Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting Minutes March 13, 2018 City Commission Chambers - City Hall Introduction & Roll Call Chairman W. Darbee called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: William Darbee, Charles Congdon, Jan Rise & Lonnie Dowd. Others: Scott McKillop, Community Development Planner. Approval Minutes Motion by J. Rise, seconded by L. Dowd to approve the November 14, 2017 meeting minutes. Motion carried. Public Comment Not Related to Public Hearings John DeJohn, business owner on Columbus Avenue. Questioned if he will be able to make address the board before decisions are made. W. Darbee stated there will be a public comment period for the specific case. This portion is for items not on the regular agenda. No further comments. New Business - Public Hearings Case No. Z18-01 – 501 Columbus Avenue, Bay City Housing Commission Bay City Housing Commission is requesting non-use variance from zoning regulations as follows: 1. Non-use variance from the regulation limiting the height of buildings in the O-1 Office zoning district to 2 ½ stories or 45 feet. 2. Non-use variance from off-street parking and loading regulation requiring that multiple-family developments provide 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Bill Phillips, President of Bay City Housing Commission, stated that the project has a development team to include an architect, development partner and CEO. Mr. Phillips stated the property was purchased in July once the city purchased it from the county as a foreclosed property. The housing commission purchased it as a potential development site. Bay City Housing Commission has 4 or 5 properties to undertake in the community. Bay City Housing Commission is making a long term investment in this location. Blake Hatterman, Design Architect, discussed how the project will be developed. There will be a 4-story building along Columbus Avenue and transiting to single-family townhomes. Each area will have a designated parking. From calculations from current residents and documentation, he believes the parking can be reduced from 1.5 per one-bedroom unit to 1.25 per unit. The first floor will be multi-use and have leasing office along with common space. 1 Mr. Hatterman explained there is site support for 56 units and concentrating the density of the units along Columbus containing one and two bedroom then to two to three bedrooms in the townhomes. The architect feels that the building and density of building on Columbus Avenue is appropriate The architect discussed the site challenges. The old YMCA building will have significant abatement and demo costs. There is also a single family residential building to demolish on the site. The southern portion of this site housed single family residents and there are former foundations and concrete slabs so the soil conditions are poor and will need to be excavated. Some abatement of hazardous material such as asbestos will be cleared on the site. Mr. Hatterman stated the new building will be very durable with a slightly modern design element to it. The four story building, more modern in design, will transition in the north area of the lot to residential family townhomes. The townhome buildings are oriented with similar setbacks, character and architectural style. A question from the audience was made but not recorded. S. McKillop asked the audience if they would like to make a comment to please come to the podium during public comment and the questions may be addressed after the presentation. B. Darbee had a question regarding the sewer line. It was mentioned there is an existing sewer line that intersects from north to south. Bay City Housing Commission is trying to find out if it goes fully under the old YMCA. Regardless, the southern portion of the site would have to be changed to accommodate the project. J. Rise asked about cost to the unforeseen items. It was mentioned that abatement costs are currently $300,000 and adding in demolition of YMCA, house, sewer relocation or the soil excavation, would be about $500,000 - $600,000. Mr. Phillips added that it would take a big developer to incur this costs. What gives Bay City Housing Commission an advantage is our fund use allows for more patience than a privately funded development. They are seeking some financing from a state agency but not a contingent of going forward. J. Rise asked about parking. Mr. Phillips stated there are 193 public housing units throughout the community. They have designated the group of residents to relocate to the new development and based on their survey and an in-house survey, they are able to count the number of cars that will need to be authorized for all residents. On that basis the current utilization is .9 and we raised that to 1.25. He added that this is replacement housing and not adding numbers, but replacing those units. Mr. Phillips stated this project helps improve the affordable housing stock in the community by building brand new and then releases those 193 scattered site to enable them to do a number of variations. The scattered sites will be taxable, market rate or conventional housing. Public comment: Doug Rise of 1728 Green. He is the former director of the Bay City Housing Commission and also a city resident. He feels the project fits well with the 10 year plan providing for future viability of public housing. Federal government has been reducing support of social programs and public housing is one program. This will provide the scattered sites to be freed up and provide for different opportunities for the community. He is impressed with the work and highly in favor of the project and much needed new development in this area of the city. 2 John DeJohn, Columbus Avenue business owner. He stated the amount of units to be built exist now in the community those properties will be on the market. He feels that’ll be more low income properties. There was a study that showed the city did not have a shortage of low income properties in this area. He wonders if this development is really necessary and feels it will change the essence of this end of town. There has not been input from the merchants. He would like more community involvement as to if we need this project and is not sure it’s the best thing for our community. Mike Lutz, Essexville resident and Columbus Avenue property owner. He stated there are 193 units already and believes the goal is probably to be all 193 within the community. He wonders what will happen to the other buildings being on the market. He feels people will move out and others will not move in and there will be an overabundance of homes. He stated that the Housing Commission will still have to maintain the empty homes until they are sold, which will cost them money. He feels it is great to upgrade the housing but most people in these homes have not paid a dime and do not pay the taxes that we do. Neil Davis, Columbus Avenue commercial property owner. He is opposed for the same reasons as previously stated. If this is built his father that lives in that area will move. He questioned why the parking can’t be in the front near Columbus. He commented on smokers being outside. The architect stated that consideration was made on the design and it being so close to downtown and felt this design was more appropriate. S. McKillop stated there was one phone call received in support of the request. Public Hearing was closed. W. Darbee asked S. McKillop if the presentation is correct in stating this area was suitable for affordable housing. S. McKillop stated it was a correct statement. S. McKillop stated that the decision needs to be based on the actual evidence brought by the applicants and including in the zoning ordinance. He reminded them the basis for their decision is included in the zoning ordinance and actual evidence. J. Rise addressed Standard #1: Strict compliance with restrictions governing area, setback, frontage, height, bulk, density or other nonuse matters, will unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose, or will render conformity with this chapter unnecessarily burdensome. J. Rise stated that based on information, regarding the unforeseen sewer inadequate demolition, the abatement of asbestos, she find this unnecessarily burdensome and therefore the request meets this standard. W. Darbee mentioned the use proposed is in line with the master plan. The master plan recognizes that the height of the buildings are the current standards are obsolete from that standpoint. The height restriction goes back 40-50 plus years and in today’s economy the standards around the city has limited areas for high rises without the getting rid of a lot of areas. This spot seems to be an area that will not be developed for a number of years because of issues. This will be a major financial undertaking and deems to be a logical situation of a more concentrated use to allow the height to exceed the 2.5 stories. The parking facts are current residents have .9 vehicles per household and since they are going to be the residents that will be displaced from current home and encouraged to move, the 1.25 seems to be adequate. W. Darbee addressed Standard #2. The variance will do substantial justice to the applicant, as well as to other property owners. 3 W. Darbee stated the variances are needed in order to solve the issue of a concentration of persons in the area to make the project a feasible project. The information provided for the number of parking spaces needed is whether 1.25 will be enough or .9i is more than sufficient. It is based upon facts from current figures that they have provided to us and when it opens it makes a viable project. J. Rise address Standard #3. A lesser variance than that requested will not give substantial relief to the applicant. J. Rise mentioned stating the costs in making the property buildable, makes it an excessive burden. A lesser variance would not give substantial relive. Standard #4. The problem and resulting need for the variance has not been self-created. W. Darbee stated the issues with the property is not self-created. When the old YMCA was built, newer construction methods were not followed and now they are dealing with something that was created long ago. J. Rise added that she felt based on the materials, it was not self-created. It was mentioned that the need for variance is based on the land is not personal, financial or other hardships suffered by the owner. Renovations by private developer is highly unlikely because the land is occupied by a house, substantial building and has substantial abatement process and the excavation of site to make buildable. The cost of remediation of site in general makes it a viable use for a project of this size and type. J. Rise added she believes there is a need for the variance based on the materials. The physical circumstances are the same for both variances of the parking spaces and the height. The variance is needed because of the unique circumstances. Motion made by Jan Rise, seconded by, Lonnie Dowd, to approve Case No. Z 18-01 – 501 Columbus Avenue based on the fact findings 1-5 that the property is to be believed we have totally met the burden and move to allow the variance on height and parking spaces as proposed. Vote: Darbee – yes Rise – yes Dowd – yes Congdon – yes Motion carried. Motion made by W. Darbee, seconded by J. Rise that the variance has immediate effect. Motion carried. Other Business J. Rise would like to see an update on the zoning ordinance. S. McKillop stated that Lonnie Dowd has become a full time member. Adjournment 4