Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, July 19, 2004
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Richards called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Goldberg, Jones, Koessel, Lewis, Logue, McDonald,
Richards.
Members Absent: MacAllister and Robinson (both 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 Goldberg. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Minutes of the June 7, 2004 meeting were approved as
submitted on motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member McDonald.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 5. The following Minutes were received and filed:
Township Board Minutes of May 19, 2004
Township Board Minutes of May 26, 2004
Township Board Minutes of June 9, 2004
Township Board Minutes of June 23, 2004 (draft).
ARTICLE 6. Case #04-2648: Katherine Heys
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a Type I Special Use Permit to add a 36' x 40'
extension and a 64' x 216' indoor riding arena to an existing 36' x
48'barn at 8261 - 60th Street. The new accessory building would be
16,992 square feet.
Planner Deem related the applicant is proposing to build a total of
16,992 s.f. accessory building for an indoor riding arena. The parcel
is 9.01 acres in size. The applicant is also in the process of
purchasing an additional three acres. This building is proposed to be
a height of 20 feet to the mid-point and meets the setbacks for a
building of that height. The additions will be no taller than the
existing accessory building. The building would be 145 feet from the
west property line, 240 feet from the east property line and 190 feet
from the rear yard and 312 feet from the front property line. There is
another indoor riding arena in the township that is 17,820 s.f. on a
24 acre parcel in the R-1 district. The difference between the R-1 and
ARC district is the R-1 zoning district limits the number of animals
allowed. The ARC zoning district has no limit on the number of
animals. If we would apply the standards of the R-1 district the
applicant could have seven horses. Planner Deem then went over the
standards to consider as listed in the Staff Report. The intended use
of the building is an indoor riding arena with a machine storage
garage. The building will be similar to others in the area. It is
designed to maintain a residential character and will match the
existing home. The building will be significantly larger than the
house and surrounding buildings. This is the area where horse riding
arenas are allowed in the township. This will not be a business use
but just for personal use. The Zoning Ordinance identifies this area
as where these types of buildings should go. The adjoining properties
do have accessory buildings. There will be no new curb cuts to access
the site.
Planner Deem related he received a letter today from neighbors who
live at 8215 - 60th Street. They asked several questions which they
would like answered. Planner Deem went through the questions and
responded.
Planner Deem recommended approval of the Type I Special Use Permit
with the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Member Jones questioned the two surveys in the packet. One is for
19.59 acres and one for 9.01 acres. Planner Deem related the first
survey is the original survey for the house. The second one is the
original parent parcel of 19-1/2 acres. Currently the applicant owns
the nine acres on the site plan. They are also in the process of
purchasing an additional three acres adjacent to this property.
Member Lewis questioned the letter from the Fire Department
regarding access to the barn. Planner Deem responded after speaking
with the applicant and fire department, the applicant will install an
additional access drive to the west side of the arena to be used for
tractors and farm equipment which will be at least 12 feet wide.
Katherine Heys, the applicant, was present. Ms. Heys related she
has one correction that the horse barn would house six horses. She
related it will not ever be full. There may be up to six horses in the
barn. Ms. Heys went on to address the concern in the Peterson's
letter. The original piece of 20 acres is part of what the Petersons
have purchased. The original owner split it into a 10 and 11 acre
parcel to put horses on the property. The neighbor to the west of the
Petersons have another 11 horse stable. Ms. Heys related behind her
property is a horse stable with 20 horses. She related this is horse
country. The horses will not be ridden on the road. These are dressage
horses and they are too valuable for that. She does have teachers come
in. It is not a business. Manure will be spread, so it does not get
built up. She will be trimming out most of the back woods behind the
property to be less of a haven for mosquitoes.
Chairman Richards asked where is the three acre parcel? Planning
Director Peterson pointed that out on the map and related it is the
same depth as the applicant's lot.
Chairman Richards asked what materials the barn will be constructed
of. Ms. Heys responded they will be vinyl sided to match the house.
Member Lewis wanted clarification of the other stable. Ms. Heys
related the stable behind her has 20 horses. The stable on the other
side of the Peterson property has 8-10 horses.
Member Goldberg supported by Member Lewis moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planner Deem responded one neighbor came in and was happy with the
design and in favor of the Special Use Permit.
Aileen Peterson of 82165 - 60th Street asked what the plans are for
the three acre piece. Chairman Richards related he is not sure that
question is relevant. Ms. Heys related she has no plan for the
property. She may put horses on it. She probably will just cut it.
Member Lewis supported by Member Koessel moved to close the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Lewis supported by Member McDonald moved to approve the
request for a Type I Special Use Permit to add a 36' x 40' extension
and a 64' x 126' indoor riding arena to an existing barn at 8261 -
60th Street with the following conditions: 1) the building not be
involved, directly or indirectly with any business, trade, occupation
or profession; 2) any lighting for the building be downcast; and 3) a
second access be given to the barn as requested by the First
Department.
Member Lewis related this area is zoned ARC where the Zoning
Ordinance designates farm uses. This is a large enough piece of
property to handle the space needs of that number of horses.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Case #04-2643: James & Suzette Peplinski
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicants requested a Type I Special Use Permit to construct a
1,008 square foot accessory building at 3455 Bloomington Hills Drive.
Planner Deem related the applicants are requesting a Type I Special
Use Permit for an accessory building. The building will be used as a
garage and workshop. The building will be setback 10 feet from the
side property line and 15 feet from the rear property line instead of
25. The applicant is ten feet short on the rear yard setback. Staff
recommended the building be moved 10 feet forward. The building would
be similar in appearance to other buildings in the neighborhood. The
building's shingle color will be coordinated with the house. The size
of the building is in relation to others in the neighborhood and would
not be out of place. No new access is planned for the building.
Planner Deem recommended approval of the Special Use Permit with
the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Member McDonald asked Planner Deem if he had an opportunity to
speak with the applicant about moving the building. Planner Deem
responded he has not had an opportunity to do that.
Member Koessel asked if the site plan is drawn to scale. Mrs.
Peplinski commented on moving the building forward. The intent was to
keep the size of the building behind the house to make it less visible
from the street. The drawing is some what to scale. She related she
does not believe there is ten feet between the building and the
existing drive. It could be moved forward some but not 10 feet. The
second reason for having the building forward is the back lot line is
on the conservancy area for the neighborhood.
Member Lewis related he went out to the site and commented to Mrs.
Peplinski she has a very nice house and would not be concerned about
the building being too close to the road. Member Lewis questioned the
stakes by the driveway and asked is that the lot line? Mrs. Peplinski
related yes, they just surveyed last week. The lot line is a different
location than the lot line represented to them by their builder. They
will have to revise the plan if that is the correct lot line.
Member Lewis stated we do have side yard and rear yard setbacks
that everybody has to meet. There is a possibility of asking for a
variance since there is common property behind the house. Other than
that, it is pretty standard you have to have these setbacks.
Member Koessel supported by Member Lewis moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planner Deem related he received no comments on the request. He
pointed out the Special Use Permit cannot be approved with the current
setback. If the applicant wants the current setback, they would need a
zoning variance.
Member Lewis supported by Member McDonald moved to close the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
A short discussion ensued regarding procedure of granting the
Special Use Permit when the setbacks do not comply with the ordinance.
Members Jones and Goldberg related they prefer to see the matter
tabled and the applicant come back with a revised plan.
Member Goldberg asked the applicant if tabling would cause them any
concern. Mrs. Peplinski responded it would be no problem to submit a
revised application.
Member Koessel supported by Member Jones moved to table. The motion
carried.
ARTICLE 8. Case #04-2651: Zondervan
The applicant requested site plan approval of a 33,000 square foot
addition to the existing building at 5300 Corporate Grove.
Planning Director Peterson related the property is located on the
corner of 52nd and Patterson at the entrance into Meadowbrooke
Business Park. The applicant has been able to meet all the township
requirements in terms of setbacks. There is a 40 foot front yard
setback in the Meadowbrooke Business Park. There will be no new access
to the site as a result of this addition. The addition is being built
on the existing parking lot. Water and sewer capacity were handled to
support this addition. The existing landscaping on the site will
remain.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the site plan
with two conditions in the Staff Report and a third condition to
comply with what the Township Engineer laid out.
Jim Horman of Design Plus represented the applicant, JES
Management. Mr. Horman explained there will be no overhead doors in
the addition. The impervious surface will be about equal to what was
there before. Landscaping will be added. The site plan has been
reviewed by the Meadowbrooke Business Park.
Chairman Richards asked the purpose of the addition. Mr. Horman
related it will be warehousing for Zondervan. It is a self-guiding
with guides in the floor for low voltage lines. The addition will be
fully sprinkled and heated as is the existing building.
Member Goldberg supported by Member Koessel moved to approve the
site plan with the following conditions: 1) the existing plantings
shall remain in the bufferyard; 2) apply for and receive a soil
erosion permit prior to construction; and 3) comply with the Township
Engineer's requirements.
Member Lewis commented the site plan has come through the
Meadowbrooke review board and it looks great in what they are doing
out there.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 9. Case #04-2649: Ada Bible Church
The applicant requested site plan approval for the Phase II addition
to Ada Bible Church at 8899 Cascade Road.
Planner Deem related the addition will bring the total seating
capacity to 1,840. The plans have been reviewed by the Township
Engineer. The Fire Department has also approved the plans. The Health
Department has reviewed the plans. No new curb cuts will be needed for
Phase II. The engineering was done in Phase I with an addition in
mind. The site plan meets the requirements for the Special Use Permit
of a church. The site plan meets the standards for site plan approval.
Planner Deem recommended approval of the Phase II addition to Ada
Bible Church.
Member Koessel asked if there would be any additional lighting.
Planner Deem related yes, that is indicated on the site plan for the
new parking area.
Member Jones asked where the retention pond discharges to. Planning
Director Peterson related he is not sure it is a formal drainage
district. There is a fair amount of development in that area with the
Sikh Temple going in.
Planner Deem related the applicant has met the Township Engineer's
standards.
The applicant was represented by Ed Shepard, Business Manager of
Ada Bible Church. Mr. Shepard related they have purchased an
additional 37 acres to east. Mr. Shepard related most of the water
flows to the east and around. A lot of the land in that area drains
that direction.
Member Koessel asked if additional signage would be used. Mr.
Shepard responded no.
Member McDonald asked what the additional 37 acres would be used
for. Mr. Shepard responded they wanted to make sure no development
would be close to them. The property will be a buffer zone.
Member McDonald asked what time the parking lot lights go off. Mr.
Shepard responded 9:30 pm.
Member Goldberg asked if a photometric analysis was done to insure
the lighting meets the foot candle requirements. Mr. Shepard responded
yes, all the studies were done for the original site plan.
Chairman Richards asked if all 1,840 seats would be used
simultaneously. Mr. Sheperd responded probably as seating is an issue
for them. They currently have a 9:15 and 11:00 am service and a 6:00
pm service on Sunday.
Chairman Richards asked the number of members. Mr. Shepard
responded 3,500.
Member Lewis asked if another phase is planned. Mr. Shepard
responded yes, Phase III is planned.
Member Lewis asked if there is a possibility of the public using
the church for a public hearing, etc. Mr. Shepard responded yes. We
have rooms to choose from depending on the number of people using the
room.
Member Koessel supported by Member Goldberg moved to approve the
site plan for the Phase II addition as submitted.
Member Lewis related he will support the motion.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 10. Case #04-2646: Target
The applicant requested site plan approval of an approximate 142,000
square foot building for a new Target store in the Waterfall Shoppes
development.
Planning Director Peterson related this is on the former Showcase
Cinema site, where we recently approved the Costco store. The project
has been divided into five phases. Planning Director Peterson
presented the site plan. The review board looked at this site plan on
June 16. The review board recommended approval of the site plan. The
Minutes from that meeting are in the packets. The two biggest issues
were signs and pedestrian connections within the site. The review
board was very pleased with the pedestrian connections. The store will
be much farther back from 28th Street than the Costco store. Target
would have one wall sign out front and a 35 s.f. pharmacy sign. They
wanted 470 s.f. of signage. The subcommittee's opinion was the signage
should be down sized to be comparable with Costco. Three hundred fifty
square feet of signage seemed to be appropriate to the review board
based on the distance from 28th Street, the size of the building
consistent with Costco and they were downsizing the monument sign by
50 s.f. in front of the store. The review board was pleased with the
building materials and recommended approval of the site plan. One item
remaining was the issue of a potential bus stop. Initially, Interurban
Transit Partnership (ITP) said there would not be a bus stop within
the development. Now, they have identified three potential stop areas.
The building conforms to the PUD requirements for setbacks. The Fire
Department reviewed and approved the site plan. The Township Engineer
has some items that need to be addressed. The landscaping meets the
township requirements and does identify pedestrian connections to the
other phases. The photometric plan meets the township standards for
lighting on the site. Target will provide lighting out to 28th Street.
Lighting fixtures within the development will be the uniform.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the site plan as
presented with the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
The applicant was represented by Jeff Hundley and Mark Finkelstein.
Member Koessel asked if the existing Target store in Kentwood is
going to close. Mr. Hundley responded he assumes so. This store will
be 50,000 s.f. larger than the existing store and will be Target's
newest prototype. It will have 20,000 s.f. of dry groceries.
Chairman Richards related there has been some discussion about
placing a giant "bullseye" on the roof of the Target
building. He asked the applicants if they are aware of that plan. Mr.
Finkelstein related it has only been discussed. They have no specific
plans for that.
Mr. Finkelstein presented a drawing of the proposed lighting
fixture. The lighting will be mercury vapor with a recessed bulb and a
rounded glass cover.
Member Lewis related one thing he mentioned during the subcommittee
meeting was the old movie theatre sign coming down. Planning Director
Peterson related the construction company has been trying very hard to
meet our demands on soil erosion/stormwater issues on site and I would
not want the sign to take priority over those items.
A short discussion of the stormwater ensued. Planning Director
Peterson related the stormwater goes to Plaster Creek in Kentwood.
Member McDonald asked Chairman Richards (since he is a pilot) how
he feels about signs that can be viewed from the air. Chairman
Richards related he would like hear Staff's opinion on such signs.
Planning Director Peterson related we could take this to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for an interpretation/variance as that would be
regulated by the Sign Ordinance.
Member Lewis related he served on the subcommittee with this and in
Phase I the major concern was traffic. The applicant has been very
agreeable with bus stops, etc.
Member McDonald supported by Member Goldberg moved to approve the
site plan as presented with the following conditions: 1) revise the
landscaping plan to match the site plan and submit a $40,000 landscape
bond; 2) apply for and receive a soil erosion permit prior to
construction; 3) comply with the Township Engineer's requirements; 4)
submit a future bus stop site plan showing the possible locations as
outlined by the ITP; and submit a separate site plan showing the area
to be disturbed for the construction of Target.
Member Goldberg complimented the members who served on the
subcommittee. He related it is a good building and a good addition to
the community.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 11. Case #04-2647: Staples
The applicant requested site plan approval for a 20,000 square foot
building for a new Staples store in the Waterfall Shoppes development,
behind the existing Bob Evans Restaurant.
Planning Director Peterson related the total building will
eventually be 50,000 square feet in size. At this time only the
Staples store is being built, with a pad being left for the future
addition. The whole parking lot would be constructed with the
exception of three landscaping islands in front of the future
addition. Staff suggested putting a time limit on construction of the
parking lot islands such as one year after the Certificate of
Occupancy for Staples is issued. The site plan was reviewed by the
review board. The majority of the discussion seemed to center around
pedestrian access. Planning Director Peterson then referred to the
elevation drawing. He related the colors and materials are being used
to create depth. The Review Board approved the architectural plans and
colors. The signs are in compliance with township standards. The
building meets the setback requirements. The Fire Department has
reviewed and approved the plans. The landscaping complies with the
intent of the original Waterfall Shoppes PUD. A $20,000 landscaping
bond is required to cover the landscaping and three islands which are
to be done no later than one year after the Certificate of Occupancy
is issued.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the site plan
with the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Member Koessel asked why not put the landscaping islands in when
the parking lot and building is constructed. Planning Director
Peterson related they would like to avoid having to replace them due
to construction equipment for the addition. However, since we do not
know when the addition will take place, Staff would like to see them
constructed within one year of Staples' occupancy.
Jeff Hundley related they would like to put the islands in 12
months after Staples receives a Certificate of Occupancy.
Member Koessel supported by Member Lewis moved to approve the site
plan subject to the Staff recommendations: 1) submit a landscape bond
in the amount of $20,000 for landscaping and the construction and
landscaping of the three landscape islands in front of the future
addition; 2) comply with the Township Engineer's requirements; 3)
apply for and receive a soil erosion permit prior to construction; and
4) the landscape islands be built and landscaped within one year from
the date Staples receives their building Certificate of Occupancy. The
motion carried.
ARTICLE 12. Any Other Business
a. Lighting. Chairman Richards recommended moving the Lighting review
to the next meeting.
Chairman Richards related the Road Commission has met with the
Turnberry developer. Planner Deem responded yes, the entrance will be
aligned at the intersection of Kraft and Burton. There will also be a
separate entrance for the apartments. The two developments will be
connected by a pedestrian pathway and connection for emergency
vehicles. The site plan will be revised and Staff will write an
ordinance and the project will be back for review before the Planning
Commission.
Planning Director Peterson related the Zoning Board of Appeals gave
a variance to the river association for a boat launch and a neighbor
filed a lawsuit. That matter is going to come before the Planning
Commission at our next meeting for a Special Use Permit request.
Member Goldberg suggested setting up a closed session with our
township legal counsel.
Member Lewis related in reading the Township Board minutes he noted
the Township Supervisor is suggesting a change in the ordinance for
how long someone can block the pedestrian pathway for construction. He
questioned how that would take place. Planning Director Peterson
related we have a permit process and ordinance regarding cutting into
the pathway. From time to time it needs to be cut into by developers
or utilities. This came out of the length of time that Manchester
Hills has blocked the pathway.
Chairman Richards related on May 19 the Township Board reviewed our
request for a lot split on Ventura Drive. He asked what was the
board's reasoning for granting an exception. Member Jones related the
developer produced a site plan showing how he was going to construct
the turn around. He also indicated it is feasible to locate a
residence on that parcel. That removed the uncertainty. There didn't
seem to be the objection and number of people at the Township Board
meeting as there were at the Planning Commission meeting.
Member Koessel related he is confused as to why the Township Board
went in favor of it when so many people objected to it.
Member Jones related with the defined turn around we could see
there was room for the required setbacks and there was not as much
opposition as at the Planning Commission meeting.
Member Lewis related that is an interesting point. Applicants
introduce new material at the Township Board which changes the vote.
He would like to see the applicant submit the new material to the
Planning Commission before proceeding to the Township Board.
Planning Director Peterson related the Township Board was satisfied
that one lot was no different than the existing neighborhood and was
similar to other exception from the private road ordinance granted in
the past.
ARTICLE 13. Adjournment
Member Goldberg supported by Member Lewis moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:59 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
 |
|
