MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
WHICH TOOK
PLACE ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003,
AT 6:30 P.M.,
IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
1.
ROLL CALL.
PRESENT:
Board Members – Green, Higgins,
Holthof, Pelton, Sutton
ABSENT: Lichtenwald (excused)
OTHERS
PRESENT: Mark Ostgarden, Secretary; Cheri Standfest, Community
Development Specialist and 4 people in the audience
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
The minutes of September 16, 2003, were approved subject to typographical corrections and the change:
Petition 03-14, Page 2, Last sentence should read, “He was not comfortable with the bar mixing the residential character of the neighborhood.
3.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CONSIDERATION.
Petition No.
03-14 – Jason Burley for an area/dimension variance to build a
carport in the required side yard at 1111 Eastman Avenue.
The secretary explained that the property is in a RA-3 zoning
district. The neighborhood is
residential on the west side of Eastman Avenue.
There is office service, business and high density residential on the
east side of Eastman Avenue.
The petitioner desires to construct a carport on the north side of the
house. The carport will extend 5’6” in
the required side yard leaving an 18” setback.
The RA-3 zone requires a 7’ side yard setback. The lot is 54’ wide and 216’ deep. There is 16’ on the south side of the house
to the property line. Photographs of the
site were presented.
One letter in opposition to the request was received.
Jason Burley explained he has looked at other construction options but
those would require more work. He looked
at constructing a garage in the rear yard; however, because of the shrubbery on
the south side of the house he did not pursue this option.
Mr. Higgins asked why access was not possible on the north side of the
house. Mr. Burley explained that the
neighbor’s fence and an 8’ maneuvering lane between the fence and his house
prevented this option from being pursued.
Mr. Burley explained that the carport will have a slightly slanted roof
for drainage there will be 4” x 4” support posts and three of the four walls
would be enclosed.
The Board inquired about the house design on the rear. Mr. Burley explained that is the kitchen in
the rear and a door to the rear yard.
Mr. Burley was asked to elaborate on why the variance should be
granted. He explained that it would be
more attractive and beneficial to the homeowner.
FINDING OF
FACTS – Petition 03-14
1.
The property is zoned RA-3.
2.
The lot is long and narrow.
3.
The carport will face Eastman Avenue which has a 35
mph speed limit.
4.
The property has two curb cuts.
5.
The house was built in 1929 and owned by the
petitioner since 1997 or 1998.
6.
The property to the north has a tree and a fence very
close to its south property line.
7.
The petitioner stated he felt there was not
sufficient room to put a driveway to the rear yard on the north side of the
house.
8.
The carport will have walls on three sides, the front
will remain open and face Eastman Avenue.
9.
The petitioner does not wish to remove shrubs on the
south side of the house.
10.
One letter in opposition was received.
11.
There are 13’ between the house and the south
property line.
12.
The petitioner stated there is a door on the rear of
the house.
13.
The proposed location would leave 18” to the north
property line.
14.
The proposed location does not appear to create
safety problems.
Jack
Higgins does not think there was enough information submitted for him to
be able to make a decision on the
case. He motioned it be tabled until the
November Board meeting and
requested information on the following:
The motion
was seconded by Roy Green.
Vote -
Yea: Green, Higgins
Nay:
Holthof, Pelton, Sutton
The motion
was denied.
A motion
was made by Sally Sutton to approve petition 03-14 based on the findings of
fact conditioned that the east side of the carport remain open, eaves be
provided so that drainage is only on the petitioner’s property and post hole
footings be constructed. The motion was seconded
by Jack Higgins.
Ms. Sutton
thought the property could be used for a permitted purpose without rendering
conformity unnecessarily burdensome. The
shrubbery on the south side can be temporary.
She thought the addition would not be compatible with the neighborhood
and too close to the north property line.
She did not think there was anything unique about the property and the
problem is self-created.
Mr.
Higgins thought the property was unique due to its width. However, he was not convinced a drive to the
rear yard on the north side could not be built.
The petition would do justice to the property owner but not the
neighborhood.
Woody
Pelton is not convinced other options are not available. The 18” setback would be difficult to
maintain. The property is not unique in
that it is similar to others in the
area.
Roy Green
stated there are other options and thought the Board was being asked to approve
a garage in the disguise of a carport.
Hank
Holthof agreed that the property is unique and not self created. However, he too wondered why the shrubs on
the south side of the house could not be removed. The approval would not do
justice to the neighborhood in that the carport would stick out.
Vote on
the motion:
Yea: None
Nay: Green, Higgins, Holthof, Pelton, Sutton
4. Public
comments before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
There was no public comment before the Board.
Old/New
Business.
There was
discussion about the Michigan Society of Planning Conference which took place
on October 15-18. Board members Sally
Sutton and Hank Holthof attended the conference.
Suggestions and
comments heard included:
1. The public should only be required to state
name and community at a public
meeting.
2.
The importance of the findings of facts and procedures in the
decision
process are important to document that due process was followed.
3.
A tax id number should be included in the staff report.
4. Sally Sutton had case handouts which will be
made available to other Board
members.
5. The process to amend minutes was discussed.
The secretary will also look
into the city policy regarding amending minutes.
6.
Petitioners should be given an opportunity to make rebuttals to
public comment.
7. At one session the presenter explained how
older parts of the community could be considered differently. The secretary questioned the ability to do
this and will look into who was presenting the information.
ADJOURN.
Mark Ostgarden, AICP, CFM
THESE MINUTES ARE NOT
OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.