MINUTES
OF THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON DECEMBER 16, 2003,
AT 6:30 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
1. ROLL CALL.
PRESENT:
Board Members –
Green, Higgins, Holthof, Lichtenwald, Sutton
ABSENT: Pelton (excused)
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Ostgarden, Secretary, and 12
people in the audience
Chairman Hank Holthof opened the meeting
with a welcome to the television audience viewing the MGTV telecast of a Zoning
Board of Appeals meeting. He explained
the role of the Board and the meeting procedures.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
The minutes of November 18,
2003, were approved subject to the following corrections:
1.The motion to approve
Petition 03-15 was made by Sally Sutton and not Jack Higgins.
2.Finding # 4 of Petition
03-15 should read: “Compliance with the Building Code (not the Ordinance)….”
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND
CONSIDERATION.
a. Petition No. 03-18 – Curt
Brooks, 1418 West Pine Street, for an
area/dimension variance to permit a garage addition in a required side street
yard.
The
petitioner has a corner property in an older part of the community. A garage addition is proposed which will have
direct access from a street side yard.
The property is zoned RA-3 which permits a 15’ street side yard, except
that a direct access garage is required to have a 20’ setback. The addition will encroach 1 foot into the
required setback area. The lot is less
than the minimum size required for the
RA-3 district. The garage is 17’6” in
depth.
One letter
of support was received.
Mr. Brooks
explained that he desired the addition which will make a functional
garage. The current garage depth does
not permit that to happen. Access onto Pine Street was discussed. The house was constructed in 1910.
No one else spoke in support of or
in opposition to the request.
Findings of Fact:
1. Property is zoned RA-3.
2. The lot is smaller than required for the
zoning district.
3. It
is a corner lot bounded by West Pine Street and Jerome Street.
4.
One letter in support was received.
5.
Front yard is on West Pine Street as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
6.
The house was built in 1910 with several additions made.
7.
The addition results in a 1’ x 14’ encroachment into the street side
yard.
8.
RA-3 allows a 15’ street side yard setback where access is not directly
to a street.
9.
The existing garage is attached to part of the house.
10. The options described are not viable (for the
petitioner to pursue).
Sally
Sutton thought all the criteria were met.
Lot size was an issue in meeting practical difficulty. The variance will do justice by improving the
property. There are several reasons for the property being unique (corner lot
of less area than required for Zoning district; garage attached to front of
house; no other options). The problem is
not self created based on the above factors. The Board concurred with her
comments regarding the variance.
Motion by
Jack Higgins and seconded by Roy Green to approve the request based on the
findings of fact.
Vote on
the motion:
Yea: Green, Higgins, Holthof, Lichtenwald, Sutton
Nay: None
The variance was approved.
b.
Petition No. 03-22 – Grace Naessens, 3203 Fuller Drive, for a special approval
for fence height in the required front street yard.
Mrs.
Naessens purchased the corner property this year, with the front yard for
setback purposes (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance) facing Waldo Avenue. The front door and the driveway face Fuller
Drive. A wood fence along the north
property line was constructed by a fence contractor which encroaches 10’ into
the required front yard setback area.
Photographs of the property and other fences in the area were
shown. One photograph depicts that
evergreen trees were planted in the required front yard setback area.
Mrs.
Naessens stated that prior to constructing the fence; she contacted the city
several times. She showed the site plan,
as seen by the Board, to the city so she thought the fence was being properly
constructed.
Findings of Fact:
1.
The property is zoned RA-1.
2.
No letters were received.
3.
The lot front faces Waldo Avenue.
4.
The first 10’ of the 6’ high fence encroaches into
the required front yard setback.
5.
A 3-1/2’ high fence is allowed in the required front
yard setback.
6.
The fence can be decreased in height.
7.
The fence was built by a contractor.
8.
The speed limit on Waldo Avenue is 35 mph.
9.
The property driveway is on Fuller Drive.
10.
Pine trees have been planted in the required front
yard setback area.
A motion
was made by Sally Sutton and seconded by Jack Higgins to approve the request
based on the findings of fact.
Sally Sutton identified that there
is a driveway on the property immediately to the north. She thought the fenced constructed in the
required setback area would create a vision obstruction for the adjacent
property and would impinge upon the neighboring property based on visibility
issue and safety for drivers and pedestrians.
She did not think that the fence is compatible and she thought that it
is out of character with the neighborhood.
She noticed it right away and thought something was wrong with the fence
placement. Roy Green agreed.
The other Board members did not
agree. Tim Lichtenwald stated that the
evergreen trees that were planted by the petitioner creates more of a vision
problem than does the fence. Jack
Higgins stated that the fence could be constructed to within 20’ of the
property line if the required front yard was on Fuller Drive. Hank Holthof stated that a driver of a large
vehicle could see beyond the fence before getting to the sidewalk when backing
out of the adjacent driveway.
Vote on
the motion:
Yea: Green, Higgins, Holthof, Lichtenwald
Nay: Sutton
The special approval was approved.
c. Petition No. 03-19 – Midland Ford Lincoln Mercury,
1303 South Saginaw Road, for
an
interpretation of “building” as it applies to allowable sign area and if needed
an
area/dimension variance from the maximum allowable sign area.
The
secretary explained the request had two parts.
First, an interpretation has been made by the Planning and Building Departments
that the addition at Midland Ford is part of the existing building; therefore,
the sign proposed is not permitted as the building currently exceeds the
maximum sign area allowed for the building.
This interpretation is being challenged by the owner. Second, if the Board agrees with the staff
interpretation, then a sign area variance is needed for the proposed sign on
the building addition.
The
addition to the building has been determined to be part of the original
building because it was viewed as an addition by the Building Department. When looking at the building from the street
it appears as one building with a unified look.
Midland Ford was represented by Attorney Dick Handlon. He stated that his client contends that it
has separate access, it is a free-standing building, it has separate utilities,
and it is structurally separate from the older building.
A motion
was made by Jack Higgins and seconded by Sally Sutton to consider the addition
as a separate building based on the findings of the Board.
(Note: During the discussion on the interpretation,
the secretary stated that the addition is assessed for tax purposes as a
separate building.)
The Board
concurred with the property owner, finding that it is a separate building, that
the building is not attached to the older building (there is a small space
between the buildings), that the addition does not rely on the older building
for structural support, and that there are separate utilities for the addition.
Vote on
the motion:
Yea: Green, Higgins, Holthof, Lichtenwald, Sutton
Nay:
None
Based on the interpretation by the
Board, the sign area variance is not required.
d. Petition No. 03-20 – Nathan Crosslin, 815 East St.
Andrews Road, for an
area/dimension variance to build a carport in the required side yard.
Mr.
Crosslin desires to construct a carport onto an existing detached garage. The petitioner owns a corner lot with the
front, for setback purposes, facing Washington Street. The detached garage is located
in the side yard and there are 16’ to the side (north) property line. The carport will be 14’ in width and encroach
2’ into the required 8’ side yard setback area, creating a 6’ setback from the
property line.
Mr.
Crosslin stated that he desired the carport to make the property more
functional. The carport would keep a
vehicle out of the elements. The encroachment is only two feet. When asked why the property is unique he
thought it was unique in that if the front was different (i.e. facing East St.
Andrews Road) the carport could encroach to within 3’ of the property
line. The petitioner stated that
constructing a second garage as an accessory building on the property is not
practical because it would be too expensive.
When asked
about the construction details, Mr. Crosslin stated the north wall of the
carport would be four 4” x 4” posts for support of a roof. The fence along the west wall would
remain.
One letter
was received from the property owner to the north who offered support to maintain
harmony.
A second letter in support was received from a property owner
somewhere else in the neighborhood.
Hank
Holthof did not think the problem was self-created in that the petitioner was
not responsible for the placement of the structures on the lot or for
establishing the setbacks. There would
be no harm done to the neighbor to the north.
Findings
of Fact:
1.
Property is zoned RA-1.
2.
The property was purchased in January 2003.
3.
The property is located on the corner of Washington
Street and E. St. Andrews Road.
4.
The traditional front yard faces E. St. Andrews Road,
which by definition is the street side yard.
5.
There is currently a single-car garage.
6.
A deck exists between the house and the garage.
7.
The interior side lot line is the north property line
by Zoning Ordinance definition.
8.
The carport will encroach 2’ into the required side
yard setback area.
9.
One letter in support was received from a property
owner located somewhere in the neighborhood.
10.
The existing fence will remain.
11.
The north wall of the carport will remain open.
12.
One letter from the property owner adjacent to the
north was received in support “to keep harmony”.
A motion
was made by Sally Sutton and seconded by Jack Higgins to approve the
request
based on the findings of fact and with the following conditions:
1.
Drainage from the carport (roof) will be onto the
property owner’s (petitioner’s) lot.
2.
The north side of carport will remain open from top
to bottom.
Jack
Higgins thought it would not be burdensome to comply with the ordinance. There is nothing unique about the property in
that there are many corner lots in the community. There are alternatives available for the
petitioner.
Sally
Sutton did not think it would do justice to the property owner to the north. She was concerned about drainage from the roof
of the carport onto the neighboring property.
She also thought a second garage (or carport) could be built on the lot
as an accessory building.
Tim
Lichtenwald observed that a vehicle was parked there now. The carport could be decreased in width and
still be functional.
Roy Green
thought there were alternatives available.
Hank Holthof observed that the house is adjacent to a deck which is
adjacent to a detached garage and now a carport is proposed. He thought there is overbuilding occurring in
one direction.
Vote on the motion:
Yea:
None
Nay: Green, Higgins, Holthof, Lichtenwald, Sutton
The
variance was denied.
e. Petition No. 03-21 – CESO, Inc. on behalf of
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 910 Joe
Mann Boulevard, for an area/dimension
variance from the maximum allowable
sign
area.
Wal-Mart
is planning an expansion of its existing building to create a
“Superstore”. A new sign package is
proposed which will have 1236’ sf of sign area on the 1050’ long west wall.
Details of each sign were shown. The
building is permitted 200 sf of total sign area with the maximum sign area on
the 1050 ft. long west wall, or on any wall, not to exceed 150 sf.
One phone
call was received which did not object to the signs but questioned the number
of signs. There was concern about the
usefulness of some of the signs being proposed.
Anita
Griggs, a representative from CESO, the engineering firm working on the
expansion project, addressed the Board.
She asked the Board to look at the sign area in relationship to the
entire wall. The sign area is 8% to 10% of the entire west wall area. The Board also was asked to think about the
overall size of the building in that it will be a large building in the area.
When asked
about the amount of sign area now on the building Ms. Griggs thought there was
about 460 sf. She pointed out the west
entrance is about 350’ to 400’ from Joe Mann Boulevard.
Findings of Fact:
1.
The property is zoned Business B-2.
2.
The west wall is 1050’ long.
3.
The distance to Joe Mann Boulevard from the south
wall is approximately 108’.
4.
The current entrance is 350-400’ from Joe Mann
Boulevard.
5.
The proposed sign area is 1236 sf.
6.
The total sf of the new Wal-Mart “Superstore” will be
approximately 200,000 sf; this is approximately 50,000 sf larger than Meijer.
7.
The existing pole sign will change but will comply
with sign area requirements.
8.
One phone call was received in support, but the
caller did not think so many signs are needed.
9.
Joe Mann Boulevard has an unusual curve in relation
to the west wall of Wal-Mart.
A motion
was made by Jack Higgins and seconded by Hank Holthof to approve the request
based on the findings of fact and conditioned upon the total sign area of the
entire building not to exceed 600 sf.
Jack
Higgins commented that Section 31.5 of the Zoning Ordinance does not address
buildings that run lengthwise away from the street (which the Wal-Mart building
does). He stated it is reasonable to
consider the area in relationship to Joe Mann Boulevard and the overall wall
length. He thought the 1050’ wall length
makes it unnecessarily burdensome. The
sign area will not adversely affect other property owners. There is uniqueness based on the length of
the building. The problem is not self
created in that citizens want to know where the building is and want it to be
visible from Eastman Avenue.
Mr.
Higgins comments represented the position of the rest of the Board members,
with an additional uniqueness being the location of the building in relation to
the curve in Joe Mann Boulevard.
Vote on the motion:
Yea:
Green, Higgins, Holthof, Lichtenwald, Sutton
Nay: None
The
variance was approved.
4. Public comments before the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
There were no public
comments before the Board.
Old/New Business.
The Eagle Ridge Church of God requested that two
conditions of approval, # 1 and #4, of Petition 03-10 be reconsidered.
A motion was made by Jack Higgins and seconded by
Hank Holthof to reconsider the conditions of approval for Petition 03-10.
The secretary stated that the Board members that
participated in the original petition should vote.
5.
6.
Vote on the motion:
7.
8.
Yea: Higgins, Holthof, Lichtenwald,
Sutton
9.
Nay:
Pastor Ken DeMaere stated that the conditions would
create an ugly sign. An illustration of
a sign constructed in accord with the conditions was shown. An illustration of
the sign desired by the church was also shown.
The sign has the church name on the top and an LCD board below the name.
The LCD was less than 50% of the total sign area.
Sally Sutton asked if the sign illustrated by the
drawing was the EXACT sign the church desired.
Pastor DeMaere said it was the exact sign.
A motion was made by Jack Higgins and seconded by
Sally Sutton to amend conditions #1 and #4 of the approval for Petition 03-10
to read as follows:
The ratio of sign
width to height be approximately ratio of 60:40.
The LCD reader
board not to exceed 50% of the total sign area of 32 sf.
Vote on
the motion:
Yea: Higgins, Holthof, Lichtenwald, Sutton
Nay:
Conditions #1 and #4 were modified.
In other business, the secretary updated the Board
on the Zoning Ordinance project.
ADJOURN.
There was
no further business and the meeting adjourned at approximately
Mark
Ostgarden, AICP, CFM
THESE MINUTES ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS.