AGENDA. EAST GRAND RAPIDS PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Community Center Commission Chambers 5:30 PM

Transcription

1 AGENDA EAST GRAND RAPIDS PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Community Center Commission Chambers 5:30 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes: Meeting held October 14, Ordinance Amendment Section 5.28 B2 - Residential Through Lots 4. Report of the City Commission 5. Next Scheduled Meeting Date: Tuesday, December 09, Public Comment 7. Adjournment

2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION City of East Grand Rapids, Michigan Tuesday, October 14, 2014 East Grand Rapids Community Center Commission Chambers Present: Chairman John Barbour, Commissioners Kevin Brant, David DeVelder, Jeff Dills, Tom Getz, Sara Lachman, Mary Mapes and Jeff Olsen Also Present: City Manager Brian Donovan, City Zoning Administrator Tom Faasse, City Planner David Jirousek of LSL Planning, City Attorney John Huff and Recording Secretary Lynda Taylor 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Barbour called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 9, 2014 A motion was made by Commissioner Getz and supported by Commissioner Brant to approve the minutes as written. Yeas: Commissioners Barbour, Brant, DeVelder, Dills, Getz, Lachman, Mapes and Olsen 8 Nays: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SECTION 5.28 B2 RESIDENTIAL THROUGH LOTS Chairman Barbour introduced David Jirousek of LSL Planning. Mr. Jirousek gave an overview of the existing regulations, the proposed ordinance amendment and the revisions based on the September meeting. The revisions to the proposed ordinance with LSL comments below: Restrict driveways to the primary front yard. Existing curb cuts on secondary streets should be removed. o LSL supports this requirement. Prohibit garage doors from facing secondary streets o Garage orientation is not regulated in any other district or for any type of development. This would be treating these lots differently than all situations. Require modest screening of garages and fences in secondary front yards o There are no specific landscaping requirements for site plan review or single lot development. This would be treating through lot development differently than all situations. Reduce building envelope by moving the secondary front yard setback 15 feet interior of the rear-most adjacent existing rear building line. o This is a significant reduction of the building envelope. The average of two structures is no longer considered and the setback is 15 feet further away from the secondary street than the furthest adjacent building line. There may be cases where an adjacent principal structure encroaches over a required rear yard setback. Adding an additional 15 feet to this line may push the secondary front yard setback far enough back that a significant portion of the through lot may be unusable. An adjacent irregular lot or corner lot may cause unanticipated scenarios. Reduce primary front yard build-to zone to 10 feet. o LSL supports this requirement which will pull the façade of the buildings in line with others on the street. Chairman Barbour gave introductory comments regarding through lots noting that through lots are legal and have existed for many years. The current task is to minimize the impact of through lot construction. Chairman Barbour opened the public hearing. Pamela MacDougal 500 Cambridge: She stated that through lots are bad for the community. The proposed ordinance only addresses the impact from the street and not the impact on the four surrounding property owners.

3 Jan Smith 915 Orchard: She shared photographs of a neighbor s yard illustrating the impact of the current through lot construction. Suggested the Planning Commission look at Royal Oak s zoning ordinance regarding lot coverage percentages and usable floor area. Jim Benedict 842 Orchard: He asked the commissioners to consider the size of a structure that could be built before making a final decision on the ordinance. He requested that the commissioners consider the neighborhood and neighbors that are impacted by construction on through lots. Rachel Smith 919 Orchard: Upset about the size of the house currently being built and does not want to see it happen again. Elizabeth Iorio 431 Cambridge: Asked the commission to consider including a requirement in the ordinance that the side yards are wide enough for planting trees. Matt Fine 630 Rosewood: Opposed to the through lots. He stated that if the city can address the division of property it should be able to address the combining of parcels. Pamela MacDougal 500 Cambridge: Supported Ms. Iorio s comments. Chairman Barbour closed the public hearing. Chairman Barbour thanked the residents for their comments. He stressed that the house currently being built, could not be built under the proposed ordinance. The reduction in the building envelope has the goal of reducing the size of the structure to be more like homes in the area. Chairman Barbour explained the commissioners would need to figure out how aggressive to go with the proposed ordinance without going too far. Commissioner Getz commented that because the through lots can t be banned, the goal is to make this ordinance as restrictive as possible and try to not let a home like the one currently being built happen again. The ordinance also needs to be within the bounds of what is likely to be defensible in court if someone challenges it. Commissioner Dills asked if building size could be regulated. Mr. Jirousek responded that they could be regulated along with height, setbacks and lot coverage percentage. Commissioner Dills asked if Mr. Jirousek was familiar with the Royal Oak lot coverage ordinance. Mr. Jirousek responded that he was not and would look into it for the next meeting. He added that this type of restriction would most likely be applied city wide and not to a certain type of lot. Commissioner Dills responded to neighborhood concern about the lack of notification about the current through lot and the size of the house being built. He stated that the structure complied with zoning and no variances were required. He agreed with Commissioner Getz that the ordinance should be as restrictive and undesirable as possible. Chairman Barbour reiterated that the reduction in the building envelope by the fifteen foot change has the goal of reducing the size of the structure. Reducing the size of the structure would be one attempt to make it a more like the balance of the homes in the area. Chairman Barbour moved on to the proposed landscaping requirements and stated that East Grand Rapids currently does not have any landscaping requirements. Commissioner Mapes said that as a homeowner, she would be very unhappy with being told what to plant. She asked how it would be monitored. City Manager Brian Donovan offered that in a site plan review situation the Planning Commission has at times put in landscaping requirements, but follow up is not done after the planting is completed. Chairman Barbour commented that at the last meeting the commissioners felt strongly that landscaping was a way to soften the mass on the sides. Commissioner Lachman added that it doesn t address the canopy issue. Mr. Donovan stated that there is no ordinance on trees and that the City is reluctant to regulate landscaping or trees. Commissioner DeVelder said there should be some adequate green space in the back yard, tree planting requirements to make up for the ones that are taken out and some type of screening on the sides. 2

4 Commissioner Lachman asked if side setbacks could be changed so there is more room for additional landscaping and trees. Mr. Jirousek responded that sideyard setbacks could be regulated for through lots. Chairman Barbour suggested that the Planning Commission wait at least another month before passing the ordinance amendment on to the City Commission because of the two new concepts that had come up. Learn more about what lot coverage tools there are for through lots. Review sideyard setbacks as a tool as they relate to through lots. Mr. Jirousek added he would look into what the Public Works Director should consider when designating the primary street for through lot construction. 4. REPORT OF THE CITY COMMISSION Commissioner Dills reported the following: A variance was approved on September 14, 2014 for property on Bonnell where the home owner wants to spin the house around similar to the Kruer residence. Cindy Johnson was appointed as City Commissioner to fill Buzz Goebel s position. Two new Public Safety officers were sworn in. Kevin Brant s site plan was approved for his development on Croswell. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT Dave Price 605 Lovett Avenue Mr. Price asked if the rules change for non-conforming lots or any combination of two properties in terms of what can be done with the property. Mr. Faasse responded that non-conforming usually means substandard. Each zoning district has lot width and area requirements and the term is used when a lot is smaller than required. Mr. Priced asked how economic impact on other neighbors is gauged with regard to the house that is currently being built. Chairman Barbour answered there is an impact on value, but it isn t in front of the Planning Commission to quantify or decide. The more likely technique would be to go to a court of law for a judge to decide. 6. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETNG Wednesday, November 12, The next scheduled meeting was changed to Wednesday, November 12, 2014 due to City Hall being closed for Veteran s Day on November ADJOURNMENT Chairman Barbour adjourned the meeting at 7:12 PM. Respectfully submitted, Lynda Taylor Recording Secretary 3

5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: East Grand Rapids Planning Commission David M. Jirousek, AICP November 3, 2014 (November 12 meeting) Through Lots- Zoning Text Amendment Overview We have updated the draft through lot language based on comments from the October meeting. Draft language is underlined while highlighted text specifically relates to the meeting input summarized below. 1. Side setbacks. Further tightening through lot building envelopes was suggested by addressing side setbacks. If side setbacks were to be revised for through lots, the standards for total and least side yard setback would have to be addressed for four separate residential zoning districts (R-1, R-2, R-3 and MFR). Additionally, MFR has three separate side yard setback standards for single-family, two-family and multi-family buildings. The priority situation to address concerns lots that do not conform to width requirements and permitted side yard setback reductions (potentially as narrow as five feet). Instead of reassessing side yard setbacks for all districts and building types for through lots, we suggest a simple amendment: do not allow side yard reduction on nonconforming through lots. 2. Variable Building Coverage- Royal Oak. The variable building coverage standards apply to lots in the city s lowest density residential district (One-Family Residential). For a lot 6,000 square feet or greater, the maximum building coverage is 30%. For lots less than 6,000 square feet, the maximum is increased to 35%, but first floor coverage (building footprint) is capped at 1,800 square feet. Royal Oak s restrictions apply to all types of lots (interior, corner, through). The intent of variable lot coverage regulation appears to accommodate reasonable development on smaller lots, rather than restricting large structures on larger lots. Of the three residential zoning districts in the Royal Oak Zoning Code that include this restriction, all have a 30% building coverage maximum, except for smaller lots in the One-Family Residential district. In the R-2 District in East Grand Rapids, development of standard lot (7,200 square feet) is capped at 40%, allowing a 2,880 square foot building footprint. If a 5% reduction of the maximum were applied to this case, the footprint would be reduced to 2,520 square feet. For larger parcels or double lots, the potential building footprint would increase accordingly with very little restriction if dimensional standards were met. Increased restrictions on larger lots by 5% would have little effect on usable square footage, considering 2.5 story homes are permitted. A stricter lot coverage restriction exclusive to through lot development is not recommended as building footprint, mass and bulk are addressed in other recommendations in this report. Royal Oak also imposes a 3,500 square foot usable floor area maximum regardless of lot size and type (interior, through, corner) in two of four residential zoning districts. It is less common to find building restrictions on larger and conforming lots, as long as setbacks and coverage requirements are met. There is no building square footage restriction in East Grand Rapids. District-wide application of this type of restriction could have multiple unanticipated implications. 15 Ionia SW, Ste. 450 Grand Rapids, MI T F

6 Through Lots 3. Criteria for Designating a Primary Street. Criteria to consider when determining the orientation of a proposed principal structure has been provided. To address public comments from October, we recommend consideration of a rear building step-back. This zoning technique is more commonly applied in urban settings where there are no yard requirements and no building setbacks. A step-back on an urban building lessens its visual impact and bulk, ensures adequate sunlight, and even provides rooftop or walkout open space for residents. In detached residential application, an upper story step-back can address the mass and bulk of a principal dwelling, mainly when construction in the building envelop is maximized and a structure is stretched to the secondary front setback line (or in closer proximity). A step-back requirement can ensure that building height requirements are as low as 16 feet at the secondary front yard setback with a gradual increase in the height restriction until the maximum height for the district is reached (or 25 feet for principal structures on nonconforming lots). Figure 1 Rear "Step-Back" Height Line Draft Language Section 5.28 Area, Height and Placement Requirements B. Established Front Yard Setback 2. For through lots, the requirements of this subsection shall apply as follows: a. The Director of Public Works shall designate the primary front street upon which the principal structure shall face and be addressed. The primary front yard shall abut the primary front street. The opposite street shall be the secondary front street. This designation will be based on: i. Location and orientation of existing or proposed buildings on the lot in question in relation to existing buildings on properties in the same general neighborhood and historic development patterns. ii. Location and impact of existing vegetation, water, or other natural features affecting the location of buildings or structures on the lot in question. b. The required setback for a primary front yard shall be within a build-to zone that shall be the space between the established front setback line of neighboring properties, as defined in Section 5.28 B, and a line parallel to that line and 10 feet toward the secondary front street. 2 P a g e

7 Through Lots c. The secondary front yard setback shall be a line parallel to the secondary front street determined to be 15 feet interior of the established rear building line of the rearmost existing adjacent principal structure facing the secondary front street. In the case of three or more contiguous through lots recorded prior to the date of adoption of this ordinance, the secondary front setback shall be the minimum front setback requirements of the zoning district in which the lots are located. Section Through Lots A. A through lot shall have two front lot lines and two front yards, two interior side lot lines and two interior side yards, and no rear lot line or rear yard. B. A through lot that is also a corner lot (i.e., a lot with streets on three sides) has two front lot lines and two front yards, a street side lot line and street side yard, an interior side lot line and interior side yard, and no rear lot line or rear yard. C. Additional requirements apply for development on through lots except in the case a lot is one of three or more contiguous through lots recorded prior to the date of this ordinance. 1. Landscaping. a. Fences on through lots parallel to secondary streets and located in secondary front yards shall be bordered by landscaping to minimize visual impact. One (1) shrub is required for every 10 linear feet of fence with a minimum installation spread of 24. Shrubs shall be evenly spaced along the fence and planted parallel to and within three (3) feet of the fence, on the secondary street side of the fence. b. Garages visible from the secondary street shall be screened by landscaping. One (1) shrub is required for every five (5) feet of elevation width facing a secondary street with a minimum installation spread of 24. Shrubs shall be evenly spaced and planted parallel to and within three (3) feet of the structure, between the structure and the secondary street. c. Where dwelling on a through lot extends into a portion of the property that is immediately adjacent to a required rear yard of an adjoining property, the portion of side yard along the structure shall include landscaping. One (1) canopy tree or two (2) ornamental trees and five (5) shrubs is required for every 25 feet of applicable side yard. Minimum installation sizes are 2.5 caliper width for canopy trees, 1.75 caliper width for ornamental trees and 24 spread for shrubs. Landscaping shall be evenly spaced within this area. 2. Garage doors on attached or detached structures shall not face secondary streets and shall be at least perpendicular to the secondary street. 3. Access to the lot shall only be from the primary street. Where a driveway or other access to the lot exists from the secondary street, such driveway or access shall be removed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. Principal building height is limited by a rear step-back requirement. Building height shall be limited by a line that begins at a point 25 feet from the secondary front yard setback within the secondary front 3 P a g e

8 Through Lots yard. The building height line shall be directed at a 30 degree angle and shall travel toward the interior of the site. In no case shall height of building or structure, as defined in Section 5.10, exceed the height designated by this line or the maximum height for the zoning district, whichever is more restrictive. Building plans shall demonstrate compliance during Zoning Review of new principal structures and any addition or alteration to existing structures. Section Nonconforming Lots 4. Side yards may be reduced by the same percentage that the area of the lot bears to its own district requirements, subject to the following conditions: a. The side yard in no instance shall be less than five feet. b. In no case shall the side yard setback on the side street of a corner lot be reduced from that required by the zoning district. c. In no case shall any required setback in any yard abutting Reeds Lake, Fisk Lake, or the Reeds Lake/Fisk Lake channel be reduced. d. In no case shall any side yard setback of a through lot be reduced except in the case a lot is one of three or more contiguous through lots recorded prior to the date of this ordinance. 4 P a g e

9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: East Grand Rapids Planning Commission David M. Jirousek, AICP October 7 (October 14 meeting) Through Lots- Zoning Text Amendment Overview We have updated the draft through lot language based on six comments from the September meeting. Draft language is underlined while highlighted text specifically relates to the meeting input summarized below. We have also provided general review comments concerning the recent changes for your consideration. 1. Restrict driveways to the primary front yard. Curb cuts on secondary streets should be removed if existing. 2. Prohibit garage doors from facing secondary streets. 3. Require modest screening of garages and fences in secondary front yards. 4. Required modest side yard landscaping or screening. 5. Reduce building envelop by moving the secondary front yard setback 15 feet interior of the rear-most adjacent existing rear building line. 6. Reduce primary front yard build-to zone to 10 feet. Draft Language Section 5.28 Area, Height and Placement Requirements B. Established Front Yard Setback 2. For through lots, the requirements of this subsection shall apply as follows: a. The Director of Public Works shall designate the primary front street upon which the principal structure shall face and be addressed. The primary front yard shall abut the primary front street. The opposite street shall be the secondary front street. b. The required setback for a primary front yard shall be within a build-to zone that shall be the space between the established front setback line of neighboring properties, as defined in Section 5.28 B, and a line parallel to that line and 10 feet toward the secondary front street. c. The secondary front yard setback shall be a line parallel to the secondary front street determined to be 15 feet interior of the established rear building line of the rearmost existing adjacent principal structure facing the secondary front street. In the case of three or more contiguous through lots recorded prior to the date of adoption of this ordinance, the secondary front setback shall be the minimum front setback requirements of the zoning district in which the lots are located. Comment 1: The primary front yard requirement is a blend of two opposing concepts. A setback pushes the structure away from ROW while a build-to line draws the structure closer. Together, the two lines create a zone in which the façade of the principal structure must be located. 15 Ionia SW, Ste. 450 Grand Rapids, MI T F

10 Through Lots Comment 2: The revision to the secondary front yard setback is a significant reduction of the building envelope. Not only is the average of two structures no longer considered, but the setback is now 15 feet further away from the secondary street than the furthest adjacent building line. Comment 3: There may be cases where an adjacent principal structure encroaches over a required rear yard setback. Adding an additional 15 feet to this line may push the secondary front yard setback far enough back that a significant portion of a through lot may be unusable. Comment 4: An adjacent irregular lot or corner lot may cause unanticipated scenarios. Section 5.63 Through Lots A. A through lot shall have two front lot lines and two front yards, two interior side lot lines and two interior side yards, and no rear lot line or rear yard. B. A through lot that is also a corner lot (i.e., a lot with streets on three sides) has two front lot lines and two front yards, a street side lot line and street side yard, an interior side lot line and interior side yard, and no rear lot line or rear yard. C. Landscaping 1. Fences on through lots parallel to secondary streets and located in secondary front yards shall be bordered by landscaping to minimize visual impact. One (1) shrub is required for every 10 linear feet of fence with a minimum installation spread of 24. Shrubs shall be evenly spaced along the fence and planted parallel to and within three (3) feet of the fence, on the secondary street side of the fence. Comment 5: Is it a priority to landscape three-foot ornamental or picket fences? Comment 6: Fence size, placement and opacity requirements are the same for interior lots (nonthrough). It may not be reasonable to treat these cases differently. 2. Garages visible from the secondary street shall be screened by landscaping. One (1) shrub is required for every five (5) feet of elevation width facing a secondary street with a minimum installation spread of 24. Shrubs shall be evenly spaced and planted parallel to and within three (3) feet of the structure, between the structure and the secondary street. Comment 7: Detached garages will be limited to the side yard and in all other cases they will be attached and incorporated into the structure. Garage doors are not screened in any other cases. Moreover, it is proposed that garage doors cannot face secondary streets; therefore, this may be unnecessary. 3. Where a dwelling on a through lot extends into a portion of the property that is immediately adjacent to a required rear yard of an adjoining property, the portion of side yard along the structure shall include landscaping. One (1) canopy tree or two (2) ornamental trees and five (5) shrubs is required for every 25 feet of applicable side yard. Minimum installation sizes are 2.5 caliper width for canopy trees, 1.75 caliper width for ornamental trees and 24 spread for shrubs. Landscaping shall be evenly spaced within this area. Comment 8: This requirement provides softening of the visual impact but not screening or buffering. Screening would require a more significant planting requirement. Comment 9: Existing vegetation should satisfy this requirement, when possible. 2 P a g e

11 Through Lots Comment 10: The same visual impact can occur in typical interior lot development when an accessory structure is placed in a rear yard. Moreover, an accessory structure can be placed as close to three (3) feet from the rear and side property lines, much closer than a dwelling. Allowable accessory structures can range from 336 to 1,296 square feet, depending on the size of the lot and other factors. Comment 11: There are no other landscaping requirements for single-family homes or accessory structures. Comment 12: Residential lot landscaping may create unintended increases in inspection and enforcement measures, including an inspection at installation and potential violations due to lack of maintenance. Comment 13: Overall, we do not recommend landscaping requirements. D. Garage doors on attached or detached structures shall not face secondary streets and shall be at least perpendicular to the street. Comment 14: There are no other restrictions in the zoning ordinance concerning orientation of garage doors. Garage doors are not prohibited from facing streets in any other case. E. Access to the lot shall only be from the primary street. Where a driveway or other access to the lot exists from the secondary street, such driveway or access shall be removed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. Primary Front Primary Front Yard Build-To Zone (10 feet deep) Building Envelope Secondary Front Secondary Front Yard Setback (15 feet interior of the rearmost building line of the adjacent principal structure 3 P a g e

12 RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR NOVEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24