CITY OF CHARLEVOIX

BOARD OF APPEALS

Wednesday, May 19, 1999

City Hall -- City Council Chambers

7:00 p.m.

A) CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Withrow at 7:05 p.m.

B) ROLL CALL

Members present: Withrow, Staley, Carlson & Alternate Gengle

Members excused: Linse

Members Absent: Smith

Others present: Dianne M. Manore, Zoning Administrator

Gerry Harsch, City Planner

C) DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES

Mr. Gengle was designated as alternate

D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of March 17 and April 14, 1999 were approved as presented. The Minutes of April 21, 1999 were tabled to the next meeting.

E) APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The agenda was approved as presented

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

Item #1: Case #99-09ZBA- Buday - 1520 Bridge

Chairman Withrow introduced the case, asking if the Applicant would like to present his case.

Mr. Buday stated he would be glad to answer any of the Board's concerns. Mr. Withrow stated that, based on the previous minutes, the Board does not understand what the change in road configuration would be in this area. The Board also looked at the current lot lines and where the road access will be. The concern is that it would not be conducive to parking in front of the building.

Mr. Staley asked if Mr. Buday received a copy of Mr. Wiesner's memo. Mr. Buday indicated that he had received a copy. He stated

that the front of the building has always been used for parking.

Mr. Lenhart asked how long the Applicant has had the building. Mr. Buday stated he has had it since about 1984. Mr. Lenhart asked if there has ever been a traffic accident caused by cars backing out.

Mr. Buddy stated they had one person hit from the rear on US31 and one person who lost consciousness and ran onto their property. There has been no accidents from backing out. He pointed out that they have alleviated most of the parking problems by purchasing the property behind them. All service and retail sales have been removed from this site. The building is strictly for custom type customers. There will not be a lot of traffic. Their storage is locate next to Andy's Party Store. Nothing will change except the looks of the building and entrance which will make it easier for people to access it. He pointed out that if they do purchase the triangular piece of property, they will wrap the entrance around that side. Then they may be willing to remove the front addition. Currently, they need the front for parking. Employees will not be parking in the front.

Mr. Staley asked if the Applicant could acquire the triangular piece of property, would he change their egress from US31 to Marion Center Road. Mr. Buday stated they would and that landscaping would be added to the front.

Mr. Staley pointed out that Mr. Wiesner has indicated a desire to relocate the proposed pump station easement to the other side of the highway. Mr. Buday questioned when this will happen. The Board did not know. Mr. Staley expressed concern with the close proximity of the highway.

Mr. Lenhart asked where people will park if the front is full. Mr. Buday stated they will park in the back (north side) of the property.

Mr. Staley pointed out that Stover Road will provide future access.

Mr. Withrow asked why they do not park on the south side. Mr. Buday stated there is only ten feet on the south side.

Mr. Withrow began to review the findings of fact. He expressed concern with the first finding, in that it would be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Staley stated he does not want to add to the problem, but that the Applicant cannot wait for future road construction. Staff was asked if the Board could approve this request when there are pending changes to the roadway. Mr. Staley suggested that the access off of US31 could be closed. Mr. Harsch stated it could be granted if the basic and special conditions are met. This is with the knowledge that in the future it will be changed. It was pointed out that this proposal was presented as temporary.

Mr. Harsch explained that the Board could impose a time frame for this variance. He pointed out that the Applicant has future plans for expansion to the rear of the property.

Mr. Carlson stated it is not the Applicant's intention to close off the existing entrance. The Applicant has agreed to add landscaping to the front.

Mr. Withrow asked if a five year time period would be acceptable. Mr. Carlson stated it would also depend on the Applicant purchasing the additional City owned property. Mr. Withrow pointed out that the Board is dealing with a lot of speculation and that a temporary variance could end up being a permanent variance.

Mr. Gengle stated that the Applicant is currently backing out into the right-of-way. Granting this variance would give the Applicant less room to back out of the property. Mr. Harsch suggested a condition for granting this variance could be that the Applicant get a permit from MDOT for a controlled (curb and gutter) driveway. Mr. Harsch presented the Board with a sketch of such a driveway for this site. He also pointed out that the Board could limit the number of allowable parking places in the front and that the remaining spaces would be parallel to the highway.

The Board asked how many parking spaces would be needed in the front. Mr. Buday stated they would need two spaces. There would also be room for parking on the north side since there is approximately 20' of space.

Mr. Harsch sketched a controlled driveway on the site plan for the Board to considered. The Board, Mr. Harsch and the Applicant reviewed the plans.

Mr. Withrow stated the Board would require that the front parking spaces be parallel with the existing building which would not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Withrow reviewed the special findings of fact with the Board to review. Mr. Withrow pointed out that there are a number of similar variances that have been granted in the past.

Motion by : Lenhart Supported by: Withrow

To approve a variance of nine (9') feet in the front yard setback for Case #99-09ZBZA at 1520 Bridge Street, to allow the Buday's to upgrade and improve their property. This request is granted on the basis that 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 this zoning district. The variance is granted with the following conditions:

1. That the two (2) parking spaces in the front will be parallel with the building and highway (US31).

2. That the Applicant will construct a driveway entrance based on the space available on the site.

Ayes: Gengle, Withrow, Lenhart and Staley

Abstain: Carlson

Nayes: None

Motion Carried

Item #2 Case #99-13ZBA - Brandi - 1008 St. James Place

Staff presented the Board with one letter of support from the Suzanne Miller.

Maureen Radke explained they are asking for a four (4') variance in the rear yard. This has been reduced from the advertised seven (7') request due to the fact that they have reduced the proposed eaves from 5' to 2'.

Ms. Radke stated there is practical difficulty and unnecessary hardships which exist on the site. The road right-of-way is a cul-de-sac. The lot is an irregularly shaped which gives them 70' along the front property line and 184' on the rear lot line. The house is angled to the rear lot line which creates the hardship. Only a small portion of the addition needs a variance due to the angle of the house. Ms. Radke stated they are asking to build the proposed addition. The existing rear deck will be removed.

Mr. Lenhart commended the Applicant on the letter they submitted to the Board. There were no other residents present who were interested in this case. The Board reviewed the findings of fact.

Motion by: Gengle Supported by: Lenhart

To grant a four (4') rear yard variance for Case #99-13ZBA for Rick Brandi and Maureen Radke. This variance is granted on the bases that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions which apply to the property in question that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity within the same zoning district and which have not resulted from any act of the applicant subsequent to the adoption of this Chapter.

This variance is granted on the basis that the irregular dimensions of the property are unique, the house is positioned on the lot in a unique manner and there are similar variances which have been granted in the past.

The Motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote.

H) OLD BUSINESS

The Board, by voice vote, approved the following Decisions & Orders as presented:

1. Decision & Order -Loper - 614 Division - 99-06ZBA

2. Decision & Order -McCarthy - 200 Nettleton - 99-07ZBA

2. Decision & Order -Mettler - 211 Bridge St. 99-08ZBA

I) OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

None

K. PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS

None

L. ADJOURNMENT

The Board adjourned the meeting at 7:50 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Dianne M. Manore, Zoning Administrator