Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, March 21, 2005
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Goldberg called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Goldberg, Koessel, Lewis, Logue, McDonald, Richards,
Robinson.
Members Absent: MacAllister and Postma (both excused).
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Planner Deem, Admin.
Assistant Thompson 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 Logue and
supported by Member Robinson. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Minutes of the February 22, 2005 meeting were
approved as submitted on motion by Member Lewis and supported by
Member McDonald. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 5. The Township Board Minutes of February 9, 2005 were
received and filed.
ARTICLE 6. Case #04-2691: Gantos/Thornhills Properties LLC
The applicant requested site plan approval for a new 39,500 s.f. strip
mall at 2845 Thornhills.
Planning Director Peterson pointed out the location on the map and
related the proposal is to remove the former ice arena building and
construct a new building in its place. The current site has a legal
non-conforming building on it but because it has been vacant for a
length of time, it has lost is legal non-conforming status. The
parking has been calculated based upon a 7,000 s.f. restaurant. This
will require a minimum of 200 parking spaces. This applicant did
receive two variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to
curb cut spacing and the north bufferyard. The north bufferyard will
be 17 feet wide instead of the required 25 feet. The curb cut
locations are the two existing ones that serve the site. Those were
approved in their present locations. The variance was approved based
on a compromise between the required 25 foot buffer yard and the
applicant's request to have the buffer yard reduced to zero on the
eastern end of the north buffer yard. There is a shared parking access
easement between this property and Standard Federal Bank. The Zoning
Board of Appeals felt 17 feet was a better design and no parking
spaces would be lost and the easement provides for a good access for
cross access to the Riebel property. In speaking with the Road
Commission about this project, they requested that the driveways be
widened to 42 feet wide. The applicant has not shown that on the site
plan for the south drive. The applicant is expecting all the traffic
to come up to the north curb cut. Staff has suggested the south curb
cut also be widened. The south curb cut is the shared access with the
Township Hall. The landscape plan has been revised to meet our
requirement. Staff is requesting a $27,860 performance bond for
landscaping. The site plan also includes two directional signs on 28th
Street by both drives. Those are allowed. However, the main sign is
too close to the road and will need to be moved a minimum of 25 feet
from the right-of-way. The applicant has provided a photometric plan
that meets our ordinance.
Planning Director Peterson then addressed sidewalks. The property
is in the DDA district and Staff is recommending a sidewalk along the
Thornhills frontage and into the site. Sidewalks were discussed at the
joint meeting last week. We have Board Members who are interested in
providing sidewalks somewhat faster than what the DDA will provide
for. This site could provide sidewalks to the Township Hall and the
Riebel property as being part of the DDA project. Staff believes it is
appropriate for the developer to construct the sidewalks along with
this project.
Planning Director Peterson related the Fire Department reviewed the
plan and gave brief comments about the address information on the
building. The Township Engineer has reviewed the plan and provided
some comments regarding the storm water plan. Aaron Gill is present
from FTCH to address concerns.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the site plan
with the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Chairman Goldberg asked why the conditions do not include the items
regarding signage. Planning Director Peterson related signs require a
separate permit.
Member Robinson asked what is the Road Commission recommended width
for the curb cuts. Planning Director Peterson responded forty-two
feet. He believes it is going to be difficult to police trucks to only
use the north drive.
Member Robinson asked for clarification of the sidewalk width. He
recalled it being eight feet at the Township Board meeting. Planning
Director Peterson related it was going to be 8 feet in the village.
But there were some site construction problems and they established
seven feet in the DDA district. Sidewalks should continue at seven
feet until the Township Board adopts something else.
Chairman Goldberg asked Staff to run through the standards to be
applied for site plan approval. Planning Director Peterson read those
from the Zoning Ordinance.
Member Koessel referred to the FTCH letter and asked if there is
concern that any of the items can't be met. Mr. Gill responded water
and sewer are fairly minor things. Storm sewer is a potential issue
due to the City of Grand Rapids system having some problems. That can
be made to work. Mr. Gill related there are no major concerns.
Chairman Goldberg asked if there is an underground retention pond.
Mr. Gill responded yes, that needs to be clarified and the volume
calculated.
Chairman Goldberg related when he thinks of underground storage he
thinks about a container. Mr. Gill related there are two types - one
is retention and one is detention. A retention system has an
underground container that is perforated. There is usually a large
amount of sand or gravel around it. If it is a detention basin, there
is an underground system that holds all the water and has a release
rate. The rate for this area is .13cfs. There an existing series of
pipes laid parallel under the parking lot to contain the water.
Planning Director Peterson related it is similar to the underground
storage at Gordon Food Service. Mr. Gill related underground storage
is becoming more common. The biggest problem with underground systems
is keeping sand and trash out.
Chairman Goldberg asked how is that done. Mr. Gill responded with a
sump and filters. They can also be vacuumed out once a year.
Member Lewis asked about the out door patio area and if that would
involve tables. Planning Director Peterson responded we allow for
outdoor dining in the zoning district.
Mr. Gantos, the applicant, related he is a member of Thornhills
Properties LLC. He submitted the drawings and talked to John Strunk at
the Road Commission. The north drive is a 42 foot wide radius. Mr.
Gantos related his opinion was only the northerly drive would be
changed. Now, he understands this is an issue in that the Township
would like to see the southerly curb cut changed. The Road Commission
is supporting the Township's position of modifying the south curb cut.
Mr. Gantos related he does not feel it is necessary for them to
improve the Township property. Mr. Gantos related they may decide to
eliminate his access to the southerly drive entirely.
Mr. Gantos then addressed sidewalks. He related the concern is with
installing the sidewalks now, they would not go anywhere. They would
like to install the sidewalks when the Township says install them.
Relocating the sign is not a problem. The patio is an outdoor area but
we don't know if the restaurant will be using it or not. It will be
fenced off and screened according to the health code.
Chairman Goldberg asked if the sidewalks are a timing issue. Mr.
Gantos responded yes. They would like to put them in when the other
properties install sidewalks.
Chairman Goldberg asked if the drive will be left as it is or
closed off. Mr. Gantos responded originally the Township said this is
how they wanted it designed. Planning Director Peterson disagreed. He
related when this came up originally the thought was both curb cuts
would be widened. The applicant stated the south drive would not be
used as a commercial driveway. We have always represented that
improvements were to be made to both curb cuts. Staff related he
believes the south drive will be the desired location for trucks and
it will be impossible to police it otherwise. If the south drive were
to be closed off or limited to no truck traffic, it would change the
site and we may want the other curb cut moved into the middle of the
site.
Member Lewis related there was a variance given for that driveway
location. Now we are hearing you want to close it off. That wasn't
even suggested at the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board made
their decision on the driveway being open. If a change is made, the
applicant would have to go back to the Zoning Board.
Mr. Gantos related they would not touch the southern drive. He does
not see the need to widen it to 42 feet. The Road Commission says it
is not necessary. Planning Director Peterson related the Kent County
Road Commission only said that based on it not being used for
commercial vehicles.
Mr. Gantos related it is not fair to the developer to improve other
people's property. He asked why should he bear the cost to improve the
drive when it may not be to his benefit.
Member McDonald related the Township isn't going to be using the
driveway. It will be the 200 parking spaces and trucks for the
development that will use it. The development is going to attract more
traffic.
Mr. Gantos responded 36 feet wide is the standard for semi truck
traffic.
Member Robinson asked Staff if they eliminate the south curb cut,
the other one would be moved to the center of the property. Planning
Director Peterson responded he would consider that to be a major
revision to the site plan. If that happens, he still would want the
cross connection to the property to the south. He does not feel the
required driveway changes are that extensive.
Member Robinson related if we are going to eliminate one of those
driveways, this would go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Gantos related if we close that south drive we can create a
future building site.
Member Koessel related we have heard a lot of different comments
tonight. Member Koessel related to Mr. Gantos that he wants to know
what you would like us to vote on. He is not inclined to say you can
have either/or. You can have one plan or the other. Member Koessel
related Member Lewis made a good point - moving the drive or closing
it would create a whole different set of issues.
Mr. Gantos stated proceed with the site plan you have.
Chairman Goldberg asked Staff to comment on the sidewalk issue.
Planning Director Peterson related 2008 is when the DDA will install
sidewalks. That time frame will allow time for planning for sewer down
28th Street. In the past, we have always told applicants they could
get a construction agreement and construct the sidewalks when
sidewalks come through their area. Most recent projects have been
required to install the sidewalks now along with their construction
projects.
Chairman Goldberg related he understands where the applicant is
coming from. He asked if it would be less expensive to put in the
sidewalks in while the construction crew is on site. Planning Director
Peterson related the sidewalk will go inside the right-of-way.
Mr. Gantos related the construction costs will not make that much
of a difference. Planning Director Peterson related we can do the same
sidewalk agreement as we have done with other people in the past if
they choose not to put them in now. They can give us a check or agree
to construct the sidewalk later.
Member Koessel related other than the area that is going to get
torn up on 28th Street, we have been considering requiring people to
put sidewalks in along 28th Street. We also encourage the connectivity
of those sidewalks. The Riebel development may be delayed because of
the sewer issue.
Member Richards related the developer of this project says he does
need two driveways. She related she supports the Township in that the
southern drive needs to be widened. She feels truck traffic will tend
to go in the south driveway. The traffic does back up quickly at the
intersection of Thornhills and 28th Street. Member Richards related
she does not feel nearly as strong about the sidewalks.
Member Robinson related he agrees with Member Richards' position in
that he is also not concerned about the side walk. Member Robinson
supports the Township's position about the drive entrance widening.
Member Logue related he is more agreeable with the new sentiment
for getting the sidewalks installed now because everything is moving
forward.
Member Lewis related we have already gone down this road. He
related put in the sidewalks while the building construction is going
on, then it is done. He also believes the south driveway should be
widened.
Member McDonald supported by Member Lewis moved to approve the site
plan with the conditions of Staff: a) the applicant apply for, and
receive, a soil erosion control permit from the township prior to the
issuance of any building permit; b) the applicant provide a landscape
bond of $27,860; c) revise the plan to widen the south curb cut at the
applicant's expense to the standards set forth by the KCRC; d) revise
the plan to include a sidewalk along the Thornhills frontage and into
the site constructed with the development of the site; e) provide a
written agreement that the access roads to the property to the north
and west shall remain open and maintained at all times. The applicant
shall record this document before a building permit is issued; f)
revise the plans to address the comments of the Township Engineer; g)
comply with the Fire Department letter of March 15, 2005; and add h)
that a separate permit for signs be applied for and approved based on
Staff's review and approval.
Member Koessel asked if there is an issue regarding the pylon
signs. Planning Director Peterson responded it has to comply with the
setback.
Member McDonald added condition (i) to have the pylon sign moved to
comply with the setback. Member Lewis supported the amendment. The
motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Case #05-2704: Cascade One LLC
The applicant requested Basic Plan Review for a rezoning of
approximately 36 acres from Agricultural Rural Conservation to Planned
Unit Development to allow for 50 single-family detached condominium
units. The property is located on the west side of Spaulding Avenue
north of Abbeydale.
Planning Director Peterson related the proposed development is
located off Spaulding Avenue and pointed out the location on the map.
To the north and west of the site is property owned by MDOT. There are
some wet areas on the site. The property is currently zoned ARC
(Agricultural, Rural Conservation) and is master planned for low
density residential. The homes will be clustered in a condo-style
development much like Park Place on the other side of Spaulding
Avenue. The project would include some new roads. The development
would be served by public sewer and water. That will need to be
approved by the Township Engineer. Sewer will be a challenge to bring
it to this site. There are three options for sewer being explored: 1)
run sewer down Spaulding Avenue and across to Golfview; 2) construct a
lift station or 3) go to the City of Kentwood. The stormwater plans
will also need to reviewed. The area soils seem to be moderately well
drained. The Road Commission indicates they would require a center
turn lane on Spaulding Avenue. The Abbeydale development anticipated a
connection some day and stubbed their street to this property. The
same thing happened in Kentwood on Cavalcade Drive. Staff checked with
the City of Kentwood, Drain Office and also spoke with the engineer
who designed the subdivision in Kentwood and all agreed that a
connection is possible and was planned as part of the development in
Kentwood . The Martin Beek County Drain crosses the property. Staff
feels providing a connection through to Kentwood would be a good
opportunity especially considering the location of Meadowbrooke
Elementary School. The Drain Office indicated a connection is allowed
to cross the drain. This project would also have the ability to stub a
street into the property to the north. Abbeydale was rezoned to R-2
and should be consistent with that project. Abbeydale is 1.74 units
per acre, based on net acreage. Using the 1.74 and the developed
acreage, Staff's calculates the current plan would allow for 42 units.
Staff believes that is the proper place to start the density
discussion. The Planning Commission needs to give the applicant some
clear direction regarding density.
Member McDonald related the Master Plan specifies encouraging
agricultural activities. If we rezone the property it will not
encourage that. Planning Director Peterson related the property is
currently zoned ARC but is planned to be low density residential. The
rezoning would be consistent provided the density is considered low
density residential. He stated we want the growth to happen in the
area where we have utilities for it to happen. It is zoned
agricultural right now but it is not planned to stay that way.
Member McDonald asked if 1.5 is low density residential and the
definition of low density. Planning Director Peterson responded low
density is stated in the Master Plan as one to three units per acre.
Member Koessel asked when we talk about un-developable area - when
a developer wants to preserve 50% green space - do we consider the
road. Planning Director Peterson responded we are not calculating the
road or any other un-developable area.
Member Koessel related for example, say a developer has 40 acres
and wants to reserve ten acres as open space. Two acres is road and
the rest is just he wants to leave open. He asked is it 1.3 of 40
acres or 1.7 of the 30 acres net? Planning Director Peterson responded
we do it by net. The size of each "lot" goes down with the
more open space you provide.
Member Koessel related there would be about four lots difference
between gross and net.
Member Koessel related Spaulding Avenue has a bike path on this
side of the road. It is a good opportunity to provide for sidewalks.
The subdivision in Kentwood has sidewalks. If the two neighborhoods
were connected, it would be a good connection all the way through. The
applicant has not yet indicated the location of the light poles or
street trees.
Member Koessel asked how did you come up with 50% reserved and 18
acres of undeveloped land. Planning Director Peterson related the site
plan notes reflect the un-developable area. Wetlands, roads,
floodplains, water bodies are all deducted as un-developable.
Member Richards asked if a road was connected through into Kentwood
where would the traffic end up. Member Koessel responded on Forest
Hills Road.
Member Logue asked do we have any information on where the best
sewer connection would be? Planning Director Peterson responded going
through Kentwood may be the best connection, our engineers are looking
into that now.
The applicant was represented by Thom Carpenter of Driesenga &
Associates. Mr. Carpenter related he is here to receive comments on
the project. He has been working on the project for quite awhile and
the plan has been altered from the first submittal. They have come to
this design based on some discussions with Staff and his client. The
project will be served with public sewer and water. Sewer could be
brought in through the City of Kentwood. It is possible to bring sewer
through the Martin Beek Drain. The street stub is at an elevation of
745'. The sand line of the drain is 725'. Mr. Carpenter related our
subdivision road is at 760'. The problem with trying to cross the
drain at that location is amount of fill. That location is in the 100
year flood plain. If we were to occupy 600-700 feet of that flood
plain we would have to get that much more volume in the flood plain to
offset what we filled. Another problem is the Cavalcade Drive sewer
stub is five feet deep at that location and is not significantly deep
to come into this property. The topographical features of this site do
not lend themselves to crossing there. Mr. Carpenter related they are
not opposed to a pedestrian crossing at that location. Land could be
provided on their property to make the intersection with Spaulding
Avenue meet the county standards. Abbeydale Drive could be stubbed
where it joins this development but it seems to make the most sense to
complete the loop. Mr. Carpenter related their target market for the
development is double income young families. The loop in the street is
called an "eyebrow" which is an aesthetic feature. It is
used in the Bailey's Grove development in Kentwood. The Fire
Department has reviewed the plan. There are a lot of elevation changes
for storm sewer. They propose to put sewer and water in the street and
push the sewer out to Spaulding Avenue with a temporary lift station
and deposit it to Abbeydale.
Mr. Carpenter then addressed the issue of density. He related
Abbeydale is 1.92 units per acre net. Jennydale is 1.5 units per acre.
Mr. Carpenter related their net acre figure subtracts the public right
of way and private right of way and 50% of the flood plain area for
24.5 acres total developable acreage and they end up with a density of
2.05 units per acre. He believes that to be a reasonable leap and is
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Carpenter related
they are also providing a total of 12.19 acres of open space which
equals 50% of the developable land. They are asking for 50 units. They
are providing a unique community and may install a "tot lot"
with playground equipment. The DEQ permits would come into play if the
flood plain was being filled or if a wet area was disturbed. Mr.
Carpenter related they are doing neither. He feels the open space area
needs to be defined more clearly. They will not be doing a lot of
clearing on the site. Mr. Carpenter related the Master Plan lays out
the area as low density residential with one to three units per acres.
The Master Plan also states clustered developments as permissible.
Member Logue asked what size homes are being proposed. David
Barker, the applicant, responded 3-4 bedroom. They will use natural
materials and the homes will have porches.
Member Lewis asked the selling price. Mr. Barker responded in the
$400,000 range. They will be two story or one and a half story homes.
Mr. Carpenter related the foot print and plans for the homes will be
1800 s.f. on the main floor.
Chairman Goldberg asked Mr. Gill of FTCH to comment on the
discussion he has heard regarding flood plain, topography, etc. Mr.
Gill related it is hard to give definite answers without seeing the
plans. There is quite a bit of topography change on the site. With
fill, the grades can work. The sanitary sewer is going to be a
challenge. The City of Grand Rapids does not like pump stations. There
is an opportunity to bring sanitary sewer down Spaulding Avenue
although the area is rather low. The grade over to Kentwood would
work. It would not work to install sewer under the county drain.
Member Logue related a good solution would be to get sewer and the
pedestrian pathway connection to Kentwood. An actual connection by
road may not benefit anyone. The pedestrian pathway connection to
Kentwood would be appealing.
Mr. Carpenter asked if the Watermark development has a public
sidewalk through it. Member Lewis related the sidewalk only goes
through in public areas. Planning Director Peterson related their
sidewalk goes through the main street from Cascade Road to Spaulding
Avenue. It is open to the public for use.
Chairman Goldberg related at the joint meeting with the Township
Board there was a lot of discussion about sidewalks. He would like to
see sidewalks in the public street part of this development.
Member Koessel related but that sidewalk would not go anywhere -
what good is it going to be.
Member McDonald disagreed. They are targeting young families and
installing a tot park that says sidewalks to him.
Member Robinson related the connection area is a 100 year flood
plain. The federal government is taking a new look at what that means.
Mr. Gill related the current standard is if you fill in a 100 year
flood plain, you must provide a wet area for the same quantity that
you filled.
Member Robinson stated we should settle the issue of 42 units
versus 50.
Member Logue related people with families who pay $400,000 for a
home do expect sidewalks.
Chairman Goldberg related let's address the density issue. Staff
recommended 1.74 units per acre.
Member Koessel asked what size are the lots. Mr. Carpenter related
one-half acre per unit. The limited common ownership would be that
area within the dashed line shown on the site plan with a 45 foot rear
yard.
Member Koessel related these are $400,000 homes. He asked what is
the average size of the foot print. Mr. Carpenter responded 1800 s.f.
Planning Director Peterson related the minimum lot size requirement
would be 21,000 s.f. if it were a plat or site condo. In clustered
developments such as this the more open space you provide, smaller lot
sizes are allowed.
Member Lewis questioned the distance apart the homes would be. He
asked if it would be about 25 feet. Planning Director Peterson
responded yes. The Master Plan is a guide. The difference in clustered
developments is useable space.
Member Koessel stated we need to scale back on the density.
Member McDonald asked if Abbeydale and Jennydale have the same open
space? Planning Director Peterson responded no, they were developed
before that requirement. They meet the criteria of the R2 zoning
district.
Member Richards related she would like to see this development at
42 homes as opposed to pushing it to 50. She related she thinks it is
wonderful the applicant wants to build a community with open space and
a tot lot which will attract new families. She related to the
applicant your profit is not our responsibility. She would like to see
a lower number of units instead of higher.
Mr. Carpenter related our concern is we want to stay consistent
with the neighborhood and create a higher product. Whatever the number
of units they will all be quality units. None of the units have rear
yard neighbors and all have open space. That is different from
anything in the area right now.
Chairman Goldberg related he is setting a base line for the number
of units and then we can vary from that as we begin to get things on
the table. He would like to start the baseline at 1.75 units per acre.
Mr. Carpenter related the distance between the sidewalks and the
house is 20-22 feet. The public space is in front of the house and the
private space is behind. They are marketing toward double income
families with kids. There will be little or no yard maintenance for
them.
Planning Director Peterson related that is similar to the club
homes at Watermark, Ada Moorings and Burton Pointe.
Member Robinson related in looking at the Abbeydale subdivision
which is 1.92 units per acre, those lots look much bigger than these.
Planning Director Peterson related we are not talking about lots here
because this is a condominium development.
Chairman Goldberg related we not trying to look at how big a lot
would be. Density is all about trying to control the growth of
township services, amenities, schools, etc.
Chairman Goldberg asked for a consensus of the base line at 1.75
units per acre. He asked the applicant to come back next time ready to
discuss the pathway. Tell us why you should exceed the density of what
your adjacent neighbors have. That is your job for the next meeting.
Member Logue related he would like to say we are trying to equate a
clustered project with a non clustered project. A clustered project
gives a benefit. He feels this project is very well laid out.
ARTICLE 8. 2005 Work Plan
Review of the PUD/Rezoning process
Planner Deem began by stating the six reasons to consider a PUD. He
then went through the PUD Regulation criteria and the PUD Process.
Member Robinson asked for clarification that Step #4 under PUD
Process is a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Planner Deem
responded yes. There is give and take with the PUD method. A developer
has an idea of what they want. A project under straight zoning may
require too many variances and in that case Staff may recommend going
with a PUD. Typically the developer is willing to go PUD.
ARTICLE 9. Any Other Business
Planning Director Peterson handed out the proposed term limit
amendment. Chairman Goldberg asked that the comments be emailed to
Steve. At the next meeting this will be a discussion item.
Member Lewis related the City of Grand Rapids and Ada Township have
term limits. Member Koessel related 70% of the neighboring communities
do not have them.
Member Lewis related he is opposed to term limits. He thinks it is
ridiculous to limit the total time one can serve.
Member Koessel asked what if someone comes in and fills an
unexpired term. Planning Director Peterson responded it would be the
same as at present, you would be eligible to fill your own term.
Chairman Goldberg related he is not a big fan of term limits. He
believes the total time one can serve should start from the day the
term limits are activated. He does not agree we should have term
limits.
Member Koessel related he favors not having term limits. He would
like to see an annual review of people who are serving on the boards
and commissions. He related the chairman of each board or commission
should be able to make a recommendation that a person not be
reappointed.
Member Koessel then addressed the utilities issue. He related the
Turnberry project will come back. The utility subcommittee met last
Thursday and there is another meeting on March 31st. The utility issue
will be resolved soon.
Planner Deem related the Turnberry project is waiting for a
resolution of the utility issue.
Planning Director Peterson related tonight's project will also be
discussed at the next utility subcommittee meeting.
ARTICLE 10. Adjournment
Member Robinson supported by Member McDonald moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:52 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
 |
|
