Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, July 12, 2022 – Regular Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes City Chambers, City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair William Darbee called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS & ROLL CALL Present: William Darbee, Jan Rise, Chris Greenleaf, Larry Elliott, Lonnie Dowd Others: Staff Liaisons Anthony Dier and Terry Moultane APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the June 21, 2022, meeting minutes as presented by J. Rise, seconded by C. Greenleaf. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT - NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing Z 22-02 – 321 S. Farragut St. – David Welch The appellant is requesting a use variance from Section 122-102 that would, if granted, authorize the establishment of two dwelling units in the upper story of the existing structure. The first-floor space currently contains the bar area and one residential dwelling unit. The appellant is requesting two additional residential dwelling units. The appellant must obtain a use variance from R-2 Single and Two- Family Residential zoning district regulations to allow a multiple family dwelling unit which is defined as a building that contains three or more dwelling units. Present: David Welch, owner; Adam Sode, partner Mr. Welch stated the property had been a tavern with the owner living above it for many years. The previous owner passed away, the liquor license was sold off and the property has been vacant for over two years. He intends on modifying the property so that the use will be more conducive for the neighborhood. It is 4800 sq. feet, not suited for single-family use, and would not be marketable for an investor to convert it. He said the upstairs and downstairs space is too large for a one-unit rental and would like to make multiple units but keep the downstairs commercial such as general office space. The residential space is just too large for single family use with the adjacent space being commercial, and plenty of off-street parking is available in the back of the building off 15th Street. Mr. Sode felt a three residential multi-unit with commercial space would help families, and benefit both them and the City. He said their goal was to make the neighborhood nicer. W. Darbee asked for a description of the interior. Mr. Welch said it was in pretty rough shape. It had one bathroom upstairs and did not look like anyone had ever lived up there. There is a separate front door that would be used for the lower 1100 -1200 square-foot apartment. A primary stairway exists which would lead to two diverting doors above the existing bar area. There would be two apartments with one Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 1  Tuesday, July 12, 2022 – Regular Meeting being 900 square feet. It needs a lot of work. There is a new furnace/ HVAC system for the bar area, but the residential space will need additional furnaces and non-supporting walls will need to be constructed. Mr. Welch confirmed there was a separate entrance for the current lower residential unit. The upper level was open space with some walls. It appears it had not been used for years. It was filled with boxes and bags along with the dog feces. He said the lower residential area is where the previous owner lived but he may have used the upstairs for the bathtub as there wasn’t one downstairs. In accordance with Standard (1), L. Elliott said he did not see anything that would keep the upstairs from being used as one apartment compared to having two. He wondered why a two-unit would not be feasible. Mr. Welch answered a two-unit would be an alternate. He said the upstairs was roughly 1200 square feet which was suitable for two units. It was conducive for three units and the square footage would allow it. They could compromise, but the revenue stream and tax base as a three-unit would be better. Mr. Sode said there were two good sized rooms to the left and two rooms and a bathroom to the right on the upper level off a hall at the top of the stairs before continuing left to what would be a second potential unit. There were approximately 12 rooms upstairs. W. Darbee asked what the upstairs was originally used for in the past. Mr. Welch said it appeared it had been used as a large single-family home at one time with the bar being added afterwards. J. Rise asked how long the building had been vacant. A. Dier thought it was two years. Mr. Welch said the previous owner passed away about 4 years ago. He had been friends with him, and he had never lived upstairs. His sister acquired the bar afterwards. W. Darbee asked for the maximum number of parking spaces available that would still allow for adequate access and exit room. Mr. Welch replied they had roughly 2,912 square feet for nine parking spaces with 1600 square feet being the minimum requirement for six parking spaces. Mr. Sode added parking was off 15th Street. W. Darbee wondered about the occupancy of the units. Mr. Welch answered they intended all three units to be two-bedroom. W. Darbee thought they may need another five off-street parking spaces for the commercial unit. Mr. Welch answered he thought off-street parking was required for more than 15 cars. W. Darbee invited public comment. Public Comment For: 1 Against: 5 1. Dennis Swiecicki, 413 S. Farragut Street, was opposed. He was concerned with the additional traffic and parking issues on the street. He would like to keep Farragut as residential as possible. 2. Dalton Caleca, 401 S. Farragut Street, was opposed. He thought the area already had too many rental units and was concerned with what the apartments may bring into the neighborhood. Parking was also a huge issue. He thought it needed to stay a family area. He lives across the street and his house is for sale because of this. 3. David Sujkowski, 404 S. Farragut Street, was opposed. He thought the building needed to be condemned. The neighborhood had enough problems with rentals and didn’t need any more. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 2  Tuesday, July 12, 2022 – Regular Meeting 4. Dale Streeter, 403 S. Farragut Street, was opposed. He lived two houses down and didn’t see the benefit of the bar being turned into an apartment complex. He didn’t think there was enough yard and was concerned with cars blocking his driveway. 5. Unidentified Speaker was opposed. He was concerned about the upkeep of the property. 6. Mary Jezowski, 1119 15th Street, called prior to the meeting and was in favor. She thought it would be a good thing and better than having the building sit empty. Mr. Welch commented he respected what everyone had to say but didn’t think they knew that he has lived in Bay City since 1995 and lives five blocks from that building. He has renovated seven other properties and still owns some rentals. He said he has only had two evictions and thought it said something about his management style of multi-family property. His intent is to improve the space and not make things worse. By choice, he would convert it back into a single residential home if he could, but it is clearly a commercial space. Motion to open discussion by J. Rise, seconded by C. Greenleaf. Motion carried unanimously. W. Darbee asked staff if a condition could be placed on the use variance concerning the number of parking spaces. A. Dier answered that they could and that a minimum of six parking spots, two per unit, were required by zoning. DISCUSSION and FINDING OF FACT: The ZBA discussed each standard as follows: 1. The property subject to the request cannot be used for any of the uses permitted in the zoning district in which it is located. J. Rise felt the standard was met. The property is in a R1-R2 residential neighborhood and cannot be used for anything than what is allowed now. C. Greenleaf agreed with J. Rise. He felt they were trying to improve the residential area by fixing a building that was designed for a residential area. W. Darbee requested clarification. He wanted to know if they both were saying to allow residential use with two units. J. Rise clarified she meant two upper-level units, and one downstairs along with the commercial space. C. Greenleaf agreed. He thought it would be a great use for the property. W. Darbee wasn’t sure if they opposed or were in favor of the use variance. C. Greenleaf answered he was in favor. J. Rise replied she was in favor of the first standard being met. L. Elliott thought it could be used with the uses permitted in the zoning district since the applicant said he could make it work as a two-family unit. T. Moultane explained how the ordinance described a two-family dwelling unit as a duplex being any building designed and constructed with two single-family dwelling units, and a multi-family as three units or more. An accessory apartment is an apartment created within a single-family Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 3  Tuesday, July 12, 2022 – Regular Meeting dwelling and is prohibited. He said the question needs to be asked if a lesser variance could be granted for an accessory apartment to allow for a second unit, or was the building designed and constructed for a duplex. Based on the ordinance, a second unit would be called an accessory apartment. He didn’t believe a building like this was designed and constructed as a duplex. W. Darbee was a bit confused. To his understanding, a single-family home had been divided into living quarters on one side, a bar on the other side and the upper level not used, with a request to convert it into multi-family with three units. He wanted to know if the building had reverted back to single-family use since the building had sat vacant for 3.5 years. T. Moultane answered the intent is for the re-use of buildings versus tearing them down, and the burden of proof for abandonment is on the City, which tries to work with owners. The commercial use was the nonconforming aspect of the site, with single-family permitted within the district. W. Darbee said a less intensive use such as an office was allowed by the zoning ordinance. He asked if the non-conforming use as a bar would then be prohibited once it had been used with a less intensive use. T. Moultane replied he was correct. A less intensive change-of-use substitution could be allowed by the zoning administrator, which then could not be changed back. He stated a good example had been the case for 100 Green Street where the requested substitution had been for a restaurant with liquor which was not a less intensive use for the original florist shop use and so needed a variance from the ZBA. W. Darbee inquired if the ZBA could allow the three units with the condition the bar area would need to be a less intensive use such as for an office. A. Dier thought constricting the use of the legal non-conforming use was more of a legality issue than planning. Within the scope of the zoning administrator, the avenue of using that space is to continue the legal non-conforming use of the bar, or substitute with a less intensive use. W. Darbee felt allowing the continuation of the bar with three units would result in parking issues around the area and would prefer to have a less intensive use instead of the bar. J. Rise felt it was not economically feasible to purchase a liquor license in order to continue the bar. W. Darbee explained he was concerned there were potential uses that would create a much larger parking problem, such as a gaming area. A. Dier clarified W. Darbee’s concern. If multi-family was allowed and the commercial space is utilized, it should be deemed less intensive than the current legal non-conforming bar use. W. Darbee agreed. T. Moultane thought a condition could be placed on the substitution area and would be upheld. He felt the ZBA could incorporate and consider the substituted area in conjunction with their decision for the overall structure. In accordance with a single-family residence within R-2 zoning, L. Elliot inquired if it would still require a use variance if they agreed to a two unit even without the consideration of the commercial space. T. Moultane said it would. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 4  Tuesday, July 12, 2022 – Regular Meeting L. Elliott wanted to know what would prevent someone from requesting to revert it back to a bar five years down the road. T. Moultane answered it couldn’t be converted back to its previous use once the area was converted to a legal conforming use. W. Darbee stated this standard is questionable since it can be used as a single-family dwelling, office/bar/residence and has been confirmed they could live with a single unit on each floor. L. Elliott commented on “if granting the variance would make a reasonable economical return from doing so”. He felt the return would be totally gone by keeping it as a single-family home and to demolish and rebuild would also not be feasible. He said the decision to him is to whether to limit it to two, or three apartments. C. Greenleaf thought three apartments would be the best use for the building size. 2. The need for the variance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as its odd shape, extreme narrowness, topography, and other physical features or constraints. W. Darbee thought it was not really applicable as the request was not a result of the lot itself. 3. Whether granting a use variance will alter the character of the surrounding area; W. Darbee said public comments were heard that night where multiple-family dwellings in the area have impacted the neighbors so it could alter the character. 4. Whether the unnecessary hardship asserted by the requesting party as justification for granting a use variance is self-created by an action taken by the appellant or predecessor in title. W. Darbee did not think they did something themselves for the problem to be self-created other than purchasing the property. W. Darbee closed discussion. Motion for use variance request: Motion made by W. Darbee: I make a motion that we allow the request as stated, subject to a condition for the area that would be known as the bar area, which will be used not for a bar, but for a lesser use similar to an Office-1 area which is intended to be maybe a CPA office, real estate office, or something that would have limited automobile traffic. Seconded by C. Greenleaf. L. Elliott made a request to amend the motion to add a condition to limit the number to no more than three apartments. He wanted to make sure the commercial space could not be turned into a fourth apartment down the road. Staff clarified L. Elliott’s request to limit the number of units was made so that a substituted use of an additional apartment within the commercial area could not be requested as it would be deemed a less intensive use than the bar and would otherwise be allowed. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 5  Tuesday, July 12, 2022 – Regular Meeting W. Darbee stated there was a motion and a second for three units with a condition to limiting it to something less than a bar to something like the Office-1, with a request for a second condition of maximizing the units at three, period. C. Greenleaf seconded L. Elliot’s request to amend the motion. W. Darbee restated the motion: A maximum of three residential units with the bar area only to be considered for the Office-1 area. A. Dier asked W. Darbee if the Office-1 area referred to the O-1 Office zoning district. W. Darbee confirmed it did. The motion on the floor was clarified by A. Dier: A maximum of three units with the bar area to be allowed to be substituted by the zoning administrator only for uses that are permitted in the O-1, Office zoning district. W. Darbee said it was correct. Roll Call Vote: “Yes” vote is to allow the variance with the condition of a maximum of three residential units are permitted and the bar area shall be substituted for a use permitted in the O-1, Office zoning district. 5 Yes; 0 No Motion made by W. Darbee for the motion to become effective immediately, seconded by J. Rise. Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS W. Darbee inquired on the status of a claim concerning a previous case. T. Moultane answered so far, the records did not show the City had received any email from the claimant other than the ones that had already been acknowledged. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn was not audible on the recording. Meeting ended at 8:33 p.m. Prepared by Lisa Griffiths, Planning & Zoning Administrative Assistant Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 6