Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
7:00 p.m.
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Casey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Crawley, Lewis, Vaughn, Alternate Neal
Members Absent: Vaughn (excused), 2nd Alternate Richards (excused)
Others Present: Planner Deem and Admin. Assistant Hern and members
from the public.
ARTICLE 2. Chairman Casey led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ARTICLE 3. Chairman Casey requested a motion for approval of the
December 13, 2005 Agenda. Member Beahan noted Article 5 is a Public
Hearing that is not reflected on the agenda and motioned for approval,
supported by Member Crawley, of the December 13, 2005 agenda. All were
in favor, none opposed. The motion carried, agenda approved.
ARTICLE 4. Member Lewis motioned to approve the September 13, 2005
minutes, supported by Alternate Neal. The motion carried, September
13, 2005 Minutes approved.
ARTICLE 5. Case #05-2779 James and Deb Vickers
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicants are asking for a variance to split a lot into two (2)
lots that do not meet the minimum lot size for the ARC Zoning
District.
Planner Deem noted the property is located at 2100 Brookhaven, east
of Buttrick Avenue and on the South side of Bolt Drive. The parcel
size is 2.69 acres and is residential. All adjacent area land uses are
also residential.
The Applicant is asking to split the property into two (2) parcels
of 1.43 acres and 1.26 acres within the ARC Zoning District. Minimum
lot size in the ARC is 100,000 square feet and neither of the two (2)
parcels would meet the minimum lot size requirement.
Planner Deem also stated there are a few neighboring parcels that
are less than 100,000 square feet in size. These parcels were created
prior to 1991 when the minimum lot size was one (1) acre. The Zoning
Ordinance was amended in 1991 to create the ARC Zoning District. Since
the Zoning District was formed, the minimum lot size has been 100,000
square feet. The parcel in question was created after the Zoning
Ordinance was amended.
Planner Deem presented the Findings of Fact noting there are
exceptional conditions or circumstances that are inherent to the
property and that do not apply generally to the other nearby
properties in the same zoning district and there are no circumstances
related to this lot split that cannot be applied to other nearby
parcels within this zoning district.
The exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances are
not the result of actions of the Applicant taken subsequent to the
adoption of this Ordinance. The minimum lot size in the ARC has not
changed since the Applicant purchased this property.
He also commented that such variance is the minimum variance that
will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or
structure and noted there is an existing home on the property and no
variance is needed to make reasonable use of this land.
Another Finding of Fact is that the granting of the variance will
not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare and the granting of this variance will create two (2)
lots smaller than the existing lots on this portion of Brookhaven.
Planner Deem further noted that the condition or situation of the
specific piece of property, or the intended use of the property, for
which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent nature
as to make it more reasonable and practical to amend the Zoning
Ordinance. He said there are no specific circumstances in this case
that cannot be applied to other parcels in the same zoning district
and by granting this variance will be setting precedence for allowing
smaller lot sizes in the ARC. Planner Deem noted that an alternative
would be to have the Township Board direst Staff to investigate the
possibility of reducing the minimum lot size for parcels in the ARC.
It has not been the Township Board's practice to reduce the minimum
lot size for a zoning district.
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall further find the reasons set
forth in application justify the granting of the variance, and that it
is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of
the land, building or structure. The reason, set forth by the
Applicant, do not justify granting a variance and no variance is
needed to make reasonable use of this land.
Staff recommends that the Cascade Township Zoning Board of Appeals
deny this variance request due to it not meeting the requirements set
forth in the Findings of Fact.
Member Beahan asked if the Township has received any other
applications for property splits or if the Township has granted any
others. Planner Deem noted that two (2) applications have been
received within the last ten (10) years and both were denied. He also
noted the Applicant purchased the property in 1995, after the 1991
Zoning Ordinance was established.
Member Lewis commented that Planner Deem did a wonderful job in
supplying appropriate maps of the property and thanked him.
Chairman Casey opened the meeting for the Applicant's comments.
Applicant, Deb Vickers, noted they purchased the property in 1990
and were told at the time of purchase the land could be split and the
subdivision project had begun. Planner Deem noted they attempted to
split the deed and the Township denied the request. Vickers continued
noting when she married they refinanced the home and added her
husband's name to the deed. She has recently encountered some
difficult situations and will need to live in a handicap accessible
home and would like to sell the current home and build the new home on
the other parcel if divided. Currently, they don't have the financial
means to build the new home, thus need to sell their current home. She
doesn't want to uproot the family and building next door to the
current home would alleviate some of the financial demands. Vickers
noted the new home would be built in the wooded section of the parcel,
leaving the woods.
Planner Deem noted the Township has the property listed as one (1)
property and there are no records showing two parcels.
Chairman Casey asked if anyone was present to represent the
Vickers.
John Tufflemire, Director of Sammi Rae of Hope, said their program
has agreed to assist the Vickers in building their new home if the
parcel could be split. He has been researching deeds and descriptions
of the property and has found two (2) legal descriptions but only one
(1) tax bill. He continues to research dates of the documents noting
he has obtained the mortgage with legal descriptions but the parcel
number information cannot be located. Tufflemire noted that if the
split is done, this would provide them the opportunity to help build a
handicap accessible home that Deb will need without uprooting the
entire family and help them financially. He also noted the current
lien is only on the property that the house is on and the split-off
would create opportunity for the Vickers family to live.
Member Beahan motioned to open Public Hearing, supported by Member
Lewis. All in favor with none opposed. Public Hearing was opened.
Brian Logue, 6210 Santigo Court, noted he's a friend of the Vickers
and has been a realtor for over ten (10) years. He has looked at the
number of houses within the district and the density and has counted
nine (9) legal descriptions. He noted that the Vickers have
investigated other land parcels for building the new home and other
handicap accessible houses that are currently on the market and either
of these options provides a financial hardship. The site they would
build on would remain wooded and the money obtained in selling their
current home would equate to the mortgage for the new home.
Chairman Casey asked Staff if they have received and letters or
phone calls regarding this Variance. Planner Deem stated the Township
has received four (4) phone calls opposed to the Variance.
Chairman Casey requested any other members of the public to speak
to please come forth.
Sandy Dellemillier, 2131 Brookhaven, said she doesn't want to
appear as heartless to the Vickers' situation but noted the neighbors
have had continuous ground maintenance issues of their property and
some of the problems still have not been corrected. She also noted the
neighborhood agreed to collectively pay for the repaving of the
street, that the Vickers did not financially support. She feels the
neighbors shouldn't have to be continuously picking up the slack of
the family and they are included within ARC's by-laws of maintenance.
Bob Laurie, 2130 Brookhaven, said he doesn't want to see anymore
construction on their street. With the repaving of the road, he's seen
enough and does not favor the split of the parcel.
Member Lewis motioned to close the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Crawley. All in favor with none opposed. Public Hearing closed.
Chairman Casey asked if the lot has had more than one (1) parcel
number and Planner Deem noted in 1991 it was assigned a new parcel
number and maps were obtained from Kent County.
Member Beahan asked if the residents of the ARC were notified by
mail, individually, in 1991 of the minimum lot size requirements of
the ordinance or if public notices were published in local newspapers.
Planner Deem responded the Township rarely sends individual
notifications to residents and not sure of the practices of the
Township back then. He does know the Public Hearings of the ARC Zoning
Ordinance were published at least three (3) times in local papers. The
development of the ARC Zoning Ordinance began in 1988 and finally
concluded in 1991. A similar ordinance was instituted for residents
along Thornapple Drive and residents with smaller lot sizes were
forced to combine to meet minimum lot size requirements.
Member Lewis noted this is a tough call to make and understands how
Applicant has gotten to this point. The ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals)
must adhere to what the Township residents want and that was decided
in 1991 to have a minimum lot size of 100,000 square feet and to
approve this variance would go against the ordinance. He suggested the
Applicant could possibly purchase some of the surrounding land to
achieve the minimum lot size requirement so the parcel could be split.
Member Lewis motioned for denial of this variance request due to it
not meeting the requirements set forth; Alternate Neal supported the
motion. All in favor with none opposed, Variance request denied.
Chairman Casey noted that if the lot was purchased in 1990, the
owners should have been aware of the fact of the Zoning Ordinance and
the parcel was well entrenched at that time.
ARTICLE 6. Case #05-2701: Centennial Business Park/ Sunrise
Development
The Applicants are asking for a variance to allow the non-office uses
of Centennial Park to have signage on a proposed entry sign located at
the Crown Plaza Hotel site.
Planner Deem noted this item was tabled at the September Zoning
Board Meeting. Chairman Casey requested a motion this item be removed
from the table. Member Beahan motioned for removal from the table,
supported by Member Lewis. All in favor with none opposed, item
removed from table.
Planner Deem stated the Applicant is seeking a variance from the
Sign Ordinance to allow signage for non-office use on a proposed
Centennial Business Park entrance sign. Currently the Applicant is
seeking to create a P.U.D. to allow a senior assisted living facility.
The proposed assisted living buildings are one story and have 76
units. This project is located on Lots 30 and part of Lot 26 of
Foremost Centennial Park No. 2.
The Centennial Business Park Association has decided to place an
entrance sign on the Crown Plaza Hotel Property. The sign is allowed
to be 64-square feet by right with a minimum setback of 25-feet from
the road and not less than five (5) feet from the property line. The
proposed sign is 32-square feet and is greater than five (5) feet from
the property line along 28th Street. It is also six (6) inches from
the property line along Foremost Drive. The sign is approximately
37-feet from 28th Street and 30-feet, 6-inches from Foremost Drive.
The minimum sign setback would place the proposed sign in a detention
pond.
Planner Deem noted there are few examples of signage on 28th Street
without frontage. Waterfall Shoppes and the Cascade Village
Apartments. In these cases, the signage was for the project as a
whole, with part of each project having frontage along 28th Street.
The Centennial Business Park Association decided that only
non-office uses could have signage on their development signs. The
current sign has both Sunrise and Charlevoix Fitness Club signage. He
also noted the Business Park Association has recently met and approve
the proposed signage at Foremost.
Staff has stated that they would support a sign along 28th Street
for the entire Centennial Business Park, but not individual signs for
each tenant. Staff feels that this request is consistent with this.
Planner Deem noted the following Findings of Fact that there are
exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances that are
inherent to the property in question and that do not apply generally
to the other nearby properties in the same zoning district. The
Centennial Business Park was the first P.U.D. the Township created.
All current P.U.D.'s have a specific ordinance written stating what is
allowed in the development; this one does not have such text. He noted
had this P.U.D. been created more recently, this issue of signage
would have been addressed. A recent example would be Waterfall Shoppes,
this project has buildings that do not have frontage on 28th Street
but do have signage on a development sign.
The exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances are
not the result of actions of the applicant taken subsequent to the
adoption of this Ordinance and these circumstances are not the result
of the Centennial Business Park Association.
That such variance is the minimum variance that will make possible
the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and this would
be the minimum variance needed to make use of this sign.
Planner Deem further noted the granting of the variance would not
be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare. The granting of this variance would not be injurious
to the neighborhood and the Centennial Business Park has approved this
sign design.
That the condition or situation of the specific piece of property,
or the intended use of the property, for which the variance is sought
is not of so general or recurrent nature as to make it more reasonable
and practical to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Planner Deem said this is
an old development that is seeking to have signage similar to what is
currently being approved by the Township. It is not necessary to amend
the Zoning Ordinance.
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall further find that the reasons set
forth in application justify the granting of the variance, and that it
is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of
the land, building or structure. He noted that this request meets the
Findings of Fact and this is an old P.U.D. that does not have a P.U.D.
text associated with it. The Association is seeking signage similar to
other developments in the Township. The variance they are asking for
is the minimum needed for reasonable use of the land.
Staff recommends that the Cascade Township Zoning Board of Appeals
approve this variance request due to the requirements set forth in the
Findings of Fact. Staff also recommends that if the variance request
is denied, the Zoning Board set forth reasons for denial.
Member Lewis noted the immense size of the P.U.D. and its extension
from Kraft Avenue to Thornhills Drive. Planner Deem noted this could
be treated as underlying zoning and parcels along 28th Street are
zoned B-2 along with two (2) parcels to the east that have 28th Street
addresses. Member Lewis asked if this was the first P.U.D. created by
the Township and Planner Deem confirmed it was.
Chairman Casey opened the meeting to the Applicant.
Laura Hester, Sunrise Development, said they are seeking the
variance since the development will be located off of 28th Street and
a study has been done regarding signage for assisted living, traffic
flow and location. Assisted living centers experience a 40% turnover
due to deaths within the community and visible signage is crucial for
the development.
Hester noted the original proposed signage was to be a freestanding
sign and has worked with the Business Park Association to develop the
proposed sign. Hester provided slides of the assisted living facility
for a better understanding of the project.
Hester also said they have tried to work a privately owned business
on Charlevoix Drive regarding signage but the owner is not responding.
Crowne Plaza is also seeking a variance to signage the Township should
be receiving soon. She also noted Crowne Plaza has submitted a letter
of agreeance to the proposed signage that is included in the Board
packets.
Sunrise has met with the Centennial Park Business Association and
their only request was the sign look balanced and will continue to
work with the association.
Larry Fliess, a board member of the Centennial Park Business
Association, noted many of the buildings are older and had to be
gutted or rebuilt and Foremost owned all of the buildings. The owners
of the buildings came together and formed the Business Association and
endorse the sign plan being proposed. He also noted the association
has hired a public relations firm for promoting Centennial Park's
identity as a whole, not individual business. The association welcomes
the traffic into the park this development will bring.
Member Lewis asked how many businesses are within the park and how
many of the owners belong to the association. Fliess said thirty (30)
owners belong to the association and ten (10) will not join.
Member Lewis asked if the easement rights have been lost, and
Fliess confirmed they had been when Foremost sold the buildings.
Chairman Casey noted within the letter from the Crowne Plaza it
notes the lease agreement for the signage is still being negotiated.
Hester said Sunrise will enter into a lease agreement with Crowne
Plaza and the details are being discussed. Centennial Park's identity
will remain and Sunrise has agreed to remove the old monument sign and
construct the proposed sign.
Chairman Casey questioned who controls the monument sign since it's
being granted by Centennial Park but the property is on the Crowne
Plaza's parcel, is this a subdivision sign? Planner Deem noted this is
an old P.U.D. that does not have signage text associated with it. The
Association is seeking signage similar to other developments in the
Township; the variance they are seeking is the minimum need for
reasonable use of the land.
Alternate Neal questioned who is responsible for the sign's
maintenance and repairs. Hester said Sunrise is maintaining the sign
even though they are only a tenant of the park and Crowne Plaza owns
it since on their property. Planner Deem also noted that the sign is
for Centennial Park but will transfer the sign in the lease agreement.
Alternate Neal asked who would be taking down the old monument sign
and Hester said Sunrise has agreed to financially support the removal
of the old sign and construct the new. Alternate Neal suggested the
ZBA should see a written agreement of the construction and maintenance
of the new sign and Chairman Casey noted the request could be a
condition if approved.
Member Lewis asked if the sign is 30-feet, 6-inches from the
property line and Planner Deem noted yes. Member Lewis expressed his
concerns granting this variance for this development and the potential
of other applications for variance from other businesses along 28th
Street who do not have a 28th Street address.
Hester noted Sunrise could comply with setback regulations along
Foremost Drive.
Member Beahan noted he agrees Centennial Business Association needs
signage but is concerned with only two (2) tenants on the proposed
sign, what if other businesses express interest in signage? Planner
Deem noted the Business Park Association has limited signage to
non-office use only and future applications would be handled at the
Business Park Association's discretion. Member Beahan asked if changes
were being made in on-building signage and Planner Deem said they
would not be maximizing signage on the buildings.
Hester noted the signage is to have seniors aware assisted living
is there and signage is placed on travel patterns since resident
turnover is so high. Member Beahan noted that Centennial Point is set
back almost as far as Sunrise and they do not have signage on 28th
Street.
Chairman Casey noted approving this variance might spur groups of
businesses to apply to do the same. Planner Deem noted the Business
Park Association would have to approve the signage and is for
non-office signage only.
Fliess stated the owners of the buildings belonging to the
association have reached a consensus and will endorse non-office and
want traffic into the park. The association endorses this project and
supports the exposure to the park.
Member Crawley noted there are lots of questions due to so many
variables and asked, in aspect, if Applicant came with a new P.U.D.
what would they be allowed? Planner Deem noted this application, as
with others, has been considered and supported with some give-and-take
noting the Applicant is seeking this variance and only constructing a
sign half the size allowed; granting the variance would minimize the
signage along 28th Street. A new P.U.D. would require all members of
the Centennial Business Park Association to sign the P.U.D. and not
all owners within the park are members. If all signatures were
obtained, the Board could then re-zone the P.U.D. He also noted this
variance is in line with what has been done lately and similar with
what has been approved.
Alternate Neal expressed his concerns regarding other businesses
within the park wanting signage on 28th Street and Planner Deem noted
the Park Business Association established the signage as non-office
and doesn't see this approval bringing potential problems; the
Business Association supports the signage.
Member Lewis noted the approval could be made with limits noting
the Applicant is seeking two (2) signs and there are five (5)
entrances into the Park.
Fliess said the Centennial Park Business Association was developed
in the late 1970's and cannot convince ten (10) owners to join the
Association. Of the thirty (30) owners who do belong, they believe the
Park's identity is important and they're not dealing with just one (1)
developer but forty (40) different owners with needs and they agree to
target promoting the Park as an whole entity, not just single owners.
The Office Park is not on 28th Street, only a couple of the owners
are. The Association is willing to work through the sign's logistics
and maintenance.
Member Lewis asked Staff how a P.U.D. would be dissolved and
Planner Deem noted through the Township Board and Member Lewis
reiterated that they're not dealing with all the owners within
Centennial Park.
Chairman Casey summarized the information:
1) Crowne Plaza is in agreeance with the signage on their land
2) The Applicant, known as Sunrise/Centennial Park will agree upon the
maintenance of the signage.
3) The original application has been slightly amended.
Planner Deem noted the Sunrise P.U.D. will be going before the
Township Board tomorrow evening and is not in conjunction with the
ZBA's decision regarding the variance. He also noted the variance
being requested is for individual uses on the Centennial Park sign.
Chairman Casey asked Staff for who has been speaking with the
parties involved. Planner Deem noted Planning Director Peterson has
been having conversations with the Crowne Plaza and he has been
speaking with Sunrise and Centennial Park.
Member Beahan clarified the signage and their locations; sign will
be on Crowne Plaza and sign on Charlevoix Drive and nothing on Kraft
Ave., Thornhills Dr. nor Lucerne. Planner Deem noted that is correct.
Member Lewis suggested Fliess go back to the Business Association
and speak with them regarding the sign limitations if approved.
Chairman Casey suggested the Association define signage for the
entire park and work through the Planning Commission to define.
Planner Deem noted the current P.U.D. does not allow for the Applicant
to go anywhere for this variance and cannot amend with the Planning
Commission due to needing each owner's signature to sign-off on the
amendment to the P.U.D. and this is a very unique circumstance.
Chairman Casey asked if the Association wants the sign, could they
apply at the Planning Department and if compliant, could they have the
sign? Planner Deem confirmed that is correct and noted the Applicant
is asking for less signage and meets the setback; they are seeking
property line variance.
Member Lewis motioned for approval of a variance from the Sign
Ordinance to allow signage for non-office use business on proposed
Centennial Business Park entrance sign on Crowne Plaza's property with
the following conditions:
1) Signage is to be no larger than 32-square feet, setting precedent
as far as signs with other entry signs identifying Centennial Business
Park
2) The signage approved are those submitted and will meet the required
setbacks.
Member Beahan supported the motion. All in favor with none opposed.
Motion passed.
ARTICLE 7. Any Other Business
Planner Deem noted Staff has no other business.
ARTICLE 9. Alternate Neal supported by Member Beahan moved to
adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lewis, Secretary
JL:LH
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
 |
|
