MINUTES PARK TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Park Township Hall nd Street Holland, MI Regular Meeting April 27, :30 P.M.

Transcription

1 MINUTES PARK TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Park Township Hall nd Street Holland, MI Regular Meeting April 27, :30 P.M. DRAFT COPY CALL TO ORDER: Chair Foster called to order the regular meeting of the Park Township Zoning Board of Appeals at 6:37 P.M., held in the Township Hall at the Park Township Office. ATTENDANCE: Present: John Foster, Joannie Bouman, Doug Dreyer, Dennis Eade Staff: Andy Bowman, Staff Planner, Ed devries, Zoning Administrator, APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Motion by Dreyer, supported by Bouman, to approve the agenda as presented. Voice Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dreyer noted an error on page 3, fourth paragraph from the bottom of the page. The word should be site instead of floor in front of plan. Motion by Bouman, supported by Dreyer, to approve the minutes of March 23, 2015 Regular Meeting as corrected. Voice Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Motion carried. Commissioner Eade joined the meeting at 6:44 P.M. BUSINESS ITEMS: 1. A request by Timothy Perkins (postponed from March 23, 2015) for additions to a residence that do not meet side yard requirements of section (2) of the Park Township Code of Ordinances. Said land and premises are located at 341 Big Bay Dr., Holland, MI (Parcel # , R-3)

2 Bowman introduced the item as postponed from March 23, As background, the applicants purchased this home in January of this year. The lot is a Macatawa Lake waterfront lot of about 60 wide and 385 deep. The lot is nonconforming due to the width which should be at least 90 feet for the R-3 Low Density One Family Residence District. The applicants wish to build three additions on their lot including: 1) an attached garage stall in the front (street side) with a master bedroom above it, 2) a porch on the south side, and 3) a kitchen on the west (water side) of the lot. No dimensions have been provided for the proposed additions which have been imprecisely sketched by the applicant on a surveyed map of the property. Staff has scaled these additions for estimated dimensions and added the required setbacks to an illustration on page 1 of the Staff Memo dated March 6, Based on staff s measurements, the garage/master bedroom addition does not need a front yard setback variance due to the front yard averaging option of Sec of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance. According to a second sketch plan submitted with measurements, the north side of the addition would be 5-3½ from the north lot line (10 is required). The south side porch would be 2-7½ from the south lot line (10 is also required). The rear kitchen addition is well within the sightline setback, but appears to encroach on the south side setback as well. The application was considered by the Zoning Board of Appeal on March 23, 2015 and was postponed to allow the applicant more time to better demonstrate his need for the requested variances. He recommended the Zoning Board of Appeals should review the additional information and revisions submitted and determine how they bear on the applicant s ability to meet the required standards. Ed Tervoort, builder for the applicant, spoke to the application. He explained that the northeast corner of the garage addition has been reduced so no variance is requested for that corner. It is more important to consider the need for the kitchen. The southwest corner for the kitchen presents a problem. To move it to be conforming would result in a 2 jog in the kitchen counter. He shared a floorplan drawing for clarification. Foster asked if the existing deck will be removed and if the entry way will be at ground level. Tervoort said yes to both questions. Foster asked for the dimensions of the doorway. Tervoort explained the steps extend 4 and the plan is to extend the entry, they would like 8, 6 minimum. Janine Chicoine, applicant s wife said the entryway is the most important feature of the house and noted the extra four feet are important because of the wind that hits the house on that side. The roof over the entry way will make a difference in protection from the elements as well as make the front of the house more attractive. There is a vacant right of way on that side of the house, so it would not be impeding any neighbor s property. Foster asked about the neighbors input. Mrs. Perkins said they are supportive of the proposed changes. Bouman asked if there is a way to get into the house from the garage. Tervoort said there is an entrance on the lower level. 2

3 There was no public hearing for this request since it was held during the March 23, 2015 meeting. Dreyer noted the change to the front of the home to comply with concern s expressed last month, and supported the improvement for the front entrance. Bouman moved to approve, supported by Dreyer, the proposed additions based on satisfactory submission of the required dimensions in the application. Bouman reviewed findings for the required standards: a. That strict compliance with the zoning ordinance regulating the minimum area, yard setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, or density, or other regulation would render conformity with those restrictions of the zoning ordinance unnecessarily burdensome. To comply would cause a jog in the kitchen which wouldn t make sense, and not allowing a covered entry is a safety issue. b. That granting the requested variance would do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the zoning district. If a lesser relaxation than that applied for would give substantial relief to the property owner and be more consistent with justice to other property owners in the district, the Board of Appeals may grant a lesser variance provided the other standards are met. The covered entry can t be smaller. There is justice to the neighbors in that it would improve the appearance of the home, and the vacant right of way on that side of the house gives space for the extension. c. That the plight of the property owner/applicant is due to the unique circumstances of the property (e.g., an odd shape or a natural feature like a stream or a wetland) and not due to general conditions of the zoning district. This is a narrow lot, and the house was built on an angle in the lot. d. That the practical difficulties alleged are not self-created. Roll Call Vote: The narrow lot was created prior to current ordinances, not an action by the applicant. 3

4 Bouman, Aye; Dreyer, Aye; Foster, Aye; Eade, Aye. Ayes 4, Nays 0. Motion carried. 2. A variance request by Gregg Pierson to construct an addition to a non-conforming single family home with a rear yard of 44 feet, where 50 feet is required per section (3), of the Park Township Code of Ordinances. Said land and premises are located at 81 N. 168 th Ave., Holland, MI (Parcel # R-3) Bowman explained that the applicant is requesting to build a substantial addition to his existing home. According to the survey submitted by the applicant, the garage portion of his existing home is 34.7 feet from the rear lot line. Since the R-3 Low Density One Family Residence District requires a rear yard setback of at least 50 feet, the existing home has a non-conforming rear yard. He plans to remove the existing attached garage and build the addition feet from the rear line making his rear yard setback less non-conforming but still short of the required 50 feet by 5.73 feet. Zoning staff has determined that on March 27, 2006, the ZBA heard a request by the applicant for a 34 foot rear yard setback but at that time was granted a lesser variance of 44 feet instead. This decision was based on the following findings: a. Strict compliance would not be unnecessarily burdensome, as there is a large building envelope on this property. b. There could perhaps be a lessor relaxation and still do justice. c. There are no unique circumstances. The lot is large with a large building envelope. d. This is not self-created. The applicant did not exercise that variance within a year and built a large detached accessory building on the south side of the property. Since the applicant is requesting to build within the 44 setback established by the expired variance, the ZBA can consider the previous findings in this request. However, they are not bound to make the same findings if it can be determined that the previous ZBA erred in its deliberation. Greg Pierson, applicant, explained that a 5.3 variance would reduce the nonconformity by 10. He wants to expand the kitchen without having a 6 jog in the kitchen area. Foster asked about the location of the accessory building. Pierson said it s at the southeast corner of the lot about 25 from the rear of the house. Pierson added that he can t go to the south because the basement stairs are on the south side. Foster asked why he didn t build when he got the variance. Pierson explained that he wanted the accessory building for his equipment and he had health issues later. Eade asked Pierson if he was aware of the time limit for building. Pierson said he wasn t aware of the one year time period. 4

5 Foster asked if the existing garage would be removed. Pierson said that was the plan in order to allow room for the addition. Foster asked why he can t do it within the 5 he needs for the 50 setback requirement. Pierson said the existing kitchen is at 44. To go to the west would cause a jog in the design plan. Public Hearing: Foster opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. He noted two neighbors have submitted letters regarding the request. There were no comments. Foster closed the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M. Dreyer said there is no justifiable reason for encroachment into the setback as the lot provides a large building envelope. Dreyer moved, and Bouman supported, to deny the variance request since it doesn t meet the four standards. Dreyer reviewed the standards: a. That strict compliance with the zoning ordinance regulating the minimum area, yard setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, or density, or other regulation would render conformity with those restrictions of the zoning ordinance unnecessarily burdensome. It is not burdensome as there is a large building envelope on the lot. b. That granting the requested variance would do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the zoning district. If a lesser relaxation than that applied for would give substantial relief to the property owner and be more consistent with justice to other property owners in the district, the Board of Appeals may grant a lesser variance provided the other standards are met. With such a large building envelope, alternatives appear to be possible. c. That the plight of the property owner/applicant is due to the unique circumstances of the property (e.g., an odd shape or a natural feature like a stream or a wetland) and not due to general conditions of the zoning district. 5

6 There are no unusual circumstances with the lot. d. That the practical difficulties alleged are not self-created. This is self created. Pierson asked to speak about his Plan B to only add a mud room on the southeast corner. He would be out of compliance by 30 inches. He asked if that could be approved instead. Bowman said it would be a lesser relaxation. The Zoning Board of Appeals would have to amend the motion or postpone the request for another submission that provides more details. He noted that it is on the site plan so another motion could consider the standards for this request. Foster asked if the eaves would be acceptable in this request. devries said it would. Dreyer moved, supported by Bouman, to withdraw the first motion. Dreyer moved, supported by Bouman, to approve the lesser variance for the southeast corner of the house. Dreyer reviewed findings with the required standards for lesser relaxation: a. That strict compliance with the zoning ordinance regulating the minimum area, yard setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, or density, or other regulation would render conformity with those restrictions of the zoning ordinance unnecessarily burdensome. There would be a burden in not allowing a sloped roof and the revised request would fill in a corner along existing wall lines. b. That granting the requested variance would do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the zoning district. If a lesser relaxation than that applied for would give substantial relief to the property owner and be more consistent with justice to other property owners in the district, the Board of Appeals may grant a lesser variance provided the other standards are met. This lesser variance would allow a small addition following existing wall lines and would square up the house plan. c. That the plight of the property owner/applicant is due to the unique circumstances of the property (e.g., an odd shape or a natural feature like a stream or a wetland) and not due to general conditions of the zoning district. 6

7 The house was built into the setback area prior to existing setback ordinances. d. That the practical difficulties alleged are not self-created. The setback difficulties were not self created. Roll Call Vote: Bouman, Aye; Dreyer, Aye; Foster, Aye; Eade, Aye. Ayes 4, Nays 0. Motion carried. 3. A Use Authorization and Variance Request by Randy Bouwkamp on behalf of Joyce Nilsen to authorize a lesser front and side yard setback for placement of an accessory building as a special use on a lot abutting Lake Michigan per section (b)(2)g, and to allow a roof pitch greater than 10/12 per section (b)(2)b of the Park Township Code of Ordinances. Said land and premises are located at 86 Michigan Ave., Holland, MI (Parcel # , R-2) Bowman gave the background on this application. The applicant wishes to build a detached garage of approximately 23 x14 with a 3 x10 side projection. The building footprint is about 352 square feet. Setbacks for detached accessory buildings are set by a chart of building sizes as seen in Section (b)(2)e of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance. In this case, the 352 square foot accessory building requires a minimum front yard (street side) of 40 feet, side yards of 10 feet and a rear yard of 25 feet (water side). The maximum height allowed is 18 feet. The annotated site plan on the Staff Memo shows the required setbacks for this building that the applicants wish to build with a 20 foot front yard setback and a 7 foot side yard setback on the south side. The applicants have also submitted an elevation drawing of the proposed building (see site plan) indicating a roof with a pitch exceeding the 10/12 pitch limitation of the zoning ordinance, presumably to match the home and provide additional space above the main floor. Bowman suggested the Zoning Board of Appeals consider the issues separately because there are two sets of standards. Dreyer asked to recuse himself from consideration of this agenda item given his former business relationship with Mr. Bouwkamp, stating he did not think he could be impartial. Bouwkamp spoke to the request. He explained the lot is only 50 wide and noted the septic system is north of the garage. He doesn t want to block visibility from the front door, an attached garage would block the front entry. He also noted there is 20 from the front lot line to the garage, and 10 to the edge of the street. He also pointed out another home at 68 Michigan with a detached garage set back 12. Bouwkamp also acknowledged that if the building were 2 square feet smaller it would be allowed a 5 foot side yard, however only a 16 height, they desired 18 height with the desired roof pitch. 7

8 Foster asked for the specific location of the septic on the site plan. Initially he wondered why the applicant couldn t build on this area but the septic is obviously a determining factor. Bouman observed the roof pitch is primarily aesthetics. Bouwkamp agreed. However, he added he has never been given a clear answer from Park Township regarding the pitch requirement. Foster asked if the side extension on the building is necessary. Bouwkamp said the applicant wants to conceal trash storage and provide additional storage for chairs. If the garage were 2 less he could go the extra 5. Foster asked if this will be a one stall garage. Bouwkamp said it would be and noted an elevation problem in front of the present garage. Foster suggested that there seems to be other options to the site plan proposal. Bouman asked what the driveway was made of and if the retaining wall was on the applicant s property. Bouwkamp said the drive is concrete and the wall is on the applicant s property. Public Hearing: Foster opened the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. Donna Hinton is a neighbor on the south side of the applicant. She said the home is near a congested corner, being close to the road could be a problem for garbage trucks or fire trucks, and for sight down the road. She also has a concern as her septic tank would be near the proposed building. She also questioned the rationale for not blocking the front entrance since there is an entrance on the side of the house. Hans Deede, a neighbor, said he s also concerned about traffic congestion in area. It has been used as a rental property in the summer and there is not sufficient parking area. If the owner places a garage in the middle of the drive it would reduce parking availability. Parking has been an issue in the past with renters. He also stated the other garage referred to was not in the same area. Another neighbor, Robert Bolt, spoke to concerns that he addressed in a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals. In his opinion, the garage setback should be further to the west. Parking is on the right-of-way so if the garage is not closer to the house it will cause problems. Foster closed the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M. Eade asked staff about the distance from the garage door to the road. He wondered if the ordinance addresses infringement regarding this distance and if it is acceptable. Bowman said the applicant proposes 20. The ordinance requires 40. A parking space requires 9 x 20. He said it qualifies according to ordinance requirements. 8

9 Bowman said it s a variance request because it is too close to the front and side property lines. Foster asked Nilsen if she still rents the property in the summer. She replied she has rented the house in the past but will be living there full time starting this fall. She didn t require a garage in the past because she lived in Florida. Bowman noted the three considerations on page 9 of the staff memo that the Zoning Board of Appeals has to address regarding this application. Foster asked if the location of garage could be closer to the house. He noted parking on the property and of the street will have an impact. Foster closed the Public Hearing at 7:56 P.M. Bouman moved, and Eade supported, to deny the request based failure of the request to meet the standards of consideration. Bouman pointed out that this home is in a high density community with traffic congestion on small roads. Garages aren t as necessary when there isn t space or simply the need to build an addition that looks architecturally attractive. Foster commented on his visit to the area. The majority of garages are attached - few are detached. Bouman reviewed the standards for Use Authorization for Setbacks: a. The location of buildings on the lot or adjoining properties. The garage could be attached or closer to the house. b. The effect of the proposed accessory building on adjoining properties in relation to view, light and air circulation, noise, etc. There would be a negative effect on adjoining properties by creating less room for parking, and obstruction of view down the street. c. The character of the proposed accessory building and the effect on the surrounding neighborhood. This is an area of high congestion and the building placement could be a negative effect on adjoining properties by creating less room for parking, and obstruction of view down the street. Roll Call Vote: Bouman, Aye; Foster, Aye; Eade, Aye. 9

10 Ayes 3, Nays 0. Motion carried to deny the request. Bouwkamp asked what the issue is regarding the garage. Bowman explained the Zoning Board of Appeals has to meet the conditions of the ordinance. Bowman said the front and side yard setback requests have been denied. If he should plan to attach the garage to the house it has to be within the building envelope. Bouwkamp asked for consideration of the variance for the roof pitch. He went on to explain the upper level would be like a dormer. Bouman moved, and Eade supported, to deny the 12/12 roof pitch variance request based on failure to meet the required standards. Bouman reviewed the standards: a. That strict compliance with the zoning ordinance regulating the minimum area, yard setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, or density, or other regulation would render conformity with those restrictions of the zoning ordinance unnecessarily burdensome. Conforming to the roof pitch would not be burdensome. b. That granting the requested variance would do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the zoning district. If a lesser relaxation than that applied for would give substantial relief to the property owner and be more consistent with justice to other property owners in the district, the Board of Appeals may grant a lesser variance provided the other standards are met. There would be an injustice to the neighbors with a higher roof changing the view. c. That the plight of the property owner/applicant is due to the unique circumstances of the property (e.g. an odd shape or a natural feature like a stream or a wetland) and not due to general conditions of the zoning district. The area is unique with its small lots and larger homes being built. d. That the practical difficulties alleged are not self-created. The desire for the roof pitch is self created. Roll Call Vote: 10

11 Bouman, Aye; Foster, Nay; Eade, Aye. Ayes 2; Nays 1. Motion to deny failed because of lack of majority. Bowman advised there has to be a minimum of three votes for a motion to carry. He asked Chair Foster if he wanted to propose another motion. Foster reviewed the standards and concurred the problem is self-created. He said there are options on the garage and recommended the applicant return with another plan. Eade moved, and Foster supported, to postpone a decision on the roof pitch until the next meeting which will be June 1. Roll Call Vote: Bouman, Nay; Foster, Aye; Eade, Aye. Ayes 2, Nays 1. Motion passes. Bowman said that without enough votes to pass the motion, the Zoning Board of Appeals will have to take action on the roof slope at their next meeting. For the denied building location, action has been taken and the applicant can only file another application showing changed conditions. ANNOUNCEMENTS: June 1, 2015 is the next meeting date since the last Monday of May is Memorial Day. The Commissioners discussed the rationale about the ordinance on roof pitch. Foster thanked Joannie Bouman for her service to the Zoning Board of Appeals. devries said a replacement will be announced soon. PUBLIC COMMENT: Foster opened Public Comment at 8:35 P.M. An audience member complimented the Zoning Board of Appeals for its objectivity in following the standards in the variance requests on the evening s agenda. Foster closed Public Comment at 8:37 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Dreyer, and supported by Bouman, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 P.M. 11

12 Voice vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Judith Hemwall Recording Secretary April 29, 2015 Approved: 12