PENINSULA TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 8, 2012 Amended & Approved

Transcription

1 PENINSULA TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 8, 2012 Amended & Approved Meeting called to order at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Byron; Snow (alternate); Hosmer; Soutar; Vida; Uecker, Zoning Administrator; and Deb Hamilton, Recording Secretary. ABSENT: Cowall (excused). Adoption of the Agenda MOTION: Soutar/Byron to approve the Agenda as presented. Conflict of Interest Public Input - for items not on the agenda Correspondence September 7, 2012 letter from Rob Mittelstaedt (regarding Request No. 796). 1. Request No. 796, Zoning R1-C Applicant: Jeffrey & Carey Owens, 6351 Peninsula Drive, Traverse City, MI Property Address: 6351 Peninsula Drive, Traverse City, MI Requests: (1) 5 3 variance from the required minimum 15 ft. side yard setback from the southerly property line to allow for a second story addition to the existing residence; (2) a 6 10 variance from the required minimum 15 ft. side yard setback from the northerly property line to allow for a second story addition to the existing residence; (3) a 5 3 variance from the required minimum 15 ft. side yard setback from the southerly property line to allow for a 4 ft. extension of the existing south building line to allow for a second story addition to the existing residence; (4) a 6 10 variance from the required minimum 15 ft. side yard setback from the northerly property line to allow for a one story addition to an existing garage, matching the proposed northerly building line of the residence. Parcel Code No Vida opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Uecker stated this application was tabled (withdrawn) due to an error in publication. There is an error in the publication again. Variances #2 & #4 should be an 8 10 variance however a

2 variance was published. Uecker has discussed the issue with the applicants. They would like to hold the hearing, then adjourn to another meeting and re-publish. There was Board consensus to continue with the public hearing. Uecker explained Request No Soutar asked about the new garage structure. Variance #4 states allow for a one story addition to an existing garage The garage is not referenced as a new structure. Uecker said for Soutar to ask the applicant. Mark Humitz, Cornwall Architects, the applicants are applying for four separate variances. On the southern property line, variance #1 is a 5 3 variance for a second story addition to the existing house. The existing encroachment is the same 5 3. Variance #3 is for a 4 ft. addition to the east this will add square footage into the setback area but does not encroach any further to the south than the existing structure. On the northern property line, variance #2 is a one story addition on top of the existing structure. The applicants are reducing the encroachment by roughly 2 ft. The existing house has a 4 ft. overhang and the new addition would have a 2 ft. overhang. Variance #4 is the proposed garage addition. Soutar said the request states to allow for a one story addition to an existing garage This is a new structure. Mr. Humitz said the intent is to build a one story garage in front of the existing home. Hosmer asked the square footage of the proposed garage addition. Mr. Humitz said it is 30 x 40, about 1200 sq. ft. There is potential for that to be reduced. Vida asked what the total lot size is in square feet. Mr. Humitz said the total lot area is 25,614 sq. ft. Vida asked there is no issue with lot coverage with the addition. Mr. Humitz said correct, the lot coverage would be just over 21%. Vida asked Uecker if the existing variances are prior to the 1972 ordinance. Uecker said yes the existing walls are legal non-conforming built prior to the ordinance. The reason the request is in front of the Board is the applicants are asking to extend that legal non-conformity. On all second story additions where a house does not conform to begin with, it requires the Board approval to put on the second story. Vida said going straight up the applicants are not violating the setback any more than any of the existing variances except for the new addition. How much does the new addition encroach? Mr. Humitz said it encroaches 8 10 and that was the number that was incorrectly published. Vida asked the dimensions of the new garage. Mr. Humitz said it is 40 ft. east/west and 30 ft. north/south. Uecker asked the square footage of the encroaching part. Discussion about the square footage and roughly 360 sq. ft. was decided. Byron asked how much square footage is being added to the house putting on the second story and the addition of the 30 x 40' garage. Mr. Humitz said the house today 3,313 sq. ft. and when we are finished it will be 5,429 sq. ft. about an additional 2,100 sq. ft. that includes the garage. Soutar said he is in favor of allowing the variance for the second story addition. The new garage causes a problem because it is a new structure and should adhere to the current code. Byron said she has no problem with adding the second story; however the garage adds a huge amount of non-conformance to the house. Hosmer said all the setbacks are legal non-conforming with the 2

3 exception of the garage. She feels the garage can be moved within the building envelope. Snow said he agrees that the Board should grant variances #1, #2, and #3 but not #4 because the garage can be moved. Vida said he also has a problem with variance #4. Hosmer said variance #4 should be changed from one story addition to existing garage to one story garage addition. Vida thinks the applicant has the option to readdress variance #4 for possible redesign. Uecker said if the Board adjourns the hearing, the applicant could make a different proposal to the Board at the next meeting. The hearing can be opened again for comment on the new number. Mr. Humitz added the applicants have letters from neighbors on both sides supporting the project. The applicants feel they are approving the situation on the north lot line by lessening the encroachment that is there now. The applicants feel shifting the garage will limit the view of the front door of the home, make a vehicular entrance from the south tight and having the garage doors not facing the road is more aesthetically pleasing. Vida said the applicants have the option of correcting the language on variance #4 or rewrite it. Soutar added or withdraw the request for variance #4. Mr. Humitz said he will reword the language to a one story garage addition to the existing home rather than reduce the Soutar said he is against having the any part of the garage in 15 ft. side yard setback. The garage should comply with the Township s current ordinances. Byron said the issue is the 360 additional ft. of encroachment on the north side. The applicants are adding to the non-conformance not only by going up but by extending. MOTION: Soutar/Byron to adjourn Request No. 796 to the December 13, 2012 meeting and to be first on agenda. Roll Call Vote: Soutar-yes, Byron-yes, Hosmer-yes, Snow-yes and Vida-yes. 2. Request No. 801, Zoning R1-A Applicant: Thomas Y. & Rosanne C. Bloomer, Trust, 3100 W. Northfield Church Road, Ann Arbor, MI Property Address: 4242 Rocky Shore Trail, Traverse City, MI Requests: (1) a variance of 12.5 ft. from the required minimum 60 ft. setback from the Ordinary High Water Line; (2) a variance of 4.7% from the required maximum 15% lot area coverage. Both variances requested for the proposed construction of a new single family residence. Parcel Code No Uecker explained Request No Uecker also presented the tax map of the parcel in question. There are three different road easements involved in the access to this lot. Rocky Shore Trail has a 66 ft. easement right-of-way, then branching off to a 30 ft. easement and then a turn onto a 20 ft. easement. Uecker is concerned with Section of the ordinance that says if there are pre-existing access roads that do not meet the right-of-way requirements under current road standards they can be used, however the roads have to meet roadbed widths, have drainage and meet the grade requirements. These access easements were created in 1985 when the house next door was built. The road standards were not in effect then and the access easements do not meet the road standards as adopted. Uecker is concerned if Section is taken literally it could mean the applicants may have to make improvements to the access easements. Byron asked if 3

4 just the applicants would have to make the improvements. Uecker said that is a question that still needs to be answered. Hosmer asked is there a deed restriction that is a road easement. Uecker said these are dedicated easements. Hosmer asked what the standard width is. Uecker said 33 ft. Rocky Shore Trail meets the requirement but the 30 ft. and 20 ft. easements may have to be improved. There is another case pending with the same issue. The Township attorney is interpreting the ordinance and will issue an opinion. If it is determined that the applicants would have to make improvements, the applicants would want to appeal the improvements and that was not published. Uecker said the applicants would be agreeable to adjourning the case until February, Hosmer asked about the direction the easement would be widened. If it is widened to the east it would reduce the building envelope of the lot. Uecker said the ordinance does not require the easement be widened it requires improvements such as surfacing, ditches and that sort of thing. The setback will be maintained. However the improvements will be difficult to do within the 20 ft. The roadway itself has to be 18 ft. under current standards. Byron asked Jim Krupka if he had any knowledge of the issue. Jim Krupka, Smokey Hollow, said he knows the easement exists. He said it exists as far as it pertains to his property. The road happened than by intelligent design. Some places the road is not on the easement. Uecker said he thinks that is the problem experienced on Britner s parcel. The roadway was not in the easement and there was agreement to shift the right-of-way 3 or 4 ft. to get the road into the easement. Ken Taylor, 4340 Rocky Shore Trail, said the road for Britner s was shifted to get a full acre of buildable lot. The road and easement were shifted up the hill. The center line of that road runs at the base of a hill. You have 10 ft. one way the center line and the rest of the road is up a hill. The easement is defined in the metes and bounds for all these properties. Vida asked the applicants if they wished to make a presentation. Thomas Bloomer, 3100 West Northfield Church Rd, Ann Arbor, said it is the Board s discretion. Vida said his recommendation is to adjourn to February, Mr. Bloomer agreed. MOTION: Hosmer/Byron to adjourn Request No. 801 to the February 14, 2013 meeting and add into packets Requests No. 668 & No Roll Call Vote: Snow-yes, Hosmer-yes, Byron-yes, Soutar-yes and Vida-yes. Vida asked for public comments related to Request No Preston Britner, Apple Ridge Dr., Traverse City said it was a complicated issue because I was not grandfathered in. The easement required 33 ft. but it was not moved up the hill because there is no place to go. The road is defined by the trees. That is why it was put to the west. It is useless land to the west but it is buildable to the east. He is in favor of the request. 4

5 Kevin Anusbigian, 4200 Rocky Shore Trail, he is concerned the decision that is made on the other road situation in January may not apply to ours. Hosmer said each case is judged on its own merits. Vida said duly noted. Vida asked for further comments. No further comments. 3. Minutes of October 11, 2012 Page 10, 3 line from the bottom, change on another property across the road. To on another property (across the road). Page 10, last line, change roadway to driveway. MOTION: Soutar/Byron to approve the minutes as amended. 4. Old Business 5. New Business MOTION: Byron/Hosmer to adjourn at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Deb Hamilton, Recording Secretary These minutes stand to be approved at the next meeting scheduled for December 13,