Little Traverse Township Zoning Board of Appeals
May 12, 2005 5:30 PM
Little Traverse Township Hall


The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ed Shepherd.

Roll call:
Ed Shepherd, present, late Joe Leach, present Matt Duran, present
Absent: none
Also present: Randy Frykberg, Bill Dohm, Jane Taylor, several guests. See attached list.

Minutes:
A motion to approve the minutes as presented was offered by Duran and supported by Leach. Approved by voice vote.

Case #A-2-05
Conduct a Public Hearing on a request by David and Claudia Cummings for a rear and side yard set-back and lot coverage variances to extend an existing porch roof at 2525 Pennsylvania Avenue in West Wequetonsing. The property is a non-conforming lot, is zoned RR, and is described in Tax parcel # 24-08-16-18-177-010.
The case has been withdrawn.

Case #B-3-05
Conduct a Public Hearing on a request by Suzanne Seacord for rear yard set-back and lot cover age variances to permit an open deck at 1272 Fern Ave. in Ramona Park. The property is a non-conforming lot, is zoned RR, and is described in tax parcel #24-08-16-17-401-013
Randy Frykberg said Ms. Seacord has requested a rear yard setback variance and a lot coverage variance, in order to add a 16x30’ open deck in the rear yard of an existing one-family detached dwelling. He noted the ZBA had approved a side yard variance of 8’8” for a garage in 1986. In July 2001, the ZBA denied a request by Ms. Seacord for a side yard setback and a lot coverage variance in order to build an addition to the dwelling because 1) no hardship was involved: 2) concern for fire safety; and 3) other options to expand the living area were available without a variance (expand up, rather than expand the footprint). He said in 2001 she decided to expand by increasing crawl space and raising the house a few feet, and making a basement. However springs were found under the crawl space and they could not go deeper into the ground. So the existing structure was raised 8 to 9 feet and a new ground floor was added. Since all the decks had been removed and had been in the required setbacks they could not be replaced without ZBA approval. On May 15, 2002, the ZBA approve a variance for a front deck, but tabled the decision on the rear deck in order to allow Ms. Seacord and the neighbors to work out a more agreeable solution. The request for the rear deck was for a 21’ variance from the 35’ rear yard setback so a porch and covered deck can be built to within 14’ from the rear property line. The previous deck and porch was 22’ from the rear property line. In June of 2003 she requested a zoning permit to build an 11’x12’ open deck open deck (for the hot tub) and an adjacent 17’x12 screened porch in the rear yard. These would have been 18’ from the rear property line. Ms. Seacord was informed that a new ZBA application was required because 13 months had lapsed since the last ZBA consideration.
The present request is for a 16’x11’ deck, plus an adjacent 16’x19’ deck a foot or so higher. They would be within 15’ of the rear property line.
The property is Zoned RR, Recreation Residential and is a non-conforming lot with a width of 50’ and a total size of 4,400 sq. ft. the present rear yard setback is 31’ with a request to reduce this setback to 15’ by adding a 16’ deep second story deck, making a rear yard variance of 20’.Lot coverage would be increased from 37.8% to 49.4%
In Frykberg’s findings he noted the lot is non-conforming but the two-story non-conforming structure is already above the maximum lot coverage. The dwelling already has a front porch. A rear and side yard porch was removed when the house was expanded by raising it and adding a new first floor. A rear exit from the second story can be added steps and the rear yard encroachment would be greatly diminished from this present request. There has been concern raised regarding further encroachment into the required rear yard. He felt the Board should seriously evaluate the meaning of the Zoning Ordinance Preamble as it relates to “overcrowding of the land, and undue congestion of population: providing adequate light, air, and reasonable access” and also the Zoning Ordinance Title paragraph referring to “regulate and limit the height and bulk of buildings, and other structures: to regulate and determine the size of yards, and open spaces”.
The Public Hearing was opened.
The Board read two letters from neighbors, Scofield/Schonfelt and the Nutson’s, both letters stated concerns and opposition to the proposed project. Letters attached.
Ms. Seacord presented a revised site plan at the meeting. She changed her request to an upper deck of 10’x16’ and a lower deck of 12’x12’ next to the shower for the hot tub location with a stairway down to ground level. She said her goal was to get the construction completed. She said the scaled back version of her site plan would keep more in line with the neighbor’s porch. The stairway would run along the side of the house.
Bill Dohm presented pictures of the site that showed the relation to the area.
Larry Nutson, 1284 Fern, questioned the Boards ability to render a decision on a plan other than the one referenced in the legal notice. He was told by Bill Dohm this plan was a lesser variance so the Board could choose to make a decision.
Mr. Nutson was concerned with the hot tub location and felt one of the decks could be eliminated by using a staircase if the hot tub were placed on the side at grade level. He noted she has a deck on the front of her house.
Ms. Seacord said she would have no problem with the hot tub at grade level on the south side. She expressed the desire to cover the cement block wall of the basement, which could be done with screening for the hot tub.
Matt Duran questioned the loss of square footage in the side yard with stairs.
Randy Frykberg said a side yard variance has not been requested.
Mr. Nutson said he would rather see it kept within the rectangular shape of the existing house and felt the upper deck of 10’x19’ was adequate with stair case to grade with 90 degree turn. He did not feel the lower deck was necessary.
Randy Frykberg agreed grade level for the hot tub with a stairway from the deck would be more consistent with the neighborhood. Joe Leach agreed.
Mary Fischer spoke in support of Ms. Seacord’s plan.
John Fischer noted the grade change in the land as you get closer to the lake. The closer to the lake you are the more stairs you need.
Joe Leach noted this was an open deck. A lot of the porches have roofs and are enclosed. His concern was that a request will be coming back for this deck to be covered and enclosed. There doesn’t seem to be finality to this project. He said he wanted assurance that this was not going to come back with another request for enclosure.
Ms. Seacord stated she wanted to retire from teaching and she was retiring from building, too.
Public Hearing was closed.
A motion was offered by Leach and supported by Duran to approve the new site for Suzanne Seacord Stein, at 1272 Fern Ave., parcel # 24-08-16-17-401-013, one new upper deck to be 10’x19’.This is similar to units nearby. The hot tub will be at grade level on the south side of the deck with a privacy fence screening it, not to exceed the existing fence around the shower. The stairway will come off the south side and turn west. The stairs will be a maximum of 3’ wide. The decks will not be covered or screened. This request will not further reduce the value of adjacent premises and essentially retains the character of abutting premises. The requested variances do not adversely affect the purposes or objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. Roll call vote: Sheperd, yes; Duran; yes; Leach, yes. Motion carried.

Case#A-4-05
Conduct a Public hearing on a request by Harbor Park Market to permit a scrolling marquee type sign at 3473 M-119. The property is zoned B-2 and the proposed marquee is incorporated into an otherwise approved freestanding sign for Wendy’s.
Randy Frykberg reviewed the case saying the written sign plan for Harbor Market (gas station, convenience store, Wendy’s, and car wash), approved in March by the Zoning Board did not indicate a scrolling marquee. However, the applicant, John Zaremski, verbally called the sign a “scrolling marquee”. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow illuminated signs if they are flashing or intermittent, unless approved by the Board of Appeals. Therefore, this request is presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The property is Zoned B-2, General Business. Emmet County does not allow scrolling, flashing or intermittent signs. It appears that this regulation against intermittent or flashing signs is safety related. It could be a distraction to motorists. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the proposed sign (scrolling marquee) is intermittent.
He cited Section 1308 (3c) pf the Zoning Ordinance (sign section) that read “Illuminated signs shall not be of the flashing or intermittent type unless approved by the Board of Appeals The safety of motorists could be compromised by a scrolling sign. Is there a special condition or hardship requiring the use of a scrolling Sign? The ZBA may want to consider an electronic changeable sign if the message does not continually scroll but only changes on a period of time not shorter than a span determined by the ZBA.
The Public hearing opened.
Jack Zaremski said he failed to see a safety issue with this proposed sign.
Ed Shepherd asked why a scrolling sign was necessary and Zaremski said it was what they wanted.
Joe Leach said he had checked out a lot of marathon stations and they all have permanent signs. There are no scrolling signs and they are all successful.
Shepherd felt a fixed sign was a much better idea.
Zaremski reminded the Board they have three businesses in one location.
Bill Dohm said the County shut McDonalds scrolling sign down in Petoskey. He said he would like to see a changeable message but not a moving message. He noted the Harbor Springs School sign was very distracting but schools are exempt from Zoning.
It was also noted there have been 4 accidents at that school corner since the sign was erected.
Joe Leach read a letter from Tom Nagurka, a neighbor on Woodview, stating his opposition to the scrolling sign on M-119.
Bill Dohm said there is nothing on the sign plan to show the sign as scrolling. Jack Zaremski said the lower portion that was shown as bubbles on the plan would be the scrolling section.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Leach motioned and was supported by Duran to deny the scrolling marquee sign request by Harbor Park Market at 3473 M-119, parcel # 24-08-16-22-100-004. The request does adversely affect the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. It could be a distraction to motorists. There is no exception or extraordinary circumstances that do not apply to similar property with like businesses it the same district. It (scrolling signs) is not permitted otherwise in Emmet County. Roll call vote: Duran, yes; Leach, yes; Sheperd, yes. Motion carried. Sign denied.

Any other business brought before the Board
There was no other business brought be fore the Board.

Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,


Jane Taylor
Administrative Assistant