Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, March 15, 2004
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Richards called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Goldberg, Jones, Koessel, Lewis, Logue, MacAllister,
McDonald, Richards.
Members Absent: Robinson (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 Lewis. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Minutes of the March 1, 2004 meeting were corrected
on page 12, next to the last paragraph. The first sentence in the
paragraph will read as follows: "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." With
that correction, Member Lewis supported by Member McDonald moved to
approve the Minutes as corrected. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 5. The Township Board Minutes of February 25, 2004 were
received and filed.
ARTICLE 6. Case #03-2550: Select Bank/James Karrip
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested an exception to our private street ordinance
to allow a split on a non-conforming private street. This split would
also create more than 19 homes on a dead end street without connection
to another public street. The property is located at 7435 Ventura
Drive.
Chairman Richards: The applicant is requesting an exception to our
private street ordinance to allow a split at the end of Ventura Drive
on the Thornapple River. This matter is noticed for public hearing. I
don't know how many of you folks in the audience are here to address
the Commission on that topic. But those of you who are, you'll be
given an opportunity according to our procedures. First we ask our
Staff to make a presentation then we give the applicant an opportunity
and then we subsequently open it up for public comment at that time.
So if you can just hold your thoughts, when we get to the public
hearing part we'll open it up and recognize each of you in turn. With
that - does the Staff want to address the Commission with respect to
this?
Planning Director Peterson: Yes. Maybe just a little bit of
background on this too because I'm sure some are wondering why we are
here for this. If you remember, about a year ago, the applicant was in
front of us for a essentially the same thing. If you remember it was
only after the meeting was noticed for public hearing did we realize
our newly adopted Private Street Ordinance did not allow for
exceptions from the number of units on a dead end road. And that of
course was not the intention and when we drafted the rules to the
Private Street Ordinance. Then last year the Township Board amended
the ordinance that would allow owners to seek relief for all lesser
elements. It does not approve this request but simply allows owners to
seek relief for that matter. If you remember - I know the Planning
Commission discussed the matter at some length with the neighbors who
were here but in regards to this particular request we're kind of
right where we should have been quite some time ago. That's really the
reason why we are here. The exception request would be to some of
these standards for the private road rules - it's not to approve a lot
split. That, of course, is what triggers the upgrade of the private
road. But we are not reviewing the lot split in and of itself. Simply
a request to make some modifications if you will or not to make
modifications to the private road. As I mentioned, the road to get our
bearings on the map. This is Thornapple River Drive, here's Oliver
Woods, you can see Laraway Lake right off here. Here's Ventura - the
street we are talking about. Obviously over here on the right is the
river. The parcel in the heavy black outline parcel is the parcel in
question. The rest of all these homes are on Ventura including this
one down here as well as another home as well as a lot right here.
These two parcels on the corner have Thornapple River Drive addresses
although this one has it's driveway off from Ventura. This one has a
driveway for both. Adding up all of these parcels that have frontage
or access to - because for instance this lot doesn't have any frontage
but is accessed by way of an easement. I believe the total number is
21 lots that are on Ventura right now. Again, this is the lot we're
talking about. They would like to be able to split in some fashion
about like that. Obviously that number right now there's too many
units on this dead end road according to the private road regulations.
Adding another parcel requires that the road be upgraded. Also, the
right-of-way for this road is 24 feet. As you know the minimum amount
of right of way is 66 feet. For some of these old, existing private
roads having less than the required amount of right-of-way is not that
uncommon. The road itself is 20 feet from edge of pavement to edge of
pavement. Our requirement is 18 so that's fine. The other item it
really lacks is it does not have a turn around. There is a sort of an
island turn around at the end. If you made it out there but even that
of itself does not meet our standards. When I measured it, it is about
50 feet in diameter across. Of course with an island in the middle.
The travel lanes themselves are about 12 feet. Our requirement for a
cul-de-sac turn around with no island is a 60 foot diameter. We also
allow for the type with landscaping in the middle. This does not meet
those specifications in terms of the turning radius or the width of
the travel lane. I've met with the applicant. This piece of property
is owned by Select Bank. Mr. Karrip is here and he has a purchase
agreement to buy this piece of property. I've met with him and
discussed the project and he has indicated he would be willing to
construct a turn around in this area right here - one that meets our
specifications in order to do the lot split. It does appear from at
least from what I've seen that there couldn't be any improvements back
here without having some sort of approval from the neighbors. In
particular this neighbor right here - who would have to give a
right-of-way to either do and expand a turn around at this location or
possibly use this neighbor up here and expand the turn around in this
location or to even extend the private road onto the applicant's own
property to provide for some sort of turn around here would take the
agreement of - at a minimum - it appears this neighbor just to be able
to extend the existing road and be able to put the turn around here or
somewhere in here. At a minimum it appears they would need to work
with the neighbors to be able to provide that. I haven't heard from
any of the neighbors who are in support of the request. I know we
mentioned to the applicant to possibly canvas the neighborhood before
he comes in here to find out what the consensus is and see if there
can be anything worked out prior to coming here so you could have a
plan for what they attempt to do. Obviously, that hasn't taken place.
I know the applicant is giving you a small little sketch of some sort
of idea for what they might want to do in terms of improving the
existing turn around. The piece of property in this whole neighborhood
of course is zoned R-2, Residential. These are unplatted parcels where
the minimum lot size requirement is 18,000 s.f. Just looking at these
parcels here on the north side of the road - these are all generally
in about a half acre range. Some of them are a little smaller - some
might be a little bigger. There are a couple of little larger ones on
the south side of the road. As you can see the neighborhood here a
little to the north is about the same parcel size - one-half an acre
would get you about 22,000 s.f. in size. Some of these are a little
smaller as I mentioned. That's essentially what the idea that the
neighbor would have to meet here in meeting our zoning requirements
for lot size requirements. If you look at the rest of the properties
that are on this road, it looks like there is very little opportunity
for there to be further divisions without there being some major
change to a parcel like we had in this one where they have torn down
the house and being able to split it rises that opportunity. There may
be one, possibly two parcels, but it looks like they would have to do
essentially something similar because of how the parcels are
configured with homes on them right now. The way our private road
rules are written, this parcel of course, can be built on today
without having to do any improvements to the private road. It's simply
again their request to create an additional parcel that triggers the
private road regulations. Ventura does not have any public sewer or
water. Of course not having public water sort of seems to be a
criteria we've talked about in the past in terms of being a plus or
minus in regards to allowing more units on a dead end road than
normally would be allowed. Without public water and without having an
adequate turn around makes it difficult when emergency vehicles need
to shuttle vehicles in and out of the subdivision if need be. As I
mentioned, one of the reasons for revising the procedures that we did
a couple of years ago was to get input from the neighbors. In the
past, these private road exceptions went straight to the Township
Board with the applicant present. We wanted to hold a public hearing
in order to get feedback from the neighbors and especially to notify
the neighbors as to what was going on. On some of these private road
matters it seems to be difficult at times and depending upon what kind
of arrangements that the neighborhood has in regards to the private
roads we wanted to be able to bring all of the neighbors in regarding
the impact of the change. As I mentioned, all the comments I've
received have been opposed to any kind of allowance for a lot split
even if they provided for the turn around. It doesn't sound like
anything I've heard is in favor of that. As I mentioned, you really
don't have an accurate drawing of what exactly is being proposed. As
the applicant puts it they would be willing to construct a turn around
at the end of the street per our requirements. A few other requests -
I know we've only seen a couple of these because of the ordinance
change but the Board has seen several of these and over the years I
would say typically things like this would be something that would be
permitted. We have granted several exceptions for the private road
regulations. However, the Board has always had the applicant perform
some sort of an upgrade to the road - whether that be a portion of it
being widened - a turn around - having portions of it paved, etc.
Given the fact that the road has an inadequate turn around and isn't
served by public water, it seems to be that the turn around at the end
would be the biggest improvement. The turn around could be built in
either in its existing location with agreement of the neighboring
property owners or possibly send it on to his own property. Again,
with agreement with at least one neighboring property owner and Staff
suggests we would permit the split - permit the applicant to apply for
the split - only in exchange for an improved turn around at the end of
the road. That the applicant show us exactly how and where that would
be done prior to this being forwarded to the Township Board. Again
this is a recommendation you make to the Township Board, they will be
the final decision maker in regards to the request.
Chairman Richards: Thank you Mr. Peterson. I have a question
regarding the Staff's recommendation. You say in your report that the
applicant's willing to install a turn around in exchange for approval
and that the turn around can also be built on the applicant's property
if necessary. How would it be built if it is not on the applicant's
property?
Peterson: They could build it essentially where it is today - sort
of in this area right here.
Chairman Richards: But they would have to get the rights of the
other people.
Peterson: Yeah and I think they will even have to do that even to
extend it onto their own. Because then they would have to extend the
private road sort of in this fashion right here crossing this property
owner right here.
Chairman Richards: Who owns the little island that is in the middle
of that turn around? (From the audience: we do.)
Chairman Richards: Hang on - we'll get to the public hearing in a
minute. Does the applicant own it?
Peterson: I'm sure it's this one. No. I don't believe so. That turn
around is essentially on this piece of property - the neighbors can
correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this person right here the turn
around comes around this way and the trees I believe are right in
here. I don't think all of this turn around is in the existing
easement from the paper work I've seen.
Audience: For clarification, basically the private drive…..
Chairman Richards: Hang on, sir, sir, sorry - I appreciate it I
know you are trying to be helpful here but we do have this procedure.
We will call on you folks during the public hearing. If the
alternative then is to have the applicant build this turn around -
where would it go? On the applicant's property?
Peterson: I suppose up in here somewhere.
Richards: You also say that the approval would have to be
conditioned upon any necessary agreements with the neighbors - would
have to be taken care of. As you mentioned, we've run into this issue
before on private roads. What is your understanding of what necessary
agreements there would have to.
Peterson: Well in this particular case they would have to extend an
easement and include an easement into this guys property. Obviously
that's encumbering his piece of property more so than it is today.
They would even have to work out that agreement with this person if
they build a cul-de-sac turn around and it also encompasses a portion
of this guys property they would have to do the same thing here. You
know we've had other developments where they've improved these
existing private roads like this but you have to remember when you do
that you don't just build the turn around you have to encase that if
you will inside the private road easement. So that would have to be
addressed depending on how they if they could work it out or not that
would have to be addressed with those neighbors.
Richards: Well I remembered to bring my dueling laser here tonight
so I can zap this thing too. What about all these folks? Is there a
maintenance agreement like we've run into before - that everyone has
to sign off on it?
Peterson: Yes, they do have a maintenance agreement out there.
Richards: And so, do we have any idea of what that provides? Do
they have to all sign off on adding the additional ….
Peterson: Not from what I've seen. It's simply says it is a cost
sharing arrangement setting up some real basic maintenance agreement
for the private road.
Member Goldberg: it would have to be properly maintained.
Richards: I'm looking for clarification. When you say there's any
necessary agreements as far as you know that necessary agreement would
be just obtaining the easement from the adjoining properties to
install the turn around.
Peterson: to include any additional properties that may be needed
in order to accommodate the turn around.
Richards: Okay but you're not suggesting that all the neighbors on
Ventura Drive have to agree to this?
Peterson: No. I haven't seen anything in their documents that says
that's needed.
Richards: What about revised plan? I mean procedurally you are
asking us to make a recommendation to the Board without having seen a
revised plan?
Peterson: Yeah, I don't have a plan of how Mr. Karrip exactly plans
to take care of that. But I would suggest before it would be sent to
the Board that we would have such a plan.
Richards: So it would have to come back to us again?
Peterson: It wouldn't have to - you could do that. If you want to
see exactly how it's going to be laid out - that's fine. The Township
Board certainly will hold another meeting - that could be laid out for
the neighbors.
Richards: Does anyone else have any questions of Staff regarding
this approval?
Koessel: I do Mr. Chairman. This is different than the one we
looked at out off of 28th Street in what manner?
Richards: If I can jump in I think the difference is they had a
neighborhood association
Koessel: But no private road agreement?
Peterson: Well they had a maintenance agreement. I think in theirs
they had something that 75% vote in order to make some changes or
something.
Koessel: I thought unless I misunderstood that whole meeting the
neighbors didn't want to do this because they didn't want to have a
private road agreement because in the event the township would have
had the right to come in we would have to bring them up to conformity
with the current ordinance.
Peterson: Yeah I think a lot of the discussion seemed to revolve
around the setting up of the private road as a potential agreeing to a
special assessment district. That seemed to be the sticking point.
Koessel: Okay and explain how this is different then.
Peterson: Well I haven't seen anything in their existing
maintenance agreement that has that same thing as we talked about at
that meeting. I don't think that was the original intention to include
these non con-forming roads. You know that was intended for the new
developments to make sure that would be developed into their private
road association rules.
Richards: That street had a lawyer that lived on it too. Mr. Deem -
did you want to jump in here?
Planner Deem: I think the main difference for that Foxfire request
- the number of lots that were on that road were less than the number
of lots that are allowed. In this case, a split here would go over the
private road requirements. In that case there was only a total of
something like ten lots, I believe. I think that was one of the major
differences between that request and that request.
Peterson: I think in regards to the infrastructure of the road I
think that was a turn around as well.
Koessel: A turn around as well but then it was also the private
agreement and the special assessment. We wanted to try to - that was
an existing situation too but we were trying to get them to bring that
up to our current standards. That was a stumbling block. So this -
we're not talking about that here.
Richards: Hang on just a second - Lorissa.
Member MacAllister: I just wanted to say that based on this layout
of the turn around - it seems as though that's the biggest piece of
this discussion and I really don't feel comfortable reviewing it with
the drawing that we've been presented with any options.
Richards: Mr. Goldberg.
Member Goldberg: I just want to ask a question of Staff. By
suggesting that you looked at their private road agreement and don't
see anything in there that would require the agreement of the
neighbors other than those whose property would actually be encroached
on by a turn around - I mean we're not in the business of making legal
determinations on things like that. I read your condition to be
whatever agreements are necessary in order to obtain the right to do
this would be the agreements that any approval would be conditioned
upon and we're not saying one way or another whether that particular
agreement would include those other property owners who are part of
the private maintenance agreement or not. Because I can see points
both ways on that.
Goldberg: Then we would have to look at that because it seems to me
there's really a couple of different ways you could see that. You
could say well the agreement doesn't say they have to have 75%
approval or whatever. But you could also look at it that they've
agreed to split the maintenance costs on a road that exists in its
present condition and when you add additional roadway that needs to be
maintained you, in effect, increase the cost of maintenance and maybe
these people don't want to increase the cost of maintenance. I don't
know. So, I guess I wouldn't prejudge that issue based on what I've
heard so far.
Richards: Does anyone else have any questions for Staff? Okay.
Thank you Mr. Peterson. I guess at this point then I would invite a
motion to open the public hearing. Sorry, thank you thank you. I
almost cut out the applicant there. Is the applicant here and would
you like to address the Commission? Please state your name and
address.
James Karrip: My name is Jim Karrip and I live at 2955 Reeds Lake
Boulevard in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Anybody want to hear the story of
why I'm here?
Richards: Sure.
Karrip: It's a fascinating story. Actually I was in the process of
acquiring this property from Select Bank due to a foreclosure sale. In
the process of that sale and redemption period somebody else thought
they owned the property and hired a demolition man to go in and we
changed the locks on a Thursday I think it was and came back on Monday
and lo and behold the house was gutted. They took the hot tub, the
kitchen, they gutted it - walls - almost to a point where it was torn
down. At that point in time I entered into negotiations with the bank
and Mr. Peterson - the short version -and discuss whether or not it
was relevant - obviously there were lawsuits involving the applicant
and the person who tore it down and Mr. Courtade and got into
lawsuits. I'm not sure where the resolution is going to end up there.
I went to see Steve during that time the house was sitting there half
gutted and half broken down - windows out and it looked terrible. I
asked him with my realtor to see what was the potential to split this
lot. At that time Steve and I had a lot of discussion - I did the
proper due diligence and provided a survey - opened the book - looked
through the whole thing - don't see a problem with this at all. I tear
the house down. Upon Mr. Deem's inspection, counting the number of
houses found out there was a mistake made. There were too many houses
on the street and now I can't split the lot. Well, I already tore the
house down. Subject to that do diligence I did with him. So we got
some negotiations. I'm very friendly - frankly I'm not here to make
anyone's life miserable and I'm not crying poor victim because it is
my business and what I do so things happened. But this has certainly
been the most bizarre escapade I've been on in quite some time. So the
process now we're in the middle of a lawsuit with a bank involved and
the township telling me it's okay due diligence and supply a survey
and here I stand. I would not have torn this house down - I probably
would have taken another avenue had I known we could not split it. The
reason we tore it down was to mitigate the costs - sell the back lot
off and put up a house there to try to recover somehow. And obviously
I created a lot of anxiety for the neighbors which I had no intention
of doing. Mr. Kearns I spoke with him - he's the only neighbor I spoke
to - nice enough guy - his dog bit me though. Actually I'm not here to
cause any trouble for anybody or create a hardship. I'm caught in a
situation here that's been just I can't even begin to tell you the
money that we spent screwing around with lawyers, lawsuits and I have
no idea where the lawsuits are going to go. That's why I'm asking you
for the split. I feel the error was made and I would not have done
what I did with the house had I not gotten a recommendation that was
okayed. I supplied him the survey and the whole nine yard and the next
thing I know after I tore the house down well I made a mistake. I'm
not mad at Steve - we're friends. I've been in the office a lot of
times and it's just something that happened. I'm just asking somebody
to help me out and make it right. If I have to do something with the
neighbors in terms of providing something I'm happy to spend money on
the engineering. But as you all know engineering costs a lot of money
so before I get to that stage I would like to have some idea that hey
maybe this will work out and maybe it won't before I spend $3,000 in
engineering to find out I can't. I've done all the title work - I'm
not sure I don't have the title policy back from the bank - to find
out who all the people are that own the little turn around that
exists. I've provided Steve with a survey that Exxel people have
actually put that on something to look at to tell me what it looks
like. I don't know if you have copies of that or not. But again, I'm
not here to make anyone's life miserable but I'm trying to figure out
how to get whole out of this whole mess.
Richards: Let me ask you a couple of questions here Mr. Karrip.
Staff is recommending that we approve this subject to your agreement
to build an improved turn around. I'm having problems envisioning what
this turn around would look like. Would you plan to tear out that
little island with the trees and pave it all over or…
Karrip: No, I don't like change either. I live over around Reeds
Lake and I'm very sensitive to the environment to walk in and see the
trees and that's a goal of ours is to preserve trees so I'm very
sensitive to all those issues. I don't what I could do there. I
haven't done enough engineering. But if I could turn it on - there's
an "L" shaped or some sort of a configuration that's in the
approved turn arounds by the township it would go onto the property in
the back corner there. I would then utilize my own property. I'm not
asking anybody to give up any property. I'm not trying to make
anyone's like miserable or create anxiety for anybody around there. If
it's to be left alone I think that would be better for everybody -
whatever house would go there would be a real nice house. I would even
let them be involved with some of the specifications of what they
thought could be built there. Instead of putting up a pre-fab or some
piece of junk house it will be real nice. It will improve the value of
the neighborhood. That's one or two more cars coming down the road. I
don't know how many people have cars or multiple cars I would be
willing to do a traffic study to see if the road warrants it. I would
pay for that. I don't know what the answer would be to do the do
diligence to get to a point where it makes sense - I just feel that
during this whole process I provided good information to the township,
I provided a proper do diligence process to get to this point and
basically kind of got whoopsed. I don't feel it's my fault. I'm trying
to ask for help or some relief to at least go forward with the least
amount of invasion to the neighbors or anxiety to the neighbors or
anybody else.
Richards: What is your understanding of the maintenance agreement
or how is this road maintained? Who plows it - who pays for it?
Karrip: On the easement part of it - I have no idea. I asked the
bank to provide me with anything they might have because they had this
in foreclosure and they had people doing it for six or seven months so
I don't know what that is. But I certainly will go forward and provide
you that information. I'm just a little spent a lot of money at this
point. I don't want to spend any more if I don't have to spend it. I'm
happy to spend it because I will if it looks like it's going to go
somewhere. But just to start getting studies and doing things to say
well you should have talked to us first - I'm talking to you first.
You see by allowing our conversation about the turn around there is so
many different things that could happen there I mean if it were me and
I was the neighbor I would want it to be left alone. I wouldn't want
to screw with it. I would want it left as access to the property as
well it doesn't create any hardship to any of the neighbors - it
doesn't ruin the aesthetics of the grounds. But if it was sold and
granted permission for me to split it and you want me to put a turn
around in then so be it. I'll do it. If you want me to work on some
sort of road or maintenance agreement with the people - I'm happy to
review that also. I'm not looking to make anybody's life miserable -
I'm not crying because it is my business but this has been a bad deal
from the beginning for me but I'm trying to figure out how to get out
of this thing with half my hide. So, that's kind of where I'm at. They
are involved and their insurance company is suing and I mean it's just
a mess.
Richards: Does anyone have any questions of the applicant?
Member Lewis: Just a quick one. Sir - have you bought this
property?
Karrip: I'm under contract to buy.
Lewis: Wait a minute - have you bought it?
Karrip: No, I have not purchased it yet. My purchase agreement is
subject to the diligence process for me to be able to potentially
split it. And that's kind of where we're at with two difference prices
for the property with a purchase agreement in place to go forward and
do that. But there's a point where you know I have to go back to the
bank and maybe what you guys say I'll end up bringing action against
the township or tell me it's okay. I don't want to create any lawsuits
- I want this to go away as smoothly and nicely as possible.
Lewis: Thank you.
Richards: That leads to a follow up question - which is if you
didn't buy the property how could you tear down the house though?
Karrip: I had a contract agreement with the bank at the time. We
decided to go forward and tear it I shared that view with the bank and
I said I think we can split it and go forward. They said no problem
tear it down - once we tore it down I found out at the end of the day
sorry you can't do that. We would have closed on that after I tore it
down in four or five days. It was a mutual agreement between the bank,
myself, the township office - yeah we got a game plan in place and
went down there after I talked with them and got the permit, hired a
contractor, tore it down and found out whoops. I mean everybody back
up again and have gone through a year of trying to settle a lawsuit.
If we could settle this thing reasonably with the other people - which
doesn't appear is going to happen - I probably would not even be
asking for the split. We're at the point now we have been monkeying
with this for a year and it has cost the bank money. It cost me money
and nobody is going to win in this deal and I understand the
sensitivity with the neighbors so I'm just asking you guys to make it
right here. I'm just trying to make it right. I really didn't think I
violated anything wrong. At the last meeting I was noticed I shouldn't
be here and you guys had a hearing without me anyway and I got
roasted. I just don't understand you know what I need to do to try to
fix this problem I guess. I'll do whatever I can to do it.
Richards: Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions?
Member MacAllister: Is there a representative from the owner's side
- from Select Bank?
Karrip: I'm representing them.
MacAllister: Okay. So you are the owner/representative and…
Karrip: Yes.
Richards: Mr. Koessel.
Koessel: Where does Select Bank stand on this now that you took
their collateral and tore it down?
Karrip: They are in perfect agreement with what we are going to do.
We hade a purchase agreement to close so we just went ahead and tore
it down assuming because we thought there was no problem in splitting
the lot. Once I was told I couldn't split the lot it changed the
dynamics of our purchase agreement and now we are back to the table
again.
Koessel: So
Karrip: The money that has been spent has been spent based on the
township saying no problem tear the house down and you can split it.
So we went ahead, tore it down and was going to close on it in the
next few days. After it was inspected they go sorry you can't split
it. I went to the bank and said time out here we have a little problem
here. It's not anybody's fault - it's just once of those things that
happened. It's just an ugly thing.
Koessel: So what is Select Bank's position with you right now?
Karrip: I'm very friendly with the bank - that's the bank that I
bank with. I buy of lot of their foreclosure properties. Is there a
way you can find out what's going to happen here hopefully I can get
some information on the lawsuits which have been going on for a year
or so. There's some mitigating expenses we had there - the bank had
been discounted on that and we split it. But I can't tell you that's
going to happen at this point.
Koessel: They haven't said anything about replacing the collateral
that was torn down now that the split wasn't approved?
Karrip: No. They recognize that there was a wrong doing that took
place with Mr. Courtade's construction company and the guy in R.J.
Kista made this arrangement to tear this place down. The bank
recognizes that had nothing to do with me or with them. That's just
something that happened. And the best interests of what we could do
with the property looking at the damage if you saw the pictures the
damage was terrible. I decided it was in the best interests for
everybody was to remove the house, split the lots and actually go
forward with our purchase agreement. …tear it down.
Koessel: I had one last question Mr. Karrip. The drawing that we
got - you said you provided Staff with a survey that shows this turn
around on your parcel?
Karrip: Yes I have.
Koessel: Just on your parcel?
Karrip: No, it shows the whole parcel as it exists.
Koessel: I think I know what it looks like now but the you
mentioned earlier in the presentation that if you needed to you would
provide a
Karrip: That's how it currently exists as we speak right now.
That's exactly how it looks right now. With no modification at all.
Some of that blacked out onto the Ventura property which I'm not sure.
Koessel: You are parcel B? Is that correct? You are A & B. A
and B is a proposed split?
Karrip: Correct.
Koessel: Okay. So what I guess I'm asking you is would you be able
to move this entire turn around onto your parcel A without interfering
with anything else? Because this drawing here is just kind of a
Karrip: Yes, according to what the dynamics are they offered a turn
around depending on who owns what this and what. I'll know from the
title work. I can come in this way and make an L here all the way
across the back with a turn around here. Come in back out and go out
onto this existing drive here.
Koessel: Would you have to reconfigure this lot then to make it a
conforming lot size?
Karrip: Yes. You need 18,000 s.f. if you move this 12 feet and move
this 12 feet you would still have plenty of room to conform to both.
And now screw around with anybody's else stuff.
Richards: Do you mind if I pass this down?
Karrip: You may keep that.
Member McDonald: Mr. Chair - may I ask a question?
Richards: Sure.
McDonald: Mr. Karrip - I just want to make sure I understand this.
When the property was disemboweled or whatever - it was owned by
Select Bank - is that correct?
Karrip: Well yes, I had a purchase agreement. The actual title work
shows it belongs to Select Bank with a purchase agreement.
McDonald: But Select Bank owned it - correct?
Karrip: Yes.
McDonald: And when it was torn down it was still owned by Select
Bank?
Karrip: When the house was torn down we went to do the split to
close…
McDonald: I'm just saying it was still owned by Select Bank.
Karrip: Yes.
McDonald: And Select Bank didn't meet with Staff but you had met
with Staff?
Karrip: Yes.
McDonald: I just wanted to clarify. Thank you.
Richards: Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant?
Member Jones: I would like to see the map that is being passed
around. I may have a few questions.
Karrip: Sorry I didn't make more copies.
Lewis: Mr. Chairman just a real quick follow - up. I understand you
can walk away from this. You don't have to buy that land?
Karrip: Well I could
Lewis: But you would lose the money you put in so far but you could
walk away from it.
Karrip: I would lose the money. But I could walk away yes.
Peterson: Eric very quickly could I just follow up on a couple of
comments?
Richards: Yes.
Peterson: Well I guess in a way I feel like I have to defend
myself. Yeah I did meet with Mr. Karrip and I think I just want to
make sure it's clear that I never said this is how we can fix the
problem - go ahead and split the lot and you're done. Of course,
somebody comes in the office and asks questions your on a private road
we have to see if it meets our standards. What are the standards -
we'll go through those. I never knew what the condition of the turn
around was - nobody ever said your road is complete compliance. We did
sit there and count the parcels. The thing that threw everybody off
was the fact that the two parcels at the beginning of the road are
Thornapple River Drive addresses so you automatically assume well
those don't have access to Ventura so we won't count those. If you
actually do that and count the rest you end up with 18 and a split
over here 19. That's not going to cause a problem with the number of
units on a dead end road. That doesn't mean the rest of the road is
compliant. But that means that one particular issue may go away so to
speak. And he's absolutely right - after that and when somebody
applies for a land division Mike checks those for us and he correctly
found what the facts were to this. That there were over 18 or actually
20. So I guess I just give you a little bit more in terms of that
background you know we never told anybody that you're all good, go
ahead and split the lot and it will solve your problem. Our building
inspector went out there to take a look at the property and I believe
he's the one that contacted Select Bank before they ever applied for
their division and say you've got to secure this building and make it
so people can't get in and out of here. They of course subsequently
applied for their demolition permit and tore the building down
sometime in February before it was even a matter before you folks. I
don't know if any of that helps but I thought as a follow-up to a few
of the comments that were made.
MacAllister: Just a point of clarification - they being Select
Bank?
Peterson: Right, Select Bank applied for - that's who are building
inspector notified and that's who subsequently applied for the
demolition permit.
Richards: Mr. Jones.
Jones: For the record I note that the date of this survey was
February 04. As I remember when this matter was last before the
Commission, it ended on the note that there was a lack of complete
information to the Planning Commission to make a decision and
consequently, in the same light I've got to share Steve's concerns we
never really got sufficient information to make a proper decision. I
think we ought to keep that in mind.
Richards: Anybody else have any questions?
MacAllister: Just real quickly. Steve did we give any written
permission at all - I mean we didn't issue anything to them or
Peterson: No, as a matter of fact we issued a letter saying we
can't approve the split because of these deficiencies. That's was
Mike's letter to them and of course why they applied for the exception
of the private road regulations.
Karrip: That's not necessarily true. Steve and I met with my real
estate person there and I can bring her in to review what he's saying
here. We sat down and went through the book and counted them and said
looks like this is doable. We walked from his desk down to get the
permit to demo. They sent me the letter - not the bank - telling me
that it couldn't happen. They never sent the letter to the bank. I got
the letter saying it couldn't happen. So, I mean let's tell it like it
is if we're going to tell it like it is. I mean I'm not looking to
make a fight for anybody but I'm telling the truth. You may it sound
like I'm not. I don't particularly like that. I can bring in somebody
else who can support exactly what I just told you. Standing right
there next to me with absolutely no interest in the property at all.
That's not how it was. I would not do that without having some do
diligence done the first time developing the property. I take offense
to that as issue.
Lewis: Let's go to the public hearing.
Richards: Duly noted Mr. Karrip. There's obviously a
misunderstanding and now we have to figure out what to do about it.
Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you
Mr. Karrip. At this point then I would invite a motion to open the
public hearing.
Lewis: So moved.
MacAllister: Support.
Richards: All those in favor of opening the public hearing signify
by saying aye. The public hearing is now opened. The procedure that we
have on our Commission is to invite anyone in the audience to come
forward and address the Commission. We do have a number of folks here
- we've already spent a significant amount of time on this. You'll
each have an opportunity to say your piece but I would encourage you
not to be redundant. So, if somebody else has already said everything
feel free to come on up and add your voice but feel free to say me too
rather than repeating everything that has been said. Before I call on
anybody in the audience I will ask Staff if we received any written
comments regarding this.
Peterson: I believe the only thing we got in writing was a letter
from an attorney for one of the neighbors that you have a copy of on
your desk.
Richards: Okay. That was buried so if you will bear with me for a
moment I would like to read through this. (The Commission members read
the letter).
Richards: Before we invite people in the audience to speak - do you
have any response to this Mr. Peterson - or anything you wish to add
to this letter.
Peterson: I guess the only thing I would add is when we made the
change to the private road regulations you know we did that with our
attorney and we of course feel like our process will allow for these
design modifications to take place.
Richards: Okay. All right then. At this point I would invite anyone
in the audience to come forward that would like to address the
Commission. Who would like to speak first? Yes sir. Could you please
state your name for the record and your address?
Joe Preston: I'm Joe Preston and I'm at 7418 Ventura. I own the
cul-de-sac in question. We were here about 8 months ago or whenever it
was and I thought it was decided that basically the issue was over. So
we were surprised to find he's back again. As you can see from the
letter from my attorney, basically all we're asking is that the
ordinance be followed as written. And it states that you know he has
to have reasonable use of his property - property he doesn't even own
yet. And so that's really asking if there are 20 houses there it's a
tight street. To put another house in there impacts our property and a
couple of others around there adversely because it is squeezing
another house in there and I feel very much negatively affect the
property values contrary to many appreciation would go the other way.
If you're talking about putting the turn around just on his lot, I
don't know how you could do that without squeezing that lot down so
much if it follows your 66 feet and I'm not sure how you would do that
- it would create a situation where you would put a cracker box house
in there which would be a detriment to the value of the existing
property owners. I've owned that house for over 10 years. The street
and I know the neighbors feel that way and there are quite a few here
tonight feel it would be adversely affected from the density
standpoint. As far as the maintenance agreement - as far as I'm aware
- there is nothing formal that anybody has to sign to allow another
house to go in on the street. We do have an informal maintenance
agreement - Tom Manus can speak to that. Basically we take care of the
street you know because it is private with the people there and
someone had mentioned if you do add additional turn around that's
something all the property owners have to maintain and I would think
they would want to know that and probably vote on it as well. But I'm
completely adverse to doing this. If he has to buy our property or get
approval from us he can give me a $100,000 and I don't want to do it.
Basically from our perspective the answer is we do not want another
house there. We would rather see it developed as a single home - done
properly. Put a tennis court there - that's fine. Or like our
neighbors, the Murphys, on the other side - have you know it's nicely
developed and landscaped and kept real clean and neat. That's the way
it's been and our attorney says it's been like that for over 50 years
I guess. That's basically our position on it and all we are asking is
that the ordinance be followed as written. You can't just take one of
the issues of the ordinance and forget the rest. If he wants to do
that then widen the whole road and go talk to all the neighbors and I
will guarantee you they will not like their road widened and taking
more of their property you know in that sense. So basically that's my
position. I'm not trying to be hard nosed about it - it's just that
you know we like it the way it is. It would be nice to have one nice
single family home there you know and again the issue between the
township and Mr. Karrip seems to be an issue between them that we're
being dragged into very honestly. He can walk away from it as we just
found tonight - walk away - let Select Bank sell it to somebody who
can afford to put on a piece of property that's equivalent to what the
value of the property truly is. So, that's basically our position and
we would be totally in favor of not any improvement other than the
single family.
Richards: Thank you Mr. Preston.
Lewis: May I ask Mr. Preston a quick question.
Richards: Sure.
Lewis: Sir - I'm kind of curious did more people than me drive down
the end of that road and then use your cul-de-sac to turn around in.
It's kind of a - it looks like that is already there.
Preston: Yeah - that's what people do. You know the garbage trucks
and even if a fire truck comes down there you know I don't think a
fire truck could turn there. They would either have to back out or
something. I know they can't turn there.
Lewis: That's on your property isn't it - that turn around area?
Preston: Three quarters of it is on my property. It's not an
easement it's actually…
Lewis: Part of your property. Thank you.
Richards: Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Debbie Preston: We took numbers. I'll be short and sweet.
Richards: Could you please tell us your name and address.
Debbie Preston: I'm sorry - I'm Debbie Preston. The little laser
light on this little piece - that was us. That's our yard. Anyway I
guess the issue I have with me is more of a personal thing. I was here
last time. My concern is that we have been there - we're very
reasonable people and we all get along - we answer our doors and we
talk with people. Why Mr. Karrip did not come to see us - did not ask
about it or do better research on what is going on. The way that we
found out this was coming before the board again is they had surveyors
in our yard. I was popping out of the shower and I could hear them -
they were that close to the house. They were saying well that rock has
to go - that rock has to go. Well we could get out that but they were
like this is our property. I told my husband I said I swear to God
they are pointing to stuff on our property - what's going on. I think
they are going to try and split the property again. I guess that's the
whole issue with me. I think we are reasonable and no one has come to
us to see what we think about it. And it is a neighborhood there and
it is a community and there's a definite complexion of that street -
you know - you've been down there. And as this gentleman says he has
not bought the property - why doesn't he walk away. It was a
misunderstanding whatever. We're sorry about it but we had nothing to
do with that. We just feel like people are sneaking on us and trying
to pull a fast one. I mean they may be constructing over there now - I
don't know. That's all I have to say.
Richards: Okay. Thank you Mrs. Preston.
Tom Manus: Good evening my name is Tom Manus. I live at 7240
Ventura - I've lived there 28 years this year. I've seen a lot of
people come and go on the street - but I just want to clear up one
thing that Steve had mentioned a couple of times. When it comes to the
private road he mentioned twice or three times tonight that the houses
at the end - at the beginning of the street - one is Sandhills and one
is Craig Vaughn - both of those people use that street as much as all
of us. Both of those driveways are on the street. He made it sound
like well they have a Thornapple River address and they may not be
using it that much. But they pay their share of the snow plowing and
maintenance which they have always done.
Richards: Do you have a written agreement that all the neighbors
sign regarding…
Manus: No we do not. There has never been one. Like I say after
tonight we will have one. But we've talked about that. Some of the
neighbors before this. I've handled the snow plowing for the last
couple of years - probably because I've been on the street so long and
everybody pays equally. It's divided equally by the number of homes so
I just wanted to clarify that point Steve made earlier. Also one thing
that I can't figure out from listening tonight is if the cul-de-sac
was approved to be put onto the property that Mr. Karrip is attempting
to buy, there would still be a blind spot - you can't go down that
street and keep the existing cul-de-sac where it is and have a curve
going into his property - whether it be a cul-de-sac there would be a
head on collision regardless of the street size. The existing
cul-de-sac would also have to be altered or changed. You can't leave a
circle and go into another circle it would look ridiculous and there
wouldn't be any room for cars to pass. Also I've been in real estate
for 28 years and some of you know my name from the community - Manus
Realty - but I can also tell you that from dealing in Cascade and Ada
Townships for the bulk of my career - that the property values if that
cul-de-sac is changed, especially for the Prestons and Murphy would
devalue their property. It's going to not only create a bad issue
where there is privacy now, where there wouldn't be privacy later if
the cul-de-sac is changed because of the trees that are there and the
way it is landscaped. Like Deb Preston said it's kind of unique and
it's kind of a neat setting the way it is right now. I think too -
like Joe Preston mentioned earlier - my neighbor that the issue with
Mr. Karrip seems to be with the township. I don't understand - I've
been in real estate like I said for 28 years - and you either have a
buy/sell - you either have an accepted buy/sell or you don't have an
accepted buy/sell. I'm not clear after listening to his speech tonight
whether he owns it or whether he doesn't. There's no in between. When
you purchase real estate there is a buy/sell on the line and it is
either accepted or it isn't. So if he doesn't have an acceptance -
like Deb Preston said - he could walk away and what is he out - some
time. We all lose a lot of time - it's just the way life is. So
anyway, the other issue I wanted to bring up quickly too is he made it
sound like the house at the end of the street was a mistake taking it
down. I'm not so sure it was. That house - I've been in it many times
- that house was a dump. And that house the value there was not in the
house - it was in the land. I don't know if Select Bank or Mr. Karrip
did it but somebody tore that house down and I think they did it
purposely. I don't think it was a mistake.
Richards: One question - where exactly are you on the street? We
don't have our…
Manus: I'm the second house in on the right. I'm toward the
beginning of the street.
Richards: Where it meets Thornapple?
Manus: Yes.
Richards: Okay. Does anybody have any questions? Okay, thank you.
Next.
Jay Capozzoli: My name is Jay Capozzoli. I live at 7325 Ventura
which is three doors down from the property on the north side of the
street.
Richards: I'm sorry Jay - what is your last name?
Capozzoli: Capozzoli. Go ahead and try to spell it.
Richards: No, but I would appreciate it if you would.
Capozzoli: C a p o z z o l i.
Richards: Thank you.
Capozzoli: Mr. Chairman and Board my concern is basically I should
just say me too and say a lot of things. The cul-de-sac is one of the
issues I think that's a big problem, especially if he's trying to
bring it over to the property. You look at the survey you really don't
have a lot of room to move that cul-de-sac into that other property.
But rather than go into detail I'll just say me too on what everybody
said on that. My biggest concern is there's ordinances out here that
we haven't discussed which have to deal with once we get over 20
driveways or properties on this road they start talking into the
subject of getting a second access to the road. I don't think anybody
has really talked about this but my understanding with these
ordinances is that they are there for a purpose. It's not arbitrarily
they say one thing or another. They are there for reasons just because
of safety if you need to get emergency vehicles in and out and need
emergency equipment in and out. There's no access to put a second
access road in. And as we keep on growing and growing more and more on
this road we've got to also take into consideration the safety aspects
of this addition to the property. Granted it's only 5% or another
house to the already 19 there but when do you keep on going and
obviously with ordinances they've done some research - they've done
their homework on why there should be only a limited amount of access
to this property. What I'm fearful of we continue to add more and more
to these properties - what are we doing with the concern of being able
to service to have emergency equipment and so forth. That's about all
I have to say.
Richards: Thank you very much. Any one else here that would like to
address the Commission tonight regarding this matter?
Judy Kuiper: All I want to say is ditto. Judy Kuiper, 7350 Ventura,
second house from the cul-de-sac. We've been there 19 years.
Richards: Thank you for your pithy remarks. Any one else?
John Murphy: I'm John Murphy, 7400 Ventura. We actually are
directly affected by the cul-de-sac. We are next to the Prestons and
are no in favor of this either. Clearly the value of our homes, our
neighbors' homes and the property we are talking about is a beautiful
riverfront property. If you cram two houses in there to do a deal - a
real estate deal - I think it is a lot of use of that land.
Richards: Thank you Mr. Murphy.
Mike Johns: Hi - I'm Mike Johns. I live at 7293 Ventura, which is a
couple doors down from Mr. Manus. I'm basically me too on everything
but I was wondering could I ask this one question for clarifications?
Richards: Sure.
Johns: If you were to agree to split this property I understand you
would have to do something with this turn around. But the way I
understand it was said tonight that would in turn trigger additional
improvements that we need to do to the street basically widening it to
66 feet for the easement - is that correct?
Richards: I do not think so. I think the recommendation of the
Staff is that we create an exception to the rule that would allow
these additional lots that would exceed our limit on a cul-de-sac and
the quid pro quo if you will is that we get an improved turn around at
the end of it that would in theory benefit everyone.
Johns: Okay thank you for that but that still doesn't change my
situation.
Richards: Okay, yes sir.
Alan Mauer: I'm Alan Mauer. I live at 7355 Ventura which is the
west lot adjacent to this property that we are talking about. And I
guess I just wanted to clarify a couple of points. Basically there is
a private drive agreement to a certain degree that is in place that
dates back to 1965 or something like that. And the way it is written
up is the private drive ends at my property. So right in my property
the cul-de-sac is not part of the private drive. Basically that is two
driveways at the end of the private drive. And then somebody connected
it at one point. And if you look at how the pavement is set up that's
the way it was done. So, that really is two private drives - it is not
a cul-de-sac. People share it - Preston's maintain it. I don't think
anybody else on the drive is paying for the maintenance on that. So
it's not really the private drive.
Richards: I'm sorry - where do you - where's your house at?
Mauer: The house right next to the property being split.
Lewis: Did you face it to the left sir?
Mauer: Yes, just to the left of it.
Richards: So you are on the north side of the street? Got cha.
Mauer: We have an agreement and I agree it needs to be updated. It
basically says we share upkeep expenses and stuff like that. It should
be updated because it was written when the lots were a lot bigger.
Richards: I presume you are opposed to this idea?
Mauer: Yes and no. I'm opposed to upgrading the whole street you
know which is the way you would have to do it - it's the letter of the
law. I don't think we need to do all that. As far as a turn around - I
think there are some safety issues possibly. Maybe that should be
upgraded or one put in. Technically one is not there. In the six years
I've lived there fire trucks have come down there twice because of a
false alarm on somebody's house and they had to turn around in my yard
in order to turn around. But I don't have a manicured lawn so that's
fine. But basically there's not enough room for fire trucks.
Richards: Okay. Thank you. Does anybody else want to address the
Commission?
Deb Kearns: I just want to say ditto. Deb Kearns, 7436 Ventura. I'm
the lot/house adjacent to this on the river.
Richards: and by ditto meaning you're not in favor of this?
Kearns: Right.
Richards: Okay, thank you. Sir.
William Brunner: My name is William Brunner. I curiously am not on
Ventura. I'm at 7385 Grachen which is the lot to the north of this
property along it's entire depth.
Richards: Okay.
Brunner: I'm against this proposal also. I guess the thing I would
like to say is I'm astonished the Staff would put forward a
recommendation to give a variance when there's been absolutely no
reason given for the variance. I think if you do grant this variance
you are essentially changing this ordinance. I can't see how you can
give a variance to someone in a situation such as this where you've
got a road that doesn't meet your ordinance and then turn around to
someone else and say you can only have 18 or 19 on your road when we
allowed these guys to have 21. And this is essentially a variance with
no reason that I have heard.
Richards: Okay thank you. Anyone else? Before we close the public
meeting I guess I would invite the applicant if you want to respond to
any of that - now is your chance. Otherwise we're just going to close
the meeting.
Karrip: That's fine. I respect everybody's opinions.
Richards: Okay, thank you Mr. Karrip. With that then do I hear a
motion to close the public meeting?
MacAllister: So moved.
Lewis: Support.
Richards: Okay there's been a motion and support or a support and
motion depending on how you want to look at it but either way I'll
call the question. All those in favor of closing the public hearing
say aye. Opposed? Okay, the public hearing part is now closed. I do
very much appreciate all of you who came out here tonight to address
us. We will consider your comments. I've been taking notes - now's the
point in our meeting where we discuss the matter amongst ourselves.
So, I'd ask you to sort of bite your lips and hold your remarks there
while we carry on our deliberations. It's a tough issue. We got a
recommendation here from the Staff that essentially they would be
allowed to develop this with the split even though it would exceed our
maximum number of lots on the street that we allow on a cul-de-sac in
return for which the applicant would have to upgrade the turn around.
Based on the comments I've heard tonight from Mr. Preston he owns a
big chunk of that turn around and he ain't inclined to sell it. And so
the alternative would be to then to apparently construct some sort of
turn around on the applicant's parcel which he has indicated a
willingness to do but that would involve I guess kind of leaving the
existing turn around as it is and then creating a jog to the left and
then a turn around off to the left on the applicant's parcel. But we
don't have the drawings to really evaluate that tonight. But as I
understand that would be the Staff's recommendation. I guess at this
point I'd open it up for discussion if anybody wants to weigh in on
this matter.
Goldberg: I have one question for Staff before we move forward in
deliberation. I don't have a copy of the amendment to the private
street ordinance. I guess I'd like to see one of those or know what it
says.
Peterson: You have an existing copy?
Goldberg: Yeah. I have the existing ordinance.
Peterson: If you look in Section I, subsection 3, second line down,
couple words in - may grant design modifications.
Goldberg: Yeah.
Peterson: Then I believe the next three or four words are deleted
and picks up again - should they determine. It deleted the particular
section which it was referring to therefore allowing exceptions to be
requested from design modifications.
Goldberg: So I do have the more recent one because the way the one
I am looking at reads says "for situations involving existing
non-conforming private roads, the Township Board may grant design
modifications should they determine that the design requirements and
standards do not deny the property owner reasonable use of his
property.
Peterson: You've got it.
Goldberg: So the standard is deny the property owner reasonable use
of the property.
Peterson. That's correct.
Richards: Anybody else? Mr. Jones.
Jones: Yeah - well I would like to see the matter tabled and if it
is to be brought back bring it back with more detailed information.
One item is showing the layout of the proposed turn around on Parcel
A. So we can determine the value of whether or not there is even
sufficient property to be build on after the turn around is placed on
Parcel A. I'm not convinced there's enough room.
Richards: Before - I'm not going to unless you are going to
formally make a motion I'm not going to interpret that as a motion yet
because once it has been seconded and we have to vote on it up or
down. Because as I understand our parliamentary rules, we don't allow
discussion on motions to table. But
Jones: That was not a motion.
Richards: Okay, great. Very good. All right. Well then we can talk
a little more before a motion is made. Mr. McDonald.
McDonald: I was just going to ask Member Jones to not table this I
think. It's pretty clear cut that the Staff had recommended approval
of an exception request - only if they had the right agreements with
the neighbors and only if there were sufficient drawings, etc. of the
turn around. Everybody is opposed to this. None of the neighbors want
it. According to the attorney's letter - whether it is right or wrong
- it doesn't deny the property owner reasonable use of his property
and I just don't see that we can support granting this exception
request given all the facts that were given tonight. As a matter of
the fact - the owner of the property isn't even here. Technically
speaking. Which I don't think is an issue anyway. I would certainly
empathize with all the homeowners - every homeowner on the street is
against this and I can relate to that. I emphasize with them and it
would even impact a couple of individuals properties whose values
probably would go down. Not to mention change the ambience of the
properties. I just can't see tabling this Dick - I think we have
enough information.
Richards: Thank you Mr. McDonald. Anybody else?
Logue: Mr. Chairman - just to bring up a couple of benefits with an
improved turn around you would have the fire trucks able to negotiate
the curve. I would wonder if maybe the County would be interested in
installing a dry hydrant at the end for access to the river water.
There might be improvement that every member on the street something
like that would happen.
Richards: Mr. Goldberg.
Goldberg: Yeah Mr. Chair I'm concerned that if we give an approval
with conditions that apparently are not to be met we're just doing
something that's a futile act. I'm hearing from the property owners
who would have to be the ones granting permission there's no
permission to be had and if that's the case then I'm not certain what
is to be gained by approving something contingent to that condition
being met. It's not going to happen. Secondly, I have to admit that
I'm concerned about whether the standard that's laid out in the
ordinance as amended is something that has been met here. My
understanding of what it means to be denied reasonable use of your
property is similar to what the Preston's attorney laid out in the
letter - which is your property has a number of reasonable uses and
the only reasonable use of your property is not the one that will
grant it the greatest amount of value on the open market irrespective
to ordinances that apply to it. There is a range of reasonable use of
property and certainly within that range - in my view - is putting a
house on it. And that's how it was very reasonably used for 50 years I
don't see why suddenly that is not a reasonable use any longer. So I'm
not sure how we could meet the standard of the ordinance anyway but I
think it's a moot point because even the Staff's recommendation is
conditioned upon agreements that are not to be had based on what I'm
hearing. So, I just don't see how we can move forward with it.
Richards: Anybody else?
Lewis: I always hate to follow Mr. Goldberg's presentations he
always sounds so shallow and unthoughtful. However, seldom have I sat
through a public hearing where 40% of the people that live in that
area have spoken against it and 100% of the people that spoke were
against it. I agree with what you are saying Fred that based on those
numbers chances are slim and none of getting any cooperation as far as
putting a cul-de-sac at the end of the road. Now, it's possible I
understand to put it over on Parcel A's property but that doesn't seem
very practical to me as far as a cul-de-sac at the end of the road is
concerned. And I would agree with what Fred is saying - that in as
much as the probabilities of this happening is very slim. I would
think that and we're not making our final decision here. What we're
doing is recommending to the Township Board. The applicant can make
another plea at the Township Board for what he would like to do at the
Township Board level but what we're doing is just making the
recommendation and based upon this type of a public hearing, the turn
out, that we did get of the neighbors and based upon what we're seeing
on the drawing that was presented to us - which incidentally I would
urge the applicant to probably improve upon and show how it can be
done better than just what I'm looking at here - I would think it
would be best we send a message to the Township Board that we deny
this requests for these reasons. I know Dick has been busily taking
notes here and I'm sure at the Township Board level he will present
our position on this as should be done. So, my take very simply is I
always feel a little bit concerned about going against the Staff
recommendations, but I think in this particular case when you do read
the Staff recommendations there are conditions there that can't be met
that have come up from this public hearing. And, therefore, I would
feel very comfortable with a motion denying this particular request as
a request to the Township Board.
Koessel: Is that a motion?
Lewis: Only if you'd like to have it be one.
Richards: I think we've had enough discussion on it - I
Lewis: It is now a motion.
Koessel: Then I guess I would like to say too the reason we have
the public hearing is to have the public come in and talk and a lot of
times if the Planning Commission doesn't hear objections to something
is why we take action to vote favorably on it. But I think you made a
good point that 100% of the people that did show up tonight were
against it. Staff did recommend we approve it subject to being able to
obtain the agreement from the neighbors. The neighbors who would have
to agree with this are present and have indicated not at any price
would they agree to it. So I'm not sure we are totally going against
the recommendation because it was one of the conditions of approval.
So I feel comfortable supporting the motion because it was one of the
conditions of approval. So I feel comfortable supporting your motion
Jack.
Lewis: Thank you.
Richards: We have a motion. It's been supported. Is there any
further discussion on the motion. Yes, Mr. Logue.
Logue: I would like to point out that dealing with a road that at
best is substandard according to our current standards. That the
possibility of getting some improvement has merit in granting the
approval. Again, there are a stack of contingencies to be taken care
of. Mr. Mauer being the neighbor to the adjacent to the north didn't
really come down against or for and it might be that some of his
property would need to be used in order to accomplish this. But I
think the benefit to all the neighbors, even though they are against
it, for improved fire service would be beneficial.
Richards: Mr. Goldberg.
Goldberg: Yeah, I want to recognize that's true. I think I'm
concerned about fire trucks having to come in there and go over
somebody's property in order to turn around or back up or whatever
what have you must do. But it doesn't to me benefit though that might
be - that doesn't to me say that the person isn't getting the
reasonable use of their property. I think Select Bank and Mr. Karrip -
no matter which one of them you look at - is getting reasonable use of
the property if they can put a single family house on it. And so,
while it might be a benefit to the township, and hence to its citizens
to get that improved fire access, I'm not sure this ordinance gives us
the ability to make the horse trade.
Logue: My understanding is the land would support two single family
units though. It's just a question of access.
Richards: And the exception by putting it in two lots which exceeds
our maximum amount allowed on a cul-de-sac. I like you went into this
with an open mind having read before and recalled this situation from
the last time it was presented to us and in my humble opinion, the
turn around at the end of the street is inadequate. Certainly
inadequate for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. And, I thought
perhaps some of the neighbors would applaud the idea of having a nice
big turn around at the end of the street. But and I share Jim's
observation there - that's the benefit of having the public hearing is
what we are hearing is the neighbors are not enthused about that and
more over the one who controls the current turn around is not inclined
to grant the applicant any rights to modify that and so with that I
guess I would support the motion as stated. Anybody else want to weigh
in? Okay, then I'll call the question - all those in favor of the
motion which is to recommend that the exception be denied signify by
saying aye. All those opposed say nay.
Logue: Nay.
Richards: Okay, the motion carries. As Mr. Karrip was explained you
get another crack at it before the Board. So thank you all very much.
We're going to take short break here - let you folks clear out and
then we'll address the next issue.
Karrip: Thank you for your time.
Richards: Thank you and thank you all for speaking.
ARTICLE 7. Case #03-2566: Meijer
The Planning Commission conducted a one year review of the Type II
Special Use Permit granted in April 2003 for a temporary garden
center.
Planner Deem related back in April of 2003 the applicant asked for
a Special Use Permit to allow a temporary garden center in the parking
lot. The Township Board did grant the Special Use Permit with six
conditions. Planner Deem related the conditions were:
1) The parking lot garden center is only allowed for a six week
period. Meijer met this condition.
2) That all material in the parking lot garden center be limited to
peat moss, sand, garden soil, mulch, gravel, lava rock, and similar
garden supplies. Meijer met this condition.
3) The set up and take down of the parking lot garden center be
limited to one week before it is open and one week after it is closed.
Before and after that it shall be available for parking as approved on
the original site plan. Meijer met this condition.
4) The existing conditions on the fenced in garden center still apply
with the exception of this 6-week period for the parking lot garden
center. Meijer met this condition.
5) Come back to the Planning Commission for a one-year review.
6) The outdoor sales area is limited to a 100'x 132' area and this
area should be located approximately across (to the south) of the
pharmacy drive thru. Meijer met this condition. Planner Deem related
the Planning Commission suggested the temporary located by moved
father east toward Kraft Avenue. The Township Board permitted the
location where it was suggested by the applicant.
Planner Deem recommended the continued approval of the Special Use
Permit to allow Meijer to have a garden center in their parking lot
with the same conditions as last year (listed above). Staff also
recommended that the one-year review condition be removed as long as
the other five conditions are continually met.
Planner Deem further related after the Staff Report was complete
and in the mail, the applicant contacted him with a request to
re-locate the garden center from last year's location to the side
parking lot adjacent to the garden center along Kraft Avenue. The
original approval was for an area of 13,200 s.f.. Now the applicant is
requesting 24,976 s.f. Staff feels the requested changes are
significant enough to request the applicant come back again next year
for another review. Staff has no problem with the location except the
size is double the size granted in the original approval. The
applicant has stated the amount of supplies being sold will not
change. Planner Deem recommended the applicant should be allowed to
continue with the temporary garden center for a six week period with
the six conditions previously set forth. Staff has not had a chance to
look over the new location but he believes it would help with traffic
flow.
Member MacAllister related it seems the applicant uses that side
lot currently for a lot of staging. She asked is that something we
allow? Planner Deem responded they got a Special Use Permit to keep
the storage containers there while they were remodeling their store.
The applicant was represented by Scott Nowakowski, Director of Real
Estate for Meijer. He presented a map of the site. Mr. Nowakowski
related this year they would like to re-locate the temporary garden
center. The advantage is the area would be surrounded by 50-60 foot
pine trees and by curb and gutter. The entire area would be used for
seasonal display. The pharmacy drive through will remain open.
Chairman Richards asked if they would place signs to deter people
from cutting through there? He then asked why are we just getting the
site plan tonight? Mr. Nowakowski responded Staff suggested he bring
it tonight.
Chairman Richards related the changes are a big impact.
Staff related there are pallets already out there in that area of
the parking lot.
Chairman Richards related the new location seems to be an
improvement over last year's location. Last year there was a problem
with pedestrian traffic. This is a vast improvement. He is a little
troubled we didn't get this information sooner. He is also troubled by
Staff's recommendation that we grant this permission and not have the
applicant come back for one year review. He feels it is important to
monitor this on a year-to-year basis.
Member Koessel asked last year did you find the size was
inadequate? Mr. Nowakowski responded no, but we don't want our
customers parking there. We are going to close off the entire area so
it can be utilized for the garden center.
Member Lewis related what you do impacts other merchants in the
area. If you can get along without doubling the size that would be
fine. Doubling the size is asking for an awful lot. You had 13,200 s.f.
last year. Can you live on that this year? Mr. Nowakowski responded
probably.
Chairman Richards related there is a unique geographical feature
that applies to this merchant although it would have been helpful to
have a sketch in advance.
Mr. Nowakowski related they would like the temporary garden center
from March 15 to July 15 this year. Last year they had it just for six
weeks.
Member MacAllister related it sounds like you are designing on the
fly. We need to table this and have the applicant bring this back next
time. The information is insufficient.
Mr. Nowakowski related last year we had it from June 28 to July 28.
Chairman Richards related what happens when your competitor says I
want the same as Meijer and for the same time period. Mr. Nowakowski
related he has no problem with that.
Member MacAllister asked if the containers on site are going to be
removed. Mr. Nowakowski responded he does not know anything about
that.
Member MacAllister asked if access to the pharmacy drive through is
going to remain open. Mr. Nowakowski related yes, they will come in as
they normally do. We normally service one customer every 15 minutes
through the day.
Member Lewis related last year with the temporary garden center out
in the parking lot you had hi-lo's running through the parking lot and
product stacked too high. That was dangerous. We made an issue of that
and the hi-lo's were taken away and the stacks reduced in size.
Chairman Richards related he shares Member MacAllister's concern
about procedure. We are just being presented this information now. He
is disappointed that we didn't have sketches before the meeting. Now
it is a different location than last year and a lot larger than last
year. Chairman Richards related he is delighted we have two major
retailers in the area providing lawn and garden materials. The
applicant could have had the information to us before the meeting. It
is important that we review this. Member MacAllister has suggested we
table this. Before a motion is made, I would like to hear from other
commissioners.
Member McDonald related he does not have a problem with the size.
This is exactly what we asked for last year. This will be a safer,
better location. The length is what we need to evaluate.
Member Goldberg related he is not necessarily wedded to the 13,200
s.f. as last year. The configuration should make sense. He is
concerned about the impact on traffic flow in regard to the pharmacy
in this configuration. He would like the applicant to come back with a
configuration drawn out with the traffic flow in regard to the
pharmacy that allows some access to take place within the site.
Member Koessel related the other concern is the timing of this.
Staff related this was approved by the Township Board in May 2003 for
a six week period.
Member Koessel related we need to consider the length of time.
Mr. Nowakowski related he would like to go back to the original
plan.
Chairman Richards related it is too late.
Member MacAllister supported by Member Koessel moved to table and
have the applicant come back at the next meeting. The motion is based
on the three conditions stated: change in location, change in size,
and change in of length of time. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Case #03-2549: Wal-Mart
The Planning Commission conducted a one year review of the Type II
Special Use Permit granted in April 2003 for a temporary garden
center.
Planner Deem related this request is much like Meijer. The Township
Board approved the Type II Special Use Permit in April of 2003.
Wal-Mart was given a set of conditions they had to meet:
1) The parking lot garden center is only allowed for a six week
period - from May 1 to June 15. Wal-Mart met this condition.
2) That all materials in the parking lot garden center be as shown on
the approved site plan, i.e. shrubs, trees, patio stones, resin
tables, and bagged goods. Wal-Mart met this condition.
3) The set up and take down of the parking lot garden center be
limited to one week before it is open and one week after it is closed.
Before and after that it shall be available for parking as approved on
the original site plan. Wal-Mart met this condition.
4) The existing conditions on the fenced in garden center still apply
with the exception of this 6-week period for the parking lot garden
center. Wal-Mart met this condition.
5) The existing fenced in garden center will be improved with the
brick wall and black ornamental fencing as shown on the approved
elevations. This needs to be completed by July 1 of 2003. Wal-Mart did
not meet that condition. Planner Deem related the applicant has been
contacted numerous times reminding them that they have not met the
condition. They pulled a building permit on February 27, 2004 and
began construction last week.
6) Wal-Mart agreed to sign a sidewalk construction agreement for their
portion of the 28th Street frontage. Wal-Mart met this condition.
7) No additional signage or lighting. Wal-Mart met this condition.
8) Wal-Mart comes back to the Planning Commission for a one-year
review. Wal-Mart has met this condition.
Planner Deem related since the fence and brick wall was not
completed by the deadline date he is recommending a denial of the
temporary garden center for this year and allow them to re-apply for
summer of 2005.
Chairman Richards asked if they complete it by April 1, would your
recommendation change? Planner Deem related no, it would be the same.
The deadline was July 1, 2003, seven months ago and the project still
has not been completed. They haven't met that condition.
Chairman Richards asked what was their response? Planner Deem
related we have copies of the letters sent to them. Planning Director
Peterson related they told us they were having a hard time finding a
contractor and finding the right color brick.
Member Koessel asked what was the size of the temporary garden
center. Planner Deem responded 50' x 60' area.
Chairman Richards asked do you have any site plans? Planner Deem
related the ones that were originally approved.
Member MacAllister asked didn't they re-locate it because they made
it larger? Planner Deem responded right. They went out and changed it
after we mentioned it.
Tony Pierce, the new Wal-Mart manager was present. He related they
would be thrilled with last year's plan and dates. He talked to Steve
Peterson in November. He informed me of everything. The majority of
information I received from Steve Peterson and off the web site. They
had difficulty finding a contractor and went through several bids
packages. The project is now underway.
Chairman Richards asked when will it be complete. Mr. Pierce
responded in the next two months.
Chairman Richards related we don't have a very effective
enforcement mechanism in the Township. We do have an opportunity to
deny the application with the condition they come before us again.
From what I understand, the response from the applicant is it took
longer than anticipated. Chairman Richards asked you don't want to
expand or lengthen it? Mr. Pierce responded no.
Chairman Richards related you still want a six week period from May
1 to June 15? Mr. Pierce responded yes.
Member Logue asked Mr. Pierce how long he has been manager. Mr.
Pierce responded since October 2003. Mr. Pierce related he is familiar
with the situation. Whether those were legitimate reasons or not he
does not understand. The approval was in April. He does not know how
long it takes to build this type of stuff.
Member Koessel related he did not notice that construction has
taken place. Mr. Pierce related they destroyed a footing and brick
wall this week.
Member Koessel asked if a contractor has been hired. Mr. Pierce
responded yes. The brick is supposed to be delivered this week.
Member Koessel asked who told you the project would take two
months. Mr. Pierce related that is a guess.
Member Koessel asked is there any way you can get it done in four
weeks? Mr. Pierce responded that would be another guess.
Member Koessel related if we were inclined to grant their request,
we could make it contingent upon not opening the temporary garden
center until the fence and wall are completed. That would be an
incentive for them to get it done sooner if they want to open May 1.
Planning Director Peterson responded the reason why this came up so
quickly last year was the materials are ordered so far in advance, he
assumes nothing has been ordered for this year. We sent them letters
saying don't order the material until you have the construction done.
Chairman Richards related he appreciates Staff's frustration and is
dismayed by the lack of cooperation from Wal-Mart. If they don't get
it done, they can't open up their garden center. That is not our
concern.
Member McDonald commented Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the
world and a multi-billion dollar organization. He can't believe they
could not find a contractor until spring of 2004. That is an insult to
my intelligence. If we are going to be reasonable and allow Wal-Mart
to say okay they can open this up - we ought to remove the Meijer
consideration from the table and allow them to go back to the same
operating conditions as last year and come back next year with a
bigger plan.
Member MacAllister related she remembers last year we were kind of
shoved this information at the last minute. They already had the
material and we had to consider it right away. We made reasonable
measures to meet these criteria. If we go against that criteria why
are we here?
Member Goldberg agreed with Member MacAllister. He looks at this as
an agreement. We set a condition. They didn't do what they said they
were going to do. The consequence is maybe they won't sell garden and
lawn stuff for this year. He is concerned about what this says to
other businesses who get letters from Staff and we don't back them up.
It ought to be meaningful when Staff sends letters and says you better
get this done because you told us you would. There will be
consequences that flow from it if you don't. We take away that meaning
if all we do is wink and nod and say go ahead anyway.
Chairman Richards related if he recalls correctly the quid pro quo
for allowing this is had we been able to do it over we wouldn't have
allowed the design in the first place that had the ugly chain link
fence on the side facing 28th Street. The deal was we are going to
allow the Special Use Permit but we want you to fix that up and
improve the looks of it. They did agree to do the construction. They
obviously failed with the time table. Now we are being told again they
will do it. Another alternative is to table this request and ask the
applicant to come back with some definite assurance of when it is
going to be completed. It would be in the best interest of the
Township to have it completed.
Member Lewis related the repercussion of what has happened from
here is going to be felt months and years from now in the regards that
what we should have done is to put a bond out there. The attitude is
that the Planning Commission may not be friendly to businesses. What
really upsets me is the next person that comes in here and asks for
something and I'll sit here and say remember when so and so didn't do
what they were supposed to so I'm going to ask for a bond. Then we are
going to force them to do it. That is wrong. But that is what is
happening. A commitment was made and was and not followed through.
Part of it was our fault because we should have asked for a bond. The
thing that really sticks in my throat is the idea that our Planning
Department has spent additional time notifying them on this and
reminding them when it should be done. This is a step up and beyond
what should have been done.
Member Lewis supported by Member MacAllister moved that the request
for an outside temporary garden center this year be denied.
Member Koessel related he doesn't disagree completely. We can't
change what happened in the past. Sometimes we do things and put
processes in place to protect against doing the wrong thing again.
They missed the July 2003 deadline. We can't change what happened last
year. That is in the past. Member Koessel related he does not see any
reason to deny it if it gets done this year.
Member Jones related we are dealing in the real world with
contractors and providing some incentives gets the job done faster.
Member Koessel is right. Approving it with a condition of getting it
done should be pursued at this time.
Chairman Richards related he appreciates the frustration of Staff
and members of this Commission. The problem with denying it now is
they wouldn't have any incentive to do it until next year. We should
go ahead and condition the approval for the Special Use Permit on the
requirement they do complete it on a timely basis. Chairman Richards
related he will vote against the motion to deny.
Member Lewis withdrew his motion to deny. He stated the reason why
if we slam the door on them it won't be done for another year for next
year. Plus the fact they have not expanded it.
Member Koessel supported by Member Goldberg moved to grant the
Special Use Permit subject to the completion of the plan we approved a
year ago prior to this Special Use Permit being granted by May 1,
2004.
Planner Deem asked if there is a provision for review again next
year.
Members Koessel and Goldberg stated yes.
Member MacAllister clarified that no other work is to be done on
the site dealing with staging or setting up of materials.
The motion carried with Members McDonald and MacAllister casting
nay votes.
Chairman Richards related to the applicant he dodged a bullet
tonight. He is very disappointed in the store's non compliance and
fully appreciates the Staff's frustration. Your predcessor made a
commitment to us this would be done by July 1 and it was not. Even
after repeated reminders it still wasn't. The only reason we are
granting this tonight is you based on your prediction that it will be
done.
Mr. Pierce related he appreciates the board's consideration. You
have been more than gracious.
ARTICLE 9. Case #03-2540: Waterfall Shoppes
Consideration of PUD Ordinance
Member MacAllister restated her potential conflict of interest as a
shareholder in Paragon, an adjacent property owner to Waterfall
Shoppes, as previously stated in prior meetings. Chairman Richards
related thank you for the reminder. The consensus was it is not a type
of conflict that would necessitate your excuse.
Planning Director Peterson related the applicant was awarded
conditional approval on February 2, 2004 from the Planning Commission.
The conditions of approval are listed in the Staff Report. The ten
conditions have been included into the PUD Ordinance. Staff related he
worked with the developers to make sure we had all the items drafted
into the Ordinance. Item #8 includes a provision in the PUD Ordinance
for a subcommittee review prior to Planning Commission review is
modeled after the Meadowbrooke Review Board. There would be a group of
five people - 3 representatives through the developers and two from
the Township. The recommendation would be passed along to the Planning
Commission exactly like the Meadowbrooke Review Board.
Planning Director Peterson related there are also real small
technical changes regarding language. Staff pointed out two with
regard to signs. Section 10, Page 9, discusses commercial
establishments with multiple tenants - "in the event the building
has multiple commercial establishments, each commercial
establishment's space will be permitted a sign area equal to one
square foot for each lineal foot of building frontage that each
respective commercial establishment occupies, not to exceed 100 sq.
ft. in total and no sign shall have a length of more than two-thirds
of the subject frontage". Planning Director Peterson related
that's not unlike what we have today. At present you would be allowed
to have as much wall signage on a multi-tenant building as you have
frontage. In theory this could be less or it could be more.
Planning Director Peterson related Item e in the same subparagraph
allows for "one (1) directory wall sign per commercial
establishment". At present we allow for a wall direction sign.
This would allow for one additional in a multi tenant building. That
was the only item when the applicant review the final draft of the PUD
Ordinance that we could not quite agree on. They asked for two
directory wall signs per commercial establishment. Staff felt per
commercial establishment one would be reasonable instead of two. Some
of the conditions have already been submitted such as stormwater
permits and Kent County Drain Commission approvals. At this point the
only items not nailed down are the easement for Arby's parcel and
access to 33rd Street. Those are expected to be worked out prior to
this going to the Township Board.
Planning Director Peterson recommended a favorable recommendation
for the PUD Ordinance be forwarded to the Township Board.
Member Koessel asked for clarification on the directory signs.
Planning Director Peterson related that would be "per commercial
establishment".
Member MacAllister asked do we want to have a maximum per building
for square footage or something. Planning Director Peterson responded
right now the maximum is based on the road frontage you have.
Member Goldberg related he understands the signage issue as regards
the actual sign on the building itself where each tenant needs their
own sign. The notion of one directional sign per tenant is a little
bit different. He asked what was it that convinced you this one sign
per tenant would be reasonable as opposed to a multi-tenant sign.
Planning Director Peterson responded given where these buildings will
be located that was not completely unreasonable. It was location of
the future buildings more than anything else.
Jeff Hundley and Mark Finkelstein represented the applicant.
Mr. Hundley related we are competing with national retailers that
don't like hearing from the developers you can only have this. Our
suggestion to Staff is to make they come back to subcommittee or the
Planning Commission for directional signs. One retailer specifically
says we want to handle that process to speak with the Planning
Commission. If we restrict them we are in a bad position. That's the
only issue.
Chairman Richards related the Subcommittee spent a lot of time on
this and hashed out a lot of things which saved us a lot of time as a
Commission. He asked Staff if a particular retailer wanted something
other than the PUD says couldn't they come back for an amendment.
Planning Director Peterson responded they could.
Mr. Hundley related he was suggesting that they have to come in for
site plan approval and would present it at that time. That's all we
are asking. The subcommittee meeting was a good process. We just want
to be able to say here's their building plan and here is their sign
plan. It could all be reviewed at the same time.
Planning Director Peterson related it is a little bit different
than the way it is worded in draft Ordinance. The way it is drafted
they would be allowed to have one directory wall sign per commercial
establishment. If they want something beyond that scope, that would be
an amendment. We did provide for the signage to be discussed as part
of the review board. If we want to build that kind of flexibility for
wall directory signs as well we would have to include it into
Subsection paragraph 3. Staff related his opinion is the wall
directory portion of the sign package is pretty small as compared to a
wall sign package for a store.
Chairman Richards related he is finding it difficult that a major
retailer would not consider a site due to a PUD requirement. He is
inclined to leave it as is.
Mr. Hundley responded we don't like to say here's what we signed
and then come back and ask you to amend it. We want to be up front
with you.
Member Koessel supported by Member Lewis moved to pass along to the
Township Board a favorable recommendation of the PUD Ordinance subject
to the changes Staff recommended.
Member Goldberg complimented all the people involved and stated he
does appreciate the developer's candor in this case. He is not
anticipating they will come back with a number of amendments.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 10. Any Other Business
a. Kent County Update - PDR Program. Planning Director Peterson noted
the update in your packets.
ARTICLE 11. Adjournment
Member MacAllister supported by Member Goldberg moved to adjourn.
The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:46 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
 |
|
