Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, May 3, 2004
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Richards called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Goldberg, Koessel, Lewis, Logue, MacAllister,
McDonald, Richards, Robinson,
Members Absent: Jones (excused).
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Planner Deem; Admin.
Assistant Thompson and those listed on Supplement #1.
ARTICLE 2. Chairman Richards led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ARTICLE 3. The agenda was approved on motion by Member Koessel and
supported by Member MacAllister. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Minutes of the April 19, 2004 meeting were corrected
on Page 7, paragraph 6. The second sentence should read: "He
asked is". With that correction, Member Lewis supported by Member
Robinson moved to approve. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 5. The Township Board Minutes of March 10 and March 24,
2004 meetings were received and filed.
ARTICLE 6. Case #03-2595: Michael Bottema
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested an amendment to a Type I Special Use Permit to
increase the size and change the location of an approved accessory
building at 5672 Whitneyville Avenue.
Planner Deem related in November of 2003 the applicant came to the
Township to request a Special Use Permit. One condition for the
approval was that the applicant receive DEQ approval due to the
wetland on the property. In December of 2003 the DEQ determined the
wetland area. The proposed location of the accessory building would be
in the middle of the wetland. The applicant then amended his site plan
and moved the building closer to the front property line and closer to
the house. The building meets all our standard regarding setbacks. The
difference between what is being asked for now and what was being
asked for in November is the applicant has increased the size of the
building by 168 s.f. and the location is 40 feet closer to the front
yard than originally approved. The location is still behind the front
line of the house. The gable end will still face the road frontage.
Originally, a similar request was brought to us by a different
applicant in 2002 with a square footage of 1,656 s.f. The total square
footage now is 1,300. The building is still smaller than what was
originally approved in 2002.
Planner Deem recommended approval of the amendments with the same
conditions that were originally stipulated.
Member Goldberg asked so the new conditions would not say anything
about the 75 feet plus or minus 25 feet for the location. Planner Deem
responded yes. The building will be 92 feet from the rear property
line.
Mr. Bottema, the applicant was present. Mr. Bottema related the
building will be just a barn to store extra vehicles and a place to
have a workshop. He will do nothing commercial there. He works in an
office and he does not fix cars. The reason he is here is because he
had to get DEQ approval. He has to stay out of that wetland area. Mr.
Bottema related he wanted it further back on the property but can't
because it would be in the wetland. To build in the wetland you have
to go through all sorts of things.
Chairman Richards asked if the proposed site is in the clearing
area. Mr. Bottema related it is just a little bit west of that. The
clearing will serve as the driveway. Once the foliage is on the trees
the building will not be able to be seen from the house. He will not
cut down the trees in front of the building.
Chairman Richards asked if the building will have plumbing, running
water, electricity, etc. Mr. Bottema related it will have electricity
and he is thinking about running rough plumbing in case he ever wants
to do install it later. He doesn't have a need for plumbing at this
time.
Chairman Richards asked if the barn would have living quarters. Mr.
Bottema responded no. It is strictly for storage.
Member Lewis asked if the outside is going to match the house. Mr.
Bottema responded it will be close to the color of the house. It is a
metal building. It is not going to be a show piece.
Member MacAllister asked if it will be painted steel. Mr. Bottema
responded yes, it is pre-painted.
Member Lewis supported by Member Robinson moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planner Deem related he received some phone calls from neighbors
and a couple of them came in to see the site plan. No one had any
objections.
Member Robinson supported by Member Goldberg moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Lewis asked if this building is smaller than what was
approved before. Planner Deem responded the previous owner was granted
nearly 1,700 square feet. In 2003 the proposal was for 1,176 s.f.
which was approved, and now he is asking to add 168 s.f. to that. That
will put the building over 1,300 square feet, which is still less than
what was originally approved. From the most recent approval, it is an
increase.
Member Lewis asked this was approved twice so far? Planner Deem
responded yes.
Member Lewis supported by Member Robinson moved that the
applicant's request to amend and increase the size of the latest
approval by 168 square feet be approved at the location shown on the
latest site plan with conditions as set forth by Staff: 1) the
building not be involved, directly or indirectly with any business,
trade, occupation or profession; 2) the building is to be orientated
so the gable end of the building faces the neighbors; 3) any lighting
for the building be downcast; and 4) the accessory building be in
compliance with any MDEQ requirements.
Member MacAllister related in the future it would be helpful to
have the minutes from the prior meetings.
Chairman Richards agreed.
Member Lewis asked if the gable end will face the road frontage?
Planner Deem responded yes.
Member Lewis related he will change the motion to reflect that.
Member Robinson related that change is acceptable to him.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Case #04-2629: Sikh Society of Western Michigan
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicants requested a Type II Special Use Permit to construct a
Sikh Temple at the corner of Quiggle and Cascade Road.
Planner Deem related churches require a Special Use Permit and site
plan approval from the Planning Commission and a recommendation on the
Special Use Permit to the Township Board. The applicant is proposing a
200 seat temple on 7.2 acres of land at the corner of Quiggle and
Cascade Road. Standards regarding churches are that with less than 200
seats the minimum lot size required is two acres. This parcel is 7.2
acres. Should they ever want to expand, they far exceed the minimum
requirement of 3 acres of land for a temple with over 200 seats. The
required front yard setback is 100 feet from Cascade Road. The
applicant is proposing to locate the temple 190 feet from Cascade
Road. The site has two front yards (one on Cascade Road and one on
Quiggle). The required side yard setback is 50 feet. The proposed
building will be approximately 185 feet from the side yard. The
required rear yard setback is 50 feet. The building will be
approximately 265 feet from the rear yard. The required parking is 1
parking space for every four seats. Fifty parking spaces will be
required. The applicant is providing 54 spaces. Landscaping is
required at 25 s.f. for each parking space. That equals out to 1,350
square feet of landscaping. The applicants are providing 1,958 s.f. of
landscaping divided into four sections. The building will be 14,814
s.f. including a lower level. The building foot print is 7,407 sq. ft.
Building height will be 30 feet. The maximum allowed is 35 feet. The
Fire Department asked for a fire lane to be installed and the
applicant has complied. The Township Engineer has reviewed the plans
and would like revised storm water calculations. The Township Engineer
would also like to have the stormwater controls designed to handle a
future addition to the temple.
Planner Deem went through the five standards required for Special
Use Permit approval from the Staff Report.
Planner Deem recommended approval of the site plan with the
conditions listed in the Staff Report. Planner Deem also recommended a
favorable recommendation be forwarded to the Township Board regarding
the Special Use Permit. In addition, Staff requests that the Kent
County Health Department permits for well and septic be obtained and a
driveway permit be obtained and engineers concern be addressed and the
fire lane be added.
Member MacAllister related there is no landscaping plan with this
application. Planner Deem related the landscaping is identified on the
site plan.
Member MacAllister asked do we have a lighting plan? Planner Deem
related no, we do not but it will meet our standards.
Member MacAllister than asked about the exterior finish. The
applicant's engineer, Deb Gosselin, presented a drawing of the
building. Planner Deem related the building is 30 feet tall and will
meet our height requirements.
Member MacAllister asked why there is no dumpster enclosure. She
asked if the screening by trees is acceptable. Planner Deem related
that meets our standards.
The applicant was represented by Deb Gosselin, Dr. Mander and Mr.
Suri. Ms. Gosselin related the building is 30 feet to the mid-point on
the curved glass on the roof of the building. She related the exact
height can be determined before this goes to the Township Board. Ms.
Gosselin related the Road Commission has approved the drive location.
They have a permit application in hand to send off pending action
tonight. They hope to get approval tonight and move on to the next
step.
Chairman Richards related Ada Bible Church has their main entrance
off Cascade Road and an entrance/exit off Quiggle. He asked if the
applicant has considered that as well? Ms. Gosselin responded for the
long run yes. The fire lane would someday come around and come out
onto Quiggle.
Chairman Richards asked the applicant to point out the dumpster
area on the map. He asked if the applicant would object to installing
an actual wall around the dumpster instead of the natural landscaping.
Dr. Mander related that would be fine.
Chairman Richards asked what days would get the heaviest building
useage? Dr. Mander responded usually Sundays for two to four hours,
usually 10:00 am to 2:00 or 3:00 pm. We may also have small gatherings
during week days too. The priest will reside there in time.
Member Lewis related it seems like when we have a process like this
there is always a time lag between approval and construction. He asked
when is construction anticipated. Dr. Mander related they are not too
far from getting it all together. He anticipates a start within 2-3
months.
Chairman Richards asked what type of parking lot lighting will be
used. Dr. Mander responded they are not sure.
Ms. Gosselin related it is fairly minimal parking lot lighting.
Chairman Richards related the Planning Commission has expressed a
strong preference for downcast lighting. He asked if there is any
problem with shielded lighting. Dr. Mander responded no.
Member MacAllister asked what kind of materials would be used on
the exterior of the facility. Dr. Mander responded they really haven't
decided yet. It probably will be some block material, depending on the
cost. They are in agreement to make it look nice.
Member Goldberg asked if it would be stucco. Dr. Mander responded
it would probably be pretty similar.
Member MacAllister asked if the sign on the front will be lit. Dr.
Mander responded they will have three flags up: United States, Indian
and a religious flag. Occasionally they will have a meeting at night.
Member MacAllister asked if the circle sign on the building front
will be lit? Dr. Mander responded it probably will be. He does not
really know.
Mr. Suri related it will probably show just the symbol.
Member MacAllister asked if the sign at the street frontage would
be internally lit. Dr. Mander responded he didn't know. It depends on
the cost.
Member McDonald asked is this the exact landscaping plan. Ms.
Gosselin responded it is conceptual.
Member McDonald related this is really beautiful and likes the plan
shown on the elevation drawing.
Member MacAllister related the landscaping is only noted on the
plan for the parking area. Ms. Gosselin responded the initial
landscape plan is for the required buffer yards and the parking area.
They have tried to keep the landscaping at minimum standards on the
initial plan and add as their budget permits.
Member Robinson related he is not clear on what the curved roof
area in the top does and its purpose. He asked if that is for light.
Ms. Gosselin related those are sky lights.
Planner Deem related the landscaping required is a Type A buffer
yard which is one canopy tree, two understory trees for every 100
feet. This plan meets that requirement.
Member MacAllister supported by Member Koessel moved to open the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planner Deem related no other written comments were received except
for the letter from Mrs. Cox. He received a couple of phone calls
about the site. No negative comments were received except for the
letter in front of you.
Yuan Nguyen related he bought the land at 4960 Quiggle, across from
Ada Bible Church. He asked what kind of religion is this temple?
Chairman Richards suggested he talk with the applicant about that. The
Planning Commission cannot consider that as a factor of approval or
denial.
Mr. Nguyen then asked if this is too close to Ada Bible Church. He
asked is it a good idea to have two churches so close together.
Chairman Richards related it is a use permitted in the area.
Karen Parent questioned the ingress and egress off Cascade Road.
She asked if two driveways would be required. Planning Director
Peterson responded we never require two driveways. There are certain
standards where two driveways are allowed. We don't require that.
Member MacAllister supported by Member Koessel moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Goldberg related if what I am looking at is going to be
built, it fits in the neighborhood just fine. He is not hearing from
the applicant that there is a degree of certainty that what is going
to be built will look this way. It is very difficult for me to do my
job as a Planning Commissioner and decide whether or not the standard
is going to be met. Until I know what the materials are and the actual
landscape plan, sign and lighting, I really don't know how I can judge
how this standard is met.
Member Robinson agreed. The applicant is stating everything is
going to depend on cost. At this point I don't think we have all the
answers.
Member Goldberg related he is favorably disposed to this request
but it is hard to judge whether the standard has been met.
Member MacAllister related she feels we don't have all the answers.
Member Lewis related he agrees also. If this is forwarded to the
Township Board tonight, they should be alerted to look for a more
complete presentation for building materials, landscaping and
lighting.
Member McDonald related he is pre-disposed to approve this if we
know the building materials. As he sees it we have two options: table
and we fill in the details or approve with conditions that the
building materials be reviewed by Staff.
Chairman Richards related it seems we are all in agreement that the
plan as is is acceptable but the blanks need to be filled in. We need
to know: 1) what the materials are, 2) exact height of the building;
3) more precise landscaping plan and 4) signage for both the building
and along Cascade Road. Chairman Richards asked the applicant if we
were to table this matter for two weeks would that give you enough
time to come back with answers. Ms. Gosselin responded yes. Just the
building size is locked in. She is not certain about the materials.
Member Robinson related add on more information about lighting.
Member Koessel related the other church we looked at on Cascade
Road had problems regarding the color of the church building itself.
The neighbors did not want a red building. I think it would be
appropriate to address the color of the structure. That has happened
before and that is why I bring that up.
Ms. Gosselin related earth tones are appropriate to this faith.
Member Golberg related there were a number of comments regarding
the storm water issue. He wants assurance that the applicant will
comply with that.
Member Golberg supported by Member Robinson moved to table the
request. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Case #04-2631: Kent County Dept. of Aeronautics
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a Special Use Permit for permission to
establish one or more car rental businesses at the proposed location
at the Southeast corner of Patterson and Oostema Blvd.
Planning Director Peterson related this request is a little bit
different in that we do not have a site plan. The area is in the
Sub-zone 2. A while ago we divided the airport into different
sub-zones. Car lots, and car rental areas are permitted uses there
with a Special Use Permit. The location would be just south and west
of the military air museum. What is different about this project is
there is not a site plan associated with this project as yet. The
airport would like to put in the infrastructure and then allow the car
rental companies to come back in with a site plan. That is the only
area where car rental businesses are permitted in Cascade. The Special
Use Permit standards are listed in the Staff Report. The majority of
the standards are associated with the site plan rather than the
Special Use Permit. There will be no new curb cuts. All the access
would be from the access that is already there.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the Special Use
Permit for the car rental business at the proposed location and a
favorable recommendation to the Township Board. The applicant will
come back for site plan approval at a later date.
Member Goldberg asked if the permit that we are being asked to
approve would allow for car sales or just car rentals. Planning
Director Peterson responded car rentals.
Member Koessel related in looking at the location map - is it where
the new street is? Planning Director Peterson pointed out the area on
the map. He related it is not right on the corner but farther south.
Member MacAllister related she is concerned about landscaping and
if the township can control the landscaping along Patterson Avenue.
Planning Director Peterson related this is a little bit different. The
site plans will come in later. The applicant is aware of what our site
plan requirements are. This just allows the use there.
Roy Hawkins from the Dept. of Aeronautics represented the
applicant.
Chairman Richards related you want this Commission to approve the
area being used for rental car business and at a later time either you
or the business would come back with a specific site plan? Mr. Hawkins
responded right.
Chairman Richards asked would this be in lieu of or in addition to
the existing car rental business. Mr. Hawkins related over time, the
existing car rental businesses would be moved to the new area. This
area has been slated for rental car business 12-15 years based on the
airport master plan.
Chairman Richards asked would these lots be for storage of rental
cars. Mr. Hawkins responded they would be for the rental car facility
and doing minimum service, washing, and fueling of cars as well as
storing them during off periods.
Chairman Richards asked how do they get the cars to the terminal?
Mr. Hawkins responded they are shuttled by employees of the rental car
businesses.
Chairman Richards asked what is the time table for construction of
the new parking ramp at the main terminal. Mr. Hawkins responded five
to ten years.
Chairman Richards asked how close would that be to the taxi way.
Mr. Hawkins responded it is just north of the building restriction
line, 786 feet off the runway.
Member Lewis related questioned the car sales. Planning Director
Peterson related we have never had a problem with the existing
agencies.
Mr. Hawkins related they have never had any banners, etc. The cars
may be able to be sold elsewhere off site.
Member Golberg related he would just like to approve rentals. If
they have to do sales a car company can come back for that request. He
would be interested in hearing what a specific proposal is on that.
Chairman Richards asked is that going to be a problem? Mr. Hawkins
responded can't speak to that. It is your ordinance and whatever you
do is your choice.
Member MacAllister asked is your Master Plan including landscaping
along this area. Mr. Hawkins responded the Master Plan is a broad over
view of the airport. He would like to keep it along with what Cascade
Township would like.
Member Logue asked do FAA guidelines dictate anything about car
rental agencies? Mr. Hawkins responded no.
Jim Cook related the existing fence is going to remain. We will put
a new fence along south and east side.
Mr. Cook related the whole area along Patterson Avenue will be
10-15 feet above the Patterson Avenue grade.
Member McDonald asked what is the plan for the area where the
existing car rental agencies are now. Mr. Hawkins responded we have a
need for more surface parking area.
Member Lewis supported by Member MacAllister moved to open the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planning Director Peterson related he received no comments.
Member Goldberg supported by Member Robinson moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Goldberg supported by Member Robinson moved to approve the
car rental business at the proposed location. The location will be
restricted to rental and not sales at this time. The request will be
forwarded to the Township Board if this motion passes. The motion
carried.
ARTICLE 9. Case #04-2623: Rapid Packaging
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a Planned Unit Development rezoning for the
development of three industrial buildings on one parcel at 5151 - 52nd
Street.
Planning Director Peterson pointed out the property location on the
map. He related the applicant is requesting a PUD rezoning for this
ten acre site. The applicant's business is currently located on 28th
Street across from East Imports (formerly Zoom Automotive). The site
is a legally non-conforming industrial use in the commercial zoning
district. The applicant would like to stay in the Township. They plan
on creating a campus like atmosphere and the rezoning would accomplish
some flexibility for setbacks, bufferyards, lot dimensions, etc. The
minimum size of a parcel in the industrial district is two acres. As
many as five lots would fit on this acreage. The applicant has given a
new "test plan" for one building of 160,000 s.f. as opposed
to three buildings totaling 130,000 s.f. The advantage to the P.U.D.
is one access point, shared parking, one sign, and stormwater drainage
for the entire site being developed. The applicant has submitted a
lighting plan. The Road Commission has reviewed the location for the
curb cut. There is a curb cut to the west and east of this site. This
fits in the middle of the two curb cuts. The Road Commission has
approved the location. The applicant does show an access out to the
existing easement. The Michigan DEQ has reviewed the plans. There is a
small area of regulated wetlands. They approved the plan as presented.
The comment is simply as long as you don't disturb it they are fine
with the plan. The building is 25 feet tall where the industrial zone
allows a height of 45 feet. The rezoning would require more
landscaping than we would have with straight zoning. A minimum $25,000
landscaping bond for this project will be required. Staff looked at
the standards and felt the project is consistent with PUD rezoning.
Meadowbrooke Office Park is nearby and that has allowances for more
multiple buildings on parcels.
Planning Director Peterson recommended the project be approved for
rezoning with the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Member Goldberg asked what happens if one of these buildings were
to be sold. Planning Director Peterson related we have other projects
that a portion was sold.
Member MacAllister asked we are just approving the site plan but
not the building at this time? Are we going to see them again?
Planning Director Peterson related it would be necessary to come back
for site plan approval.
Member Robinson asked if these buildings are located as such they
may not be able to meet the setback requirements if the parcels were
split off. That would be a concern.
Peter Colvin of Robert Grooters Development was present to
represent Rapid Packaging.
Chairman Richards asked why build three buildings instead of one
big one. Mr. Colvin responded they have three divisions in their
company and want to house them individually on the same site. Some
have different climate control needs, etc. The buildings will be brick
and glass and very attractive. In exchange there will be lots of
landscaping, parking berms, and a great lighting plan. Mr. Colvin
related they have met with the planners four different times for their
input.
Chairman Richards asked what if they decide they are going to move
one division to another State and use the building for office space.
Mr. Colvin responded they saved office space in the larger building.
They would rent the vacant space and use it like an investment and
manage it from their offices. That is the back up plan.
Member MacAllister related she noticed there is one dumpster for
the whole site and asked if that was adequate. Mr. Colvin responded
they are going to put dumpsters in the truck docks.
Chairman Richards asked on the east side of the lot is a "mud
puddle". He asked if that is going to stay there. Mr. Colvin
responded that is not going to be touched. That is going to be
protected. The DEQ was very pleased to see that. They have spent a lot
of time to make the DEQ happy.
Mr. Colvin further related they took the plans to most of the
owners of the nearby buildings. They were very excited about the
quality of the building. He has a letter from two of the owners and
would like that read into the record for the public hearing.
Member Goldberg supported by Member Koessel moved to open the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planning Director Peterson read the letter from L3 Communications
in support of the project. Planning Director Peterson also read the
letter from JES Management of 5300 Corporate Grove who state the
project would be a great addition to the neighborhood. They also
support the PUD plan.
Member Goldberg supported by Member MacAllister moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Richards related he is delighted the applicant is staying
in the Township and is very impressed with the drawing.
Member Goldberg related he would like to see the PUD take into
account the possibility of one or more buildings being sold.
Member McDonald supported by Member MacAllister moved to approve
the plan with Staff's conditions: 1) submit evidence of easement
access; 2) revise the site plan to meet the Township Engineer's
requirements; 3) comply with the MDEQ; 4) revise the plans to meet the
Township Fire Department requirements; 5) submit a landscape bond in
the amount of $25,000; 6) submit KCRC permit for new drive to 52nd
Street; and direct Staff to draft the PUD Ordinance taking into
account the possibility of one or more buildings in the project being
sold. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 10. Case #04-2624: Design I Cascade LLC
The applicant requested site plan approval for a 1,994 s.f. addition
to the existing building and reconfigure landscaping along the east
property line at 5747 - 28th Street.
Planning Director Peterson presented the plan and related the site
is located between Burger King on the west and Esplanade Mall on the
east. This would be a rather small addition, and the bufferyard
requirement would not kick in. The applicant is proposing to do some
exchange of buffer yard and landscaping area on the east side of the
site. The applicant would like to remove some of the landscaping areas
on the east and place them in the middle of the boulevard. Planning
Director Peterson suggested a $6,000 landscaping bond. The Fire
Department and Township Engineer have approved the plans. The sign
along 28th Street will also be relocated. Planning Director Peterson
recommended the site plan be approved with conditions.
Member Lewis asked if the plan for 27th Street is dead. Planning
Director Peterson related the concept of a public 27th Street is dead.
The same intent can be done by access easements. There is an easement
on the property to the north. The service drive was always to the
north.
Member MacAllister asked do we have a sidewalk easement on this
property. Planning Director Peterson related he did not think so. We
do have one for Esplanade to the east.
Member MacAllister asked if the sign would be the same but just
moved to a different location. Planning Director Peterson responded he
is not sure. They will have to comply with our requirements.
The applicant was represented by Mark Tomasik of Innovative Design.
Mr. Tomasik related the owner, Larry Walt, is out of town tonight. He
is present to represent him. The 1,900 s.f. addition will be on the
back of the building. He will make the site plan changes and get the
sign located correctly.
Chairman Richards asked if the exterior will match the existing
building. Mr. Tomasik responded yes.
Chairman Richards asked if the applicant would be willing to enter
into an agreement for the sidewalk. Mr. Tomasik related he does not
feel he has a choice.
Member MacAllister asked if there would be additional signs.
Planning Director Peterson responded an identification sign for the
new tenant will be fine.
Chairman Richards asked if there is additional parking. Planning
Director Peterson responded the parking is being reconfigured. Mr.
Tomasik related the number of spaces will remain the same.
Chairman Richards asked if there is a tenant lined up. Mr. Tomasik
related he has done some tenant plans but does not know who the tenant
is.
Member Lewis supported by Member Robinson moved to approve the site
plan for a 1,994 s.f. addition to the existing building with the
following conditions: 1) submit a landscape bond in the amount of
$6,000; 2) apply for and receive a soil erosion permit prior to the
issuance of a building permit; 3) revise the site plan to show the
correct location of the relocated sign on 28th Street; and 4) the
applicant enter into a sidewalk agreement consistent with our policy.
Member Koessel asked are we talking about the applicant providing a
sidewalk easement or are we requesting them to build the sidewalk now.
Planning Director Peterson related our policy has two options: 1)
enter into an agreement for them to construct it at a future time; or,
2) pay an amount equal to the cost of its construction.
Member Goldberg asked if the entire building is owned by Design 1
and if he is constructing this addition for a tenant other than
himself. Mr. Tomasik responded yes.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 11. Any Other Business
Member McDonald asked are the Pulte signs on Burton Street allowed.
Planning Director Peterson responded yes.
Member McDonald asked what happened with the variance from the
Private Road ordinance on Ventura. Planning Director Peterson related
it will go to the Township Board soon.
Chairman Richards asked if there has been any discussion with the
Road Commission regarding the Turnberry development. Planner Deem
responded they are putting together a plan to present to the Road
Commission. In talking with the Road Commission they seemed willing to
approve the connection at the traffic light and removing the driveway
to the south.
Member MacAllister asked about a sidewalk being part of the 36th
Street extension. Planning Director Peterson related there are no
plans for that.
Member Lewis related he is concerned about school taxes with the
DDA capturing some tax dollars from Centennial Park. Planning Director
Peterson explained that not all the taxes are captured by the DDA in
the district.
Member Lewis asked if the Brann's restaurant sign is getting
bigger. Planning Director Peterson no, it just moved to a different
location.
Member Lewis related he participated in a focus group for the fire
department. He mentioned installing sidewalks down 28th Street which
was not well received with the other focus group members. They didn't
feel a need for that. He urged the Commission to continue listening to
citizens.
Chairman Richards related it is too late to address a discussion on
the private streets tonight.
ARTICLE 12. Adjournment
Member Goldberg supported by Member Lewis moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 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
 |
|
