MINUTES PARK TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Park Township Hall 52 152 nd Street Holland, MI 49418 Regular Meeting February 24, 2014 6:34 P.M. DRAFT COPY CALL TO ORDER: Chair Foster called to order the regular meeting of the Park Township Zoning Board of Appeals at 6:30 P.M., held in the Township Hall at the Park Township Office. ATTENDANCE: Present: John Foster, Joanie Bouman, Dennis Eade, Sally Pollock Absent: Doug Dreyer, Mike Toscano Staff: Andy Bowman, Staff Planner, Ed devries, Zoning Administrator APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Motion by Eade, supported by Bouman, to approve the agenda as presented. Voice Vote: Ayes: 4, Nays: 0. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Bouman, supported by Pollock, to approve the minutes of the December 30, 2013 special meeting. Voice Vote: Ayes: 4, Nays: 0. Motion carried. BUSINESS ITEMS: 1. Request by Philip and Jill Perkins for an addition to an accessory building with a side yard of 4 feet where 10 feet is required, and would create a larger than allowed building per section 38-491(b) of the Park Township Code of Ordinances. Said land and premises are located at 2427 Lakefront Dr., Holland, MI 49424 (Parcel #70-15-16-398- 022, R-2). Bowman provided the following background for the application: The applicants have an existing detached accessory building of 20 X 28 (560 SF) located 4 from the south side lot line. The building was built under previous ordinance and staff is assuming a nonconforming right to retain the insufficient setback for their addition. The applicants are currently building a replacement house on the site and have included an attached one-stall garage in their plan. They also wish to expand the existing detached
accessory building with an additional 12 foot stall on the east side to make it a 20 X 40 (800 SF) three stall detached garage. William Mannes of Mike Schaap Builders, represented the applicants, Phillip and Jill Perkins, who could not attend. He explained that: (1) the lot is 50 and the house is 30 wide, (2) there is a septic tank in a challenging location, (3) there is an existing garage which is 4 off the property line, and (4) there is fence is on one side of the garage and the drain field is on the other side. He stated there is one option, to go east with the building location. John Foster asked what the original intent was when the house was built. Mannes said the owners are satisfied with the layout of the property, but the owners would like to enclose their vehicles, especially with two teenagers who will be driving soon and will have their own cars. He went on to say that the purpose is visual appeal and keeping the cars garaged, especially in the winter. He added it is a year-round home for the family. Foster asked if there is a boat on the property and if the atdetached garage is two stalls. Mannes said there is no boat and the atdetached garage has two stalls. Pollock asked for clarification of the lot width and if it was a typical size for the area. Mannes confirmed the lot width was 50 and said it was typical for the neighborhood. Foster found from his recent visit to the property that there would be no visual obstruction to the neighbors on either side. He noted there was considerable outdoor parking space available. Mannes said some of that area will be reduced with the new home and accommodating a reserve drain field. Eade asked if there were additional obstacles to overcome if the addition were located over 10 from the existing garage. Mannes said the septic tanks are located to the west, the main power feed is also in that area and the turnaround space is too limited. Eade asked devries for the history of the approval of the 4 setback from the property line. devries not not know the history. It is possible this occurred before the ordinance took effect in 1973. Bouman asked if any building can be done on the west side. Mannes said the power line is on the west side, the location would be 5 from the garage and there is a service door on the west side. He claimed that going east with the addition is the most cost effective way and the only option. Public Hearing: The public hearing was opened at 7:50 P.M. Mike & Patti Fogg, neighbors four houses to the north of the applicant property, had no objection to the application. Fogg said he is not a fan of allowing variances but the lots are too small and this expansion is justifiable. 2
Annette Durban, neighbor to the south, did not oppose the building plan. There being no others wishing to be heard, the public hearing was closed at 7:53 P.M. Foster asked about the roof line. Mannes said it would remain the same height. Foster found that the fact the existing garage is too close to the line is not the property owner s fault but that it is also larger than what would be allowed. He was unsure about the hardship associated with not having 4 stalls when you already have 2 stalls. He was also concerned there are a number of detached buildings in the area already. Motion by Bouman, supported by Eade, to approve the variance request based on meeting the four standards as described below. 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. The applicants are creating a year-round home with a larger family and the site cannot accommodate sufficient shelter and maneuvering space for more vehicles without modifying the 10 setback. 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 existing building is already 4 off the property line and does not affect views and the addition will not affect neighbor s views as well. 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 property is long and narrow with only 50 in width and in an area zoned for greater widths. d. That the practical difficulties alleged are not self-created. The applicants did not establish modern zoning rules as applied to very narrow parcels. Voice Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 1. Motion carried. Foster voted to deny. 2. Request by Thomas and Constance Selvius to build a residence 165 feet east of the bluff that does not meet setback requirements for a rear yard abutting a body of water per section 38-495(1) of the Park Township Code of Ordinances. Said laid and premises are located at 4541 N. Lakeshore Dr., Holland, MI 49424. (Parcel #70-15-04-100-013, R-2). 3
As background, Bowman referred to his staff memo which explains the current sightline and the location of the current home in relation to it. He further explained that the applicants wish to remove the existing home and build a new home at the setback line established by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Bowman also noted that the applicants have indicated that the existing home was moved to the east in the mid-1980s due to severe shoreline erosion occurring at that time and the home to the south of the property was moved back at that time as well, presumably for the same reason. Doug DeHaan, DeHaan Homes of Hudsonville, MI, builder for Thomas and Constance Selvius, represented the applicants. He shared a panoramic illustration of existing Lake Michigan setbacks with the Board members. He described how both the home on the applicant s property and the home to the south were moved back from high water during an unusually erosive period along the lakeshore. He further stated he is trying to move the home site closer to preserve trees, the intent being to level the property and build a new home which would be elevated on three acres. He also mentioned the applicants want to build a pool on the lakeside along with a four foot fence. DeHaan related his suggestion that the pool should be on the east side of the site and stated he was happy to consider other options for the variance requests which would satisfy Township requirements. Foster clarified that the home can be moved further east than the DEQ line. devries said that is correct. Foster asked if the pool is located in front, would it be allowed by the DEQ. devries commented the DEQ may approve the pool plan because it relates to the size of the structure. DeHaan noted that he is designing the home on an angle to accommodate the sight line, accommodate the neighbors and to preserve the 200 year old trees on the property. He declared he is asking for a relaxation of the sight line as a result. Foster said it appears that the proposed building site is to move the house close to the original house at the north, and further than the original house to the south. He said it also appears it does not block much of the view. He asked if the tree line is to the north. DeHaan said the trees are to the north and the owner has treated them in an attempt to preserve them. Foster asked for the square footage of the proposed home. DeHaan said the home is in the preliminary design stage but is a good size. DeHaan added the first 18 is a single story then it graduates up a 35 incline to 1 ½ stories. Foster asked if the existing house is a two story home. DeHaan said it is a ranch home. Public Hearing: The public hearing was opened at 7:28 P.M. Elizabeth Noble Lee, the neighbor to the south, shared a letter she distributed to the Board and apologized she had not had much time to review the application because she had 4
winter issues accessing a mailbox that was in disrepair because of the snow buildup on her road and therefore received the Township notice about the Selvius application very late. She is a co-owner with her brothers of the cottage next door to the south of the applicants. She state her family has owned their property since 1912 and is concerned about the impact of an alleged 7,000 s.f. home in that area. Her brothers are currently out of town and she would like some additional time to confer with them about this application. Her specific concern is how this proposed home will impact the environment. Foster asked Lee what her specific objection was regarding the application. Lee said she was concerned about the setback requirements and the exact sight line measurements. She added her family wants to be accommodating, but at the same time, they want to be responsible citizens with regard to the surrounding community and the serious impact of this application. She asked for a delay of 30 days in considering this application. Foster said the Board of Appeals had received letters from her brothers. He noted the public will have additional opportunity to provide input about this application. With no other persons wishing to be heard, the public hearing was closed at 7:43 P.M. Pollock asked if the aerial photograph of the property showed the tree line along the north side. DeHaan said the tree line is located to the north with 11 trees; there are four or five on the south line of the property. Foster asked if the sight line measurement is correct. Bowman said there is a certain amount of inaccuracy and it has not been surveyed. devries noted that it should be within a few feet based on the aerial view. Bouman found that approval could be conditional on the size of the structure and the elements of certain sight features. Foster asked if the request is tabled for 30 days, could more specific site plans be required. Bowman said it appears the applicant has changed the proposal slightly and tabling for 30 days is possible for further information, but the reason must be specific and related to aspects of the proposal itself. Bouman found from DeHaan that he would move it to the house to about 180 feet from the lake and a 15 porch would be at the 165 foot MDEQ setback. Motion by Eade, and Bouman supported, to deny the Selvius request based on lack of justification for meeting all four required standards. Voice Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 1. Motion carried. Foster opposed. Bowman noted the action of the Board of Appeals is a denial, but is essentially a finding of not meeting the four standards to approve the request. DeHaan asked if he could resubmit a plan in the appeals process. Bowman said there is an appeal period after the variance is granted, but not a resubmittal unless the project is 5
significantly changed from what is proposed for this request. DeHaan also asked if the plan for the pool is part of the appeal process or a resubmittal. devries said if the applicant submits something entirely different it could be a resubmittal and that otherwise, the only appeal from this action would be to the circuit court. 3. Request from OBI Business, LLC to convert a storage building into a take-out kitchen and delivery area which would expand a principal use on a commercial lot that does not meet minimum lot requirements, in a building that does not meet setback requirements per section 38-455 (2)(3)(5), does not meet parking requirements per section 38-601, and to be allowed two more wall signs than permitted per section 38-575(h) of the Park Township Code of Ordinances. Said land and premises are located at 2155 Ottawa Beach Rd., Holland, MI 49424. (Parcel #70-15-33-201-011, C-2). Bowman explained the background information he included in the staff memorandum including: a. The request to convert a 16.2 x 26.2 accessory storage building into a compact kitchen for take-out orders only. b. Parking has been assigned as a drive-in service only for the purpose of determining additional parking requirements, though drive-in service is not proposed. c. The applicants are currently undergoing a site plan review by the Planning Commission and the site could not be approved without first obtaining the requested variances. Staff recommended consideration as three separate motions. Foster asked if the standards have to be reviewed for each. Bowman confirmed that a separate review for each was the appropriate procedure. Jim Bultema and Eric Chaitin, new owners of the Ottawa Beach Inn, described the reasons for the 3 variance requests. Bultema said they have found a hardship in serving their customer base because of the increased demand for summer take-out items at the restaurant. He stated his estimate that their existing business is 20-30% take-out service and there are waiting times of up to an hour for take-out in the summer months, beginning in May and this slows down the kitchen. Chaitin said the challenge is to meet customer expectations and remove or improve the traffic congestion at the restaurant. Also, he said comment cards from customers request increased availability of fresher foods which will also impact the kitchen and is another justification for a bigger kitchen space. Foster asked for a description of the added items for the take-out menu plan. Chaitin reviewed the items: pizza, salads, garlic bread, and the restaurant s signature key lime and peanut butter pie. Foster asked for an estimate of the restaurant s walkup business. Chaitin said annual visitors to the State Park number 1.5 million and these are their potential customers. 6
Eade asked if delivery is the only goal for the business. Chaitin said the walkup business is just as important for their customers but the goal is to promote delivery to ease congestion. Foster asked if they plan to serve food year round. The applicants confirmed that was the case. Foster asked how they would conduct the delivery service. Chaitin said they hope to use scooters with car transportation during inclement weather. He added the restaurant would need two scooters and one car which would require one or two parking spaces. Foster said he visited the site and wondered about the digital message board in the pylon sign at the road. He suggested a remodel of the sign could serve both purposes in the event the Township limited the signage on the property. Bultema and Chaitin said it was a small sign so two signs would better display their message. Chaitin also said the sign is limited in what could be changed. Another sign would be helpful for directing traffic to the rear for walkup business. Eade asked for an update on any property purchase from MDNR. Bultema said the MDNR doesn t like to sell property so it is not a promising option. He added that they have asked MDNR about the possibility to lease land across the street but this has had no reply yet. Foster asked about the plan to move the trash bins behind the property. Bultema said their plan is to move the bins to the north side of the building and the trash pickup is before 9:00 A.M. so it is not a problem with customers visiting the restaurant. Foster asked if the new building will be taller. Chaitin said it would be the same height with an enhanced facade. Foster asked if the hours would remain the same. Chaitin said they would. Public Hearing: The public hearing was opened at 8:22 P.M. There was no public comment, so the hearing was closed at 8:23 P.M. Size and Setbacks: Motion by Pollock, and Bouman supported to grant the variance request for expansion of the principal restaurant use on a substandard lot using and accessory building of nonconforming size and setbacks based on meeting the required standards as follows: 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. The applicants will not be able to sustain a viable 7
business on this site without expanding their restaurant operation to include a successful delivery or take-out feature at the same site. 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. Other properties for this type of use do not reflect the same history, character or location and standard zoning rules cannot be applied in this case as they would for other Commercial Resort properties. 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 property is very small and surrounded on all four sides by State owned property. Also, the unique location in relation the State Park makes this business necessary at this limited location. d. That the practical difficulties alleged are not self-created. The new owners are dealing with existing problems inherent to the site and did not create the problems. Voice Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Motion carried. Fewer Parking Spaces: Foster asked if there are parking spaces across the street for use by the restaurant. devries confirmed there are no legally assigned spaces on Ottawa Beach Road. It is a historic county road that becomes a State road on approach to the State Park. Foster asked if an additional handicapped parking space is necessary. Chaitin said those won t be affected by the change. Foster found the plan for a delivery service would still be the goal to relieve traffic if there was no need for expansion of the parking. Eade asked for the standard for provision of parking for take-out service. devries said there is no standard for take-out service, so the drive-in standard of 1 space per employee plus 4 additional was used. Foster asked for the total number of restaurant employees. Bultema said there are eight. Pollock confirmed that the current total number of spaces on the site are lawfully nonconforming for the existing restaurant space. Bowman confirmed that the requested reduction is only for the added spaces required for the added take-out or delivery service. 8
Foster noted, however, that the proposed expansion will not affect restaurant customers for dining room service. Motion by Bouman, and Pollock supported to approve the variance request for fewer number of parking spaces than is required for a take-out or delivery service based on meeting the required standards as follows: 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. The applicants will not be able to sustain a viable business on this site without expanding their restaurant operation to include a successful delivery or take-out feature at the same site. 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. That the requested take-out service in this case is a unique use that was not anticipated by the current parking requirements and would not be corrected by changing the townships rules for parking. 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. That the existing restaurant is uniquely served by other spaces not in control of the owners and the small site surrounded by potential walk-in customers is unusual for this site. d. That the practical difficulties alleged are not self-created. The new owners are dealing with existing problems inherent to the small site with unusual parking requirements and did not create the problems. Voice Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Motion carried. Wall Signs Signage on building devries said the business owners are permitted one sign on the building and one pylon sign on the road. The applicants are asking for two additional signs - one on the front and one on the side. Pollock asked how customers will know the location of the take-out area if there is no sign at the front of the restaurant. Chaitin said without signage it will be harder to let people know where they need to go for the service. 9
Foster offered the idea that many restaurants offer information on flyers and menus for delivery service. This could alleviate the need for extra signage. He finds a second sign is unnecessary. Bouman asked if there is a size requirement for the signage. devries said there are guidelines for size. Foster asked if a sign or banner on the fence is considered a sign. devries said those are considered signs. Motion by Bouman, and Pollock supported to allow the addition of one wall sign instead of the two requested based on meeting the required standards as follows: 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. The applicants will not be able to sustain a viable business on this site without expanding their restaurant operation to include a successful delivery or take-out feature at the same site. 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. That allowing 1 sign as proposed on the front of the take-out kitchen is necessary to inform customers and the public about this added feature of the site and restaurant. The additional sign requested for the north facing side was not found to be necessary. 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 site and proposed use of property are unique and the added take-out feature of the site functions like a smaller second use on the site requiring identification. d. That the practical difficulties alleged are not self-created. The new owners are dealing with existing problems inherent to the small site with an unusual building configuration and did not create the problems. Voice Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Motion carried. Bultema asked if the next step is to return to the Planning Commission for approval of the site plan. Bowman confirmed that is the next step in the process and advised the applicants prepare more information for their site plan. devries noted the deadline is the last Tuesday of the month. He allowed that he would accept the site plan if the applicants could submit it within the week. 10
4. Request from Chad Dykema, (tabled from November 25), to keep poultry and one goat as an accessory use in a residential district per section 38-490(b) of the Park Township Code of Ordinances. Said land and premises are located at 4572 N. 160th Ave., Holland, MI (Parcel #70-15-02-100-026, R-1) Bowman provided the background on this request. The Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed this request at a public hearing held on September 23, 2013 and tabled the request to seek more details in a site plan and greater assurances from the applicant that the use will be conducted appropriately before making a decision. Last month, ZBA members requested further review by staff of approaches that may be adopted with such a request to ensure that animal keeping of this sort is not offensive to neighbors and does not pose safety or health risks to the community. Bowman noted that in reviewing some of the dozens of examples available for review on this subject, staff has offered a number of ideas for considering the request by Dykema to raise chickens on his 3.98 acre flag shaped parcel in the R-1 Rural Estates Residence district. Bowman also stated that at this time, the State of Michigan has not addressed animal keeping on a residential use basis and only provides Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMP) applicable to larger agricultural operations. However, according to a recent news reports, the Michigan Department of Agriculture is further studying GAAMP in anticipation of applying rules to small residential farm operations as well. Therefore, staff cannot rely on MDA as a source for regulations in small farms in residential settings at this time. Bowman reviewed the ideas outline in the staff memo for the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider. These items generally referred to (1) Number of Animals, (2) Setbacks for Animal Keeping Areas, (3) Enclosures, and (4) Maintenance. Pollock asked if the Board of Appeals consideration is for this current application or for future applications as well. devries explained the zoning ordinance allows for the keeping of chickens with the approval of the Zoning Administrator, however, the guidelines in the current ordinance are very general and should be more specific. Since requests continue to be submitted to the Zoning Administrator, he recommends it would be helpful to have stricter guidelines. He added that there was a complaint associated with the Dykema application so that is the reason it came to the attention of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Eade asked for the distance from the applicant s house to the property line. DeVries said he had calculated it to be 107. Dykema indicated he calculated it is 150 from the front door. Foster asked if the holding area for the chickens is still in same location. Dykema said it is and he installed a second fence. Bouman asked Dykema if he has had another survey done. He replied that he is relying on stakes that are already in place. Dykema said he is waiting until Spring. 11
Foster asked if the chickens are currently enclosed. Mrs. Dykema said they were and shared photos of the new enclosure with a cover. Eade noted the changes are a significant improvement. Given the recommendations of staff, he offered the following proposal: 1. Number of Animals: Maximum 12 chickens per acre would be allowed for the keeping of chickens at this site. 2. Setback: The distance for animal enclosures will be 100 from the nearest neighbor s home. 3. Enclosures: The fenced area should be kept at all times with the proper ground cover, mulch or paving. 4. Maintenance: The animal keeping area shall be maintained by: a) regular sweeping, cleaning, proper disposal of droppings, uneaten food and potential storm water pollutants; b) keeping food stored in covered containers; c) hosing down pens routinely, but not near drains or waterways, and d) animal keeping premises shall be maintained in a neat and sanitary condition so that no nuisance due to unsightliness, odor, pest breeding or harborage shall be caused by kept animals or on the premises. Bouman asked who will monitor these standards. devries confirmed that it is the responsibility of his office as Zoning Administrator. Foster asked for the specific number of chickens on the Dykema property. The Dykemas did not have an answer. Foster emphasized that the number should be verified. Foster asked if the goat is kept in a separate shed. The Dykemas said it is. Foster asked Dykema for his plan for cleaning. Dykema said he has used sand. The chicken coop is cleaned out. Foster asked if there are no roosters to be added to the animal keeping number. Dykema confirmed that. Foster said the Zoning Board of Appeals will leave it to the Zoning Administrator s office to monitor the situation. Foster asked if the Board members are comfortable with the recommendations for this application and future requests to the Zoning Administrator s office. Bouman found she is not comfortable with this issue and as a matter for zoning for the whole township, does not feel it can be properly controlled if allowed. Foster said with no other rules in place, we have to look at each request separately and consider the safety and health of community. 12
Foster reiterated Dykema should get a new survey done in the spring since there is a dispute with the neighbor and this should be resolved. He added that such property line disputes should be addressed in the event a property should be sold. Dykema said his neighbor could also get a survey done. Foster advised that Dykema work with the neighbor to avoid further conflict about the property line issue. Motion by Eade, and Foster supported to approve the four recommendations, as stated above, for this and future applications. Voice Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 1. Motion carried. Bouman opposed. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The next regular meeting will be March 24, 2014. Foster suggested the Board of Appeals consider adding a second alternate to assure a quorum for meetings. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment opened at 9:25 P.M. There being none, Public Comment closed at 9:26 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Pollock, and Foster supported to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Voice vote: Ayes 4/Nays 0. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Judith Hemwall Recording Secretary February 27, 2014 Approved: 13