Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
7:00 p.m.
ARTICLE 1. Vice-Chairman Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Crawley, and Lewis
Members Absent: Vaughn (excused), 1st Alternate Neal (excused), 2nd
Alternate Richards (excused)
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Recording Secretary Hern,
and Members of the Public.
ARTICLE 2. Pledge of Allegiance
ARTICLE 3. Vice-Chairman Lewis requested a motion for approval of
the December 11, 2007 Agenda.
Member Beahan motioned for the approval of the December 11th ZBA
Agenda with support from Member Casey. All were in favor, none
opposed. The motion carried, December 11, 2007 Agenda approved.
ARTICLE 4. Vice-Chairman Lewis requested a motion for approval or
corrections of the November 13, 2007 Meeting Minutes.
Vice-Chairman Lewis noted that Chairman Vaughn was later excused
from the meeting and, as Vice-Chairman; he ran the meeting and a few
corrections need to be made on Page 1 to that affect.
Page 12, last paragraph should read as: "Vice-Chairman Lewis
opened the meeting for further discussion of the motion."
No further comments or corrections.
Member Beahan motioned to approve the November 13, 2007 ZBA Meeting
Minutes as corrected, supported by Member Crawley. All in favor with
none opposed. November 13, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Minutes was approved as corrected.
ARTICLE 5. Case #07-2915: Todd Olin
Property Address: 1544 Macnider Ave.
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Requested Action: The Applicant is seeking a Variance to locate
driveway for daycare on local street, Macnider Avenue.
Planning Director Peterson said child daycare is a permitted use in
a R1 Zoning area. One requirement to be eligible is that the daycare
has direct primary access to a collector or arterial street. Macnider
is the local street and Cascade Road would be considered the
collector/arterial street. The Applicant's plan shows the daycare's
only access coming off of Macnider Ave. and this is the reason for
their request for a Variance.
The Kent County Road Commission (KCRC) has indicated that the
Applicant does not have enough frontage on Cascade Road to receive
permission to access Cascade Rd for a driveway. In order to meet the
KCRC's requirement for a drive on Cascade Rd., the Applicant would
have to purchase additional Cascade Rd. property. Staff also believes
it would be better for traffic flow if the Applicant does not have
Cascade Road access and prefers the ingress/egress on Macnider Ave.
This logic is consistent with the Cascade Road Corridor Plan and is
consistent with the office that is already across the street on
Macnider Ave.
The reason for the Variance request is to allow access from
Macnider Ave. and not Cascade Rd.
Staff has listed in the Zoning Board's report the Findings of Fact
used when considering Variances such as this.
This project will include a center turn lane on Cascade Road that
will connect to the center turn lane to the other developments along
Cascade Road.
Staff recommends approval of the Variance to allow direct primary
access to Macnider Ave. The actual design for the driveway would have
to be reviewed and approved by KCRC, who have already indicated to
Staff that the Applicant would have to line their driveway up with the
driveway to the office that is across the street for their access to
Macnider Ave.
Member Crawley asked if there were any comments from the neighbors
and Planning Director Peterson said that there were a few Members of
the Public who attended the Planning Commission Meeting but Staff did
not receive any comments for this meeting and request.
Applicant Todd Olin said that he did not have any additional
comments to Staff's report.
Vice-Chairman Lewis observed that the Cascade Township is one of
the few governmental agencies that has ordinances dealing with curb
cuts, noting the absence of them on major roads. Thought was that the
fewer curb cuts a road has, the less traffic movement onto the
arterial street and the Township recognizes it may be better to move
traffic off the major street.
The County has also asked the Zoning Board to recognize that the
entrance should come off of Macnider Ave. due to lack of land.
Vice-Chairman Lewis requested a motion to open the Public Hearing.
Member Crawley motioned to open the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Casey. All in favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was
opened.
Vice-Chairman Lewis noted that Staff has reported that they did not
receive any letters or phone calls regarding this case and Planning
Director Peterson said that is correct.
Vice-Chairman Lewis submitted Public Members' comments he received
at the Planning Commission Meeting that one resident who resides on
Macnider Ave. opposed the project and resident off of Cascade Rd. was
in favor. Recognizing the one objectionable neighbor who does not want
to live near a daycare center, the State does allow daycare use in a
R1 area; it is a legitimate use.
Member Beahan motioned to close the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Casey. All in favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was
closed.
Vice-Chairman Lewis summarized that the Ordinance states that a
daycare center is an allowed use of the property. It is recommended in
the Ordinance to access the center off of a major road artery but the
Applicant does not have enough land to make a safe driveway onto the
property. Also, as presented by Staff, the two driveways off of
Macnider Ave. should line up from each other and asked Staff if this
item needs to be considered when making a motion. Planning Director
Peterson does not believe the alignment of the driveway needs to be
considered and the Zoning Board should consider the Variance for the
driveway off of Macnider Ave. since the KCRC has already indicated
that the driveway's placement should align with the office building's
driveway and this will be a condition when the case is reviewed by the
Township Board.
Member Beahan asked Staff if they are comfortable with the property
being a transitional use and Planning Director Peterson said that this
is not being considered as a Transitional use since it is an allowed
use similar to churches and schools in an R1 area.
Vice-Chairman Lewis said that at the Planning Commission Meeting he
discouraged any other uses being made of the property/building without
coming before the Planning Commission again.
Member Beahan asked what a Goddard Daycare Center is and the
Applicant noted that Goddard is a national franchise with 330
facilities nationwide. The franchise has been consistently ranked in
the Top 5 of daycare franchises and serves infants to 12-years old.
Vice-Chairman Lewis also noted that at the Planning Commission
Meeting it was discussed as to who approves the facility and the
building's construction would be approved by local inspectors and the
State will approve the facility itself ensuring it meets State
Regulations prior to opening for business.
Member Beahan motioned to approve the Variance request to allow for
direct access off of Macnider Avenue for the proposed daycare facility
at 1544 Macnider Avenue, supported by Member Casey.
Vice-Chairman Lewis summarized that there is not enough Cascade
Road frontage to allow for access off of Cascade Rd. and this makes
this request for a Variance unique.
Vice-Chairman Lewis called to question the motion. All in favor
with none opposed; motion carried.
ARTICLE 6. Case # 07-2901: High Ridge L.L.C.
Property Address: 2411 High Ridge Lane
(Tabled at the October 9, 2007 Meeting)
Requested Action: The Applicant is requesting a Variance to allow a
taller fence along I-96 to act as a noise barrier.
Planning Director Peterson showed the location of the property
along I-96 noting the condos that are being built and the proposed
location of the barrier.
The Public Hearing for this case was held in October and at the
time, the Applicant needed to check with MDOT officials regarding the
"science" behind the noise barrier. The Applicant has since
spoken with MDOT (Michigan Department of Transportation) and submitted
their information.
The High Ridge Development was originally approved in the
mid-1980's and the developer is just starting to build at the south
end of the property. The south end of the development has the lowest
area of land exposed to the highway. There is a berm that runs along
the highway and the property and this area flattens out with I-96 and
is the most open, even though there are a fair amount of trees between
the property and I-96. The Applicant is requesting a barrier for up to
14-feet tall and have provided to the Zoning Board a report providing
some analysis to a 10-foot, 12-foot and 14-foot barrier. The report
indicates the drop in decibel levels for most affected units, those
being the units that back up to I-96.
Staff is not aware of any noise barriers that have been built in
Cascade Township, however, the new ramps at the 36th Street exit and
the ramps to M-6 MDOT did increase the height of the concrete barrier
at these ramps to help alleviate some of the highway noise.
The Township does offer through a Special Use permit a procedure
that does allow for a tall barrier of up to 8-feet tall and anything
more than 8-feet tall would require a Variance.
Staff included the Findings of Fact in their report.
The property does have a large berm that is approximately 20-feet
higher than the highway, along most of the boundary with the highway.
The south end of the project is the only area where the homes are as
close to I-96 with no berm.
The development did go in after the highway. So the fact that there
is highway noise should be of no surprise to the residents. MDOT does
have a noise abatement program, but it has little funding and this
project does not qualify under their Type I and Type II programs. MDOT
did tell Staff that if this Variance were to be denied, MDOT would not
install a barrier on MDOT property.
Staff has reviewed the information submitted regarding the
barrier's height and decibel levels and it appears that the 10-foot
tall barrier would help alleviate the highway noise effectively and
bringing the decibels below MDOT's recommendations for noise levels.
Planning Director Peterson noted that a 14-foot tall barrier did not
provide any substantial decrease in the noise levels and Staff
believes the minimum variance needed would be a 10-foot tall barrier.
Staff recommends approval of a 10-foot tall fence/noise barrier in
the location requested by the Applicant for the following reasons:
1) The 10-foot barrier would bring the decibel levels into compliance
with MDOT standards.
2) Any increase in height does not provide a "generally
perceivable" difference in noise reduction according to the MDOT
review.
3) It would be the minimum amount of variance necessary from I-96 in
the location indicated by the Applicant.
Member Casey asked if the barrier is being built on the High Ridge
Development's property and asked if there is a setback requirement.
Planning Director Peterson said there is not a setback requirement for
noise barriers but it does need to be on the developer's property.
Member Casey asked if the State has any restrictions regarding the
barriers use and Planning Director Peterson noted that the Township
would not allow a sign on the barrier.
Applicant, Don Feikema, Jr. showed pictures of the views from the
properties close to the highway. They have proposed a 14-foot fence
because if a homeowner is standing on a deck, they can see traffic on
the highway once the leaves have fallen from the trees. The homeowners
have requested the barrier.
Applicant Feikema noted the location of the barrier and the fence
line location.
Member Beahan asked who would be responsible for maintaining the
barrier and Applicant Feikema said the builders would guarantee the
fence for 1-year and then it would be the responsibility of the Condo.
Association to maintain it.
Member Beahan asked how long the barrier would last and Applicant
Feikema believes the wood would last approximately 25-years.
Tom Zurburg, a Traffic Noise Specialist from MDOT, provided the
noise analysis for High Ridge Development. He noted that on the
analysis that was circulated containing the three options of barrier
heights, was provided in the sense that how the noise affects the
residents in their backyards. The decibel levels reflect outdoor noise
levels in backyards, and as Staff mentioned, all three (3) wall
heights would provide some noise protection at that location and the
options were provided in a cost-to-benefit scenario. What he did not
include in the analysis was the developer's concern for use of the
outdoor decks coming off the backside of the condominiums. There is
one unit closest to the highway that has an open deck. If the
developer's concern is noise when using an outdoor deck, then he
should have noted that the developer should use a 14-foot wall. The
decks are approximately 6-feet high and if a person were to stand on
the deck, the person's ears and sight level is at 12-feet high and the
person would have direct noise and visibility to the freeway over a
10-foot high barrier. If this is the case, then from a noise analyst's
point-of-view, the 14-foot high barrier should be considered.
Member Beahan asked if there is any other type of material that
would be more affective than wood or if there is a more affective
design and Mr. Zurburg said that as a guideline, they recommend a
material that weighs at least 4-lbs. per square foot. Member Beahan
asked if wood is the right material since wood ages and loses its
density over time. Mr. Zurburg said there is a wood barrier along I-75
but is not sure how that barrier works now that it has aged.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked if there would be a larger decibel
reduction if the developer increased the density of the barrier and
Mr. Zurburg said probably not since the decibel reduction primarily
comes from the height of the wall since the sound travels over the
barrier. The barrier first needs to reach the 4-lbs. per square feet
in density then the height is established.
Member Beahan asked if the barrier reflects the sound and Mr.
Zurburg said it does but there is still some sound that travels over
the wall and will still be the dominant noise that the residents hear.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked if the closest neighbor to the highway
had other options to help lower the noise to his deck and Mr. Zurburg
said the owner could build a wall around the deck or enclose it as
other neighbors have done. Mr. Zurburg noted that the analysis was
done noting the outdoor use of the yards and anything done to the
decks to help barricade the noise would not affect the decibels in the
backyards.
Mr. Zurburg also noted that there are two programs offered by MDOT
for noise reduction, Type I and Type II. The Type I program is where
MDOT builds a new highway or widen an existing highway, MDOT is
required by Federal Law to analyze the noise impacts on the homes. In
this case, the highway was already established and there was no
widening of I-96 by this development.
A Type II Program helps the folks who have lived in their homes
before a highway was built and occurred prior to 1976 since the
Federal Government did not have noise regulations at that time.
The Applicant does not qualify for either of these programs.
Member Beahan asked if a straight barrier is just as affective as a
curved barrier and Mr. Zurburg said the design of the barrier does not
affect the decibel levels greatly, maybe one or two decibels.
Member Beahan noted that the barrier would reflect the noise back
towards the highway and asked if the noise would affect those across
the highway and Mr. Zurburg said that past studies have shown that
reflective noise is not perceived.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked if 66-decibels is acceptable and Mr.
Zurburg said that anything over 65-decibels has a negative impact.
Most people speak at 65-decibels and anything over 65-decibels would
have the people raising their voices or yelling to be heard.
Vice-Chairman Lewis noted the Township did receive letters from
written by approximately five residents of the development supporting
the installation of a noise barrier.
Vice-Chairman Lewis summarized that there are residents that do
have a problem and the Township has an ordinance that state a barrier
of 8-feet is high enough this request could be an exception. The
Zoning Board also needs to recognize that when an exception is
granted, the minimum exception be granted and cautioned the Board
regarding the barrier's height due to setting precedence.
Member Casey asked how long the barrier is going to be and Member
Beahan noted 225-feet. Member Casey noted that the application is for
160-feet. Planning Director Peterson referred the Board to the
Applicant's letter dated November 27, 2007 where they note the barrier
at 225-feet long.
Member Casey supports a 10-foot high barrier along with Member
Beahan. Member Beahan referred to the Findings of Fact that says to
allow for a minimum variance. According to Staff's recommendations, a
10-foot barrier would reduce the noise to meet MDOT's standards.
Member Beahan motioned to approve a 10-foot high noise barrier
requested by the Applicant, noting that:
1) The 10-foot high barrier would bring the decibel levels in
compliance with MDOT standards.
2) Any increase in height does not provide a "generally
perceivable" difference in noise reduction according to the MDOT
review.
3) IT would be the minimum amount of variance necessary along I-96 in
the location indicated by the Applicant.
Member Casey supported Member Beahan's motion.
Vice-Chairman Lewis opened the meeting for discussion of the
motion, no discussion. All in favor with none opposed. Motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Any Other Business
Vice-Chairman Lewis opened the meeting for any other business.
Planning Director Peterson noted that the Boards' packets include
the 2008 Schedule of Cascade Township Meetings.
Vice-Chairman Lewis also informed the Board that Williams &
Works has been contracted to assist the Township with the Master Plan.
The Township will be looking for citizens who would like to
participate and serve on a focus group or committee and if anyone
would like to volunteer, they can contact Planning Director Peterson.
ARTICLE 9. Adjournment
Member Crawley supported by Member Casey moved to adjourn. The motion
carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lewis, Vice-Chairman/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
 |
|
