Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, April 19, 2004
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Richards called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Goldberg, Jones, Koessel, Logue, MacAllister,
McDonald, Richards, Robinson.
Members Absent: Lewis (excused).
Others Present: Planner Deem, Admin. Assistant Thompson, and those
listed on Supplement #1.
ARTICLE 2. Chairman Richards led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ARTICLE 3. The agenda was approved on motion by Member Koessel and
supported by Member MacAllister. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Minutes of the April 5, 2004 meeting were corrected
on page 7, paragraph 1. The word "she" was changed to
"he". With that correction, Member Robinson supported by
Member Goldberg moved to approve the Minutes. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 5. Case #04-2625: Rockford Development
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested to create a new PUD from Lot 4 of the Glenwood
Hills Office Park Plat and Lots 5, 6 & 7 of the Glenwood Hills
Office Park No. 2 Plat. This request will rescind Ordinance 14 of 1995
(Blue Cross Blue Shield) and have the same regulations as the
underlying zoning of the Glenwood Hills PUD. The property is located
at 5540 Glenwood Hills Parkway.
Planner Deem related the applicant is here to create a new PUD. The
Blue Cross Blue Shield building currently in the office park was
created by a PUD in 1995. Rockford Development has an option to
purchase the land. They would like to have the property revert back to
the original Glenwood Hills PUD. The Township Attorney recommending
creating a new PUD which would replace the Blue Cross Blue Shield PUD.
The packet includes the original plan map and the Glenwood Hills
Office Park map. Five lots were combined to form one giant lot. The
applicant would like that to revert back to the original lots and the
original uses would be applied.
Planner Deem recommended approval of the applicant's request to
rezone Lot 4 of the Glenwood Hills Office Park Plat and Lots 5, 6 and
7 of the Glenwood Hills Office park No. 2 Plat into a new PUD and to
direct Planning Staff to create the text for a new PUD Ordinance.
Kurt Hassberger of Rockford Development was present on behalf of
the applicant. Mr. Hassberger related they will actually re-create the
old PUD and put the property back the way it was.
Member Koessel supported by Member Goldberg moved to open the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Staff related no comments were received regarding the request.
Member Goldberg supported by Member Robinson moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Koessel supported by Member Goldberg moved to approve the
applicant's request to rezone Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 into a new PUD, and
directed Staff to create the text for a PUD ordinance. The motion
carried.
ARTICLE 6. Case #04-2610: Maas Johnson Group/Turnberry
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested approval to create a residential Planned Unit
Development of 6 triplex Cottage homes, 21 Brownstone townhomes, a 96
unit luxury apartment complex and a community/sales office at the
southwest corner of Burton Street and Kraft Avenue.
Planner Deem pointed out the location on the map. He related the
site is just north of the driving range and east of the recreational
vehicle storage facility on Kraft Avenue. The applicant is asking to
create a PUD for 123 residential units on 18 acres of property. The
development will be a mixture of 96 apartments, six Cottage homes, and
21 Brownstone townhomes. The project will be served by water and
sewer. Private roads will provide access to the site. There will be
two entrances - one on Burton Street and one on Kraft Avenue. The
Kraft Avenue entrance will be a right in, right out only. The
pedestrian pathway will be realigned. At the last meeting the Planning
Commission had eight items to be addressed before the public hearing.
Planner Deem then went through the items. 1) The Township Engineer has
approved the plans for water, sewer, storm water management, etc. 2)
Kent County Road Commission explanation of entry points to the
project. Staff spoke with John Strunk from the Road Commission and it
was an engineering decision to have it not aligned at that
intersection. It was thought aligning the drive with the intersection
would create confusion with drivers. 3) Distance of southern access on
Kraft from the hill is approximately 500 feet. 4) The applicant has
agreed to provide access to neighboring properties and will address
that in the PUD Ordinance text. 5) The applicant is wiling to grant an
easement for the pedestrian pathway realignment. 6) The applicant has
brought samples of the building materials. 7) The applicant would like
to retain the name Turnberry. The Fire Department does not have an
issue with the name as long as none of the streets are named Turnberry.
8) A plan showing which trees will be saved during construction is
provided in your packet.
Chairman Richards asked which trees existing will be saved? Planner
Deem pointed those out on the map. The trees marked in green
identifies which trees are going to remain.
Planner Deem related there are two areas where the project does not
meet the zoning requirements: the apartment height and total density.
The apartment buildings are planned to be 40 feet high at the
midpoint. Our township Zoning Ordinance would allow 35 feet at the mid
point. The applicant is present to explain their position on the
height. With a PUD we do have some leeway to allow a taller building.
The benefit to the township for the taller building would be a smaller
building footprint. The apartments have parking underground which
saves 10,000 s.f. of open space. The apartment buildings would not be
the tallest buildings in the Township. The Crowne Plaza is taller and
taller than what the Zoning Ordinance allows. The density suggested in
our Master Plan is that the area be used for 4-6 units per acre which
is medium density. The applicant is asking for 6.7 units per acre.
That would not be the most dense area in the township. Chatwick
Hills/Chatham Woods and the Forest Hills Condos have a higher density.
In return for the increased density the applicant is offering 10.31
acres of open space out of their 18 acre site. They are also
preserving over just an acre of existing trees.
Planner Deem then related traffic information. Traffic counts for
Burton Street are 11,200 trips per day. Burton Street has capacity for
over 13,000 - 15,000 trips per day. Trips generated by this project
would be 1,230. The target market for these apartments is empty
nesters. Burton Street east of Kraft has a traffic count of 2,683
trips per day and has a carrying capacity of 10,000 - 12,000 trips per
day. Kraft south of Burton is carries 7,920 trips per day with a
capacity of 10,000 - 12,000 trips per day. Both Burton Street and
Kraft Avenue have capacity for the project.
Planner Deem related the setback for residential homes on Burton
Street is 50 feet. The setback for residential homes on Kraft Avenue
is also 50 feet. The townhomes will have a 90 foot setback at the
closest point to Kraft Avenue which is 40 feet more than the minimum.
The Cottages homes will be 60 feet from Burton Street. The apartments
will be 140 feet from the closest point to Burton Street.
Planner Deem recommended approval for the rezoning to PUD and that
the Planning Commission direct Staff to work with the applicant for a
text PUD Ordinance which will come back to the Planning Commission for
review. The Township Board will hold another public hearing. Planner
Deem related the applicant should have final approval from the
Township Engineer before the Township Board public hearing.
Member MacAllister asked is there any reason why we can't have the
pedestrian pathway extended on Kraft Avenue to the development
entrance. Planner Deem related he didn't see a reason why not.
The applicant was represented by Denis Johnson, one of the
architects that worked on the project, and Pat Cornelisse, landscape
architect.
Ms. Cornelisse related the trees on the site have been selectively
cut. They are trying to save as many trees as possible in the woodlot
portion of the site. They did work with a forester. She then pointed
out on the map the trees that will be saved. New plantings will also
be added. There will be a ten foot bufferyard on the site perimeter.
The project will include a dry meadow and wet meadow with a rain
garden near the Brownstones. Ms. Cornelisse explained a rain garden is
an area that holds rainwater runoff, and uses native plantings with
deep soil for filtering and retention of water.
Mr. Johnson related they are working with Planning Staff on
connectivity to the site. There are five or six existing homes on
Kraft Avenue which are fairly close to the road. It would not be
feasible to run a pedestrian pathway in their front yards.
Chairman Richards asked if there is any possibility of connecting a
pathway on the backside of the homes. Mr. Johnson related there is a
parking lot and golf course back there. They are willing to make the
connection but there is a question of where to put it.
Member Mac Allister related she was asking for the development to
be connected to the existing pathway. Mr. Johnson related he wouldn't
be opposed to that at all. The development started with a blank piece
of paper. They have been working on the site for two years. Most
people on the team are Cascade/Ada people. They did increase the guest
parking spaces around the apartment buildings to two. There is
additional land shown by the circular drive courts which could be used
for more parking if needed. They want to create an English
architecture theme with a steeper pitched roof. That is the reason for
the increased height. It is an 8/12 pitch. They have also turned
parking into the courtyards to make a pleasant interior space. Mr.
Johnson presented the drawing for the public and presented a sample of
the building materials. The buildings will be 95% brick with a cast
stone limestone entrance and aluminum facia.
Chairman Richards questioned the lighting examples in the packet.
He related the township likes downcast lighting. These fixtures do not
look like they have a shield on the top. Mr. Johnson responded there
is a light level diagram. The lighting around the perimeter of the
site will be shoe box fixtures and downcast. The other lights will
look like gas lights.
Chairman Richards asked if a shield could be placed on the top? Mr.
Johnson responded yes. Chairman Richards related he would like to see
that.
Chairman Richards then addressed the entrance. He related logically
that entrance to the development would be at a traffic light. He
suggested a big brick gate with Turnberry on it and marked private. He
asked if the plan could be adjusted if the Planning Commission
recommends the entrance be at the traffic light. Mr. Johnson responded
the site development was based on Road Commission parameters. We feel
it would be detrimental to bring the apartment traffic through the
residential portion. The Road Commission was adamant of where they
wanted the curb cuts. They control the road. That was the starting
point for the whole development.
Member Robinson noted the height of the building. It exceeds the 35
foot height limit by five feet. He asked if we approve the PUD does
that take care of additional height or do they have to go before the
Zoning Board of Appeals. Planner Deem responded the PUD ordinance
would take care of it. Mr. Johnson related they want to have 9 foot
ceilings which is also another reason for the height.
Member Koessel related the project is beautiful, there is no
question about that. He echoed the concern of ingress and egress. The
Road Commission made a pretty big mess of Burton Street right there.
It is a very difficult intersection with the hill. He is not sure
about the 500 foot distance. People are going to use that southern
driveway to go left and right out of there. He feels the Township has
to take the position on ingress and egress at the traffic light and
not at the top of the hill. He finds it difficult that people would
think that is a through street. If the entrance is marked clearly as a
development that issue goes away. He feels the driveway at the
intersection would be much easier for ingress and egress.
Member Koessel related it makes no sense to him not to have the
ingress/egress at the intersection. Mr. Johnson related the Road
Commission told him accidents happen at intersections. He is not
defending the Road Commission but we expect them to be the experts.
Member Koessel related he thinks it would be worth pursuing a
driveway at the intersection with the appropriate development marked
clearly. Mr. Johnson related he could go back to the Road Commission
and ask them to study it.
Member Koessel related he would like to go on record to pursue the
access point at the light. Mr. Johnson related he will work with the
County with terms of a traffic study. The Township wants two entrances
for the development.
Member MacAllister related there is only one entrance point for
what the applicant is proposing. Mr. Johnson related it is only for
egress to the south.
Member MacAllister related the applicant will lose the entrance
point.
Member Goldberg related he is sensitive to the applicant getting
whipsawed between the Township and the Road Commission. We will have
another meeting on this for the text language. He asked would it be
possible to invite the Road Commission to our meeting to directly lend
their support to the applicant? Planner Deem related he will look at
that. If the Road Commission can't make a Planning Commission meeting,
would a couple of Commissioners be willing to meet with them? The
response was yes.
Member Jones related he supports Member MacAllister with extending
the pedestrian pathway at least to the driveway. Mr. Johnson related
he likes the looping.
Member MacAllister related she would ask the applicant to bring
that connectivity into the site. She asked the applicant where are you
proposing signage? Mr. Johnson related they will meet the ordinance
but they haven't gotten into that part yet. It does depend on where
the entrance might be.
Member MacAllister asked if there is any lighting attached to the
building. Mr. Johnson responded yes, in the parking courts. The lights
are recessed in the entryways.
Member Goldberg supported by Member Koessel moved to open the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planner Deem related he received no comments.
Roger Kraft of 2485 Kraft Avenue related he lives next to the south
driveway. He asked is that going to be filled in? Pat Cornelisse
related they have to fill in the retaining wall on the north side of
the drive.
Mr. Kraft asked if a noise barrier fence will be installed. Ms.
Cornelisse responded no, it will be buffered with evergreens.
Mr. Kraft related the people turning out of the Turnberry driveway
will not see him pulling out of his driveway. Mr. Kraft related
several people a day pull into his driveway and then pull out on Kraft
because they have missed the road. The left turn lane at the
Burton/Kraft intersection is not marked and people are driving on it
as a traffic lane. Mr. Kraft related he wants a noise barrier fence.
Mr. Johnson responded Mr. Kraft has the only single family house
next door to the whole project. We thought "soft"
landscaping would be better. We will work with him to try to shield
him from traffic.
Chairman Richards suggested the applicant and Mr. Kraft talk after
the public hearing and discuss what type of barrier to install.
Nermin Elmi related she has been living in Kentwood and bought
property in Candlewick. She is running away from apartments. She is
against apartments. She likes single homes. Mrs. Elmi related she
lives by apartments and knows lots of things. People in apartments
steal bikes, etc. They are trying to go in a better neighborhood. They
are planning to build a home there. Their new back yard is on Kraft.
They feel the intersection is very dangerous and there are too many
accidents.
Mr. Johnson related he sent out letters trying to meet with all the
neighbors in Candlewick. He did not get enough of a response for a
meeting. Mr. Johnson related there is a need for apartments in Cascade
Township. These will be upscale luxury apartments which will rent for
$1,200 to $1,500 per month. These people will choose not to have
ownership. They may own homes in other parts of the country. That is
the market we are going after for this project. There will be
underground parking with open space inside the development. We have
buffered the apartment buildings with single family condos that are
owned. The condos are buffered between Candlewick and the Elmi
property.
Mrs. Elmi related she is against only the apartments. Condos are
okay. She lives in a very good neighborhood, but it is apartments. She
is running from apartments.
Member Goldberg supported by Member Robinson moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Elmi thanked the Commission for giving her an opportunity to
speak.
Member McDonald related this is the most innovative plan he has
seen in three years on the Planning Commission. He will approve it
with some conditions. He is sensitive to the points on ingress and
egress. These are luxury apartments. It won't be like the apartment
space the Elmi's have had in the past.
Member Logue related he would like to entertain the possibility of
asking the applicant to come in with engineered drawings for an
entrance off Burton Street. It would be a visual aid for the meeting
with the Road Commission. Mr. Johnson related he will put a sketch
together.
Member Goldberg related he thinks this is a successful project
after being given a "blank sheet" to come up with a way to
utilize this site. The applicant has shown willingness to be sensitive
to neighbors and address their concerns. Member Goldberg related it is
his intention to vote to approve this request. He would prefer an
entrance at the traffic light.
Member Robinson asked should we ask for one of the Township Board
members to join us as we meet with the Road Commission. Chairman
Richards related he would invite Mr. Jones or someone else from the
Township Board to be there. Member Jones related he will make himself
available.
Member McDonald supported by Member MacAllister moved to approve
the applicant's request to rezone 18 acres from R1, Residential to PUD,
Planned Unit Development to create a residential development of 6
triplex Cottage homes, 21 Brownstone townhomes, and a 96 unit luxury
apartment complex; and direct Staff to work with the applicant to
create text for a PUD Ordinance with the following conditions: 1)
approval from the Township Engineer regarding utilities and storm
water management; 2) shields be placed on the lights so light does not
shine upward in the project; 3) the applicant work with Staff to
consider extending the pedestrian pathway south of the Burton/Kraft
intersection to the egress designed driveway on the project's southern
perimeter; 4) the applicant work with Staff and Planning Commission to
approach the Road Commission to consider redesigning the curb cuts and
see if the Burton/Kraft intersection can be one of the curb cut
locations.
Member MacAllister offered an amendment for the applicant to work
with the neighbor regarding the side bufferyard.
Member McDonald agreed to add that as an amendment.
Member Koessel related he likes the part about Staff and Planning
Commission working with the Road Commission for the curb cut location
with the preference it be located at the Burton/Kraft intersection.
Member McDonald related yes, if Staff, Planning Commission, and the
Road Commission decide it is feasible.
Planner Deem related it may be easier to table this request until
after the meeting with the Road Commission to make a formal motion.
Member McDonald related he would like to move it forward. Chairman
Richards agreed to move it forward.
Member Koessel related he has a question on the motion regarding
the extension of the pedestrian pathway. He asked if the Road
Commission does approve the curb cut at the corner of Burton and
Kraft, would your motion still contain extending the pedestrian
walkway up to a point now not designated? Member McDonald related
that's why he wants the applicant to work with Staff. If Staff comes
up with other reasons that it shouldn't be extended because the
ingress/egress is moved, then Staff will make a recommendation to
extend it or not.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Case #04-2617: Robert Grooters Company
(From the Table of April 5, 2004)
The applicant requested site plan approval to construct a 127,500 s.f.
industrial building at 5093 Kraft Avenue.
Member Koessel supported by Member McDonald moved to remove Case
#04-2617 from the Table of April 5, 2004. The motion carried.
Planner Deem related the applicant is present to request site plan
approval for a building in Meadowbrooke Business Park. The Planning
Commission asked for a couple of items at the last meeting. Those
items have now been supplied by the applicant.
Planner Deem related the wetland being disturbed is located in the
building envelope. It is about a half acre in size. The applicant is
preserving 8.46 acres. Under the PUD Ordinance created for
Meadowbrooke there is a review committee that reviews architectural
design issues including elevations, the exterior look of the building,
landscaping, etc. Meadowbrooke approved this request for an industrial
building. Staff's position is the Meadowbrooke PUD Ordinance relates
their review committee has sole control of approval or denial
regarding architectural characteristics of the building.
Planner Deem recommended approval of the site plan with one
condition: that the soil erosion control permit be applied for and
received prior to the building permit being issued.
Member MacAllister asked Staff to draw a circle around the area
where the permanent wetlands would be. Staff pointed out the area on
the map.
Member MacAllister asked what else will be part of this
development? Staff related the applicant will further explain that.
Member Robinson asked has the review board forwarded approval to
the Planning Commission? Planner Deem responded yes. He referred to
the Minutes from the Meadowbrooke Review Committee. According to
Planning Director Peterson (who attended the meeting) it was fully
approved.
Member McDonald asked where will the replacement wetland be.
Planner Deem related the applicant will explain that.
The applicant was represented by Kurt Adams of the Robert Grooters
Company. Mr. Adams presented the elevation drawing. He related the
building elevation stays with the theme of the office park.
Chairman Richards asked what is the market for the building. Mr.
Adams responded high tech and injection molding.
Chairman Richards asked to be shown the wetlands. Mr. Adams
referred to the last page of the site plan. The site is maxed out
because of the extensive wetlands. Mr. Adams related they found it
easier to grant conservation easements. The cross hatched section on
the site plan is the easement. Mr. Adams then pointed out the
mitigation area.
Member Goldberg asked the applicant to leave an elevation drawing
with Staff for the Township records.
Member MacAllister asked if a lighting plan has been submitted.
Planner Deem related lighting is identified on the site plan. It will
meet our Township standards.
Member Goldberg supported by Member Koessel moved to grant site
plan approval for the construction of a 127,500 s.f. industrial
building at 5093 Kraft with the following condition: 1) that a soil
erosion control permit be obtained prior to a building permit being
issued. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Any Other Business
a. Private Street Discussion
Planner Deem related a goal for the year was to review the private
street ordinance. In this memo you have a chart showing where we are
in comparison to other communities. We are in the lower end of the
middle for requirements. He asked the Commissioners to look it over
and let Staff know if you see a reason for us to review the private
road ordinance.
b. Planner Deem referred to the informational site plan in the
packet showing the connection of the pathway from Cascade Township to
Ada Township.
c. Planner Deem reminded the Commissioners of the seminar on June
10.
d. Member McDonald asked Member Jones why the Township Board is
encouraging MDOT to do a Snow Avenue bridge. Member Jones related it
was a plan proposed by the Township Supervisor a couple of years ago
in response to a north/south traffic corridor and would be an
extension of M-50. A lot of citizens have been concerned with
Thornapple River Drive being the only north/south corridor. Something
like this takes years to implement. Member McDonald related we would
be destroying a lot of wetland areas if such a bridge and traffic
corridor were constructed.
e. Member MacAllister asked Staff if he had an opportunity to look
at the 36th Street pedestrian pathway. Planner Deem related he will
provide a response at the next meeting.
ARTICLE 9. Adjournment
Member Robinson supported by Member McDonald moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:42 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
 |
|
