringing materials - sand and gravel - for cement from off-site.
They simply go into a hopper and are blended together with water. Then
they are put into concrete trucks. Emissions are controlled by the
EPA. They will have dust collectors, etc. It will be a day time
operation. They are looking for a year and as a half. They anticipate
twenty-four pour days out of the year and a half. Ten days pour days
for the airport project. Part of the 36th Street extension will be
done this year with the remainder to be completed next year. The site
is owned by K & R. Right now the site is a gravel pit. Mr. Oliver
stated he does not know what the Township is looking for in
restoration. The sedimentation basin and silt fencing could be left in
when we are gone. He does not think they could do top soil and seed.
Mr. Oliver related they will put the site back in the exact same
condition it was in when we got there.
Chairman Richards asked how would you get the material to the
airport. Mr. Oliver responded through the main drive, the new drive to
the south and along to the service drive.
Chairman Richards asked what about 36th Street? Mr. Oliver replied
we are about 300 feet from it. We will use about 15 trucks on the days
that we pave with each truck making about 10-15 trips.
Chairman Richards asked if the trucks are double trailers. Mr.
Oliver responded right.
Chairman Richards asked if the process makes noise. Mr. Oliver
responded it is relatively quiet. It is a blending operation. The
materials are put on conveyor belts to a hopper and water is added and
dumps into a hopper.
Chairman Richards asked how tall is the operation. Mr. Oliver
responded 27 feet.
Member Robinson asked if the materials on site are not acceptable
for use and that this the reason you are bringing materials in. Mr.
Oliver responded a lot of the site has been mined and the materials
are not acceptable. Materials have to meet certain standards.
Member Lewis related he visited the site and the bottom of the pit
is full of water. Mr. Oliver related it really can't run off. They
have a water catch basin down there that is 6 to 8 feet above water
level.
Member Lewis supported by Member Robinson moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planning Director Peterson related someone came in and had visited
the site that was interested in the truck routing.
Member Koessel supported by Member MacAllister moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Lewis related the site is an ideal place for the batch plant
and he is all for it.
Member McDonald asked about a bond for site restoration. He asked
who would post the bond - the property owner or the applicant.
Chairman Richards responded that is a good question. The owner of the
paving company and not the property owner is here seeking this permit.
He asked related he does not think we can require the applicant to
restore the site to a pristine condition. Chairman Richards asked why
not do a restoration plan now. Planning Director Peterson responded
because of what the site is now. It is not a grassy field or forest.
Restoration in this case may mean nothing more than getting their
equipment out, grading and leaving. We could require the applicant to
get a performance bond for a relatively small amount.
Chairman Richards related if all we are talking about here is
keeping the site the same way it is and getting the equipment out, he
would not have a problem with making that a condition of approval. Mr.
Oliver responded if you want the sedimentation devices left in there,
we will do that.
Chairman Richards related we could just require that it be restored
to its existing condition.
Member Jones related he has some concern about the bond. What he
has been hearing is restore the site to its previous condition. That
language is along the line that we want.
Member Lewis supported by Member Robinson moved to approve the
applicant's request for a Special Use Permit be forwarded to the
Township Board with a favorable recommendation including Staff's
conditions:
1) a soil erosion permit be obtained;
2) a restoration plan be submitted indicating at the completion of the
batch plant operation they leave the land in the same condition or
better than it is now;
3) the following Fire Department conditions:
a. the address for the site must be posted and visible from Kraft
Avenue;
b. a copy of Material Safety Data Sheets for all chemicals used must
be accessible and available for review by the Fire Department;
c. in case of a structure fire or any other type of emergency the
hydrant must be available for use;
d. two emergency contacts with phone numbers that will be available 24
hours a day must be given to the Fire Department
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Case #04-2631: Kent County Dept. of Aeronautics
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a special Use permit for permission to
establish one or more car rental businesses that would also allow cars
to be sold wholesale at the proposed location at the Southeast corner
of Patterson and Oostema Blvd.
Planning Director Peterson related the airport is providing us with
additional information in regard to rental car sales. The individual
car rental companies will still come before the Planning Commission
for site plan approval. They would like to wholesale cars as described
in the attachment.
Roy Hawkins of Kent County Dept. of Aeronautics represented the
airport.
Member Koessel asked is it just a situation where you have somebody
that drives by and looks at the cars and they pick them up? Mr.
Hawkins related the rental companies are required to have cars two
years old or less. The need is to get rid of fleets of vehicles. They
do not sell the cars to the public. They work with off-site auction
houses. Vehicles are loaded onto trucks and taken off-site. The sales
documents are prepared on site but the sale takes place off site.
Wholesaling involves driving the vehicles to sales locations in Grand
Rapids, or loading them onto trucks and taking them to Detroit.
Chairman Richards asked if the rental car agencies north of the
main drive now will be moved south off Patterson Avenue. Mr. Hawkins
responded yes. We will move the rental car agencies down to Patterson
and Oostema Blvd. over the next five to twenty years.
Member Lewis asked if previous methods of vehicle sales did not
permit the use of banners, flags, etc. and if those same conditions
would apply. Mr. Hawkins responded yes. We (airport) have never
permitted them to do that either.
Member Lewis supported by Member MacAllister moved to open the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Robert Clark related he owns a piece of property across the street
at 4521 Patterson. He does not remember seeing any actual plans of the
proposed use. Chairman Richards responded we have just the general
vicinity. It would be near the new service drive entrance to the south
of the main entrance. Each car company will come in with individual
site plans.
Mr. Clark asked if there would be additional curb cuts on Patterson
Avenue. Mr. Hawkins responded no and pointed out the vicinity on the
map.
Mr. Clark asked if it would be possible that this location could
turn into an auto auction. Chairman Richards related that was the
Planning Commission's concern also. But no, that would not be allowed.
Member Robinson supported by Member MacAllister moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Lewis asked did we give them a Special Use Permit at the
last meeting. Planning Director Peterson responded yes, but we
specified no car sales. They are looking for an updated recommendation
to the Township Board that would include sales as they have described
it.
Member McDonald supported by Member Robinson moved to forward a
positive recommendation to the Township Board for a Special Use Permit
that would allow wholesale car rental and sales for wholesale purposes
only as provided by the airport documents presented tonight.
Member Koessel asked maybe we should clarify that to include the
removal in bulk of those cars to be taken to an off-site location.
Member McDonald related clarify that the wholesale cars are moved
off site to a wholesale location and not auctioned on site and no
advertising would be allowed.
Mr. Hawkins related the documents for the sales are done on site.
Those vehicles companies keep paperwork on maintenance and work done
on vehicles for short term use. The sale actually begins on site.
Member McDonald related he has no problem with the documents being
done on site before the cars are removed.
Chairman Richards suggested he is comfortable with wholesale versus
retail. He clarified that paragraph "S" indicates no
automobile sales will take place on airport grounds other than fleet
renewal.
Member McDonald re-stated his motion to say the Planning Commission
will forward a positive recommendation to the Township Board to permit
car rental and sales provided that is limited to the "Airport
Agreement Paragraph S" which states: "Grantee shall not sell
any automobiles from the Assigned Premises or Airport grounds other
than for fleet renewal purposes (through wholesaling) or sale as part
of an insurance settlement".
Member Robinson supported the re-stated motion.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 9. Case #04-2625: Rockford Construction
Review of PUD Text Ordinance changes for the Glenwood Hills Office
Park
Planning Director Peterson related this is the office park that was
once the Blue Cross/Blue Shield PUD. Blue Cross/Blue Shield bought
three or four lots and had plans to do a PUD which never happened.
Rockford Construction is asking to revert it back to what it was
before the Blue Cross/Blue Shield PUD took effect. The Township
Attorney has proposed writing a new PUD Ordinance instead of doing an
amendment. The language for the new PUD Ordinance would mirror the
language in the Glenwood Hills PUD. The applicant has approved the
text and recommend we forward it on to the Township Board.
Member Koessel asked are there any changes from the original PUD.
Planning Director Peterson responded there is some updating.
Member MacAllister referred to Section VII, item H regarding signs.
She is not clear on what kind of signs would be allowed. Planning
Director Peterson responded ground mounted signs at the road.
Member MacAllister asked if that would be on Kraft or Glenwood
Hills. Planning Director Peterson responded Glenwood Hills.
Kurt Hassberger represented Rockford Construction. Mr. Hassberger
related he reviewed the ordinance and he is fine with it. We would be
turning the PUD back to where it started from. He is pleased with what
has been done so far.
Member Robinson supported by Member Koessel moved to forward the
PUD Ordinance to the Township Board with Planning Commission's
approval. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 10. Case #04-2631: Rapid Packaging
Review of PUD Ordinance and recommendation to the Township Board.
Planning Director Peterson related the location is on 52nd Street,
east of Patterson Avenue. The applicant is proposing a three building
campus at 5151 - 52nd Street. The Planning Commission has approved the
project and the Ordinance is putting into writing what that plan says.
The Planning Commission awarded the applicant preliminary approval
subject to seven conditions. All of those have been addressed with the
exception of the landscape bond that will be submitted at the time the
building permit is applied for. Staff has written the Ordinance
according to your recommendation and shared the text with the
applicant and the applicant has agreed on the language that is being
presented to you. Planning Director Peterson recommended forwarding a
positive recommendation to the Township Board for the PUD rezoning.
Chairman Richards referred to the May 12 letter from Moore &
Bruggink to FTCH. Item 8 indicates rip rap has been added. He asked is
that a good thing? Planning Director Peterson responded yes. Rip rap
are smaller rocks placed at the outlets of pipes.
Pete Colvin represented the applicant. He related he appreciates
being given preliminary approval at the last meeting.
Russ Spees, owner of Rapid Packaging was also present.
Member Lewis related he appreciates Rapid Packaging staying in the
Township.
Member McDonald moved to forward a positive recommendation to the
Township Board for approval of the PUD rezoning as written by Staff.
Member Logue supported the motion.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 11. Update on the Gerald R. Ford International Airport
Master Plan process
Planning Director Peterson introduced Roy Hawkins, Bruce
Schedlbauer and Tom Ecklund, facilities director.
Mr. Schedlbauer presented the following information:
Mission Statement
Goals
Schedule for the Master Plan Process (submit the master plan to the
FAA by the end of May 2004). Public participation in the process has
involved a group of about 40 people, including public workshops.
Master Plan Issues
Summary of Activity Forecasts (through April of 2004 usage was up
10-1/4% over 2003).
Summary of Future Facility Requirements
2008 Development Plan Map
2013 Development Plan Map
2023 Development Plan Map
Project Summary
Member Lewis related based on growth that you are projecting, you
have done a wonderful job of looking ahead. Mr. Schedlbauer related
the Airport Board is very forward thinking.
Member McDonald asked is there a regulation in terms of hours of
operation. Mr. Schedlbauer responded they have no curfews.
Member McDonald asked ~ schedule is market driven? Mr. Schedlbauer
responded yes.
Mr. Ecklund related the air traffic control tower is open 24 hours
a day. Most airlines restrict their pilots from taking off and landing
if the traffic control tower is not open.
Mr. Schedlbauer related the airport is open for private planes 24
hours a day.
Mr. Ecklund related it is technically closed from midnight to 4:00
am. The Chicago tower will take control for emergencies during that
time. Our tower will call the fire trucks and Chicago will send the
plane in.
Member Koessel asked how much growth is based on more direct
flights. Mr. Schedlbauer responded they are in discussions with a
couple of air carriers to get service in Grand Rapids. This is a
market that they are looking at quite closely. Probably in the next
12-18 months they will expand air service here.
Member MacAllister asked if there is any talk about putting up
baffles for sound around the cargo area. Mr. Hawkins responded to put
a berm up it would be 300 feet long and so tall the planes could not
land. It is not feasible to do that for noise.
Chairman Richards asked for an update on the program for providing
sound insulation for nearby homes. Mr. Hawkins responded that program
has ended. There were nine homes within the qualified contour. Most of
the homes were in Kentwood. One home participated and was finished
last year.
Planning Director Peterson related we publish in our township
newsletter periodically the guidelines for things you can do to your
home for noise.
Mr. Hawkins related he lives in Saranac and he can hear the
airplanes on certain days when the weather conditions are right.
Member MacAllister asked what are you doing to help maintain the
Thornapple River quality. Mr. Ecklund responded they use storm water
management to control any erosion on construction sites. They also
have above and below ground storage tanks. We have a storm water
permit now through the DEQ for monitoring. That is for de-icing.
Member Lewis asked is this a county airport. Mr. Schedlbauer
responded yes. The County Board of Commissioners has delegated
authority to the Aeronautics Board.
Member Jones asked what is the annual budget. Mr. Ecklund responded
the operating budget is in the low $20 million per year. The airport
does not receive any money from the County. We get money from our
tenants or from federal grants. We generate all that on site. Mr.
Schedlbauer related we pay the County for the county services that we
utilize. We are financially self-supporting.
Mr. Hawkins related the money has to remain on site. We are prohibited
from giving money away.
Mr. Hawkins then offered to give the Planning Commission a tour of
the airport. The members were receptive and a tour will be scheduled.
ARTICLE 12. Any Other Business
Planning Director Peterson handed out an article on a Citizen
Participation Ordinance.
Several members discussed the following signs: Betten grand opening
sign, banner signs, and trailer signs.
Chairman Richards related Member MacAllister will be on maternity
leave. He wished her well.
Member Robinson suggested establishing a date to visit the airport
and suggested a date be chosen at the next meeting.
ARTICLE 13. Adjournment
Member Robinson supported by Member McDonald moved to
adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Goldberg, Secretary
FG: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
|
Site
Design/Development by
 |
|
