MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2013
6:30 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Board
Members - Green, Higgins, Holthof, Lichtenwald, Pnacek and
Steele
ABSENT: Board
Member – Siemer
OTHERS PRESENT: Cindy Winland,
Consulting Planner, Jeff Burdick, Community Development Planner and six others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Higgins and supported by Lichtenwald
to approve the minutes of the January 15, 2013 meeting. Motion was approved unanimously 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 decision criteria in the Zoning Ordinance. The
variance is legally recorded with the property and is not transferrable to
another parcel.
Chairman Steele noted that Case No. 13-02
poses a conflict of interest to him and that he will recuse himself from this
case. Hank Holthof, an alternate member,
will take his place as a voting member for this case.
a.
No. 13-02 – Michael McKee for a use variance seeking to permit a
commercial vehicle with a rated capacity greater than one (1) ton to be parked
on a lot located in a residential zoning district for a period not to exceed
forty-eight (48) hours. Section 5.01.E
of the City of Midland Zoning Ordinance currently prohibits vehicles having a
rating capacity greater than one (1) ton from being parked on a lot in a
residential zoning district. The
property is zoned single family residential district RA-1 and is located at
5212 Cortland Street.
Background:
Ms. Winland explained that this case is a
request for a use variance. If granted,
it would allow a use in the RA-1 District that would normally not be
permitted. She presented a picture of
the property, which is improved with a single-family house. The request by the property owner is to add
an additional use to this property that would allow a commercial vehicle of
greater than one ton in carrying capacity to be parked on the property for
greater than 48 hours.
Ms. Winland informed the Board that a use variance
has standards that it must meet that are different than the standards of a
dimensional variance. She also noted
that, in order for a use variance to be granted, it must receive an approval
vote from four out of five voting Board members. She presented a map that illustrated property
owners on the same block as the subject property that have shown support for
this use variance request and noted that the Planning Department received one
letter from a property owner on the block that opposes this request.
(1)
The property can be reasonably
used for any purpose permitted in the zoning district without a variance.
Anne McKee, the petitioner’s wife, stated
that the Zoning Ordinance does not permit her husband to park the cab of his
semi in their driveway
(2) The unique circumstances
peculiar to the property that are not generally applicable in the area or to
other properties in the same zoning district.
The nature of the petitioner’s job requires him to park a
commercial vehicle in his driveway to avoid the situation of having to be
dropped off or picked up by his family at an off-site location at odd hours of
the night when his shift is beginning or ending.
(3) The variance will alter the
essential character of the area. In
determining whether the effect the variance will have on the character of the
area, the established type and pattern of land uses in the area and the natural
characteristics of the site and surrounding area will be considered.
Mrs.
McKee stated that the commercial vehicle would not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood. She noted
that the vehicle does not block the sidewalk when parked in their
driveway.
(4) Has the problem and resulting
need for the variance not been self-created by the applicant?
Mrs.
McKee stated that this vehicle has been parked in the driveway for nine months
with no issues. She noted that there are
recreational vehicles, and other large vehicles that are not considered
commercial, parked in driveways throughout the City. She stated that a commercial vehicle is not
clearly defined in the Zoning Ordinance and that when her husband is not
hauling a load with this vehicle, it is not considered a commercial vehicle but
a personal vehicle.
Discussion:
Mr. Higgins asked if it is a state law that
a commercial vehicle, such as a semi truck, is not considered commercial when
it is not carrying a load. Mrs. McKee
did not know if this was a state law. Mr.
Higgins noted the vagueness of the commercial vehicle definition in the Zoning Ordinance
and asked about tabling this case so that the Planning Department could
research the definition of a commercial vehicle. Ms. Winland replied that it is clear from the
ordinance that if a vehicle is over one ton in rated capacity, then it is
considered commercial. She added that
the licensing of the vehicle could contribute to its definition. Mr. Higgins asked Mrs. McKee if there is
signage on the vehicle making it appear commercial and if the vehicle is
commercially licensed. Mrs. McKee
answered yes to both questions.
Debbie Shaffer, who lives across the street,
stated that thinks it’s a hardship for Mr. McKee to have to get his family up
in the middle of the night to pick him up or drop him off at his truck. She noted that the truck is very quiet and
that she doesn’t consider it an eyesore.
No one spoke in opposition of request.
Findings of Fact:
1. The zoning of the property is RA-1.
2. The vehicle in question is a commercial
vehicle as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The vehicle in question is the cab of a semi
trailer.
4. The weight of the vehicle is unknown.
5. Residents have lived in the house for almost
one year.
6. Several nearby neighbors do not have an
issue with the parking of the commercial vehicle.
7. The vehicle will fit in the existing
driveway without encroaching over sidewalk.
8. There are nine neighbors in support and one
letter in opposition.
It was moved by Higgins and supported by Lichtenwald
to approve Petition No. 13-02 based on the findings of fact for a use variance
at 5212 Cortland Street to permit a commercial vehicle with a rated capacity
greater than one (1) ton to be parked on a lot located in a residential zoning
district for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours.
Holthof requested a friendly amendment to
the motion to limit the period to forty-eight (48) hours. Higgins supported the amendment and it was
seconded by Lichtenwald. Each Board of
Appeals member noted that they could not support the petition do to not meeting
the standards by which a use variance may be granted as outlined in the zoning
ordinance.
Vote on the motion:
Green: No
Higgins: No
Holthof: No
Lichtenwald:
No
Pnacek: No
Steele: (abstain)
The
motion to approve Petition 13-02 was denied by a vote of 5-0.
b.
No. 13-03 – Eco Bio Plastics
Midland and Gerace Inc. for a
variance seeking ad additional sign, pursuant to Table 8.2 of the City of
Midland Zoning Ordinance. The
application seeks to add a sign to identify Eco Bio Plastics Midland, a use
accessible through Gerace property, but without road frontage. The property is zoned Industrial B and is
located at 4037 Eastman Avenue. WITHDRAWN
c.
No. 13-04 – Jane Ouderkirk on
behalf of the Council on Domestic Violence (Shelterhouse) for a variance from Sections 3.03.B.1 and
3.03.B.3 of the City of Midland Zoning Ordinance that currently prohibits
accessory buildings in the front yard and that limits the maximum size of
accessory buildings. The application
seeks to permit the construction of a storage facility measuring up to forty
(40) feet by sixty (60) feet in size located between the front of the existing
residential structure and Isabella Street.
The property is zoned multiple-family Residential District RB and is
located at 3115 Isabella Street.
Background:
Ms. Winland stated that this request is for
two different dimensional variances.
Shelterhouse wishes to locate a 2,400 square foot pole barn storage
structure in the front yard of the property, which required a dimensional
variance. In addition, the size of the
proposed accessory structure and the existing accessory structures on the property
exceeds the 2,138 square feet of useable residential floor area on the first
floor of the shelter residence on the site.
Therefore, and additional dimension variance is needed for the
construction of the proposed accessory structure. Ms. Winland explained that the rear of the
property is not buildable, as it is almost entirely within the floodplain and
is marked by a steep slope down to the river.
(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?
Paul Avery, the maintenance supervisor at
Shelterhouse, stated that a much needed storage building would not be able to
be built to the rear of the property due to the existence of a floodplain.
(2) The variance will do
substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners.
Mr. Avery reiterated that the proposed storage building is
very much needed and that it would be used to store personal items, furniture
and other donated household items that can be used by the clients of
Shelterhouse, who are victims of domestic violence and often arrive at
Shelterhouse with very little provisions.
(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.
Mr.
Avery noted that the size of the proposed building is the smallest possible to
accommodate the growing need of Shelterhouse.
He stated that last year, there was a 12% increase in number of people
served by the agency.
(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.
Mr.
Avery stated that the primary structures are set back quite a distance from the
road, allowing very little room to the rear of the structures for additional
buildings.
(5) The problem and resulting
need for the variance has been created by strict compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance and not the applicant.
Mr.
Avery stated that the need for a variance is dictated by the large setback of
the building from the road and that this was created by the original developer
of the property.
Discussion:
Ms. Winland noted that two nearby property
owners wrote letters in support of this variance request.
Mr. Higgins asked Mr. Avery to explain the
need for a 2,400 square foot accessory building. Mr. Avery reiterated that Shelterhouse
receives many generous donations and does not have enough room to store these
items. Mr. Higgins asked Mr. Avery how
this size of a building was decided upon.
Mr. Avery replied that a building of this size is desired because of the
increasing amount of clients that Shelterhouse is serving. Mr. Green asked if this space is to serve as
storage space for clients or for general storage. Mr. Avery replied that it would be used for
both purposes. Mr. Green asked if the
storage building could be constructed on the west side of the property. Mr. Avery stated that this would be very
expensive, as this area is steep and significant fill would be needed for the
site. Mr. Steele asked if offsite
storage is utilized by Shelterhouse. Mr.
Avery replied that offsite storage is used on occasion.
Mike Sterling, a board member of Shelterhouse
spoke in favor of this request.
Kristin Riddle a volunteer at Shelterhouse
and architect for Three Rivers Corporation, the contractor for this project,
spoke in favor of request. She stated
that new storage is very much needed. Mr.
Steele asked Ms. Riddle how the interior of the storage building would be
designed. Ms. Riddle replied that the
interior would most likely be sectioned off for client storage space and contains
a larger area for general storage.
No one spoke in opposition to this request.
Findings of Fact:
1.
The
property is zoned Residential B.
2.
The topography
of the site and the existence of the floodplain render the rear yard unbuildable.
3.
The
proposed accessory structure will be well-shielded from the road.
4.
The
lot is just over 5 acres.
5.
The
Planning Department received two letters in support of this request.
6.
The
first floor residential portion of the principal building is 2,138 square feet.
7.
The
proposed structure is 40x60.
8.
The
dimensional variance for accessory structure size is approximately 1,100 square
feet.
9.
A 326
square foot shed on the property will be removed.
10.
An 864
square foot garage is currently located on the site.
11.
The
Planning Commission heard no opposition to this proposal.
It was moved by Higgins and supported by Pnacek
to approve Petition No. 13-04 based on the findings of fact for an
area/dimension variance at 3115 Isabella Street to permit the construction of a
storage facility measuring up to forty (40) feet by sixty (60) feet in size
located between the front of the existing residential structure and Isabella
Street with the condition that the trailer and 300 square foot outbuilding
currently located on the site be removed.
Vote on the motion:
Green: No
Higgins: Yes
Lichtenwald:
No
Pnacek: Yes
Steele: Yes
The
motion to approve Petition 13-04 was approved by a vote of 3-2.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (not related to items on the
agenda)
None
5. OLD BUSINESS
None
6. NEW BUSINESS
April 24 ZBA meeting date: Ms. Winland requested that the commission
consider a different date for the April ZBA meeting due to staff attending a
conference. It is too early to know if
there will be any items for the April meeting.
A decision on an April date can be made at the March ZBA meeting. Board
member Jon Steele asked Jeff Burdick to email the ZBA roster contact sheet to
members in case any corrections need to be made.
7.
DECISION SHEET SIGNATURES
a. 13-01
Review Findings of Fact
b. 12-09
Recorded
8.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing
no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia E. Winland, AICP
Consulting Planner