CITY OF CHARLEVOIX
BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes
Wednesday, October 20, 1999
City Hall -- City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
A) CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Acting-Chairman Staley at 7:05 p.m.
B) ROLL CALL
Members present: Gengle (Alternate), Staley, Carlson, Smith (7:30)
Members Excused: Withrow, Linse and Lenhart
Others present: Gerry Harsch, City Planner
Dianne M. Manore, Zoning Administrator
C) DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES
Mr. Gengle was designated as alternate
D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of August 181, 1999 were approved as corrected.
E) APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as submitted
F) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Mr. Carlson stated he will abstain from the discussion and any action taken on Item #2
under Old Business.
G) PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case #99-26ZBA - Mary Feint - 413 Prospect
Mary Feint, Applicant stated the existing garage is very old and dilapidated. She stated
that she has difficulty getting in and out of this garage due to the short turning area. The
lot is small. If the proposed garage is placed eight (8') feet to the east of the house, she
would lose the light and view to her sitting room. She pointed out that there are
approximately six (6) garages that are within a few feet of the existing alley. The proposed
1 ½ car garage would allow for storage of lawn and snow equipment. She pointed out that
she needs a garage that she can get in and out of.
Staff presented one letter of support from Mr. John F. Young, which was read into the
record by Mr. Staley. He pointed out that the variance requested is for eight (8') feet. He
pointed out that the old existing garage is closer than what is being proposed. Mr. Staley
pointed out that during his site visit, he observed that most of the garages along the alley
are very close. This garage would have one of the largest setbacks in the area.
Mr. Staley closed the public hearing. He pointed out that this proposal calls for side yard
setbacks of sixteen (16'), which is an improvement. The Board reviewed the findings of
fact and special findings. It was pointed out that similar variances have been granted.
Motion by: Gengle Supported by: Carlson
to approve an eight (8') foot rear yard setback variance for Case #99-26ZBA.
The basic reasons for granting a variance are met. There are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstance 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 is a small fifty (50') lot abutting an alley. Similar
variances have been granted in the R-1 zoning district as indicated.
Ayes: Gengle, Staley and Carlson
Nays: None
Motion Carried
| SIMILAR R-1 VARIANCES - Rear Yard Setbacks | ||||||||
| Case # | Name | Zone | Address | Lot Cov | Side yard | Rear Yard | Lot Size | Reason |
| 99-07 | McCarthy | R-1 | 200 Nettleton | 3%
2.61% |
4,600 | deck remodel | ||
| 99-13 | Brandi | R-1 | 1008 St. James | 7' | irreg | deck | ||
| 98-19 | Pair
(Fuller) |
R-1 | 309 Burns | 13' | 31' | 10,933 | enlarge garage | |
| 8-1 97 | Gaffney | R-1 | 104 Auld | 5'/8' | 4' | irreg | garage | |
| 98-03 | Watson | R-1 | 107 Burns | 34'-7.6" | 8,778 | add. & renov. | ||
| 1996 | Left | R-1 | 308 Prospect | 2.2% | 5' | 2.9% | 6,500 | det.
garage |
| 1996 | Fuller | R-1 | 309 Burns | 11.6' | 33' | 10,933 | addit. | |
| 1989 | Dillon | R-1 | 218 E. Carpenter | 22.8' | 8,167.5 | Att. garage | ||
| 86-27 | Hamilton | R-1 | 206 Mich.Ave | 16.7 | 6' | 33.
15' |
4800
sq.ft |
Acc.
bldg & steps |
| 1986 | Bel Club | R-1 | 512 Belv. | 20' | ||||
| 1984 | Hayes | R-1 | 401 E.
Dixon |
20% | 12' | 24' & 8" | 6204
sq.ft |
Attach
garage |
2. Case #99-27ZBA - Don's IGA - 402 Petoskey Avenue
Mr. Stalely introduced the case. Mr. Malewitz was present, representing the applicants
Mr. & Mrs. Don Haney.
Mr. Malewitz explained that the Applicants would like to expand the existing store.
Currently, they do not meet the parking requirements of the Ordinance. They have been
using the area on the west side of the building (Burns St.) for years. This area has been
asphalted over the years. With this area, they would meet all the parking requirements.
However, this area is City property. This variance would allow the Applicant to continue
using this parking area. To meet the zoning requirements, they would have to have to
obtain a variance. The site plan meets all the requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Novotny, pointed out that this area has been used for parking over the past 30-35
years, which has set a precedent. He pointed out that the addition is on the same plain
as the existing building and that nothing is really changing.
Mr. Bruce McArthur, stated that parking for this use is not long term, like a doctor's office.
The west side parking is for employees and does not interfere with where he would wish
to park.
Staff presented a note of concern from Ms. Buckner at 201 Burns Street. Her concern related to early morning (6:00 a.m.) deliveries, refrigerator trucks and garbage trucks. She also pointed out that the Haney's maintain their property and have a good business. Mr. Malewitz pointed out that the plan does not change where the trucks would enter and unload.
Mrs. Haney stated they do not have deliveries that early, since the store does not open
until 8:00 a.m.
A neighbor on Prospect pointed out that the only early sound they hear are the garbage
trucks.
Mr. Carlson stated that rents three apartments on Burns Street. He has poled his
neighbors regarding the noise, and that they have no problems. He also stated that he
has no problems with the parking along Burns Street.
Mrs. Haney stated they have contacted Waste Management regarding the noise, but that
it is out of their control. Stocking of the outdoor pop machines is done by the Haney's and
not the delivery people.
Mr. Gengle addressed the Right-of-Way license. Mr. Harsch stated there is a mechanism
where the applicant can be granted a right-of-way use license. This has been done in the
past, at the Weathervane. This license could be condition of any variance granted. Staff
pointed out that the application for a special right-of-way license has been submitted for
consideration by City Council. If approved, this license would not have a time limit, unless
conditions change in the future.
Mr. Carlson pointed out that even without the right-of-way license, this variance request
is for the east parking lot. It was pointed out that lack of parking has never been a problem
in the past.
Ms. Billie Smith arrived at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Staley updated Ms. Smith on the case under
discussion.
Mr. Malewitz pointed out that his office and Don's IGA share the shrubs that were installed
between their two buildings. It was pointed out that the trucks would continue to enter
from Burns Street and exit by way of Petoskey Avenue.
Mr. Harsch stated that if the ZBA feels there is a need for a right-of-way license, staff will
proceed to City Council. Mr. Staley expressed concern that precedent is being set. Mr.
Harsch stated there are also other established businesses (Weathervane) that did not
have another option, the City has granted such a license.
Mr. Novotny pointed out that an exception was also made for Burger King to reduce the
blacktop and add greenery. This would be consistent with other variances which have
been granted.
Staff presented the Board with one letter of concern regarding noisy deliveries. There
have also been a number of affirmative comments regarding this application.
Mr. Gengle pointed out that this approval would be for about 25% of the parking spot. The
Board reviewed the findings of fact and special findings.
Motion by Carlson Supported by Gengle
to approve a variance for eight (8) parking spaces for Case #99-21ZBA. The basic reasons for granting this variance have been met. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstance 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 is based on the fact that the Applicant is currently
using the parking spaces along Burns Street, and have in done so in the past. This
is not taking away any existing parking spaces.
As a stipulation, the Zoning Board of Appeals requests that the Applicant obtain
a right-of-way use permit from City Council.
Ayes: Smith, Staley, Carlson & Gengle
Nays: None
Motion Carried
H) OLD BUSINESS
1. Decision and Order - Case #99-21ZBA - Amick-224 Bridge Street -DRAFT
Motion by Gengle Supported by Carlson
to approve the Decision & Order DRAFT for Case #99-21ZBA
Ayes: Staley, Carlson, Gengle & Smith
Nays:
Motion CARRIED
2. Reconsideration of Case #99-09ZBA - Buday
Mr. Harsch explained that a condition of the variance granted for this case was that the
Applicant obtain a permit for a driveway entrance off of US31. In addition, they were to
consolidate down to one driveway. The Applicant applied to MDOT for a permit and were
denied. The reason for this is that the City is in the process of working with MDOT to
construct the re-alignment of Marion Center Road. MDOT has denied their request on the
basis that they do not want a driveway cut at this location. The proposed re-alignment will
afford the Applicant with access from Marion Center Road. In addition, the City is
negotiating with the Applicant over a triangular piece of property with will afford them two
new entrances. For these reasons, the Applicant is requesting that the ZBA remove this
requirement from the provisions of the variance which was granted.
Mr. Carlson explained that there is enough room to park in the front, with access from the side of the building. Once the highway is done, this area will be curbed with no access.
Mr. Staley pointed out that currently, parking in the front area is incorrect and they are
backing out onto the highway. He stated the agreement was to have this as designate
parallel parking. This has not been done. Mr. Harsch stated staff is aware of this situation
but that they are still under construction and have not occupied the building. The Board
expressed concern with the existing parking and the fact that the road construction will not
commence until next spring. Mr. Harsch assured the Board that the Applicant will re-organize the existing parking.
Due to a conflict, Mr. Carlson will not vote on this matter.
Motion by: Staley Supported by: Gengle
to amend the Decision and Order for Case #99-09ZBA as follows: whereas the State
plans indicate a future access to this property from Marion Center Road. In addition,
curb and butter will be constructed along US31. For this reason, the required MDOT
approval was denied. The Applicant has agreed that the temporary front parking
restrictions are still in effect.
Ayes: Gengle, Smith, Staley
Nays: None
Abstain: Carlson
Motion Carried
I) OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
1. Revisions to Case #99-12ZBA - St. Mary's Church
Mr. Harsch stated that the drawings submitted, indicate that the stack is at lease three (3')
feet above the roof, plus the air intake cone. There are two mechanical structures which
have been installed on the roof. Mr. Harsch pointed out that the Ordinance includes
mechanicals. No air-conditioning has been requested or installed.
Mr. Stalely pointed out that the letter received from St. Mary's indicates that it was their
understanding that their architectural firm would accept responsibility for "providing all site
information required by the City. This has not been done." Mr. Staley and Mr. Harsch
discussed the notification of this request. Mr. Harsch stated that at the ZBA meeting, there
was motion made to include the one (1') height variance. The Board unanimously agreed
to proceed with consider that variance, even though it was not specifically listed on the
notice. There were no complaints at the meeting.
Mr. Staley stated that may have been a mistake. Mr. Harsch indicated that matter has
been discussed with Mr. Young (City Attorney). He has stated that if there has not been
anyone who has filed a complaint regarding the Board's actions, that it was not a problem.
Mr. Harsch addressed Section 5.5 (15a) of the ordinance: "Provided, however that
chimneys and plumbing vents shall not be considered building roof, when their extension
above the roof deck is required to meet State or local building, plumbing and/or safety
codes and there is no reasonable design alternatives, including a rearrangement of floor
plans for building, which would allow for a height reduction of such appurtenances."
If these types are required by State or local codes and there is not another way to arrange
the building, they do not have to be counted. Mr. Harsch stated it would appear that these
mechanicals need to be where they were installed.
Mr. Staley pointed out that these mechanicals were never presented to the Board. Mr.
Gengle pointed out the Applicant is asking for forgiveness and not permission. Mr. Harsch
pointed out that the Applicant has not provided documentation that the mechanicals need
to be where they have been placed. This documentation has not been supplied. Mr.
Harsch stated, with the variances, the allowable height was to go to 27' feet.
Mr. Buday stated the wall of the structure was dropped three (3') feet. The Board
discussed the existing building height and the height of the mechanical. The agreed that
new plans should be submitted with a letter of explanation from Haggard Plumbing and
Heating indicating that these structures need to be where they are.
A decision on this matter was tabled to allow the Applicant time to re-submit the
appropriate plans for review and possible revision.
K. PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS
None
L. ADJOURNMENT
The Board adjourned the meeting at 8:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Dianne M. Manore, Zoning Administrator