Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, May 16, 2005
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Goldberg called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Goldberg, Koessel, Lewis, MacAllister, McDonald,
Postma, Robinson
Members Absent: Logue and Richards (both excused).
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Planner Deem, Admin.
Assistant Thompson and those listed on Supplement #1.
ARTICLE 2. Chairman Goldberg led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ARTICLE 3. Member Lewis supported by Member Robinson moved to
revise the agenda and take Article 10 following Article 4. The motion
carried.
Member Robinson supported by Member Koessel moved to approve the
agenda as amended. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Minutes of the May 2, 2005 meeting were approved as
submitted on motion by Member Koessel and supported by Member
McDonald. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 10. Presentation by the Fire Chief Regarding Dry Hydrants
Planning Director Peterson related this item was on the Work Plan.
He related Chief Sigg is present to describe the process and explain
the dry hydrant issue.
Chief Sigg related we have in the past required facilities such as
Ada Bible Church and the Quail Crest Golf Club to install water tanks
because they are outside of the city water boundary. The Old Elm
subdivision on Grand River Drive and Buttrick Avenue has a cistern
system. Their development may have an 10% road grade and the Fire
Department was concerned about getting fire trucks up the road during
the winter. We required the developer to install a 20,000 gallon water
storage tank. The Fire Department is continuing to look at the cost to
install dry hydrants in the community. The Fire Department surveyed
water sources in the township such as lakes, ponds, etc. and found ten
sources of water that might be able to be used for dry hydrant
service. We are also checking with other area fire departments for
information on dry hydrants.
Member MacAllister referred to Chief Sigg's letter which states
some of the ordinances can be improved. She asked what type of
improvements. Chief Sigg responded he is looking at all of the
ordinances. Some of them may need to be refined. The new tanker truck
will be bigger and private road widths may need to be widened. The
Fire Department is making sure everything is up to date. They may also
develop a new fire prevention code for the township.
Chairman Goldberg asked do they put in dry hydrants and piping in
all developments. Chief Sigg responded no, the Fire Department does
not require anything to be installed.
Planning Director Peterson related the Old Elm subdivision has one
hydrant with a water storage tank.
Chairman Goldberg stated criteria should be used for requiring
that. Planning Director Peterson stated Old Elm was required to have a
cistern due to the steep road. The Fire Department is reviewing what
those standards will be.
Chairman Goldberg asked when would you be coming back to us with a
recommendation. Planning Director Peterson responded that will be up
to the Fire Department if they believe changes are required. This was
really for discussion and information purposes. The Fire Department
will be talking with the Township Board also.
Member McDonald asked if the grants would be state or federal.
Chief Sigg responded he believes it is a state grant. They have been
looking at dry hydrants for a year or so.
Member Robinson asked where our community has no water source, are
there any state regulations for providing dry hydrants. Chief Sigg
responded none that he is aware of. The state does regulate the amount
of fire personnel needed for the number of citizens in the community.
Member Robinson asked if these developments are looked at on an
individual basis. Chief Sigg responded yes.
Chairman Goldberg asked how much water does a tanker hold. Chief
Sigg responded the new one will hold 3,000 gallons.
Chairman Godlberg asked how many gallons of water is used for a
house fire. Chief Sigg responded they can easily go through 20,000 -
30,000 gallons.
Member Lewis asked about swimming pools and if they could be used
as a water source. Chief Sigg responded they can be used and we have
done that in the past. They do not have a map of everyone's swimming
pool. But sometimes we see that the neighbors have one or a citizen
will suggest using a nearby pool.
Member Robinson asked how much water does a normal swimming pool
hold. Chief Sigg responded 5,000 to 10,000 gallons. A pumper can pump
1,500 gallons a minute.
Member McDonald asked Staff is this kind of an ordinance is
directed toward new developments. Planning Director Peterson related
this was for information purposes. We will leave that to the Fire
Department on how they want to deal with this issue.
Member McDonald asked how many homes have been lost because they
didn't have dry hydrants. Chief Sigg responded he does not know.
Chairman Goldberg asked Chief Sigg to find the statistics if it is
decided an ordinance would be desirable.
ARTICLE 5. Case #05-2727: Faulk & Foster
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a Type I Special Use Permit to co-locate a
communication antenna with a small equipment structure at an existing
cellular tower site behind the Buttrick Avenue Fire Station at 2990
Buttrick Avenue.
Planning Director Peterson related the tower at the Buttrick Fire
Station has been there for several years. This is a co-location
request. The packet has a depiction of what the tower would look like
with the antenna added. The applicant will also be locating an
equipment cabinet. The Township does encourage co-locations on
existing towers. Planning Director Peterson recommended approval.
Chairman Goldberg asked how many antennas will this make on the
tower. Planning Director Peterson responded this will be the fourth.
Chairman Goldberg asked if there is room for additional antennas.
Planning Director Peterson responded yes, the lease is written for up
to 12.
Member Koessel related the new antenna looks like it would be tight
to the pole. Planning Director Peterson responded that is correct.
Member Koessel asked if all the equipment will be housed inside the
existing structure. Planning Director Peterson responded that is
correct.
Beth Striegle of Faulk & Foster represented the applicant. She
related this request is similar to the one approved two months ago for
a co-location at another site. There will not be any increase in the
tower height.
Member Lewis asked if this antenna will fill a need for the area.
Ms. Striegle related yes, it is for Centennial, a new company coming
in. They are filling the voids in service that they have experienced
and are getting the most important sites first.
Member Koessel supported by Member Robinson 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 and the public hearing was closed.
Member Koessel supported by Member Lewis moved to approve the
applicant's request for a Type I Special Use Permit to co-locate an
antenna on an existing tower and equipment structure behind the
Buttrick Avenue Fire Station at 2990 Buttrick Avenue. The motion
carried.
ARTICLE 6. Case #05-2725: Lighting Ordinance
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Review of proposed language to amend the lighting regulations in the
Cascade Township Zoning Ordinance.
Planner Deem related this review of the lighting ordinance was
prompted by the Work Plan. The language relating to downcast lighting
and facade lighting will be creating a new Section 4.34 (General
Characteristics section of the Zoning Ordinance). Those paragraphs
will also be added to Section 19.19 where the current lighting
regulations are located (parking section of the Zoning Ordinance). In
addition, a new Special Use Permit (Type II) is being created for
recreational lighting. Currently the maximum that we allow is 5 foot
candles. Should a soccer park develop and need lights for night games,
5 foot candles would not be adequate. The Staff Report has the new
language for Special Use Permit requirements for recreational
lighting.
"1) Fixtures used for event lighting shall be fully shielded
or be designed or provided with sharp cut-off capability, so as to
minimize up-light, spill-light, and glare." And
"2) All events shall be scheduled so as to complete all
activity before or as near to 10:00 pm as practical, but under no
circumstances shall any illumination of the playing field, court, or
track be permitted after 11:00 pm except to conclude a scheduled event
that was in progress before 11:00 pm and circumstances prevented
concluding before 11:00 pm."
There are also two additions to the general ordinance for the down
cast lighting to be added to Section 19.19:.
"3. Downcast Lighting: For parking lots, cutoff type
luminaries shall be used and shall be equipped with devices, such as
shields, visors, hoods, for redirecting light. All outdoor lighting on
private, residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, recreational,
and institutional property shall be so equipped, aimed, located,
designed, fitted, and maintained. Directional luminaries such as spot
lights, and sign lights shall be so installed and aimed that they
illuminate only the task and do not shine directly onto neighboring
properties, roadways, and distribute excessive light skyward."
"4. Facade Lighting: For the lighting of predominantly
non-horizontal surfaces, such as, but not limited to, facades,
landscaping, signs, billboards, fountains, displays, and statuary,
lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded and shall be installed and
aimed so as to not project their output into the windows of
neighboring residences, adjacent uses, past the object being
illuminated, or onto a public roadway. Lighting fixtures with an
aggregate rated lamp lumen output per fixture that does not exceed
1,000 lumens are exempt from the requirements of this paragraph."
Planner Deem recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to
the Township Board approval of the proposed changes.
Chairman Goldberg related he has one question. Some terms are
vague. For example outdoor lighting shall not be used to draw undue
and excessive attention to buildings, properties or appurtenances for
purposes, etc. That is kind of in the eye of the beholder as to what
is un-due and excessive. "Or to be used to compete for the
attention or cause distraction of physical discomfort". That will
vary from person to person. He asked Staff does this give us
sufficient clarity that a person reading this ordinance would
understand what type or things are allowed and what are not. Planner
Deem related the main purpose of the special use criteria is for
recreational lighting and that portion is basically a guide.
Chairman Goldberg related so that is to assist in interpreting.
Planner Deem responded yes, and to give direction for what purpose and
how the lighting should be.
Member Lewis related on that same subject he is surprised it is
under recreational lighting and does not appear in the regulations for
commercial buildings. It is possible to draw undue and excessive
attention to buildings through lighting. Planner Deem related he can
copy that section and put it in Section 4.34.
Member Robinson asked where would lighting trees come in. Planner
Deem related it would fall under facade or up lighting.
Member MacAllister related she is having a hard time with the
facade lighting with respect to we have asked a multitude of vendors
on 28th Street to not any up lighting at all on their facades. She is
struggling with allowing any up lighting on facades. We have seen
compliance with that. She related she does not have any problem with
facade lighting as long as it is downcast. Planner Deem related it is
covered in the section referring to downcast lighting.
Member McDonald related you are saying we should not have facade
lighting unless it is downcast. Member MacAllister responded yes and
it does not read that way in these proposed regulations. For example,
Bob Evans has roof lighting that is shining directly skyward.
Planning Director Peterson related it says "shall be fully
shielded and aimed". Member MacAllister related it does not say
"down".
Chairman Goldberg related in looking at the two sections downcast
lighting seems to be directed at parking lots and outdoor lighting has
to be so equipped, aimed and designed. He asked what does so equipped
mean. It refers back to parking lot lighting. It is not really talking
about other types of lighting when it says downcast. And then it says
directional luminaries such as spots and sign lights have to be aimed
so that they point. In the whole downcast lighting section he is not
sure where it refers to facade lighting. He asked Staff is there some
place where you think facade lights are dealt with in the downcast
lighting area.
Member McDonald related let's just require them to be down cast.
Planner Deem related he thinks it is there now.
Chairman Goldberg related he does not see it. It says for parking
lots we are going to have a certain type of fixture. Then it says all
outdoor lighting on any kind of property shall be so equipped. What
does so equipped mean.
Member McDonald suggested simply this by saying facade lighting
shall be downcast.
Chairman Goldberg related so in the third line you want to say
"shall be fully shielded and down cast" and shall be
installed and aimed. Chairman Goldberg related we would say the same
thing in Section 4.34 as well.
Member Robinson supported by Member MacAllister moved to open the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Rob Beahan of 3148 Thornapple River Drive related his two main
complaints have been billboards and lighting. He related this is a
step in the right direction to get downcast lighting. He wanted to
show his support for the proposed regulations.
Planner Deem related no phone calls or letters were received.
Member Lewis supported by Member Robinson moved to close the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Koessel spoke regarding the issue of downcast facade
lighting. He asked would that require lights on buildings to be
shielded down. With regard to signs along 28th Street they would be
allowed to attach lights to shine down. He thinks downcast is okay but
it might apply more to lights that are attached to the building.
Member McDonald related he believes that is covered by the 1,000
lumens.
Member Koessel asked what wattage is that. Planner Deem responded
60 watts. A 60 watt flood light is not equivalent to a 60 watt house
light. That's why we use lumens instead of watts.
Member Robinson related flag poles and lights on trees are way over
1,000 lumens. Planner Deem related they are not to use an excessive
wattage that illuminates past the flag.
Member McDonald asked if it would be helpful to have a sentence at
the end that says "this is not to preclude illuminating the flag
so long as it is not illuminating beyond the object being the
flag". Planner Deem believes it is already in there.
Chairman Goldberg asked that the sentence be repeated.
Member McDonald read it again. Chairman Goldberg related he is
reluctant to draft language at the meeting because it is not a good
idea. Adding the word "downcast" is fine.
Member MacAllister related she thinks the amount of lumens covers
it.
Member MacAllister supported by Member Lewis moved to approve the
lighting ordinance as presented with the addition of adding the word
"downcast" in line three of Item 2 and 4 Facade lighting.
Member Koessel related think it states it as far as the downcast
part. He is not sure that it is a lot different than the flag issue.
We have issues with lights pointed up. This would prevent that from
happening. If we were to allow an exterior facade light a sign so long
as it only lit the name of the company and didn't shine up I think it
has accomplished that through the shields that are in the ordinance.
He thinks the ordinance as it was proposed addressed that by the
shielding fact and that it can't project only on the object that it is
intended to.
Planning Director Peterson related adding downcast to the facade
may cause problems with lighting a flag because it would be more than
1,000 lumens. He still thinks it is addressed in the current language
of the facade lighting by not letting it go higher than what it is
aimed at.
Member Koessel related our issues in the past have been lights that
have shined up in the sky. The way this is written addresses that
without adding the word "downcast".
Member McDonald suggested having Staff add a sentenance that
government/state flags are exempt.
Member Koessel related he is comfortable with the way it was
presented regardless of the flag issue.
Member MacAllister related the way it was written without the
downcast added, it would still allow for commercial industry to light
up their building with ground lights. We have been very adamant about
not allowing landscape lights to be put on the ground and light up a
building completely. This does not address that.
Chairman Goldberg related there is another issue we discussed
earlier on adding the introductory phase about drawing undue and
excessive attention to buildings, properties and appurtenances. We
talked about taking that language and having it modify Section 4.34
and 19.19. He asked is that part of this motion.
Members MacAllister and Lewis related they will amend the motion to
add it.
Chairman Goldberg related the motion then would be the proposal as
written to take the modifying phrase about drawing undue and excessive
attention on the outdoor lighting shall not and the outdoor lighting
shall modify Sections 4.34 and 19.19 as well. And, the downcast phrase
is included in the motion.
The motion carried with Member Koessel casting a nay vote.
ARTICLE 7. Case #05-2712: Barnes Management
The applicant requested Basic Plan Review for a PUD rezoning of 1544
MacNider Avenue.
Planning Director Peterson related we first discussed this project
in April. At that meeting the applicant presented a new site plan that
addressed some of Staff's concerns. Staff has now had time to review
the new plan. The applicant also provided Options A and B of how the
entire area could be developed in the future. They are not proposing
to do any of that development. The concern was if this was to proceed
what was going to be left over and how would it be developed. Most of
the buildings do not have identified uses. The Master Plan identifies
this area as a mix of residential and office uses. Essentially this
new plan is the same as the former one. There are some comments from
the Fire Department and Township Engineer. Their comments are really
site plan issues that we would get into during the public hearing.
Staff suggested the project be ready to proceed to public hearing on
June 20, 2005.
Member MacAllister asked do they meet all the setbacks, drive
location, etc. Planning Director Peterson related the applicant has
addressed those concerns from the previous meeting.
Member MacAllister asked if there are any side walk requirements we
can look at. Planning Director Peterson related no, we don't have any
idea for sidewalks here. The bike path is on the other side of Cascade
Road.
Member Lewis asked about the traffic counts. Planning Director
Peterson related he did not know. Maybe this type of change needs a
traffic impact study. We have required other projects to do those. We
do not have a standard that says if it is this type of use we need
one. It has been a case by case basis. If the rezoning is going to
happen we need to see a plan that involves everything. Obviously the
applicant is reluctant to do that. Staff related it would not be a bad
idea to require a traffic study and center turn lane analysis prior to
public hearing.
Member Lewis related there has been a precedent for it in that
area. Some areas along Cascade Road have left hand turn lanes and some
do not. He does not like the way the left hand turn lanes are piece
meal.
Chairman Goldberg related there are no curb cuts on Cascade Road
for this development. This is an existing public street and traffic
would be added to MacNider. Planning Director Peterson related none of
the other previous projects had access directly to Cascade Road either
and they were required to install turn lanes.
Chairman Goldberg asked if this property is rezoned, then the rest
of the property along Cascade Road will also be rezoned. This is kind
of a jump here. We are stepping down Cascade Road and crossing another
street with development. That seems counter to the direction that the
township residents gave us during the Master Plan process and the
Cascade Road Corridor Study. Chairman Goldberg asked what is driving
this other than this particular applicant. Planning Director Peterson
related that would be a good thing to discuss at the public hearing.
This area is identified as mixed use PUD on the Master Plan map.
Chairman Goldberg related mixed use implies something other than
all commercial. If we don't see the entire development, we don't see
the mix in this PUD. If we see the entire parcel developed and saw
some being single family, some multi-family and office then it is a
true mixed PUD. If these developments continue to step out as office
after office, there will never be a buffer. The mixed use PUD offers a
buffer and smooth transition between office and residential. Planning
Director Peterson related he tends to agree and that is why it should
all come in together as one project. The applicant will have to
address those concerns at the public hearing.
Member MacAllister related at the April 4 Planning Commission
meeting, Staff asked the applicant to address internal landscaping in
the parking lot. She asked if that has been met. Planning Director
Peterson related he believes so, they have reduced their parking.
Roger Lamer of W.L. Perry Company was present for the applicant. He
related the Cascade Corridor Study requires office sites to be a
minimum of two acres. We looked at Option A as what could be the
maximum to meet the criteria for an office. Option A is the maximum as
what you would see as an office density versus residential. Option B
shows increasing the residential and having only two office buildings
along Cascade Road. We are proposing strictly office buildings and
single family residential. We did not do any multi-family in between
as a buffer.
Mr. Lamer related they only have control of the two acres that they
own. They cannot plan someone else's development. If they owned all
the parcels they could, at a maximum, have three 10,000 s.f. office
buildings. They feel they meet the criteria for an office building
along Cascade Road and would like to move forward to public hearing.
The realtor tried to get all the parties together but it did not work.
They have been working for nine months to get the parties together. We
only have control of this two acres. Mr. Lamer then handed out color
drawings. There is a lot of green area on the plan. He related the
setback is 100 feet from Cascade Road and 50 feet from the neighbor to
the east. We will attempt to save as many existing trees on the
property line and supplement with evergreen where needed. A green belt
is along MacNider. The parking lot drive is aligned with the drive
across from MacNider. This plan gives the best buffering from the all
sides. The parking lot lights will be down and shielded. The building
is one story masonry with split face block. Wood timbers will be used
at the entry way.
Member MacAllister related appreciate you clear buffer to east.
South side of property. That was biggest concern last time. Looks like
you have yews and not a great buffer. Biggest concern is where the
drive is adjacent to existing home. Mr. Lamer related adjacent lot in
there. I don't like tall shrubs. Your yard goes as far as you can see.
I don't believe in six foot high shrubs and walls in my yard because
it makes it look bigger.
Member MacAllister related her biggest concern was the buffer on
the south side of the property. Yews are not great buffers, especially
at a height of three feet. That is not going to shield large SUV's in
the parking lot. Mr. Lamer related he does not like tall shrubs in his
yard. It stops the view and makes your yard smaller. Your yard goes as
far as you can see. Member MacAllister would like to hear from the
residents on that.
Member Lewis supported by Member MacAllister moved to schedule the
public hearing for June 20. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Case #03-2459: Wal-Mart
The applicant requested permission to establish an outdoor garden
center in the parking lot at 5859 - 28th Street.
Planning Director Peterson related the temporary parking lot garden
center was approved a couple of years ago. All the conditions have
been addressed. The applicant did not do the garden center last year
because the brick facade was not finished. When Staff visited the
site, garden materials were outside of the fence. The applicant
submitted their application. They are asking for essentially the same
as approved before. Staff is recommending a six week time period
because they got ahead of themselves. He would like the start to be
May 2 to June 17. The rest of the conditions would apply. Planning
Director Peterson recommended approval.
Chairman Goldberg asked Staff if he spoke with the applicant about
the time period. Planning Director Peterson responded not officially.
The applicant did receive a copy of the Staff Report.
Member MacAllister related they have a lot of materials in the
front and asked if that is allowed. Planning Director Peterson related
that was the reason for his visit there. The materials have to be
inside the garden center or within the corral area. He related he
visited there tonight before the meeting and they are getting their
materials where they are supposed to be. That seems to be a constant
issue with Meijer also.
Tony Pierce, the store manager of Wal-Mart was present. He related
they would be thrilled to agree with Staff's proposal.
Member Koessel supported by Member Robinson moved to approve an
outdoor garden center in the parking lot from May 2 to June 17 in the
location depicted on the map and all Staff recommendations from the
original approval still apply.
Member Robinson asked if Wal-Mart has agreed to sign the sidewalk
construction agreement. Planning Director Peterson related they
already did that.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 9. Case #05-2724: Culver's of Cascade
The applicant requested site plan approval for a 4,500 s.f. restaurant
at 6300 - 28th Street, SE.
Planning Director Peterson related this project was recently
approved for Phase One of the Riebel Development project. Staff met
with them and they supplied us with all the follow up details on the
site plan. Staff recommended approval of the site plan with the
conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Member MacAllister related there was a discussion last time with
sidewalks. We can ask them to construct the sidewalks as they
construct the project. Planning Director Peterson related they agreed
to do that. We asked them to delay it because of the re-do of 28th
Street. The road will be torn up and an old asbestos sewer line will
be replaced. They agreed to put the sidewalks in after the road gets
re-built. The project will run from Kraft Avenue to Cascade Road in
2007.
Member Lewis related at the last meeting on this project we spent a
lot of time discussing the definition of fast food. Member Lewis
related he would like to share some knowledge he picked up since then.
The Mayor of Detroit proposed a tax on fast food. The Mayor's
definition of fast food is "food you pay for it before you get
it". That is exactly right. Member Lewis related maybe that is
the definition he was missing. In the future that is going to be the
definition he will work with.
Planning Director Peterson added to that. That is why we wanted to
discuss it early on the in the project because it has an impact on
parking. He wants the record clear that we did discuss it as a group.
We need to further refine it because we have no definition.
Chairman Goldberg asked Staff to bring a definition back. Planning
Director Peterson responded he has started a lot of that already.
Member MacAllister related she sees neon on the roof. Planning
Director Peterson related it is not prohibited. A few other
restaurants have it also.
Gary Kuhlman, the applicant, was present. He related he lives in
Cascade Lakes in Cascade Township. Also present is Dennis Brinks on
behalf of Riebel Development. Mr. Kuhlman thanked Staff for their help
and especially Steve Peterson on this project. They had three main
objectives for the final site plan: 1) maintained the preliminary plan
approved; 2) incorporate all Staff's recommendations; and 3) meet sign
requirements. Mr. Kuhlman then presented a picture of the Holland
location. He related due to the demographics of the area they bumped
out the main entrance and put in an ice cream parlor to seat 20 people
and upgraded the patio area. The front was also changed and the tower
(peak) was widened. They plan to break ground in mid-June of this year
and complete construction in October or November of this year. Mr.
Kuhlman related it is not neon lighting but LED similar to other
restaurants in the area. It goes under the eaves and outlines the
building. It is not on the roof. Planning Director Peterson related as
long as it is not flashing or moving we allow it.
Member Lewis clarified he would drive up and order a hamburger,
pay, park his car and someone brings it out. Mr. Kuhlman responded
that is correct, it takes about 4-5 minutes to bring food out to you.
Member Robinson supported by Member Lewis moved to grant site plan
approval for a 4,400 s.f. building at 6300 - 28th Street including the
following stipulations: 1) the applicant shall submit a landscape bond
in the amount of $20,000; 2) comply with the Township Engineer's
requirements; 3) apply for and receive a soil erosion permit prior to
construction; 4) obtain a driveway permit from the KCRC; and 5) comply
with the Fire Department requirements. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 11. Any Other Business
Planning Director Peterson updated the Commission on the Velting
lawsuit. He related a Court of Appeals opinion was received which was
favorable for the township. One item was remanded back due to a small
technicality. The lawsuit shows how important our standards and
findings of fact are.
Member McDonald related the walk signal at Cascade Road and
Thornapple River Drive is still not installed. That is a busy
intersection with the walkers and bikers during the spring and summer.
Planning Director Peterson will check on it.
Member Robinson related there is a sign in the front yard at
Medawar Jewelers. Planning Director Peterson related that is not
permitted and they have already received a violation notice.
Member MacAllister related over the weekend there were two Fort
Knox boxes in parking lots. Planning Director Peterson related he and
Member Beahan spoke about those this morning. They will be contacted.
Member Koessel related the utility subcommittee will meet again on
May 25 regarding sewer on Burton Street. There are several options.
Member Koessel also spoke regarding running a water line through
the Tammarron development to Thornapple Elementary School. The school
well has arsenic in the water.
ARTICLE 12. Adjournment
Member Lewis supported by Member MacAllister moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 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
 |
|
