Zoning Board of Appeals

Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, September 25, 2024 6:30 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Meeting Minutes 2.1. Review Minutes from September 11, 2024 3. 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. 4. Agenda Items 4.1. Case #ZBA24-004 - 2221 Kinney Ave NW - Dimensional Variance - Cityside Homes LLC 4.2. Election of Officers 5. Zoning Board of Appeals member/Staff Comments 6. Adjournment Page 1 of 21  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Wednesday, September 11, 2024 6:30 p.m. Members present: Chair Brian Boelens, Greg Gaastra, Thom Burke, Jeff Portko, Mark Ratering Members absent: Randy Smith, Dan Harland Staff present: Paula Priebe, Planning Director CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chairman Boelens called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers and explained the purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals to the members of the public and applicants in attendance. REVIEW MEETING MINUTES Portko made a motion to approve the minutes from July 24, 2024. Supported by Gaastra. 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. AGENDA ITEMS Case #ZBA-24-003 - 3259 Abington Dr NW - Dimensional Variance, Section 15.03 - Walls and Fences, Kristen Braxmaier Boelens invited Planning Director Paula Priebe to comment: Priebe presented her staff report: The property is Lot 45 the English Hills plat which was approved in January 1963, located off Coventry Dr NW, west of Alpine Avenue and north of I-96. The neighborhood is zoned SA, Suburban Residential Single-Family. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 9-11-24 Page 2 of 21  Kristen Braxmaier, co-owner and resident of 3259 Abington Dr NW, submitted an application for a dimensional variance from Section 15.03, Walls and Fences. She is asking for variances from the Section 15.03.A front yard fence height and transparency, to be allowed to keep an existing 6’ tall, wood privacy fence in the secondary front yard, where the Ordinance permits fences of up to 4 feet and with minimum transparency of 50% on fences over 3 feet tall. Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance is the definitions chapter. Section 2.01 provides definitions for uses and Section 2.01 provides definitions for other terms used in the Ordinance. A few of the relevant definitions are included below. Priebe explained and defined lot frontage, street frontage, and frontage meaning the borders or boundaries of a lot or a parcel of land which abut an improved public street (or a private street approved in connection with a site condominium development).\ Priebe shared: Regulations for the permitted height, transparency, location, setbacks, and allowed materials for fences are found in Article 15 – General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, in Section 15.03 – Walls and Fences. Section 15.03.A is a table with regulations for each zoning district. An excerpt of the table was presented, including the requirements for the “SA” suburban residential single-family district. ...In areas zoned SA – Suburban Residential Single-Family, fences in the front yard may be up to 4 feet in height, with a zero setback and, if 4 feet tall, must be at least 50% transparent. Fences in the side or rear yard may be up to 6 feet in height and with a zero setback from the property lines. Privacy fences (fully opaque) are permitted in both side and rear yards. When the fence in question was put up in 2022, the City used our previous Zoning Ordinance, where fence regulations were located in Section 94-337. Priebe shared a key section of that section: Section 94-337. Fences and walls (2) The following requirements apply to fences and walls in residential zoning districts and the AA-Agricultural district: (a) In residential districts, fences and walls located in a required front yard setback shall not exceed four feet in height. (b) Fences used for nonagricultural purposes that are above three feet in height and are located in the required front yard setback shall not exceed 50 percent opacity, as measured as the distance between slats, boards, pickets, split rails, iron posts or similar structural material. Priebe went on to explain that this section has not changed in the new Zoning Ordinance. The City of Walker does not require a permit to construct a fence, however, you must adhere to the setbacks and regulations as set forth in the zoning ordinance. Fences are not permitted on any type of easement. Failure to adhere to the ordinance standards could result in a code enforcement violation. Community Development Department staff received a complaint about the fence in question at 3259 Abington Dr NW. When inspected after the complaint, it was found that the fence was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the property owner received a Notice of Violation letter from the City Zoning Administrator. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 9-11-24 Page 3 of 21  Upon receiving the Notice of Violation, the property owner shared emails from 2022 between them and the previous Planning Director. The emails are included at the end of this report. In summary, the property owner asked about installing a taller fence in their secondary front yard. The previous Planning Director stated that while “the ordinance technically does not allow a 6’ fence within the secondary front yard” she was “fine with it”. She further stated that the City was working on amendments to the ordinance which “would allow for a privacy fence in the secondary front yard, as long as there are no clear vision obstructions”. The Zoning Ordinance amendment process wrapped up in early 2024 with the adoption of the updated Zoning Ordinance. The updated Ordinance does not permit privacy fences in the secondary front yard. Priebe reached out to the City Attorney in regard to this question. According to the City Attorney, a municipality is not legally bound by improper answers or assurances offered by an employee or officer to a member of the public. In short...the emails shared between the applicant and previous Planning Director, do not give permission for the fence to be constructed and in the location as it is. Priebe explained the request before the ZBA is for: •a secondary front yard fence variance of 2’ (allowing the fence to be 6’ tall, when the Ordinance limits front yard residential fences to 4’), and for •a secondary front yard fence to be fully opaque (when the Ordinance requires at minimum 50% transparency). Priebe referred to her staff report for images, the shared emails, ordinance sections, letter of violation, applicant response, and neighbor comments. Boelens invited the applicant to the podium to comment. Kristen Braxmaier summarized her application and responses. She followed the appropriate channels to obtain approval and feels the City should be held accountable for the employee's response. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Burke made a motion to open the public hearing. Supported by Portko. Motion carried unanimously. Boelens invited public comment. Corey Busscher, 984 Coventry Dr NW, came to the podium. He stated he was the one who made the complaint. He presented photos from the vantage point of his driveway. He explained there is not clear vision to see the intersection of Abington and Coventry which presents a safety hazard. Busscher commented that he was not made aware of the fence being constructed and contractors entering his property. Braxmaier stated she did inform Busscher that the fence was being constructed about a week in advance, because she needed him to remove a couch that had been sitting out for three years. They have never addressed the safety concerns with her. Braxmaier stated she would be willing to cut back the corner of the fence so they could see around it if it would help. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 9-11-24 Page 4 of 21  Viola Braxmaier, came to the podium in support of daughter in law, that {in regard to email exchange with Anderson} - this was not "personal advice" this was as an employee of the City. Priebe shared public comments she received and have been published in the packet. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Ratering made a motion to close the public hearing. Supported by Gaastra. Motion carried unanimously. The board discussed the four criteria as they relate to this case. Ratering would support a yes vote only if the fence corner could be cut substantially. Portko noted that he could not support the variance with the safety issue. Burke also referred to the safety issue. He didn't feel the four conditions were met, however, did feel that the Braxmaier followed the advice of the previous Planning Director and that it is an unfair situation. Gaastra agreed that the four criteria are not met. MOTION Burke made a motion to DENY the request for 3259 Abington Dr NW (PIN 41-13-02- 278-004) by Applicant/ Property Owner Kristen Braxmaier, for a dimensional variance from Section 15.03 the Zoning Ordinance to permit a 6’ tall, privacy fence in the secondary front yard, where the Ordinance allows for a 4’ tall, at least 50% transparent fence in secondary front yards, based on the standards found in Section 19.04 of the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance: 1. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. 2. It is of substantial detriment to adjacent properties. 3. There is a condition on the piece of property from which variances is sought is not a recurrent nature that makes it a general regulation. The applicant is granted 30 days to appeal or remove the fence. Supported by Portko. The motion carried unanimously. Yays: 5 Nays: 0 Election of Officers Motion by Portko to table the election of officers until quorum is present. Ratering supported and the motion passed unanimously. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBER/STAFF COMMENTS Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 9-11-24 Page 5 of 21 There will be a meeting September 25, 2024 in regard to a lot split. ADJOURNMENT Portko made a motion to adjourn. Second by Burke. Brian Boelens, Chair Laura Lundy, Recording Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 9-11-24 Page 6 of 21  MEMORANDUM To: City of Walker Zoning Board of Appeals From: Paula Priebe, AICP – Planning Director Date: September 19, 2024 RE: Case # 24-004 Dimensional Variance Request for 2221 Kinney Ave NW Applicant: Vito Dolci, Cityside Homes, LLC. Property Address: 2221 Kinney Ave NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49534 Parcel Number: 41-13-07-426-007 Zoning District: A, Single Family Residential Size of Subject Parcel: 2.67 acres Type of Appeal: Dimensional Variance Request Relief Requested from 7.01 – Schedule of Regulations (minimum lot width) Ordinance Section: Request and Background Vito Dolci, with Cityside Homes, LLC and recent purchaser of 2221 Kinney Ave NW, submitted an application for a dimensional variance from Section 7.01, Schedule of Regulations. He is asking for a variance from the minimum lot width, to be allowed to split the property into two properties, when the width is not large enough for both new lots to meet the minimum requirement. The property is located in the Northwest Walker Neighborhood Cluster, on Kinney Avenue between Richmond St NW/Remembrance Rd NW and 3 Mile Rd NW. The rear of this lot abuts the Walker Ice and Fitness Center property. The neighborhood is primarily residential in use, with adjacent subdivisions including both single family and multifamily (duplex) properties. A mixed- use node is located about 1,100’ to the south around the intersection of Kinney Avenue, Remembrance Road, and Richmond Street. The Applicant provided the following summary of the request with their application: “We are looking to split 2221 Kinney into two lots. Parcel A w/ existing home built in 1940 will have 86’ of street frontage which is larger than other homes have and conforms to the area. The house will meet all current setback requirements. Parcel B will be a vacant lot having 90’ of frontage.” The following items have been provided for your review and reference in relation to this project: 1. Excerpts from the Zoning and Community Character Maps and site images 2. Application for Dimensional Variance 3. Property Survey with proposed new lot boundaries Page 1 of 8 Page 7 of 21 Zoning Ordinance Sections 7.01 and 18.07 Regulations for area, height, bulk, and placement of principal and accessory buildings are found in Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, Schedule of District Regulations. Section 7.01 is a table with the regulations for each district. An excerpt of the table is below, covering the requirements for the “A” single-family residential district. Properties in the A district must meet the standards shown in the table above, including the minimum lot size requirements of at least 11,880 SF in area and 90’ in width (also sometimes referred to as frontage). Section 18.07 is in the Approval Processes article of the Zoning Ordinance and provides two regulations for Other Land Divisions. It is copied below: As this section states, both lot divisions and new lots must meet the minimum requirements found within the Zoning Ordinance, including those found in Section 7.01. As the lot split proposed by the Applicant would create one conforming lot and one non-conforming lot which does not meet the minimum lot width, the Applicant has submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a dimensional variance to allow a lot which does not meet the minimum width required. Staff Evaluation Straightforwardly applying these sections of the code to the property would prohibit this property from being split into two lots. The existing lot is 176’, which cannot be split to create two conforming lots with at least 90’ width. A survey of the proposed lot split was provided by the applicant. An excerpt from that survey is annotated below: Page 2 of 8 Page 8 of 21 The subject parcel is outlined in purple. The grey hashed box to the east shows the area which is legally part of the lot, but is also highway right-of-way. • Parcel A is shown by the orange box and includes the existing house, driveway, and accessory building. This is the parcel which the Applicant is requesting to be permitted with only 86’ of frontage. Parcel A would have 0.56 acres of land, which translates to 24,394 SF of lot area, well above the minimum of 11,880 SF. The existing house on this lot would be conforming to the minimum setback requirements if split as proposed. • Parcel B is shown by the green box and would have the minimum 90’ of frontage and 2.12 acres of land if split as proposed. A new house on this lot would be required to meet the other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance including setbacks, dwelling size, etc. The request before the ZBA is: • to reduce the minimum lot width for one lot by 4’ (allowing one lot to be 86’ wide, when the Ordinance requires a minimum 90’ width). Criteria for Approving a Dimensional Variance Section 19.04 – Variances. 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. Page 3 of 8 Page 9 of 21  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. Applicant Responses and Staff Considerations The applicant’s responses to the criteria are included below, along with a few questions to assist the Board in making their determination. The Board must determine that all criteria are met for a variance to be granted. A. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances Applicant Response: The use of the property will remain the same. Staff Considerations: The standard is that “there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question” that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. Typically, these are related to peculiarities of the lot, such as challenging topography, odd shape, easements, etc., which is what creates the exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. What unique or challenging circumstances does this lot have that apply to this standard? What do “A” neighborhoods look like in other parts of the City? B. Preservation of Property Rights Applicant Response: Similar properties nearby have less or similar street frontages. See attached list of addresses and frontages. Staff Considerations: The standard asks if a substantial property right “similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity” needs to be preserved or cannot be enjoyed. What substantial property rights do other “A” single-family residential lots enjoy that this property would not also enjoy without the variance? What size setbacks do other houses in this neighborhood have? C. No Substantial Detriment Applicant Response: The variance will not be a detriment to the adjacent properties, nor does it impair the intent and purpose of this chapter or public interest. We are conforming our pre-existing lot to the pre-existing lots in the area. Staff Considerations: Are there any ways in which granting this variance would be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties or to the public interest? D. Not a Recurrent Request that would Warrant a Change in Zoning Ordinance: Applicant Response: The situation and use will remain the same. Staff Considerations: Has the ZBA seen other cases such as this in the recent past? Page 4 of 8 Page 10 of 21 Action The Zoning Board of Appeal members should hear the case, discuss the specifics, evaluate the request against the standards, and decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance being requested. Section 19.04, Variances, requires that all criteria must be met for a variance to be granted. It is recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals take all the above information into account when making their decision. Please note that the Zoning Enabling Act states that “the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be final. A party aggrieved by the decision may appeal to the Circuit Court of the county in which the property is located” (MCL 125.3605). An appeal to the Circuit Court must be filed within 30 days of the decision. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this request. Paula Priebe, AICP City of Walker Planning Director CC: Vito Dolci, Cityside Homes LLC – Applicant Excerpt from Kent County Parcel Mapper – (basemap 2023 Aerial) Page 5 of 8 Page 11 of 21 Excerpt from the Zoning Map: Site is currently zoned A. Excerpt from the Community Character Map: Site is designated Retrofit Mixed Use. Page 6 of 8 Page 12 of 21 Excerpt from Google Earth – facing west (imagery date 6/24/2022) Page 7 of 8 Page 13 of 21 Excerpt from Google Maps, Streetview, existing house facing west – (imagery date July 2021) Excerpt from Google Maps, Streetview, new parcel area facing west – (imagery date July 2021) Page 8 of 8 Page 14 of 21  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSVARIANCEAPPLICAT CITYOF WALKER Eé@ E EW733 COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT AUG3 : 7073 .......... 1 4243 REMEMBRANCERD NW ‘ ' ® (W01; WALKERMl 49534 . BY~ WALKER (616 791-6858 mm APPLICATIONPART 1 DATE OF APPLICATION: 8/20/24 .......... 1. PROPERTY OWNER NAME: (If NAME: Cityside Homes. LLC property ADDRESS:4165 Lake Michigan Dr owner is applicant check PHONE: 616-344-4577 CITY: Grand Rapids here: 2 ) ... EMAIL:phil@sweetlifepm.oom STATE: Ml ZIP: 49534 2. PROPERTYADDRESS:(address of requested variance) ADDRESS:2221 Kinney Ave NW CITY:Grand Rapids STATE: Ml ZIP: 49534 PPN: 41-11- 41 -1 3—07—426—007 3. APPLICANT:(if other than property owner) NAME: PHONE: EMAIL: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: 4. ZONINGDISTRICT:A Section 7.01 - 5. CITYOF WALKERZONINGORDINANCESECI'ION BEINGAPPEALED: Min. Lot size 6. PLEASEDESCRIBETHENATUREOF YOURAPPEAL: We are looking to split 2221 Kinney into two lots. Parcel A w/ existing house built in 1940 will have 86' of street frontage which is larger than other homes have and conforms to the area. The house will meet all current setback requirements. Parcel B willbe a vacant lot having 90' street frontage. 7. ADDITIONALQUESTIONS: Does land use conform to current zoning? EYES EINO Does existing structure conform to current zoning? IYES IIINO Who will represent applicant? Vito DOICi What is applicant’s interest in property? ownership interest Is this requested setback the minimum variance needed? 8. PLEASEATTACHTHEFOLLOWING: 2 Legal Description Z Survey of Property El Elevation drawings of proposed construction El Proposed site plan (all plans must be folded rolled plans will not be accepted) — B Any maps or photos you wish to include 2 Responses to Part 2 of the application 9. I GRANTPERMISSIONFORZONINGBOARD MEMBERSTO MAKEAN ONSITEINSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY. Signature of Applicant: Date: 8/20/24 6/ E g _ Page 15 of 21 APPLICATIONPART 2: Per Section 94-59 Granting of Variances. The Board of Zoning Appeals may grand a variance from the provisions or requirements of this chapter if the board ?nds from reasonable evidence that all the following facts and conditions exist. For a ”DimensionalVariance” complete sections A—D. For 3 ”Use Variance” complete sections A-E.DESCRIBEHOW THEPROPERTY/ REQUEST DEMONSTRATESTHE FOLLOWING CRITERIA. USE ADDITION CESSARY. $5135; The use of the property will remain the same. Similarpwoerti es nearby have less or similar street frontages. See attached list of addresses and irontages. The variance wnot be a detriment to the adjacent properties, nor does it impair the intent and . .. .. EII' I II" 1!! E I I lets-lathearea. The situation and use will remain the same. Dam 8/20/24 Page 16 of 21  Nearby Frontages Addresses: Frontage: 2188 Kinney Ave NW 75' 2182 Kinney Ave NW 75' 2175 Kinney Ave NW 85' 2172 Kinney Ave NW 75' 2164 Kinney Ave NW 75' 2141 Kinney Ave NW 85' w 8672' 2 Kinn Av NW 86' Page 17 of 21 Page 18 of 21  .00 '0! v “1.05.005 '\ M‘ iv Mil 7.7M) ‘ savor 95w r Hand n n u n u I: II .. .. 28: 0 2n... .... .2... ... m 3 .._ o... :58 .. ..aw .. 531m ....oz =3 5113 .5: Jim Amman 1 wasxssxaatssrmm Page 19 of 21  Zoning Board of Appeals Sample Motion – Case 24-004 Property Description 41-13-07-426-007 Property Address 2221 Kinney Ave NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49534 Applicant Vito Dolci, Cityside Homes LLC, Property Owner Sample Motion I make a motion to APPROVE / DENY the request for 2221 Kinney Ave NW (PIN 41-13-07- 426-007) by Applicant/Property Owner Vito Dolci, Cityside Homes LLC, for a dimensional variance from Section 7.01of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum lot width by 4’ (90’ to 86’), based on the standards found in Section 19.04 of the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance: 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. Applicant’s response: The use of the property will remain the same. Findings: 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. Applicant’s Response: Similar properties nearby have less or similar street frontages. See attached list of addresses and frontages. Findings: 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. Applicant’s Response: The variance will not be a detriment to the adjacent properties, nor does it impair the intent and purpose of this chapter or public interest. We are conforming our pre-existing lot to the pre-existing lots in the area. Findings: Page 20 of 21 D. That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is south 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. Applicant’s Response: The situation and use will remain the same. Findings: Conditions of Approval 1. _____________________________________________________ 2. _____________________________________________________ 3. _____________________________________________________ Motion made by ______________________ with support from ___________________. Ayes _________________ Nays _________________ Motion CARRIED / FAILED. Page 21 of 21