MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
WHICH TOOK PLACE
ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2008
AT 6:30 P.M., IN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1. ROLL
CALL
PRESENT: Board Members - Green, Higgins, Holthof, Lichtenwald, and Steele
ABSENT: Board Members – None
OTHERS PRESENT: Keith Baker, Cheri King, and 3 others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved
by Higgins and supported by Steele to approve the minutes of the July 15, 2008
meeting as presented. Motion was
unanimously approved.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Chairman explained the public hearing procedures and how the Board
decides if the variance request is approved based on the five ordinance
criteria. Mr. Green reinforced that the
variance goes with the property and not with the property owner.
a. No.
08-10 – Cris Weckesser for an
area/dimension variance to allow reconstruction of a fire destroyed building at
Tek Circle located at 2903 Ronan Street.
Mr. Baker showed an aerial photograph of the
subject property. The petition is to
allow the reconstruction of a burned building in the Tec Circle apartment
complex. It is bounded by Ronan Street, Dartmouth
Drive, Cambridge Street, adjoins Rodd Street and is just east of S. Saginaw
Road. The building in question is the
second building in from Ronan Street. It
is currently zoned RB so this is a permitted use within this district. It is bounded by single family to the east
and north. Tonight’s petition considers
the 4-unit apartment building that burned and the petitioner wishes to
reconstruct this building. Under the Zoning
Ordinance adopted in 2005, we have minimum square footage requirements for
different sized apartment units in Table 9.3.
The setbacks for the building do meet current standards. The building itself is proposed to be 48 feet
in depth and 24 feet in width. One
correspondence was received from Mr. Pike in opposition to this request.
Mr. Holthof asked about Table 9.3 and the
minimum setbacks from the surrounding buildings. Mr. Baker stated that a minimum of 30 feet is
required between buildings and there is 38 feet between these buildings at the
present time, with the existing footprint of the building.
Cris Weckesser, 4115 Stonegate Drive,
reviewed the five criteria required by the Zoning Ordinance. They asked for this variance because they are
trying to get the building put back at a price the owners can afford. The existing foundation was not damaged by
the fire. The units were all full at the
time of the fire. They are trying to
produce a building as economically as possible.
The apartments are very rentable with their existing square
footage. The city adopted new
regulations in 2005. They would like to
use the same foundation that already exists.
Mr. Weckesser stated there was a fire previously, in 1998 or 1999 and
they tried to repair the damage that was done to another building. It was more economical to tear down the
building and rebuild it.
Dan Kellan, 4409 Brambleridge, is a partial
owner of the property. He stated that
the insurance company has agreed only to pay to rebuild the building the size
it was. The foundation was not damaged
in the fire, so the insurance company will only pay to rebuild the building on
the existing foundation. Many of the
tenants in this complex walk to work as it is close to a number of businesses.
Cris Weckesser stated it would take a lot of
work to expand the building to accommodate the requirements of the ordinance,
and it would affect the overall appearance of the building within the apartment
complex. Mr. Steele asked if the
buildings were brick. Mr. Weckesser
stated that they are brick. Their
proposed new building will look like it conforms with the other buildings in
the apartment complex. They looked at
expanding the building to conform to the ordinance. However, this would be very expensive to
build the building so it looked like it was similar to the existing
structures. He stated that the building
will be much easier to reconstruct if they are allowed to utilize the existing
foundation. If they have to comply with
the ordinance, it will affect the time that it takes to get the building built
and they are trying to get it rebuilt prior to bad weather setting in. Mr. Kellan’s tenants are anxious to move back
in. This building is inside the apartment
complex and the boundaries of this building are limited due to the surrounding
structures.
No one spoke either in favor
of or in opposition to this request. The
Chairman closed
the public hearing and
directed the ZBA to enter into findings of fact.
Mr. Higgins asked Mr. Baker for the reasons
why the Zoning Ordinance was changed to the current minimum sizes in the 2005
revision. Mr. Baker stated that minimum
apartment sizes were specified to accommodate current living conditions.
Findings of
Fact:
1.
The area
is zoned RB.
2.
This is
one of 19 buildings in the complex.
3.
There
appears to be adequate side, front and rear yard setbacks.
4.
The
reason for this request is because a fire burned down this 4 unit building.
5.
The
request is to rebuild as previously existed.
6.
The
insurance company has stated they will only pay to rebuild the building as it
was.
7.
The proposed
units are smaller than allowed in the current ordinance.
8.
The
current ordinance was changed in 2005 to require these larger units.
9.
The
building was destroyed more than 50 percent by a fire.
10. The properties surrounding this complex are zoned
RA-3, Regional Commercial, and Circle district.
11. The apartment units have been in existence
since the late 1950’s.
It is moved by Higgins and supported by Steele
to approve Petition No. 08-10 based on the findings of fact to allow reconstruction
of a fire destroyed building at Tek Circle located at 2903 Ronan Street.
Mr. Higgins stated that, if this came before the board without having
been destroyed by fire, he would be very much against this petition. However, when he looks at the criteria and
considers that the Zoning Ordinance was changed in 2005, and that the other
units are similar in size to what is proposed here, he is in favor of this
petition. He feels it will do
substantial justice to the petitioner, it is the minimum needed to fit the
criteria and that the ordinance was changed proposes a uniqueness to the
property.
Mr.
Lichtenwald stated he can concur with item B through E as being met. He has a problem with the first criteria that
strict compliance is unnecessarily burdensome.
Rules do change and at some point, you have to comply with them. With a minimum of expansion, he feels the
building can comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr.
Holthof stated he does not feel he has enough information to make a decision
either way. He could agree with the
petitioner about building this if he was clear as to whether or not the
petitioner has enough room to expand it to meet the Zoning Ordinance. If they have enough room, he is in agreement
with Mr. Lichtenwald. There is an
opportunity here for this structure to be improved and to comply with what is
desired by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr.
Green stated he has no problem with criteria B through E. He has a tough time complying with the first
criteria. The structure was
destroyed. There appears to be adequate
space to comply with the new zoning ordinance.
Mr.
Steele stated that if they have to build a new foundation, he considers that
burdensome. They would have to build a
false wall along the long side of the building to create a partial
foundation. As soon as you do that, you
are now less than 30 feet to another building.
Then you are getting too close to other buildings and that would require
another zoning variance. Based upon the
way everything now sits, he will be inclined to vote for this variance.
Mr.
Lichtenwald stated that they can bump out one of the short walls out five feet,
whether it is slab on grade or whether it is a crawl space. That would enable it to comply with the
ordinance.
Voting
on motion:
Green: No
Higgins: Yes
Holthof: No
Lichtenwald: No
Steele: Yes
The motion to approve the Petition 08-10 failed
by a vote of 2-3.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (not related to items on the agenda)
None
5. OLD BUSINESS
None
6. NEW BUSINESS
Motion by Steele, seconded by Holthof to approve the proposed meeting dates for the Zoning Board of Appeals’ meetings in 2009. Motion approved 4-1.
7. DECISION SHEET SIGNATURES
8. ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business, the Chairman adjourned the
meeting at 7:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith Baker, AICP
Director of Planning & Community Development