Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, April 4, 2005
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Vice Chair Robinson called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Koessel, Lewis, Logue, MacAllister, McDonald, Postma,
Richards, Robinson
Members Absent: Goldberg (unexcused).
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Planner Deem, Admin.
Assistant Thompson and those listed on Supplement #1 (an audience of
approximately 40 people).
In the absence of Chairman Goldberg, Vice Chair Robinson acted as
Chairman for the meeting.
ARTICLE 2. Vice Chair Robinson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ARTICLE 3. The agenda was approved on motion by Member Lewis and
supported by Member MacAllister. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Minutes of the March 21, 2005 meeting were approved
on motion by Member Koessel and supported by Member Richards. The
motion carried.
ARTICLE 5. The Township Board Minutes of February 23, 2005 were
received and filed.
ARTICLE 6. Case #05-2706: Goodwood Plat Owners
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicants are requesting a Type II Special Use Permit to allow
for the construction of a boat launch to be used for members of the
Plat Owners Association on the east side of Goodwood Drive, just north
of Placita Court.
Planning Director Peterson pointed out the location on the map. The
plat owners are made up of 43 lots in the platted subdivision. This is
a request for a Type II Special Use Permit for a recommendation to the
Township Board. The Special Use Permit is required because the
regulations we have for keyhole developments require a Special Use
Permit or a PUD rezoning anytime you allow for more than one property
owner to have access to the river. This plat was approved in 1950 and
had a total of 52 lots at that time. Since that time, some lots have
been combined. There are 22 lots which have direct frontage on the
Thornapple River. Originally the plat allowed this lot to be used by
all plat owners for access to the river. It did not provide for a
ramp. All of those owners could use that parcel to get down to the
river. The lot where they want to do this is same one that was deeded
when the plat was originally approved. In the last couple of years,
the Association did work with the Township to secure an easement for
drilling under the river for the water line. During those negotiations
the township did allow for the ability to construct a launch on the
site. You may remember the entire Cascade/Thornapple River Association
applied for a ramp last year at Cascade Road. That request never made
it to the Township Board. It was tabled at the request of the
applicant. This request is just for the Goodwood plat owners. The
association submitted a plan to launch boats, copies of the photos are
in your packet. This site does allow room for vehicles to turn around
inside the fenced in area. The association would provide keys to
members and change them annually to help provide security. The
association has submitted a list of rules which have been approved
although they are marked "draft" in your packet. They have
also received a permit from the DEQ. The Fire Department would like
two keys to the site. There are other ramps on the river such as the
one at Maracaibo Shores. People with rights to the water are not
finding a way to get their boats in the water even though they have
deeded rights. The property has adequate room to maneuver cars and
boat trailers on the site. There will be no additional costs to the
public for this project. The ramp would only be used for the 43 lots
in the Goodwood Plat. We have to assume people with river frontage
would not use the ramp. The Kent County Road Commission has approved
the location of the drive.
Planning Director Peterson recommended the Planning Commission
forward a positive recommendation to the Township Board with the
condition that the plat owners add a rule to notify the Township Board
of any rule changes and comply with the Fire Department's request for
keys and other governmental agencies to access the ramp.
Member Lewis asked if there is any major difference between the
proposal and the one proposed last year on Cascade Road. Planning
Director Peterson responded he did not think so. This request has
attempted to address several of those previous concerns such as how to
police access to it. Annual keys will limit the ability of
unauthorized people to get in.
Member McDonald related it is different in that the Cascade Road
ramp was to put the boat in and leave it for the season. In this case
only 22 of the owners live on the river. It is a little different.
Planning Director Peterson related the other request did not make it
to the Township Board.
Member McDonald related there is not a significant amount of people
with this request that do not live on the river.
Member Robinson related the concern in the previous request was the
fear of people passing keys around because of the amount of people
involved. This request involves very few people. This is a different
set of circumstances.
Member Richards related she believes that is a valid issue of when
they are using the ramp on a day basis. She asked where do the cars
and trailers go? They have to sit there all day. They will park up and
down Goodwood. Planning Director Peterson related let the applicant
explain how the site will work.
Member MacAllister related last time we discussed there are no
regulations for anchoring boats in the river. They could potentially
anchor boats out there. Planning Director Peterson related they could
do that today.
Member MacAllister asked did they have a ramp prior to this?
Planning Director Peterson responded no.
Member Robinson asked if they are asking for a ramp and not a dock?
Planning Director Peterson responded yes.
Member Robinson asked if utilities are under the site? Planning
Director Peterson responded yes.
Member MacAllister asked is this a buildable piece of property?
Planning Director Peterson responded no.
Member MacAllister related she is trying to understand where the
neighbors are in relation to this. Planning Director Peterson referred
to the aerial photos.
Member MacAllister asked what is the nearest setback to the house?
Planning Director Peterson responded 25 feet from the rear property
line. The Goodwood side property line is ten feet.
John Briggs, President of the plat, lives at 3475 Goodwood was
present on behalf of the Association. He related Staff did a good job
presenting their request. He addressed the issue of parking. The rule
is if you get a key you agree not to park your vehicles on the site.
There is no one in the neighborhood that could not walk to the
property in five minutes or less.
Member Richards asked what about the street. Mr. Briggs related
they agree they will not park on the street. The association does not
want the boat trailers and vehicles left on the street. They can do
that right now. It is not uncommon to see that now with grass cutting
trucks, etc.
Member Koessel related in the rules it states guests are to be
accompanied by an active member at all times. He related explain what
your intent is. Mr. Briggs responded if it is a guest, they must be
accompanied by a member. Boats have to be registered with the plat.
You cannot take your key and give it to somebody else to gain access.
Member Koessel suggested the language be cleaned up and clarified.
Member Koessel asked if the site will be gated? Mr. Briggs
responded yes. If we find anybody giving a key out they will lose
their privilege.
Member McDonald related only the Goodwood Plat Owners may launch a
boat.
Member Robinson asked Mr. Briggs if he would accept the language
change regarding guests. Mr. Briggs responded yes.
Member MacAllister asked the applicant to explain the site plan and
what type of landscaping and gate will be installed. Mr. Briggs
related the property will be fenced on the property lines. The gate
will be sixty feet from the front property line to allow for a car and
boat trailer to come in and get off the street. The site will be
fenced across the front. The fence will be chain link four feet high.
Member MacAllister asked how close is the nearest house? Mr. Briggs
responded whatever the setback is which Staff gave you. The other side
is closer because they received a zoning variance. That house is five
feet from the property line. The landscaping will be terraced and have
vegetation on it. The fence will be on the property line. The ramp
will be in the direct center of the property. There is approximately
40 feet from the center of the ramp to the property line.
Member MacAllister asked will you be providing this landscaping on
the property? Mr. Briggs related they will try to maintain as many
trees as possible along the fence line. There will be landscaping in
the retaining wall area.
Member McDonald asked the closest house to the ramp is where. Mr.
Briggs related 40 feet. Mr. Briggs then presented a model of the ramp
area. The scale of the model is one inch equals five feet. The grade
starts at the turn around.
Member Richards related she is a little troubled by the policing of
this. She asked who is going to be there in the evening. The rules say
you have to be in by dusk. She asked who is the next door neighbor
going to call if they saw a boat come in at midnight. Mr. Briggs
related they would call a board member. The names and phone numbers
will be posted on the site.
Member Richards asked what legal recourse do you have if someone
breaks the rules. Mr. Briggs responded the board members would meet
and take away their privileges. We don't anticipate that being an
issue.
Member Koessel asked if the fence is going to run the whole length
of both sides? Mr. Briggs responded yes, we have to do that for
insurance purposes.
Member Logue asked who are the Goodwood Plat Owners. Mr. Briggs
responded they are a corporation. The plat owners are share holders
whether they pay their dues or not. You have to live in the Goodwood
Plat and own property there. You can't lease or rent property and be a
member of the organization.
Member Lewis supported by Member McDonald moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planning Director Peterson related two letters that are in your
packet were received.
Attorney Bill Napieralski was present representing Mary Elizabeth
Gillespie, the owner of property to the north. He submitted a written
letter on her behalf objecting to the granting of this Special Use
Permit. Mr. Napieralski related Ms. Gillespie does not want this boat
ramp to happen. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The plat
was established in 1950 and Lot 25 was set aside for the benefit of
all of the members. The property has never been used as a boat ramp.
Because of the topography they would have a difficult time carrying a
boat and getting it down to the river. He related in November 1995 the
Township passed a keyhole ordinance trying to prohibit exactly what is
going on here. At least 22-25 lots are not on the river and an
additional 20 which are on the river, several of which could not get a
boat in easily. All of these lots will now have access over a 75 foot
wide lot. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits that. If you tried to plat
that lot today, it would never happen. Granting the Special Use
Permits would violate the intent of that particular statute. Mr.
Napieralski then outlined what he considers to be key provisions of
the Special Use Permit section of the Zoning Ordinance: 1) it is very
special and should be granted on a limited basis; 2) consider the
affect of the special use on the adjacent property owners. The
adjacent property owners don't want this. They know the members would
like to put their boats in. He does not feel the association has the
ability to police this area. Section 1706.1d considers the affect on
traffic congestion. This will allow 40 households and their guests
access to this lot. On weekends and holidays the whole area will be
littered with cars and boat trailers. One of the more specific
objections is in addition to the general standards and limits of
Special Use Permits there are specific requirements for specific uses.
Section 1706.1d states any property used for outdoor recreation use
has to be at least three acres in size. This property is 75' x 300'.
Legally, it does not meet the standards and therefore you don't have
the authority to grant this.
Mr. Napieralski then referred to Attorney Fulkerson's letter. As a
matter matter, neighbors will be subjected to jet skis, boats and
noise. That isn't what they bought their property for. The special use
would diminish the value of the adjacent properties. Ms. Gillespie
opposes it.
Member Robinson questioned the three acre property size. Planning
Director Peterson responded Mr. Napieralski was referring to the
special use design standards for outdoor recreational uses. If you
were to follow in that same logic as a use permitted by right, the
residential zoning district is allowed to have a neighborhood park. It
could be argued this is allowed by right then. The reason why it goes
through the Special Use Permit process is because it is not prohibited
to do this but there is a mechanism to have it go through which is
either the PUD process or a Special Use Permit. The Planning
Commission is the recommending body to the Township Board and they
make the final decision.
Howard Tinkham of 3539 Goodwood related we are a quiet residential
neighborhood. He related Mr. Napieralski brought up several scare
tactics. We are a quiet residential neighborhood with not even a full
20 households there. Some people own two lots. There are probably 18
houses which don't have frontage on the river except through this lot.
Mr. Tinkham related he won't be putting a boat in there every day.
Additional river traffic will probably be two boats in a weekend. Mrs.
Gillespie she just moved in about six months ago. She should have
known about this. She claims she was not aware of it. The gentleman to
the south is also a fairly recent neighbor. Mrs. Goodwood when she did
the plat 50 years ago intended this lot to be used as a marina. Most
people who are going to use it are people on the river that don't have
any kind of access. It was deeded to the association 50 years ago.
Mrs. VanFarowe of 7157 Placita Ct. related her property borders on
the south side of the lot and have been there for six years. The noise
is really loud in summer months we can't sleep with the doors open.
The kids cannot take a nap in the day time due to the noise. Now, with
a boat ramp next to our bedrooms is very close to lot. With the
Township restrictions we can't extend our house. Mr.s VanFarowe
related she personally objects to this proposal.
Vice Chair Robinson asked when you bought the property were you
aware of what the could be used for. Mrs. VanFarowe related her
husband bought the property before he met her. Afterwards we got
married.
Bud Poe of 3462 Goodwood clarified there are 22 river frontage
lots. Of those 22, probably seven or eight have access to the river
with their own private docks. Because of topography I do not. I have
to rely on a place to put my boat in. The majority of people who have
access bring the boats in in the spring and take them out in the fall.
A number of people on the river took alternate means to keep boats in
the water during the winter - they got bubblers. My neighbor happens
to be one of them. To say there is going to be lots more boat traffic
or a lot of day use is not going to happen. It is a very small
development. It is a five minute walk from the furthest house to the
river access. Because of sleeping children was one of the reasons we
put in the dawn to dusk clause. We did not want people to be coming in
at midnight. With fencing and gating and access to keys there should
not be any concern on this Commission's part.
Member Robinson asked Mr. Poe where his boat is anchored. Mr. Poe
responded he ties it up at his property.
Brian VanFarowe related he borders the property on the south side.
He followed the process for the request on Cascade Road fropm the
other river association. There was an interesting comment made in
process when it goes to Township Board that members brought up the
fact that when these people bought their homes there was no guarantee
of developing a boat ramp. They bought their homes with a high bank
and they didn't have access and that's the way their homes were
purchased. This is coming as a development after the fact. The keyhole
ordinance should be the township's main concern. If this is fought in
Circuit Court the neighbors have a very good position. Mr. VanFarowe
related when he bought his property the keyhole ordinance protected
him from this type of development. Another important point to consider
is the monitoring of this. Almost rules in life get broken. In this
situation the only people who are going to care is us who live next
door. Mr. VanFarowe related he had a meeting about six months ago with
the Goodwood association at his house and one of the members brought
up the fact that one of the people who lives on Goodwood, who is not
on the river, has already been approached by people in Grand Rapids
asking to use the ramp. She does not want a key because she does not
want people pressuring her. Mr. VanFarowe then addressed the dawn to
dusk hours of operation. He related that does not cover young children
who go to bed at 8:00 pm. His children's bedroom is 30 feet away from
the proposed ramp. He is also a little concerned too knowing the
Township had a strong desire to get an easement here for the water
line. He wondered if the negotiations that went on were completely
kosher. His attorney brought up the activity that is going on here may
require a marina permit. He asked if the Township Attorney has been
aware of the situation.
Member Robinson asked has the Township Attorney looked at this?
Planning Director Peterson related yes, he has seen all the letters in
regard to this. He has the same opinion that this is the proper
procedure for us to go through.
Member McDonald asked do you have a boat or a launch on your
property. Mr. VanFarowe responded no.
Member McDonald asked do you have a boat you put in elsewhere? Mr.
VanFarowe responded yes.
Linda Fitzgerald of 3467 Goodwood related she is the mother of
seven and bought her house 30 years ago. She has 16 grandchildren that
she would like to take on the river. That was part of their deed when
they bought the property to have access to the river. She related they
do not have a boat either. The point is this is grandfathered and she
understand the neighbors concerns. This is what this property was
meant to do and they hope to see the dream realized after 30 years.
That was part of the deed when the home was bought.
Member McDonald asked why didn't it happen? Mrs. Fitzgerald
responded money. This is the dream of Mrs. Good to come true.
Sandy Collins of 3468 Goodwood related she has also been there 30
years. They left their boat in the river this winter with a bubbler.
Most of the residents have been there a long time. People that she
knows do not break rules. She would like to see the ramp there.
Member MacAllister supported by Member Koessel moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Lewis asked for clarification of boat ramp. Is that where
you back your trailer in on cement. The audience responded there is
too much of a drop just to do that. Member Lewis related so you will
push some dirt it and make it more of a gentle slope and then put the
boats in. The audience clarified yes.
Member Koessel asked Staff to go quickly over this keyhole
provision as it relates to this development. He related he is part of
the other river association with 125 members and it is not crowded.
Planning Director Peterson responded when the keyhole ordinance was
drafted it would limit access to the river to those people on the
river. If any new property was to be created with access to the river,
would be certain limitations. One of those would be the lot would have
to be 100 feet wide. These regulations were drafted as a result of the
desire of the river property owners. At the same time, the document
tries to recognize those who had grant existing rights to get to the
river. There are several subdivisions that have deeded rights to the
river and they were permitted to continue that right. The access
points to the river are allowed to continue as they always have. If
you wanted to improve it, it would require a Special Use Permit.
Member Koessel asked originally there were 50 lots and all 50 were
deeded access through this parcel. Planning Director Peterson
responded correct.
Member Koessel related we are not creating additional rights but
decreasing the rights to 43. Planning Director Peterson responded yes.
Or, it was for new projects on the southern part of the river with a
large parcel could develop. That was the intent to limit the amount of
new access or funneling without going through this Special Use Permit
process.
Vice Chair Robinson related as he understands it, the original
Goodwood plat granted these people the right to access the river
through this property. Planning Director Peterson responded yes.
Vice Chair Robinson clarified the Township attorney has reviewed
all of this and he says no problem. Planning Director Peterson
responded he agrees this is the proper procedure for this type of
request. He has seen all the documents.
Member McDonald related he is not saying that access to the river
equates to a boat launch but he is saying there is nothing that says
it does not prevent a boat launch. Planning Director Peterson
responded right, he says the access is a way to get down to the river.
The way to do the improved access requires this approval process.
Member MacAllister related she is having a hard time with the site
plan and concerns of neighbors. She would like a clear understanding
of the landscaping and buffer and how close it really is to the
neighbors.
Vice Chair Robinson asked do we have the authority to ask them to
landscape a certain way or are we only considering the issue of the
ramp. Planning Director Peterson responded you can attach conditions
to a Special Use Permit. If you feel they need landscaping, you can
make that a recommendation to the Township Board.
Member McDonald related everybody who spoke tonight were correct.
He feels there would be enforcement issues and it could be a burden on
neighbors. On the other hand, there are very few members in this plat.
He does not think will be 18 boats going in and out of there per day.
On the other hand, if the association were to have tighter
restrictions and as a compromise promote a better landscape buffer
with the neighbors, and tighten up the rules in terms of entry and
exit such as an hour after sunrise and an hour before sunset. That
would make it easier for the adjacent neighbors. The rules could be
changed to say it plat owners could launch a boat and the boat must be
registered on the association. If the boat has to be registered with
the association that would not permit guests to bring in boats. Member
McDonald would like it to come back to the Planning Commission in a
year for review. He is very concerned for the neighbors but does
understand the initial intent of the plat.
Member Lewis related we went through this before and it is not
possible to make everybody happy. He is going to vote for it again.
There are not that many boats involved this time. This property was
already deeded for this use. The property has been there. He feels
pretty comfortable on this one. He does feel very sorry for the
neighbors who have children. He does like the idea of having it come
back for review to see how bad it is. The property owners along the
river pay extra taxes because they live on the river and they can't
get to the river. They bought with the understanding they could get to
the river. The keyhole law does not prevent them from using that part
of the river. He will vote for the Special Use Permit. He would like
to see better landscaping on either side. There are certain factors
which make it not perfect. This is a small group of citizens that want
to improve their property and control their own rules. Member Lewis
related he is comfortable with it.
Member Richards related she agrees with a lot of things Member
Lewis said. She also agrees with Member McDonald. She can't believe it
would be just two or three more boats. She believes there are a lot
more people who have boats than what we think. If this is approved, it
goes for a select group of people who have lived there a very long
time. When new people move in you don't know what they are going to
do. Their friends will bring in jet skies and attached them to the
back of your boat. She feels very sorry for the people who border
property. Policing is a problem. It sounds good that we will review it
a year from now but how do we stop this once we allow it.
Member McDonald relate have will have a review to see if people
have abused it. Enforcement is a problem but the boats have to be
registered with the neighborhood association.
Member Koessel supported by Member Lewis moved that the property is
deeded they have a right to use this land for this purpose. Township
Board has to make the ultimate decision. He then moved to approve the
Special Use Permit to allow for a boat launch to be used by members of
the association subject to: 1) Goodwood Plat Owners registered boats
only take but referring to guests out of there. 2) no fueling on site.
3) Association will work with neighbors on both sides to provide
adequate buffer of trees to shield those homes from the actual ramp
itself. 4) the Goodwood Plat Owners association add a rule that would
require the Association to notify the Township Board of any proposed
rule changes to the use and restriction for the launch site. 5)
compliance with the Fire Department request to be given two keys and
to allow other government agencies access to boat launch. 6) Come back
in two years for review.
Member Lewis supported the amendments.
Member Logue related he was against the previous boat launch
because it is on residential property. But this is grandfathered in.
Member Logue related he feels a little uncomfortable about getting
involved beyond point this for a review. It is sort of like holding a
hatchet over them. He does not believe we have the right to do that
for private property owners.
Planning Director Peterson related we have used that in the past to
make sure the conditions have been met.
Member Logue then related he supports the motion but does not
believe the Planning Commission should be policing this.
The motion carried.
Member Robinson related the matter will be heard in front of the
Township Board on April 13.
ARTICLE 7. Case #05-2712: Barnes Management
The applicant requested Basic Plan Review for a PUD rezoning of
approximately two acres at 1544 MacNider Avenue, SE, to allow for the
conversion of the residential property for a new office building.
Planning Director Peterson related the property is located at 1544
MacNider on the corner of Cascade Road and MacNider. The request is to
rezone two acres of property on the corner. The request is to rezone
two acres on the corner of Cascade Road and MacNider. This request is
the result of their desire to acquire two acres to try to rezone it.
They are attempting to split off a small leg of an existing lot and
add it to this property. The two acre parcel size is critical from the
Cascade Road Corridor Study. The whole area is about six acres. If the
applicant's request were to go through there would be about four acres
left over. Planning Director Peterson has stated to the applicant that
all the properties should be included in the rezoning request. The
applicant is proposing a 10,000 s.f. building that the owner would own
and occupy half the building. Half of the building would be rented.
Staff related there are several major flaws to the plan, one of those
being setbacks. The red line on the plan is the 100 foot setback from
Cascade Road and MacNider. If we are going to follow the logic of
redevelopment down Cascade Road we should continue to meet the same
standards that have been established. The applicant has shown some
parking and landscaping. Once the minimum parking has been shown,
additional internal parking landscaping must be provided. There are
several site plan items that need to be addressed: 1) need a complete
set of site plans before any final issues could be resolved. 2) the
applicants have provided for a brief history of this site and their
attempts to develop it. They indicate Staff's opinion is the whole six
acres should come in as one project. Planning Director suggested the
entire six acres should be included as one project and a set of
complete site plans be developed for review by the Planning, Fire,
Building and Engineering Departments.
Vice Chair Robinson asked should this Commission be taking this up
at this time as it seems we don't have sufficient information.
Planning Director Peterson responded their application meets the
requirements for basic plan review. Staff then pointed out the area on
the Master Plan map and it's designation as mixed use PUD.
Member MacAllister related after hearing Staff's comments and based
on that information, she agrees the Planning Commission cannot review
anything further without a clear direction.
Planning Director Peterson related the applicant is present to hear
feedback from the Planning Commission that you agree the setbacks that
have been established should be applied as well as our over all
philosophy of one project.
Vice Chair Robinson related he would like to see the three lots
combined and would like to see plans. Planning Director Peterson
responded the applicant has given us what the ordinance requires at
this stage of application.
Member Lewis related normally at basic plan review we talk to the
applicant and they make their presentation. What Staff has said makes
sense to add property and use the established setbacks as Staff has
suggested.
Member McDonald related he is still having a difficult time because
this is planned as residential. It is not fair to the people who
border it. Planning Director Peterson responded it is planned as part
of mixed use PUD. That does give it some basis for a change in zoning.
Jeff Barnes, the applicant, of 945 Forest Hills Avenue related he
has been a resident and in business for 17 years in Cascade Township.
Roger Lamer, his engineer, and Glenn Turek are also present. They have
been working on this for over a year and understand the ideal way this
project would be developed. They would like to talk about how the
corner can be done for future development.
Mr. Lamer of W.L. Perry Associates, related he received Staff's
comments on Friday morning. He has now eliminated the major flaw. He
has revised the plan to show a 100 foot setback for both roads. There
is 50 feet between the east property line and more than 50 feet to the
residential property to the south. The setbacks can be met and still
build the building. There are 40 parking spaces with ten in reserve.
They plan a rain garden along Cascade Road for storm water detention.
There is an easement along the south property line for a private
drive. The neighbors have been approached but they have not
accomplished purchasing the parcels. After a year they decided to go
ahead. They exceeded the twenty foot buffer along MacNider. The
revised plan shows the same building but rotated 90 degrees and slid
to the south. The building is fifty feet off the west property line.
There are proposing blue spruce 15 feet from the building to the tree
line. Storm water utilities are to the site. The site will be served
with public sewer and water. An additional drive has been provided off
MacNider that could be extended for the properties to the east. The
adjacent properties who want to stay residential will stay
residential. There is a house on the property now.
Glenn Turek of Silveri Company related they approached the property
owners in the immediate vicinity and tried to negotiate market prices
to purchase the land. There is a restriction from the Township that
limits the size of office buildings you could put there. A 10,000 s.f.
building requires two acres. Normally you could put 16,000-18,000 s.f.
on two acres. These property owners wants about 1.2 million dollars to
purchase the remaining four acres which would be about $60 per square
foot for an office building which is almost double the market.
Vice Chair Robinson asked if the parcel as shown is less than two
acres? Mr. Turek responded it is 2.1 acres.
Member McDonald asked if the neighbors want to sell. Mr. Turek
responded yes, at a certain price, that far exceeds the market. Mr.
Turek related when they first met with Planning Staff they wanted to
see ingress/egress off MacNider. The plan does show a solution to
that. On the south end of the property they have included an easement
for that purpose.
Mr. Barnes related he has been in the area for 17 years and their
major client is Forest Hills Public Schools. The concern was getting
the parcel size which is now nearly two acres. The property owner is
here tonight. They made a land swap to get it up to two acres.
Member MacAllister asked will Barnes be occupying one-half of the
building. Mr. Barnes responded yes. They will lease the other 5,000
s.f.
Planning Director Peterson related this is the first he has seen
the new plan. He would like to review it. There is some parking in the
front yard. Planning Director Peterson related he is still suggesting
that the entire project should be planned out as an entire project. He
continued to request a subcommittee review with all the departments.
He is still recommending one big project.
Member Lewis related less than a mile away we had another building
of 10,000 s.f. built. They could not find another tenant. We waived
the rule on the 50% ownership for that property owner. Member Lewis
asked are we waiving the 50% ownership of this on situation as well.
Planning Director Peterson responded that requirement is not being
waived. In that other situation, the building was allowed to be
constructed without having the owner occupant in hand.
Mr. Barnes related we are going to build there and own and occupy
the building whether or not we lease half of it out.
Member MacAllister related she would like to see continual
landscaping along the buffer.
Mr. Lamer related they will fill in the voids.
Member Richards related she has a general comment. She is pleased
to see they have made a lot of changes from the plan in the packet.
She also really likes the idea of an existing member of the community
wanting to re-locate and stay in the community.
Mr. Barnes related they are a high end custom builder type of
company. The building will be first class and really nice. It will be
out corporate headquarters.
Vice Chair Robinson related Staff would like to see the three lots
combined from the 7.4 acres.
.
Planning Director Peterson related the problem isn't the Planning
Commission's to fix. It is a matter of timing and economics for them.
If the Planning Commission would like to allow the applicant to go
forward, Staff recommends we at least have some sort of layout for the
rest of the properties to see how everything would work.
Mr. Barnes related they talked about a mixed use PUD with four
office buildings and keeping the residential there. Planning Director
Peterson related that is not what you are proposing now.
Member McDonald asked aren't we making a decision right now that
the properties have to be combined into one project. Planning Director
Peterson responded yes, he is asking the Planning Commission to make
the decision that it be one project.
Mr. Barnes related he hopes it isn't coming across that the owners
are asking confiscatory amounts of money for their property. At this
time it works economically to put the building there. This plan gave
an opportunity to enhance the area. There is an office building across
the street and this would be the mirror image of that.
Mr. Lamer presented building elevations.
Mike Johnson, the property owner, related we thought about tearing
down our existing house and building another one there. We are renting
it out now. The property is across from the office building. He was
pleased when the office building came down the road. Logically his
property would be the next piece. He would not build a new house
there. He could have but he bought a bigger home somewhere else. Mr.
Johnson related he does not want to live on that corner. He
recommended treating this as a stand alone project. He asked the
Commissioner's to look at the merits of what the applicant is
attempting to build.
Vice Chair Robinson related he agrees with Staff with putting all
the parcels together into one project.
Member McDonald asked does this need to be tabled since Staff was
given a plan tonight.
Vice Chair Robinson related all we are doing is giving the
applicant ideas before they come back for a public hearing.
Planning Director Peterson related that is typically how we have
done it. We have an opportunity to review the entire new site plan. We
can go basic plan review again on the new plan or have the departments
come in for a subcommittee review and then go back to the Planning
Commission.
Member McDonald related he would like to see it again before public
hearing.
Planning Director Peterson responded at a minimum we should have
the entire six acres to show exactly how it would work and make the
determination of whether or not it can stand alone.
Fay Johnson of 1596 MacNider related there are six parcels you are
talking about.
Vice Chair Robinson related we are not in public hearing. This is a
discussion between the Commissioners.
Mr. Johnson related it is unfair for the Township to say all six
property owners of us have to agree. He has been talking to the other
property owners about it. They do not agree on anything. Mr. Johnson
related if you are going to hold the project up, all the property
owners will be dead. There are seven parcels. Planning Director
Peterson related we talking about how all the parcels have to be
combined to do anything with them. It would be better to do it now
instead of years down the road. The plan should be laid out to see how
it could work.
Vice Chair Robinson agreed.
Member MacAllister agreed and stated this is appropriate at this
time.
Member Postma related he would not like to see Mr. Johnson being
held up trying to sell his property by people who don't want to sell.
Member Logue related the applicant is concerned about speaking for
the other property owners.
Member MacAllister asked if there was a sidewalk plan. Planning
Director Peterson responded not on this side of Cascade Road.
Mr. Barnes related they will do a double diagram to show what it
would take to put the other parcels together.
ARTICLE 8. Case #05-2715: Waterfall Shoppes
The applicant requested a public hearing be set regarding a PUD
amendment for height of buildings in Phase 5.
Planning Director Peterson related the review board already met and
didn't have a problem with the proposal. Industrial zoning would allow
45 foot tall buildings. This is the site where a hotel is anticipated.
Staff would like to schedule the public hearing for the April 18
meeting.
Vice Chair Robinson related he has no problem with that and asked
the reason for the change in height. Planning Director Peterson
related it is for the roof treatment which is a minor issue. A hotel
has been anticipated there. The original zoning allowed for 45 foot
tall building.
ARTICLE 9. 2005 Work Plan
Planner Deem presented the proposed regulations. He related it
seems for Special Use Permits we have been specifying downcast
lighting and the Planning Commission feels we should change the
ordinance. He has created some language to reflect that change.
Another issue is façade lighting. The language written would require
downcast for all lighting with the exception of façade lighting. He
also addressed lighting for recreational areas such as a soccer field
or football field. Our ordinance specifies .5 foot candles which
wouldn't be enough to light a field. Staff is asking for the Planning
Commission to: 1) review the proposed ordinance changes and focus on
where downcast lighting should be required; and 2) the proper time
restriction of lighting of a park. The Costco gas station is allowed
to be lit until 11:00 pm. Staff would also like to set a May 2 public
hearing.
Vice Chair Robinson related on the lighting issue we had three
flags in the neighborhood all lit up at night for all night long. He
asked what is going to be permitted for that situation. Planner Deem
related directional luminaries are allowed as long as the lights only
illuminate the object. We would still allow flags to be lit. What is
written here has been the practice of the Planning Commission for the
last several years.
Member MacAllister related she hesitates to base regulations on the
time the Costco lights are on. Planner Deem related that was an
example, he has also researched other municipal codes and time frames.
Member McDonald related he would downcast lightings to be required
as well in R-1 and R-2 and ARC zoning districts.
A short discussion ensued regarding 60 watts or incandescent lamps.
Member McDonald related he is more concerned about lumens than
wattage.
ARTICLE 10. Discussion of Term Limit Amendment
Vice Chair Robinson related he would like to hold off on discussion
of this until Chairman Goldberg is present. He related the amendment
limits years of service to a total of 18. He asked how would that be
interpreted for someone who is serving on one board or commission and
then is a representative to a second board or commission. He asked
would that time count double. Planning Director Peterson responded no.
Being appointed as a liaison to the second board or commission comes
as a duty from the first one.
Member Lewis related the assumption of limiting service to 18 years
is going to be in the final proposal.
Planning Director Peterson related there are two amendments
proposed. The objective is getting more people involved and more
people educated to serve.
ARTICLE 12. Adjournment
Member McDonald supported by Member Lewis moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:36 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
 |
|
