Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, May 21, 2007
7:00 p.m.
ARTICLE 1. Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
Members Present: Koessel, Lewis, Logue, MacAllister, McDonald,
Richards, Robinson
Members Absent: Postma (excused), Waalkes (excused)
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Admin. Assistant Hern, and
Members of the Public.
ARTICLE 2. Chairman McDonald led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ARTICLE 3. Chairman McDonald requested motion for approval of the
May 21st Agenda.
Member Robinson motioned for approval of the agenda as presented,
supported by Member MacAllister. All in favor with none opposed, the
motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. Case # 07-2872: Brenda Lynema
Address of Property: 9555 60th Street SE
(TABLED AT THE LAST MEETING)
Requested Action: The Applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit for
the construction of an accessory building larger than 832-square feet.
Chairman McDonald noted this item was tabled at the May 14, 2007
Planning Commission Meeting and requested a motion to remove the case
from the table.
Member Lewis motioned to remove Case # 07-2872 from the table,
supported by Member Robinson. Chairman McDonald called the motion to
question. All in favor with none opposed, Case # 07-2872: Brenda
Lynema was removed from the table.
Planning Director Peterson noted this item was tabled at the last
Planning Commission Meeting until the Applicant could provide a new
drawing showing the proposed building moved as close to the septic
system as allowed by the Kent County Health Department (KCHD). The new
drawing needed to be scaled with dimensions showing the distance to
the 60th Street right-of-way, the nearest property line and the
distance to the septic systems.
KCHD did review and approved the revised site plan for the location
of the proposed accessory building. They also noted that they would
require a minimum of five feet from the drain field to the proposed
driveway.
Staff recommends approval of the Applicant's request for the
building as shown on the updated plan with the following conditions:
1) The building not be involved, directly or indirectly, with any
business, trade, occupation or profession.
2) Any lighting for the building will be shielded or downcast.
Chairman McDonald opened the meeting to questions from the Planning
Commission of Staff.
Member Lewis noted that the Ordinance does have a few exceptions in
allowing an accessory building in the front yard and one of the
exceptions is if you have to drive over a drain field or septic system
to get around to the back of the house, is that correct? Planning
Director Peterson said that the Township does not allow buildings in
the front of the house unless you can meet the three conditions being:
1) Removal of trees
2) Septic system is in the way
3) The building is at least 200-feet back from the road right-of-way.
Planning Director Peterson noted that in this particular case, the
Applicant meets two (2) of the three (3) conditions and they are not
200-feet back from the road and the reason for the variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The Township will allow for a building
in the front of the property if someone were to meet all three (3) of
these conditions.
Member Lewis noted that what the Township really wants is that if
someone were to be able to put the building behind the house that is
preferred. Planning Director Peterson agreed and noted that the
ordiance was changed several years ago to allow for buildings in the
front yards based on the reasons why previous variances that have been
granted.
Member Lewis noted that the updated site plans now show that the
west side of the drain field, going around to the back of the house,
is that wide enough to access by car? Planning Director Peterson said
the Applicant probably could access the area by car.
Member Logue thought there were trees in the way to allow for a
rear drive and the Applicant said the area has a lot of trees in the
rear and he would have to remove them for a rear drive.
Member Lewis noted that the revised site plans show the possibility
of being able to place the building in the rear of the property. He
acknowledged that the ZBA granted a variance in allowing the building
be placed in the front yard with a minimum setback from 60th Street of
98-feet. The variance the ZBA granted was given based on very poor
site plans that did not show the Applicant could get around to the
back.
Planning Director Peterson noted that the factors for the variance
are typical of exceptions with one (1) of the things being the concern
of where the septic tanks and drain fields are as people often forget
the location of these underground systems. He further noted that the
exceptions in this case are pretty typical for other variance. He also
noted that the applicants original site plan also indiacted the same
space between the property line and the septic system. Member Lewis
said he agrees but had the ZBA seen the site plan being submitted this
evening, they would have discussed the possibility of a rear building
at that meeting but the information was not presented.
Member Koessel referred back to the other case on Buttrick and
their building sits much closer to Buttrick than this project does on
60th Street. He does not recall why the Buttrick variance was granted
but remembers there were no public comments received and trees shield
the building. He appreciates Member Lewis' comments and said it is
hard with the plans submitted to have clear definition of the property
and the location of the drain fields. Member Koessel said it does
appear the Applicant could drive around to the rear. He noted that the
ZBA was shown plans where it did not appear that the Applicant could
place the building in the rear and now the plans show there is a
possibility. Member Koessel noted that the ZBA granted the variance
with a minimum setback of 98-feet from 60th Street and now the
Applicant has submitted a drawing that meets the setback granted by
the ZBA. Member Koessel believes the Planning Commission could send
the Applicant back before the ZBA for re-evaluation based on the site
plan submitted tonight, but the Planning Commission, he believes, has
led the Applicant to believe that if he meets the required setback and
detailed drawings, the Planning Commission would comply with the ZBA.
He understands Member Lewis' comments but is reluctant to send it back
to the ZBA at this time. Member Koessel also noted that other similar
properties were granted front yard buildings.
Member Lewis suggested that the Ordinance be changed because others
have been allowed to build in the front of their properties. Member
Lewis is concerned of weakening the Ordinance.
Member Koessel requested the overhead that shows the topography of
the property. He noted that the photo does not clearly show the trees
in the rear and asked the Applicant if they could put a drive in the
rear. Applicant David Lynema said he could put the driveway more west
as Member Lewis noted but he would have to remove more large trees to
do so. Member Koessel clarified that the Applicant would have to clear
more trees and Applicant Lynema said that is correct.
Member Lewis asked what the white rectangular object is on the
photo and Applicant Brenda Lynema said that is their travel trailer.
Member Lewis noted they were able to get the travel trailer into the
area without removing trees.
There were no further questions of Staff from the Planning
Commission and Chairman McDonald invited the Applicant to provide
their comments.
Applicant David Lynema, 9555 60th Street SE, summarized that what
Member Lewis is proposing he do is take his existing drive way and run
it west to the farthest end of his property and either remove
approximately eighty (80) trees for the accessory building or install
more drive way to reach the building that could be placed in the rear.
A driveway in this configuration would not be visually attractive and
the removal of trees would be tremendous to meet Member Lewis' idea.
Member Lewis clarified it is not his idea to do this it is the
Ordinance he is trying to uphold that was passed by the people of the
Township.
Applicant Lynema said he has made all the adjustments the Planning
Commission has requested of him. He also referred to a house
approximately ¾-of a mile from his that has the same pole barn,
roughly 30 x 40-square feet that sits approximately 40 to 50-feet off
the road. Member Logue asked if this is to the east or west of the
Applicant's property and Mrs. Lynema said there is one to the east and
one to the west of their property.
Member Robinson asked what are the two (2) 800-gallon tanks that
are shown on the drawing and Mr. Lynema said they are two (2)
800-gallon septic tanks. Member Robinson questioned if the Applicant
could run a driveway between the existing drain field and the garage
instead of going by the lot line? Planning Director Peterson said that
he would not advise to place a driveway over the drain field.
Member MacAllister noted that based on the dialogue held at last
week's Planning Commission Meeting regarding this case, the drawings
submitted this evening are what the Planning Commission asked for. She
recognized upholding the Township's Ordinance and believes a lot of
mature trees would have to be removed in order to place the building
in the rear. Member MacAllister said she is ready to move forward with
the proposal as shown today.
Chairman McDonald asked the Planning Commission if they had any
more questions of the Applicant, they did not.
Chairman McDonald supports upholding the Ordinance and would rather
see, however, the Applicant places the building in the front versus
the rear to save from cutting multiple mature trees down.
Member Logue noted that he was not at last week's Planning
Commission Meeting and asked if the building is too large for the site
and if the possibility of the Applicant building a smaller accessory
building is possible.
Chairman McDonald said the existing size of the building was
approved by the ZBA and the Planning Commission did have discussion
regarding the building being reduced to 30' x 30' but the main focus
on the building was to have it setback 98-feet from the road
right-of-way.
Member Logue clarified then that the ZBA did not have the same
information presented to them as the Planning Commission has received.
Member Lewis said that is correct and at the ZBA Meeting they asked
the Applicant to move the building back as far as possible based on
the information they had at the time. The ZBA also suggested that the
Applicant turn the building so it was running the length of the lot.
At this meeting because of the new information being submitted, the
Applicant has determined that they can still move the building back to
meet the 98-foot setback and not turn the building. Member Logue asked
if the Applicant were to turn the building now, how much more of a
setback would be achieved. Member Lewis noted that unfortunately, the
ZBA asked the Applicant to meet the 98-foot setback and the Applicant
has done so without turning the building.
Member MacAllister motioned to approve the Applicant's request for
a Special Use Permit for the construction of an accessory building
larger than 832-square feet for 9555 60th Street SE as presented in
the drawing submitted with Staff's conditions:
1) The building not be involved, directly or indirectly, with any
business, trade, occupation or profession.
2) Any lighting for the building will be shielded or downcast.
Member Koessel supported the motion.
Chairman McDonald called for discussion of the motion.
Member Lewis said that his major concern is representing the Zoning
Board of Appeals and feels strongly about his comments this evening,
he will be voting against the case. He noted that people cut trees
down all the time to put a pool in the backyard or some other home
improvement.
Chairman McDonald noted that the trees are not the only issue in
this case. He also supports Member Lewis' comments regarding the
information presented to the ZBA regarding the case and believes the
Township needs to mandate complete drawings for projects.
Member Lewis agreed and said the issue at the ZBA was at that
point, he could have tabled the case for specified drawings. This case
is a good example of a variance being granted based on inaccurate
drawings but the ZBA passed it with the condition that the Applicant
provide completed drawings to the Planning Commission which they have
provided. He apologized on behalf of the ZBA that they did not table
this case for the complete drawings when the case was before them. Had
he seen the drawings submitted this evening at the ZBA Meeting, he
would have supported the driveway along the west side of the property
for a rear building.
Chairman McDonald asked if there were any more questions or
discussion regarding the motion. There were no more comments or
questions Chairman McDonald requested a roll call vote:
Member Koessel: Yes
Member Richards: Yes
Member Robinson: No
Chairman McDonald: Yes
Member Lewis: No
Member MacAllister: Yes
Member Logue: Yes
The motion was approved by five to two votes. Planning Commission
Peterson said the Applicant may apply for their building permit and
they have one (1) year to construct the building before the variance
expires.
ARTICLE 5. Any Other Business: Chairman McDonald opened the meeting
for any other business.
Chairman McDonald noted that one issue is for the Township to
require precise drawings before going to the Zoning Board of Appeals
or Planning Commission. Planning Director Peterson said it is not a
requirement right now to request a survey drawing from an Applicant.
He believes it is important to remember that these requests are for
residential buildings and it is a matter of how we are going to treat
our residents. Staff would suggest that we provide graph paper for
someone to submit more scalable drawings of their project and make it
easy for the Applicants when they submit their requests.
Member Koessel noted that the Applicants need to have definitive
pictures and drawings of their projects and let the Applicants know
the more details they can supply the better it is going before the ZBA
or Planning Commission.
Member Richards asked how the Township would know that the building
they proposed tonight, with the vinyl and asphalt roofing, would be
built and Planning Director Peterson said the Township's Building
Inspector ensures the building is built as submitted in the building
permit.
Member Robinson referred to Sheldon Cleaners project that was
before the Planning Commission a few months ago and requested
clarification on the new building. The minutes reflect that the new
location is not to serve as a dry cleaning plant and may only provide
cleaning service to the new location's customers.
Member Lewis also noted that last Friday night, the micro-brewing
company on Patterson that allows for sampling within the building. He
noted that there were some gentlemen outside with a pitcher of beer
enjoying the evening, bottom line, this is outside drinking and you
cannot do that. Planning Director Peterson said he would visit the
establishment.
ARTICLE 8. Adjournment
Chairman McDonald requested a motion for adjournment.
Member Robinson supported by Member Lewis moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lewis, Secretary
Lisa Hern, Recording Secretary
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
 |
|
