Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, February 7, 2005
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Goldberg called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Goldberg, Lewis, Logue, MacAllister, McDonald, Postma,
Richards, Robinson
Members Absent: Koessel (excused).
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Planner Deem, Admin.
Assistant Thompson, Reporter Wilson and those listed on Supplement #1
(an audience of about 40 people).
ARTICLE 2. Chairman Goldberg 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 January 18, 2005 meeting were
approved on motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member McDonald.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 5. The Township Board Minutes of December 15, 2004 and
January 12, 2005 were received and filed.
ARTICLE 6. Case #05-2697: Russ Manz
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a Type I Special Use Permit to construct a
1,536 s.f. accessory building at 8201 Shadybrook.
Planning Director Peterson related accessory buildings in excess of
832 square feet requires a public hearing and a Special Use Permit.
The placement of the building is within the side yard in compliance
with the setbacks from the property lines. Shadybrook is a public
street off Buttrick, one-quarter mile south of Grand River Drive. The
street does turn into a private street at the end where it serves
about six homes. The proposed building would be used for storage and
be constructed with asphalt shingles and wood siding to match the
existing home. The lot is irregular in shape. The home is 2,200 square
feet with a 720 s.f. attached garage. The property does have a second
accessory building. The property is seven acres in size and is allowed
two out buildings. The building would be 14 feet to the mid-point. Due
to the setbacks it could go as high as 22 feet. Planning Director
Peterson then went through the factors to be considered before
granting a special use permit as found in the Staff Report. There are
other accessory buildings in the area. The common denominator is that
the accessory buildings generally match the existing houses there. The
size proposed also is not different than what is there. The building
does match the architecture on the site. The site is heavily wooded.
The packet contains a letter from the neighbor who is most affected.
The building would be very difficult to see due to the heavily wooded
area. Grand River Drive falls off quite a bit and the building would
not be able to be seen from the applicant's home.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the request.
Chairman Goldberg asked if the comment received from the neighbor
on Grand River Drive was for or against the request. Planning Director
Peterson responded they were interested in where the building was
going to be but didn't take a position of for or against.
Chairman Goldberg related the neighbor most impacted by the
building has submitted a letter that is in our packet. Their concern
was the height of the building was going to be 28-30 feet. Planning
Director Peterson related he looked at it and determined at worst it
would be 22 feet high for the peak.
Member MacAllister asked where is the second building. Planning
Director Peterson responded it is a small building and he did not see
it during his site visit.
The applicant, Russ Manz, was present. Mr. Manz related he entered
into an agreement with four immediate neighbors two years ago
regarding out buildings on the premises. This building meets the
standards of that agreement. He presented a letter from the other
people stating it meets the standards of the agreement. Mr. Manz also
presented pictures of the site and related he talked to his neighbors,
the Schlatters. Their concern was they thought the building would be
30 feet high. This building has a 6-12 pitch and would be 20 feet
high. The other out building is a storage shed right by the driveway
to the house. It is not within view of any neighbors.
Chairman Goldberg asked if the building will have plumbing. Mr.
Manz responded no, it will have a water line to the outside of the
building. Electric will be run to the building but no heat. It will
have a concrete pad.
Member Lewis asked if the building will have lights on the outside.
Mr. Manz responded he will have a flood light over the doorway run by
a switch. It will not be mercury/security light.
Member Lewis asked if the Planning Commission required that light
to face downward if that would that be a problem. Mr. Manz responded
no it would not be a problem.
Member Lewis supported by Member Richards 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 Lewis
supported by Member MacAllister moved to close the public hearing. The
motion carried.
Member Lewis supported by Member Robinson moved to approve the
applicant's request for a 1,536 s.f. accessory building at 8201
Shadybrook with the following conditions: 1) the building not be
involved, directly or indirectly, with any business, trade, occupation
or profession; and 2) any lighting on the building be downcast. The
motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Case #04-2610: Maas Johnson Group (Turnberry)
The applicant requested a rezoning to PUD, in order to develop a 106
unit town home/cottage home project at 5500 Burton Street.
Planner Deem related this is Basic Plan Review of a revised site
plan and has not been noticed for public hearing. The purpose of this
meeting is to determine the information needed by the Planning
Commission before a public hearing date is set. Originally this came
before the Planning Commission last year with 123 living units. The
revised plan has 106 living units with a mixture of town homes and
cottage homes. The property is currently zoned R1 and the Master Plan
has designated it as medium density residential with 4-6 units per
acre. This property could accommodate 108 units. Water and sewer will
be extended to serve this project. The exact location of sewer has not
been determined at this point. The Township has stated they would like
to have sewer extended along Burton Street to serve this project as
well as hooking up development with dry sewer. The project has two
access points. One is along Burton Street and one at the intersection
of Burton and Kraft. The property has an easement for an automobile
connection with the property from the south. It also has a proposed
pedestrian connection from the West and South. The Fire Department
will need to approve the plans before scheduling a public hearing. A
permit from the airport will be required for the height of
construction equipment. Permits from the airport will not be needed
for the height of the buildings. The pedestrian pathway will be
re-aligned and they will need to submit a plan showing how they will
meet the pathway cutting ordinance before the public hearing is
scheduled.
Planner Deem related he has identified four items that need to be
addressed before a public hearing is scheduled: 1) sewer extension
plans; 2) pedestrian pathway re-alignment plan; 3) storm water plan;
4) Fire Department approval.
Planner Deem recommended a subcommittee be formed to review the
sewer extension and pedestrian pathway plans. Previously a
subcommittee was formed to review the location of the entrances to the
parcel.
Chairman Goldberg asked for a recap what went on at Township Board
level. Planner Deem responded there were a few issues that were
brought up before the Township Board. They were: density, sewer
location, and height of the apartment buildings, and rental units.
Chairman Goldberg asked what about the utility issue. Planner Deem
responded the Cascade Pointe project and the construction of Burton
Street upset the residents and they expressed their concerns that the
same thing would occur with extending sewer along the remainder of
Burton Street. There was also some concern about a sewer extension
even being feasible. In the Cascade Pointe case, the developer
developed the extension plan. In this case, the Township Engineers are
working on the development plan. The Road Commission has stated they
are against placing sewer in the center of the road for the remainder
of Burton Street. Sewer may have to be placed in the right-of-way
along the south side of the road.
Member McDonald asked is the City of Grand Rapids still against
bringing sewer down Kraft Avenue from Meijer? Planner Deem responded
the understanding is Burton Street will carry the sewer.
Member Richards related she was not on the Planning Commission when
this project came up before. She asked that the difference between the
town homes and the cottage homes be explained.
Planner Deem responded the town houses are row houses. The cottage
homes are duplexes.
Member Richards asked are these rental units? Planner Deem
responded no, there are no apartments or rental units in this plan.
These will be all owner-occupied.
Member Richards asked the price range. The applicant, Denis
Johnson, responded $225,000 for the town homes and $250,000 for the
cottages.
Member MacAllister asked if FTCH will be doing the engineering for
sewer. Planner Deem responded yes.
Member MacAllister asked are we going to get a second opinion.
Planner Deem related we could bring that up to the Township Board and
Supervisor.
Member Lewis asked the height of the buildings. Planner Deem
related they originally were 40 feet tall at the mid-point. The issue
of height has gone away. The new plan shows the buildings at 35 feet
and 2-1/2 stories.
Member McDonald related he felt the number one issue previously was
the rental units. Member McDonald related the second issue was the
sewer. He asked if that is still unresolved. Planner Deem responded
correct, that is still unresolved. The project meets our future land
use plan map and Master Plan for the area. They are down to 5.8 units
per acre.
Member MacAllister asked if a subcommittee would have members from
both the Planning Commission and Township Board. Planner Deem related
he would like Member Koessel on it because he is a Trustee. And, the
Township Board has a sewer and water committee which will be reviewing
this also.
The applicant, Denis Johnson, was present. He is the architect and
part of the development team with offices located at 40 Pearl, Grand
Rapids, Michigan. Mr. Johnson related the previous plan had four
buildings that were rental units. The architectural theme was English.
He related the big issue was rental. He is not sure that the people in
the previous public hearings understood the project is bordered by a
recreational vehicle storage facility and a golf driving range with a
40 foot high net. The revised project is designed more from an
internal perspective as the perimeter areas are not really pretty. The
new solution eliminated the rental units and larger buildings. There
is a little less open space with the new plan but it still exceeds the
minimum requirements. Mr. Johnson related they looked at condo
buildings but those have never been very successful immediately. They
took the safer route choosing to use the same product as before - the
town homes with garages behind. The cottages are duplexes around the
perimeter of the site. Mr. Johnson related they brought the project
off the road and connected the pedestrian pathway around the
perimeter. Internal pathways will also connect to the perimeter. The
town homes are similar to Philadelphia row houses. The last Planning
Commission wanted ingress/egress at the intersection of Kraft and
Burton. The garages are on alleyways. The perimeter will be landscaped
to create an enclosure to the development. There are seven town home
units per building. The project is intended for a mix of age groups
with young families living in the town homes and older families or
empty nesters in the cottages. The town homes will be starter homes to
bring people into the Cascade market. The building will be constructed
with 75% brick material and some cedar shake on the back side. Some
units will be all brick. It will be an urban type design. Mr. Johnson
related the property could always be served with sewer but where could
it be connected from has been the problem. The City of Grand Rapids
does not like lift stations. Connecting from Kraft Avenue and pumping
up to 28th Street would require a lift station. Mr. Johnson related
this is our introduction of the amended PUD plan and we are present to
ask for a public hearing.
Member Richards asked what is the difference between a condo
association and this? Mr. Johnson responded the first project had four
apartment buildings. We have eliminated those. These will be all owner
occupied.
Member Lewis asked have you built these in other locations. Mr.
Johnson responded no. These are from the east side of the state,
Chicago and Detroit. The floor plans will be in your next packet.
Member Logue asked if the guest parking has been delineated. Mr.
Johnson pointed out the guest parking spaces and areas. There are 50
guest parking places within the development.
Member Robinson related a second opinion on the sewer extension is
an excellent idea.
Chairman Goldberg related he would like that handled at
subcommittee level. The Township Board has to approve an expenditure
for a second opinion.
Member MacAllister related she has a lot of questions about school
capacity, etc. She would like to get a report from Forest Hills
schools on this project. Chairman Goldberg related his impression was
the school has to provide capacity to handle the number of children.
The previous concern was with the apartment part of project and taxes
that would not be paid. It is the responsibility of the school
district to deal with capacity.
Planning Director Peterson related the school district has never
taken a position on a project. He talked to them today. They don't
take positions on projects. We are involved with them to plan their
growth within the district. They were also part of our Master Plan
study team. We will not be able to get a position statement from them.
Member MacAllister related she would like some information
regarding school bus drop points, etc. Planning Director Peterson
responded typically if a fire truck can get around in a development, a
school bus won't have a problem.
Member Postma asked if there is a phasing schedule. Planner Deem
responded yes.
Chairman Goldberg asked for opinions regarding appointing a
subcommittee. Member Lewis related they work very successfully. He
recommended we do it.
Chairman Goldberg appointed the following people to the
subcommittee: Koessel, Robinson, McDonald, and a Township Board
member. Member Lewis will serve as an alternate due to Member
Robinson's travel schedule.
Planner Deem related the Township Board Sewer & Water
Subcommittee will also review the project.
Member MacAllister supported by Member Postma moved to appoint the
subcommittee as named. The motion carried with Member Lewis casting a
nay vote.
Member Lewis explained his nay vote. Although he is in favor of a
subcommittee he believes the Township Board and Planning Commission do
not work under the same criteria. He would prefer to keep the
subcommittee separate using members of the Planning Commission.
ARTICLE 8. Case #05-2698: Cascade Township Library
The applicant requested site plan approval for a 9,511 square foot
addition to the Library located at 2870 Jacksmith Drive.
Planner Deem related we are here to review the proposed addition.
The proposed addition is 9,511 s.f. for a learning center. The
addition meets the setbacks for this area. The building would be 72
feet from the nearest property line. Additional parking is being added
to the site. There will be 29 new parking spaces and two barrier free
spaces. New light poles will also be included. The photometric plan
meets the standards of the township for light levels. The Fire
Department has reviewed the plans and had two comments. The plans also
have been reviewed by Prein & Newhof. Planner Deem recommended
approval of the site plan with the condition that the engineers
approve the plan. The sign permit has not been applied for at this
time. The elevation drawing has been presented.
Chairman Goldberg asked for the timing of the project. Planner Deem
related he does not know. The project still has to go to the Township
Board.
Member Lewis asked if the idea is to expand the community room.
Planner Deem responded yes.
Member McDonald asked about the timing on the approval of the storm
water plan. Planner Deem related it will be done as soon as Prein
& Newhoff receive the storm water calculations from the Township
Engineer.
Member MacAllister asked for the area owned by the library to be
clarified. Planner Deem pointed that out on the plan.
Tom Smith represented the Building Committee appointed by the
Township Board. The Township Board and Building Committee are
considering some minor changes that will not affect the footprint of
the addition. They will be going out for bids in late spring and
anticipate a one year construction period.
Member Lewis asked if the size of the community room too small now?
Mr. Smith responded yes. The existing room will be converted to a teen
room and staff area.
Member MacAllister related there seems to be a lot of circulation
space and a wide corridor. Mr. Smith related the addition will
accommodate a lot of people and can be divided to hold several
meetings at one time. The corridor width is needed for building code
requirements.
Member MacAllister asked why are there outdoor storage areas. Mr.
Smith related the Building and Grounds building will be near by. Those
areas may be used to store some minor lawn maintenance equipment.
Member Robinson asked what is the square footage of the existing
library? Mr. Smith responded about 20,000 s.f. on the main floor with
a 5,000 s.f. basement. The exterior of the addition will be mostly
face brick matching the original building. The roof will be sloped but
not as high as the present building.
Member MacAllister asked if the learning center will have different
hours than the library. Mr. Smith responded yes. The doors can be
locked from the library and it will have its own exterior entrance.
Member Robinson supported by Member Lewis moved to approve the
addition to the library as presented with the condition of Staff: 1)
the engineer approve the plan. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 9. Case #04-2682: Riebel Development
Consider approval of the PUD Ordinance and recommendation to the
Township Board.
Planning Director Peterson related the project is located on 28th
Street and will include re-development of several existing sites
(Pizza Hut & Leica). The public hearing was held on December 20,
2004. The plan has been adjusted to meet the requirements of that
meeting and is reflected into the PUD text. Staff met with the
applicant and worked back and forth on language. The new Pizza Hut
building is slightly larger than the former plan and has the same
look. It will be 1,000 s.f. larger. The increase in size does impact
the amount of additional restaurant space within the project. It
reduces the amount of additional restaurant space from 13,400 s.f. to
10,000 s.f. Landscaping will be placed at top of hill behind the rear
building.
Member MacAllister asked about land splits being allowed. Planning
Director Peterson responded no splits would be allowed for additional
building sites.
Member Robinson asked if the side walks will be installed by
developer or the township? Planning Director Peterson related
typically it would be the Township putting those in. The Planning
Commission recommended the developer put them in for this project.
Member Lewis asked if our Zoning Ordinances has a definition of
fast food restaurant. Planning Director Peterson related no, we do not
but the language in the P.U.D. Ordinance is the same that we have used
in other P.U.D.'s. It is the same language we always use. The Planning
Commission can ask for a zoning interpretation of that from the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Chairman Goldberg asked how do you deal with a Subway type
restaurant where one stands in line, orders at a counter, receives the
food and then leaves or sits down. Planning Director Peterson related
for this case we based this on the traffic generation and their
description of their food preparation process.
Member Lewis related he would be more comfortable with language
that would prevent a drive through window. Planning Director Peterson
responded fast food restaurants have different parking requirements in
our Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Goldberg related he would like to eliminate all drive
through and fast food restaurants without a drive through.
Member Lewis related he has said it before - he does not want a
drive through window there but may be a drive up window.
Chairman Goldberg related he still wants to leave fast food in
there.
David Riebel, the applicant, was present. Mr. Riebel related
Culvers is a sit down restaurant. You order and they make the food and
bring it to you. They don't start making it until you order it. They
do have two order windows. They do 20% of the volume that McDonalds or
Burger King does.
Perry Mellema was present representing Culvers. Mr. Mellema related
you order at the window and they give you a number and they bring the
food to you.
Mr. Mellema related one orders at a speaker and they pay at a
window and drive to a parking spot. They bring the order out to you.
The only reason for the window is to pay.
Planning Director Peterson related this plan and use has not
changed since it was originally introduced. We are talking about
situations that would either be redeveloping the restaurant sites or
would occupy space in the other buildings, which are not set up for
drive through. We are talking about future occupants for this
additional 10,000 s.f. Those would be set up to be your additional sit
down restaurant. I don't think we can develop an ordinance to cover
every single situation.
Chairman Goldberg asked do we have a definition of drive through
window? Planning Director Peterson responded we do not have a
definition of fast food. He read the definition of drive through.
Member McDonald asked is this something different than what you saw
in subcommittee. Member Lewis related we covered this rather detailed.
His problem is with driving up and ordering from a window. That is
fast food.
Chairman Goldberg related it sounds a lot like Culvers.
Member Lewis asked if B-2 zoning does allow drive through windows.
Planning Director Peterson responded yes. The parking requirements for
a non-fast food restaurant is 10 spaces for every 1,000 s.f. of
building. Requirements for a fast food restaurant is 15 spaces for
every 1,000 s.f. of building.
Chairman Goldberg asked what numbers of cars are you looking at for
this use? Planning Director Peterson responded Culvers has about 180
cars per day as compared to the McDonalds at 719 and Boston Market at
119.
Member McDonald related fast food is 719 cars per day. Boston
Market is about 119 per day.
Member Postma related that would be over the limit. You have 80
some spaces. Planning Director Peterson related they don't have enough
parking spaces to calculate for a fast food restaurant. Parking
requirements are by square footage.
Mr. Riebel stated 180 is the national average for Culvers.
Member Lewis related he is disappointed to see the Ordinance with
the list of permitted uses the way it is written. This project is in
the B-2 zoning district which does allow drive through windows. It is
too late for us to start making changes now. It would disappoint the
Planning Department and stall the developer.
Member MacAllister related she would also like to limit drive
through windows. She would like to say no more drive through windows
on that site.
Member Lewis supported by Member McDonald moved to approve the PUD
Ordinance with the addition of the wording "no more than two
restaurant drive up windows - one for each of the restaurants" in
Section VI. Permitted Uses.
Member Robinson asked are we setting a precedent. Chairman Goldberg
responded we are allowing drive up windows within a PUD which we
already allowed in the underlying zoning district and we have already
used this same language in other P.U.D. ordinances that have not
become a problem. Member Robinson related he would like to go with the
term of "non fast food" which has already been set in the
Meadowbrooke PUD.
Member Logue asked are we comfortable that Culvers is a non fast
food restaurant? We developed this whole thing with Culvers in mind.
Chairman Goldberg related personally he is more comfortable that
this is not fast food.
Member Richards related she was not a member of the Planning
Commission when this project first came in. She thought it was a very
wonderful plan and an improvement for the sites. She has no problem
with Culvers and thought it was a good choice for that spot. She has
found Culvers to be very clean and a family friendly kind of place.
Member Logue related he is comfortable with the project as
proposed.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 10. 2005 Work Plan
Review of Special Use Permits and Accessory Building Application
Review Process
Chairman Goldberg related he would prefer to wait for a smaller
agenda to discuss this item. It was the consensus of the Planning
Commission to take up the item on a future agenda.
ARTICLE 11. Any Other Business
Member McDonald related he will out of town for the next meeting
and asked to be excused.
ARTICLE 12. Adjournment
Member Robinson supported by Member MacAllister moved to adjourn.
The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom McDonald, Secretary
TMD: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
 |
|
