Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, March 1, 2004
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Richards called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Goldberg, Jones, Koessel, Logue, MacAllister,
McDonald, Richards, Robinson.
Members Absent: Lewis (excused).
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Planner Deem, 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 Koessel and
supported by Member MacAllister.
ARTICLE 4. The Minutes of the February 17, 2004 meeting were
approved on motion by Member Robinson and supported by Member
Goldberg. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 5. The Township Board Minutes of February 11, 2004 were
received and filed.
ARTICLE 6. Case #04-2609: Cascade Engineering
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested Preliminary Plan approval in order to rezone
approximately 4.5 acres for an office use in the industrial zoning
district at 3400 Innovation Court, SE.
Member MacAllister asked to be excused due a conflict of interest.
She was excused and took a seat in the audience.
Planning Director Peterson presented the site. He located the
vicinity of the property. The request is generated by the fact that
the applicant would like to rezone the property to allow for an office
use. Planning Director Peterson related history of the property. The
applicant purchased this property in 2003. At that time, the purchase
included the subject building, which was part of and attached to a
large industrial building. The applicant split the property and sold
the large industrial building to Roskam Bakery. The building was
severed from the industrial building. The split was approved by the
Zoning Board of Appeals with the condition that the property remain in
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. There was some concern at that
time from the Zoning Board about creating a problem and violating the
Zoning Ordinance in the future if this parcel had a stand alone office
building. The way the current Zoning Ordinance is written, offices are
permitted in the industrial zoning district if they are on the same
piece of property as the industrial use.
Planning Director Peterson related he met with the applicant after
the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and discussed a solution. The
solution was to form a PUD for the project and combine this property
with other properties owned by the applicant in and around the
immediate area. There was some concern about an office building, which
could be bought and sold. The applicant has indicated in their
application materials their intent is to use these offices as their
corporate headquarters. The property has, in the past, been used for
Roskam's industrial site. The application states the applicant would
like to remove the non-conforming status although there is none. The
office use has always been a legal use because the building was
attached to the industrial use and the office use was for the
industrial use on the same property. Planning Director Peterson
pointed out on the map the properties he is suggesting be incorporated
into a PUD. Planning Director Peterson related there are three PUD's
in the area, which allow for office uses in the industrial zone: PUD's
46, 47 and 49. Staff does not consider the present request similar to
PUDs 46, 47 and 49.
Planning Director Peterson related particulars of the PUDs. PUD 46
has office uses, which are permitted. The property was developed in
the early 1970's before our current industrial regulations went into
effect. PUD 47 at Patterson & 36th Street was permitted based upon
some litigation the township was in regarding stormwater and drainage
issues. PUD 49 at Kraft and 36th Street was an old house and asked to
be rezoned for an office. Because of the existing residential use in
the industrial area, the township felt rezoning to office was more
compatible than keeping it residential.
Planning Director Peterson related doing a PUD including the other
four properties on 36th Street can accommodate the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant's materials indicate they do not want
to include the other properties into a PUD. The applicant is concerned
they would not be able to sell those properties in the future if the
need arose. Staff related since stand alone office buildings are not
allowed in the industrial zoning district it is not being limited. The
site was in total compliance prior to the property being split and the
actions by the applicant, which got us to this point. This is a
self-created situation by the applicant. Planning Director Peterson
related he has discussed this position and recommendation with the
Township Attorney who does agree this is a reasonable solution to the
request. The Township Attorney expressed some concern about rezoning
only the subject parcel to office and recommended the project be
rezoned only with the inclusion of other properties owned by the
applicant on 36th Street. Staff is opposed to an approval that would
allow the building to be rezoned for office by itself.
Chairman Richards related the subject property is not contiguous
with the other parcels and asked if that would be a problem. Planning
Director Peterson responded he confirmed that with the Township
Attorney and it would not be a problem.
Chairman Richards related he is struggling with this from a public
policy standpoint on why it is an issue to have an office in the midst
of an industrial area. He understands the precedent factors and
appreciates the background that Staff has given. He asked Staff if he
is aware of any public policy reasons why this would present a
problem. Planning Director Peterson responded some communities offices
are allowed in the industrial zoning district within certain
parameters. Areas are planned out for industrial uses and offices and
there are different uses associated with those, occupancy rates
differ, traffic, etc. There is a whole different aspect to one use
over another to say that it is something that would be absolutely
prohibited at all times if we allow this request.. We might want to
investigate what this community says is the right mix.
Chairman Richards related the material indicates you received some
complaints from other people in that area. Planning Director Peterson
related he did not receive any comments in regard to this public
hearing notice. A couple of complaints were received in 2003 regarding
the Zoning Board of Appeals request.
Chairman Richards related he is struggling with why anyone who has
a current industrial operation in that district would object if a
building that has been used as an office in the past and has been
vacant for a year proposes to be used again as an office. Planning
Director Peterson related the difference there was the building was
part of the industrial operation and was compliant with our
regulations.
Member Goldberg related the reason why would be the same reason
that farmers dislike it when residences move in next to them.
Sometimes there are odors, etc. associated with farming that become
unappealing to the residents and the residents complain about the
farmers being there. If I were an industrial user and an office use
went in next door to me I would be concerned that after awhile that
some of the unpleasantness associated with industrial operations would
begin to bug the people who are in the office building and they would
start to complain in a way that an office use associated with an
industrial facility might not have the incentive to do.
Staff related we have one industrial zone in Cascade. We do not
have a light and heavy zone.
Member Robinson agreed.
Member Koessel related if you have housing next to farming and you
go to sell your house, the buyer knows the farming operation is there,
it is the choice the buyer makes. It seems to me much more offensive
to build a farm next to a housing community. It would be the same
thing if you have office use and allow industrial to come in. The
office would be taking its own risk if it is zoned office because if
they do sell it some day - anyone using it as office would be
confronted with the issue of having an office in the industrial zone.
It may be a problem in the future.
Planning Director Peterson related with that same philosophy you
have the exact opposite that occurs. Residents that move out there are
at the township meetings saying we need to change the rules because we
don't like that.
Member Goldberg related that's why the State changed the law and
required language in deeds to disclose proximity to farming areas.
Planning Director Peterson related he tried to find a solution that
accommodates everyone. If this parcel is going to be part of the
Cascade Engineering corporate campus, then let's make it part of the
P.U.D.
The applicant was represented by Stephen Peterson Vice President of
Finance, Chuck Buursma, Facilities Director and Joe Maier. Mr.
Peterson related he would like to set some facts straight. They did
not purchase the whole building. The sellers are the ones that divided
it off. Cascade Engineering never owned the warehouse building,
although we were part of the transaction. We wanted just the office
building. We did meet with township staff and talked about it. The
property division was subject to us closing on the transaction within
a period of time. We met with Staff between the time the offer was
received and the closing to make sure we would not be stuck with a
building we would not be able to use. The Zoning Ordinance today says
you have to have training or research and development activities in
the PUD. We believe that to be too limiting. Mr. Peterson then
referred to Staff's memo to file. The Grooters PUD on 36th Street was
done in 1992. That was not developed under the 1978 ordinance. That
PUD was given to Grooters after he bought it from Foremost. It was to
fit an existing building that was already there. Foremost did have
some training in there. What we are asking for is no different than
what Grooters got in 1992. We have seven or eight properties which are
all industrial use. He asked if we tie them to a PUD what happens if
we want to sell a building.
Member Goldberg related that would depend on how the PUD Ordinance
is written. The ordinance could be written to say all of the uses have
to be maintained, or that at least one other use has to be maintained
along with the office use. It could be written any number of ways.
There would be flexibility there. Planning Director Peterson related
we have never prohibited people from selling a building in a PUD. He
chose those properties to be included because they are the closest
ones to the office building and some of the buildings cross over
property lines.
Member Goldberg suggested writing the Ordinance to require at least
one industrial property be maintained for the office use. If you allow
all the industrial pieces to be sold off, eventually the PUD would no
longer serve the purpose. Planning Director Peterson related he is not
saying it would have to be all these properties. It could be another
mix of their properties.
Mr. Peterson, the applicant, related they would like that
flexibility to have any property included. They are a business and
deal every day with competitive forces. We have to think of what this
will look like ten, fifteen or twenty years down the road. The other
problem is ownership. We pay taxes on the properties but we don't own
all of those properties. They are owned by a related party. All the
ones circled for the PUD are not owned by Cascade Engineering but by a
related entity.
Member Goldberg related the PUD addresses the uses that go on in
the buildings. They are in conjunction with one another but ownership
is another thing entirely.
Mr. Peterson related the complaining party in the prior request is
the person who owns the Grooters properties and who we sub-lease from.
He pointed out there are some uses that may be inappropriate. One of
the neighbors on Innovation Court is a data processing, internet type
company. That's not in a PUD. It is mixed use. It is in a leased
building. Cascade Engineering has supported the township for a long
time and has been a good business partner, one of the highest
taxpayers in the area. He questioned why Cascade Engineering would get
different treatment than a real estate developer who came in and
developed the property next to them. The other question is the
flexibility. Our intent is not to use this as an office building but
as a corporate headquarters. We are trying to do green buildings and
support the environment. He questioned if the corporate headquarters
should be moving somewhere else although that is not their desire.
They do want to be close to the plants. In 20 years they don't want to
be stuck with an office building that does not work according to
zoning.
Chairman Richards related there is no question Cascade Engineering
is a valued member of our community and has contributed tremendously
in many ways. It seems obvious Cascade Engineering would want to have
their corporate offices close to their plants and it would be in the
best interests of everyone to make that happen. There have been some
procedural concerns about how that can be accomplished and still
comply with our ordinances and preserve the integrity of our zoning
system. Staff has made a recommendation where they could amend the PUD
to incorporate this parcel along with nearby but not contiguous
parcels. That achieves the applicant's goal of having their
headquarters in close proximity and achieves everyone's goals of
utilizing a vacant building and using it consistently with what it has
been in the past. The only substantive problem is it may make that
office building less marketable in the distant future. He feels that
could be dealt with at that time.
Mr. Peterson, the applicant, related as long as we have the
flexibility to sell off plants and still have a presence in that
zoning area it would be okay. There is more mixed use around. We are
an office building in an industrial park. We are trying to put it to a
higher better use than what most zoning districts would do. He
suggested the township needs to look at the zoning district to allow
offices in the industrial areas.
Planning Director Peterson related it would not necessarily mean
this would be a permitted use in the industrial zone. If we
investigate the idea of permitting office in the industrial zoning
district, the final recommendation might not be that the situation we
have in front of us would be a permitted use.
Member Goldberg asked would this office building meet the office
zone requirements? Planning Director Peterson related he did not look
at that.
Joe Maier, corporate controller for Cascade Engineering, responded
they looked at that. It would meet the office zone requirements. There
is a problem in the zone of trying to have a facility not connected.
Member Koessel asked Staff the industrial zoning district talks
about office provided on the same site as an industrial use. He asked
was that parcel previously used for Roskam. Planning Director Peterson
responded yes and was attached to the industrial building.
Member Koessel asked when that property was split out, it is not
clear as to why the split was approved contingent upon Cascade
Engineering purchasing that property. Planning Director Peterson
responded it was not contingent upon them purchasing the property.
Cascade Engineering was the applicant for that request. When you split
a piece of property you have a certain number of days to record the
property split. That was the requirement.
Member Koessel asked has that building ever been used for anything
other than office. Planning Director Peterson responded he did not
believe so. It is a 30,000 s.f. building.
Mr. Peterson, the applicant, related the building was on the market
for two years. It was difficult to find a buyer.
Member Koessel asked the applicant, if we could provide you with
some assurances and language that we would recommend adoption by the
Township Board relative to the other parcels Staff is recommending
being included in the PUD, do you see any of that eliminating your
concern. Member Koessel related it may not be desirable for anyone
else to buy it as an office because of it being in an industrial zone.
You would be getting the property to use as a corporate office which
is what you want. It seems to be a win for you and a win for the
Township. Mr. Peterson, the applicant, responded he wanted to deal
with the issues he sees and get them behind him. The township's
proposal is not our desire but we could live with it. It gets down to
the building's marketability at a future date.
Member Goldberg related he would like to see that happen. The other
point is the previous owner was in the same position then that you
would be in now. It would have a depressed value just because of the
zoning the way it is. You bought it at a depressed value just as you
would have to sell 20 years from now at depressed value if the zoning
remained the same. Mr. Peterson responded the difference is the shape
the building was in when we bought it. We have increased the value. We
want to put a few more million dollars into it.
Member Logue asked what is the age of the building. Mr. Peterson
responded 20 years. Member Logue related there is a Special Use Permit
for freestanding office buildings on substandard parcels or lots in
existence prior to the effective date of this ordinance. He asked if
any of that could be applied here. Planning Director Peterson asked
what is substandard about it.
Member Logue responded for buildings in existence prior to 1989. He
asked could this office building be grandfathered in because it was in
existence before 1989? Planning Director Peterson related there is one
important critical aspect and that is this building was the Roskam
site. It was not a freestanding office building. Physically it was
attached to the warehouse. The only time it became disconnected is
through these transactions by Cascade Engineering.
Member Logue asked do we have a legal split on the industrial
portion. Planning Director Peterson responded yes, we have a split for
creating these parcels contingent upon the fact they use the parcels
in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Director Peterson clarified this would not be an amendment
to a PUD, it would be creating a PUD Ordinance. There is no PUD in
existence.
Member Robinson related it seems what Members Goldberg and Koessel
say seems to make sense. The applicant will get what they want and we
will be protecting the concerns of the Planning Commission. Member
Robinson related his concern is by setting it up as a separate entity
as we are talking about, it could be resold as an office building. We
want office buildings in the industrial area to be connected with
industrial uses.
Member Jones related from a practical standpoint, we already have a
mixed use industrial area. It is not heavy smoke stack industry but
probably more of an office park, manufacturing park, mixed use. From a
practical standpoint to try to rezone it so you could break out this
little area for office would be pretty difficult to do right now. That
would work better for areas that are undeveloped. Member Jones related
he agrees with Members Robinson, Koessel and Goldberg. It would be
best to leave it as proposed by Staff.
Mr. Peterson, the applicant, related he has not heard a good,
logical reason for what would be bad for this being an office
building.
Member McDonald related one reason is the concern of getting owners
of five other properties in the industrial district saying they want
to slice off a little piece and make it an office building. That could
happen. It would be precedent setting.
Member Robinson supported by Member Koessel moved to open the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Staff related he received no comments.
There being no one present to speak on the matter, Member Koessel
supported by Member Goldberg moved to close the public hearing. The
motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Richards related his position is he understands the
theoretical concerns at issue about spot zoning. He can't answer the
applicant's question as far as practical problems that would result
from this if we granted the application. As a practical matter, the
area is pretty much built out now. If Cascade Engineering should
choose to market this property as an office building in the future,
anybody they would be selling it to would know that there are
industrial operations around them. This building has been an office
building since it was built. It has been vacant and this would be an
opportunity for the applicants to utilize a vacant building. They are
going to make substantial improvements in this property which will
benefit everyone. Chairman Richards related he is inclined to grant
the PUD. Staff's compromise has some merit but he thinks the concerns
are more theoretical than real and the compromise is not necessary.
Member McDonald related everybody is right here. He asked Chairman
Richards if he preferred a PUD that allows this to be a stand alone
office rather than amending the Zoning Ordinance or creating a new
zoning ordinance that allows stand alone offices. Chairman Richards
responded that is one of the alternatives. Member McDonald related we
would be better off allowing this one as an office building and not
changing the zoning for the entire township. Chairman Richards related
the simplest solution is to grant the PUD and allow this to be used
for office space regardless of whether or not it is connected to a
large industrial building or anything in the close proximity. The
compromise is to tie it to Cascade Engineering's other industrial
plants which are very close but not immediately adjacent. The
applicant expressed some concern if he has to sell off one or more of
those plants. The proposed compromise on that score is to allow them
to do that so long as any one of those buildings would remain as an
industrial use. If you sold off all of them and could not tie your
headquarters to an industrial use, then you would run into a problem.
He is not inclined to tie it to the other ones.
Member Goldberg related we are getting confused and mixing up two
concepts - use and ownership. They can always sell any of these
parcels. The key is the office building needs to be used in
conjunction with an industrial use being carried on by the same user
as the office building. Ownership is irrelevant. We are talking about
use. You look at the use that goes on in the two buildings. If you
have a series of buildings in this PUD and you have a condition in
your PUD that one of the buildings in the PUD can be used for office
purposes only, if that use is being carried on in conjunction with an
industrial use that is going on in one of the other buildings in the
PUD. That is the condition we are talking about.
Chairman Richards related that is the correct analysis. Assuming
that all of the buildings that are on the map would become part of the
PUD under Staff's proposal. If Cascade Engineering terminates its
lease on all those buildings and moves out of them, then Cascade
Engineering will have to move out of the office building whether it
wants to or not.
Member Goldberg related they could come to this Board and ask to
incorporate an industrial non-contiguous parcel they have in the
township as part of the PUD or move to amend it and remove the
restriction.
Member Logue related it seems we are trying to fit an anomaly to
the rules instead of allowing for the existence of this building as
its use. Maybe it would be better to add something else saying
corporate offices are allowable.
Member Robinson related they are allowable under the ordinance as
long as they are connected to an industrial use in the area. He asked
Staff if we have the authority to establish a PUD for a business
office in the industrial use area under the present ordinance
regulations. Member Robinson does not believe we do.
Planning Director Peterson related if that is the direction we are
going, we should be looking at our Ordinance to see if it needs some
changes. This building was always in compliance.
Member Robinson related he believes Staff's proposal is the only
way we can go at this time. He does not think we can establish a PUD
for an office use in the industrial area under the current ordinance.
Staff related if you are going to do a PUD for just this one office
building we could just rezone that parcel to office.
Member Koessel related the Planning Commission can't do anything,
we can make a recommendation to the Township Board. The Township Board
has to approve it. Member Koessel related he does not think the
Township Board would approve a motion by the Planning Commission to
allow this to be office use on this one parcel. Member Koessel related
he believes it is practical to look at amending the ordinance down the
road and amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow for that kind of use
in fully developed industrial zones.
Member Koessel supported by Member Goldberg moved to grant
preliminary plan approval as Staff has recommended to rezone the
parcels to PUD identified as 5185, 5175, 5141, 5061 and 5055 - 36th
Street, and ask Staff to develop a PUD Ordinance granting the
applicant flexibility in the Ordinance to allow for sale of parcels as
long as they would be used for a conforming use. Member Koessel asked
the Township Board along with this motion to look at the practicality
of allowing some corporate office use within industrial zones.
Planning Director Peterson asked would it be all right to discuss
with the applicant if it is not all five parcels but only three
parcels? Members Koessel and Goldberg both approved the suggestion and
related even more than five parcels would be okay.
Member Logue related he understands these parcels are leased by the
applicant and not owned. He does not know how the owners of these
parcels would like the zoning changed on their land. Planning Director
Peterson related all the tax bills for those parcels go to the same
person. Mr. Peterson, the applicant, related they have triple net
leases. Member Goldberg related they would have to join the
application.
Chairman Richards related it is not going to affect what happens
with the industrial properties Cascade Engineering is currently
leasing on 36th Street by being part of this PUD. It says they can use
those corporate offices and the stand alone building only as long as
Cascade Engineering has industrial activities going on in those
parcels.
Member Koessel asked is the ownership of the office building the
same as the properties on 36th Street? The applicant responded no.
Member Jones related he sees this as a unique situation. There may
be a few other similar situations in the township. Because of that
uniqueness, if this owner came back and said they want to sell the
office building to another party, the Planning Commission and Township
Board would have to take a closer look at what the new use would be.
The door is not closed on that possibility.
Member Goldberg offered the applicant is perplexed by the Grooters
situation and how it differs from this situation. The Grooters
situation was in fact a non-conforming situation. When that building
was constructed it was used as a stand alone office unconnected with
industrial use in that area. Then the Ordinance was passed which said
from now on if you are going to have office you can only have it in
conjunction with an industrial use in the area. The Grooters building
was grandfathered as a non-conforming use under that ordinance change
when it was passed. Then Grooters came in and said I want to buy the
building and continue to use it for office unconnected with an
industrial use. Cascade Engineering's use was totally conforming under
the ordinance as ancillary to an industrial use. Because of this
applicant's purchase and separation of those two buildings there is a
non-conforming situation that has been created.
Member McDonald asked why can't we just do a PUD for this office
building by itself as long as the applicant has other industrial
buildings in the township. Planning Director Peterson related it would
be extremely difficult to administer something like that. The
requirement is that the office be located on the same parcel. This
office use will not even be on the same parcel.
Member Goldberg related a site can be two contiguous parcels as
long as the parcels are reasonably close and functionally related.
The motion carried with Members Logue and Richards casting nay
votes and Member MacAllister abstaining.
Chairman Richards related his reason for the nay vote is not
because he is opposed to use this office. He feels it would be simpler
to rezone this single parcel as office. Chairman Richards asked Member
Jones to relate that to the Township Board when this comes up for
review. Should the Township Board determine they would not want to
zone this specific parcel as a separate PUD, he will favor the
compromise presented tonight.
ARTICLE 7. Case #04-2614: East Imports
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested an amendment to the newly adopted PUD
Ordinance regarding signs at 6015 - 28th Street, SE.
Member Logue disclosed he does own property within 300 feet of this
site but has no bias in the matter. Chairman Richards related as long
as there is no direct financial interest it is not technically a
conflict. He appreciates Member Logue's disclosure.
Planning Director Peterson related the applicant is requesting to
have an additional sign on the building of 28 square feet, and at the
same time, remove 28 s.f. from the pole sign. Staff recommended
approval of the request as it is consistent with the Sign Ordinance
and feels that smaller pole signs by the street are consistent with
the Sign Ordinance. The PUD amendment language is in Staff Report.
The applicant was represented by Monica Sekulich. She had nothing
to add but was present to answer questions.
Chairman Richards disclosed he and Ms. Sekulich used to work
together.
Member Koessel supported by Member Robinson moved to open the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Gerald Scheper who owns the building across the street was in
attendance.
Member Goldberg supported by Member Koessel moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Goldberg supported by Member Koessel moved to recommend the
PUD be amended as recommended by Staff. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Any Other Business
Planning Director Peterson referred to the article in the packet
regarding lot sizes.
Member Goldberg thanked Member Jones for representing the Planning
Commission views at the Township Board meeting and noted he has done a
nice job of carrying the Planning Commission's views forward.
Member MacAllister asked if the signage at Brann's Restaurant is in
compliance. Planning Director Peterson responded yes, it is in a PUD
as well. They obtained a sign permit.
ARTICLE 9. Adjournment
Member Goldberg supported by Member Robinson moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:39 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
 |
|
