Minutes Archive

Overview ~ Cascade Community Foundation ~ Downtown Development Authority ~ Library Advisory Board Planning Commission ~ Township Board ~ Zoning Board of Appeals

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, April 11, 2000

7:30 p.m.

ARTICLE 1. Chairman Wilson called the meeting to order.

Members Present: Erickson, Goldberg, Koessel, Lewis, Timmons, Wilson

Members Absent: None

Others Present: Planner Otey, Administrative Assistant Thompson, and those listed on Supplement #1.

ARTICLE 2. The agenda was approved on motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member Koessel. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the March 14, 2000 meeting were approved on motion by Member Koessel and supported by Member Lewis. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 4. The following Planning Commission Minutes were received and filed:

December 6, 1999

December 20, 1999

January 3, 2000

January 18, 2000

February 7, 2000

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a variance in order to replace the existing ground sign along 28thStreet with a ground sign that is larger than allowed. The proposed ground sign is requested to be 60 square feet in sign area.

Planner Otey related because we have a full board tonight, Alternate Member Erikson will not be voting but can participate in discussion.

Planner Otey related the Friends of the Library are requesting a variance to replace their existing ground sign with a larger than allowed sign. Back in November the Friends requested a temporary sign to help advertise their semi-annual book sale. That was denied but the ZBA approved a banner sign to be placed over the existing ground sign. They are now requesting a larger permanent sign with a letter board. The sign will be placed in the existing location. The property is zoned PUD. The PUD Ordinance allows for 32 s.f. of signage. The present underlying zoning of B-1 would allow a sign up to 60 s.f. in sign area and seven feet high. Planner Otey then went through the criteria to be considered as listed in the Staff Report. Just the township properties in the PUD have the 32 s.f. sign area limit. There are no conditions unique to this property. There have been other sign variances granted for size. Planner Otey related she would prefer to see the larger sign with a reader board rather than a temporary banner sign. Planner Otey recommended approval of the request.

Member Goldberg related Section 9.07 of the Sign Ordinance says "a variance can be granted where the literal application of the Ordinance would create a particular hardship for the sign user and the following criteria are met." He asked does that mean all of the following criteria? Criteria number two says "where the hardship created by a literal interpretation of the Ordinance is due to conditions unique to that property and does not apply generally to other properties in the Township." If we approve this we are saying the findings of fact are in error.

Chairperson Wilson related the zoning is PUD and it being Township property is unique. Planner Otey related Noto’s Restaurant is also in that PUD. They were approved to have a 50 s.f. sign. They did receive a variance to place it closer to the 28^th Street right-to-way than allowed.

Member Timmons asked is that the sign that is there now? Planner Otey responded yes.

Member Lewis asked can we amend the PUD? Planner Otey responded we can do that.

Member Goldberg related that would make more sense. He related he feels the right way would be to amend the PUD Ordinance.

Chairperson Wilson referred to the third finding of fact. In this particular case there are no unique conditions to this property and amending the Ordinance would make more sense than granting a variance.

Member Koessel asked how many other potential properties could this apply to? Planner Otey related other properties in the PUD would be the library and a vacant site on Thornbook for the new fire station.

Member Goldberg related he doesn’t have a problem with amending the PUD Ordinance. The Township property is a different kettle of fish. It is community property and justifies a different treatment than a commercial property. His only concern is he doesn’t want to set a precedent of ignoring the findings of fact.

Member Lewis asked how big is the sign that is up now? Planner Otey responded 32 square feet.

Member Goldberg supported by Member Lewis moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

Paula Rowland represented the Friends of the Library. She related they do not like the present sign which they were forced to put up. They are hoping to get the big wooden poles out of there. The new sign would have the same look as the present sign only larger. They would like a reader board to use as a community message center.

Member Koessel related the temporary sign was from the Friends of the Library. What involvement would the Kent County Library association have? Mrs. Rowland responded this is their sign. The Friends are paying for it. It will have a message board on the bottom. The message portion will have four lines with letters four inches high. It will accommodate either four inch or eight inch letters.

Chairperson Wilson asked how long would it take to put it up? Mrs. Rowland related she did not know but their goal is to have it by the Fourth of July.

Member Lewis supported by Member Timmons moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Member Goldberg supported by Member Koessel moved to deny the requested variance but recommended the PUD Ordinance be amended and recommended the amendment be granted as it is the best way to accommodate this sign.

Member Lewis referred to the findings of fact stating "due to conditions that are unique". He asked does unique condition mean the physical lay out of the property involved or the fact that it is township property?

Member Goldberg related that is a dangerous road to go down. Conditions unique to property is something you should be able to get your arms around. It would not be one use to another. Useage of property changes where physical contours cannot change.

Member Lewis related this condition would be based upon use.

Member Goldberg related here I don’t think it is the use in relation to property. It is the nature of the use that is making it desirable from a community standpoint.

Member Koessel related there are two township parcels – one is the library and one undeveloped parcel. If we grant this we would get a similar request for the vacant parcel. If there were multiple properties it would be a different situation.

Member Erickson asked if Noto’s property is in the PUD? Planner Otey responded yes, they were allowed a larger sign under the PUD.

Chairperson Wilson asked how much precedent would be be setting if this request was approved?

Member Goldberg related he is worried about stretching the findings of fact to include use. Then you are setting a precedent. People could say my use of this property can justify what I am asking for. If you amend the PUD Ordinance it is a creature unto itself. Amending the PUD would set no precedent at all. A variance is more likely to be abused.

Member Timmons related he is ready to support the motion. The findings of fact are not well founded. This is going to get done one way or the other. If this procedure is troubling do it the other way by amending the PUD.

Member Lewis related any time we can tighten up the Ordinance this would be an ideal way of doing it. All the findings of fact have to be met.

Member Lewis called for the question.

The motion carried.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a variance from Section 19.15 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a gravel driveway and parking area at 6155 Cascade Road.

Planner Otey related the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a gravel driveway and parking area. The Zoning Ordinance requires all parking and loading facilities and access drives for uses other than single family residential and agriculture be paved. This property is being converted to a church facility. The property is located on Cascade Road between Beard and Mont-Rue Drives. The Planning Commission did review this request on April 3. The Planning Commission did give their approval to use the property as a church. The facility will contain offices and will be used to conduct small Bible study classes. Since the writing of the Staff Report, we have been notified by the Kent County Road Commission that they would like the Cascade Road driveway closed and put a new entrance on Beard Drive where the future primary driveway would be. The Road Commission felt that should be done for safety reasons. We will have to see a new site plan. The applicant would like to keep that gravel and not asphalt it until the new facility is constructed. There would be six to twelve people in the building five or six days per week. Planner Otey related in researching the Planning Department records she was unable to find a similar variance request. Dave Woods with a container storage facility was denied a similar request. This would be the first variance granted to this section of the Ordinance should it be approved. Planner Otey recommended denial of the request.

Member Lewis asked if the Road Commission asked the applicant to install curb and gutter on Cascade Road and then changed that request? Planner Otey related she is not sure what made the Road Commission change their mind. She believes the applicant did call and talk to the Road Commission since that time. She has spoken with John Strunk and Tim Haagsma and they feel the drive off Beard would be safer.

Tom Shearer was present to represent the United Methodist Foundation. Mr. Shearer related this is a new church development arm of the United Methodist Church. They did receive approval of the site plan by the Planning Commission subject to certain conditions. The church is currently worshipping at Forest Hills Central High School auditorium on Sundays. They do not have any office space or a place where small groups can meet. They would like to have the church offices and the Pastors’ office along with small group meetings in the building at this location pending construction of a new church building on the site in two or three years. They feel the church will be an asset to the community and are very excited about this possibility. The question of paving came up. The church has not formed a formal building committee at this time but that will follow very soon. For that reason, the church does not have a precise plan of where the new church building would be located on the site. During discussions we have had with the Road Commission and leadership of the church we determined it would be off Beard. The Road Commission wants the permanent drive off Beard and not Cascade Road. We had no intention of using Cascade Road as a permanent driveway entrance. It would be a financial problem for the church to install a paved drive and parking area if we ultimately close this entrance. That would not make sense to pave it now. We are here to make a request for a variance. We understand the purpose behind the Staff Report. We want to use that property now because we can use it as it is and having the ability to use it will enable us to get that permanent facility in place. The Road Commission says they want the entrance off of Beard. Mr. Strunk will allow us to create an entrance off of Beard as a temporary use without curb and gutter. We would pave from the existing pavement to the right of way line. We will have to go back 300 feet on Beard for the driveway. We really do need to use this property. We want to work with the neighbors.

Mr. Shearer related he received a letter from Dick Durell who represents Andy Dennen. He related we did not need to notice the neighbors under the Planning Commission procedures. Mr. Shearer told Mr. Durell on the phone this morning and will say that again tonight and we will put it in writing we will be in touch with the neighbors as these plans develop. We don’t think gravel will adversely affect the neighboring properties.

Chairperson Wilson asked is the Road Commission saying they do not want an entrance off Cascade Road but off of Beard Drive? Planner Otey responded yes and read the letter from the Road Commission.

Chairperson Wilson related the issue may be moot. Planner Otey related they are still requesting the driveway to be gravel instead of being paved.

Member Goldberg asked why don’t we table this request to allow the applicant to come back with another drawing?

Member Timmons supported by Member Koessel moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

Chairperson Wilson related she was not feeling well and asked Vice Chair Koessel to chair the meeting for her.

Acting Chair Koessel asked if anyone present would like to speak regarding the request.

Mike Lutz related he is a member of the congregation. He wants to tell you that he would prefer you approve the variance with the driveway where it is on Cascade Road. If the Road Commission denies that we would come back with a new site plan. We would prefer not to alter this land at all until a permanent site plan is determined. To locate a site plan with a drive off Beard Drive would be very difficult. Actual parking areas may be higher or lower and that is why we may not leave it where it is. We would like to leave the land as it is. Gravel is already there although it needs some topping. We do need to install handicap parking. It is not visible from most of residents behind the church property. The parking and driveway would be five hundred feet from the Dennen home. It can’t be seen. We don’t want to change this plan at all. We would like to argue with the Road Commission. This would help us in the process rather than getting tabled.

Mr. Shearer related this has been discussed with the Road Commission. He is opposed to tabling as an option. He feels there is the possibility of talking their way through with the Road Commission.

Member Timmons related you misunderstand Mr. Goldberg’s offer. He is offering you a tactical retreat. You come before us with a common sense request. We can’t possibly grant it. I can’t imagine you would get one positive vote from this Board because of the precedent setting factor. If you want the ruling tonight you can have it. We have never done this before and I don’t think we are ever going to do this. I can’t imagine you would have one positive on this.

Planner Otey related it appears in talking with the Road Commission that the drive off Cascade Road will be closed. The issue is still the gravel drive and parking area. She felt we can proceed.

Barb Schmidt related she lives to the north. She requested the matter be tabled for a month. She related she understands both positions that they don’t want to ruin integrity of land and the Board is concerned about setting a precedent. This is the first we (the neighbors) have heard of the Planning Commission approving the site plan and Road Commission making the decision to move the drive to Beard. She felt perhaps the neighbors would be able to appeal the drive location to the Road Commission.

Paula Rowland asked did she hear the word corporation? Mr. Shearer responded the United Methodist Foundation is a non-profit foundation.

Mrs. Rowland related all of Cascade does not consider this necessarily an asset to the community. Cascade Road is becoming church road and people that live in the adjacent area to this facility are going to find a tremendous change to our Beard Drive. Church is not just Sunday any more. It is a seven day a week process. She related she tends to agree that if the rest of the neighborhood knew the Road Commission was pushing for a Beard Drive entrance there would be a lot more people here tonight.

Mr. Durell related his concern is if variance would be granted there wouldn’t be a way to come back in and change the variance to rectify the problem.

Member Goldberg related the only way he knows to do that would grant a short term variance with a condition to come back and re-visit it.

Mrs. Bestrom related the concern is still that another driveway will come out on Beard. We didn’t know that when we bought the property. That is her concern.

Member Timmons supported by Member Goldberg moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Member Koessel asked if we table the issue and have the applicant come back with a revised site plan or send this back to the Planning Commission what is going to be gained?

Member Goldberg related we can’t really consider the gravel versus bituminous issue unless we know where the driveway is going to be located. Now, there are other problems raised by the Dennens. He looks at this property with a lot of variables. There may be circumstances unique to this property. He is not in favor of approving the gravel because of the precedent.

Mr. Shearer responded we would prefer to have the tabling in light of this discussion and some of the comments we have heard. That would give us an opportunity to go back to the Road Commission and get a clarification. We might simply withdraw the request or be back.

Acting Chair Koessel related that is a reasonable request. He will entertain a motion to table.

Member Timmons asked are they going to use the property while this is being tabled. Planner Otey responded they cannot.

Member Timmons supported by Member Goldberg moved to table. The motion carried.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a variance of Section 4.46(a) of the Subdivision Ordinance to split a platted parcel at 7970 Sandy Hollow.

Planner Otey related this is the first parcel on the south side of Sandy Hollow. There is a house at the west end of the property. The minimum lot size is 40,000 s.f. After the property is split, the parcel with the house will contain 0.921 acres, just over 40,000 s.f. The new split parcel would contain 1.03 acres, or 45,000 s.f. The Subdivision Ordinance was amended in 1996 to address the issue of platted lot splits. If approved, Mr. Renucci would like to purchase the split and combine it with his property to the south. If not combined, the split would add one buildable parcel that the neighbors did not count on. If Mr. Renucci combined it with his parcel it would not create an additional buildable lot. Planner Otey encouraged the Zoning Board members to listen to the comments tonight of both the applicant and the audience. Planner Otey related she would recommended denial of this request if it was going to add another buildable lot to the subdivision. If the parcel was split and combined with Mr. Renucci’s property, Planner Otey would recommend approval.

Member Timmons asked would it have to be split before it is sold? Planner Otey responded yes.

Chairperson Wilson asked why did you feel this would set a bad precedent if the property was split and the parcel remained by itself. Planner Otey related you would have an additional parcel for a building site. There would be 23 lots instead of 22 and that would open the door for other splits of platted property throughout the township.

Member Goldberg related this was an issue when he was on the Planning Commission. We passed the amendment to prohibit that because of the increase in density.

Mr. Conlin related he is the property owner. They are going to sell their home and thought it would be more attractive as an acre lot. Mr. Renuci has land in back of us and would keep the aesthetic value. Across the street is an identical lot to this one. He doesn’t believe there is a concern because neighbors are not here tonight.

Mr. Renucci related it is an attractive corner where his property starts. He will have an additional acre. He has nothing in mind right now for development of the land.

Member Timmons related if some day you want to split your 55 acres you might run into some trouble with that lot if you develop your property. Mr. Renucci responded he might use it as an entrance. He has no intention of developing the property right now. He is not saying that will never develop.

Member Lewis supported by Member Timmons moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

Planner Otey related no comments were received.

Member Lewis supported by Member Goldberg moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Member Goldberg moved to approve the variance subject to the condition that the property by combined with Mr. Renucci’s property.

Member Timmons supported the motion.

The motion carried.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested permission to install two repeater antennas for township use under the essential public services section (Section 4.25) of the Zoning ordinance at 2865 Thornhills, S.E.

Planner Otey responded this request comes under the Essential Public Services section of the Zoning Ordinance

Member Timmons supported by Member Goldberg moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

There being no one present to speak on the matter, Member Goldberg supported by Member Timmons moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Member Timmons supported by Member Lewis moved to grant permission to install two repeater antennas on the tower at 2865 Thornhills, SE. The motion carried.

None presented.

Member Lewis supported by Member Goldberg moved to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

James Koessel, Secretary

JK: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