Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

MINUTES

Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

7:00 pm

ARTICLE 1. Chairman Beahan called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Crawley
Members Absent: Estes, Lewis, Timmons (all excused).
Others Present: Planner Deem, Admin. Assistant Thompson and those listed on Supplement #1.

Chairman Beahan welcomed new member, Gary Crawley, to the Board.

ARTICLE 2. Staff related the Election of Officers was left off the agenda. He asked if the Board would like to hold the election tonight. After short discussion it was decided to hold the election at the next meeting when more members are anticipated to be present. Member Casey supported by Member Crawley moved to approve the agenda as written. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the December 9, 2003 meeting were corrected on page 4 as follows: Paragraph 7 the word "center line" should be replaced with "right of way" and the word "road" should be replaced with "building". The sentence should now read: "Member Casey related over a period of time the right-of-way will get closer to the building."

With those corrections, Member Casey supported by Member Crawley moved to approve the Minutes of December 9, 2003. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 4. The following Minutes were received and filed:
Planning Commission - December 1, 2003
Planning Commission - December 15, 2003
Planning Commission - January 5, 2004
Planning Commission - January 20, 2004

ARTICLE 5. The Planning Department Annual Report was received and filed. Chairman Beahan thanked Staff for the work of producing the report and for the work done during the year.

Chairman Beahan noted for the meeting tonight all decisions have to be unanimous as there is only a quorum of the members present.

ARTICLE 6. Case #04-2607: Red Betten
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a variance from Section 4.09 of the Zoning Ordinance to construct a building with a height of 17 feet to the mid-point be placed closer than the 40 foot setback allows at 1923 Talamore Court, in the Watermark PUD.

Planner Deem related in May 2003 the applicant applied for a Special Use Permit to build a 60' x 28' accessory building having a height of 18 feet to the midpoint. For a building of that height it would need have a 40 foot setback from both the side and rear yards. The applicant received approval from the Planning Commission on June 3 with setbacks of 40 feet. The applicant submitted for a building permit in December of 2003. The plans showed a reduction of square footage to the building and also showed a change in height. The height was 17 feet to the midpoint which would still require a setback of 40 feet to the rear and side yards.

Planner Deem related according to the Building Department, the midpoint height would be measured to the midpoint of the dormer. The applicant has been measuring the height to the midpoint of the pitch to the gable end of the building. The difference is 4 feet. At the height of 14 feet at the midpoint the building would meet the setbacks. The applicant is seeking a variance to place the building 27.8 feet from the side yard and 25 feet from the rear yard. This would require a variance of 12.2 feet for the side yard and 15 feet for the rear yard.

Planner Deem related there are six findings of fact to consider before granting a variance. He went through those as found in the Staff Report.

Planner Deem related due to the fact there is nothing unique to this property or situation that would warrant the granting of a variance, he recommended denial of the request.

Chairman Beahan asked the way the applicant measured, the building setback would not need a variance. Planner Deem responded correct.

The applicant was represented by Kevin Einfeld of BDR, developer of Watermark.

Mr. Einfeld related five and a half years ago when we bought the property at Watermark and built our office at 5510 Cascade Road as a barn style building. It is a rather tall building and we wanted to do that look and feel. When we started the development we met with the township planner at that time. We never dealt with maximum heights. Mr. Einfeld pointed to a drawing and explained how the Planner took the eave height and measured to determine the midpoint of the roof. Mr. Einfeld related we designed our building to that standard and built it accordingly.

Mr. Einfeld related with Mr. Betten's building it was originally 40 feet off the road and 40 feet off the back property line. We wanted to center it a little bit on the property. We gave an architect the Watermark ordinance and he designed it according to that. We submitted for a building permit on that belief. We want a consistent interpretation. Mr. Einfeld related he talked with several architects and they interpreted it to measure the primary eave edge. If you then take this current interpretation, our office building is in violation. The Betten building is about 50 feet long and has a little dormer. Aesthetically everyone would agree it looks better with the dormer. It will probably be the nicest looking accessory building in the township. We could pull the dormer off but it will be much plainer.

Chairman Beahan asked Mr. Einfeld to explain about moving the building from the original site. Mr. Einfeld responded we moved it to 25 feet on one side and 32 feet on the other. We can push the building forward but it would looked forced on the road. We don't want to get it too close. The proposed location is really the best place to put it.

Chairman Beahan asked so there are a couple of different interpretations on measuring. Planner Deem responded yes. The Planning Staff verified with the Building Department and spoke with the Director of Inspections and we are both in agreement on how it should be measured. That is how it is measured according to the BOCA Building Code.

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

Planner Deem related a neighbor, Mr. Bos, came into the office and spoke against granting the variance. A phone call was received also from another neighbor who is against the variance.

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

Chairman Beahan related according to the developer, the building would look better with the dormer but the Zoning Board has to adhere to the findings of fact. Chairman Beahan related in looking at those findings of fact he does not see a way we could approve the request without going against the findings.

Member Crawley agreed with Chairman Beahan and stated we should take into consideration the opinion of the two neighbors who are against it. It appears the decision seems clear.

Member Casey asked if the whole development is a PUD? Planner Deem responded yes.

Member Casey asked if there are any other accessory buildings like this within the PUD. Planner Deem responded no.

Member Casey asked he can build it as close as he wants? Planner Deem responded the blue site plan in your packet is the approved plan at the 40 foot setback for the height of the building.

Member Casey asked if they choose to take the dormer off, would they have to go back to the Planning Commission? Planner Deem responded if they take the dormer off, the building would be moving farther than what we would be allowed to approve at staff level, and it would have to go back to the Planning Commission. A move of five feet we could approve, but anything greater than that has to go back to the Planning Commission.

Member Casey supported by Member Crawley moved to deny the variance request following Staff's recommendation and the fact that the findings of fact do not dictate a unique or extraordinary situation.

Member Crawley explained he supported the motion for the reason Member Casey gave and added he took into consideration the input of the two neighbors who spoke against it.

The motion carried unanimously.

ARTICLE 7. Any Other Business

a. Consider Appointment to the Village Design Committee
Planner Deem recommended holding off the appointment until the next meeting when we do Election of Officers.

b. Reminder of Audio Zoning Clinic on February 18, 2004
Conference on February 18, at 4:00 pm at the Township Office. It is a one hour presentation.

Planner Deem related in September the Michigan Society of Planning Officials will be holding their State conference in Grand Rapids. It would be a great time to participate in zoning workshops.

ARTICLE 8. Adjournment

Member Casey supported by Member Crawley moved to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7:29 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Rob Beahan, Chairman

RB: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

Site Design/Development by