Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 April 12, 2017 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES April 12, 2017 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Robert Krasniewski, Dennis Penney, Tom Willadsen, Kathryn Larson EXCUSED: None STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Zoning Administrator; Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Katie Breselow, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of January 11, 2017 were approved as presented. (Penney/Carpenter; Larson abstained) ITEM I: 1611 N. MAIN STREET Thomas G. Putzer-owner/applicant requests the following variance to permit driveway access in the minimum side yard setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Side yard setback (south) 30-172(N)(1)(a) 6” 0” Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He described the subject .12 acre (approximately 5,400 square feet) property is rectangular in shape and located on the west side of N. Main Street. It is zoned SR-9 Single Family Residential District and used for single-family dwelling purposes. The parcel is bordered by single-family residential uses in all directions except the west, which is two-family residential. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 24’x24’ detached garage in the rear yard of the subject property, west of the existing home. Additionally the existing driveway will be replaced and extended to provide adequate access to the proposed new garage (see attached site plan). A variance is required as the driveway will cross the side (south) property line and intrude in the required side yard setback. Unique property circumstances are present in this request. Specifically, the subject property does not have direct street access under its current and historical configuration. Instead, access to the rear yard parking area has been traditionally provided through cross-access with the properties to the south with ingress/egress onto W. Bent Avenue. Based on the information staff recommended approval of the variance with the condition that a cross-access easement is recorded with the Register of Deeds to include 1611, 1607, and 1603 N. Main Street. Thomas Putzer, 628 Ceape Avenue stated he has owned the property for over 40 years and would like to build a double garage on one property and redo the driveways for all buildings. Mr. Carpenter asked if all properties were rentals. Mr. Putzer answered affirmatively. Ms. Larson asked if only the driveways were needing the variance. Mr. Muehrer responded that it is essentially an alley way that is being redone between properties only to include the driveways. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 April 12, 2017 Mr. Penney asked what the driveways would be replaced with material-wise. Mr. Putzer responded that they would all be concrete. Mr. Muehrer stated that all the driveways are in need of repair and page 7 reflects that image. Mr. Carpenter asked if the properties have been surveyed. Mr. Putzer stated that he discussed that with Mr. Muehrer and would have to do that and is more than willing. Mr. Carpenter responded that to be sure it would be a good idea. Mr. Krasniewski asked if there is an issue with impervious because it’s pushing 2000 feet with the garage and the house. Mr. Muehrer answered not that he is aware of and the other houses would be grandfathered in. Mr. Penney stated Mr. Putzer should be commended for wanting to improve all properties. Mr. Krasniewski asked if the size is correct on the site plan on page 6. Mr. Muehrer responded that it would be 24’x24’, Mr. Putzer reaffirmed that it would be 24’x26’, Mr. Krasniewski motioned to approve a driveway access in the minimum side yard setback with the condition that a cross-access easement is recorded with the Register of Deeds to include 1611, 1607, and 1603 N. Main Street. Motion seconded by Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Willadsen asked if all three properties needed to be sold together if the variance was approved. Mr. Muehrer responded that they would not, the access agreement would just provide access for all residents. Approved 5-0. Findings of facts: No harm to the public interest. The property has unique physical limitations. Cross access easement will ensure there will be no future problems with the three effected property owners. Continuing the existing pavement would prevent a new curb cut to be cut into a busier street. ITEM II. 1305 HURON COURT Anna and Russ Zajicek-petitioners/owners request the following variances to permit 6-foot tall, solid wood fencing to be constructed in the minimum front yard setback: Description Code Reference Max Proposed Fencing design 30-192(E)(2)(a) 50% opaque > than 50% Fence height (front yard) 30-192(F)(1)(a) 4’ 6’ Board of Appeals Minutes 3 April 12, 2017 Mr. Slusarek presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He described the subject 0.22 acre (approximately 9,648 square feet) property is a triple-fronted irregular-shaped lot located on the interior island of Huron Court. It is zoned SR-3 Single Family Residence District and is used for single-family dwelling purposes. The parcel is bordered by single-family residential uses in all directions. The petitioners are proposing to construct a 6’ tall solid wood fence in the front yard (east) and rear yard of the parcel. According to the petitioners, the purpose of the proposed fencing is to provide privacy for usage of the yard area. Based on the information staff is recommending approval of the variances to permit 6-foot tall, solid wood fencing to be constructed in the minimum front yard setback with the condition that landscaping be installed on the exterior (street-facing) side of the fence. Anna and Russ Zajicek, 1305 Huron Court. Ms. Zajicek stated that for starters the dimensions are wrong on the site map page 5. that the lot line is 15’ from the curb, Then she stated that it is a unique property and that the privacy fence is for functional yard space. She stated that there are safety concerns with her home being in the middle of the street though individuals’ site line would not be affected by the garage and the fence would be diagonal on the corner for visibility when cars are driving past. Mr. Zajicek mentioned that they have two small dogs and that was the main reason for the variance of the fence. Mr. Krasniewski asked if any part of the fence would be 25’ from the street, Mr. Zajicek answered that once the street starts curving the fence will then be diagonal. Ms. Zajicek stated that there are safety issues with the dogs and the children. Mr. Carpenter asked what the appearance of the fence would be. Mr. Zajicek answered it would be a cedar fence, concaved instead of flat. Mr. Penney asked if on page 5 the diagram could be described as to where the gate would be. Mr. Zajicek answered that it is a four-foot wide gate. Mr. Penney advised that they make the gate bigger to get yard equipment in and out. Mr. Zajicek responded that he would discuss that with the contactor. Ken and Linda Kuehn, 1270 Huron Court stated that they wanted clarification that the fence must be 25’ from the curb all the way around the property. Mr. Slusarek clarified that it is 10’ from the property line and 25’ from the curb. Mr. Kuehn stated that there is potential for a double angel on the corner if need be to see for driving. Ms. Kuehn stated she was concerned that it is in the front yard and the view from her house is now going to be a fence, yet she understands the dog issue. She is torn between the two. Irene Lynch, 1265 Huron Court stated that she has lived at her residence for 30 years and that the court is unique and has all open area. She is concerned that this variance will set precedence to future neighbors and believes that there are design standards with other options for fencing. She also stated concerns with the children and safety as there are Board of Appeals Minutes 4 April 12, 2017 no sidewalks. She then stated that the new neighbors should be okay with the rules as they are because they did buy the house knowing these factors. Mr. Larson asked if she would be okay with the fence knowing there would be plantings in front of the fence. Ms. Lynch responded negatively because the fence would still be 6’ tall even if decorative. There are other options for the court she believes. Mr. Carpenter asked if any other properties had fencing. Ms. Lynch confirmed there are other properties but they are in the back of their houses and Emmeline Cook School also took down their fence they previously had. Mr. Penney motioned to approve the variances to permit 6-foot tall, solid wood fencing to be constructed in the minimum front yard setback with the condition that landscaping be installed on the exterior (street-facing) side of the fence. Motioned seconded by Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Penney stated he was very sympathetic but the owners knew the rules before buying the property. He is having a hard time seeing the hardship. Mr. Krasniewski mentioned that he has the same issue with dogs and has a 4’ fence and it keeps the dogs in and also that he has an issue with the backyard fence as it would be right up to the property line and there is no way to have plantings along it. Mr. Carpenter stated that the Board is always looking for unique situations and this is definitely unique with its three front yards. As long as there is landscaping along the fence. he understands the dog issue as a 4’ fence may not keep the dogs in. Mr. Penney responded that there have been situations before where someone buys property and then asks for a variance and the Board tells them they should have thought about it beforehand as there are other options. He does agree though that it is a unique lot. Mr. Carpenter asked what the difference between a 4’ and 6’ fence would be. Mr. Krasniewski stated that they could put up a 4’ fence but it would need to be open, To have a solid fence they still need a variance. Mr. Carpenter asked if there are other options to fencing. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the fence does not need to be closed or solid. Ms. Larson asked about a wrought iron fence. Mr. Cornell mentioned he thought it was interesting that there are no sidewalks and asked if the kids only play in those two yards specifically that there is that concern. Mr. Penney stated that Mr. Krasniewski mentioned a different type of fencing but that would only take care of the dog portion not the privacy portion. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 April 12, 2017 Mr. Slusarek responded that chain link fencing is prohibited in the front yard according to the ordinance. Mr. Krasniewski stated that plantings could help with the privacy portion. Mr. Carpenter stated a chain link would still not help with the dogs and a safety issue. Mr. Krasniewski replied that a wrought iron fence would be the same as a child could put their entire arm in. Mr. Penney responded that everything is in the front yard. Mr. Muehrer reminded the Board that when looking at a variance they are looking at the property circumstances not the owner circumstances. Ms. Larson responded that there are three street yard setbacks which makes it unique and have no rear yard. Mr. Cornell stated it calls for discussion as the Board deals very little with islands; they typically have rectangular or square lots not island shaped one. It throws a curveball into the situation on how to proceed. Ms. Larson stated that this is a unique feature to the property and there are not others in the area with it except the property behind it. Mr. Penney asked what happens when 1300 Huron Court wants to put up a fence as they have the same property circumstances. Ms. Larson answered that it would look the same way and has to go through the same procedure. Mr. Carpenter stated there are other variances that were approved with unique circumstances as well that needed an 8’ fence for a special needs child, Mr. Muehrer mentioned that those also had different circumstances pertaining to the ADA Federal Law. Ms. Larson stated that whether or not the owners have dogs is not a concern it is whether or not the property has physical limitations or not. Mr. Carpenter responded that they have a unique property with three front yards. Ms. Larson stated that they need to be looking at how the owners will have the same opportunity as the other property owners with having a backyard. Mr. Penney responded if we are not looking at the dogs then asked why the owners can’t have a 4’ fence, Ms. Larson answered that it would not give them privacy which is what they are looking for. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the solid fence they are asking for would be the only thing giving them privacy. Approved 4-1 (Ayes-Carpenter, Cornell, Krasniewski, Larson. Nays-Penney) Findings of facts: Unique in that it has three street yard setbacks. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 April 12, 2017 The fences area will allow the owners a rear yard and ensure them privacy to outdoor use similar to other property owners. This is a court rather than through street with very little cross traffic. Little to no adverse effect to the neighborhood. Style of fence and landscaping will be in accordance with the style and residential uses of the neighborhood. III. 1130 CUMBERLAND TRAIL Chet Wesenberg Architect LLC-applicant, Cumberland Court Master Dev LLC-owner, requests the following variance to permit a personal antenna/tower in the minimum setback area: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Freestanding Tower Setback 30-86(T)(3) 70’ 39’8” (north) & 23’ (east) Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The subject 2.9 acre (approximately 129,900 square feet) property is irregularly shaped and located on the east side of Cumberland Trail. It is zoned MR-12 Multi- Family Residential District and used for multi-family dwelling purposes. The parcel is bordered by single-family residential uses to the west, multi-family residential to the north and south, and infrastructure land use to the east. The general area is comprised predominately of low to medium density residential uses. The applicant is proposing to construct a new free-standing tower/antenna in the rear yard of the subject property to broadcast a WIFI signal to the complex’s community center and nine apartment buildings for tenant use, A variance is required as the proposed tower setback will intrude in the required north and east setback. The placement restrictions coupled with the complex’s extensive geographic area are creating a hardship in this instance, Specifically. the overall height of the tower needs to be significantly elevated (which increases the setback standard) since it is intended to serve nine buildings over 1/5 of a mile in distance (north to south), However. as the site plan shows there is 23’ from the edge of the tower to the east property line and 39’8” to the north property line shared between the complexes, If the tower were reduced in height to match these geographic limitations it would not serve the entire nine-building complex adequately. Based on the information provided within this report, staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Susan van Houwelingen, 600 Merritt Ave. Corey Wallace, 240 Algoma Blvd. stated that the summary by staff was correct. He went on to state that if they complied with the zoning ordinance it would be more detrimental to the property and the residents. There is also no risk of damage. Ms. van Houwelingen stated that when they started the project it was not a regulation to have WIFI and now HUD requires it in their new guidelines for new construction or renovations to properties. The housing authority plans to use the WIFI for residents along with holding meetings at the community center. Mr. Cornell asked if this was city-wide. Ms. van Houwelingen answered that the tower would help families in 9 buildings and the community center there. It does not go across town. The people that use the community center will have the ability to use the WIFI provided then. Currently they do not have a location to meet with families. Mr. Krasniewski asked how tall the tower was. Mr. Wallace responded under 70’ but he believed 60’. Mr. Krasniewski stated he was confused on the location of the tower looking at page 15. Board of Appeals Minutes 7 April 12, 2017 Ms. van Houwelingen stated that on page 8 it shows a general location of where it will be. Mr. Muehrer handed Mr. Krasniewski another site plan that indicated precisely where the tower was going to be that was left out of the staff report packet. Mr. Carpenter asked how many other towers exist in the area. Ms. van Houwelingen answered she is unsure. Mr. Muehrer stated that this is not a cellular tower it is a personal antenna. He gave an example of an individual putting up an antenna at their house to get local television channels. If it was an ATT or US Cellular towers there would be different guidelines and regulations. Mr. Willadsen asked why they couldn’t use two smaller towers that are complaint with code instead of the taller one. Ms. van Houwelingen answered that the height is needed to reach all units on the property. Mr. Willadsen wondered if two towers could reach the same area. Ms. van Houwelingen responded negatively as they need the height to go across city. Mr. Cornell stated it was very logical and convenient for the location. Ms. van Houwelingen recommended that board members take a drive to look at the property as it is being renovated and the tower will not be an eye sore, it actually looks very nice. Mr. Larson asked if it would break into sections if it were to fall over. Mr. Wallace answered that it is made of 10’ sections but if it were to fall over it would only fall on their property, Mr. Krasniewski responded that it could fall in one piece. Ms. van Houwelingen answered that it would only damage their property or would go into the drainage. Mr. Cornell stated that there is definitely a change from the old code to the new code. Mr. Muehrer responded that it is much more detailed now. Mr. Wallace stated that they did look at options that were compliant with the code. However, this antenna at the height requested would be less detrimental to the area. Mr. Carpenter motioned to approve a personal antenna/tower in the minimum setback area. Motion seconded by Mr. Penney. Approved 5-0 Findings of facts: The proposed location is the best aesthetically to the neighborhood. Board of Appeals Minutes 8 April 12, 2017 No harm to public interest. All safety concerns have been addressed by the location. ITEM IV. 566 N MAIN STREET Jeremy West-owner/applicant, requests the following variance to permit a wall-mounted sign that obscures the windows of a building. Description Code Reference Required Proposed Sign Placement 30-271(B)(3)(e)(iii) Cannot obscure In front of window Mr. Slusarek presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The subject 0.88 acre (approximately 38,730 sf) property is located on the east side of N. Main Street and also has frontage on Jefferson Street. It is zoned CMU Central Mixed Use District and used by multiple tenants for commercial bar/tavern purposes. The parcel is bordered by commercial uses to the north and west, mixed use to the south, and residential uses to the south and east. The general area is predominately commercial and mixed use in character. The applicant is proposing to install a new 3’X10’. 6” thick. backlit steel cut out sign in front of the windows over the front entrance, The sign is needed for a new tenant for identification purposes. A variance is required because the proposed new sign would be mounted in a manner that obstructs windows. Staff is supportive of the variance as the front façade lacks feasible area for signage that will not obscure architectural features or windows. Based on the information provided within this report, staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Jeremy West, 570 N. Main Street, stated that the property is a unique ornamental property. He is currently expanding his business in the area and there is virtually no space with all the glass. He then went on to describe the sign he would like to put up. Mr. Larson asked if the sign would be parallel. Mr. West confirmed it would be. Mr. Cornell asked if the business is currently there already. Mr. West responded that he is expanding the Varsity Club, but they will be two separate businesses connected with one door inside. They will have the same liquor license. Mr. Cornell asked if the Varsity Club was owned by a separate owner. Mr. West stated that he owned both businesses. Mr. Cornell asked if there was only one entrance on Main Street for both businesses. Mr. West responded that both businesses have their own entrances on Main St. and that the sign will be tucked in. Mr. Penney asked if it is removable. Mr. West answered affirmatively. Ms. Larson asked if the glass was open to see the bar. Mr. West answered affirmatively and stated that it is one of the things that makes the building unique is all the glass. Board of Appeals Minutes 9 April 12, 2017 Mr. Penney asked if the sign was going to have a light inside. Mr. West answered affirmatively. Mr. Willadsen asked how a steel sign was illuminated. Mr. West described the light would come from the back and the back would be roughly white and then there would be lights inside also. Mr. Penney asked if the bar was open currently. Mr. West answered the opening date would be May 6, 2017. Mr. Krasniewski stated that on page 7 it makes the sign look larger then it will actually be. Mr. West responded that initially they were going to make the sign larger but then after discussion with the designer decided on smaller to make the logo look better. Mr. Cornell asked if they were serving food at Fletch’s or strictly a tap house, Mr. West confirmed it was just a tap house, that the Varsity Club will serve food. Mr. Krasniewski motioned to approve a wall-mounted sign that obscures the windows of a building. Motion seconded by Mr. Carpenter. Ms. Larson mentioned she was glad they will protect the integrity of the building. Mr. Krasniewski responded that he walks past the building at the gallery walk and it is a beautiful building and the sign will not detract from the building. Approved 5-0 Findings of facts: Proposed location of the sign will make the best place for the integrity of the building. No adverse effect on surrounding properties with the sign which is consistent with other signs in the area, signs are essential for any business district. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. (Krasniewski/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Zoning Administrator