MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2012
6:30 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Board
Members - Green, Higgins, Lichtenwald
and Steele
ABSENT: Board Members Siemer
OTHERS
PRESENT: Cindy Winland,
Consulting Planner, Cheri King, Community Development Specialist and 5 others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Higgins
and supported by Lichtenwald to approve the minutes of the July 17, 2012
meeting. Motion was unanimously approved
as presented.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Chairman explained the
public hearing procedures and how the Board decides if the variance request is
approved based on the five Board of Appeals criteria in the Zoning Ordinance. The
variance is legally recorded with the property and is not transferrable,
despite the ownership of the property. The
petitioners were offered the opportunity to move forward tonight with a Board
of four members or wait until next month when we may have five members. Approval of the petition will still require
three affirmative votes of the Board.
a.
No. 12-07
Kevin Battjes for a variance to the required rear yard setback. The applicant is asking for a variance of 15
to the required 30 rear yard setback to permit construction of an attached
garage. The property is zoned Single
Family Residential A and is located at 501 Columbia Road.
Background:
Ms. Winland presented an
aerial photo of the subject property.
The applicant is here requesting a variance to the rear yard
setback. The definition of the front lot
line is the narrowest portion of the lot.
The front door faces the side lot line of the property. The applicant is interested in adding another
attached garage to his house, which requires a 30 setback. There is a 15 Consumers Energy easement on
the west property line, within which nothing can be built. The request is for an 18 x 28 structure.
She reviewed the criteria for granting a variance:
(1)
Will
strict compliance with restrictions governing area, setback, frontage, height,
bulk, density or other non-use matters unreasonably prevent the owner from
using the property for a permitted purpose or render conformity unnecessarily
burdensome?
Petitioner: The lot in
question is a corner lot, thereby changing what is effectively a side yard to a
back yard, by the corner lot definition.
The result is a greatly increased setback requirement for an attached
structure, changing it from 8 to 30.
The initial construction of the property placed the house facing the
long direction of the lot, resulting in the driveway/garage placed in the back
yard, by definition. The 30 setback
severely restricts any attached structure.
In addition, a Consumers Energy right-of-way along the back property
line restricts the construction of a detached structure in the defined back
yard.
Staff: The property
is able to be used as zoned, as it is currently has an occupied dwelling unit
on it. Can you use the property for a permitted purpose without a
variance? The answer is yes.
(2) The variance
will do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property
owners.
Petitioner: A variance will permit construction of an
attached garage for enclosed housing of a second vehicle. Enclosed housing is desired for protection of
the vehicle, such as snow accumulation during winter and security. The existing garage, while defined as two-car,
is too narrow to park two modern full-size vehicles. Additionally, indoor storage would be
available. Benefits to other property
owners would be to remove the appearance of clutter and excess vehicles by
parking them indoors (a desired feature based on requirements of many
condominium communities). The appearance
of the garage would be similar to other structures along the street. (Vehicles parked outdoors are a potential
theft/crime attraction.)
Staff: Permitting a
detached garage in the proposed location in this instance will not cause the
characteristics of the neighborhood to change, given that the rear yard is operating
as a side yard and the distance between most houses on the block is similar to
that which is being proposed. The
neighbor to the west will not be impacted by an adjacent structure in that his
garage is on the abutting property line.
(3) The variance
requested is the minimum variance to provide substantial relief to the
applicant and/or be consistent with justice to other property owners.
Petitioner: Yes. The requested variance would permit the
construction of a single-car attached garage.
A lesser variance would not provide beneficial space for the
construction. The resulting separation
of the proposed attached garage from the immediate neighboring structure would
change from 48 to approximately 28 to 30.
Adjacent properties on Columbia Road are separated from each other by
approximately 16 to 18. The variance
would not result in separation less than other adjacent properties along
Columbia Road.
Staff: This is
not the minimum variance needed for any garage.
The applicant shows an 18 wide garage and a 36 wide rear yard. The actual variance needed is 12 to the rear
yard setback. This is the minimum
variance needed to construct a one and a half car (18 wide) attached
garage. A narrower attached garage, (12
14 wide) could be constructed with a lesser variance of 9.
(4) The need for
the variance is due to the unique characteristics of the property not generally
applicable in the area or to other properties in the same zoning district.
Petitioner: The
property is a corner lot and as a result, what is functionally a side yard, is
defined as a back yard, thereby having greater setback requirements. In addition, and of significant restricting
importance, a Consumers Energy 15 right-of-way exists in the defined back
yard. The right-of-way restricts
construction and prevents the proposed structure from being built as a detached
garage of adequate size to allow normal access in-out of both sides of a full
size vehicle (door opening).
Staff: There is a
15 Consumers Power easement on the west side of the property. Without the easement the applicant could
construct a detached garage 3 from the rear property line. The garage could be sized to up to 35% of the
rear yard. However, if the garage is
detached, it could be placed 15 from the rear property line. If the easement didnt exist, the applicant
and others in similar situations could construct a detached garage 3 from the
rear property line.
The request is to place the garage further from the rear
property line, which would have less impact on neighbors, than what the
applicant could build without a variance.
We consider this a unique circumstance.
(5) The problem
and resulting need for the variance has been created by strict compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance and not the applicant.
Petitioner: Yes. The corner lot definition of side versus back
yard limits the placement of the original structure on the lot, and changes the
setback from 8 to 30. If the location
was defined as a side yard, as it effectively is, there would be no need for
the variance. The right-of-way
restriction alone would not prevent construction.
Staff: The
request to add additional garage space and resulting need for a variance is a
self created situation.
Three letters were received in
favor of granting this variance and pointed out the location of the authors of
the letters with respect to 501 Columbia.
Kevin Battjes, 501 Columbia Road, and his wife Joyce, are the petitioners. He stated he would like to continue with a
Board of four members, as there is no guarantee that there will be five members
present at the next meeting and he would like to take advantage of the
remaining construction season. The applicant showed a rendering where a
detached garage could be built and meet the requirements of the ordinance. If the 15 Consumer Power easement did not
exist, he could build a detached garage 3 from the property line. However, since the attached garage is part of
the principle structure, it is required to meet the 30 setback requirement.
The applicant addressed the
five criteria:
·
Criteria A - This issue is regarding the corner lot restrictions and
definitions of the front yard and side yard.
If this were a standard lot, there would be no need for a variance.
·
Criteria B - No other nearby structures on the street are built with detached
garages. This could be a critical part
of neighborhood design. Mr. Battjes
showed a street view of where they would like to put the garage. They have had no objections from
neighbors. They have had several letters
of support. There is about 16 between
structures on the street. He would not
be creating any different separation from his house to the others. Part of the reason for an 18 wide garage is
that there is a chimney on that side of the house. It protrudes about 2 from the house and will
take up room in the proposed garage.
·
Criteria C - Without the easement, they could essentially build a 22
wide garage and a 33 or 34 wide garage at the back of the property.
·
Criteria D - The uniqueness is the right-of-way for the Consumers Energy
easement.
·
Criteria E - It is a self-created situation , but it is out of a desire
to improve his property. He has larger
vehicles that he would like to store in the garage, along with various yard appliances
and this was sufficient space when his house was built.
A detached garage would be
an option. The typical garage is 14
wide. To put a 14 wide garage there
would not be sufficient for his needs.
There is a property at 4601 Bristol Court that is a corner lot and is
about 8 from the property line. This
house was built sometime in the general time frame as his house. With a
detached garage, there is a very little difference between the two on the
impact from neighbors. Nothing can be
built underneath the power line. The
house was built in 1962. The petitioner
has owned it since 1987. The existing
garage has a 15 opening.
No one else spoke either in
favor of or in opposition to this request.
Findings of
Fact:
1. The property is zoned RA-1.
2. It is a corner lot.
3. The house faces the side
yard so that the rear yard line is to the west of the structure.
4. The 15 Consumers Energy
easement is in the rear yard.
5. There are three letters of
support and none in opposition.
6. The house was built in 1962.
7. The petitioner has owned the
house since 1987.
8. The detached garage option
presented would not require a variance.
9. The required rear yard
setback is 30. The applicant is
requesting a 12 encroachment to the required setback.
It was moved by Higgins and
supported by Green to approve Petition No. 12-07 based on the findings of fact
for an area/dimension variance at 501 Columbia Road for a variance of 15 to
the required 30 rear yard setback to permit construction of an attached garage,
provided that the variance is only 12 feet.
Mr. Lichtenwald said he does
not think the five criteria are met. The
property is usable for its intended purpose.
The petitioner has offered an option that does not require a variance so
they must be willing to construct it. If
there is something that can be done that does not require a variance, he is in
favor of that. The petitioner stated it
is self-created.
Mr. Higgins agrees with Mr.
Lichtenwald on all points. This is not a minimum variance as there was another
option presented.
Mr. Green stated the house
sits in a strange position. The proposed
detached garage could be an alternative.
However, structurally, are we creating a situation for the petitioner
that he has six feet of space between the house and the garage that is not
usable space.
Mr. Steele stated he agrees
with Mr. Green. An attached garage would
provide consistency in the neighborhood.
They are asking for the minimum variance required and the power line adds
some challenges.
Vote on the motion:
Steele: Yes
Lichtenwald: No
Green: Yes
Higgins: No
Siemer: Absent
The motion to approve Petition 12-07 failed by a vote of 2-2.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (not related to items on the
agenda)
None
5. OLD BUSINESS
None
6. NEW BUSINESS
Meeting schedule for next year Motion by Higgins to
accept the calendar as presented, seconded by Lichtenwald. Motion passed unanimously.
7. DECISION SHEET SIGNATURES
a.
12-06 Review Findings of Fact
b.
12-05 Recorded
8. ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 7:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia E. Winland, AICP, Consulting Planner