BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA

Transcription

1 Chairperson BOARD OF ZONNG APPEALS AGENDA 0BCity Hall 2 nd Floor Conference Room 1B611 E. Grand River - Howell, M Visit us online at Board members and other officials normally in attendance: 1. Jeannette Ambrose Board Member 2. David Holmes Board Member 3. Ken Keith Co-Chairperson 4. Victoria Hertrich Board Member 5. Sean Munsey Chairperson 6. William Flattery Board Member 7. Randall Mattson Board Member 8. Deanna Robson Recording Secretary 9. Timothy R. Schmitt Community Dev. Director 10. Dennis Perkins City Attorney 11. Vacant Board Member-Alternate 12. Vacant Board Member-Alternate Thursday September 29, :00 p.m. 1. Approve minutes of the June 1, 2016 Meeting 2. # Byron Variance for reduced setback for porch in front yard 3. # East Grand River Variances to allow gas station to reopen in existing structure 4. # West Grand River Variance to allow demolition of a structure without rebuild in Historic Limited District 5. October meeting date 6. Adjourn WELCOME! Visitors are cordially invited to attend all meetings of the Board of Zoning Appeals. f you wish to address the Board, you will be recognized by the Chairperson. NOTE: Please turn off or silence pagers and cell phones during meetings. n the case of An emergency, if page/call needs to be taken, please leave the Council Chambers.

2 City of Howell Board of Zoning Appeals Wednesday, June 1, 2016 City Council Chambers 611 E. Grand River Howell, M The meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order by Chairman Munsey at 7:01 p.m. Present: Sean Munsey, Ken Keith, William Flattery, David Holmes, Victoria Hertrich, Randall Mattson (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Jeannette Ambrose, City Attorney Dennis Perkins, Community Development Director Timothy Schmitt, and Recording Secretary Deanna Robson. Absent: None. Guests: Mefail Telias; Adam, Alexandria, Michelle and Austin Kreeger; Gary Losey; and Aiden McLearon. APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF MAY 4, 2016 MOTON by Flattery, SUPPORT by Keith to approve the minutes of the May 4, 2016 meeting. MOTON CARRED (7-0). # MAPLE STREET VARANCE FOR HEGHT OF FENCE N FRONT YARD Chairman Munsey opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. and invited the applicant to address the Board. Adam Kreeger, 304 Maple, stated that he lives on a corner lot with a pool and would like to install a tall fence in what is considered to be his front yard for safety and insurance reasons. Discussion followed regarding the current status of the fence project; the location, height, and composition of the previous fence; location of the pine trees near the pool and their impact on preventing the fence installation closer to the pool; distance of the fence from the sidewalk; the absence of visual traffic obstructions with installation of the fence; and the design and appearance of the fence. Gary Losey, 515 S. Center, stated that he encouraged Adam to pursue building a taller fence due to the amount of foot traffic in the area. Chairman Munsey closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. The Board discussed a request that was previously denied for a tall fence on a corner lot by homeowners with dogs; noting that the reason behind the denial was based on previous staff s recommendation because corner lots are considered to have two front yards, also adding that the property was more heavily traveled than that of the current request. The Board inquired if the previous fence at 304 Maple met City ordinance requirements and Community Development Director Schmitt confirmed that it did. n response to additional questions from the Board, Mr. Schmitt responded that six foot fences in front yards have not been permitted in the past; corner lots are considered to have two from yards; and the State of Michigan requires that fences

3 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting June 1, 2016 surrounding inground pools are at least 42 inches in height with a locking mechanism. Michelle Kreeger, 304 Maple, stated that she has observed a number of fences six feet in height in the surrounding area, adding that she and her husband have completed many improvements to the residence. MOTON by Keith, SUPPORT by Hertrich, to approve the request for a six foot tall fence in the front yard of 304 Maple Street, along Gregory Street, when only four feet is permitted in the yard adjacent to a street, based on the following findings of fact, circumstances of the property, and proximity to the park: A. That the restrictions of this Zoning Ordinance unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose of would render conformity unnecessarily burdensome; B. That the variance would do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the district and a lesser relaxation than that requested would not give substantial relief to the owner of the property or be consistent with the justice to other property owners; C. That the plight of the landowner is due to the unique circumstances of the property. D. That the alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. MOTON CARRED (7-0). # WEST STREET VARANCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK FOR CONSTRUCTON OF NEW HOME Chairman Munsey opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. and invited the applicant to address the Board. Community Development Director Tim Schmitt entered a letter into the public record from Carolyn Pybus of 415 and 417 Railroad Street requesting that the Board deny this request. Mefail Telias, 321 West, stated that he is requesting a variance to build a home due to the size, location and configuration of his property. The Board inquired and Mr. Telias confirmed that he is the owner of the property and he intends to reside in the proposed home. Discussion followed regarding the proposed home s proximity to neighboring buildings, setback distances, traffic patterns on Railroad Street, and the previous residence that was demolished. The Board confirmed that it would not be possible to build a home that complies with current building standards without a variance. Chairman Munsey closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. MOTON by Flattery, SUPPORT by Hertrich to approve the request of a side yard setback variance to allow construction of a new house on the vacant lot located at 321 West Street, with a setback only thirteen feet from the neighboring property in the east, where thirty-five feet are required, based on the following findings of fact: 2

4 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting June 1, 2016 A. That the restrictions of this Zoning Ordinance unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose of would render conformity unnecessarily burdensome; B. That the variance would do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the district and a lesser relaxation than that requested would not give substantial relief to the owner of the property or be consistent with the justice to other property owners; C. That the plight of the landowner is due to the unique circumstances of the property. D. That the alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. MOTON CARRED (7-0). ADJOURN MOTON by Flattery, SUPPORT by Holmes, To adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. MOTON CARRED (7-0). Deanna Robson, Recording Secretary 3

5 CTY OF HOWELL VARANCE ANALYSS APPLCANT NFORMATON APPLCANT: ADDRESS: David Masters 216 Byron Road PROPERTY D #: ZONNG: R-1, One-Family Residential DATE: September 23, 2016 VARANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance from Section 4.05(d) District Regulation Exceptions for the purpose of finishing construction on a front porch on the front of the house facing Byron Road. The required setback is a minimum of fifteen feet and the applicant is proposing a setback of nine feet. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to allow them to finish construction on the front porch for the house at 216 Byron Road. The property has been under construction for a number of years to the recession and its impact on the property owners. The porch was initially not included in the construction and was specifically prohibited in the original building permit application in 2012, due to it not meeting setback requirements. Several months ago, the porch was framed and Staff issued a Stop Work Order as the work on the porch was not permitted. The new porch would be five feet deep along the entire front of the house and would be covered. The parcel in question is an oddly shaped lot just north of West Grand River Avenue, on the west side of Byron Road. The house is located on an angle to the street and is setback between fourteen and nine and one half feet from the right-of-way line. The original porch on the house was a concrete stoop for the front door, a picture of which was attached. As the owner was renovating the house, they realized that the front stoop had been undermined by water and was beginning to collapse. They started replacement without checking with the City. RELEVANT ZONNG ORDNANCE STANDARDS Section 4.05 District Regulation Exceptions sets out the following standards for this property in the R-1 district:

6 # Variance Request 216 Byron Road Front Yard Setback Page 2 Front yard setback: 15 foot setback required Proposed: 9 feet With the house on an angle, the closest the five foot deep porch is to the property line is nine feet. t is important to note, Staff is not addressing the existing non-conformities on the property. Notably, the house and rear deck do not meet multiple setback standards and the driveway is non-standard. Given the nature of the parcel, there is no way to fix these issues. Given that the request does not change those setbacks, Staff believes it is not necessary to address them with variance requests. VARANCE CONSDERATONS Section (Powers and Duties) of the City of Howell Zoning Ordinance gives the BZA the power to review applications for variances and grant variances from the strict provisions of the Zoning Ordinance when extraordinary or exceptional conditions exist for which the strict application of the regulations enacted would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional undue hardship upon, the owner of property. Relief from the Zoning Ordinance may be granted, but only without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. To grant a use variance, the BZA must state the grounds upon which it justifies the granting of a variance, which is commonly called finding of fact. The BZA must provide findings of fact to show that if the Zoning Ordinance is applied strictly, practical difficulties are held against the applicant, including the following (from Section (e)): A. That the restrictions of this Zoning Ordinance unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose of would render conformity unnecessarily burdensome; The lot is extremely oddly shaped, even with the addition of some land from the neighboring property that was added in the 90 s. The house is located close to the street and does not appear to be parallel. Any form of front porch on the structure would require a variance at this point, due to the shape of the lot and the location of the house. B. That the variance would do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the district and a lesser relaxation than that requested would not give substantial relief to the owner of the property or be consistent with the justice to other property owners; The variance is not the smallest necessary to get a porch and entrance onto the house, but it is a reasonable request. A front porch with less depth would be too small to practically utilize and a larger one would be getting even closer to the road. The request the applicant is making is a comfortable middle ground to add a front porch to the house. The variance in this case would be different than most other property

7 # Variance Request 216 Byron Road Front Yard Setback Page 3 owners in the City, as this house has one of the smaller front yard setbacks in the City. C. That the plight of the landowner is due to the unique circumstances of the property. Although the applicant did start the work prior to receiving approval, even if they had asked for approval beforehand, a variance would still be necessary. The plight of the landowner in this case is due to the location of the house on the lot, the angle of the house to the street, and the overall shape of the lot. D. That the alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The applicant did not create the overall situation, as the house was built in its current location in The front porch was compromised and needed to be replaced. The applicant did cause the issue to be forced at this time, due to starting the work before permission was granted. But they did not create the underlying problems that have lead to the variance request. STAFF REVEW AND RECOMMENDATON The parcel and location of the house at 216 Byron are both odd. The house is much closer than would normally be permitted to the front property line and the lot is not rectangular in shape, as shown in the attached aerial photo and applicant surveys. The applicant did err in starting the work without a permit, when Staff had previously noted in 2011 that work on the porch was expressly prohibited. However, this project has gone on for a long time, so the prohibition was forgotten. When the porch was found to be in poor shape, had Staff been notified, we would have guided the applicant to the BZA at that time. The timing of the work does not change the fact that no porch could be built on the front of the house without a variance being requested. The request is a good middle ground from being the smallest possible request and being a usable front porch. Based on the findings of fact presented above, staff recommends approval of the requested variance.

8 HOWE.LL MCHGAN CTY OF HOWELL REQUEST FOR REVEW 611 E. Grand River Ave. Howell, M (517) FAX: (517) Dace_~---1- /-2-~ Location of Property /l lq Permit# _ Z \ lp :B y 'foy'\ l OJ City Charter, Ordinance Chapter, Section and Paragraph you are petitioning under (ARTCLE 7 SGNS) ~we_\\ Body{s) to be Addressed ~oning Board of Appeals ~ Planning Commission Phone ( ~lo ) C/23 --.iza / City }bw { { State fjj Zip <fk'jl{j LANQ USE Nature ofretition 0 Site Plan "')Q., Appeal D Rezoning D P.U.D. 0 Sign Approval D Other Zoning 0 Present 0 Proposed CornerLot 0 Yes 0 No Lot Size width depth sq. footage Property Setbacks front rear right side left side _ Barrier Free D Yes D No NumberofOff-StreetParkingSpaces Handicap Spaces _ PROJECT NARRATVE State your case, be specific. f you desire a type of special consideration or special use, so state. f additional space is needed, anach as EXHBT A. Anach the following documentation with your requesr. D Legal Description of the Property (EXHBT A-1) D Architect/En~eering Drawing (EXHBT A-2)

9 NQN;;l!$E/DME"Sl()fU\LV~RANCE REQU,E$l NARRATVE Section 12.04(e) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the applicant present evidence to show that if the Zoning Ordinance is strictly applied, practical difficulties will result to the applicant. Please provide a narrative and evidence concerning how all four (4) of these practical difficulties apply to your propeny. The Board of Zoning Appeals may not grant a variance unless it determines that each of the following circumstances exist. f additional space is needed, attach as EXHBT B That the restrictions of the Zoning Ordinance would 3. unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose."\\\t tjrcµr+y wi l be.,_ LAS<Lci by f'0y (\QDr\QUJ w\\orn \s '" T<?a-t mw~~ Qj~J sbbst~cqi jhiice to the applicant 4. as well as to other property owners in the district and a lesser relaxation than that requested would not give substantial relief to the owner of the property or be more consistent with justice to other propeny owners. That the plight of the landowner is due to the unique circumstances of the property. That the alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Attach the following documentation with your request: D S urvcy of Property depicting the use/ dimentional request (EXHBT B-1) D Construction Drawing(s) of Proposed Structure, if applicable (EXHBT B-2) 11Uett~lf1f1Nf6RfAK1fM''{'.i\.~:i.~.wK~%&l:>;(1~P;~:1 ),''1. NameS)hrn> MAs~S PhoneC1 /Q ) ' Z- Cell <~--::::-.=T~.:::::::~---- Emai~l\Sf"tt-S@tJittA!hM1. Address Lo() H ~ ioop \)g. City tf ~l-l Scare 1il_ Zip ~ hereby certify that the proposed work is authorized by the owner of record and that have been authorized to make this application as his/her authorized agent, and we agree to conform to all laws of the Srate of Michigan. AL information submitted on this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Section 23a of the State Consuuction code Act of 1972, Act No. 230 of the Public Acts of 1972, being Section a of the Michigan Complied Laws, prohibits a person from conspiring a circumvent the licensing requirements of this state relating to persons who are t.o perform work on a residential building or a residential structure. Violators of Section 23a are subject to civil fines. Signa uttofappli~ Dat< er/, /tb ~- Title Please Print~ hd M Q-S1ff..,S nspection. Approved Date Number By Yes : No Appeal js hereby: 0 GRANTF.n RE.FUSED fu1 the fulllowing reason(s): Approval Signature ~ Title ~ Date

10 David and Ashley Masters 216 Byron Howell, Ml /31/2016 City of Howell-Building Department 611 East Grand River Ave. Howell, Ml To Whom it May Concern, We are writing to ask for a variance on our front porch and give a brief explanation of the circumstances that lead to the delay in the renovation. Shortly after purchasing the house and starting this renovation, lost my job. ended up securing a position out of state, but still tried to continue with the remodel remotely. During the renovation, we recognized that the old porch was pitched toward the house and structurally falling apart. The result was a constant flow of water coming into the basement. Taking into account of the original porch size, we built the new structure approximately a foot farther away from the street. Once the old structure was taken down and replaced with the new porch, it solved all safety concerns and took care of the basement leaks. Overtime, we struggled to maintain both properties and unfortunately fell behind on some of the construction deadlines. We've recently moved back to Howell and are committed to completing this project. Both Ashley and have lived in the Howell Area most of our lives, and look forward to raising our family here. We ask for your consideration in regards to the variance for the porch, so that we can complete the project. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully Yours, id and Ashley Masters

11 MORTGAGE REPORT wooc DECK = ~"i ~~""'-e.. ls...t...u.ra. ~'""""""-'' """' l""""""--c,.,,._ ~... ~ This report i1 for mort9a9e purposes only and has been compltted u1in9 property descriptions furnished by others and is not to be used lo establish lines for the er1ction of fences or other buildings. SH attached description ond certification informotion. Sc alt - ": 30' Job "'o - M ~,.. ON ftouno... ONU.. ENT... Fu1ct BOSS ENGNEERNG COMPANY 3t2l E. GRAND RVER, HOWELL, MCHGAN!> "88'13

12 RECOf?DEO /qq1 JL!l 3 p j: 2 ~ NW COR. LOT 42 LOT 40 PARCEL AC.± 5,864 SQ. FT. LOT 42 LOT 41 PARCEL AC.± 5,638 SQ. FT. HEREBY CERTFY THAT HAVE SURVEYED THE ABOVE OESCRl8EO PROPERlY AND THAT THE RATO OF CLOSURE ON THE UNADJUSTED FELD OBSERVATONS Of SUCH SURVEY WAS 1/10,000 AND THAT SAO SURVEY FULLY COMPLES WTH THE REQUREMENTS or PUBUC ACT NUMBER DESCRPTON: PART OF LOTS 41 &: 42 OF "McPHERSOlfS PROSPECT PLACE". L 1 OF PLATS. PG. 2, HOWELL TOWNSfllP, LMNGSTON COUNTY. MCHGAN. CLENT: SPAULDNG JG'; NO "i:95591s s ](),,.-..-~.,,.~~ SCAL[; 1 NCH = 20 FEET DATE fb CREW BLB BTB DR. TJH CHKO. o U:llEMJ (R) (M) - RON sa " RON founo = lldnulilent fqund = ffnc( = RECOl!llED = llf.asur[o

13 ~, i:af b LBr _fol\~! =~-' Qttj_R- t~ 1 ~ T --i i,. :,_i~~c-~r6 -r-- ~, ,'na..~cs ~ r /. - T-..- -~ ~ --! d-i- O _&1--_ -:_ ~ ~Q\ d.j~t~ -~- - - T~ t ~~ '- - -t , --r--- -r --r- -fr""1r.''"mf~~_; ; J_~~~ ::i_'._~-= ~ ',i ~ f,, n - -; i 1 _,

14 T -,- 1 f - ~ T r ~ j l r_ r

15 SPRNG ST GRSWOLD ST Legend City of Howell Parcels N TOMPKNS ST GRSWOLD ST MCPHERSON ST BYRON RD MCPHERSON ST W CLNTON ST SBELL ST Date: 9/23/2016 Data: Livingston County and City of Howell, July 2016 W GRAND RVER AVE # Byron Road Front Porch

16

17

18

19 CTY OF HOWELL VARANCE ANALYSS APPLCANT NFORMATON APPLCANT: ADDRESS: FPD Properties LLC 401 East Grand River Avenue PROPERTY D #: ZONNG: B-1, Local Business DATE: September 23, 2016 VARANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting multiple variances to allow the reopening of a gas station on the property, where one previously existed. The variances being requested are: Variance 1: Section 6.17 Automobile Filling Stations, Automobile Repair Garages, Automobile Service Stations, Automobile Washes, and Automobile Dealerships to allow the use on a lot that does not meet the minimum size. The minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet and only 8,712 square feet are present. Variance 2: Section 4.07 Schedule of Area, Height, Width, and Setback Requirements to allow the existing building to remain in its current location with a reduced side yard setback. Eight feet is required and only 1.5 feet are provided. Variance 3: Section 4.07 Schedule of Area, Height, Width, and Setback Requirements to allow the existing building to remain in its current location not meeting the build-to-line in the front yard. The building is setback substantially further than the surrounding buildings. Variance 4: Section 6.17 Automobile Filling Stations, Automobile Repair Garages, Automobile Service Stations, Automobile Washes, and Automobile Dealerships to allow the canopy to exceed the height of the main building by five feet. SUMMARY The applicant, FPD Properties, acquired the property in December of 2014 with the intention of reopening the site as a gas station. The existing station had been closed for over a year by the time the new owners approached the City about reopening, so per code, a new approval is required, as no previous approval for the use had been granted. The applicant s contractor began work on the site s signs, but were stopped, as no permits had been pulled and no use had been approved at the time.

20 # Variance Request 401 East Grand River Reoccupy gas station Page 2 n 1983, the City approved a series of variances for the property to allow the existing canopy to be built and the use to continue under the zoning at the time, which was O-1, Office. n 2000, the owner petitioned, and the City approved, a rezoning of the site to B-1, Local Business, which made the zoning consistent with the use of the property. Sign approvals have been granted twice for the site, in 1994 and Lastly, a variance was granted in 2010 to expand the building on the property, but construction never proceeded. The applicant is proposing work to add parking spaces to the site and a dumpster pad with appropriate screening to the rear. No changes to the structure or canopy are being proposed. The curb cuts would not be modified and new light fixtures would be installed in the canopy. The Planning Commission reviewed the request and approved it at their August meeting, subject to the Board of Zoning Appeals review of the matter. VARANCE CONSDERATONS Section (Powers and Duties) of the City of Howell Zoning Ordinance gives the BZA the power to review applications for variances and grant variances from the strict provisions of the Zoning Ordinance when extraordinary or exceptional conditions exist for which the strict application of the regulations enacted would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional undue hardship upon, the owner of property. Relief from the Zoning Ordinance may be granted, but only without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. To grant a use variance, the BZA must state the grounds upon which it justifies the granting of a variance, which is commonly called finding of fact. The BZA must provide findings of fact to show that if the Zoning Ordinance is applied strictly, practical difficulties are held against the applicant, including the following (from Section (e)): A. That the restrictions of this Zoning Ordinance unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose of would render conformity unnecessarily burdensome; The strict application of current standards to a building that is vacant are often difficult. By requiring the standards to be met in this case, the building and canopy would need to be removed and rebuilt. This is due to the fact that the non-conforming status was lost when the business was closed for more than one year. Conformity with the standards in this case is unnecessarily burdensome. B. That the variance would do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the district and a lesser relaxation than that requested would not give substantial relief to the owner of the property or be consistent with the justice to other property owners; The variances being requested in this case are the minimum necessary to reopen the gas station. There is not a lesser relief that could be given to the applicant and this

21 # Variance Request 401 East Grand River Reoccupy gas station Page 3 request would consistent with any other request to reopen a business in an empty building that has been closed for some time. C. That the plight of the landowner is due to the unique circumstances of the property. The issue in this case is that the building was built over 50 years ago, in the rear of the property, using the standards of the time. The modern standards would bring the building closer to Grand River Avenue and further from the property line in the east. The building would also likely be larger/taller and the canopy more in line with the main building on the site. The landowner had no role in creating the variance requests, they are due to the circumstances of the property. D. That the alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The current owner did not create the hardship. The building was built over 50 years ago in its current location and the canopy in the 80 s, under previous standards of review. The current standards are more strict than those in place at that time. STAFF REVEW AND RECOMMENDATON f the property had not been vacant for more than one year, the applicant would have been able to immediately reopen as a gas station and begin operating. However, Staff needs to bring as much into compliance as possible, since a new site plan review was required for the site. The variances being requested are all due to the existing structures on the site and the applicant wishes to reuse them all. The Planning Commission reviewed the site plan request and identified no major concerns. The only way to get full compliance with the zoning ordinance in this case would be to tear down the existing structures and rebuild them in a conforming location, which is not a viable solution. Based on the findings of fact presented above, staff recommends approval of the requested variance.

22 Howell, M, Code of Ordinances. Section 4.07 Schedule of Area, Height, Width and Setback Regulations. Minimum Lot Size Minimum Yard Setbacks Maximum Building Height Footn otes Zoning District Area (sq. ft.) Lot Width (ft.) Fron t (ft.) Side (feet) Rear (ft.) Storie s Feet Least Total R-1, One- Family Residential R-2, One- Family Residential 8, , a, b, c, i, n, o, q a, b, c, i, n, o, q R-T, Two- Family Residential 4,200 (per unit) 35 (per unit) a, c, i, n R-M, MultipleFa mily Residential MHP, Mobile Home Park a, d, e k O-1, Office 8, (p) a, f, p CBD, Central Business District B-1, Local Business f, g 8, (p) a, f, p B-2, General 8, (p) a, f, p

23 Business MXD, Mixed Use 10 acres l -1, Light ndustrial 20, a, f, h, j -2, General ndustrial 20, a, f, h, j P-1, Vehicular Parking m HL, Historic Limited 8, a, b, c, o Section 4.07 Footnotes: (a) For all dwelling units, the minimum yard setback shall be twelve (12) feet between main buildings on adjoining lots, or the setback as described in subsection (a) hereof, whichever is greater. The setback shall be determined by measuring from the exterior wall of each building to the side lot line or to the next main building on any adjoining lot. f the building roof overhang is more than two (2) feet, then, in such an event, the setback shall be measured from the exterior edge of the overhang. For all principal uses other than dwelling units, the minimum yard setback shall be determined by the applicable provisions of the Building and Housing Code or the setback as described in subsection (a) hereof, whichever is greater. (b) For all uses permitted, other than one-family residential, the setback shall equal the greater of the height of the main building or the required setback. (c) The side yard setback abutting a street shall not be less than ten (10) feet when there is a common rear yard relationship in the block and a common side yard relationship with the block directly across the common separating street. n the case of a rear yard abutting a side yard of an adjacent lot, the side yard setback abutting a street shall not be less than the required minimum front yard of the district. (d) The maximum density shall be computed as follows: (1) Efficiency or one-bedroom units shall not exceed ten (10) dwelling units per acre or 4,356 square feet of site area for each dwelling unit. (2) Two-bedroom units shall not exceed eight (8) dwelling units per acre of 5,445 square feet of site area for each dwelling unit. (3) Three-bedroom units shall not exceed six (6) dwelling units per acre or 7,260 square feet of site area for each dwelling unit. The area used for computing density shall be the total site area, exclusive of any dedicated public right of way of either an interior or adjacent street. (e) n an R-M, Multiple Family Residential District, the minimum distance between two (2) buildings shall be twenty-five (25) feet. (f) Parking is permitted in the front yard with a minimum ten (10) foot setback from the street right of way provided. The parking plan layout, points of access and screening shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Screening shall be provided in accordance with Section 5.10(d)(3).

24 (g) The Planning Commission may approve a building height in excess of thirty-five (35) feet in accordance with the Section 3.03, Special Land Use provisions, and providing the following conditions have been met: (1) All structures, or portions of structures, within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned parcel shall be maintained at no greater than thirty-five (35) feet tall; (2) All structures, or portions of structures, between one hundred (100) and one hundred and fifty (150) feet from a residentially zoned parcel shall be maintained at no greater than forty-five (45) feet tall; (3) All structures, or portions of structures, beyond one hundred and fifty (150) feet from a residentially zoned parcel shall be maintained at no greater than fifty-five (55) feet tall; (4) The structure has compatible architectural style and mass with the adjacent parcels; and (5) One (1) or more of the following shall apply: off-street parking is provided on-site, the building is part of a mixed use development, or there is a demonstrated community benefit (i.e. parkland, public parking, community buildings, etc.). (h) No building shall be closer than sixty (60) feet from the outer perimeter (property line) of the district when such property line abuts a residential district. (i) For all uses permitted, other than one-family dwellings, the maximum height of a structure shall be three stories or thirty-five (35) feet. (j) Parcels in an -1, Light ndustrial District with an acreage of less than forty (40) acres can have a maximum structural height of fifty (50) feet. -1, Light ndustrial District parcels greater than forty acres (40) can have a maximum structural height of seventyfive (75) feet. (k) Refer to Article 6, Section (l) Refer to Article 6, Section (m) Where a P-1, Vehicular Parking District is contiguous to a residential district which has a common frontage on the same block with a residential structure, or wherein no residential structures have been yet erected, there shall be a setback equal to the required residential setback for such residential district, or a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet, whichever is greater, unless, under unusual circumstances, the Planning Commission finds that no good purpose would be served by compliance with such setback requirements. The required wall shall be located on a minimum setback line. (n) For all one-family and two-family residential dwellings the maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 30% for the main building including attached accessory buildings. (o) Front yard encroachments for porches or porticos may be considered by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 4.05(d). (p) All buildings shall be located at the build-to-line located no more than the average distance from the road right-of-way to the existing building setback of all buildings within five hundred (500) feet of the property in question. The distance shall be measured along the abutting road frontage whether located mid- block or at the corner of two (2) intersection streets (see subsequent graphic attached to this footnote). When a parcel within the distance noted has an excessively large or small setback, or is used for noncommercial purposes, it may be excluded from the determination of the build-to-line. The build-to-line will be determined by the Planning Commission on a parcel by parcel basis.

25 (q) All principal residential buildings shall be set back at least twenty-five (25) feet from the road right-of-way, except in cases where the average setback is greater than 40 feet, then the average setback shall apply. (1) The average setback shall be the average (arithmetic mean) distance from the road right-of-way to the existing building face of the enclosed structure for all residential dwellings within one hundred (100) feet of the property in question, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. (2) The distance shall be measured along the abutting road frontage whether located mid-block or at the corner of two (2) intersecting streets (see subsequent graphic attached to this footnote). The average calculation includes properties that are corner lots. The average ignores vacant properties. (3) Residential front setback averaging shall apply to new construction as well as additions and renovations located in the front yard. (4) Unenclosed porches and porticos on a residential structure are subject to the requirements of Section 4.05(d).

26

27 Howell, M, Code of Ordinances. Section 4.07 Schedule of Area, Height, Width and Setback Regulations. Minimum Lot Size Minimum Yard Setbacks Maximum Building Height Footn otes Zoning District Area (sq. ft.) Lot Width (ft.) Fron t (ft.) Side (feet) Rear (ft.) Storie s Feet Least Total R-1, One- Family Residential R-2, One- Family Residential 8, , a, b, c, i, n, o, q a, b, c, i, n, o, q R-T, Two- Family Residential 4,200 (per unit) 35 (per unit) a, c, i, n R-M, MultipleFa mily Residential MHP, Mobile Home Park a, d, e k O-1, Office 8, (p) a, f, p CBD, Central Business District B-1, Local Business f, g 8, (p) a, f, p B-2, General 8, (p) a, f, p

28 Business MXD, Mixed Use 10 acres l -1, Light ndustrial 20, a, f, h, j -2, General ndustrial 20, a, f, h, j P-1, Vehicular Parking m HL, Historic Limited 8, a, b, c, o Section 4.07 Footnotes: (a) For all dwelling units, the minimum yard setback shall be twelve (12) feet between main buildings on adjoining lots, or the setback as described in subsection (a) hereof, whichever is greater. The setback shall be determined by measuring from the exterior wall of each building to the side lot line or to the next main building on any adjoining lot. f the building roof overhang is more than two (2) feet, then, in such an event, the setback shall be measured from the exterior edge of the overhang. For all principal uses other than dwelling units, the minimum yard setback shall be determined by the applicable provisions of the Building and Housing Code or the setback as described in subsection (a) hereof, whichever is greater. (b) For all uses permitted, other than one-family residential, the setback shall equal the greater of the height of the main building or the required setback. (c) The side yard setback abutting a street shall not be less than ten (10) feet when there is a common rear yard relationship in the block and a common side yard relationship with the block directly across the common separating street. n the case of a rear yard abutting a side yard of an adjacent lot, the side yard setback abutting a street shall not be less than the required minimum front yard of the district. (d) The maximum density shall be computed as follows: (1) Efficiency or one-bedroom units shall not exceed ten (10) dwelling units per acre or 4,356 square feet of site area for each dwelling unit. (2) Two-bedroom units shall not exceed eight (8) dwelling units per acre of 5,445 square feet of site area for each dwelling unit. (3) Three-bedroom units shall not exceed six (6) dwelling units per acre or 7,260 square feet of site area for each dwelling unit. The area used for computing density shall be the total site area, exclusive of any dedicated public right of way of either an interior or adjacent street. (e) n an R-M, Multiple Family Residential District, the minimum distance between two (2) buildings shall be twenty-five (25) feet. (f) Parking is permitted in the front yard with a minimum ten (10) foot setback from the street right of way provided. The parking plan layout, points of access and screening shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Screening shall be provided in accordance with Section 5.10(d)(3).

29 (g) The Planning Commission may approve a building height in excess of thirty-five (35) feet in accordance with the Section 3.03, Special Land Use provisions, and providing the following conditions have been met: (1) All structures, or portions of structures, within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned parcel shall be maintained at no greater than thirty-five (35) feet tall; (2) All structures, or portions of structures, between one hundred (100) and one hundred and fifty (150) feet from a residentially zoned parcel shall be maintained at no greater than forty-five (45) feet tall; (3) All structures, or portions of structures, beyond one hundred and fifty (150) feet from a residentially zoned parcel shall be maintained at no greater than fifty-five (55) feet tall; (4) The structure has compatible architectural style and mass with the adjacent parcels; and (5) One (1) or more of the following shall apply: off-street parking is provided on-site, the building is part of a mixed use development, or there is a demonstrated community benefit (i.e. parkland, public parking, community buildings, etc.). (h) No building shall be closer than sixty (60) feet from the outer perimeter (property line) of the district when such property line abuts a residential district. (i) For all uses permitted, other than one-family dwellings, the maximum height of a structure shall be three stories or thirty-five (35) feet. (j) Parcels in an -1, Light ndustrial District with an acreage of less than forty (40) acres can have a maximum structural height of fifty (50) feet. -1, Light ndustrial District parcels greater than forty acres (40) can have a maximum structural height of seventyfive (75) feet. (k) Refer to Article 6, Section (l) Refer to Article 6, Section (m) Where a P-1, Vehicular Parking District is contiguous to a residential district which has a common frontage on the same block with a residential structure, or wherein no residential structures have been yet erected, there shall be a setback equal to the required residential setback for such residential district, or a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet, whichever is greater, unless, under unusual circumstances, the Planning Commission finds that no good purpose would be served by compliance with such setback requirements. The required wall shall be located on a minimum setback line. (n) For all one-family and two-family residential dwellings the maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 30% for the main building including attached accessory buildings. (o) Front yard encroachments for porches or porticos may be considered by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 4.05(d). (p) All buildings shall be located at the build-to-line located no more than the average distance from the road right-of-way to the existing building setback of all buildings within five hundred (500) feet of the property in question. The distance shall be measured along the abutting road frontage whether located mid- block or at the corner of two (2) intersection streets (see subsequent graphic attached to this footnote). When a parcel within the distance noted has an excessively large or small setback, or is used for noncommercial purposes, it may be excluded from the determination of the build-to-line. The build-to-line will be determined by the Planning Commission on a parcel by parcel basis.

30 (q) All principal residential buildings shall be set back at least twenty-five (25) feet from the road right-of-way, except in cases where the average setback is greater than 40 feet, then the average setback shall apply. (1) The average setback shall be the average (arithmetic mean) distance from the road right-of-way to the existing building face of the enclosed structure for all residential dwellings within one hundred (100) feet of the property in question, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. (2) The distance shall be measured along the abutting road frontage whether located mid-block or at the corner of two (2) intersecting streets (see subsequent graphic attached to this footnote). The average calculation includes properties that are corner lots. The average ignores vacant properties. (3) Residential front setback averaging shall apply to new construction as well as additions and renovations located in the front yard. (4) Unenclosed porches and porticos on a residential structure are subject to the requirements of Section 4.05(d).

31 . Section 6.17 Automobile Filling Stations, Automobile Repair Garages, Automobile Service Stations, Automobile Washes, and Automobile Dealerships. Automobile filling stations, repair garages, service stations, and washes shall comply with the following conditions: (a) The curb cuts for ingress to and egress from a filling or servicestation are not permitted at such locations as will tend to create traffic hazards in the streets immediately adjacent thereto. Entrances shall be not less than thirty (30) feet from a street intersection (measured from the road right-of-way) or from adjacent residential districts. No more than one (1) curb opening shall be permitted for each fifty (50) feet of frontage or major fraction thereof along any street. No driveway or curb opening shall be located nearer than ten (10) feet to any corner or exterior lot line. No driveway shall be located nearer than thirty (30) feet to any other driveway serving the site. (b) The minimum lotarea shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet, so arranged that ample space is available for motor vehicles which are required to wait. (c) Separation shall be made between the pedestrian sidewalk and vehicular parking and maneuvering areas with the use of curbs, wheel stops, greenbelts or traffic islands. (d) All activities related to vehicle washing, service and repair equipment shall be entirely enclosed within a building located not less than forty (40) feet from any streetlot line, and not less than ten (10) feet from any side lot line. (e) Driveways shall be designed to accommodate the type and volume of vehicular traffic using the site and located in a manner which is compatible with uses located adjacent to and across from the site.

32 (f) noperative or unlicensed vehicles shall not be stored outside for more than seven (7) days. Such storage shall not occur in front of the buildingfront line. (g) Vehicle sales shall not be permitted on the premises of any automobilefillingstation, automobilerepair garage, automobile service station, and automobile wash. (h) All coverings of the service or fillingstation gasoline pumps shall be no taller than the principal structure and constructed of compatible materials. Such canopies shall not be lit internally for signage purposes. All proposed lighting shall be fully recessed. (i) Gasoline pumps shall be located not less than fifteen (15) feet from any lot line, and shall be arranged so that motor vehicles do not park upon or overhang any public sidewalk, street or right-of-way while waiting for or receiving fuel service. (j) A filling or servicestation shall have no more than eight (8) gasoline pumps and two (2) enclosed stalls for servicing, lubricating, greasing and/or washing motor vehicles. An additional two (2) gasoline pumps and/or one enclosed stall may be included for each additional two thousand (2,000) square feet of lot area above the minimum area set forth in subsection (b). (k) Where the filling or servicestation site abuts any residentially zoned district, the requirements for protective screening shall be provided as specified in Section All masonry walls shall be protected by a fixed curb or barrier to prevent vehicles from contacting the wall. (l) All exterior lighting, including illuminated signs, shall be erected and hooded or shielded so as to be deflected away from adjacent and neighboring property. (m) All combustible waste and rubbish, including crankcase drainings, shall be kept in metal receptacles fitted with a tight cover until removed from the premises. Sawdust shall not be kept in any gasoline servicestation or place of storage therein, and sawdust or other combustible material shall not be used to absorb oil, grease or gasoline. (n) No advertising signs may be placed on-site other than the permitted maximum wall and/or ground sign area per Article 7. The prohibited signs include banners and flags. (o) Vehicle sales shall not be permitted on the premises of any gasoline service station, automotive wash or automobile or vehicle repair garage. (p) Outdoor Sale of Automobiles or Vehicles should comply with Section 6.06(a) of the Zoning Code.

33 HOWELL MCH6AN CTY OF HOWELL REQUEST FOR REVEW 611 E. Grand River Ave. Howell, M (517) FAX: (517) Date _~b'""""/_z_'z-_/_l~b Permit# Location of Property _~'f~o~/ '_. ~b~;?_t;_;i~cj-~#i~lv_t._'a'_~h~_e_,,,_, ~~~u;_e_l_~, _M_l_~q~.Yc=---':f_<f_"..f City Charter, Ordinance Chapter, Section and Paragraph you are petitioning under (ARTCLE 7 SGNS) Body(s) to be Addressed ~Zoning Board of Appeals D Planning Commission PROPERTY OWNER NFORMATON Name ff'd /kojull.ft~j LL C, ~ f Phone(~-~ Address tj ~. ~c,rv:/,1!1 v-l-.r City_a la/_-e.-_11 State U Zip 4"rttc./3 Property Owners Signature giving consent to petition s;.,,,,.,~ == LAND USE Date 6~/._2_ 2 ~8_/~~--- Nature of Petition D Site Plan D Appeal 0 Rezoning 0 P.U.D. 0 SignApproval 0 Other Zoning D Present D Proposed Corner Lot D Yes D No Lot Size width depth sq. footage Property Setbacks front rear right side left side Barrier Free D Yes D No Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Handicap Spaces PROJECT NARRATVE State your case, be specific. f you desire a type of special consideration or special use, so state. f additional space is needed, attach as EXHBT A. RECEl\./ED JUL ClTY OF HOWELL Attach the following documentation with your request: D Legal Description of the Property (EXHBT A-1) D Architect/Engineering Drawing (EXHBT A-2) D Location Map (EXHBT A-3) Continued on back.

34 NARRATVE Section 12.04(e) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the applicant present evidence to show that if the Ordinance is srricdy applied, practical difficulties will result to the applicant. Please provide a narrative and evidence concerning how all four (4) of these practical difficulties apply to your property. The Board of Zoning Appeals may not grant a variance unless it determines that each of the following circumstances exist. f additional space is needed, attach as EXHBT B. 1. That the restrictions of the Zoning Ordinance would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose. 3. That the plight of the landowner is due ro the unique circumstances of the property. 2. That the variance would do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the district and a lesser relaxation than that requested would not substantial relief to the owner of the property or be more consistent with justice to other property owners. 4. That d1e alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Attach the following documentation with your request: Survey of Property depicting the use/dimentional request (EXHBT B-1) Construction Drawing(s) of Proposed Structure, if applicable (EXHBT B-2) APPLCANT NFORMATON hereby certify that the proposed work is authorized by the owner of record and that have been authorized to make this application as his/her authorized agent, and we agree to conform to all laws of the State of Michigan. All information submitted on this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Section 23a of the State Construction code Act of 1972, Act No. 230 of the Public Acts of 1972, being Section a of the Michigan Complied Laws, prohibits a person from conspiring a circumvent the licensing requirements of this state relating to persons who are to perform work on a residential building or a residential structure. Violators of Section 23a are subject to civil fines. Signature LVNGSTON COUNTY & STATE OF MCHGAN PERMTS & NSPECTONS Local governmental agency to complete this section. nspection Required? App.roved Date Number By 0 Yes D No Appeal is hereby: 0 GRANTED D REFUSED for the following reason(s):