Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, July
5, 2005
7:00 p.m.
ARTICLE 1. Member McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Koessel, Lewis, MacAllister, McDonald, Postma,
Richards. Members Absent: Goldberg, Logue and Robinson (all excused)
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Planner Deem, Admin.
Assistant Hern and approximately ten (10) members of the public.
ARTICLE 2. Member McDonald led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ARTICLE 3. Member McDonald requested motion for approval of the
July 5th agenda. Member Lewis motioned for approval of the agenda,
supported by Member MacAllister. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. Member Koessel requested on page 6 (six) of the June 20,
2005 minutes in paragraph 4 (four), Planning Director Peterson's quote
regarding the service drive to change the word "provisions"
to "revisions". Page 13 (thirteen) the reference to Chairman
Robinson needs to be corrected to "Member Robinson" and need
to clarify who supported Member Robinson's motion.
Member Postma noted on Page 13 (thirteen) that Terry Westbrook
attended as a realtor representing Tommie Ray.
Member Lewis also asked that his written submission for the term
limits be used for the June 6th Minutes and Member MacAllister
requested her written submission for the June 6th Minutes also be
used.
Member Lewis moved to accept the Minutes of June 20, 2005 with
revisions as presented, supported by Member MacAllister. The motion
carried.
ARTICLE 5. Receive and File: Member McDonald stated the Township
Board Minutes for June 8, 2005 have been received and filed.
ARTICLE 6. Case #05-2744: Juergen Lohrke, 2909 Burrwick Drive
(PUBLIC HEARING) The applicant requested a Type 1 Special Use Permit
to construct a fence approximately 6'6" in height.
Member McDonald briefly explained to the public attendees the
process for Public Hearings noting the Public will be given a chance
to present their comments during the Public Hearing section of the
meeting. Member McDonald also noted that once the Public Hearing has
been closed, no additional comments from the Public would be accepted.
Planner Deem noted the Zoning Ordinance allows a fence to be 6-feet
tall by right-rear or side yard and four (4) feet in the front yard.
The height may be increased up to eight (8) feet in the rear and side
yard with a Special Use Permit and six (6) feet in the front yard. A
fence could be allowed to be placed on the property line with the
decorative side of the fence facing out. He further explained that due
to the topography of the site, the applicant is asking to build a
fence that would be approximately 6-feet 6-inches tall from the
average grade of the property at its tallest height. The height of the
fence, itself, is 6-feet and will be placed 4 (four) inches in from
the property line. Township Ordinance allows fence to be on
property-line.
Planner Deem noted that Staff has not received any written
objection to the plans but two (2) neighbors have been to the Offices
to review them.
He also noted the additional six (6) inches does not impact light
and ventilation from flowing onto the neighbor's properties and there
are no increases in traffic, fire or safety hazards. The increased
height doesn't violate any known property restrictions, such as plat
or deed restrictions. There is a current fence there that will be
removed.
Planner Deem noted that Staff recommends the approval of the
Special Use Permit request for the construction of a fence to be
6-feet, 6-inches in height from the average grade at 2909 Burrwick
Drive with the condition that the actual height of the fence structure
not be taller than six (6) feet.
Member Koessel asked if applicant is agreeable with the lower
height since original application requests to go from six (6) feet to
seven (7) feet. Planner Deem noted the applicant is. Member McDonald
asked if the Commission should approve for a seven (7) foot height
just in case there are issues in the elevations and Planner Deem noted
Staff will allow for 6-foot, 6-inches with maybe a 6-foot, 7-inch
allowance. Member MacAllister questioned if the fence is really
6-feet, 7-inches due to a change in elevations and Planner Deem noted
there may be a small section depending on the ground-level at 6-foot,
7-inches. Member MacAllister summarized that it would depend on the
grade, Planner Deem confirmed but the fence is not to be any larger
than 6-feet.
Member Koessel asked what options applicant is going with regarding
fencing materials. Planner Deem noted applicant was going with either
one (1) or two (2) options listed on the site plan and Koessel
questioned if pre-built or the other. Planner Deem said applicant
would either choose pre-built 8' x 6'or constructed treated pine
attached horizontally in alternating rows and would be 1" x
6".
Member Lewis requested the Special Use Permit; the first factor
"meets the approval of adjacent property neighbors" and
doesn't recall this as a factor before. Planning Director Peterson
noted the factor is listed in 4.3.5 on page 4-15 of the ordinance.
Planning Director Peterson referred to the corner of the Burton &
Cascade Rd. and the fence went from 4-foot in the front to 6-foot
fencing. He noted these are not requested frequently but as Planner
Deem indicated, the standards are a little different for accessory
buildings and other structures.
Juergen Lohrke of 2909 Burrwick Drive noted the grade over a fifty
(50) foot area changes by about 7 inches and wants to build a straight
fence, aligning the top of the fence. He would like to erect a fence
that's straight across and noted some of the grading cannot be made
lower due to trees on the property. Member Lewis asked if the fencing
is going into the backyard. Lohrke said the backyard is already
fenced, this is going along the side yard, still leaving side yard
open, just extending the fence along the property.
Member Koessel asked if the applicant decided on the fencing
materials: pre-built or making them and the applicant said they would
like to go with the pre-built panels but haven't made up their mind as
to the best route.
Member Lewis asked if Lohrke has spoken with his neighbors
regarding the fencing and Lohrke stated they haven't spoken with the
neighbors in quite a while.
Member McDonald noted that Lohrke's original application requested
a variance from six (6) feet to seven (7) feet; Staff recommends six
(6) feet, six (6) inches and here you want six (6) feet, seven (7)
inches because of a tree and noted only talking about an inch and
Lohrke said that the maximum grade was considered as being 7-inches
from the highest to lowest point. He said he plans to fill-in the
grade to help even it but would like to keep the fence off the ground
and that's why he's asking for the extra inches. Lohrke noted original
application was for 7-foot fence to allow for some of the grade
variations.
Member MacAllister supported by Member Lewis moved to open the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Cindy Patterson, 2891 Burrwick, neighbors of Mr. Lohrke, asked if
the trees near the fencing would be taken down or if the fencing or
stop at one side of the tree and continue on the other side or would
run around the tree? She also asked to replace sprinkler heads and the
current fencing is on their property from a recent property
assessment. If tree is removed, would fencing go between the
properties?
Lohrke said they will be leaving all the trees and make sure we
don't cut down any limbs that aren't necessary. Patterson asked if the
fencing would stop at the tree and then continue again on the other
side of it then? Lohrke said the trees are not on the property line
and are offset by one side of the property line or the other. There's
one (1) White Pine within property line about 6-inches and they're
going to encase that tree on their side of the property; the others
have no question where the property line falls. Member McDonald
clarified the White Pine would be on Lohrke's property and his fence
is supposed to be within 4-inches of the property line. Lohrke said
that is correct and the fence will be within his property. Member
McDonald noted there will not be any encroachment on the property and
Lohrke said that is correct and they won't lose any trees either.
Planner Deem explained on the map the property lines and trees to
Patterson along with the fence line. She then asked who will clean up
and move the sprinkler heads, Mr. Lohrke or a contractor? She's
concerned about damage to her sprinkler heads.
Member McDonald asked Mr. Lohrke if he could establish the fence
with a condition that he's to replace any damaged sprinkler heads and
Patterson stated she does not want Mr. Lohrke on her property
what-so-ever due to past issues. Patterson noted they are trying to
stay on their property and keep to themselves but don't want him
wandering over anymore. Member McDonald asked Mr. Lohrke if he could
stay within his own property and Mr. Lohrke said he is reasonably
comfortable that they would stay on his property.
Patterson asked that it be noted Mr. Lohrke does not have
permission to go across the property line.
Patterson questioned if Mr. Lohrke wants to cross the property line
the Commission not allow him to do so. Member McDonald explained the
Commission is here to approve a Special Use Permit for the fence and
is unable to act as a policing authority should he come onto her
property. Member McDonald noted that she can accept or deny his
request for the higher fence but the Commission must accept Mr.
Lohrke's word that if he says he's not going to go on your property,
then he won't. Member McDonald confirmed with Mr. Lohrke that he's
able to construct the fence without encroachment. Mr. Lohrke stated he
could and Patterson said that was fine.
Patterson then asked when the project would be completed by and
when the adjacent boards, currently attached to their fence, would be
removed. Member McDonald requested the applicant's timeframe and he
said they'd like to complete it this summer.
Member Lewis asked if the applicant answered the question if this
was being done professionally or not and Mr. Lohrke stated they would
be doing this themselves.
Patterson also questioned the removal of the current fencing and
said she spoke with Planner Deem regarding the fence being removed and
the adjacent boards and he said that it would be by mid-July, and
asked if this will be followed-through or if changed? Planner Deem
said that mid-July is when he would put up the new fence, so it should
be in conjunction with that. Mr. Lohrke noted that the fence they're
talking about extends from the side of their house and butts into
their fence and has been there for over 19 years and the additional
two (2) boards on the end have been there at least ten (10) years.
There are two (2) boards that hang over the property line
approximately four (4) to six (6) inches and were never removed and up
until four (4) weeks ago, they have never been an issue. We plan on
removing those two (2) boards and when we put up the fence or we could
remove them tomorrow. Member McDonald asked if the applicant was
saying he was he'd be willing to remove the two (2) boards by the time
this project is completed. Mr. Lohrke said it would only take a couple
of minutes. Patterson said that since Mr. Lohrke stated he could
remove the two (2) boards tomorrow, she would appreciate him to do so.
Member McDonald noted that the Commission may not have the authority
to tell the applicant that this must be done by tomorrow and noted
that the applicant will remove the overhanging fence by the completion
of the project and the Commission hopes he will do so. Patterson then
said that Mr. Deem said they would be removed by the mid-July period,
can that be adhered to? Member McDonald asked Mr. Lohrke if he'd be
willing to remove the two (2) boards within this month and he stated
that was fine.
Mark Raymakers from 2940 Hayward SE asked if he could review the
map and the elevation diagram; his concern is regarding the elevation
variations and could the fencing reach seven (7) feet; noting seven
inch and twelve inch variations. Planner Deem noted the maximum area
and the highest point and said the fence will not be 12-inches high as
on the diagram. Fence is measured on the average grade and at lowest
point equals 6-feet, 6-inches. Mr. Raymakers confirmed the fence would
not exceed seven (7) feet. Planner Deem clarified the fence is six (6)
feet with an average grade of height of six (6) feet, six (6) inches.
Mr. Raymakers disagreed with this and said the fence would have to be
erected beginning at the highest point of the elevation for fence to
be at same height all the way across.
Mr. Lohrke presented pictures of the proposed fencing and Mr.
Raymakers noted that the fence would begin at the highest point of the
property and Mr. Lohrke would fill-in some of the gaps. Planner Deem
noted if the applicant filled-in some of the areas he would be closer
to compliance and noted again the fence is to only be six (6) feet
tall with the highest point to be six (6) feet, six (6) inches. Mr.
Raymakers expressed his concern over special fencing permits and noted
he understands the Burton fence for privacy and noise-reduction but
the Commission should be careful in issuing special permits and the
six (6) foot ordinance is a good ordinance.
Member McDonald asked Mr. Lohrke the type of materials he'd be
using for the fencing and will it be painted. Mr. Lohrke said he plans
on staining the fence down the road and will be using Cedar or treated
lumber and mentioned the color would be either brown or grey toned.
Jackie Zyniewicz, 2891 Burrwick SE said she has owned and lived in
her house for almost thirty (30) years and she previously wanted to
put a six (6) foot fence up and was told that because of the White
Pine Tree on the property line, and if fence were constructed, there
would be a problem with that tree. She questions how the fence will go
up without coming onto her property. It's a nice area and they like
the area and maintain it. Doesn't mind if he wants to put a fence up
equal to the height of hers. She also questioned why Mr. Lohrke's
fence can't be made level with hers. Member McDonald questioned the
elevations with Planner Deem. Planner Deem noted there is a slight
grade on the property and has seen from one (1) side of the property.
Member Lewis asked Ms. Zyniewicz how tall her fence is and she stated
roughly five (5) feet, six (6) inches. Member McDonald asked her if
Mr. Lohrke's fence would meet hers and she stated no, but will run
parallel with the fencing. She also expressed her concern with
preserving the atmosphere of the neighborhood and people will move if
they begin to change; she likes how the land works. She noted her
property dips with the elevations and her fence is contoured to the
yard and matches the neighbor's.
Member Koessel asked for clarification as to which property was
hers and Ms. Zyniewicz clarified that she is Ms. Patterson's mother
and both reside at 2891 Burrwick and are adjoining neighbors of Mr.
Lahrke.
Brett Duiven, 2921 Burrwick SE said he is the other neighbor to Mr.
Lohrke and is not opposed to the fencing and prefers the
straight-across fencing.
Member McDonald questioned if Staff received any written letters
and Planner Deem noted one resident from across the street did come
into the Township Offices to review the plans, but no written
objections received.
Member MacAllister supported by Member Richards moved to close the
public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Koessel requested clarification regarding the low-spots.
Member Koessel noted he heard Mr. Lahrke say he couldn't fill the
low-spots because of trees and then speaking tonight he said he could;
is he filling the low-spots or not? Mr. Lohrke said they would like to
fill them, they will fill them and over the forty (40) foot span and
will use topsoil and pine needles, not a huge gradation. Member
Koessel confirmed with the applicant that the fence is six (6) feet.
Mr. Lohrke confirmed the fence to be six (6) feet and showed pictures
of the fencing and the boards to be removed as noted by Ms. Patterson.
Planning Director Peterson requested the photos be passed to the
public attendees for their review.
Member McDonald noted the applicant has explained the property
line, where the trees are and other plans for the fencing.
Member Richards said that her previous home had privacy fencing and
Mr. Lohrke's plans sound nice and will look better with level-fencing
and is in favor of passing the Special Use Permit.
Member McDonald said the Commission would approve the permit on the
following conditions: 1) Fence to be within four (4) inches of
applicant's own property line. 2) Applicant is not to go onto the
Patterson's property while fence constructed. 3) Project is to be
completed by September 30, 2005. 4) Actual height of fence, itself, is
to be six (6) feet high. 5) Applicant is to remove overhanging fence
boards upon completion of the project. Member Lewis asked the
applicant if he can meet these conditions and Mr. Lohrke said yes.
Member McDonald also noted the last condition is the fence
elevation is not to exceed six (6) feet, eight (8) inches allowing for
one (1) inch variance.
Member Lewis motioned for acceptance of the Special Use Permit for
fencing at 2909 Burrwick SE with the conditions set-forth supported by
Member Postma. All were in favor, motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Septic System Presentation (INFORMATION ITEM)
Information on Septic system failures in Cascade Township from
1994-2005.
Planning Director Peterson introduced Lindsay Gilreath, an intern
from the University of Michigan who compiled the information.
Information obtained was through Kent County Health Department and
systems that have failed in Cascade since 1994.
Lindsay noted that we have estimated the Township has just over
6,000 households using building permit data since the 2000 census was
compiled. There are 4,912 households with septic or approximately 82%
of the households on a septice system. Since 1994, 288 of those 4,912
have failed in Cascade.
She continued to say that the average age for a septic system to
fail is twenty-one (21) years; the most frequent age for a system to
fail at is twenty-four (24) years. Lindsay presented typical costs for
new and replacement septic system. With average costs for replacing a
failed system around $7,000 - $10,000. Lindsay also reviewed the
Cascade Master Plan and its objectives.
Lindsay also reviewed typical costs for connecting to the public
system
Member MacAllister asked if homeowners are required to update their
septic system when they sell their house. Planning Director Peterson
said it is not a township requirement.
Member Lewis asked for the difference between the two (2) systems,
mounded system and the other? Staff explained the difference of the
systems.
Member McDonald asked where this information is leading to and will
ordinances need to be established by the Planning Commission. Planning
Director Peterson said we wanted to present this to you for
information and use it as an educational opportunity for the Planning
Commission and to see how this issue related to the Master Plan.
Member Lewis commented that some sewers don't reach some of the
areas and Member McDonald asked if Santigo would be helped by the
Burton Street sewer project? Planning Director Peterson said the
Burton project would make it easier for sewer to be extended down
Santigo but would not allow for residents to connect unless they have
frontage on Burton St.
Member Richards noted she had a septic fail pre-1994 and recalls
her neighbor declined sewer connection because of the costs. She asked
if the house was sold, would the new homeowners be able to assume the
sewer payments. Member Koessel noted the homeowner is responsible for
paying off the costs.
Various Commissioners thanked Lindsay and noted her nice
presentation.
ARTICLE 8. Any Other Business
Planner Deem noted that a letter from Sunrise has been received
inviting the Commission and Staff to attend a neighborhood information
meeting on July 14th, a conflict with the summer park concert. Planner
Deem stated the Commission was welcomed to attend but to attend in
silence and listen to the residents' comments.
Member Koessel noted that since the last meeting, Pineridge held a
Burton Sewer Project meeting and three (3) people showed up. The sewer
project will also pursue the deepest option for the sewers so
residents can have lower-level lavatories and other plumbing. He also
noted a Citizen's Committee has been established and will help talk
about the sewer's placement so tres are not destroyed. The developer
sewer's length is from Santigo to Kraft. Planner Deem noted it may be
at the next Township Meeting but will probably be held in August.
Member Koessel also noted that there is a small section with water to
it and another without; the Township has requested the connection and
hopes Lacks will help contribute.
Member Koessel also noted that the Term Limitations will be
presented to the Township on July 27th.
Member McDonald congratulated the Staff on their 4th of July
festivities and the A-10's were fantastic. Member McDonald asked
Planning Director Peterson if he's heard from the City of Grand Rapids
regarding the pedestrian signal. Planning Director Peterson will find
out that status
Member McDonald also noted that since Hern is now the recording
secretary, it would be appropriate for her to submit her name in the
closure of the minutes.
Member Lewis complimented Member McDonald for the well-done
Commission Meeting.
ARTICLE 11. Adjournment
Member Lewis supported by Member MacAllister moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom McDonald, 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
 |
|
