1

The City of FerndaleAgenda

Board of Zoning Appeals MeetingTUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019 @ 7:00 PM

FERNDALE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Roll Call

Approval of Agenda

Approval of Minutes

Approval of the minutes of October 30, 2019

Public Hearing

133 University - Dimensional Variance

Communications and Announcements

Adjournment

1

July 16, 2019 City Clerk

CITY OF FERNDALEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

FROM: Barb Miller

SUBJECT: Approval of the minutes of October 30, 2019

INTRODUCTIONApproval of the minutes of October 30, 2019

SUMMARY & BACKGROUNDApproval of the minutes of October 30, 2019

BUDGETARY CONTEXTN/A

CIP#N/A

ATTACHMENTSBoard of Zoning Appeals - 30 Oct 2018.pdf

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXTOrganizational and Financial Excellence

RECOMMENDED ACTIONapprove the minutes of October 30, 2019 as submitted.

2

MINUTES

Board of Zoning Appeals MEETING

October 30, 2018 City Hall, 300 E 9 Mile, Ferndale, MI 48220 7:00 PM

PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Greg Pawlica, Ian Williamson, Judy Palmer, Laura Moore, Mike Steidemann, Austin Colson, and Leah Deasy

ABSENT: Robert Porter and Carly Shapiro

1 ROLL CALL

2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Moved by Judy Palmer, Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Greg Pawlica to approve the agenda as presented.

MOTION CARRIED.

3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Approval of the June 26, 2018 Meeting Minutes as corrected

Palmer - corrections Williamson is there something; Porter made comment "true conditions" doesn't remember him making that statement, maybe unique condition. Williamson - "can't ornate" should be originate.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Greg Pawlica, Seconded by Judy Palmer to approve the minutes of June 26, 2018 as amended.

MOTION CARRIED.

4 Public Hearing a) 561 Livernois - Use Variance - per Chair Williamson a Public Hearing is not necessary.

City Planner Lyons introduced the project.

Applicant spoke - Rosano Raya - owner of business since 2002. Great serving Ferndale, in recent years, decided to go into law enforcement with Genesee County Sheriffs department. The commute is long, doesn't get to the gym very often. Switching careers and working 40+ hours, and only here on Saturdays. He is the manager of the business, mom is the owner of the building. They have decided to put

Page 1 of 12

3

Board of Zoning Appeals

October 30, 2018

the place up for sales but it's difficult. Those who have been interested found that by law they cannot live in the house and parking is difficult. A gallery owner who would take care of the business, live/work environment but not as currently zoned. It's something different; would love to be here another 20 years; without full time, profits have gone down. Difficult for his mom to come down to open the business. would be appreciative of a vote in his favor. It's been a big decision and it would help in the sale of the property to make it MXD use.

Williamson - Thanked him and said sorry to leave Ferndale. When looking at permitted use home business, working in front; why is it an issue?

Lyons - as a single family only, the house converted to retail, that's where it changes. If split into home, living space that would work.

Williamson - are the buildings separate or connected

Lyons - separate

Williamson - if connected, and front used as a home, would that work?

Lyons - it's possible

Deasy - issue in understanding conversion between business/residential - permitted uses, single family is business at the time of adoption. Question is the meaning of the word dwelling. Seems intent might have been for situations like this. Did they mean someone actually living there?

Lyons - according to our city attorney - that's where non-conforming use came into play - item 5 - prohibition of reestablishment. If it was the same use all the time we wouldn't be discussing this.

Deasy - non-conforming - when new ordinance is adopted, anything in existence is allowed.

Lyons - it makes sense if it was crafted in a different way but this is the way the attorney interpreted.

Williamson - is it the situation at the time the ordinance was passed where nobody was living there?

Lyons - since that time

Applicant - no, it was a storage use, there was a Ferndale school teacher living there but not since I've owned

Williamson - when was the current ordinance passed?

Lyons - MLUP 2008, ordinance 2010

Williamson - was building materially altered in 2010?

Rosano - no - it's always had a bathroom and kitchen, but never somebody living there all the time

Williamson - laid out like a house?

Rosano - like a house, central living area, office area, tv space, bathroom, 2 bedrooms with closet; rented it out as a retail shop

Williamson - retail in 2010?

Rosano - no, real estate attorney, office; still has a fridge and an oven

Steideman - you've owned it the whole time, so you could have used it as a residence?

Page 2 of 12

4

Board of Zoning Appeals

October 30, 2018

Rosano - yes

Palmer - my understanding is the codes changed and once it changed from being a home to commercial it cannot revert back. How are we going to change that use if we're not allowed to? If we can't do it, we can't do it. We have only done one use variance.

Lyons - staff communicated that it would be a challenge. Didn't want to turn it away.

Pawlica - looking for the definition of mixed use

Palmer - mxd2 - because there are two different structures does it apply

Steidemann - owned it before, it wasn't a residence; the law changed, would there have been a notice they would lose use if not a residence. If it never changed, does that affect how this can be interpreted? If it becomes commercial, you can never go back. Nothing changed.

Palmer - prior to it could be a residence; but since it's used as commercial, it can't revert

Williamson - was it a dwelling prior to the change in the ordinance; attorney says it's commercial use before the change

Deasy - it's the attorney's interpretation; couldn't we interpret it differently? Reiterate nonconforming use you sited, struggling to believe this use shouldn't be allowed.

Rosano - when purchased, it was because I was told I could not live there. Was never informed that he could have lived there rather than purchasing a home on Maplehurst in 2002.

Williamson - non 242-364 - nothing referencing use

Lyons 242-363 is use

Williamson - mxd2 allows multiple family dwelling; if they put a kitchenette in the basement would it qualify?

Rosonao - it's a crawl space

Lyons - an architect could attach 2 units and make it a residential option to fit the site

Williamson - might be quicker/cheaper to join the buildings as a home/business

Lyons - tutoring, home office, it has to be a full-time business

Pawlica - so if I bought the property, opened a studio, and lived there for a year and closed the business, would I be forced out of my home. How can they enforce that?

Lyons - it would be noticed on the certificate of occupancy with residential home with x business; has to be clearly incidental to primary use.

Deasy - can Justin define dwelling?

Lyons - there are 6-7 definitions

Deasy - dictionary definition is home, apartment, house - it's really easy to define home or house which is the structure. Living in that house seems to be allowed. From risk mitigation, not allowing the use is murkier than allowing. Not doubting the attorney, wouldn't want to rely too heavily on a single attorney who could be argued

Rosana - on Bermuda there are loft units with live/work

Palmer - they were built that way

Steidemann - upper level is allowed

Williamson - the section that prevents the two structures on the property being viewed together. Why do we have to look at the structure as isolated from the other?

Page 3 of 12

5

Board of Zoning Appeals

October 30, 2018

Lyons - that's how it was communicated to me.

Williamson - having trouble understanding why this isn't a home business. Not seeing anything in the ordinance that states that each building or structure on the property must be viewed in a vacuum.

Palmer - are there totally separate utilities?

Rosano - 1 electric/1 water

Lyons - variance request doesn't have to include a home business; front would be a residence, that's where it came into play

Williamson - if someone wanted to use this as a home business where's the problem

Lyons - as long as it's used as a business

Williamson - if the applicant is under the impression that the ordinance requires they live in the house, why is a variance necessary

Lyons - they want to sell this as a single residence, but it's not allowed; with a business, there's no issue

Palmer - the combination of saleability; it's a large structure in the back; if the house isn't conducive for living in; 2 bedroom is important; can't be a house without a bedroom. Now that we know it has one utility, it's one unit

Rosano - kitchen, toilet, sink, small shower can be added. It's a big bathroom.

Palmer - house has to have 3 pieces

Williamson - variance is really asking - the ability to sell it only as a residential property with no business at all

Realtor - Leonard Besnos - Birmingham - reviewed the ordinance, literature pertaining to non-conforming; prepared the application. The property is unique, the city is unique, driving down Woodward/Livernois there's a wide array of uses. Even if you used the house as a residence, there are numerous permitted uses for the back building. Some concerns that have to be satisfied pertaining to how this use variance would affect the code adversely. The property as it stands is unique - 90 years old, originally 3 bdrm, 3 rooms with built-in in dressers, large living room, full kitchen. Would like the residence in front and an office and/or another use in the outlying building. Parties interested in the house have been interested in residing in the house and using the building as studio/light manufacturing.

Williamson - based on the discussion we just had living in the house and using the back as a studio is allowed. This variance is asking for somebody to live in the house and no other use in the building. That's why we're struggling. The applicant has to demonstrate there is an unnecessary hardship. We believe it still could be a home business. Rosano mentioned he would have preferred to live in the house and run his business in the back. A home business is a permitted use, art, craft, or dance studio is permitted. Why do you need a use variance?

Leonard - ambiguity in the code as written. Lyons was of opinion it could not be reverted to a home residence. It was uncommon for this to occur but thought to come before BZA.

Williamson - our collective opinion is a home business is a permitted use. It doesn't matter that it wasn't a dwelling at the time. It's a permitted use as a home business.

Leonard - that's why it's a question

Williamson - you have to prove that one person is living there with no additonal use. You have to demonstrate it's not available.

Page 4 of 12

6

Board of Zoning Appeals

October 30, 2018

Deasy - clarifying the question - the more we talk the more confused with what the applicant wants. Is part of the issue, the home business the type of business.

Williamson - under current zoning if he wanted to use

Rosano - mayor at the time told him he couldn't live there

Williamson - as it stands now, it's a permitted use

Lyons - in 2004 the ordinance wasn't around

Colson - reading through the application, the intent for the request is so that you have a better opportunity to sell the property as a residential single family home. Is that the intent?

Leonard - it's been raised by buyers. haven't made a representation of that

Colson - how long? May-June

Leonard - showings in early summer

Palmer - potential buyer asking to use it as a home with business

Leonard - plans would have to be done and go before building department - it's only lacking a shower

Palmer - because it can be used as a home/business as it stands, it's already there, you'd have to get permits

Williamson - appreciate the confusion; this may have been industrial or light industrial, now it's mxd use; as a matter of right and they want to operate a home business, you have a lot of variety, they could give guitar lessons in the back building and live in the front building. If the building department would not allow the changes, could they come before BZA?

Lyons - yes

Williamson - as a body we don't believe operating a home business on this property is not a permitted use

Steidemann - can we make a statement allowing this use

Palmer - it's the current use

Pawlica - hope Lyons would have that discussion

Palmer - highly unlikely a home business would not be allowed; do home businesses have to have a permit?

Lyons - ZDR required; in this instance, we may need COO

Williamson - you could have a pottery studio, etc. Does this clarify what can be done?

Rosano - so basically we didn't need to be here tonight?

Williamson - do you have the information of what you can/can't do on this property without a variance. You probably could have moved onto the property. Do you want to withdraw your variance request?

Rosano - yes

Williamson - if someone has a concern, being told they can't live there, you come to us.

b) 1461 E 8 Mile Road - Sign Appeal

Williamson read the ordinance variance conditions

Williamson opened the Public Hearing at 9:12 pm. As no one from the public spoke, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:12 pm.

Page 5 of 12

7

Board of Zoning Appeals

October 30, 2018

Mark Aubry - Motor City Pawn - I've been here before and open for 1.5 years, remodeled as much as possible. The unique condition, it's on a service drive and 10-15 customers have said they can't find the building, some don't show because they can't find it. All you see now are white bars on the building and we're trying to get away from that look. We try to make them look like a Best Buy on the interior. The types of vinyl we're requesting are not bright, it's a tint and looks professional. We had windows on three sides of the building and they've been closed. You denied a previous request for a larger sign. That's also a hardship. Jewelry stores have similar types of vinyl.

Williamson - you do a good job, site cleaned up and looks much better. When are Kitchen Concepts going to build on your former lot? Having sewer issues. A sign variance can't be done to be nice. Q have legal requirements to meet. Inability due to the unique condition. Must be unique and peculiar to the property and don't exist throughout the community. We'll want to hear from you on each condition before granting a variance of any size. You must meet all of the conditions. There are 5 and C is out of the question.

Pawlica - is this property zoned differently? Why

Lyons - yes, C3, to the east it's OS, to the west on the end where there was a self-storage facility proposed it was conditional M1.

Pawlica - so it's different than the surrounding area?

Williamson - are you asking for the variance based on the size of building or combination of size and topography.

Aubry - 20% maximum on window details

Williamson - we can grant on condition of practical topography that limits visibility.

Aubry - and road curvature and it's a large building

Williamson - based on these multiple factors - a large building, topography; we have to meet conditions; inability to conform to the condition

Aubry - safety concerns, see cars veering from left lane to right to get into the parking lot; it would help in the immediate and plant a seed to know next time; the curve makes it difficult and the sign is near impossible to see going from east to west. These are safety concerns - might help the drivers and improve safety on 8 Mile road.

Williamson - anything else?

Aubry - it's about safety

Williamson - any questions from the board

Palmer - 20% - what's the difference between this and Woodward?

Lyons - same

Steidemann - is it 20% of each window?

Lyons - we've interpreted both ways and it's pretty gray

Williamson - so if you took the total volume of windows and took 20% and could put

Page 6 of 12

8

Board of Zoning Appeals

October 30, 2018

on a couple of windows but not every one

Steidemann - is that per building face? can't use side window?

Lyons - correct

Deasy - you mentioned they're professional and from inside you can't see it. Is that typical of window signage?

Lyons - we've seen both, it's not typical of what I've seen, most are opaque in the city, can't speak to the region

Aubry - it's a new application and is pricier; it's a better look than the bars; there's a hardship

Palmer - how much over the 20% using the signage? He has to take out 80%, maybe every third he would be able to use, there are 12, so 4 rather than 12

Williamson - unique conditions, speak to that

Aubry - road curvature, no commercial property that has this condition, others have good frontage and are easily seen

Williamson - allowing variance - practical difficulties and others that would be affected

Aubry - adjacent property owners would be happy to have the bars removed; safety issues, they swerve to get in, they pull over the curb instead of the driveway to avoid missing, safety is huge; it won't affect surrounding properties; failure if you don't grant - safety

Pawlica - you keep mentioning bars, they're on the inside so you're just covering them with the vinyl

Colson - you've also mentioned safety where it curves and median where you can't turn going eastbound; what alternative have you used?

Aubry - tried the blow-up guys but there's an ordinance against it; sign holders are prohibited

Pawlica - he's allowed a sandwich board but there's a limit to the size

Aubry - it's MDOT property, had to gets a special permit for $100,000 on new concrete

Palmer - would he need MDOT approval for the sandwich board; that would help

Steidemann - does MDOT fall under Ferndale ordinances; Have you ever put your address on Bennett?

Aubry - Google maps take them to the rear of property - and there's no entrance, it's our storage area. I've gotten a GPS locator on the front of the building - but it doesn't help.

Pawlica - you could put a sign on the building saying entrance on the front of the building

Aubry - have I answered a,b,c

Williamson - variance is the minimum necessary

Aubry - debatable, it could be 100% - would 20% solve the problem, personally I don't think so, wouldn't notice 1-2, 50%, every other, 100% would look more professional

Page 7 of 12

9

Board of Zoning Appeals

October 30, 2018

and would solve the safety concern with people pulling into the driveway.

Williamson - adversely affect

Aubry - agree, that's what I would say

Pawlica - question for Justin - is there any description of why the ordinance is written as 20% as opposed to 30-40%

Lyons - a lot of intent description, a lot of objective statements, illumination, but not really specific to that 20% figure; probably in response to downtown with windows filled and you can't see inside. There are some that focus on zoning districts; blanket window sign for consistency

Pawlica - have discussed different signage on Woodward/8 Mile due to the size of the roads; sometimes window coverings come across as blocking the view into the business and appearing like a warehouse or closed up. That's not the intention of this applicant and I understand what you're trying to achieve. My concern would be the severity of 100%; the issue with the two-door areas you show almost everything covered except for the actual doors. It feels warehousy and closed off. Don't have an issue with individual windows; 100% is a bit severe

Aubry - would be ok with removing the decals around the doors. Aesthetically it would look ok.

Pawlica - from the inside, it would allow a lot of light - almost feels you could have put up boards. It's not really your intention, probably looking at 80%.

Palmer - we're down to 8

Aubry - 2 doors and 2 large windows next to the doors and the horizontal window above the doors could be left uncovered.

Palmer - that's something I could support

Deasy - I understand the intent of this sign ordinance; see what's going on inside the business and eyes on the street; more people inside are able to look out. The only reason to consider is because you are specifically stating they are see-through and that would have to be a condition. Being able to see what's going on inside is difficult. At and around the doors there is nothing so they can see. It's not a high foot traffic area.

Aubry - you can't tell they're on the window from the inside. The windows are tinted and you can't see customers on the inside. Doors aren't tinted. You can see outside through the covers.

Colson - does the city see signs differently if they're opaque or not opaque; and you're maxed on your signage?

Aubry - yes, other communities allow 100-120%

Colson - so the intent is to make signs visible to people on 8 Mile

Lyons - only real differentiation - they need to be placed inside the building, not outside

Williamson - we've had a variance request in the past for 100% coverage and for me, 100% coverage is bold to even ask. That's everything and dispensing with the

Page 8 of 12

10

Board of Zoning Appeals

October 30, 2018

ordinance. Personal perspective - we have a sign size limitation and we kept them within the size limitation and this is an unusual location. If you don't know Motor City's branded colors of black, red, white, I understand the difficulty. It's a large building, pretty decent amount of frontage compared to the size of the sign allowed. He joined 2 buildings together; 20% coverage would allow a couple of decals. I can understand having more than a couple of windows covered, entrance area remaining clear, don't like doors covered with decals or area surrounding. Could support variance beyond 20% but getting close to 100%.

Palmer - there are 12 signs, 40% is 3 signs; it's a very unique location, the size of the building has a lot to do with it. you made valuable and coming east to west is difficult. West to east sandwich sign would help. If you went every other window, max 4, would help, more color would be eye-catching.

Moore - I travel by you multiple times per day, it's a strange driveway, I know how many accidents happen daily. I could see where 40% would be 5 signs. 100% is a pretty bold request. I struggle with signage and we have so much in our city.

Palmer - are you allowed to erect a sign?

Aubry - no there's an ordinance against it, you don't allow pole sign

Moore - did we discuss multiple driveways, if you miss it, you have to go a long ways

Aubry - no, they have to take the side street, pull off to John R to Bennett

Deasy - with these window signs, curious to know is it your intent to change the content or what you print the first time what stays

Aubry - I don't see them changing for years or don't take fur coats or a new item is the hot item; or if I no longer take that item

Deasy - so you might swap one out

Aubry - they're expensive and not interchangeable

Moore - how long do they last?

Aubry - colorfast, 20 years

Deasy - another challenge you face in this area of the city, it appears to me that you are one operating a successful business in a row of blighted buildings. Often wondered if your store was in existence, then you redid the paint, it looks great and confidence that you're actually a business, not one that used to be there. Some amount of these decorative signs, less than 100%, more than 20% would show you're an operating business. A sandwich board showing your hours would help.

Colson - lives near the location, driving 8 Mile you have the overpass of 75, service drive along the overpass, when you begin the curve you believe the right lane ends. Not paying attention coming west to east you have a median and it curves. 100% is too much, more than 20%? Window tint between doors may not be appropriate, and maybe the sunglasses

Moore - what's right there

Aubry - vending machines

Palmer - sunglasses and awnings

Aubry - where the windows end, the awnings end

Lyons - if the board is leaning toward approval motion, the applicant would have to come back with the total percentage numbers. Possibly an up to amount?

Page 9 of 12

11

Board of Zoning Appeals

October 30, 2018

Aubry - if you say 50%, excluding doors

Palmer - if we give that variance, will others come?

Lyons - findings for this property, not just any property due to unique circumstances

Deasy - the more findings we add, the more closed

Steidemann - June 21, 2016, we asked if you were in top 1%, you said c3; don't see anything that comes close except Honda. They have a ridiculous amount of signs/logo.

Pawlica - that sign has been around preexisting and they maintain it.

Steidemann - you did take our advice. I would be inclined to approve, drive by and it's hard to see, could work in the RR underpass, within 100 yds of RR overpass

Colson - the overpass is part of it - you're coming down or up the road

Lyons - 610' from the door

Steidemann - so 200yds from RR to door

that the applicant has demonstrated a variance - site is partially located within 200 yds of the RR overpass, decreasing visibility, it's in the top 1% of commercial square footage.

following standards have been met that it's due to a practical difficulty,

Conditions:

limited visibility

alleged practical

doors and windows on either side can have up to 50% of remaining windows covered

decals must be see-through

Steidemann - do we have to add as a condition the 200 yards

Williamson - it was a defining of fact

Colson - the unique condition of MDOT ownership which limits

Lyons - in variance phrasing of up to 50%

Deasy - 50% of remaining glass surface, not including doors and adjacent windows

Williamson - it could be full coverage of some of the facade or any portion

Moved by Leah Deasy, Seconded by Judy Palmer to approve the dimensional variance application to show a variance of up to 50% from the 20% maximum size requirement, at 1461 E 8 Mile Road, Sidwell number 24-25-35-459-006, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings:

Findings:

1. that no one spoke in support of or opposition to the proposal;

2. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 6, Article VII, Sec. 6-267 (Sign Standards for Permitted Signs; Window Signs) requires window signs shall be no larger than 20% of the glass surface.

Page 10 of 12

12

Board of Zoning Appeals

October 30, 2018

3. a)that the applicant has demonstrated a variance is needed due to a practical difficulty on the site, such as varied topography, horizontal or vertical road curvature, or presence of structures or desired trees that limits visibility of a sign on the premises.

b) a variance is warranted due to the relatively large size of the site, frontage or building.

4. a) the inability to conform with the regulations is due to a practical difficulty or unique condition that includes more than a mere inconvenience or mere inability to attain a supposed higher financial return;

b) that the alleged practical difficulties or unique condition, or both, are exceptional and peculiar to the property of the person requesting the variance, and result from conditions which do not exist generally throughout the city;

c) that allowing the variance will result in substantial justice being done, considering the public benefits intended to be secured by the regulations, the individual practical difficulties that will be suffered by a failure to grant a variance, and the rights of others whose property would be affected by the allowance of the variance, and will not be contrary to the public purpose and general intent of these regulations;

d) the variance granted is the minimum necessary to allow the applicant to have a reasonable outlet for free speech and meet the intent of these sign regulations; and

e) the variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

For Against

Mayor Pro Tem Greg Pawlica x

Ian Williamson x

Judy Palmer (Seconded By) x

Laura Moore x

Mike Steidemann x

Austin Colson x

Leah Deasy (Moved By) x

6 1

MOTION CARRIED.

5 COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Getting close to MXD use amendments. Will provide followup - going to Planning Commission for discussion.

A recent request to City Council for a variance request on Saratoga Street to expand back and residential amendments allowed for non-conforming to build upward not outward. Will provide a memo going to CC, PC, and BZA. Looked at again with fire, planning, building, don't recommend non-conforming to continue. Won't solve everyone's issues but stand by recommendation.

Steidemann - for open discussion - Olive's Bloom Box - replace chain link. Wasn't present. Does anyone recall

Palmer - it was the property next to them. Pawlica - it was chain link when Seasonal Corner and replaced with wrought iron. It came to city council and they approved

Page 11 of 12

13

Board of Zoning Appeals

October 30, 2018

Lyons - it's decorative and they moved forward

Palmer - there's a difference between residential and commercial and it's allowed

Deasy - did you say the reason it's allowed and went through Council - is because the area fenced in is part of the building

Lyons - it's considered part of their storage; there is a sliver of property that's city-owned and they approved continuance, if Council to said remove the fence, they would have to.

Deasy - you mentioned zoning changes coming up, other than you'll bring us a memo and public access at city council/PC. Are there other cocmmunity engagement opportunities?

Lyons - yes, at PC meetings, it's unrealistic to do it across all of the districts, people can come to PC, it's a continueation of an existing conversation.

6 ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:19 pm.

Barbara Miller, Deputy City Clerk

Page 12 of 12

14

July 16, 2019 Community & Economic Development

CITY OF FERNDALEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

FROM: Erin Quetell

SUBJECT: 133 University - Dimensional Variance

INTRODUCTIONThe applicant is requesting a dimensional variance related to the standards listed in Ordinance 1087, Chapter24, Article IX, Sec. 24-43 Residential District Schedule of Regulations lot size requirements. The existingproperty has a frontage width of 33 feet and is requesting a 2-foot variance as the lot width requirement forthe R-2 district is 35 feet.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUNDThe applicant previously appeared at Planning Commission for conditional rezoning from P-1 to R-2 and wasapproved. The applicant now wishes to obtain a dimensional lot variance of 2 feet as the current lot width is33 feet and the required lot width of lots zoned R-2 is 35 feet.

BUDGETARY CONTEXTNone

CIP#N/A

ATTACHMENTS20190716-133_University_St-BZA_Staff_Report.pdf

133 University BZA Application 06242019.pdf

133 University Survey

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXTEconomic Prosperity

RECOMMENDED ACTIONN/A

15

Community and Economic Development Staff Report to the Board of Zoning Appeals July 16, 2019

133 University St (Dimensional Variance) REQUEST Dimensional Variance

APPLICANT Brian Watson 931 W Drayton Ferndale, MI 48220

AGENT N/A

LOCATION 133 University Street Ferndale, MI 48220

FILE NO.

PARCEL NO. 24-25-34-253-002

ZONING R-2, Single/Two-Family Residential

STAFF Erin Quetell, Environmental Sustainability Planner

Summary The applicant previously attended the Planning Commission meeting requesting a conditional rezoning from P-1 Parking to R-2 Single/Two-Family residential. The Planning Commission approved the rezoning acknowledging that the applicant was also requesting a dimensional variance due to the lot width. The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance related to the standards listed in Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article IX, Sec. 24-43 Residential District Schedule of Regulations lot size requirements. The existing property has a frontage width of 33 feet and is requesting a 2-foot variance as the lot width requirement for the R-2 district is 35 feet. Please review the attached information, submitted by the applicant, identifying the reasons for the variance requested.

16

133 University Street – Dimensional Variance July 16, 2019 - Page 2 of 4

General Requirements for Appeal (Section 24-246) In deciding appeals, the Board must find:

A. The action proposed will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties; increase the danger of fire; unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area; harm the environment; or in any other respect impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or welfare of the inhabitants of the City;

17

133 University Street – Dimensional Variance July 16, 2019 - Page 3 of 4

B. The action proposed will be compatible with adjacent uses, and of such height, location, size and character that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood;

C. The action proposed will not unreasonably increase congestion in public streets, make

vehicular and pedestrian traffic more hazardous than is normal for the district involved, taking into account sight distances, traffic flow, provisions for pedestrian traffic, and minimization of potential traffic conflicts;

D. The action proposed will not create a nuisance; E. The plight of the applicant results from special or unique circumstances peculiar to the

property and not from general neighborhood conditions; and F. The alleged hardship has not been created by the applicant or any person having a current

interest in the property. Considerations The applicant must present substantial evidence to show that if the Zoning Ordinance is applied strictly, practical difficulties to the applicant will result. To grant a dimensional variance, the Board must find:

1. Compliance with the strict letter of the restrictions governing setbacks will unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome.

2. The intent and purpose of this Ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

3. A lesser variance than that requested would not give substantial relief to the owner of the property or be more consistent with justice to other property owners.

4. The standards set forth in Section 24-426 are satisfied.

Potential Zoning Variance Motions Motion by , supported by , that the Board of Zoning Appeals APPROVE the dimensional variance application to allow a variance of 2 feet to accommodate the 33-foot lot with from the required lot width requirement of 35 feet, at 133 University, Sidwell number 24-25-34-253-002, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings: Findings

1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article IX, Sec. 24-43 Residential District Schedule of Regulations lot size requirements for R-2 is 35 feet, and the applicant is requesting a 2-foot variance as the existing property lot width is 33 feet;

2. that a practical difficulty does exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the Ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does not have other available alternatives in placement and size of the structure that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met;

18

133 University Street – Dimensional Variance July 16, 2019 - Page 4 of 4

3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will be not observed, and the applicant will be denied rights enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the 35-foot lot width ordinance;

4. That the proposal does not impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City;

5. that the plight of the applicant does result from conditions or circumstances unique to the property; and

6. that the alleged hardship was not created by the applicant, instead the hardship was created by the unique circumstances of the property.

Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regarding granting a variance have been met. Motion by , supported by , that the Board of Zoning Appeals DENY the dimensional variance application to allow a variance of 2 feet to accommodate the 33-foot lot with from the required lot width requirement of 35 feet, at 133 University, Sidwell number 24-25-34-253-002, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings: Findings

1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article IX, Sec. 24-43 Residential District Schedule of Regulations lot size requirements for R-2 is 35 feet, and the applicant is requesting a 2-foot variance as the existing property lot width is 33 feet;

2. that a practical difficulty does not exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the Ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does have other available alternatives in placement and size of the structure that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met;

3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will be observed, and the applicant will be allowed rights enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the 35-foot lot width ordinance;

4. That the proposal does impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City;

5. that the plight of the applicant does not result from conditions or circumstances unique to the property; and

6. that the alleged hardship was created by the applicant, and not by the unique circumstances of the property.

Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regarding granting a variance have been met.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28