Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Goldberg called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Goldberg, Koessel, Lewis, Logue, MacAllister, Postma
Members Absent: McDonald; Richards, Robinson, all excused.
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Planner Deem, Admin.
Assistant Thompson, Reporter Wilson and those listed on Supplement #1.
ARTICLE 2. Chairman Goldberg led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ARTICLE 3. The agenda was approved on motion by Member MacAllister
and supported by Member Lewis. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. Member Lewis corrected the Minutes on Page 7 to reflect
his reason for voting against the subcommittee. With that correction,
Member Lewis supported by Member MacAllister moved to approve the
Minutes of February 7, 2005. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 5. The Township Board Minutes of January 26, 2005 were
received and filed.
ARTICLE 6. Case #05-2699: Faulk & Foster
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a Type I Special Use Permit to co-locate a
communication antenna on a small equipment structure at an existing
cellular tower site at 4700 Quiggle, S.E.
Planning Director Peterson related the tower is existing and is
located at the end of Quiggle near the expressway. He pointed out the
location on the map. There are already some co-locators on the tower
and co-location is what we encourage. The applicant has submitted the
materials as we required. The only change from the existing tower
would be a small antenna as well as an equipment shed on the ground.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the request.
Chairman Goldberg asked how many co-locators will the tower
support. Planning Director Peterson related the township consultant
will answer that question.
Member MacAllister asked for the "bridge" to be
explained. Planning Director Peterson related it is a piece of
equipment that powers the equipment to the cabinet. Andy Felde, the
township consultant, related it is a piece of galvanized steel that
supports the co-axles. It is elevated in the air at a height of six to
eight feet.
Member MacAllister asked if other units have the same thing. Mr.
Felde responded yes. It is a piece of steel used to protect the
cables.
Chairman Goldberg asked if the tower is maxed out. Planning
Director Peterson related that would depend on the type of structures
on the tower.
Beth of Faulk & Foster was present on behalf of Dave Marvin.
She submitted a structural analysis.
Mr. Felde related the existing antennas are relatively light
loading and will leave room for more co-locations depending on the
weight and size of them and their location on the structure.
Member MacAllister asked about ground space for each antenna on the
pole. She asked if there is a maximum open space that needs to be
maintained on the ground. Planning Director Peterson responded no.
Mr. Felde related they just have to make sure the landlord is aware
of the additional lease area. It should not be too tight for the
people to work in the ground area.
Member MacAllister asked does the Fire Department look at access to
this property. Planning Director Peterson responded they look at
access to the site but not inside the fenced area.
Beth of Faulk & Foster related the equipment cabinets will be
very similar to these at the site already.
Member Koessel supported by Member Lewis moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planning Director Peterson related no comments were received,
either in writing, by phone or in person.
Member Lewis supported by Member Koessel moved to close the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Koessel supported by Member Logue moved to grant the request
for a Type I Special Use Permit to co-locate a communication antenna
and a small equipment structure at an existing cellular tower site at
4700 Quiggle, S.E. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Case #03-2566: Meijer, Inc.
One year review of the Type II Special Use Permit to allow a temporary
garden center in the parking lot at 5531 - 28th Street, S.E.
Planner Deem related the applicant is present for a one year review
to allow the garden center in the parking lot. This came before the
Planning Commission and Township Board for approval in 2003 and was
approved with six conditions. Last year the applicant came back for
review and asked for a location change. This year they are asking to
extend the sale period to twelve weeks. Planner Deem recommended
approval using the same standards as before with a ten week sale
period with one week for set up and one week for tear down. The
applicant is also asking that the annual review be removed. Staff
related no complaints have been received and recommended that the
annual review by the Planning Commission be abolished and that Staff
do the review.
Planner Deem recommended approval of the request with the sale
period being extended to twelve weeks and that Staff do the annual
review. All other conditions would remain the same.
Chairman Goldberg asked when we do this Wal-Mart always asks for
the same thing. Planner Deem responded Wal-Mart was granted a garden
center also last year with the condition that they finish the fence in
the garden center by May 1. They did not finish the fence in time.
They were approved for an eight week sale period.
Member Koessel related the application that they filled out
indicates they are looking for a sixteen week sale period - from March
16 through July 15. Planner Deem responded that was the original
application from 2003. They would like the sale period from April to
the end of June. Staff is recommending the sale period from April 1 to
June 30. The previous approval granted was for a six week sale period
with one week to set up and one week to tear down.
Member MacAllister asked you are asking for Staff to do the annual
review instead of the Planning Commission. Planner Deem responded
correct.
Member Lewis recalled last year seeing garden items up at the front
of the store outside of the garden area which was an expansion of the
temporary area. Several Commissioners agreed they had also seen that
situation.
Member Lewis related the Planning Commission made that an issue and
it was removed. Member Lewis related we are having a situation that
they do not follow what was intended last year and now they want to go
from the original six weeks to 12 weeks. He is also having a difficult
time with the recommendation of not having an annual review by the
Planning Commission. He would like them to come back to the Planning
Commission. Member Lewis related the location also bothers him as it
did last year. The Planning Commission recommended the garden center
be placed along the side of the pharmacy. One of the reasons why that
didn't happen was the pharmacy drive through window. The pharmacy has
been relocated and it seems there would be less traffic and less
problems if it were placed in that east area. The location would seem
to be ideal.
Scott Nowakowski, Director of Real Estate for Meijer was present.
He related the area they designated they have used for two years and
it works wonderfully. They would prefer to leave it there.
Member Lewis related you have a different criteria to use than what
we do. The area crosses a major traffic lane with all the incoming and
outgoing traffic for the store.
Member MacAllister related she supports Member Lewis' statement and
related the new pharmacy location is not noted on the site plan. She
would like a site plan that shows the direction of the pharmacy
traffic and signage through the parking lot. Mr. Nowakowski related he
does not recall the signage there. The signage would be adjusted if
there is a conflict.
Member MacAllister related the east location is out of the major
traffic pattern of and connected to the fenced in garden area.
Member MacAllister asked Staff what is the definition of temporary.
Planning Director Peterson responded we don't have one. The Planning
Commission has always decided what is temporary. For garden centers,
eight weeks has been viewed as temporary.
Planner Deem related eight weeks is what Wal-Mart applied for
before Meijer applied in 2003. The Township Board felt it should grant
the same amount of time for each application. That is how the eight
weeks came about.
Member MacAllister asked why extend the period of time. Mr.
Nowakowski responded that is the season. The season is at least three
months.
Tim Johnson of Main Street Planning related he has worked with
Meijer over the years on many of these projects. The location has a
good track record where it is right now and good visibility. It is
convenient for Cascade Township residents to come to the front of the
store. There haven't been any incidents of traffic or safety over the
years. Mr. Johnson related they don't have a problem with coming back
next year for review.
Member Koessel related he recalls the applicant's concern last year
was that the pharmacy drive through was still there and there would be
conflicting traffic movements with the pharmacy. Member Koessel
disagreed that there haven't been problems. The area is a mess when
you put out the garden center. Last year there were flowers in the
sidewalk and patrons had to walk in the traffic lane to get into the
store. Other patrons were walking across the traffic lane to get to
the fenced in garden center. It was very dangerous. Member Koessel
agreed with the other members that it ought to be next to where the
pharmacy used to be. It would be more convenient and would not be
crossing against the main drive. It is ideal location and very
visible. Placing it where it was last year is not the place for it. It
was not a good situation. Placing it farther from the front of the
store will be better.
Mr. Nowakowski related if you feel that strongly about it we can
change it. Member Koessel replied we do.
Chairman Goldberg related twelve weeks is outside the limit of what
he would consider a seasonal or temporary display. He would have a
problem with going any longer than 12 weeks and believes this is end
of the line for the time frame. He also would like the location by the
old pharmacy on the east. He also would like to see it come back next
year to the Planning Commission for review. Chairman Goldberg related
he does not have a problem with Staff approving this year's site plan
for the changed location to the east.
Member Koessel asked if the size of the garden center is the same
as last year. Mr. Nowakowski responded yes, it might be even a few
feet larger in the new location.
Member MacAllister related she would like some definition to
establish what is temporary. Seasonal and temporary have both come up
recently. She asked how many times after five years is a use not
temporary any more. Also she would like to work toward some type of
enclosure that is not as temporary as using the parking lot.
Chairman Goldberg related you draw a good distinction between
seasonal and temporary. This is a seasonal use. It happens every
spring. We don't want them to move to a permanent type of structure to
accommodate a seasonal use.
Planning Director Peterson related a Special Use Permit is needed
for outdoor sales.
Member Lewis supported by Member Koessel moved that the applicant's
request for a Type II Special Use Permit to allow for a seasonal
temporary garden center at 5531 - 28th Street be approved with the
following conditions: 1) a ten week sale period from April 1 through
June 30; 2) all material in the parking lot garden center be limited
to peat moss, sand, garden soil, mulch, gravel, lava rock, and similar
garden supplies; 3) the set up and take down of the parking lot garden
center be limited to one week before it is open and one week after it
is closed. Before and after that it shall be available for parking as
approved on the original site plan; 4) the existing conditions on the
fenced in garden center still apply with the exception of this ten
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
to the east of the pharmacy drive through; 6) the applicant will
return to the Planning Commission for a review next year; and 7) the
location of the temporary area be placed on the east side where the
former pharmacy drive through window was. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Case #04-2689: AT&T
(From the Table of December 20, 2004)
The applicant requested a Type I Special Use Permit to allow the
construction of a wireless communication facility to include a 90 foot
monopole within the existing self storage facility at 5210 - 52nd
Street.
Member Lewis supported by Member Koessel moved to remove Case
#04-2689 from the Table of December 20, 2004. The motion carried.
Planning Director Peterson related the public hearing on this was
held at the December 20, 2004 meeting. Andy Felde, the Township
consultant was present. Planning Director Peterson pointed out the
area on the map. The area is where the self storage facility is
located. The tower would be 94 feet to the top of the antenna. The
height will limit co-location opportunities. At the last meeting there
was concern about the lease area not being big enough at 25' x 25'.
Since that meeting, Mr. Felde, has received the additional information
he needed. Two things have changed since the last meeting: 1) the
tower is 250 feet farther to the south inside of the self storage
facility; and 2) the compound area is larger. The owner of the self
storage facility has agreed to rent out a couple of storage units for
the equipment as noted in his letter.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the request with
the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Member MacAllister asked if the house on the site is the office and
if it has been renovated. Planning Director Peterson responded yes, it
is the office for the self storage facility.
Member Koessel asked Mr. Felde, it is your recommendation that the
land owner allow for additional storage for up to three cell users. Do
you know which units it would be. Mr. Felde related at that height,
three users would be as many as could co-locate there.
Member MacAllister asked Mr. Felde if this is the best location for
coverage in that area. Mr. Felde responded finding a technically
advantageous location really has not much to do with it because of the
restrictions from the airport.
Planning Director Peterson related there will probably be multiple
antennas in this area because of the airport limitations.
Mr. Felde related given the number of wireless carriers out there,
the tower will be a draw for the area. Industrial users are using more
and more wireless technology in their operations.
Member Lewis related to Mr. Felde, on your report you say this site
offers coverage north to the airport complex. Mr. Felde responded the
power fields reach north just into the terminal area. Due to terrain
off to the east, that site can't reach as far as M-6 east of
Thornapple River Drive.
T.J. Garrett of the Haley law firm related she is present
representing the applicant and for questions.
Member MacAllister asked if everything has been completed by the
owner of the storage facility. Planning Director Peterson responded
there are still some storage units that will be built. The site is not
complete at this time, but is in compliance.
Member Koessel supported by Member MacAllister moved that the
applicant's request for a Type I Special Use Permit to allow
construction of a wireless communication facility to include a 90 foot
monopole within the existing self storage facility at 5210 - 52nd
Street with Staff's recommendations: a) the height of the tower be
limited to 90 feet as approved by the Airport; b) the tower will not
have lights; c) if the height required for the tower to serve its
function decreases from the installed height, due to technological
advancement, additional tower installations at other locations, or
other factors, the tower shall be lowered to such decreased minimum
height; d) color of the tower is galvanized steel (gray) as shown on
the approved plans; e) the applicant address all four conditions of
the February 14, 2005 letter from Drew Wireless (Andy Felde, our RF
Engineer); and f) the approval is consistent with Section 21.03 of the
Zoning Ordinance (1 year time limit, etc.). The motion carried.
ARTICLE 9. Case #05-2700: Kraft Street Partners
The applicant requested Basic Plan Review for a PUD rezoning of 2688
& 2700 Kraft and 5703 - 28th Street.
Planning Director Peterson related this is a new project and
pointed out the area on a map. The property is about 7-1/2 acres in
size and is currently vacant. The applicant would like to do a PUD
rezoning to develop the property. This is the same site that was
approved for a basketball facility a few years ago. That facility was
not constructed. This current plan involves one building and one user
at this time. The building is proposed to be 5,800 s.f. The property
is currently zoned B-2, commercial. The underlying density is one
building for three acres. Staff has discussed with the applicant the
possibility of acquiring additional property along Kraft Avenue. An
important part of the project is in regard to providing access through
to Charlevoix Drive from Kraft Avenue. The Planning Commission will
need to discuss the service drive that would connect everything to
Kraft Avenue.
Member MacAllister asked if the Road Commission has looked at the
plan. Planning Director Peterson related they would be looking at the
best spot to line up intersections. The site is bounded by residential
use to the north. That is a critical part of the project. The
northerly neighbors, during the Betten project, objected to the drive
being on the north side of the property. Our Zoning Ordinance requires
that within 200 feet of residential property light poles are limited
to 20 feet in height. Some of those items will be critical to identify
as part of the plan.
Planning Director Peterson related there are some issues with
Esplanade with regard to the easement. There is some concern there
might be the ability for someone to block a portion of that easement.
Another aspect is signage. The proposed sign along 28th Street is in
the boulevard area and nine feet high. Staff believes it is a good
idea to have the sign there along 28th Street. We don't know the
height of the building and need to clarify that. That would also help
with the concerns which the neighbors to the north will have. The
township height limitation is 35 feet. The township has an agreement
with Design One (the property in front) for a sidewalk along the
entire 28th Street frontage. Additional information for the site is
needed such as: parking lot landscaping and a photometric. The request
tonight is for basic plan review and the opportunity for the Planning
Commission to give the applicant input on critical items.
Chairman Goldberg asked if the residents to the north have been
notified of the project. Planning Director Peterson responded no, not
yet. They will be notified for the public hearing.
Member Lewis asked could the applicant sell off Phase Two to
someone else. Since Phase One is not three acres would it be
impossible to sell off Phase Two. Planning Director Peterson related
they need to have six acres for two buildings.
Chairman Goldberg asked if they build Phase One could they draw a
boundary line and sell off Phase Two so that the remaining area could
have six aces for two buildings. Planning Director Peterson related
the whole project is a PUD with two buildings. If they are able to
acquire additional property, they could ask for an amendment to the
PUD. That needs to be discussed by the Planning Commission. We have
been consistent with other projects. The Riebel project was a little
different because it included an existing restaurant.
Member MacAllister asked Staff if the service drive would be
extended to Kraft Avenue. Planning Director Peterson related he feels
it is important to get the service drive to the Gordon Food Service
curb cut. At this time with the ability to extend to Kraft once they
make a decision on purchasing additional property on Kraft Avenue.
Member MacAllister related she likes the entrance to 28th Street
and asked if more landscaping would be installed. Planning Director
Peterson related just on the leg out to 28th Street. The boulevard is
the same as you saw for the Design One project.
Member MacAllister suggested a sidewalk connection into the project
from 28th Street back to the development. Planning Director Peterson
related there isn't really the opportunity for that. There is not
enough room.
Member MacAllister asked does the drive need to be two lanes out.
Planning Director Peterson responded he does not think there is enough
room to install a sidewalk there. Kraft Avenue could possibly be used
as a pedestrian access to the site.
Member Koessel asked that the comment about blocking the easement
be addressed. Planning Director Peterson responded and pointed the
area out on the map. He related on the corner there is a small area
which the easement documents are not clear that they may or may not
allow the access to be blocked. Member Koessel related that is
critical. He related this drive is the only ingress and egress for the
project. Planning Director Peterson related they would also have the
access out through the service drive behind Betten Automotive.
Member Koessel related it would be logical to extend that roadway
behind GFS. If that were done - would it cause us to lose any control
about ingress and egress to the potential Phase Two.
Member MacAllister related based on north/south access easement
would that stall the construction of road behind Betten Automotive?
Planning Director Peterson responded his recommendation is the road
should go all the way through to this point.
Member Lewis asked is there a huge change in elevation between
those two properties. Planning Director Peterson responded no, the
building elevation change is on the other side of Esplanade.
Member MacAllister asked for the landscaping to be clarified.
Planning Director Peterson related the north boundary would have a
"Type G" bufferyard which is 40 feet wide.
Member Postma asked is there a maintenance agreement on that road.
Planning Director Peterson responded the owners have a maintenance
agreement.
Member Postma asked will they need to join with GFS for the
maintenance agreement. Planning Director Peterson responded it would
be in the owners best interest but that is between the property
owners. It will not be a public road but would connect the property as
a service drive.
Chairman Goldberg related that was a condition on the GFS project.
They have known about this potential.
Mark Harmsen of Kraft Street Partners, was present and related we
are aware of the importance of the northerly bufferyard for the condo
residents. He sold Betten 120 feet of property and there is 180 feet
of that bufferyard with a berm installed now. Mr. Harmsen related he
will meet with the residents to the north before the public hearing.
He has an easement agreement and road construction agreement for the
roadway. Also, he may purchase a property on Kraft Avenue. Gordon Food
Service then would abandon their curb cut on Kraft Avenue. He does
need an access agreement with Gordon Food. Mr. Harmsen related the
other issue is the site is 435 feet off 28th Street and for that
reason he felt it was important to have a street that looks like an
entrance. The plan always was to have safety and presentation with a
three lane road - one lane in and two lanes out. The problem is
Sundance Restaurant is built on the drive. There was a 16 foot error
years ago. We went to court and thought we had it settled but now P
& L wants the easement re-written. The issue is P & L is in
the process of wanting us to agree to remove another 1-1/2 feet of
curb out.
Member Koessel asked is 18" going to destroy your ability to
get through? Mr. Harmsen responded what is going to replace it is the
issue. Seventeen years ago they built their restaurant into the
easement.
Member MacAllister related she still would like a sidewalk along
the easement to get pedestrians into the site. She related she did not
understand the reason for two lanes out. She suggested the lane be
moved five feet for a small sidewalk. Mr. Harmsen responded could do
that but there probably would be a gap. The engineers will tell us
they want two lanes. They need space for stacking cars. There would be
a 35-40 foot gap in the sidewalk to 28th Street.
Member Koessel asked who is the tenant. Mr. Harmsen responded a 17
year Cascade Township small business owner. They have been renting for
17 years and want to own. It will be a single tenant building.
Member Koessel asked how many people would park in front and walk
to the building in back. Mr. Harmsen related he expects people to
drive to the building. It is a destination business.
Member MacAllister related in a well planned community you want to
have pedestrian traffic. No matter if this user is a destination. She
related the space can't be planned for one user.
Planning Director Peterson related traffic flow can come in from
Kraft. There is a possibility of putting a sidewalk connection in
there. With any other type of development we would be looking at some
type of pedestrian connection. We are trying to get some type of
connection there.
Chairman Goldberg asked but how do you handle the capacity along
28th Street. Member MacAllister responded maybe it would be a
pedestrian flow that happens at Esplanade. Planning Director Peterson
related they are not part of this project.
Member MacAllister related she is trying her best to make a
connection. A thirty foot gap is better than nothing. She is looking
for some type of effort toward that.
Member MacAllister then asked how were the parking calculations
based. Mr. Harmsen responded it is based on use at four spaces per
1,000 s.f. of building. That is the requirement. This is about eight
spaces per 1,000 s.f. of building.
Member MacAllister related you have double what we require - why.
Mr. Harmsen related he will ask the architect.
Chairman Goldberg related it is important to get an answer to that
question. If you have a need for that much parking, tell us.
Member Lewis related the entrance drive has one lane in and two
out. But according to what I have heard tonight you only own two
lanes. Mr. Harmsen responded he has the right today to put the road to
the dotted line. He also can eliminate parking spots from the front
and back but does not want to do that. We don't own the easement but
have the right to use it for a road and utilities. The easement is 49
feet wide.
Planning Director Peterson related the GFS access and parking
calculations for the proposed use will be addressed for the public
hearing.
Chairman Goldberg related the comment the applicant made regarding
contacting residents prior to the public hearing is a very good idea.
They are quite an active neighborhood and have always well attended
public hearings.
ARTICLE 10. Kent County Road Commission
Review of the Five Year Road Improvement Plans
Planning Director Peterson related this is the plan that the Road
Commission submits every year. It is just for information purposes.
The 2005 list is definite. The local street repairs are not listed.
ARTICLE 11. 2005 Work Plan
Planning Director Peterson related this is a review of the process
as the Planning Commission recommended.
Member Lewis asked why don't we count the peak for height and not
the mid-point. Planning Director Peterson responded it mirrors the
Building Code and how height is calculated. That's the way it has
always been done and is consistent with the building department.
Member Lewis responded that doesn't make it right.
Member MacAllister related recently there were two terms that were
not defined - drive through restaurants is one. She asked do we want
to try and define that further. Member McAllister related it is not
defined in the Special Use Permit process.
Chairman Goldberg related perhaps we should look at other
ordinances to see what language might be out there to define drive
through and drive up. Planning Director Peterson related he can bring
back some definitions for drive through, drive up and fast food
restaurants.
Chairman Goldberg suggested getting some definitions.
Member MacAllister also related another term is seasonal temporary
garden center. She asked if there is some language we could look at to
require something more detailed. There are other businesses that could
ask for seasonal temporary garden spaces. Planning Director Peterson
responded we could have just as many problems with others. If they did
not fit into the definition they would go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for a variance. Now any out door operations go through the
Special Use Permit process. That gives the Planning Commission more
discretion to review these on a case by case basis.
Member MacAllister related she is looking more for guidance than an
open book.
Chairman Goldberg related now we have flexibility on a case by case
basis. We can look at the season which is being proposed.
ARTICLE 12. Any Other Business
Member Lewis thanked the Commissioners for the beautiful flowers
sent to his wife today by the Planning Commission and Township Staff.
They do appreciate the thoughtfulness of everyone involved.
Chairman Goldberg related he would like a list of topics to discuss
at the joint meeting.
Topics suggested were:
1) utilities on Burton Street
2) water quality
3) sidewalks
4) Turnberry project and those similar which were approved at Planning
Commission level and were turned down by the Township Board.
5) Ventura lot split
6) Dry hydrants
Member MacAllister will be absent at the next meeting and asked to
be excused.
ARTICLE 13. Adjournment
Member Lewis supported by Member Koessel moved to
adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:26 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom McDonald, Secretary
TMD: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
 |
|
