Zoning Board of Appeals

Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda VIA ZOOM 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, December 9, 2020 6:30 PM 1. Meeting to be Conducted Via ZOOM Zoom Instructions: Meeting ID: 844 1766 3203 Passcode: 607195 Join Zoom Meeting via Web: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84417663203?pwd=bTlka1NoTnJKdUE3UDJyZXBGUzVoQT09 Join Zoom Meeting via Phone: +1 312 626 6799 US 2. Call the meeting to order 3. Review Minutes Meeting Minutes 3.1. Meeting Minutes from October 14, 2020 4. General Public Comment: This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non-public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required 5. Agenda Items 5.1. Dimensional Variance Request (PUBLIC HEARING) - Relief requested from Section 94-188, Schedule of District Regulations (Side Yard Setback in A, Residential Single Family Zoning District) - 1396 Big Rox Ct. NW - Josh Zondervan, Potential Buyer of Property 6. Zoning Board of Appeals member/Staff Comments Page 1 of 32 7. Adjournment Page 2 of 32  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES October 14, 2020 6:30 p.m. Members present: Chairman Robert Marz, Vice Chair Brian Boelens, Roger Crabtree, Patrick Nolan, Mariel Versluis, Randy Smith Staff present: Tricia Anderson, Planning Director / Zoning Administrator CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chairman Robert Marz opened the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers. REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES Review of meeting minutes from September 23, 2020. Motion to approve the minutes from September 23, 2020 by Boelens second by Smith. Motion carried unanimously. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non- public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required. There was no public comment. CASE #PZBA20-022, 238 SUNSET HILLS AVE NW Owner and applicant Michael Maas seeks relief from Section 94 -188, and asks to construct an attached carport as close as 3 feet from the side property line, where 10 feet is required in the SA zoning district at 238 Sunset Hills Ave NW (PPN 41-13-29-201-010). Chairman Marz referred to the submitted application for discussion on reasons and grounds to support the ordinance. The applicant stated the following reasons: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. a. Applicant’s Response: This is the only area on the property to put this, that this can be added. We have a manhole, catch basin and Kent County and Consumer’s easements. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 10-14-20 Page 3 of 32 B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. a. Applicant’s Response: Yes, there are other properties that have attached and unattached buildings. C. That authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. a. Applicant’s Response: No, there is a fence and the view will be blocked and landscaping will be finished. D. That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. a. Applicant’s Response: No. Marz asked Anderson for comment. Anderson shared her presentation: The purpose of the carport is to store and protect a boat. The subject site is located on the east side of Sunset Hills Avenue, just south of Lake Michigan Drive. This string of lots along the east side of Sunset Hills Avenue are metes and bounds lots and are located directly across the street from the Cloverdale Plat. The existing home on the lot was built in 1961 and contains a 462 square foot attached garage. It is connected to municipal water and sanitary sewer. The lot also contains an old drainage easement from a county drain (figure 4) that was once an open channel and has since been relocated as storm sewer along the rear yards when homes were built along Sunset Hills Avenue in the early 1960’s. The Kent County Drain Commissioner’s office has provided a written statement, indicating that they will grant the property owner an encroachment easement to construct the carport if the variance is granted. Anderson shared her comments on each of the criteria: Regarding exceptional or extraordinary circumstances: The lot is, in fact, largely encumbered by easements and utility structures that limit the location of any additional structures to the lot. The only other possible location for a storage building or carport that would meet the letter of the ordinance is behind the south east corner of the home. Not only would there would be several challenges to backing up any sort of trailer into this location, the desired size to cover the boat could not be achieved due to the requirement to keep a 10’ separation from the home, and keep off the storm sewer pipe. She stated she does feel this criterion has been met. Regarding preservation of property rights: The applicant’s response must reference other properties in the same zoning district, in the same general vicinity. In this case, most of the homes along Sunset Hills Avenue contain one or two stall garages, many detached from the home. Subdivisions north of Lake Michigan Drive, possess more similarities to the lots along Sunset Hills Avenue by way of lot size and year built, than do the subdivisions to the south, which are newer with larger lots. Both areas are zoned SA, Suburban Single Family Residential. A drive through the neighborhoods to the north of Lake Michigan Drive revealed several properties that contained a three-stall garage: 526 Westway – detached three-stall garage • 695 Lincoln Lawns Drive – attached two-stall garage with attached carport • 3746 Lawn Street – three-stall garage • 541 Westway Drive – two-stall attached garage; one-stall detached garage • 668 Westway Drive – two-stall detached garage with attached carport. Based on this evidence, she believes that this criterion has been met. Regarding substantial detriment: There is a fence present on the neighbor’s property, as stated in the applicant’s response. It is highlighted in Figure 5. It is important to remember that a variance Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 10-14-20 Page 4 of 32 runs with the land, not just the current property owners. The fence may or may not be there in 10 years, or even 5 years. It is also important to point out that the storage of an RV or boat enclosed by a covered carport, would be more aesthetically pleasing than the RV or boat alone, parked on the side of the garage. Aerial photos throughout the years reveal the applicant’s boat being parked in several different portions of the yard, some of which violate the ordinance. The covered carport would allow the applicant to comply with ordinance standards for recreational vehicle parking, while adding value to the property. I feel that this criterion has been met. Regarding Not a Recurrent Request that would Warrant a Change in Zoning Ordinance: The request for a dimensional variance to be relieved from the side yard setback of 10 feet in the SA, Suburban Single Family Residential zoning district has been sought on numerous occasions for the purposes of a home addition, accessory building/garage or porch, with varying distances from the line. Because the variables on each lot are different, this request would not warrant a change in the zoning ordinance that would open the door to everyone wanting to be closer than 10 feet from side property line. Anderson stated she feels this criterion has been met. Anderson stated if the Zoning Board of Appeals is inclined to grant the request for a variance at 238 Sunset Hills Avenue NW, Grand Rapids MI 49534, to allow for an attached carport at 4’ and 3’ to the northern side property line where Section 94-188 requires at least 10’ from the side property line, it is recommended that it be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall construct the fence in accordance with the site plan submitted and dated 9/9/2020. 2. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment easement from the office of the Kent County Drain Commissioner to construct the carport within a portion of the Sexton Drainage Easement. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Motion to open the public hearing by Crabtree second by Nolan. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Marz invited the applicant to the podium for comment. Marz asked about the neighbor's fence. Is it right on the property line? Maas said no, the privacy fence section is approximately 5 ft into the neighboring property. The pictures are a bit deceiving. He stated from where the cement wall is to the fence is approximately 9 feet. Crabtree asked about the carport / building materials. Will they match the house? Maas said yes, they will match and be exposed 6x6 posts. The roofing and siding on the gable will also match the house. Nolan asked about the back wall of the carport. Will that be open? Maas replied yes, the back wall will be open, on the current pad. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Motion to close the public hearing by Smith second by Boelens. Motion carried unanimously. Smith asked what if the next owner wants to enclose the carport as a 3 stall garage in the future? Would that be allowed, and should they add this as a condition of approval if so / if not? Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 10-14-20 Page 5 of 32 Anderson stated the variance is for the setback - not the type of structure. Whether the carport is enclosed or not, it is still part of the home. A limitation to never enclose it wouldn't be necessary because we are looking at the setbacks. Marz asked if the carport was enclosed, would it meet the requirements for size for an attached garage? Anderson stated yes, it would meet the requirements based on the square footage of the house. MOTION Randy Smith made a motion to GRANT the request for a variance for relief from Section 94 - 188, to construct an attached carport as close as 3 feet from the side property line, where 10 feet is required in the SA zoning district at 238 Sunset Hills Ave NW (PPN 41-13-29-201-010), subject to the following conditions and based on the summary of findings below. Conditions: 1. The applicant shall construct the fence in accordance with the site plan submitted and dated 9/9/2020. 2. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment easement from the office of the Kent County Drain Commissioner to construct the carport within a portion of the Sexton Drainage Easement. Boelens supported the motion. Yays: 6 Nays: 0 CASE # PZBA20-023, 2091 ALPINE AVE NW Robert Goodheart of Pathfinder Engineering and Skip Weller, on behalf of the property owner, Alpine Partners LLC, seek relief from Section 75-23 of the City of Walker Code of Ordinances for boundary change to deed a portion of 2091 Alpine Ave NW to lots 14-19, 22 and 25-31 of the Glengarry addition plat on Roger St where resulting lots would exceed the maximum depth to width ratio of 4:1. Chairman Marz referred to the submitted application for discussion on reasons and grounds to support the ordinance. Mr. Goodheart has provided the following findings of fact for his request: 1. Exceptional topographic or physical conditions on the land or the dimensions or layout of the parent parcel make compliance impractical. Applicant’s Response: The deeding of the properties was promised to some during the approval process for the Weller Auto (dba Lucky’s) on Alpine Avenue. At this time, all but one property owner has decided that they desire the additional property. The developer has previously worked with City staff to review the likelihood of these property transfers being able to occur. The land to be deeded is generally natural – flat and wooded and is compatible with the single family parcels by adding a little more space to the back of the properties for a buffer to the Weller Auto site. 2. The greater depth to width ratio will be compatible with and not adversely affect surrounding lands. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 10-14-20 Page 6 of 32  Applicant’s Response: The intent is for the City to combine the deeded property with the parent parcel it is to be deeded to, to create new parcels, including the deeded land. This is the case for the properties not needing variances also, so this would not be considered splits, would be considered Property Boundary Adjustments. The City will then have one tax parcel for each new property, not two. In addition, after this is complete, Weller Auto, Inc. will consolidate multiple parcels on their site into one for Weller Auto Inc. and one or two for the commercial corner at Roger Street and Alpine Avenue. 3. The need for the greater depth to width ratio is not self-created. Applicant’s Response: This issue was negotiated as part of the approval process, with City staff being aware of the circumstances and open to this occurring as Boundary Adjustments to be combined with the Roger Street parcels with a submittal for variances where required 4. The greater depth to width ratio for the particular parcel will not materially impair the intent and purpose of this article. Applicant’s Response: This property is on the other side of the new fence constructed as part of the Weller Auto, Inc. development and in the past, people other than the owner of the property used portions of this property for hiking, campfires, plantings and leaf and tree disposal. 5. The proposed parcel otherwise complies with all applicable city ordinances and federal, state, and county laws, rules, and regulations. Applicant’s Response: There are not any other Ordinances or rules that we know of that these proposed Boundary Adjustments are not in compliance. Anderson shared her presentation: The applicant is requesting the above referenced lots along Roger Street to exceed the 4:1 depth to width ratio as prescribed by the Land Division Act (1967 PA 288) and Section 75-23 of the Walker City Code of Ordinances as it applies to parcels less than 10 acres in size. The owner of parcel located at 2091 Alpine Avenue NW (commonly known as the “Weller Auto”, “Baker Auto” or the “Lucky’s Auto Parts” property) desires to deed a strip along the northern property line of 2091 Alpine Avenue to the above referenced lots along Roger Street. The Roger Street lots were created in the 1920’s and are within the Glengarry Addition plat. Lots are generally 50’ in width and 156’ in depth and adding the proposed 60’ of depth would cause the 4:1 depth to width ratio to increase. The purpose of the proposed land transfers is to provide a buffer for the neighboring property owners from the incompatible heavy industrial use of a salvage yard on the parcel at 2091 Alpine Avenue. The Land Division Act sets the ratio at no greater than 4:1, but does allow for some flexibility for local municipalities to allow for lots to exceed this, but only if ordinance language provides for an appeal process and that specific standards of approval are met. Section 75-23 allows the Zoning Board of Appeals to hear requests for land divisions and boundary changes that result in a depth to width ratio of greater than 4:1. The request is to be treated in the same manner as a variance request under Article III of the zoning ordinance. A variance from the 4:1 ratio can be granted if the five standards outlined below are met. The board of zoning appeals shall consider the application and conduct a hearing on the application in the same manner as a variance application pursuant to chapter 94 of the City Code. The board of zoning appeals may impose reasonable conditions or a greater depth to width ratio approved by the board including, but not limited to, a condition that the applicant preserve in an undeveloped state that portion of the parcel exceeding the depth to width ratio of four to one. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 10-14-20 Page 7 of 32 Anderson explained that the approval standards are slightly different than a typical variance case, and she outlined them: i. Exceptional topographic or physical conditions on the land or the dimensions or layout of the parent parcel make compliance impractical. Current ordinance dimensional standards found in 94-188 for A, Single Family Residential are shown in the table. Most of the lots along Roger Street are substandard, by way of lot width and lot area, which attributes to the exceptional circumstances related to the subject lots. ii. The greater depth to width ratio will be compatible with and not adversely affect surrounding lands. The number of lots requested to exceed the 4:1 ratio would contribute to the compatibility of the surrounding lands. The increase in acreage as a result of the land transfer would move the Roger parcels in the right direction for becoming less nonconforming. No adverse effects are anticipated with the increase in depth to width ratio if ZBA is inclined to grant the variance. This standard is met. iii. The need for the greater depth to width ratio is not self-created. The owners of the lots on Roger are not facilitating this request. The Roger Street property owners are amenable to the added acreage to their existing lots; however, the owner of 2091 Alpine Avenue is making the request. This standard is met. iv. The greater depth to width ratio for the particular parcel will not materially impair the intent and purpose of this article. The intent and purpose of the article is to only allow for depth to width ratios that exceed 4:1 at the Zoning Board’s discretion when no adverse impacts are anticipated, and when the circumstances for allowing it would not set a precedent. This standard is met. v. The proposed parcel otherwise complies with all applicable city ordinances and federal, state, and county laws, rules, and regulations. Both the subject parcels on Roger Street and the parcel located at 2091 Alpine contain lawful, conforming uses. The allowance of the boundary change that would result in a higher than 4:1 depth to width ratio would aid in providing a buffer between two incompatible uses. A requirement of boundary change approval is to provide written documentation from the Kent County Treasurer indicating that there are no liens on the property and that each parcel involved does not owe any outstanding property taxes. This standard can be met. Anderson concluded with the recommended conditions of approval. If the zoning board of appeals is inclined to grant the request for a variance from Section 75-23(c), to allow the above referenced parcels on Roger Street to be deeded a 60’ portion of the parcel at 2091 Alpine Avenue, resulting in Roger Street parcels to exceed the 4:1 depth to width ratio, it is recommended that it be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit an application for a property transfer/boundary change, along with the required surveys (consistent with the plan submitted and dated 9/2/20250 from Pathfinder Engineering) and new legal descriptions, and a statement from the Kent County Treasurer’s office indicating that all parcels involved do not have any outstanding property tax payments. 2. The property owners on Roger Street that receive additional acreage from the parcel at 2091 Alpine Avenue shall record a deed “from themselves to themselves” that contains the new overall legal description each platted lot. Smith asked Anderson if she knew the approximate cost to record a deed. She stated she believed it was around $30.00 for each deed. Crabtree asked about the property owner letters. 906 Roger letter states they do not want the property deeded to them. Has that request been updated? Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 10-14-20 Page 8 of 32 Goodheart approached the podium and stated (regarding 906) additional info was provided after initial submittal that 906’s property would be deeded to 910 and 914. This would result in an L shaped property – he has been working with Anderson on this. Crabtree asked if the property owners had been made aware that their property taxes may increase? Anderson stated that if the property is unbuildable, the assessment wouldn’t be as high as if it were buildable. Crabtree asked about 954 Roger, another property owner who did not want the property deeded. Goodheart replied that they are still requesting the variance in case a future property owner might want the land deeded, they would have that option. Smith weighed in on the tax assessment issue. He didn’t feel it was an issue and that the City wouldn’t burden the property owners with such an increase to cause them detriment. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Motion to open the public hearing by Smith second by Nolan. Motion carried unanimously. Marz asked for public comment. Martha Kalnins of 934 Roger St came to the podium and stated is pleased with the Weller’s property and the offer of the deed. She did express concern about the tax assessment possibility. Smith welcomed Mrs. Kalnins to come to the Board of Review to appeal her assessment if she felt overly taxed. She asked for the process of obtaining the deed to be explained. Anderson invited Goodheart to comment. Goodheart stated he has already prepared actual legal descriptions for the properties to be deeded. They have been sent to the Kent County Equalization Department and approved; in addition, they have been sealed by a professional surveyor. Once the parcels are combined and deeded, the property owners will deed them to themselves, so there is only one tax bill. The property owners will be responsible for providing a statement from the Kent County Treasurer indicating there are no liens or back taxes owed on their property as well as the deed to the City of Walker Assessor, Kelly Smith. Anderson recommended to Goodheart to set up a meeting with Assessor Kelly Smith to handle all of the paperwork at one time. Goodheart asked about the back-tax issue. What will happen if there ARE back taxes owed? Will the City deny the deed request? Anderson explained the land division and combination process. She approves the zoning and forwards the application on to the Assessor. She was not sure how they would handle that. Anderson also recommended Mrs. Kalnins to contact Assessor Kelly Smith as well. Chairman Marz asked what would happen if there was a mortgage lien on the property. Anderson said we are only speaking about tax liens – any other liens wouldn’t apply in this situation. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 10-14-20 Page 9 of 32 Skip Weller came to the podium to comment. Regarding the increased property tax issue: even if the property taxes are increased, it would be proportionate and well worth the increase in value of the property. He recommended a “punch list” be created for the property owners to help facilitate the completion of these deed transfers. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Motion to close the public hearing by Crabtree second by Boelens. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION Randy Smith made a motion to GRANT the request for a variance from Section 75-23(c), to allow the above referenced parcels on Roger Street to be deeded a 60’ portion of the parcel at 2091 Alpine Avenue, resulting in Roger Street parcels to exceed the 4:1 depth to width ratio, based on the findings noted in the zoning administrator’s staff report dated 10/8/2020, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit an application for a property transfer/boundary change, along with the required surveys (consistent with the plan submitted and dated 9/9/2020 from Pathfinder Engineering) and new legal descriptions, and a statement from the Kent County Treasurer’s office indicating that all parcels involved do not have any outstanding property tax payments. 2. The property owners on Roger Street that receive additional acreage from the parcel at 2091 Alpine Avenue shall record a deed “from themselves to themselves” that contains the new overall legal description each platted lot. Crabtree supported the motion. Yays: 6 Nays: 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBER/STAFF COMMENTS There were no further comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting by Winkleman, supported by Boelens. Motion carried unanimously. Roger Crabtree, Secretary Laura Lundy Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 10-14-20 Page 10 of 32  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSVARIANCEAPPLICATION CITVor WALKER EQJEEVE ’\’ of EX» COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 4243 REMEMBRANCEno NW WALKERMl 49534 (616) 791-6858 W J NOV2 c 2020 cdd@wa|ker.city BY: APPLICATION PART 1 DATE OF APPLICATION: November 10, 2020 1. PROPERTYOWNER NAME: (I! property owner is applicant check here: I3 ) NAME: Dave Visser PHONE: 616-791-8899 EMAIL: dave@davevisser.com ADDRESS: 3919 Remembrance Rd CITY:Walker STATEIMI Z|P:49534 Z. PROPERTYADDRESS:(address of reque?ed varlance) ADDRESS:‘I395 BIGROXCI CITY:Walker STATE: MI ZIP: 49534 PPN: 4141» 3. APPLICANT:(If other than property owner) NAME: Josh Zondervan PHONE: 773-220-9938 EMAIL: zondervariy@yahoo_com ADDRESS:1118 Barrington NW CITV:Walker STATE: Ml ZIP:49534 4. ZONING DISTRICT: 5. CITYOF WALKERZONINGORDINANCESECTIONBEING APPEALED: 6. PLEASEDESCRIBETHENATURE OF YOUR APPEAL: Applicant seeks a variance to construct a house which encroaches to within 7.5 feet of the side lot line, contrary to Section 94-188(a) of the Walker zoning ordinance, which requires a 10 feet " I " I - - . V ' 7. ADDITIONALQUESTIONS: Does land use conform to current zoning? ZVES EINO Does existing structure conform to current zoning? EIVIES NO Who will representapplicant? the aoolicant- Josh Zondervan What is applicant's interest in property? currentlv purchasinci DrODeI1V Is this requested setback the minimum variance needed? ves 8. PLEASEATTACH THE FOLLOWING: 2 Legal Description 2 Survey of Property Z Elevation drawings of proposed construction E Proposed site plan (all plans must be folded — rolled plans will not be accepted) B Any maps or photos you wish to include EI Responses to Part 2 of the application 9. I GRANTPERMISSION FOR ZONING BOARD MEMBERSTO MAKEAN ONSITEINSPECTIONOF THE PROPERTY. Signature of Applican ' 91 7%’ Date: //4-/zazo Page 11 of 32  APPLICATION PART 2: Per Section 9459 Granting of Variances. The Board of Zoning Appeals may grand a variance i from the provisions or requirements of thischapter if the board finds from reasonable evidericethat all the ‘ following lacts and conditions exist. For a ”Dimensiona| Variance" complete sections A-D. For a "Use Variance” complete sections A-E. DESCRIBEHOW THE PRDPERTV/ REQUESTDEMONSTRATESTHEFOLLOWINGCRITERIA. USE ADDITIONALSHEETSAS NECESSARY. A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district ‘The lot orientation and size are exceptional. The house ?ts on a normal lot, but the lot narrows a bit in the back which causes an issue. This lot sits next to a corner lot and is more of a trapezoid shape than rectangular with the 1ront or the lot at 90.55 teet and the back or the lot at bd.U/ teet. dmmage to the Crty of Walker. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased ?nancial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. he Buifling p an is taReT1Tfro‘rrTa house on Winchester Ct and is very similarto other house plans in the neighborhood. C. That authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. We have modeled the house at different angles and distances from the street. The most aesthetically appealing is as noted on the preliminary site plan with the front7)f irTe7\ouseparallel to the street and setback consistent with the adjacent property. This is the best position of the house on the lot but requires a side lot line variance for which we are applying. The position of the house and proposal in this request al@ns well with the adjacent properties. D. That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a E. With respect to the use variance, that the property for which a variance is sought cannot reasonably be used in a manner consistent with existing zoning. n/a The undersigned hereby represents that the information contained in this appIication andinratrtachments is true and correct. A pp I'ican t’ s S‘igna t ure VZL Date: // W/2%‘ / / Page 12 of 32 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 33 r‘ 5t r3 Inc. Pm] 200599 I & Associates. CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS FOR; Dave Visser Dave Visser Builder 7482 04501 Street l=hone‘616457 7050 3919 Rernernbrunce Ra NW Jsnrson, M/4942.9 IMvvvvfesr1straInc.corr1 D°‘° H/4/202° Grand Rapids, MI 49534 LEGEND DESCRIPTION: Lot 44. Winchester Woods No. 2. non of ma 0 Found Iron Stake S_E 1_/4, """""9°"' Section 18. 'l’7N. R12W. City of Walker. Kent County. 3 uumy 'V';':";dS‘S°";_ie Pole _ E TD;;ie"':"‘== '~""‘* PROPERYY ADDRESS: 1:595 Big Rox Ct P Plotted Measured M I: |:l Bu?dins Deck N Scale 1:40 - - A Concrete Asphalt - V Gravel z (3 I LOT 47 I 7” 48 I 30' LOT . PR X FOR .,.;:::J§G:A:E~E~T Lu 4 C'TY OF WALKER 0 THE i —:§q> f LOT 45 BUVLDING I ENVELOPE _I FOUNDATION 25'OUTSIDE vs N85'5B'10"W T 215.00’ or BUILDING ENVELOPE LOT 44 _ 15‘ ESMT, FOR I 10 PVT. ESMT FOR PVT, DRNNAG5 TQ PUBLIC UTILITIES (3.1-Y or WALKER 1»... “Wu, was rnuaa ?aw: lha Iagul description shown ubcva. 1... dascriatien should a. wmpama wilh (ha mama of mu. Dr mu. Pulicy Var accuracy. -.=..m..r.«. and excep?nna, Exam gale ROXL cr Y\\EX16"SW Page 13 of 32  EES :5 8 V m..S 66.3“ 5 Ex: 39.? 22:5. 8 15.! E :3 $253.. .262 Page 14 of 32  nu-:54-9:9 mu:-nzau run xn '5:-nun run: ‘an aanvuum \ Page 15 of 32 K< 5; zfz. . @6.:.. 55:: U. . 1 lb LE t. 3 W. :3 : . SEE ... 2 Page 16 of 32  sou-u_t-no snoom uusauzwm 5-: mm 13 X0‘! SIG 962! BDNBOISEU D13! '1 ‘AON am: NVAHEGNOZ I 1 _o a now ‘on sswosmzo uuwasv: ssaneva i x zx.vz 2 ~ .29 - st _3z:... 2. 3 as! E :...w. .E...,»>n : 3 5.5a... ::....: x 5 ‘ 3.1 .. 5 I .c...... .5. 2 So; ,1 uu..vm¢uIn 8...: 2 1. :. 2 .:=..:.. weié .. 3.: :52. wiw. $2: $332.; .3. 5: 2 .§...2.: 3 az.E» .::.z. 8 .. uzrcz .2 3 3 ,. <uu._>.r //‘?y es Page 17 of 32  um I/uiu In gscxw . z2.::: ».E£.@ 23: 3 355 . E .2: 2:: 3 r. E.:2?. .528 I53»! _II.,M..m.I... 3 . ti. :5... 3 3 23 3 2.. nomwuo! 930. wlV 3:8: Em 5.. ,. E5, uc 4:. .<..EI Page 18 of 32  Iii!-(EL-DI! snoou unsauanm in nun mu nu ‘suxnu nuvuu nuvmmuu In 13 X0! 919 962'! II?'II?rI I am: no um BDNEOISEII an: '2 ‘Ann NVAUBCINOZ axva , . . Page 19 of 32 zién‘ uu‘=QoEoz:2av$ o Page 20 of 32  Notice of Public Hearing City of Walker Zoning Board of Appeals The City of Walker Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) will conduct a public hearing on DECEMBER 9, 2020, beginning at 6:30 p.m. VIA ZOOM. Link for joining the Zoom meeting can be found on the ZBA agenda at https://ciwalkermi.civicweb.net/Portal/ REQUEST: APPLICANT SEEKS A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HOUSE WHICH ENCROACHES TO WITHIN 7.5 FEET OF THE SOUTH SIDE LOT LINE, CONTRARY TO SECTION 94-188(A) OF THE WALKER ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES A 10 FEET MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR "A" ZONED PROPERTIES. ADDRESS: 1396 BIG ROX CT NW, GRAND RAPIDS MI, 49534-2119 PARCEL #: 41-13-18-477-023 ZONING: A APPLICANT: JOSH ZONDERVAN, on behalf of the property owner, VISSER DAVE BUILDERS LLC Anyone may review the variance request at https://ciwalkermi.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/64637Anyone may submit written comments either by postal mail or e-mail concerning the project until the date and time of the hearing. With advanced notice to the city clerk of seven calendar days, the City of Walker will provide interpreter services at public meetings, including language translation and signage for the hearing impaired. Con previo aviso a la Secretaria Municipal de siete días naturals, la ciudad de Walker proporcionará servicios de interpretación en las reunions públicas, incluyendo traducción de idiomas y la señalización para personas condiscapacidad auditiva. Tricia Anderson, City of Walker Planning Director/Zoning Administrator (616) 791-6879 / tanderson@walker.city Page 21 of 32  MEMORANDUM Date: November 30, 2020 To: Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Tricia Anderson, City of Walker Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Re: December 9, 2020 ZBA Meeting – 1396 Big Rox Court – Dimensional Variance Request ZBA Case #20-024 – 12/9/2020 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Via Zoom Applicant: Josh Zondervan Property Address 1396 Big Rox Ct. NW Parcel Number 41-13-18-477-023 Zoning District A – Single Family Residential Section Requesting Relief from: Section 94-188, Schedule of District Regulations – Side Yard Setback Request: The applicant is requesting relief from Section 94-188, Schedule of District Regulations (see Figure 2 below). Specifically, the applicant seeks a reduction in the south side yard setback to allow for 7.5 feet and 8 feet where 10 feet is required in the A, Single Family Residential zoning district, per Figure 1 below. The applicant is asking for the dimensional variance to accommodate the preferred floor plan for a home that he is planning to have constructed on this lot. Fig. 1 12/9/2020 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – 1396 Big Rox Ct. Page 1 of 6 Page 22 of 32  Maximum Bldg. Minimum Lot Minimum Yard Setbacks in Feet Height Size Maximum Side Fig. 2 Usable Floor Side Yard Area in Width Area and Front Yard Rear In (at In Feet Square in Accessory Yard (total of Yard Stories ZONING least Feet Feet Building Floor two) CLASSIFICATION one) Area A, Single Family 35% 35 10 20 25 35 2½ 11,880 90 Residential Property Information: The lot at 1396 Big Rox Ct. is located within the Winchester Woods No. 2 plat, which was approved in 2016. An average of lot sizes in this phase of the plat is 20,110 square feet, with the smallest lot being at 12,808 square feet. During the plat approval stages, the planning commission approved pre-specified building styles (walkout, daylight and standard basement) for each lot, based on the grading plan that was certified by the developer’s engineer. This particular lot calls for a daylight basement, consistent with the house plan that the applicant provided. The lot also has a 10’ drainage easement along the northern property line and a 15’ drainage easement along the rear (west) property line. It has 90.58 feet of frontage, which meets the minimum in the A zoning district. The rear lot line is 83.07 feet in width. The size of the lot is 18,518 square feet (.42 acres) Fig. 3 12/9/2020 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – 1396 Big Rox Ct. Page 2 of 6 Page 23 of 32 Review of Dimensional Variance Criteria: Section 94-59: The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the provisions or requirements of the zoning ordinance if the board finds from reasonable evidence that all the following facts and conditions exist: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. C. That authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. D. That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Staff Analysis and Findings of Fact: Staff has reviewed the applicant’s responses to the criteria that must be met in order for a variance to be granted. I offer the following comments: A. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances Applicant’s Response: The lot orientation and size are exceptional. The house fits on a normal lot, but the lot narrows a bit in the back which causes an issue. The lot sits next to a corner lot and is more of a trapezoid shape than rectangular with the front of the lot at 90.58 feet and the back of the lot at 83.07 feet. On the north and east side of the lot there is an easement for drainage to City of Walker. Staff Comments: The Zoning Board of Appeals typically grants variances requested by property owners who can demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances or practical difficulty exists in meeting the letter of the ordinance. Most typically, requests are made for variances on lots that have an existing home, and more often than not, the lot size is substandard by way of dimension. Examples of types of extraordinary or exceptional circumstances might include a narrowness of a lot, a nonconformity that exists due to no fault of the current property owner, extreme changes in topography or the presence of wetlands, creeks or other natural features that limit the location of construction, the location of a septic tank, well or drain field that limits the location of construction. Circumstances such as those listed, could make it unnecessarily burdensome for a property owner to meet the rigid requirements of the ordinance in order to exercise their right to use the land in a manner that is consistent with the uses permitted in that zoning district. Flexibility has been built into the ordinance to allow property owners the right to due process and ask for relief of those requirements to allow a permitted land use on an otherwise buildable piece of property when practical difficulty can be demonstrated. Regarding lot 45, it is a fact that the lot width tapers gradually toward the rear property line and becomes reduced by 7.51 feet at the east property line. The size of the lot is 18,518 square feet, which is well above the minimum lot size in the A zoning district (minimum being 11,880 square 12/9/2020 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – 1396 Big Rox Ct. Page 3 of 6 Page 24 of 32  feet). Although the lot is not a perfect rectangle, not all platted lots are. In fact, in this particular plat, there are several lots that taper either at the rear or at the front of the lot. • 1398 Winchester Ct. – lot 6 • 4031 Tall Timber Ct. – lot 20 • 1399 Winchester Ct. – lot 18 • 1397 Big Rox Ct. – lot 33 Does this taper cause the challenge in meeting the letter of the ordinance? In my opinion, it is not the cause for the request for relief from the side yard setback of 10’. In this case, the lot is a blank slate, and it would be difficult to demonstrate that the need for a variance is not self-created and that there is a practical difficulty, by way of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in meeting the letter of the ordinance. The applicant’s affirmative action to choose a lot within the Winchester Woods plat that is not wide enough to accommodate the desired floor plan indicates that the situation is self-created. The request comes from a preference in floor plan offered by Dave Visser Builders. I spoke with Mr. Visser who indicated that floor plans can be customized to meet the wants and needs of the customer. Because of this, I do not feel as though all possible options have been exhausted that would eliminate the need for a variance. Could the third stall be removed? Could the floor layout be modified to move the great room to the rear of the home with sunroom off the great room? There are other options to consider, especially since there is ample space in the rear yard. Factors such as cost or inconvenience are not taken into consideration. I do not believe this criterion has been met. B. Preservation of Property Rights Applicant’s Response: The building plan is taken from a house on Winchester Ct. and is very similar to other house plans in the neighborhood. Staff Comments: Though there are other lots within the plat that contain homes with the applicant’s desired floor plan, this is not an indication of his property rights being infringed upon if he is not granted the variance to encroach into the side yard setback. In order for this criterion to be met, it must be viewed from the angle of fairness in terms of land use. Would the property owner be denied the use of his property if he cannot build the home with the desired floor plan that does not meet the side yard setback? In this situation, it is reasonable to assume that a home could be constructed on a 90’ lot setback (albeit slightly tapered toward the rear) with NO encroachment into the side yard, as this has been achieved throughout this plat and on similar sized lots within the same zoning district. I do not believe this criterion has been met. C. No Substantial Detriment Applicant’s Response: We have modeled the house at different angles and distances from the street. The most aesthetically appealing is as noted on the preliminary site plan with the front of the house parallel to the street and setback consistent with the adjacent property. This is the best position of the house on the lot but requires a side lot line variance for which we are applying. The position of the house and proposal in this request aligns well with the adjacent properties. 12/9/2020 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – 1396 Big Rox Ct. Page 4 of 6 Page 25 of 32  Staff Comments: In the A zoning district, the maximum height is 2.5 stories. Many homes in this plat (including on Big Rox Ct.) are 2.5 stories high as shown in Figure 4 below. The taller a building is, the shorter the distance is perceived between buildings. The Fig. 4 key word is perceived, thus this is a judgement that is made by the surrounding property owners as to whether the encroachment will have a negative impact or detriment on the neighborhood. We have received one letter of objection to this request from a neighboring property owner The zoning board must decide if this criterion has been met. D. Not a Recurrent Request that would Warrant a Change in Zoning Ordinance: Applicant’s Response: The lot has the same frontage as other lots on the street, but unlike other lots it is more of a trapezoid shape than rectangular and narrows the farther off the street you get. The house sits within the expected 70 feet width envelope as the other homes in the neighborhood, but my lot narrows a bit which causes an issue. Considering this lot abnormality as compared to the other lots in the neighborhood which are more rectangular, it is a unique situation and would not warrant a change in the zoning ordinance. Staff Comments: Though this request for relief from Section 94-188, particularly from side yard setback requirements, is the most sought-after dimensional variance among applications that come through our department. Each request comes with a different set of variables unique to the structure, property or zoning district for which the variance is sought, and thus would not warrant a change in the zoning ordinance if the variance was to be granted. This criterion has been met. Recommendation Section 94-59, Granting of Variances, requires that all criteria must be met in order for a variance to be granted. It is recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the request to allow an encroachment of 2.5 feet into the south side yard setback on lot 45 of Winchester Woods No. 2 plat, also known as 1396 Big Rox Ct. for the purpose of constructing a single family home, based on the summary of findings below: Summary of Findings: A. The shape of the lot does not constitute an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance, as the area of 18,518 square feet is well over the minimum lot area (11,880 square feet) required in the A zoning district. Additionally, the need for the variance was self-created, and not due to extraordinary lot conditions such as topography, narrowness, natural features, easements or the like. 12/9/2020 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – 1396 Big Rox Ct. Page 5 of 6 Page 26 of 32  B. The denial of a variance would not prevent the property owner from enjoying his property in the same manner as other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district. The ability to use the land as permitted by right in the A zoning district will not be infringed upon or taken away by denying the variance. C. The 2.5-foot encroachment into the side yard setback may be perceived as having a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, based on the maximum building height of 2.5 stories in the A zoning district. D. A change in the zoning ordinance is not warranted due to the many variables that exist among different properties in the City, although the side yard setback is the most sought-after variance request. Please note that the Zoning Enabling Act allows any party aggrieved by the Zoning Board’s decision to appeal to circuit court within 30 days of the decision. Thank you for allowing me to expand on this request. Tricia Anderson, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator City of Walker 12/9/2020 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – 1396 Big Rox Ct. Page 6 of 6 Page 27 of 32  KENT coumv CITYof WALKER RESIDENTIAL RECORD PROPERTY CARD 3,6 ac} mm LEGAL DESCIHPTION 4-! ~13 18- 477-025— é1i—J..5—.l.6—4 vxssm I /“U45 DAVE BUILDERS LLC mmmm =— — DATE TYPE TAMMBERDR = MOUNT NUMBER GOVERNMENTUNIT SECTVON PROP. CLASSIFICATION 3919 REMEMBRANCE an Nw m_m_ mmm A ~-‘IE-l GRAND Rzmos MI 49534 E I |?-|- I--I2 _ W7 ~ W t 61> --|—-|- “ “ -:|_|- § 1 -IE-lj E 0, E [1 -038 _022 4-5_021 LAND COMPUTATIONS 411318477023LOT 45 * WINCHESTERWOODS LOT size NO.2 SPLIT ON 02/02/2011 FROM 004, 41-13-18-476-001; 41-13-185:1/6- 12273 f 7 125.11 _ é1_s1_i_ j 90 QOISKXDZ,3,“ 18 11/14/2014FROM 41—13- La 45 ' ' ' - - ‘ 9 476-002, 41-13-18-476-003, 41-13-18-427-018; 1:/;Mc.:Ji2: SPLIT/COMBINED ON 01/25/2017 FROM 41-13- ADJUSTMENTS 18_476_049; Page 28 of 32 -034 g -024 3 3 8 _ $13 2“-9“ 5% J i — 0 3 8 '°25 1 lRUt DASH VALUE ASSM’T RATIO YEAR LAND BUILDING TOTAL BUILDING VA LUE .9057 SW.» 7' ECONOMIC % PICTURE CASH VALUE LAND VALUE M vx 8  1396 Big Rox Ct. Page 29 of 32 Page 30 of 32 RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED LOT BUILDING Req'd LOT BUILDING Req'd # TYPE MOE # TYPE MOE 25 Daylight 759.5 37 Walkout 758.0 26 Daylight/walkout 759.0 38 Walkout 756.0 27 Daylight/walkout 759.0 39 Walkout 756.0 28 Daylight 759.0 40 Walkout 756.0 29 Daylight 759.0 41 Walkout 756.0 30 Daylight 759.0 42 Walkout 758.0 31 Daylight 760.0 43 Daylight 760.5 32 Daylight 760.0 44 Daylight 762.0 33 Daylight 761.0 45 Daylight 761.5 34 Daylight 762.5 46 Daylight 761.5 35 Daylight 762.5 47 Daylight 761.0 36 Daylight 760.0 48 Daylight 760.0  CITY OF WALKER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION AND ORDER Case #20-024 Request Details Public Hearing Date/Time: December 9, 2020 at 6:30pm Public Hearing Location: VIA ZOOM Applicant: Josh Zondervan, Potential Buyer of Property owned by Dave Visser Property Address 1396 Big Rox Ct. NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49534 Parcel Number 41-13-18-477-023 Zoning District A – Single Family Residential Section Requesting Relief Section 94-188, Schedule of District Regulations – Side Yard Setback from: The applicant is requesting relief from Section 94-188, Schedule of District Regulations. Specifically, the applicant seeks a reduction in the south side yard setback to allow for 7.5 feet Specific Request: and 8 feet where 10 feet is required in the A, Single Family Residential zoning district, per Figure 1 below. The applicant is asking for the dimensional variance to accommodate the preferred floor plan for a home that he is planning to have constructed on this lot. Having conducted a public hearing the City of Walker Zoning Board of Appeals hereby orders that the above application is _____________________ (granted/tabled or denied) per plan submitted on ______________________(date) by a vote of ____________________ for the reasons listed below. A copy of this decision and order was distributed to the applicant on ______________________. The meeting record states that any aggrieved party has thirty (30) days to appeal the zoning board’s decision. Findings of Fact A. The shape of the lot does not constitute an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance, as the area of 18,518 square feet is well over the minimum lot area (11,880 square feet) required in the A zoning district. Additionally, the need for the variance was self-created, and not due to extraordinary lot conditions such as topography, narrowness, natural features, easements or the like. B. The denial of a variance would not prevent the property owner from enjoying his property in the same manner as other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district. The ability to use the land as permitted by right in the A zoning district will not be infringed upon or taken away by denying the variance. C. The 2.5-foot encroachment into the side yard setback may be perceived as having a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, based on the maximum building height of 2.5 stories in the A zoning district. D. A change in the zoning ordinance is not warranted due to the many variables that exist among different properties in the City, although the side yard setback is the most sought-after variance request. Motion made by: _________________________ Supported by: _____________________________ Ayes: ___________ Nays: ___________ _______________________________ ____________________________________ Applicant signature Secretary Page 31 of 32 From: scott bloem To: Tricia Anderson Cc: CATHERINE OSTROWSKI Subject: Zoning Variance Request for Parcel #41-13-18-477-023 Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 2:52:37 PM Hello Tricia, I own the adjacent parcel (41-13-18-477-024) with a shared property line and have a new home under construction. I object to the request for Variance and respectfully ask that it not be allowed. My own home plans required revision to conform with the 10' offset. Other homes on Big Rox Ct. conform as well. As required the 10' offset provides a safe distance between homes and reasonable access for Fire and EMT services if needed. The curb appeal and financial value of my property will suffer if the variance is allowed. Thank you for your consideration. Scott Bloem 1370 Big Rox Ct. Page 32 of 32