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, February 11, 2003

7:00 pm

ARTICLE 1. Chairman Beahan called the meeting to order.

Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Estes, Robinson, Wilson.

Members Absent: Lewis (excused) and Timmons (unexcused).

Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Planner Deem, Admin. Assistant Thompson and those listed on Supplement #1.

Chairman Beahan welcomed Christopher Estes to the Board.

ARTICLE 2. Member Robinson supported by Member Wilson moved to approve the agenda. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the January 14, 2003 meeting were approved on motion by Member Wilson and supported by Member Robinson. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 4. The Planning Commission Minutes of January 6, 2003 and January 21, 2003 were received and filed.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a variance to reduce the minimum spacing needed between his proposed driveways and the driveway on the adjacent property. The property is located on the east side of Kraft Avenue on the corner of Kraft and 52^nd Street.

Planner Deem related this is for a new truck terminal located on the corner of Kraft and 52^nd Street. The site is 20 acres in size. The applicant has received site plan approval from the Planning Commission. A variance is needed for placement of the driveways. The Zoning Ordinance states the distance between driveways needs to be 300 feet. At this location the driveways would be 290 feet and 210 feet apart. The reason why these driveways are being placed where they are is for the Road Commission. International Parkway has a boulevard that creates traffic flow problems. According to our Zoning Ordinance, Section 19.4.02 allows distances to be dropped down one level. Table 19-A is included in the Staff Report. At 40 mph the spacing could be 210 feet. These drives would meet those standards. Planner Deem then went through the six findings of fact to consider before granting as listed in the Staff Report. Planner Deem recommended approval of the request to allow the new driveways to be located closer than 300 feet.

Chairman Beahan asked if the Road Commission has already approved that specific location. Planner Deem responded yes.

Chairman Beahan asked if this would be the least amount of space between the driveways. Planner Deem responded yes. The southern drive is already there.

Member Robinson asked what is the posted speed? Planner Deem responded 45 miles per hour.

Rob Lamar of Exxel Engineering represented the applicant. Mr. Lamar presented a letter from the Kent County Road Commission and read it:

Member Wilson asked that the letter from the Road Commission be included in the Minutes.

Planner Deem related he received no comments.

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

Member Robinson related Staff recommends the drives be located closer than 300 but what is the limit? Planner Deem responded 290 feet between the north and south; and 210 feet between the south and the neighboring parcel’s drive. Or, you could word the motion to say approved as drawn on the site plan.

Planning Director Peterson related for the sake of clarity he suggested using the wording of "as drawn on the approved site plan".

Member Robinson suggested putting a limit on the lower end so the drives will be a certain minimum distance apart.

Member Wilson related it is probably tidier to use "as approved as drawn on the site plan".

Member Wilson related let the Minutes show we have taken into consideration the Road Commission’s letter.

The motion carried.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a variance to allow an additional accessory building (for a total of three) on the property at 1790 Thornapple River Drive.

Planning Director Peterson related this variance would allow an additional accessory building on a piece of property. Our Zoning Ordinance limits the number of detached buildings based on acreage. This property is just over 1-1/2 acres and would be allowed one detached building on the property. The building is 24’ x 32’ or 768 square feet. There are two other buildings on the property – a 9’ x 6’ and a 10’ x 10’. The applicant has indicated he would be willing to take down the smaller building but would like to keep the other building. Planning Director Peterson related he could take down both buildings and build an even larger accessory building. We do not have limits on the sizes of accessory buildings. We do have a threshold of 832 square feet which would require a Special Use Permit. This proposed building would require a building permit but not a Special Use Permit. The applicant has indicated on the plan that some day they may wish to split off the lot and building for a future home site. If the property is split off with the accessory building that would require a variance as we do not allow an out building on a property without a principle use (home). In July of 2002 we amended the section of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to accessory buildings and have not had any variance requests since that time. Planning Director Peterson then went through the findings of fact to be considered before granting a variance as listed in the Staff Report.

Planning Director Peterson recommended the variance be denied because there are no exceptional circumstances.

Planning Director Peterson related he received comments from neighbors at 1515 Laraway Lake Drive and 1750 Thornapple River Drive who were fine with the variance.

Chairman Beahan asked if there were no buildings on the property all he would have to do is apply for a building permit. Planning Director Peterson responded yes, you just need to apply for a building permit if the building is under 832 square feet. Anything over 832 square feet would trigger the Special Use Permit.

Member Robinson asked if the applicant wanted to add 100 square feet to the proposed building would he have to come and get approval? Chairman Beahan responded he could add 63 square feet to the building without needing a Special Use Permit.

John Lambkin, the applicant, of 1790 Thornapple River Drive was present. Mr. Lambkin related the out building he would like to keep is much closer to the property line than the survey shows. He has no problem removing the smaller accessory building. He would like to move his lawn mower in the other building and separate that from the storage area in the accessory building. He may have a workshop in the new building some day. The 10’ x 10’ building is very, very old. It has been on the property for 50 years. It has a cement slab floor with a wall which would be hard to tear down and would cost a lot of money. He picked this building because he could afford it. The old one is solidly built. It is in very, very good condition. Mr. Lambkin related he has 50,000 s.f. of land (132’ x 400’) with many trees on the property. He has future plans to build a house and split the lot at that time. The existing house is 10 feet off the bike path. Mr. Lambkin related he would truly appreciate being granted a variance.

Chairman Beahan asked are you going to store your motor home in the new building? Mr. Lambkin responded no. He will store the boat in there. That is presently in the back yard. He does not want the building tall enough to house is motor home.

Member Wilson asked if the 10’ x 10’ building is 50 years old? Mr. Lambkin responded yes, and the house is closer to 100 years old.

Member Wilson asked if the building has historical value. Mr. Lambkin related he guessed not. The property is part of an original farm in the area.

Member Estes asked if there is architectural interest in the building. Mr. Lambkin responded probably not. It is wood frame with a cement floor and wall.

Member Robinson asked would it be that costly to take down the upper part of the 10’ x 10’ building. Mr. Lambkin responded he did not know. It is a good structure. It is not particularly in the way. It is not too close to the other building. It is 200 feet from the new accessory building. It is on the edge of the lot in the trees.

Member Estes asked would you not be able to take down the frame structure with the exception of the cement base. Mr. Lambkin responded he could do that. His thinking is to keep the fuel separate from his other storage items. It would be hard to spend more money. He paid $100 to come here. The existing little garage can’t fit a car in any more.

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

Kurt Johnson of 7250 Ventura related it sounds like the applicant wants to build a pole barn. He related a pole barn is not in keeping with other structures in the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson related if he wants to build a building stick to the proper zoning.

Chairman Beahan related he can have an accessory building up to 832 square feet in size without a Special Use Permit.

Mr. Johnson asked if he can build a metal sided building. Chairman Beahan responded yes.

Mr. Johnson related he said the existing building is on the lot line of my next door neighbors. He is not in favor of adding a third building. He lives on Ventura which is a private road without an association. They share road maintenance and plowing. He is surprised people on the street behind his house (in Oliver Woods) have not said anything.

Member Wilson asked what if he takes down the smaller building? Mr. Johnson responded the one on the lot line should go.

Mr. Lambkin related the smaller building is on the lot line. That will come down.

Member Robinson related you can’t tell a pole barn from a regular garage once it is up.

Mr. Johnson related he would like it wood sided and not metal. He has no problem with a steel building in a commercial neighborhood. He is a licensed builder and disagrees. Wood and metal siding do not look the same in his opinion.

Joe Fritsch of 7272 Ventura related he does not have any problem with what Mr. Lambkin wants to do.

Chairman Beahan related the situation here is the applicant is willing to tear one of the two existing buildings down. Staff recommends both buildings coming down. Chairman Beahan asked Staff which building is closer to the lot line? Planning Director Peterson responded the survey shows the 9’ x 6’ is a little closer. The 10’ x 10’ is not quite as close to the property line. We have never made anybody tear their building down because it is non-conforming. The issue here is they want a new building.

Member Wilson related the factors that we have to consider are not met. There are no extraordinary circumstances, and we are not at liberty to consider the cost to the applicant. We revised our Zoning Ordinance and just adopted it. You have to meet all six of those factors. There are three or four of them we have clearly not met.

Member Robinson related one remedy is to add 100 square feet to the proposed building and tear both existing buildings down.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a variance from Section 18.05 of the Zoning Ordinance to construct a home addition three feet from the side property line at 7717 Tobemory Court.

Planner Deem related the applicants are requesting a variance for an addition to their residential house. They are adding a three stall garage and mudroom. They plan to turn the existing garage into living space. The addition would extend to three feet from the side yard property line. Section 18.05 of the Zoning Ordinance states the side yard setback is 10 feet on one side and the combined total of both side yard setbacks shall equal 25 feet. The setback on the other side of the home is 13 feet. The applicants are asking for a 9 foot variance. According to our Staff Report there are no extraordinary circumstances or conditions. Planner Deem then went through the factors to be considered before granting a variance. Planner Deem related he received five responses from the public, including the letters he handed out tonight. All five neighbors have requested the variance be denied.

Member Wilson asked what is in back of the lot as far as topography? Planner Deem related the lot is fairly flat.

Tom Kivell of 7717 Tobemory Court and his wife, Kimberly were present along with Julie Sears their architect. Mr. Kivell thanked the Board for entertaining their request. There are three essential factors in the proposal: a mud room, four children, a new three car garage and turning the existing garage into a family room. To accommodate all of that means a closer position with respect to the lot line. Unfortunately, if the mud room were taken out, the home would look more like a motel. Mr. Kivell requested the Board approve their request.

Julie Sears of 974 Cherry related she designed the addition for the Kivells. She is unable to have the mud room deleted from a design standpoint. Without the mudroom the home would look like a Motel 6. The septic field is in the back yard. The neighbor to the north did state he had no problem with it. The northwest corner is the only portion of the building that would need a variance.

Chairman Beahan related show us the location of the septic field in the back yard. Ms. Sears presented the drawing.

Member Wilson asked what about going up over the garage for living space. Mrs. Kivell responded we need family room space- not bedroom space.

Ms. Sears related it is essential to have the mud room there to break up the roof line.

Member Robinson asked is there any other location for the mud room. Ms. Sears responded it may be possible to move it to the back of the house, but it makes sense coming off the garage. If we moved it to the family room, it would cut down on that size.

Chairman Beahan asked is there any way to turn the garage at an angle? Ms. Sears responded it is really close to the septic system.

Member Estes recommended placing the third garage stall behind and two stalls in front. That would still give you three parking spaces. Ms. Sears related she did not consider that.

Planner Deem related he had no knowledge of where the septic tank was until tonight. He believes it looks like far enough back that one garage stall could be behind the other two.

Ms. Sears responded the septic tank is 12 feet back from the existing garage. This is the best design that we could do working with what we had.

Planner Deem related he received three letters from five residents. Each one is against the variance requested and one is against an addition on the property.

Chairman Beahan related this is a situation where there is too much house on the lot the way it is built without infringing on setbacks. Chairman Beahan asked have we done any variances similar to this? Planner Deem responded in the past three years we have granted no side yard variances.

Member Robinson related certainly we allow the applicant to come before us and request a variance. We let them know what our concerns are and they should also take a look at what the options are. Member Robinson related at this point, he would have to deny the applicant’s request.

Member Casey related he does not want to change the side yards. In some communities there are situations which are getting drastic with people having small side yards. Distance is needed between homes.

Member Estes related the mud room is important to the applicants. He suggested the applicant look into a two stall garage in front and one stall in back. At this point he would not approve the variance as presented.

Member Wilson related this is very tough. We would like to approve everybody that comes in front of us. When the next people come in and we don’t have an extraordinary circumstance that we based our no on it would be a problem. If we granted a variance to everyone, we would have streets of homes that are not far enough from a property line. Member Wilson suggested either reconfiguring the addition or moving. She stated we can’t allow a three foot side yard.

Chairman Beahan noted the findings of fact were also applied and were not met.

Planning Director Peterson presented the 2002 Planning Department Annual Report. He related this is a summary of actions by the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Commission.

Member Robinson commended Staff for a very good report. The report is up to the usual high standards.

Member Casey related he appreciates the report as it is a summary of cases handled prior to him coming on the Board.

Chairman Beahan encouraged the members to take advantage of any educational workshops that will be offered through the year. Planning Director Peterson related typically there are some training seminars throughout the year. Next time one is offered, we will encourage the members to attend.

Member Estes related he would like to know when one is being held in the tri-cities area.

Respectfully submitted,

Claude Robinson, Secretary

CR: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