Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 2019 Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 10, 2019 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING —Approved 3112120 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS October 10, 2019, 6:30 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center- 600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Marcie Alling at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Alling, J. Leaming, M. Rice, K. Berryman, R. Fryling & E. Jefferson Absent: J. Hovey, C. lannuzzi & M. Solak Staff: S. Stachowiak A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. 11 APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Learning, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve the agenda with the addition of "excused absences" under New Business and the removal of BZA-4054.19 which has been withdrawn by the applicant. On a voice vote, the motion carried 6-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4052.19, 573 Paris Avenue, Variance to the front yard setback requirement for a detached garage Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by Anna & Justin Paluch for a variance to permit a new detached garage at 573 Paris Avenue that would have a setback of 15 feet from the Grant Street front property line. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a front yard setback of 20 feet for the proposed garage. A variance of 5 feet to the front yard setback requirement is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to approve the variance based on a finding that the request complies with all of the applicable criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as described in the staff report for this request. Ms. Stachowiak said that the applicants are requesting a variance to construct a new garage closer to the front property line so that they will have more green space in the back yard. The applicant bases a practical difficulty on the width of the lot which is 10 feet less than the minimum width under the current ordinance for a corner lot. The applicant also considers that compliance with the front yard setback requirement would cause an unnecessary hardship on the owner since the garage would not extend any closer to the street than the existing covered porch on the side of the house. Ms. Stachowiak said that while the width of the property is 10 feet less than the current requirement for a corner lot, it is comparable in size to the other corner lots in the area. She said that since there is nothing particularly unique about the property to establish a practical difficulty, approval of the variance would need to be based on a finding that Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 10, 2019 Page 2 compliance with the ordinance requirement would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicants. In other words, there would need to be a finding that the variance could be approved while still upholding the intent of the ordinance requirement which is to create a uniform development pattern and preserve open vistas along roadways. Ms. Stachowiak said that in this case, the front wall of the proposed garage would be even with the setback of the covered porch on the Grant Street side of the house that appears to have been part of the original construction of the house in 1939. She also said that there are numerous other houses and garages along Grant Street that have setbacks equal to or even less than what the applicants are proposing for the new garage. Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Justin Paluch, 573 Paris Avenue, spoke in support of his request. He said that the old garage has been demolished and he would like the new garage to be placed closer to the street so that they can have more green space in the back yard. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Mr. Learning said that there are other houses and garages in the area that have setbacks that are the same or in some cases, even less than what the applicant is proposing. He said since the proposed setback is generally consistent with the existing setback pattern along Grant Street, approval of the variance will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the ordinance standard. Mr. Rice said that the variance is only necessary because the width of the lot is 10 feet less than the current width requirement for corner lots. Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve BZA 4052.19 for a variance of 5 feet to the 20 foot front yard setback requirement to permit the construction of a detached garage at 573 Paris Avenue that would have a front yard setback of 15 feet from the Grant Street front property line, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty/unnecessary hardship criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. BZA-4053.19, 5008 S. M.L. King Blvd., Variance to the rear yard setback requirement for a new gasoline station building Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by SBR M99, Inc. for a variance to permit a new gas station building on the property at 5008 S. ML King Jr. Blvd. that would have a setback of 1.75 feet to the rear lot line. Section 1268.08 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet in the T" Commercial district which is the zoning designation of the subject property. A variance of 23.25 feet to the rear yard setback requirement is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to approve the variance based on a finding that the request complies with all of the applicable criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as described in the staff report for this request. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the practical difficulty involving the size of the property could be considered self-created since the applicant recently split the property off from Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 10, 2019 Page 3 the parcel that contains the grocery store, thus creating a separate parcel that is insufficient in size to permit the proposed construction. She said that the issue is whether denial of the variance would create an unnecessary hardship on the owner. In other words, if the variance could be granted while still upholding the intent of the rear yard setback requirement which is to allow for access to the rear of a building and to provide a buffer between commercial buildings and adjoining residential uses. Ms. Stachowiak said that when the subject property was recently split from the grocery store property, an easement was put in place to allow for access around the site in perpetuity. She said that this easement also covers the drive aisle on the parcel to the north and since the easement ensures that there will be unrestricted access to the entire interior perimeter of the subject property across the adjoining commercial parcels, the reduced setback will not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there will be nothing on site that defines the new parcel lines and thus, it will still function and appear as though it is all one site. She also stated that if the variance is approved, the building will have to be properly fire rated in accordance with the requirements of the Michigan Building Code for its close proximity to the rear property line. Ms. Alling opened the public hearing. John Saad, civil engineer, Hanna Engineering & Consulting, Livonia, MI, spoke in support of the variance. He said that he is aware of the building code requirements for a building that is within 1.75 feet of the rear property line. Mr. Saad said that the building will be 1.75 feet from the rear property line at its nearest point but extends to about 7 feet because of the angle of the rear property line. He stated that the building will not be as big as most gas station stores but it will be a lot bigger than the existing building. He also said that the parking right now is behind the building and there is no handicap parking at all for the gas station. Mr. Saad said that the new plan will provide for an appropriate parking layout and a much more functional station in general. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Alling closed the public hearing. Mr. Fryling asked about the 1.75 foot rear yard setback and about the underground fuel tanks. Mr. Saad said that they will utilize bollards to protect the building walls and will plant landscaping behind the building. He said that there will be no walls or doors on the back wall of the building. He also said that the project is a total reconstruct of the gas station but that the underground fuel tanks will remain in place as it would be too costly to replace them. Mr. Rice said that by pushing the building to the back of the lot, it allows the parking to be on the front and sides rather than behind the building which is far more practical. Mr. Learning asked about the height of the proposed building. Mr. Saad said that the building will be no more than 17 feet high. He said that the building will have 3 varying elevations to give it character, utilizing brick and imitation wood for the exterior building finishes. Mr. Rice said that the practical difficulty involves the shallow depth of the lot. He said that by providing easements around the site, it will function properly and will not create a setback pattern that is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 10, 2019 Page 4 Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Leaming to approve BZA 4053.19 for a variance of 23.25 feet to the rear yard setback requirement to permit a building at 5008 S. M.L. King that would have a setback of 1.75 at its nearest point to the rear lot line, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficultylunnecessary hardship criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absence Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Ms. Jefferson to grant excused absences for Mr. Hovey, Mr. Solak & Mr. lannuzzi. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, September 12, 2019 Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Learning to approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on September 12, 2019, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Vill. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 6.56 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS September 12, 2019, 6:30 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center- 600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Marcie Alling at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Alling, J. Learning, M. Rice, K. Berryman, C. lannuzzi, M. Solak, R. Fryling & E. Jefferson Absent: J. Hovey Staff: S. Stachowiak A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Learning, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve the agenda with the addition of "excused absence" under New Business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 8-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4050.19, 613 & 621 Cherry Street & 309-321 E. St. Joseph Street, Variances to the front yard setback and parking location requirements Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by R. James Gorenflo, Nederveld, Inc. to permit a 52 unit apartment building on the properties at 613 & 621 Cherry Street and 309- 321 E. St. Joseph Street that would be combined into one parcel for development of the project. Section 1284.13(a) of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits parking in a front yard in the "DM-4" Residential district, which is the zoning designation of the subject properties. One of the proposed parking spaces on the site would extend into the front yard along Cherry Street. Section 1258.07 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 35 foot front yard setback for the proposed building. The proposed building would have a front yard setback of 20 feet along both streets with porches that would extend an additional 5 feet into the required front yard setbacks. A variance to permit one parking space in the front yard along Cherry Street and variances of 15 feet to the front yard setback requirement for the proposed building and 20 feet to the front yard setback requirement for porches on the front of the building are therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to approve the variances based on a finding that the request complies with all of the applicable criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as described in the staff report for this request. Ms. Stachowiak said that if the variances are denied, the building, including the porches, would have to be located at the 35 foot front yard setback which would be Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 2 inconsistent with the existing setback pattern in the area and with the desired placemaking characteristics described in the master plan. She said that all of the buildings in the surrounding area have setbacks that are significantly less than 35 feet. In fact, most are even less than what the applicant is proposing. In addition, if the building were to be located at the 35 foot setback, there would not be enough space behind the building to accommodate parking on the site. Ms. Stachowiak said that the proposed Form-Based Code (FBC) that the City has been developing to replace the Zoning Ordinance would actually prohibit a front yard setback that exceeds the average setback of the other buildings in the blockface. Under the proposed FBC, the required setback for this development would be even less (closer to the front property lines) than the proposed setbacks. She said that the applicant is seeking variances because the process for adopting the FBC may take several months which would unnecessarily delay the project. Ms. Stachowiak said that the request to allow one of the parking spaces to extend into the Cherry Street front yard is due to the small size of the site which presents significant design challenges in providing the required number of parking spaces in compliance with all dimensional requirements for parking lots. If denied, the applicant would need to either seek a variance of 1 to the required number of parking spaces or purchase adjoining properties to provide additional parking which would necessitate demolition of buildings in the area. Demolishing buildings to provide parking would have a far greater impact on the neighborhood than allowing one space to extend a slight distance into the Cherry Street front yard. Ms. Alling opened the public hearing. Jacob Horner, PK Companies, 500 E. Michigan Avenue #417, spoke in support of the request. He said that PK Companies has been in the area for 30 years and is a local company, headquartered in Okemos. He also said that they are applying for tax credits through the State of Michigan for this project and are under a deadline to do so and thus, they would like a decision at this meeting. James Gorenflo, Nederveld, Inc., 3037 Miller Road, Ann Arbor, MI, reviewed the proposed development plan. He said that the site has been designed to minimize the number of variances that would be necessary. Mr. Gorenflo said that the setback variance meets the intent of the ordinance which is to create a uniform development pattern in the area. He said that they tried to minimize the number of variances that would be necessary and while they could have built a 100 foot tall building on the site, they wanted to construct something that would fit in with the character of the area. Mr. Gorenflo said that some of the units will be for low income occupants and 44 of the 52 units will be efficiency units. Mr. Berryman asked about the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Gorenflo said that based on the number of units by bedroom count, they are required to provide 66 parking spaces. Penelope McNitt, 609 Cherry Street, stated that she lives in the historic Darius Moon house. She said that she prefers to have less units on the property and would like the City to make sure that the development fits in with the neighborhood. Mary Toshach, 645 S. Grand Avenue, stated that she is on the Cherry Hill Neighborhood Board, that she has a background in planning and was a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 3 City's Historic District Commission, Ms. Toshach said that new development brings new vitality to a neighborhood as long as it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. She said that she is concerned about the precedent that could be set by allowing a parking space in the front yard along Cherry Street and suggested that if it is to be approved, perhaps it could be screened by plants to minimize its appearance. Linda Fausey, 224 E. Hillsdale Street, stated that she is here on behalf of other property owners in the area as well and is concerned about the front yard parking space not fitting in with the neighborhood. She said that she is not happy with the proposed 44 efficiency units and she also expressed concerns about traffic, flooding and criminal activity in the area. Joel Christie, 1521 Reo Road, stated that he also owns 343 E. St. Joseph Street and he is concerned about the lack of parking on the site. He said that the developers should have purchased additional land to create more parking since there is no on- street parking along E. St. Joseph Street. Marie Walker, 249 Hannah Road, Mason, stated that she owns 3 buildings on Cherry Street, all of which are in a historic district. She said that there are very strict guidelines on what can be done with a building in a historic district and she said that it is important that the new building fit in with the historic character of the neighborhood. Ms. Walker stated that the properties in the area are well maintained. She expressed concerns about parking, the poor condition of the streets and traffic in the area. Ms. Walker questioned why the neighborhood was not informed about this project but for receiving a notice in the mail about this meeting. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the multiple family residential use of the property is permitted by right. She said that the only reason for this meeting is to consider the reduced setbacks and the projection of one parking space in the Cherry Street front yard. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Alling closed the public hearing. Mr. Leaming stated that the plan for the development illustrates how the proposed setbacks are consistent with the established setback pattern in the area. He also asked if requiring screening around the parking space would necessitate further notification. Ms. Stachowiak stated that requiring the parking space to be screened by evergreen plants is a very good suggestion and could be made a condition of the variance approval. Mr. Rice stated that the variance allows the building to fit in with the neighborhood which is the intent of the front yard setback ordinance requirement. He also said that the proposed front yard parking space, particularly if screened by evergreen plants, will not be disruptive to the development pattern in the area since it will still be located further back on the lot that the structures along Cherry Street. Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve BZA 4050.19 for variances to permit a multiple family residential building on the properties at 613 & 621 Cherry Street and 309-321 E. St. Joseph Street that would have front yard setbacks of 20 feet for the building and 15 feet for the porches and one parking space that would be located in the front yard along Cherry Street, on a finding Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 4 that the variances are consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application, with the condition that the parking space in the Cherry Street front yard is screened by evergreen plants. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). B. BZA-4051.19, 5920/5924 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Variance to the separation requirement between marijuana provisioning centers Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by OP Holdings, LLC for a variance to permit a medical marijuana provisioning center at 5920/5924 S. Pennsylvania Avenue that would be located within 500 feet of another proposed provisioning center at 6001 S. Pennsylvania Avenue. Section 1300.13(A)(2) of City Ordinance 1217 prohibits a medical marijuana dispensary within 500 feet of another medical marijuana provisioning center A variance to the required separation distance between 2 provisioning centers is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the attorney representing the applicant is present and is requesting an adjournment of the variance case. She said that the attorney provided a letter stating that "... this matter should be adjourned for good cause because the matter is not yet rip for appeal." Ms. Alling opened the public hearing. Seth Tompkins, Pollicella Tompkins, PLLC, attorney representing the applicant, OP Holdings, LLC, said that the City's ordinance prohibits a provisioning center within 500 feet of another provisioning center. He said that there are no existing provisioning centers within 500 feet of the subject property and thus, there is nothing to vary at this time. Mr. Tompkins stated that the City has not even determined if either of the applications that are relevant to this matter will score in the top 5 out of the pool of applications. He said that the only time that pursuing the variance would make sense is if both applicants did score in the top 5. Otherwise, the variance is not even necessary. He said that the variance application was filed after receipt of a letter from the City Clerk's Office stating that they had to do so within a certain time frame in order for his client's application to remain under consideration for issuance of a license. Mr. Tompkins said that the most appropriate course of action would be to adjourn the matter but if the Board decides to proceed, he would ask that the variance be approved so that his client would have a better chance of being issued a license in the unlikely event that both applications score in the top 5. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Alling closed the public hearing. Ms. Stachowiak said that, according to the City Attorney's Office, when there are license applications for two provisioning centers within 500 feet of each other and both score in the top 5: * If both applicants seek and are granted a variance, both could be issued a license. * If only 1 of the applicants seeks a variance and it is granted, the applicant who sought the variance would get the license, even if they have a lower score. * If neither applicant seeks a variance, the Clerk could award the license to the higher scorer and deny the lower scorer. Mr. Berryman asked Mr. Tomkins why he doesn't just withdraw the variance request. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 12,2019 Page 5 Mr. Tomkins stated that his client received a letter from the City Clerk's Office stating that he would have to apply for a variance to the separation requirements in order to stay in the running for a provisioning center license. Mr. lannuzzi asked about the timing for developing the list of the top 5 applicants. Ms. Stachowiak said that there is no established time frame. Mr. Leaming said that he agrees with Mr. Tomkins letter in that the appeal should take place once the case becomes ripe which it is not at this time because the applicant does not know if his client's application will score in the top 5 of the applicant pool. Ms. Jefferson agreed that the case is not ripe for appeal at this time. Mr. lannuzzi stated that he agrees with the legal analysis provided by Mr. Tomkins and would be in favor of voting to table the variance request. Mr. Rice stated that it is premature for the Board to take action on this request and he would also be supportive of tabling the matter until the top 5 scoring applications have been determined. Ms. Alling said that the ordinance needs to be revised so that these cases do not come to the Board prematurely. Mr. Leaming made a motion, seconded by Mr. Solak to table BZA 4051.19. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absence Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Leaming to grant an excused absence for Mr. Hovey. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). VIL APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, August 8, 2019 Mr. Leaming made a motion, seconded by Solak to approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on August 8, 2019, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). Vill. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:28 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 8, 2019 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS August 8, 2019, 6:30 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center- 600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Josh Hovey at 6.30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: J. Hovey, J. Leaming, M. Rice, M. Solak, R. Fryling & E. Jefferson Absent: M. Alling, C, lannuzzi & K. Berryman Staff: S. Stachowiak A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Rice, seconded by Mr. Leaming to approve the agenda with the addition of "excused absences" under New Business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 6-0. Ill. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4049.19, 720-724 N. Washington Avenue, Variance to the building height limitation Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by the Michigan Realtors Association to construct a new office building on the properties at 700-724 N. Washington Avenue that would be 47 feet, 7 inches in height. Section 1260.09 of the Zoning Ordinance limits the height of buildings in the "D-1" Professional Office district, which is the zoning designation of the subject property, to 45 feet. A variance of 2 feet, 7 inches to the height limitation for an office building is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to approve the variance based on a finding that the request complies with all of the applicable criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as described in the staff report for this request. Ms. Stachowiak said that the basis for the variance to permit the additional building height involves the need for a drop-off canopy at the main entrance to the building which would need to be 14'8" in height in order to provide enough clearance for emergency vehicles. She said that the subject property is zoned "D-1" Professional Office, which district requires a 20 foot setback for both buildings and parking lots from all property lines adjacent to a public right-of-way. Ms. Stachowiak said that, in contrast to most properties, 3 of the 4 property lines on the subject property adjoin a public right-of-way. This means that a 20 foot wide strip of land along the north, south and west property lines is completely unusable, even for parking which significantly limits the buildable area of the site and the amount of parking that could be constructed Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 8, 2019 Page 2 thereon. Ms. Stachowiak said that if the variance is denied, the applicant would be limited to a 2-story building that would consume more of the land and possibly result in the need for a variance to the setback requirements or to the required number of parking spaces. She said that alternatively, the proposed building may have to be dramatically reduced in size to the extent that it would no longer meet the applicant's needs which could result in the project being abandoned altogether. Ms. Stachowiak said that the he limitations on the buildable area caused by having 3 property lines abutting a right-of-way line is unique to the subject property and creates a practical difficulty for the applicant in redeveloping the site. She also said that the variance is very minimal and since the slight increase in building height is only necessary in order to accommodate the required clearance for a covered entrance to the building, denial of the variance would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant in making reasonable use of the site. Mr. Hovey opened the public hearing. Craig Hondorp, Progressive AE, 1811 4 Mile Road, Grand Rapids, stated that he is representing the applicant, Michigan Realtors. He stated that the additional height allows for a covered entranceway to the building with enough clearance for emergency vehicles. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Hovey closed the public hearing. Mr. Fryling asked why there is a 45 foot height limitation. Ms. Stachowiak said that it is because the majority of T-V Professional Office zoning in the City adjoins or is in very close proximity to residential land uses and the height limitation is to ensure that the buildings are compatible in scale. She said that in this case, there are no adjoining residential uses. Mr. Rice stated that the practical difficulty that warrants approval of the requested variance involves the small size of the site which, when coupled with the added setback restrictions of having frontage on 3 streets, makes it difficult to develop horizontally. He said that in order to maximize use of the site, the applicant has to build vertically. Mr. Rice stated that the additional height is necessary for safety reasons and since the proposal complies with the variance evaluation criteria, he will be voting in favor of the request. Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve BZA 4049.19 for a variance of 2 feet, 7 inches to the building height limitation to permit a 3 story office building at 700-724 N. Washington Avenue that would be 47 feet, 7 inches in height, on a finding that the variance is consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absences Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Leaming to grant excused absences for Ms. Ailing, Mr. lannuzzi & Mr. Berryman. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). .Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 8, 2019 Page 3 VI1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, March 14, 2019 Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Learning to approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on March 14, 2019, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 6:37 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 14, 2019 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING—Approved 818119 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS March 14, 2019, 6:30 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center-600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Marcie Alling at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Alling, J. Hovey, C. lannuzzi, K., J. Learning, M. Rice & R. Fryling Absent: M. Solak & K. Berryman Staff: S. Stachowiak A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Rice, seconded by Mr. Hovey to approve the agenda with the addition of "excused absences" under New Business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 6-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4048.19, 702 N. Magnolia Avenue, Variance to the height limitation for a front yard fence on a corner lot Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by Andrea Hunter for a variance to erect a 6 foot high privacy fence in the Saginaw Street front yard of the corner property at 702 N. Magnolia Avenue for the purpose of providing provide privacy and a buffer from the noise, fumes and dust generated by the heavy traffic volumes on E. Saginaw Street, Section 1292.03 of the Zoning Ordinance limits the height of fences in a front yard to 3 feet. A variance of 3 feet to the height limitation for a front yard fence is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to deny the variance based on a finding that the request does not comply with all of the applicable criteria listed in Section 1244.06 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance or the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as described in the staff report for this request. Ms. Stachowiak said that there is nothing unique about the subject property that warrants relief from the ordinance limiting the height of front yard fences and thus, approval of the requested variance could set a negative precedent for future requests of a similar nature. She said that the subject property is perfectly rectangular and there is no uneven topography or other physical feature that makes it unique in comparison to any other corner lot in the City. Ms. Stachowiak said that there must be a reasonable expectation that properties located on a major thoroughfare such as Saginaw Street are going to be affected by a heightened level of noise, dust and fumes resulting from heavier traffic volumes and that privacy will be diminished to a certain extent. She said that these issues are not unique to the property in question and cannot be used as justification for variances to the fence ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak said that the justification for most requests to vary the height of a front yard fence on a corner lot is that without a variance, there would be very little yard area that could be enclosed with a privacy fence, thus, depriving the owner of reasonable enjoyment of their property. In this case, and as evidenced by the maps provided in the meeting packet, the applicant's property is much larger than most other corner lots in the area in which it is located Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 14, 2019 Page 2 and given the placement of the house, the vast majority of the property could be enclosed with a privacy fence in compliance with the ordinance. Ms. Alling opened the public hearing. Andrea Hunter, 702 N. Magnolia Street, spoke in support of her request. She said that there is a row of trees between the house and sidewalk on the Saginaw Street side of the property that they would like to keep for privacy. Ms. Hunter said that the intent is to keep the trees inside of the fenced-in area. Mr. Fryling asked why the 6 foot high fence is necessary. Josh Woods, 702 N. Magnolia Street, stated that it would provide a sound barrier from the heavy traffic on Saginaw Street. He said that he has a recreational burn permit and the fence would provide a solid barrier so that the fire and the smoke emanating therefrom, would not be so noticeable and would not cause any problems with the traffic on Saginaw. Mr. Woods said that there are a lot of other privacy fences in corner lot front yards in the area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Alling closed the public hearing. Mr. Rice said that there is nothing unique about the subject property that would warrant relief from the ordinance standard regulating the height of fences in front yards. He said that it is a typical corner lot. He also said that the applicant could construct a 3 foot high solid fence in the Saginaw Street front yard. Mr. Learning thanked the applicant for the information that was provided to demonstrate the variance that is being requested. He said that he understands why the applicant is making the request but it does not satisfy the criteria that the Board must consider when determining whether to authorize a variance. Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Learning to deny BZA 4048.19 for a variance of 3 feet to the height limitation to permit a 6 foot high, wood privacy fence in the Saginaw Street front yard of the property at 702 N. Magnolia Avenue, based on the following findings: The variance is not consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) or the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), There is nothing unique about the subject property that would warrant relief from the ordinance standard restricting the height of fences in front yards, The applicant's property is larger than most other corner lots in the vicinity of the subject property and given its layout, the majority of the lot could be enclosed with a 6 foot high privacy fence without the need for a variance, as detailed in the staff report for this application. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absences Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hovey to grant excused absences for Mr. Solak & Mr. Berryman. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, December 3, 2018 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 14, 2019 Page 3 Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hovey to approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on December 3, 2018, as printed. On a voice vote,the motion carried unanimously (6-0). Vill. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 6:48 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator