Board of Appeals Minutes
DRAFT
Minutes approved________________
---------------------------------
Greg Withrow, Chairman
CITY OF CHARLEVOIX
BOARD OF APPEALS
Wednesday, April 21, 1999
City Hall -- City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
A) CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Withrow at 7:15 p.m.
B) ROLL CALL
Members present: Withrow,Smith, Staley, Carlson & Alternate Gengle
Members excused: Linse (late)
Others present: Dianne M. Manore, Zoning Administrator
C) DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES
Mr. Gengle was designated as alternate
D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
E) APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as corrected, adding two items of correspondence
F) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Mr. Norm Carlson stated that since he is the contractor for Mr. Buday, he will step down for case #99-09ZBA
G) PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Loper - 614 Division - 99-06ZBA - Variance
Jean Loper was present to answer questions of the Board. Mrs. Loper stated she would like to divide her parcel into three lots for her three children. Lot "A" is short of the 100' wide building line requirement.
Mr. Withrow stated the Applicant is requesting a variance of 2.79' in lot width for lot "A". The other two lots meet the requirements of the ordinance. He pointed out that a greater variance was approved for Halverson.
Staff pointed out that if the variance is granted, the lot division will be reviewed and approved administratively.
Mrs. Loper pointed out that she has talked to her neighbors and they have no objections.
The Board determined that this request meets the findings of fact and that a similar variance has been granted and that the Applicant deserves the same property rights as other properties in the City.
Motion by Withrow, Supported by Gengle
To approve a variance for Case #99- 06ZBA for Jean Loper at 614 Division for 2.79' in lot width for Lot "A" as provided on the Certificate of Boundary Survey. The basis reasons for granting the variance have been met. Such variation is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties within the same zoning district. A similar variance has been granted in the same zoning district.
Ayes: Gengle, Smith, Withrow, Staley and Carlson
Nayes: None
Motion Carried
2. McCarthy - 200 Nettleton - 99-07ZBA - Variance
Mr. Steve Rozma was present to represent the Applicant Mr. & Mrs. McCarthy. He presented the Board with color copies of the proposed request. The Applicant is proposing to add a deck to the existing structure. The concrete porch and steps will be removed in the front of the house, which will update the existing setbacks from the road. Mr. Withrow pointed out that the photos as presented are old and changes have been made to the site.
Mr. Rozma stated there are two different entrance locations to the house. Without the proposed deck there is no ingress and egress from the garage. This will also soften up the edge of the house near the driveway.
Mr. Staley reviewed the lot coverages with Mr. Rozma. Mr. Rozma pointed out that this is not a normal sized lot. It is a half-lot. Staff stated it has only 4,600 sq. ft. of area. Mr. Staley questioned the rear yard lot coverage. Staff explained that there is a 30% lot coverage requirement in the ordinance. There is also a 30% rear yard lot coverage requirement which states that the rear yard cannot contain more than 30% coverage. A portion of the porch will be located within the rear yard. Staff pointed out that the majority of the house is located in the rear yard. Two variances are required, one for the total lot coverage and one for the rear yard lot coverage.
There is no correspondence. Mr. Rozma stated the neighbors do not object to this request.
Mr. Withrow pointed out that this request meets all the requirements of the findings of fact. The Board agreed that special finding #3 would apply in this case.
Motion by Carlson, Supported by Withrow
To approve a 3% variance in lot coverage and a 2.61% rear yard lot coverage variance for Case #99-07ZBA for Mr. & Mrs. McCarthy at 200 Nettleton. These variances have been granted in the past.
The basic reasons for granting the variance have been met. Such variation is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties within the same zoning district. Similar variances have been granted in the same zoning district.
Ayes: Smith, Withrow, Staley, Carlson & Gengle
Nayes: None
Motion Carried
3. Buday - 1520 US31 S - 99-09ZBA - Variance
Mr. Buday stated they are requesting to build a covered porch on the building to provide an entry for their customers. They are moving the design work to this location and removing the retail business. This will allow identification of the entry, safety and cover for their customers.
He stated that they do not want to expand to the rear since the City is planning road construction in this area. He stated that this structure would not be temporary, as stated by the Architect.
There is no "common" parking area as indicated on the plan.
Staff stated that the neighbor has received a fence permit for her property. Staff has visited the site and determined that there is enough room to access the rear of the property.
Mr. Staley expressed concern with this request. He referred to the highway plans for this area. The Board stated they did not know if the road improvements have been approved and where the expansion will be located.
Mr. Withrow asked if the road improvement will impact this property? If they are going to widen US-31, then perhaps this Board should not approve this request. Staff suggested that the plans for the road improvements could be supplied to the Board prior to them making their decision. Mr. Withrow requested that the plans also be sent to the Applicant.
Mr. Staley stated he does not wish to discourage small business expansion, but that there are alternatives.
The Applicant indicated that the parking may be able to be located on the other side of the building, once the City determines the location of the road. He stated this covered parking area will be safer for their clients, especially after the road improvements.
Mr. Gengle expressed concern with egress from the front parking area since there is only approximately 17' available. He also suggested that the Board find out where the new road will be located.
Mr. Withrow referred to the findings of fact, stating that #1 states: ..."not be contrary to the public interest or the general intent and purpose of this Chapter." He stated that the public interest is affected if there are changes in the road which may aggravate the Applicants parking clearance. For this reason, it cannot meet the law.
Mr. Staley stated there will be a new lane installed and additional snow control fencing. The State and County are involved in this project which has been endorsed by Council.
Mr. Withrow suggested tabling this matter so that Staff can supply the Board with information regarding the proposed road construction. Mr. Staley pointed out that if the Applicant wishes to alter his request, there will be no additional fee. It was also pointed out that a special meeting can be scheduled. Mr. Withrow asked Staff to contact counsel to see what legal requirements the Board has to follow on a proposed non-binding plan.
Staff was instructed to contact the City Attorney and supply the Board and the Applicant with plans for the proposed road construction.
Motion by Withrow Supported by Staley
to table Case #99-09ZBA to allow the Board to get additional information regarding the proposed road improvements.
The motion was passed by unanimous voice vote.
4. Mettler - 211 Bridge St. 99-08ZBA - Variance
Mr. Johnny Mathews was present representing the Applicant. He stated that a variance is needed on the SW corner, due to the basement flooding problem in that area.
The porch is proposed to run around the perimeter of the house and will never be enclosed.
Mr. Withrow pointed out that the variance is only applicable to the one small corner. This is a odd shaped piece of property. Mr. Withrow stated that this house precedes the zoning Ordinance.
A member of the public asked if there is an entrance to the south side of the building. Mr. Mathews stated there is. Mr. Withrow pointed out that there are two neighbors present in the audience and that they are in favor of this request.
Mr. Staley asked what will happen to the existing shed. Mr. Mathews stated they would like to locate it in the SW corner. Staff stated the shed cannot be located in the driveway, which is the "front" yard. Mr. Mathews agreed to remove the shed from the property. Mr. Staley expressed concern with the deck being so close to the lot line on the SE corner. Mr. Mathews stated that is the area where the flooding is a problem. The roof will shed the water away from the building. He pointed out that if he reduces it any further it will not solve his flooding problem.
Mr. Staley pointed out that the Applicant is already closer to the lot line than allowed. To allow this much more is something this Board has never granted. This would put the structure one foot from the lot line. He asked if the Applicant can do anything to move that section back from the lot line.
Mr. Mathews stated he asked Mr. Ferguson to look at alternatives. He pointed out that this area is not decking, but only a roof with two posts. Mr. Staley reviewed the elevations, pointing out that people could walk around the building without going over the lot line.
Mr. Mathews stated there are five apartments which will be rented to the employees of the Mettlers during the summer and vacationers during the winter.
Mr. Staley asked if the Applicant has a problem with the Board imposing a restriction that the decking will not be enclosed or used for living space. The Applicant stated he has no problem with that requirement. Mr. Staley pointed out that this is an R-4 zoning district and that there is no buildable area, which is an exceptional difficulty.
The Board reviewed the findings of facts.
Motion by: Withrow Supported: Gengle
To approve the variance request to allow the Applicant to restore and upgrade the existing structure in accordance with the plans submitted. This variance is granted with the following conditions :
1. That the existing shed be removed from the property
2. That the porch as designed shall not be enclosed and used for residential purposes.
This proposal meets all the findings of fact. This approval is based on Special findings #2. This is based on the fact that the configuration of the property does not lend itself to building an normal house with dimensions that would be acceptable. The lot coverage is acceptable as proposed and the Applicant should be able to use that type of lot coverage in this case.
H) OLD BUSINESS
1. Decision & Order - 1st Congregational Church
The Board approved the Decisions & Orders as presented.
I) OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
1. John Ferguson - interpretation of uses for the former Novotny Plumbing. Mr. Ferguson has asked the Board to determine if the interpretation made on the Curtis request would apply to this R-2 property.
Staff pointed out that Mr. Ferguson has indicated that he may wish to use this site as professional office, which is allowed in an R-2 district. This would require a special use permit.
The Board stated that they would need more information as to what Mr. Ferguson would like to establish on this site. Mr. Withrow stated that he can use this site for professional office with a special use permit. If there is a different use, he would have to come back to the Board.
2. Staff explained that the Episcopal Church is purchasing the Levinson house. This house is located in the CBD. Churches, parsonages and related church buildings are allowed in the CBD. However, Mr. J. Young, City Attorney has faxed us an opinion stating that a homeless shelter would not be allowed at this site.
Mr. Nichol, for Episcopal Church, stated they are buying this property for future use. The ESRA people are in discussion with the church for their facilities. The Church is asking the City what uses would be allowed at the site. They have also contacted the building department for their requirements. Classrooms, soup kitchens, etc. are also proposed. Mr. Nichol asked if the Church could apply for a variance for a homeless shelter. Mr. Withrow stated the Board would have a very difficult time granting such a variance. Mr. Nichol asked if the Church rented this facility, could they rent to a day care center or office use.
J. NEW BUSINESS
None
K. PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS
None
L. ADJOURNMENT
The Board adjourned the meeting by unanimous voice vote at 8:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Dianne M. Manore, Zoning Administrator
Back
To Index of Minutes
Back To City
Manager
City of Charlevoix - City Manager
210
State Street, Charlevoix, MI 49720
Phone: 231-547-3270
or Email:
mgr@ci.charlevoix.mi.us
.