Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, April 5, 2004
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Richards called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Jones, Koessel, Lewis, Logue, MacAllister, McDonald,
Richards, Robinson.
Members Absent: Goldberg (unexcused).
Others Present: 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 Lewis and
supported by Member Robinson. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Minutes of the March 15, 2004 meeting were revised
as follows:
Page 8, paragraph 9 the first sentence shall read: …and I really
don't feel comfortable reviewing it with the drawing that we've been
presented with any options today.
Page 16, paragraph 10 shall read: I just wanted to clarify. Thank you.
Page 29, paragraph 2, line 12: the word "emphasize" shall be
replaced with the word "empathize".
With those revisions, Member Koessel supported by Member McDonald
moved to approve. The motion carried.
Chairman Richards commended Admin. Assistant Thompson on the
thoroughness of the Minutes.
ARTICLE 5. The Township Board Minutes of March 10, 2004 were
received and filed.
ARTICLE 6. Case #03-2566: Meijer
(From the Table of March 15, 2004)
The Planning Commission conducted a one year review of the Special Use
Permit to allow a garden center in the parking lot at 5531 - 28th
Street, S.E.
Member Lewis supported by Member MacAllister moved to remove Case
#03-2566 from the Table of March 15, 2004. The motion carried.
Planner Deem related there were some issues at the last meeting and
the applicant was asked to come back and present a new site plan for
the proposed location of the garden center and for the requested time
period. The applicant has done that. The new plan is in front of you.
Compared to the 2003 request, the only difference is the location of
the garden center. The location is being moved two rows over to where
the Planning Commission wanted it last year. The sale period will
remain the same at six weeks with one week for set up and one week for
tear down. The garden center area will be the same size as last year.
The materials being offered for sale will also be the same as last
year. The regulations will also be the same. The applicant has agreed
to come back in one year for another review.
Planner Deem recommended approval of the Special Use Permit for
another year with the temporary garden center being placed two rows
over as identified on the site plan.
Member Koessel asked what does the dotted line on the site plan
depict. Staff responded that identifies the location.
The applicant was represented by Scott Nowakowski, Director of Real
Estate for Meijer. The Store Director was also present.
Chairman Richards related last time you suggested the location
would be off to the side, east of the pharmacy drive through. Now you
have moved it back in front of the pharmacy drive through but over to
the east. He asked why. Mr. Nowakowski responded it was an issue of
circulation that was brought up at the last meeting. So we decided to
move it to where it is currently positioned.
Member Lewis noted there is no mention of flowers in the list of
items to be sold. Mr. Nowakowski related they did not sell flowers in
the temporary garden area last year. The area is just for loading of
peat moss, bark, mulch, etc.
Member MacAllister asked the hours of operation. The store director
responded 7:00 am to 10:00 pm, the same hours as the garden center.
Member MacAllister asked what about after hours? The Store Director
responded the area is secured by a camera. It would be an honor
system.
Chairman Richards apologized to the applicant if he got mixed
signals at the last meeting regarding location. The location off to
the side of the pharmacy drive through made more sense. He asked how
are you going to solve the problems of last year's location? Mr.
Nowakowski responded we don't know how much it would impede traffic
flow to the pharmacy drive through.
Member MacAllister related she was the one that brought it up at
the last meeting. She still thinks there is a potential you could have
the same amount of space and maintain a through way to get to the
pharmacy drive through. Mr. Nowakowski related they are trying to make
the area as functional and as simple as possible.
Member Lewis related he understands this will go to the Township
Board next. Planner Deem related Meijer received their approval from
the Township Board last year. The one year review was to be with the
Planning Commission only.
Member Lewis supported by Member Koessel moved to approve the
request for a temporary garden center with the following conditions:
1) the sale period be for six weeks. 2) all material in 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. 3) The existing
conditions on the fenced in garden center still apply with the
exception of this six week period for the parking lot garden center.
5) 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 through and east two parking rows as shown on the site
plan. 6) The applicant shall come back to the Planning Commission for
an annual review.
Chairman Richards related he would prefer the location to be off to
the side but appreciates the traffic problem with the pharmacy drive
through. He will support the motion.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Case #04-2617: Robert Grooters Company
The applicant requested site plan approval to build a 127,500 s.f.
prefabricated steel building at 5093 Kraft in the Meadowbrooke
Business Park.
Planner Deem related the applicant is here for site plan approval.
This is the last building on the site. The entire site was developed
with this building planned for the future. The site plan meets the
Township's requirements for parking, ingress and egress and set backs.
The Fire Department has some minor issues. The Meadowbrooke Business
Park has reviewed the site plan and approved it. The Township Engineer
has reviewed the plan and has a few minor concerns regarding soil
erosion control. Staff recommends that a new soil erosion control plan
be presented addressing those concerns.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission grant site plan approval
with two conditions: 1) a soil erosion control permit be obtained; and
2) a lighting plan be submitted meeting the Township's requirements.
Member MacAllister asked if the wetland mitigation proposed area
will be maintained. Planner Deem responded it will be a "no
touch" area in the future.
Member Jones asked when the development was laid out with this
building in mind - was that for the size? Staff responded yes, and for
the stormwater management, utilities, engineering, etc.
Member Koessel referred to the engineer's letter regarding the DEQ.
He asked will the area be left alone? Staff responded the County has
approved the entrance but we haven't received a copy of their approval
letter. Staff related his understanding is that the wetlands will
remain.
Member Koessel questioned #8 under the engineer's comments. Staff
related the applicant can address that. The location of where the
building is going will be disturbing some wetlands. One wetland will
be filled and one will be left natural.
Member McDonald asked so we have not yet received the DEQ permit.
Planner Deem responded correct.
The applicant, Kurt Adams, project manager for Robert Grooters was
present. Mr. Adams related the applicant has granted 23 acres to the
State of Michigan in the form of a conservation easement. There will
be four buildings in this project total.
Member McDonald asked how many acres will be filled in? Mr. Adams
responded an area that is 100' x 300'.
Chairman Richards asked for an elevation drawing. Mr. Adams related
all buildings are build to suit. They are trying to maintain the same
look as the building up front with aluminum and glass. It is a very
modern look.
Member MacAllister related there doesn't seem to be a trash
enclosure and asked if there is a designated area? Mr. Adams responded
we are trying to maintain the natural presence of the building. We are
trying to push our tenants to keep their trash inside. There are three
tenants proposed and we are very close to signing them.
Chairman Richards asked what the activity in the building will be.
Mr. Adams responded two tenants will be for warehousing and one for
light manufacturing.
Chairman Richards asked do you have any idea of how much truck
traffic there will be? Mr. Adams responded he doesn't see much more
than we currently have. We do not have a high traffic demand for the
building up front. So far it has been short of what it was designed
for.
Member Jones asked if there will be a canopy over the truck docks.
Mr. Adams responded there is a ramp up from the building out to our
catch basins.
Member Jones related it would be helpful to have elevations of the
building at site plan approval. Mr. Adams related we could present an
elevation but it may change and then we would have to come back to you
again.
Member Jones asked how high the building will be. Mr. Adams
responded just like the other building at 5101.
Member Jones repeated it would be helpful to have an elevation
drawing. Typically we have that. If there is a significant change from
what has been submitted, then we would want to see you again. Tonight
we have nothing to go by. There is a lack of information.
Member Robinson agreed with Member Jones. He related he also would
like to see an elevation.
Member Koessel asked what about all the signs placed on the
building. What size are those? Planner Deem responded they would meet
all the township regulations for that. That is a separate process.
Signs are reviewed by Staff. There are three proposed tenants.
Member Lewis asked what percentage of the total space in the
building would the three tenants take up. Mr. Adams responded 100%.
Member MacAllister related the plan that the applicant submitted
shows some lighting. She asked if the wall pack lighting is downcast.
Mr. Adams responded yes. The wall packs typically accommodate parking
lot lighting.
Member MacAllister asked if there would be site lighting. Mr. Adams
responded no, other than the building numbers themselves.
Member MacAllister asked if the monument sign would be lit. Mr.
Adams responded no.
Member Robinson asked if the building exterior may change depending
on the tenants. Mr. Adams related the truck dock locations could
change. He would be misleading the Commission if he told you
otherwise. So many companies are on short time schedules it is easier
to work with the planning staff on minor changes rather than hold up
the site plan review process.
Chairman Richards asked if we were to ask you to come back and
present elevations for the exterior and a lighting plan for two weeks
from now, would that be a big problem. Mr. Adams responded no.
Member Lewis related he saw the location map and did not go out and
look at the site because he thought it was the first building there.
Member Lewis related he would appreciate getting a site plan that
shows the existing buildings.
Member MacAllister asked for the location map for the next meeting
to show the development in its entirety with the buildings that are
there and the ones proposed, so we can understand how this building
fits in.
Member Koessel related Section 21.05 of the Zoning Ordinance sets
out what is required at site plan review. Those items include
elevations and descriptions of the building, structures, dimensions,
signs and location of exterior lighting fixtures. It would be helpful
to see it in the context with the existing building.
Member McDonald related the Township Engineer had a lot of concerns
regarding this site. He asked Staff if he works with the applicant on
those items. Planner Deem responded yes.
Member Robinson supported by Member MacAllister moved to table the
request until the next meeting on April 19. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Case #04-2625: Rockford Development Group
The applicant requested Basic Plan Review to repeal Ordinance #14 of
1995 (Blue Cross - Blue Shield PUD) and have the property revert back
to the underlying zoning of the Glenwood Hills PUD.
Planner Deem related after his Staff Report was completed, he spoke
with the Township Attorney regarding the proper procedure for going
about this request. The Township Attorney felt instead of repealing a
PUD Ordinance, a new PUD would need to be created. That should not
change our meeting tonight. What is being asked is, in 1995 Blue Cross
- Blue Shield created a PUD out of the Glenwood Hills PUD. That PUD
was never acted on and no work was done. Since that time, Blue Cross -
Blue Shield has been in talks with Rockford Construction to sell the
land and develop it. Rockford Construction would like to develop it
under the original PUD standards. Included in your packet are the
ordinances for Glenwood Hills and Blue Cross - Blue Shield. At the
next meeting we will have a site plan from Glenwood Hills with the
proposed ordinance. This specific area will have a new PUD exactly the
same as the original Glenwood Hills PUD.
Chairman Richards asked if there is a concern in developing the PUD
for one new building. Planner Deem responded no. The intent is for the
PUD to include more than one lot. A new PUD would be created but it
would be going back to the Glenwood Hills PUD as originally approved.
Member Lewis asked what was the original designation of that
property. Planner Deem responded industrial, but that was a very long
time ago. Blue Cross - Blue Shield was allowed to make a connection
from the existing office building with a pedestrian pathway over a
wetland. No construction took place. When Rockford Construction came
to us they were under the assumption that the Glenwood Hills PUD was
still in effect. They did not know Blue Cross - Blue Shield created a
separate PUD.
The applicant was represented by Kurt Hassberger. Mr. Hassberger
related Blue Cross - Blue Shield is currently under construction
downtown in the former Steketee's building and will move there in
August. Part of the deal with them was they asked Rockford
Construction to purchase their existing building and three lots (6, 7,
8). Those lots are along the highway. They will shorten up the
cul-de-sac and take part of it out and create a new portion and build
one big building. All through the negotiations we talked about buying
the lots. We would prefer to put things back the way they were. We
prefer the three individual lots.
Member Robinson asked what lot is the existing building on? Mr.
Hassberger responded Lot #5.
Chairman Richards related he does not have any major concerns about
this. Procedurally, he has no strong opinions either. He will refer to
Staff and counsel to accomplish this. He would like to see a site plan
showing the three lots. Planner Deem responded that will be prepared
for the April 19 meeting.
Member Lewis asked if Blue Cross - Blue Shield will be taking their
roof sign with them. Planner Deem responded yes.
ARTICLE 9. Any Other Business
a. Kent County Road Commission - 5 Year Road Improvement Plan.
Member MacAllister asked if there were plans for a pedestrian pathway
along the 36th Street extension. Planner Deem related he is not aware
of any but will check it out.
Chairman Richards asked the status of the Camelback Bridge. Planner
Deem related the construction start date is June 14 to close the
bridge with completion mid to late October. A short discussion of the
construction ensued.
b. Citizens Planner Program - Planner Deem related the information
is offered if you are interested in the program.
c. Home & Building Association of Greater Grand Rapids -
Positions on Land Use. Planner Deem related this handout is for your
information.
ARTICLE 10. Adjournment
Member Lewis supported by Member McDonald moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 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
 |
|
