ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Quality Services for a Quality Community

Transcription

1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Quality Services for a Quality Community MEMBERS Brian Laxton Chair Caroline Ruddell Vice Chair Konrad Hittner Patrick Marchman Eric Muska John Robison Vacancy Alternate 1 James Bradley City Council Liaison and Alternate 2 Erik Altmann Staff Liaison Darcy C. Schmitt (517) City of East Lansing DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT 410 Abbot Road East Lansing, MI (517) AGENDA August 3, :00 p.m. 54-B District Court, Courtroom Linden Street 1) OPENING A) Roll Call B) Approval of Agenda C) Approval of Minutes May 4, 2016 and June 1, 2016 D) Confirm Requests to Defer Appeals 2) COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Oral 3) NEW BUSINESS A) An appeal from Kraig Wray requesting a variation for the property located at 809 Westlawn Avenue, in the R-2, Medium Density Single-Family Residential District, from the following requirements of Chapter 50 - Zoning of the Code of the City of East Lansing: 4) OLD BUSINESS 5) STAFF REPORTS Article IV. Section , to permit 44% ground coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed by 4% more than the maximum ground coverage standard of 40%. This will increase a previously approved ground coverage variance by only.02%. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing crumbling front porch to replace it with a new wider front porch. 6) BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS 7) ANNOUNCEMENTS 8) ADJOURNMENT East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda August 3, 2016, Page 1 of 1

2 East Lansing Zoning Board Review Process The Zoning Board meets the first Wednesday of each month. The Board is composed of six citizen volunteers selected by the City Council. The Board is empowered to authorize upon an appeal specific variances from such dimensional requirements as lot area and width regulations, building heights, bulk regulations, yard width, side and depth regulations and off-street parking requirements. All of the Board meetings are open to the public and use the following process: 1. Board Secretary reads the public notice which describes the location, applicant, zoning district and subject matter of exception request. 2. Applicant's presentation - applicant may speak on his/her own behalf or may be represented. 3. Public comment - comments are taken from all who are interested, including any written comments. 4. Rebuttal/additional comments by applicant. 5. Questions by Board members. 6. Closing of public portion, deliberative phase. 7. Closing of hearing followed by Board's discussion and action. The concurring vote of four members is necessary to grant any variance or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which they are required to pass. Guidelines for Public Comment 1. If you are interested in speaking on an agenda item, please state your name, address and the specific concern or question you wish the Board to consider as clearly and concisely as possible. 2. To minimize redundancy, if previous speakers have already raised similar concerns or questions, simply note that you concur with them. 3. Direct your comments to the Board. Dialogue with the applicant or the audience is discouraged. 4. Written comments submitted to the Board automatically become part of the public record. It is not necessary to also read them. You may give a summary of the comments Members Brian Laxton - Chair Caroline Ruddell Vice Chair Patrick Marchman John Robison Eric Muska Vacancy Alternate 1 James Bradley Erik Altmann Alternate 2 Darcy C. Schmitt, Secretary (517)

3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Quality Services for a Quality Community MEMBERS Chair Brian Laxton Vice Chair Caroline Ruddell Konrad Hittner Patrick Marchman Eric Muska John Robison Travis Stoliker Alternate 1 James Bradley City Council Liaison and Alternate 2 Erik Altmann Staff Liaison Darcy C. Schmitt (517) City of East Lansing DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUIL.DING & DEVELOPMENT 410 Abbot Road East Lansing, MI (517) MINUTES May 4, :00 p.m. 54-B District Court, Courtroom Linden Street Present: Absent: Staff Present: 1) OPENING Altmann, Hittner, Laxton, Marchman, Muska, Robison, and Stoliker Ruddell Schmitt A) Roll Call Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. At the calling of the roll, Member Ruddell was absent. B) Approval of the Agenda Motion: Stoliker moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Hittner. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 7 to 0. C) Approval of the Minutes Motion: Robison moved to approve the April 13, 2016 minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Marchman. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 7 to 0. 2) COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Oral None East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 4, 2016 Page 1 of 5

4 3) NEW BUSINESS A) An appeal from Paul Vlahakis of the Planning and Zoning Administrator s decision as it relates to the property located at 225 Ann Street, in the B-3, City Center District where the property was found to be in violation of the following requirement of Chapter 50 - Zoning Code of the City of East Lansing: Section Permitted uses: The free standing shed located on the rear parking lot of the building is not permitted. Schmitt described the property, noting the location, zoning of the property and the surrounding area, and proposal as indicated in the Staff Report. She stated that these uses are not allowed in the B districts. Stoliker stated in reading through the Business Districts it does not state that sheds are not allowed but it also does not state that sheds are allowed. Schmitt replied affirmatively. Altmann asked if the requests are coming from the residential areas. Schmitt replied they are coming from the B-2 and B-4 districts especially in office areas where there are trash receptacles. The requests are to add on to the trash receptacles so it looks like it is part of the trash receptacle as they are in need of storage of outdoor tools and things of that nature. Perhaps include an ordinance that would fall under trash or recycling that would require fencing. She further stated we are seeing more of a need for these types of structure in the B districts than we have in the past for things such as lawn equipment, bottle returns, etc. She stated if it is added to the code there would be the need to add dimensional requirements. Schmitt stated Mercantile Bank added an enclosed structure within their dumpster enclosure for such things as yard tools and storage as part of their proposal when they built their structure in 2005 or Altmann asked if Crunchy s is required to obtain approval to have storage at the rear by the dumpster. Schmitt replied they have had the structure as long as she s been with the City and she believes it may be a grandfathered use. Marchman asked if the applicant is allowed to have 100% ground coverage. Schmitt replied affirmatively and stated the applicant could add on to his building instead of having a separate storage shed and not be in violation. Laxton asked if they could add a fence at the back of the building to use as storage. Schmitt replied negatively and stated there needs to be an ordinance that would allow for both a fenced area and a shed. East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 4, 2016 Page 2 of 5

5 Stoliker stated he wanted to disclose a potential conflict of interest as he has known the applicant and applicant s family for many years. Laxton asked if he had a financial interest in the direct outcome of the variance appeal. Stoliker replied negatively. Motion: Robison moved to recuse Stoliker from discussion and vote on the appeal by Paul Vlahakis for the property at 225 Ann Street for the reasons given. The motion was seconded by Hittner Vote: All nays. Motion failed unanimously by a vote of 0 to 7. Braxton Newman, legal counsel for the applicant, addressed the Board and stated they believe the shed is a permitted use under the code. He stated the Health Department has indicated they need to keep their empty bottles away from the kitchen area and that is where they store them and the empty kegs. Paul Vlahakis, 4900 Montrose Avenue, Suite 100, Okemos addressed the Board and stated they also store propane tanks for the outdoor heaters as those cannot be stored within the building and cannot be stored in the parking lot. Laxton stated the Board s task is not to judge whether a company has been a good neighbor but rather if they meet the black and white letter of the Zoning Code. Laxton said, for him the word customarily is what he questions. How is it that the shed is customarily incidental to this type of business? Mr. Vlahakis replied he has four of five other restaurants and they all have an accessory use of a shed. Stoliker stated that as a restaurant owner he too has a shed at his restaurant. Laxton asked what the benefit of having a shed. Mr. Vlahakis replied the Health Department endorses having a shed to keep the bottles out of the kitchen area. Altmann stated he was at the Peanut Barrel; they do not have an outdoor shed and they store their kegs in the bar area. Mr. Newman replied the Peanut Barrel has a much smaller kitchen area than El Azteco. Altmann asked about the fruit flies. Mr. Vlahakis replied if a business does not have some place to store the empties they have to be stored in the restaurant. Altmann further stated their argument was they needed to get the stuff they are storing in the shed out of the kitchen due to health reasons. Altmann stated the shed is for storing items that do not fit in the store and every business would like to have extra storage. He continued that allowing the shed would set a precedent and any business with a parking lot would be requesting extra storage space outside their building. Mr. Newman replied they have private, non-public, parking on site and they are not taking away spaces from any requirement. Mr. Newman further stated where the shed is located does not impede pedestrian traffic. Hittner asked if there have been any regulations put on the storage of the propane cylinders stored in the shed. Mr. Vlahakis replied negatively. Hittner stated it is possible there are regulations related to storage and ventilation. Altmann asked where a business would store items such as these. Schmitt replied that is a good question because the zoning code does not specify. East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 4, 2016 Page 3 of 5

6 Laxton referenced language in different zoning districts that specifically indicate sheds are a permitted accessory use within those districts. He asked by inference would it make sense that if sheds not listed as a permitted use in Section then it is not allowed. Mr. Vlahakis stated he did not review the entire code. Laxton stated he is not a restaurateur and does not know what is customarily incidental to a restaurant. Mr. Vlahakis stated he owns five restaurants and four have sheds. He said he would have put a shed at Dublin Square but he needs the parking instead. Laxton said he would like to see whether other restaurants have sheds. Stoliker stated he is a restaurateur and the Board has the statement of Ms. Schmitt that this is a common request. Schmitt stated she wanted to clarify the requests are just beginning and she would not classify a shed as customarily incidental to a restaurant and the ones that are there are have been placed recently. She further stated the things she is seeing requests for is not just for restaurants but also maintenance issues and things of that nature. Stoliker stated he appreciates Schmitt s position but he does not think the code clearly states sheds are not allowed. Hittner asked if Mr. Vlahakis purchased a cargo van and parked it behind his restaurant and used it to store the empties and miscellaneous other items it would be allowed but a shed is not. Schmitt replied affirmatively. Altmann stated he does not see how a shed is customarily incidental to a restaurant given that a bike shop or t-shirt could have the same argument about needing storage of miscellaneous items or outdoor lawn equipment. Hittner stated he does see the shed as incidental to the storage of bottles and empty kegs but he is not sure Mr. Vlahakis chose the right vehicle allowable by the zoning code. Stoliker stated he believes a shed is customarily incidental to a restaurant. Schmitt asked the Board to consider if sheds are allowed as an accessory use what would stop a property owner in the B-3 District from putting a shed in the front yard. She stated there is nothing in the code under B-3 stating that accessory uses are only allowed in the rear or side yards. Muska asked Schmitt if the applicant would be required to remove the shed from the property if the Board denied the application and if an ordinance was added later to allow it, he could add it back. Schmitt stated not necessarily. Motion: It was moved by Stoliker and seconded by Robison to defer the appeal until the October 2016 meeting to allow time to process an ordinance to address sheds/outdoor storage in business districts. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 7 to 0. East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 4, 2016 Page 4 of 5

7 4) OLD BUSINESS None 5) STAFF REPORTS None 6) BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS None 7) ANNOUNCEMENTS Stoliker announced he purchased a home in Okemos but has not sold his home in East Lansing. He expects that he will be at the next meeting; however, we should be looking for his replacement. 8) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:32 PM. Brian Laxton Chair Darcy C. Schmitt Secretary East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 4, 2016 Page 5 of 5

8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Quality Services for a Quality Community MEMBERS Chair Brian Laxton Vice Chair Caroline Ruddell Konrad Hittner Patrick Marchman Eric Muska John Robison VACANCY Alternate 1 James Bradley MINUTES June 1, :00 p.m. 54-B District Court, Courtroom Linden Street Present: Absent: Altmann, Bradley, Hittner, Laxton, Muska, and Ruddell Marchman and Robison City Council Liaison and Alternate 2 Erik Altmann Staff Present: Schmitt Staff Liaison Darcy C. Schmitt (517) City of East Lansing DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUIL.DING & DEVELOPMENT 410 Abbot Road East Lansing, MI (517) ) OPENING A) Roll Call Laxton called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. At the calling of the roll, Members Marchman and Robison were absent. B) Approval of the Agenda Motion: Laxton moved to amend the agenda to remove (1)(C) Approval of the May 4, 2016 Minutes. The motion was seconded by Muska. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 6 to 0. Motion: Altmann moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion seconded by Hittner. Vote: All yeas. Motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6 to 0. D) Confirm Requests to Defer Appeals Laxton asked the applicant if they wanted to continue with the appeal given the lack of a full board. The applicant replied affirmatively. 2) COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Oral None East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 1, 2016 Page 1 of 4

9 3) NEW BUSINESS A) An appeal from Mark and Margot-Luisa Kielhorn for the property located at 836 Sunset Lane, in the R-2, Medium Density Residential District from the following requirement of Chapter 50 - Zoning Code of the City of East Lansing: a. Sec Table of lot and building requirements. A side yard setback for an accessory building on a corner lot, to allow a 2.8 side yard setback where 20 is required. The applicant is proposing to construct a new garage, driveway and approach that are bringing the site more into compliance with the current regulations. Schmitt described the property, noting the location, zoning of the property and the surrounding area, and proposal as indicated in the Staff Report. She stated there is an unusually large right-ofway on Forest Street that functions as a setback even though it is a street. Altmann asked if the right-of-way or setback was over 20. Schmitt replied the right-of-way is from the edge of the pavement (Forest Street) 21 from their property line. Altmann asked if the proposed new garage east wall would be in the same location as the current garage east wall. The applicant replied it is proposed to be exactly in the same location as before. Altmann asked if the paving would be in the same location as it is now. The applicant replied negatively and stated it would be over a couple of feet, west away from the road. Altmann asked if they would be increasing the distance between the property line and the paving. The applicant replied within the property line they are moving the paving a couple feet to the west away from the property line. Laxton asked if the east side of the driveway was moving. The applicant replied affirmatively and stated it would move closer to the house. Laxton confirmed the driveway was moving toward the house not toward the street. The applicant replied affirmatively. Mark and Margot-Luisa Kielhorn, 836 Sunset Lane, the applicants, addressed the Board and gave a brief history and summary of the variance requested. Muska asked if the property was in a historic district. Kielhorn replied negatively. Altmann asked if the curb cut was widening. Kielhorn replied affirmatively. Altmann further asked if it required separate approval. Schmitt replied affirmatively. Altmann asked if they were moving the south wall of the garage further south. Kielhorn replied affirmatively. East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 1, 2016 Page 2 of 4

10 Laxton asked if they currently can fit two cars in the garage. Kielhorn replied negatively. Motion: It was moved by Ruddell and seconded by Hittner to grant variance approval for the request from Mark and Margot-Luisa Kielhorn for the property located at 836 Sunset Lane, in the R-2, Medium Density Residential District; from the following requirement of Chapter 50 - Zoning Code of the City of East Lansing: a. Sec Table of lot and building requirements. A side yard setback for an accessory building on a corner lot, to allow a 2.8 side yard setback where 20 is required. The Board finds that under the Special Findings (1), that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from the physical characteristics of the property in question which make it unfeasible to carry out the strict letter of the Zoning Code; Special Finding (2), that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions which apply to the property in question that do not apply to other properties and which have not resulted from any act of the applicant subsequent to the adoption of the Zoning Code; and Special Finding (3), that such variation is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties within the same zoning district; based on the following grounds: 1. The placement of the house on the lot and setback on Forest Street creates an unnecessary hardship which would result in a garage that would not be functional for two cars if it were to meet the standards of the code. 2. All the garages on street have similar orientation on the lots. Hittner stated the other properties on the block have the same configuration but the applicant s garage fronts on Centerlawn Avenue; therefore, he would be voting in favor. Vote: All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 6 to 0. 4) OLD BUSINESS None 5) STAFF REPORTS None 6) BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS None 7) ANNOUNCEMENTS Laxton stated Stoliker resigned due to moving out of the city and they are actively looking for a replacement. Schmitt stated Mark Grebner has FOIA ed everything available and is likely to file in circuit court regarding 503 Park Lane. East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 1, 2016 Page 3 of 4

11 8) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:29 PM. Brian Laxton Chair Darcy C. Schmitt Secretary East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 1, 2016 Page 4 of 4

12 Department of Planning & Community Development Staff Contact: Darcy C. Schmitt Phone Number: ZBA Agenda: August 3, 2016 STAFF REPORT July 29, Westlawn Avenue Proposal Kraig Wray is requesting a variation for the property at 809 Westlawn Avenue zoned R-2, Medium Density Single-Family Residential District, from the following requirements of Chapter 50 - Zoning of the Code of the City of East Lansing: Article IV. Section , to permit 44% ground coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed by 4% more than the maximum ground coverage standard of 40%, This will increase a previously approved ground coverage variance by only 1.09%. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing crumbling front porch to replace it with a new wider front porch. Background The property located at 809 Westlawn Avenue is lot 51 of the Rigely Park Plat which was platted in The lot is only 50 foot wide, as are many of the lots in the Rigely Park Plat,

13 809 Westlawn Avenue Page 2 of 3 which does not meet the contemporary requirements for lot widths in the R-2, Medium Density Single-Family Residential District. The property is owner-occupied and does not have a rental license; however, as the property is not located in a Rental Restriction Overlay District it is eligible to apply for a rental license. In the R-2 district, the maximum rental occupancy is two unrelated persons or a family. The house was built in 1930 and is setback 8.4 from the south, side yard property line and 9 from the north, side yard property line. In October of 2011, the property was granted the following variances under a previous property owner and great care was taken to attempt to protect a large tree in the rear yard: Article IV. Section , to permit 42.1% ground coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed by 2.1%, more than the maximum ground coverage standard of 40%; and Article VIII. Section (3), to allow the existing driveway to be extended along the property line with zero (0) feet of setback, instead of the required minimum setback of three (3) feet; and Article VIII. Section (3), to permit 37.2% rear yard parking coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed by 7.2%, more than the maximum coverage standard of 30%. Approval was conditioned upon all new driveway paving being pervious paving approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. This project was completed as conditioned. Standards of Review In order to grant a variance, the Zoning Board must first find that the application satisfies certain required conditions stated in Section 50-64(3)(a) of the Code, as follows: (1) The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest or the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Code; (2) The variance shall not permit the establishment of a use within a given district which is prohibited therein; (3) The variance shall not be a variance so commonly recurring as to make reasonably practical the formulation of a general regulation by the City Council; (4) The variance shall not cause substantial adverse effect to properties in the immediate vicinity or in the zoning district where the variance is located; and (5) The variance shall relate only to property that is described in the application for the variance. In addition, the Zoning Board must find that the application meets one of three special findings stated in Section 50-64(3)(b) of the Code, as follows:

14 809 Westlawn Avenue Page 3 of 3 1. Special Finding (1), that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from the physical characteristics of the property in question which make it unfeasible to carry out the strict letter of the Zoning Code; 2. Special Finding (2), that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions which apply to the property in question that do not apply to other properties and which have not resulted from any act of the applicant subsequent to the adoption of the Zoning Code; 3. Special Finding (3), that such variation is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties within the same zoning district. Additionally, in granting a variance the Board may specify in writing such other conditions regarding the location, character, landscaping, or other treatment that will, in the Board's judgment, be reasonably necessary to the furtherance of the intent of the Zoning Code and the protection of the public interest. The breach of any such condition shall automatically invalidate the permit granted. Staff Comments The action that necessitated the need for the ground coverage variance approved September 29, 2011 ultimately set the precedence for the current request. The previous homeowner wanted to build a two car garage without cutting down a tree and they wanted to do it with as little impact as possible on the tree. In order to protect the tree and also construct a two car garage the garage had to be moved to the back property line and turned to face north which required an longer driveway and additional ground coverage. Possible Actions Following the public hearing on this appeal, if the Zoning Board finds that the application satisfies the required conditions stated above, it could grant the variance in accordance with, Special Finding ( ), (language of special finding) ; based on the following grounds:

15 CITY OF EAST LANSING ZONING MAP Zoning Board of Appeals Quality Services for a Quality Community

16 CITY OF EAST LANSING AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SOUTHLAWN AVE. SUNSET LANE BALDWIN COURT WESTLAWN AVENUE WILDWOOD DRIVE Zoning Board of Appeals Quality Services for a Quality Community

17 CITY OF EAST LANSING PLAT MAP Zoning Board of Appeals Quality Services for a Quality Community

18 From: To: Date: Subject: Chad Wing Darcy Schmitt 8/2/ :27 PM 809 Westlawn Ave To whom it may concern: My name is Chad Wing and I have owned and resided at 341 Southlawn Ave for over three years. It is my understanding that my neighbor at the home kitty-corner to my property, Kraig Wary of 809 Westlawn, wishes to replace his older front porch, going slightly over the East Lansing zoning ordinance for property footprint coverage limit. While I understand and appreciate the need for the ordinance in question, I support my neighbors request of a waiver at this time so he can add to our already beautiful Glencairn neighborhood with his new front porch. Thank you for your consideration and please provide copies of this correspondence to the members of the Appeals board for their August 3 meeting. Chad Wing 341 Southlawn Ave East Lansing, MI 48823

19

20 Department of Planning & Community Development Staff Contact: Darcy C. Schmitt Phone Number: ZBA Agenda: September 29, 2011 STAFF REPORT September 14, Westlawn Avenue Proposal Ashley Branoff is requesting a variation for the property at 809 Westlawn Avenue zoned R-2, Medium Density Single-Family Residential District, from the following requirements of Chapter 50 - Zoning of the Code of the City of East Lansing: Article IV. Section , to permit 42.1% ground coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed by 2.1% more than the maximum ground coverage standard of 40%, Article VIII. Section (3), to allow the existing driveway to be extended along the property line with zero (0) feet of setback, instead of the required minimum setback of three (3) feet, and Article VIII. Section (3), to permit 37.2% rear yard parking coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed by 7.2% more than the maximum coverage standard of 30%. The applicant is proposing to construct a new garage and partial driveway. Background

21 809 Westlawn Avenue Page 2 of 4 The property located at 809 Westlawn Avenue is lot 51 of the Rigely Park Plat which was platted in The lot is only 50 foot wide, as are many of the lots in the Rigely Park Plat, which does not meet the contemporary requirements for lot widths in the R-2, Medium Density Single-Family Residential District. The property is owner occupied and does not have a rental license; however, the property as it is not located in a Rental Restriction Overlay District is eligible to apply for a rental license. In the R-2 district, the maximum rental occupancy is two unrelated persons or a family. The house was built in 1930 and is setback 8.4 from the south, side yard property line and 9 from the north, side yard property line. The majority of the driveway is 8 wide from the property line to within one foot off the edge of the house providing a zero setback from the side lot property line where 3 is required. The driveway expands to approximately 12 just west of the rear edge of the house until it reaches where a one car garage was demolished. The applicant is proposing to remove the driveway that exists west of the rear edge of the house to reconstruct a two-car garage and a new driveway. On June 1, 2011, the Zoning Board of Appeals acted to approve an application for a variance for the property at 809 Westlawn Avenue from the following requirement of Chapter 50 - Zoning of the Code of the City of East Lansing: Article VIII. Section (3), to permit the addition of new driveway paving and garage where all of the on-site parking and access facilities do not comply with all applicable Code requirements; specifically, there is no side yard driveway setback from the property line where three (3) foot is required. The site plan submitted for the June 1, 2011 variance did not require a variance for ground coverage but did require the removal of a large tree to site the drive and garage in a way that would eliminate the need for a ground coverage variance. This variance remains valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval. If the action authorized by the variance is not commenced within the one year period, the variance will become null and void. The applicant may request an extension of one year upon written request submitted at least two weeks prior to the expiration deadline. After further consideration and expressed concern from neighbors regarding the approved plan that would require the removal of the large tree (see attached photograph), the applicant is requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals consider a revised variance request that would save the tree but require the following additional variances: 1. Article IV. Section , to permit 41.2% ground coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed by 1.2% more than the maximum ground coverage standard of 40%; and

22 809 Westlawn Avenue Page 3 of 4 2. Article VIII. Section (3), to allow the existing driveway to be extended along the property line at zero (0) feet of setback, instead of the required minimum setback of three (3) feet. 3. Article VIII. Section (3), to permit 37.2% rear yard parking coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed by 7.2% more than the maximum coverage standard of 30%. The applicant is willing to install pervious pavers over the entire area that is proposed for the new driveway area. Standards of Review In order to grant a variance, the Zoning Board must first find that the application satisfies certain required conditions stated in Section 50-64(3)(a) of the Code, as follows: (1) The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest or the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Code; (2) The variance shall not permit the establishment of a use within a given district which is prohibited therein; (3) The variance shall not be a variance so commonly recurring as to make reasonably practical the formulation of a general regulation by the City Council; (4) The variance shall not cause substantial adverse effect to properties in the immediate vicinity or in the zoning district where the variance is located; and (5) The variance shall relate only to property that is described in the application for the variance. In addition, the Zoning Board must find that the application meets one of three special findings stated in Section 50-64(3)(b) of the Code, as follows: 1. Special Finding (1), that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from the physical characteristics of the property in question which make it unfeasible to carry out the strict letter of the Zoning Code; 2. Special Finding (2), that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions which apply to the property in question that do not apply to other properties and which have not resulted from any act of the applicant subsequent to the adoption of the Zoning Code; 3. Special Finding (3), that such variation is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties within the same zoning district. Additionally, in granting a variance the Board may specify in writing such other conditions regarding the location, character, landscaping, or other treatment that will, in the Board's judgment, be reasonably necessary to the furtherance of the intent of the Zoning Code and

23 809 Westlawn Avenue Page 4 of 4 the protection of the public interest. The breach of any such condition shall automatically invalidate the permit granted. Staff Comment The tree is a white oak approximately 60 to 80 years old. White oaks are slow growing trees which makes them hardier than many deciduous trees. This particular tree is in good health and is the only mature tree on the property. There are many old oak trees throughout the block and neighborhood, most of them likely planted at the time the neighborhood was developed. Possible Actions Following the public hearing on this appeal, if the Zoning Board finds that the application satisfies the required conditions stated above, it could grant the variance in accordance with, Special Finding (1), that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from the physical characteristics of the property in question which make it unfeasible to carry out the strict letter of the Zoning Code; based on the following grounds: 1. The proposed improvement would save a large white oak tree, the only mature tree on the lot, preserving the character of the lot and neighborhood.

24 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Quality Services for a Quality Community MEMBERS James Bradley Chair Chris Wolf Vice Chair VACANCY VACANCY Michael Luther Nathan Mitchell City Council Liaison Kevin E. Beard Staff Liaison Darcy C. Schmitt (517) City of East Lansing DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 410 Abbot Road East Lansing, MI (517) MINUTES [Excerpt] September 29, :00 p.m. 54-B District Court, Courtroom Linden Street Present: Absent: Staff Present: Bradley, Luther, Mitchell, and Wolf None D. Schmitt 3) NEW BUSINES A) 809 Westlawn Avenue APPEAL of Ashley Branoff requesting a variation for the property located at 809 Westlawn Avenue, in the R-2, Medium Density Single-Family Residential District, from the following requirements of Chapter 50 - Zoning of the Code of the City of East Lansing a. Article IV. Section , to permit 42.1% ground coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed by 2.1% more than the maximum ground coverage standard of 40%; b. Article VIII. Section (3), to allow the existing driveway to be extended along the property line at zero (0) feet setback, instead of the required minimum setback of three (3) feet; and c. Article VIII. Section (3), to permit 37.2% rear yard parking coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed by 7.2% more than the maximum coverage standard of 30% The applicant is proposing to construct a new garage and partial driveway. D. Schmitt presented the Staff Report noting the location and zoning of the property and the surrounding area. D. Schmitt stated that all three variances would need to be granted in order to move forward with the proposed plan. East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes [Excerpt] September 29, 2011, Page 1 of 3

25 Bradley asked what the difference is between the previously approved variance and the requested variance. D. Schmitt replied that previously the zero foot setback was granted for the existing driveway whereas the new variance request would allow for a zero foot setback to be extended with a new driveway extension. Wolf asked Staff to review pervious pavers. Wolf asked if pervious pavers are permitted paving material under the current code. D. Schmitt replied affirmatively. Mike Stevens, Stevens & Associates Builders, 431 E. Jefferson, Grand Ledge, MI 48837, addressed the Board and spoke about the proposed project and the required variances. Main Motion (b): It was moved by Bradley and seconded by Wolf, in the matter of the variance request from Ashley Branoff, for the property located at 809 Westlawn Avenue from the following requirement of Chapter 50 Zoning of the Code of the City of East Lansing: b. Article VIII. Section (3), to allow the existing driveway to be extended along the property line at zero (0) feet setback, instead of the required minimum setback of three (3) feet. The Board finds that under the Special Finding 1 from Section 50-64(3)(b) of the Zoning Code: stating that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from the physical characteristics of the property in question which makes it unfeasible to carry out the strict letter of the Zoning Code; based on the following grounds: 1. The proposed improvement would save a large white oak tree, the only mature tree on the lot, preserving the character of the lot and neighborhood. 2. The lot is narrow and the placement of the house makes it impossible to satisfy both the side yard setback requirement and the minimum driveway width requirement. Luther stated that the plan shows less than a three foot setback to the west. Mr. Stevens replied that there is actually a berm at the end of the driveway and the extension to the west would allow for a vehicle to back up and exit the drive facing forward. Wolf stated that the way the variance is written it does not specify the sideyard setback, therefore; the setback to the west would be covered under the variance as well. Amended Motion (b): It was moved by Wolf and seconded by Bradley to add a condition that the new paving must be done using pervious pavers. Amended Vote (b): All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 4 to 0. Main Vote (b): All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 4 to 0. Motion (a): It was moved by Bradley and seconded by Wolf, in the matter of the variance request from Ashley Branoff, for the property located at 809 Westlawn Avenue from the following requirement of Chapter 50 Zoning of the Code of the City of East Lansing: East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes [Excerpt] September 29, 2011, Page 2 of 3

26 a. Article IV. Section , to permit 42.1% ground coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed by 2.1% more than the maximum ground coverage standard of 40%. The Board finds that under the Special Finding 1 from Section 50-64(3)(b) of the Zoning Code: stating that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from the physical characteristics of the property in question which makes it unfeasible to carry out the strict letter of the Zoning Code; based on the following grounds: 1. The proposed improvement would save a large white oak tree, the only mature tree on the lot, preserving the character of the lot and neighborhood. 2. The lot is narrow and the placement of the house makes it impossible to satisfy both the side yard setback requirement and the minimum driveway width requirement. Subject to the condition that the new paving must be done using pervious pavers Vote (a): All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 4 to 0. Motion (c): It was moved by Wolf and seconded by Bradley, in the matter of the variance request from Ashley Branoff, for the property located at 809 Westlawn Avenue from the following requirement of Chapter 50 Zoning of the Code of the City of East Lansing: c. Article VIII. Section (3), to permit 37.2% rear yard parking coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed by 7.2% more than the maximum coverage standard of 30%. The Board finds that under the Special Finding 1 from Section 50-64(3)(b) of the Zoning Code: stating that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships resulting from the physical characteristics of the property in question which makes it unfeasible to carry out the strict letter of the Zoning Code; based on the following grounds: 1. The proposed improvement would save a large white oak tree, the only mature tree on the lot, preserving the character of the lot and neighborhood. 2. The lot is narrow and the placement of the house makes it impossible to satisfy both the side yard setback requirement and the minimum driveway width requirement. Subject to the condition that the new paving must be done using pervious pavers Vote (c): All yeas. Motion carried unanimously by a vote of 4 to 0. East Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes [Excerpt] September 29, 2011, Page 3 of 3

27

28

29

30

31

32

33