Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, April 18, 2005
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Goldberg called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Goldberg, Koessel, Lewis, Logue, MacAllister, Postma,
Richards, Robinson.
Members Absent: McDonald (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 Lewis and
supported by Member Robinson. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. Member Logue corrected the Minutes on Page 12, paragraph
3. The third sentence shall read: "Members Logue related he feels
a little uncomfortable about getting involved beyond this point for a
review." With that change, Member Robinson supported by Member
Lewis moved to approve the Minutes of the April 4, 2005 meeting. The
motion carried.
ARTICLE 5. Case #05-2715: Waterfall Shoppes
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested an amendment to Phase V of the Waterfall
Shoppes PUD to raise the maximum height to 40 feet for a proposed
hotel.
Planning Director Peterson pointed out the location on the map. He
related Phase V is the area east of the Consumers Power right of way.
Phase V is 12-15 acres of buildable land. That property was previously
zoned industrial which did allow for buildings to be 45 feet tall. The
height is determined by measuring at the mid-point between the eave
and roof. That is the way we have always measured and the way the
Building Department uses for the building code as well.
(Member MacAllister entered the meeting at 7:05 pm).
Planning Director Peterson related the Home Design Center building
is 40 feet tall. The Crowne Plaza was added onto in 1985 and was
allowed to go to a height of 54 feet. And the building next door to
the Crowne Plaza is 41 feet tall.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the request to
40 feet. He also drafted a proposed text amendment for consideration.
Member Lewis supported by Member Robinson moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planning Director Peterson related no comments were received.
Member Robinson supported by Member MacAllister moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
The applicants, Jeff Hundley and Mark Finkelstein, were present.
They added no comments.
Chairman Goldberg related this seems fairly straight forward to
him. The underlying zoning would have allowed for this particular
height had it not been rezoned to PUD. The increased height will be
Limited to Phase V.
Member Lewis supported by Member Richards related based on what we
just said and the increase in height won't cause us to buy a ladder
unit for the fire department, and because we have some buildings of
that height now, he moved to approve the request. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 6. Case #05-3713: Waterfall Shoppes - Spring Hill Suites
Hotel
The applicant requested site plan approval for a proposed hotel at
5300 - 28th Street in the Waterfall Shoppes development.
Planning Director Peterson related this is site plan review and not
a public hearing. Planning Director Peterson presented the site plan.
He related the building has a 23,000 s.f. foot print. The building
will be three story with 109 rooms. This is in Phase V and the area
planned for the hotel. A requirement is the site plan be reviewed in
front of the Waterfall Shoppes review board. That meeting took place
at the end of March and they did recommend approval. All the items
have been addressed with the exception of the pedestrian connect to
the remainder of the project. In the beginning a pedestrian connection
from the hotel to the Target store area was discussed as a
possibility. Since that time, the developer has indicated it doesn't
look like that is feasible. There is an area between the hotel and
Target with a large ravine. The developer does not think there is
going to be a lot of pedestrian movement from the site. The developer
would like the Planning Commission to reconsider the recommendation by
the subcommittee and not have a pedestrian connection. Staff met with
the engineer and suggested they come up with a couple of options. One
being the road could be widened and marked with stripes on the side
for pedestrians. Staff has not heard any responses. The two access
points were discussed at length. Two access points going through the
Consumers Power right of way have been approved for proper access for
fire, etc. during construction. Since discussed has part of this
project. The developer has also submitted a sign package that is
consistent with the review board comments and under the amount of
signage at the Costco project. Costco was approved at 400 s.f. of
total wall signs. The wall signs for this project are just under 400
s.f. The other item the subcommittee talked about is material on the
outside of the building. The developer was asked to look into changing
some of the surface materials on the lower levels. The developer would
like to keep their material as originally planned. Fire Department has
reviewed the plan and approved it. The Township Engineer letter was
received late today. They met with the developers early on and there
isn't anything in their list of concern. The second page of their
letter deals with site plan issues for water and sewer. Some of those
issues have been addressed already. The City of Grand Rapids replied
late today regarding the utility plan.
Planning Director Peterson related soil erosion control has been a
big item on the site. The Township Engineer has some specific items
that will need to be completed or he is satisfied of the progress,
prior to excavating and moving dirt on this site. The subcommittee
talked about additional landscaping. The thought was to hide the
retaining wall. Staff has suggested a $40,000 landscaping bond. The
applicant has submitted a lighting plan that meets our photometric
standards. The applicant related they may use ground mounted up
lighting around the building. Staff has informed the applicant that
type of lighting may not be used.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the site plan
with the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Member Koessel asked how does this compare to the size of the
Baymont hotel. Planning Director Peterson related it is similar to the
Country Inn.
Mark Finkelstein related it is about the same size as the Baymont.
Chairman Goldberg asked the applicants if they are agreeable with
the seven conditions listed in the Staff Report. Jeff Hundley
responded yes.
Member MacAllister questioned if the pedestrian pathway would
accommodate two feet wider at the street. Mr. Hundley related we all
concluded it would not be anything anybody would use. Mr. Finkelstein
related it is about a half mile to Target. The hotel has a shuttle
service to the airport and it could be used to go to the shopping
center also. He can see morning joggers using a pedestrian pathway.
Mr. Hundley asked is the requirement or standard for road width 24
feet. Planning Director Peterson responded he believes it could be 18
feet.
Chairman Goldberg recommended striping seven feet for a pedestrian
pathway. Planning Director Peterson related five feet is a typical
city sidewalk width.
Chairman Goldberg related mark off two feet for clearance and then
five feet to walk in.
Mr. Finkelstein related there is about 1,200 feet of road times
seven feet which is about 10,000 feet of pavement. He does not have
any problem with that.
Chairman Goldberg asked Staff and the applicants to work that out.
Member MacAllister related she went out to the site yesterday and
looked at the retaining wall railing system. She asked would it be
like the one out there now. Mr. Finkelstein related that one is not
finished yet. It is just primed but not painted.
Member Robinson supported by Member MacAllister moved to grant site
plan approval with the following conditions of Staff: 1) submit a
$40,000 landscape bond; 2) wall signs to total no more than 400 s.f.
with a six s.f. directional sign as shown on the site plan; 3)
compliance with the Township Engineer's requirements; 4) approval by
the Township Board for a five foot increase in the height allowance
for Phase V; 5) compliance with the Township Fire Department letter
dated April 13, 2005; 6) copy of the easement allowing access through
the Consumers Power property; 7) no use of any uplighting on the
building. The only lighting permitted will be those lights indicated
on the approved photometric lighting plan; and 8) that we look at
striping seven feet of pavement (2 feet for a buffer and 5 feet for
pedestrian pathway) along the road. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. 2005 Work Plan
Review proposed changes to lighting regulations
Planner Deem related at the last meeting we reviewed the lighting
ordinance. A Special Use Permit would be required for recreational
lighting such as soccer and baseball fields, etc. A public hearing
could be set for May 2. Façade lighting was discussed during the
meeting perhaps excluding a certain type of lighting or bulbs. Planner
Deem related after further research he the amount of lumens should be
limited and not watts. A sixty watt bulb off the shelf is about 1,200
lumens. The Township uses a 250 watt incandescent bulb to light flags.
Limiting the lumens for façade lighting is trying to prevent the
excessive lighting from lighting the night sky. The language will be
changed to read 1,260 lumens. Planner Deem related he will bring the
full language for the public hearing.
ARTICLE 8. Discussion of Term Limit Amendment
Planning Director Peterson put together two different options.
Option 1 is for three 3 year terms with a maximum of 18 years of
service. Option 2 is three 3 year terms with no maximum length of
service. Both have a limitation of a 12 month period off before
reappointment. This would only affect the Planning Commission and
Zoning Board of Appeals. Doing nothing would keep the current
amendment that we have and that is two 3 year terms. Planning Director
Peterson related he prefers Option 2, but it could also be something
different from these options. The amendment is not scheduled for
public hearing at this point.
Member Robinson related at the last meeting we put off discussion
until Chairman Goldberg could be present. The concern was the limit of
18 years of service. The amendment does not address the issue of
filling an unexpired term of someone else.
Planning Director Peterson related if you fill someone else's terms
of two years or less it would be considered to be a full term.
Chairman Goldberg asked was there a clear preference for either
option. Member Robinson responded he preferred the three 3 year terms.
Member Lewis related the Zoning Board of Appeals hasn't had a
communication about this until the last meeting when he brought it up.
They spent time discussing the issue and at the conclusion of the
meeting, the Chairman asked everybody their preference. The general
feeling was why do we have term limits. Member Lewis related he
personally feels we should not have them at all. Some board members
felt if we have to have term limits it should be three terms rather
than two. With the Zoning Board of Appeals if a decision is appealed
it goes to the Circuit Court. This is serious as it possibly involves
the Township in litigation. We have a new zoning board member this
year who served on the Grand Haven Zoning Board of Appeals. After four
years he decided he did not have enough experience to be chairman. One
Hundred Percent of the Zoning Board of Appeals would prefer not to
have term limits. A compromise rests at three terms of three years
each. Member Lewis related he personally took time to write a letter
to the Township Board on this subject. He feels performance is more
important than time frames. If somebody is doing their job, they
should be reappointed. If not, they should not be reappointed. The
role of this board is to serve the citizens of Cascade Township. The
goal is to come out with the best board possible to serve the people
of the township.
Member MacAllister related you have to have a system in place to
evaluate.
Member Lewis related that was in his letter too. The Chairperson
should sit down with Planning Staff and the Supervisor to determine if
each member should be reappointed.
Member Robinson related at the end of each three year term, the
Township Supervisor has the right not to reappoint anyway. It isn't
automatic.
Chairman Goldberg related he tends to agree we should not have term
limits. He does think it is important to have evaluations. He feels it
is important to continue to do what we have done with rotating the
officers and leadership positions. If people mature in the job and
gain experience they become more valuable for leadership positions on
the boards.
Member Lewis related the chairperson can direct things. By changing
the chairperson you can change the direction of a board.
Chairman Goldberg responded the officers are the big thing to
change.
Member Lewis related that is an excellent point. He didn't think
our ordinance called for the rotation of the chairperson every two
years.
Planning Director Peterson related the officers' term is one year
and cannot extend beyond two consecutive terms.
Chairman Goldberg related that stays in place. He suggested taking
our existing language and plugging in three 3 year terms instead of
two with no required hiatus between.
Member Koessel related the Township Board met last week. Trustee
Beahan did bring this from the Zoning Board. Member Koessel related he
does not know if there is enough support on the Township Board to
eliminate term limits. He feels the Planning Commission should come up
with a decision whether you are for or against term limits. Member
Koessel feels if we propose there not be any term limits, we should
incorporate an evaluation system.
Member Lewis related the reason why he is saying no to term limits
is because that is what I think. I would prefer not to have any term
limits. The chance of that happening is slim to none. He feels we have
to come to the Township Board with something better than we have now.
He would like to see three 3 year terms with some type of condition.
Member Koessel related he feels there would not be a lot of
opposition for three 3 year terms and that has a fairly good
likelihood of being passed.
Chairman Goldberg then conducted a straw poll.
No term limits - 4
Three 3 year terms - 4
Require 12 months off after three terms - 0
Over all limit of 18 years - 0
No term limits - 4
Uncomfortable with no limits - 3
Member Lewis related three 3 year terms is better than what we have
now.
Chairman Goldberg related he would favor no term limits at all if
people understand they can't be re-appointed if they don't perform.
Two terms is not enough.
Member Robinson related it takes six years to move through the
system before you get experience on the board. Two years learning, two
years as vice chair or secretary, and two years as chairman. That is
six of 9 years. Maybe we should have four three year terms.
Chairman Goldberg related to move through all the positions is
within the nine year time span.
Member Robinson related that would only give a person one year to
serve on board before holding a leadership position.
Chairman Goldberg related he sees it as three years before you
serve as an officer.
Member Koessel asked when do we do the Master Plan update again.
Planning Director Peterson responded we do it every ten years with a
review every five years. Some members on this Planning Commission will
never have the chance to go through the Master Plan update.
Member Koessel related he was new when we did it the last time and
he was completely lost in that process. Member Koessel related if you
were inclined to vote for no term limits, there will be people that
will say six years is enough and will not asked to be reappointed for
a third term.
Member Lewis related you have to understand at Zoning Board of
Appeals with a "loose canon" we will be in court. Our Zoning
Board of Appeals has three new members who have not been on Planning
Commission. He feels it is very important to have some type of
stability and leadership there. Anybody appointed to serve on the
Zoning Board of Appeals should serve on Planning Commission first.
Member MacAllister related she has been on a lot of different
boards in the private sector. A three year term limits allows the
person to reevaluate why you are there. She agrees with some type of
evaluation. She feels a three year term is appropriate.
Member Lewis related if we are looking for continuity between the
two boards, it would likely end up with three 3 year terms.
Planning Director Peterson related the Supervisor does that. They
do review everybody who has been appointed. The Master Plan update is
also a time when you get people interested in serving on boards. A
couple of our members were interested in serving after developments in
their neighborhood.
Member Robinson related he came onto the board with some experience
in a small community. It took him a good three years to feel he could
contribute. Member Lewis helped him in that process.
Member Richards related she does not think there should be any term
limits. Experience is so valuable. There are members here who have
served for many, many years on these boards and she has benefited by
your experience and time and the community also. That has never
stopped new people from coming on. Member Richards related she is not
real uncomfortable with the three 3 year terms. She would prefer no
term limits.
Member Logue related he feels pretty strongly about term limits.
Setting the boundaries by which the commission operates is important.
Once people get done what they feel they need to get done they should
step aside. That allows for more people in the community to have a
chance to get involved. For the reasons that have been mentioned, he
feels three 3 year terms are appropriate.
Planning Director Peterson related we can publish the notice
without the language. We will provide an option for three 3 year terms
and delete the 12 month off and the 18 year end of service. The public
hearing would be no later than the second meeting in May.
Member Robinson and Richards related they will not be available for
the second meeting in May.
Chairman Goldberg recommended holding the public hearing on June 6.
ARTICLE 9. Any Other Business
Member Koessel addressed the Goodwood plat owners boat launch. The
day of the board meeting the citizen that objected last year to the
other river association's boat launch also objected to this one. The
Township Board voted unanimously to approve the boat launch. The
Township legal counsel will draft of findings of fact and bring that
back to the Township Board for approval.
Planning Director Peterson related he talked with the Township
attorney about doing that more often even at Planning Commission
level. This will become more common.
Planning Director Peterson related Member McDonald is absent
tonight to his mother's death. A flower bouquet will be sent.
ARTICLE 10. Adjournment
Member Robinson supported by Member MacAllister moved to adjourn.
The motion carried and meeting was adjourned at 8:22 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
 |
|
