Zoning Board of Appeals Special Meeting

Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, June 5, 2019 5:00 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Minutes of May 8, 2019 regular meeting 3. Review Minutes of May 22, 2019 regular meeting 4. General Public Comment: This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non-public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required 5. Case # 19-008 – 561 Faircrest Avenue NW Applicant and owner Shirley Snoap has applied seeking to construct a 7’ x 16’ front deck / porch which extends to within roughly 16’ from the front lot line, contrary to Sec. 94-188(b)(16) and Sec. 94-352a, which require a minimum 25’ front yard setback for front porches and decks. The subject lot is 561 Faircrest Ave. N.W. (PPN 41-13-19-405-014) and is zoned A – Single Family Residential. a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. b. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. c. That authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the intent and Page 1 of 54  purposes of this chapter or the public interest. d. That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. 6. Zoning Board of Appeals member/Staff Comments 7. Adjournment Page 2 of 54  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Wednesday, May 8, 2019 7:00 p.m. Members present: Robert Marz, Chairman; Brian Boelens; Roger Crabtree; Sandra Howland, Scott Funke, Patrick Nolan, Randy Smith and Tom Winkelman. Staff present: Dan Power, Staff Planner/Zoning Administrator, and Andrea Hendrick, Recording Secretary. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Members Present: Chairman Bob Marz, Scott Funke, Tom Winkelman, Patrick Nolan, Randy Smith, Roger Crabtree, Craig Taetsch Members absent: Vice Chairman Brian Boelens Staff Present: Dan Power, Staff Planning/Zoning Administrator, Andrea Hendrick, Planner/ Recording Secretary Chairman Bob Marz open the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers. REVIEW MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2019, REGULAR MEETING Crabtree motioned to approve the April 10, 2019 minutes. Funke supported the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non- public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required. There was no public comment. CASE # 19-007 – 606 FERNDALE AVENUE N.W. Owners Shawn & Elizabeth Richardson have applied seeking to place maintain an a 192-sf accessory structure +/- 3’8” and 4’0” from rear and side property lines and within the required Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 5-8-19 Page 3 of 54 rear and side yard setbacks, respectively, contrary to Section 94-352 of the Walker Zoning Ordinance, which requires that accessory structures are not less than 5’ from the side and rear property lines. The subject lot is 606 Ferndale Ave. N.W. (PPN 41-13-19-331-020) and is zoned A – Single Family Residential. Power stated that the building was already in place and that it came to the attention of staff from another staff member who was concerned that the accessory building was potentially too close to the lot line. They visited the Community Development Department to confirm a permit was pulled for the structure. The home owner was contacted, and they were responsive to the request of City Staff. Power provided the dimension of the structure and the location of the structure in relation to what he believed was the lot line. The applicant later clarified that the fence was set back slightly from the lot line, therefore the required variance was less than previously requested. Power provided a chart that showed the rear yard area of the subject property, as well as the other properties in the surrounding area. The subject property was slightly under the lot size mean of the neighborhood. He proceeded to explain the criteria for granting the zoning variance set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Elizabeth and Shawn Richardson, the applicants and owners of the property, spoke on the matter. Ms. Richardson provided pictures that demonstrated the quality of building material of the existing shed. She expressed that their goal was never to cause trouble, time or hassle for City staff or the Board. They intended to build a quality shed that would last. Richardson provided pictures to demonstrate the quality of the building materials already used on the shed. The siding had not yet been added, because the applicant was asked to stop construction as the variance was heard. They intended to use material that was consistent with the current material of the primary structure. The purpose of the shed was to create a storage space for usually household items such as children’s toy, lawn tools, and a jet ski. The existing house does not have a garage, and the current home is only 940 square feet. She also addressed the cost that would be associated with moving the current shed. Lastly, she addressed the quality of the structure. Chris Hacket lives directly across the street from the property at 605 Ferndale Ave N.W. He stated that shed has contributed to the economic vitality of the neighborhood. The current development at the subject property has improved the neighborhood significantly. The previous owners of the property and other previous residents did not take care of the structures on the site. Patrick Mondry, of 4531 Chestfield N.W., confirmed what Hacket had previously said. He spoke to the poor condition of the house prior to the current development. He also stated that the quality of the shed was demonstrated in the way it was built and the upgraded condition of other structures on the site. The shed had not created any kind of visual nuisance to adjacent properties. Alisha Devowe, resident of 612 Ferndale, is the neighbor directly adjacent to the accessory building in question. She sated that the shed had caused no detriment to her property. She believes that the ascetics of the shed are visually pleasing, and she understood the practical need for the structures given their lack of garage and other storage room on the site. She asked that the variance be approved. Will Minor, resident of 601 Ferndale NW, spoke to the economic value of the development that has occurred at the subject property. He agreed with the previous statements and states that Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 5-8-19 Page 4 of 54 the Richardson's had assisted in neighborhood improvements and have overall helped to increase property values and contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood. Abby Hilgendorf, resident of 607 Macomb Ave NW, which is one street over from the subject property, spoke in support of the proposed development. Matt Walker, 4611 Cider Wood, spoke in support of the variance. He addressed the standard of the exceptional. The Chesterfield Plats are historically smaller than that of other properties in the City. Further, the subject property, from Power’s analysis, is in the bottom one third of the propertied in this neighborhood with regards to lot area. Walker states that it may be harder to measure whether this is not a general problem. The board could look at whether the ZBA hears similar cases on a regular basis. Since 2010 (nine years) they have received only six. He would concluded that this would show that this is somewhat of a unique request. The no detriment issue seemed to be addressed by the evidence of numerous neighbors in support of the issue. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Crabtree makes a motion to open the public hearing. Support by Nolan. Motion carried unanimously. Marz asked the applicant if there was a previous shed in this location. Richardson stated that there was a previous shed that was completely removed and replaced with the subject shed. The previous shed was much closer to the lot line. He stated that the height of the previous building was approximately 7 feet. Marz asked about the proposed material for the finished building. Richardson stated that it would match the house. And that there was no electric ran to the shed. Marz asked if the shed would be used for storage. The Richardson’s confirmed. Winkelman asked what material the previous foundation was. The Richardson’s stated that it was dilapidated stone. The new foundation was moved further from the property line. Funk mentioned that, as a resident of this neighborhood, he can attest to the small lots and restricted areas for development of the neighborhood. Crabtree stated that the distance on the north side compared with the examples provided by staff show that the absence of a building next to the nonconforming shed alleviates any concern about the nonconforming use. He also stated that the ZBA could not factor cost into their decision. a There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 5-8-19 Page 5 of 54  . applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district.  Comparable vicinity rear lot areas Based on measurements of the subject lot’s rear yard area in relation to 11 of the closest nearby lots., the subject lot’s rear yard area (+/- 2,455-sf) is 19% smaller than the mean area (+/-3,018-sf) of these 12 measured rear yards. This is a somewhat expected result of the lot being a corner lot. In relation to interior lots, corner lots typically have a smaller rear yard area.  Lot layout in relation to district minimums. The lot is among a layout of small lots platted as part of the Chesterfield Heights neighborhood prior to the passage of the City’s current zoning ordinance. These lots are generally between 60-70’ in width and less than 10,000 square feet in area, as opposed to this zoning district’s standard minimum width of 90’ and area of 11,880-sq. ft. b That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of . a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. A listing of recent sub-standard rear or side yard setback variance cases reviewed by the ZBA was provided by staff. Within this listing, only the 533 Cloverdale Ave N.W. case involving a replacement of a garage with a 4.5’ setback and the 4415 Chesterfield Boulevard N.W. case involving the installation of an attached carport within 1’ of the property line can be considered as pertaining to “…other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity”. c That authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment . to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. The intent of setback rules for accessory structures relates to specific items in the purpose and intent section of Walker’s Zoning Ordinance, which are highlighted below (Section 94-2 – Purpose and Intent): In the interpretation and application of the provisions of this chapter, its terms shall be held to be the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; to encourage the use of lands in accordance with their character and adaptability and to limit the improper use of land; to avoid overcrowding of population; to provide adequate light and air; to lessen congestion on public roads and streets; to reduce hazards to life and property....” Given this purpose and intent, the ZBA should exercise caution to ensure that a structure with as little as a 3’8” setback – and the potential land use pattern it could replicate if applied elsewhere – does not do any of the following, in relation to a structure with a 5’ setback: - Compromise public health or safety; - Cast a burdensome shadow on neighboring lots; or - Facilitate a visual or noise nuisance. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 5-8-19 Page 6 of 54  A visual depiction of a comparison between the requested layout and a code-compliant layout with 5’ setbacks for a row of accessory structures was provided by staff. The applicant had additionally provided three letters of support as part of their application package. These items were used to determine whether the zoning ordinance purpose and intent is likely to be upheld when the variance is applied. d That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended . use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. There are a number of potential instances of accessory building setback violations on small A-zoned lots where platted lot layouts pre- dated current ordinance standards. On existing non-conforming lots such as these, a proportionally reduced side yard setback for certain 7 detached accessory structures may be appropriate. Because of this, it may be appropriate to defer this issue to the Walker Ordinance Committee before the ZBA acts on this specific request. Section 94-341 of the Walker Zoning Ordinance offers some leniency for side yard setbacks on lots that are non-conforming due to size for principal buildings. These factors lend themselves to a possible finding that the “not a general problem” criterion warrants further research. e With respect to the Use Variance only, that the property for which a . variance is sought cannot reasonably be used in a manner consistent with existing zoning. MOTION Winkelman made a motion to approve the request to install a 6’ tall privacy fence in a required front yard, contrary to Section 94-337(2) of the Walker Zoning Ordinance with the following condition: 1. The applicant finishes the accessory building with material compatible with the primary structure. 2. The building should have no exposed fasteners 3. The building should have a final inspection to determine whether gutters should be added specifically to divert rain water away from running off onto neighbor’s property. Crabtree supported the motion. Yays: 7 Nays: 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBER/STAFF COMMENTS Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 5-8-19 Page 7 of 54 Power stated that on May 22, 2019 we will have a training session from the City Attorney. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn hearing by Crabtree, second by Smith. Motion carried unanimously. Roger Crabtree, Secretary Andrea Hendrick, Recording Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 5-8-19 Page 8 of 54 Table of Contents: Case ZBA 19-008: 561 Faircrest Drive N.W. Porch Setback / Dimensional Variance Request Planning Director report dated 5-28-2019 (3) Application materials (7) Exhibit A. Pertinent zoning ordinance regulations (19) Exhibit B. Site images (21) Exhibit C. A-Zoned Corner Lots in Walker: Area Comparison (23) Exhibit D. Porch Assessment of Faircrest Avenue, St. Clair Avenue, and Parkside Avenue (27) Exhibit E. Scale Analysis (29) Exhibit F. Clear Vision Analysis (31) Exhibit G. Potential process chart (33) Model Motion (35) 1 Page 9 of 54  2 Page 10 of 54  561 Faircrest Avenue N.W. – Dimensional Variance Request To: City of Walker Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Power – City of Walker Planning Director Date: May 29, 2019 Request and Findings of Fact Applicant and owner Shirley Snoap has applied seeking to construct a 7’ x 16’ front deck / porch which extends to within roughly 16’ from the front lot line, contrary to Sec. 94-188(b)(16) and Sec. 94-352a, which require a minimum 25’ front yard setback for front porches and decks. The subject lot is 561 Faircrest Ave. N.W. (PPN 41-13-19-405-014) and is zoned A – Single Family Residential. Exhibit A attached to this report packet is a list of the pertinent Walker Zoning Ordinance sections for this request. This case was delivered to the ZBA as a result of a review of a building permit application to install the requested porch by the homeowner following the correct building permit application review procedure. Exhibit B attached to this report packet is a collection of site imagery. When deciding on this case, the ZBA should address the specific variance standards noted in State of Michigan Law and in Section 94-59 of our Walker Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has offered a narrative that explains his variance request. I will offer my opinions using the four “questions for findings” found on the application on the following pages, as supplemented with specific exhibit references, which can be found using the report packet’s table of contents. The packet also includes a model motion. 1. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. Applicant’s response: I have lived in my present home since I've been married. 56 years. We have always worked hard to keep our home looking nice for our neighborhood. We have done some upgrades and think a new porch / deck would make our home look prettier. Our front porch had slanted down on the right side. I have knee replacements in both knees. In order to go down out of my front door I will have to use a railing. My boys suggested instead of just putting up a railing, why don’t I just put in a small deck or porch. Then I could put a couple of chairs out there to set on (my husband of 55 years passed away in June and our 2 boys told their dad they would take care of me). I have my grandkids over a lot and would like to have a place so they could read to me when it’s nice weather outside. They read quite a lot. 3 Page 11 of 54  Size and orientation of the lot: My lot is shaped like no other lot in my neighborhood. It is kind of an irregular shape at the northwest corner of Faircrest and Chesterfield Boulevard. My house is closer to the road than any other one on my street. The size of my lot is different than any others that I have 3 houses directly across the street from me. My lot looks so big that we have had many people that have asked if we own two lots. My response: Lot orientation and size are exceptional. The lot is a corner lot, meaning that it has significant area devoted to what the zoning ordinance defines as a secondary “front yard” where a side yard would typically be located. The lot was also developed prior to the passage of the current zoning ordinance. The single-family home on the lot, which was constructed in 1961, lies only roughly 23’ from the front lot line on Faircrest Avenue. Per Exhibit B attached to this report, the lot, with an area of roughly 9,262-sq. ft., is smaller than the average among a sample of 70 A-zoned corner lots from five different neighborhoods in Walker.  Finding: This criterion is met. 2. Preservation of Rights: That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. Applicant’s response: Examples of other lots where encroachments may have been granted: I went down my street and have noticed that some have added new porches. I have seen a couple of houses that have the new white railings that look really nice. That is what I am going to do on mine. One house up the road has landscaping which is quite close to the road and looks really nice. My response: Is a front porch a property right widely possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and the vicinity? In my analysis, the answer is “yes”. See Exhibit D attached to this report packet for a listing of porches found on adjacent streets in the vicinity of the subject site, defined as being larger than a “stoop” or landing of a stairwell.  Finding: This criterion is met. 3. No Detriment: Authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Applicant’s response: When you look up at my house from the street it does not look like the deck will be really big. I just had my contractor remove the old railroad ties that were rotting from many years in our landscaping. He also removed all my bushes and flowers. I plan to put in new ones. Our old railroad ties and bushes were away from our house almost as far as our new deck will be. Additional information: Letters from neighbors have been provided as support for the “no detriment” criterion: - 600 Faircrest Avenue N.W. - 4333 Chesterfield Boulevard N.W. - 556 Faircrest Avenue N.W. 4 Page 12 of 54  My response: In my interpretation, the intent of setback rules for accessory structures including front porches relates to specific items in the purpose and intent section of Walker’s Zoning Ordinance, which are highlighted below (Section 94-2 – Purpose and Intent): In the interpretation and application of the provisions of this chapter, its terms shall be held to be the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; to encourage the use of lands in accordance with their character and adaptability and to limit the improper use of land; to avoid overcrowding of population; to provide adequate light and air; to lessen congestion on public roads and streets; to reduce hazards to life and property....” Given this purpose and intent, the ZBA should exercise caution to ensure that a front porch with a less-than-compliant front yard setback does not pose a threat to public safety or welfare. This relates to two key issues: The context of the porch in relation to surrounding properties, which can be measured as its scale in comparison with the scale of other porches in Walker, and visual obtrusiveness from a public safety standpoint. With regard to context, the porch is compatible with the scale of other porches that would be otherwise compliant with Walker’s zoning ordinance. Whereas a lot with a “compliant” 35’ front yard setback can have a 10’ wide front porch and meet the 25’ setback requirement, the subject porch is only proposed to be 7’ wide. See Exhibit E. The porch will also not obstruct a line of sight for an eastbound left turn movement from Chesterfield Boulevard. See Exhibit F.  Finding: This criterion is met. 4. Not a General Problem: That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Applicant’s response: T I don’t think this will be a problem granting my request. I’m sure none of my neighbors would object. I have a lot of green space on my property. There is a lot of room between my house and the corner and my neighbor to the west of me. We have about 8’ of property in the back between my neighbors and my property. I have a small garden in my old sandbox I once had for our kids. Years ago, when they built out house there were only a few houses on our road. We had gravel roads, ditches, and no sewer or water. I’m sure the zoning ordinances have changed times over the years. I have heard of a thing called Grandfather’s rights, although I don’t know exactly what that means. My response: I have provided a “potential process chart” in Exhibit G to assist the ZBA in addressing this criterion. It may be valuable to review Walker’s zoning ordinance for a comprehensive assessment of setback limits on small lots and corner lots. On the other hand, the specific issue of front porch front yard setback encroachments comes up very infrequently. I do not think the issue in and of itself warrants an immediate need to revisit zoning ordinance front yard setback requirements for porches  Finding: This criterion is met. 5 Page 13 of 54  Final Thoughts and Recommendations The ZBA may grant, conditionally grant, table, or deny the requested variance. The ZBA should not consider granting the requested variance unless they carefully weigh, and agree upon favorable findings for, all four dimensional variance “findings of fact”. As the ZBA has discussed in a recent training, variances should not be easy to get, and the dimensional variance criteria should be carefully assessed as the basis for a positive decision. In my opinion, this case presents a clear example of a situation where all four dimensional variance criteria can be justified as having been met. I would therefore be comfortable with the ZBA granting the requested variance. Understanding the depth of the ZBA’s history in cases like this, and their role in interpreting State law and the City of Walker’s Zoning Ordinance, I defer to their judgement in evaluating the findings of fact regarding the official merits of the requested variance. They may also decide to further evaluate the case based on the facts as presented by the applicant at the public hearing on the case on June 5, 2019, and by any comments made by neighboring property owners or the general public at that time. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this case. Sincerely, Dan Power, AICP - City of Walker Planning Director CC: Shirley Snoap - lot owner Don Marrell - builder Frank Wash, AICP, MPA, SHRM-CP – Walker Community Development Director / Assistant City Manager 6 Page 14 of 54  7 Page 15 of 54  8 Page 16 of 54  9 Page 17 of 54  10 Page 18 of 54  11 Page 19 of 54  12 Page 20 of 54  13 Page 21 of 54  14 Page 22 of 54  15 Page 23 of 54  16 Page 24 of 54  17 Page 25 of 54  18 Page 26 of 54 Exhibit A. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Regulations Sec. 94‐188. ‐ Schedule of district regulations. (a) Pursuant to section 94-166, the area, height, bulk and placement requirements for principal and accessory uses, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, shall be as follows: SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS Maximum Minimum Yard Setbacks in Feet Minimum Lot Building Size Height Maximum Usable Floor Side Side Area and Yard Area in ZONING Front Yard Rear In In Width Accessory (at Square CLASSIFICATION Yard(1) (total Yard(10) Feet Stories in Feet Building least Feet of two) Floor Area in one) Percent "A" single‐family 35 35(11) 10 20 25 35 2½ 11,880 90 residential (b) Notes to schedule of district regulations: (1) Measured from the edge of the street right-of-way to the principal building, excluding steps and unenclosed porches. (16) An open front porch or an attached deck, as provided for in section 94-352a, is permitted on the front of a residential dwelling, provided that an open front porch or attached deck is set back at least 25 feet from the nearest edge of the street right-of-way. (Ord. No. 72-164, 2-22-72; Ord. No. 72-178, 10-19-72; Ord. No. 77-240, § 2, 9-13-77; Ord. No. 78-251, §§ 3, 4, 9-12-78; Ord. No. 79-268, § 1, 11-13-79; Ord. No. 86-338, §§ 1, 2, 7-8-86; Ord. No. 94-445, § 1, 10-25-94; Ord. No. 95-458, § 2, 2-14-95; Ord. No. 96-483, § 1, 3-12-96; Ord. No. 96-485, § 1, 8-27-96; Ord. No. 97-502, § 1, 9-8-97; Ord. No. 04-514, § 2, 7-12-04; Ord. No. 16-632 , § 1, 9-26-16) Sec. 94‐352a. ‐ Decks. A deck may be erected as an accessory structure either attached as a part of, or detached from, a residential dwelling. An attached or detached deck may be located in the rear or side yard provided that no part of the deck shall be less than five feet from the rear and side lot lines. An attached deck may be located in the front yard, as a porch for the front of a residential dwelling, provided that the attached deck or porch is set back at least 25 feet from the front lot line for the parcel. (Ord. No. 97-498, § 1, 9-8-97) 19 Page 27 of 54  20 Page 28 of 54  Exhibit B. Site Imagery Page 29 of 54 Imagery courtesy of Connect Explorer Pictometry, May 2018 Photo taken 5-28-2019 21  22 Page 30 of 54 Exhibit C. A-Zoned Corner Lots in Walker: Area Comparison Address (# and Lot Address (# and Group Lot Area Group Street Name) Area Street Name) 1 640 Parkside 27518 1 36 3333 Rypens 11150 5 2 2616 Miller 20002 3 37 3225 Rypens 11140 5 3 4356 Chesterfield 19786 1 38 3254 Milo 11115 5 4 4253 West Grand 19760 1 39 3365 Rypens 11055 5 5 2555 Day 19646 3 40 1585 Marlin 10997 5 6 3278 Milo 17702 5 41 4343 West Grand 10354 1 7 4322 West Grand 16492 1 42 818 Harding 9831 2 8 3873 Mission 16155 4 43 4359 West Grand 9273 1 9 3856 Mission 15922 4 44 561 Faircrest 9262 1 10 1598 Gridley 15763 5 45 3306 Milo 9109 5 11 3870 Mission 15707 4 46 707 St Clair 8890 1 12 4261 Chesterfield 15289 1 47 840 Harding 8738 2 13 519 Parkside 15063 1 48 2223 Hoyle 8737 2 14 3895 Mission 14770 4 49 528 Faircrest 8621 1 15 3340 Milo 14672 5 50 956 Harding 8494 2 16 708 Parkside 13919 1 51 961 Jones 8463 2 17 2515 Hillside 13660 3 52 841 Cogswell 8434 2 18 4311 Chesterfield 13508 1 53 647 Faircrest Ave 8297 1 19 3832 Granada Ct 13501 4 54 4367 Chesterfield 8183 1 20 1383 Stark 13187 4 55 647 St Clair 8011 1 21 1367 Granada 13142 4 56 521 St Clair 7899 1 22 1215 Granada 12973 4 57 645 Parkside 7791 1 23 2239 Hoyle 12961 2 58 704 Faircrest 7760 1 24 1407 Trinidad 12920 4 59 825 Cogswell 7339 2 25 1214 Granada 12637 4 60 2629 Miller 7225 3 26 3894 Mission 12517 4 61 2255 Gaynor 6885 2 27 1335 Granada 12309 4 62 2548 Hufford 6396 3 28 707 Parkside 12203 1 63 543 Faircrest 6277 1 29 4252 Chesterfield 11985 1 64 2441 Hillside 6193 3 30 1342 Sierra 11880 4 65 2401 Day 6146 3 31 1273 Granada Ct 11802 4 66 2401 Miller 6104 3 32 4333 Chesterfield 11223 1 67 1001 Cogswell 6074 2 33 3255 Rypens 11201 5 68 2402 Day 5653 3 34 3281 Rypens 11201 5 69 2200 Gaynor 4929 2 35 3315 Rypens 11201 5 70 962 Jones 4733 2 Mean Lot Area (from this sample): 11,425-sf Subject Lot Area: 9,262-sf (81% of mean) 23 Page 31 of 54 Exhibit C. A-Zoned Corner Lots in Walker: Area Comparison Group 1 - Chesterfield Heights Group 2 - A. Jones Sub 24 Page 32 of 54 Exhibit C. A-Zoned Corner Lots in Walker: Area Comparison Group 3 - Hillside Area Plats (east of Alpine Ave.) Group 4 - Old Mission No. 1 and 2 Group 5 - Leonard Garden Homesites 25 Page 33 of 54  26 Page 34 of 54 Exhibit D. Porch Assessment of Faircrest Avenue, St. Clair Avenue, and Parkside Avenue Vicinity Properties with porches or decks – defined as being more extensive than simple landings / stoops for front door approaches Faircrest Avenue between Faircrest Avenue and West Grand Boulevard  454 Faircrest  501 Faircrest  507 Faircrest  543 Faircrest  556 Faircrest  600 Faircrest  647 Faircrest St. Clair Avenue between Faircrest Avenue and West Grand Boulevard  647 St. Clair  621 St. Clair  600 St. Clair Parkside Avenue between Lake Michigan Drive and West Grand Boulevard  428 Parkside  439 Parkside  508 Parkside  561 Parkside  601 Parkside  611 Parkside 27 Page 35 of 54  28 Page 36 of 54  Exhibit E. Scale Analysis Page 37 of 54 29  30 Page 38 of 54 Exhibit F. Clear Vision Analysis Left-turning driver’s perspective from a vehicle traveling westbound on Chesterfield Boulevard Before After 31 Page 39 of 54  32 Page 40 of 54  Exhibit G. Potential Process Chart Is the City of Walker CDD fielding a significant number of requests for sub-compliant setbacks for accessory buildings in a certain zone district or a certain type of lot? YES NO Is it apparent that there are many instances of unregulated violations of setback provisions for accessory buildings in a certain zoning district or a certain type of lot? YES NO May a general ordinance provision to loosen restrictions on setback provisions for accessory buildings in a certain zoning district or a Page 41 of 54 certain type of lot be desirable and consistent with the intent of the Walker Zoning Ordinance? YES NO The “general problem” criterion The “general is not met and action on this problem” criterion is request should be held until the met and action on Walker Ordinance Committee has this request should be a chance to discuss and consider decided by the ZBA addressing this issue as an based on the merits ordinance text amendment. of this case. 33  34 Page 42 of 54  -1- 561 Faircrest Avenue N.W. – Dimensional Variance Request June 5, 2019 MOTION – 6-5-2019 Case 19-0008: I make a motion to (approve / deny) the request by applicant and owner Shirley Snoap to construct a 7’ x 16’ front deck / porch which extends to within roughly 16’ from the front lot line, contrary to Sec. 94-188(b)(16) and Sec. 94-352a, which require a minimum 25’ front yard setback for front porches and decks, at the subject lot of 561 Faircrest Ave. N.W. (PPN 41-13-19-405-014), based on the findings of fact derived from Section 94-59 of the Walker Zoning Ordinance: 1. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. Applicant’s response: I have lived in my present home since I've been married. 56 years. We have always worked hard to keep our home looking nice for our neighborhood. We have done some upgrades and think a new porch / deck would make our home look prettier. Our front porch had slanted down on the right side. I have knee replacements in both knees. In order to go down out of my front door I will have to use a railing. My boys suggested instead of just putting up a railing, why don’t I just put in a small deck or porch. Then I could put a couple of chairs out there to set on (my husband of 55 years passed away in June and our 2 boys told their dad they would take care of me). I have my grandkids over a lot and would like to have a place so they could read to me when it’s nice weather outside. They read quite a lot. Size and orientation of the lot: My lot is shaped like no other lot in my neighborhood. It is kind of an irregular shape at the northwest corner of Faircrest and Chesterfield Boulevard. My house is closer to the road than any other one on my street. The size of my lot is different than any others that I have 3 houses directly across the street from me. My lot looks so big that we have had many people that have asked if we own two lots. Findings: 2. Preservation of Rights: That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. Applicant’s response: Examples of other lots where encroachments may have been granted: I went down my street and have noticed that some have added new porches. I have seen a couple of houses that have the new white railings that look really nice. That is what I am going to do on mine. One house up the road has landscaping which is quite close to the road and looks really nice. Findings: 35 Page 43 of 54  -2- 3. No Detriment: Authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Applicant’s response: When you look up at my house from the street it does not look like the deck will be really big. I just had my contractor remove the old railroad ties that were rotting from many years in our landscaping. He also removed all my bushes and flowers. I plan to put in new ones. Our old railroad ties and bushes were away from our house almost as far as our new deck will be. Additional information: Letters from neighbors have been provided as support for the “no detriment” criterion: - 600 Faircrest Avenue N.W. - 4333 Chesterfield Boulevard N.W. - 556 Faircrest Avenue N.W. Findings: 4. Not a General Problem: That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Applicant’s response: I don’t think this will be a problem granting my request. I’m sure none of my neighbors would object. I have a lot of green space on my property. There is a lot of room between my house and the corner and my neighbor to the west of me. We have about 8’ of property in the back between my neighbors and my property. I have a small garden in my old sandbox I once had for our kids. Years ago when they built out house there were only a few houses on our road. We had gravel roads, ditches, and no sewer or water. I’m sure the zoning ordinances have changed times over the years. I have heard of a thing called Grandfather’s rights, although I don’t know exactly what that means. Findings: Conditions: Recommended Condition (if variance is granted): The applicant agrees to the conditions noted in the Planning Director’s letter dated May 29, 2019. Additional condition: __________________________________________________ Additional condition: __________________________________________________ Motion made by:__________ Support from:__________ Ayes:__________ Nays:__________ Motion carries / fails 36 Page 44 of 54 Page 45 of 54 561 Faircrest Avenue N.W. Front Porch Front Yard Setback Variance Request Special Meeting June 5th, 2019 – 5:00 p.m. CONTEXT Page 46 of 54 REQUEST Page 47 of 54  “EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” CRITERION • Exceptional Feature 1: Corner Lot Limitations • Exceptional Feature 2: Size in relation to other A-zoned lots in Walker • Note: Minimum area for a new lot in this zoning is 11,880-sf Page 48 of 54 • Provided: Sample of 70 A-zoned corner lots in Walker  “PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS” CRITERION Page 49 of 54  “NO DETRIMENT” CRITERION Page 50 of 54  “NO DETRIMENT” CRITERION Page 51 of 54  “NO DETRIMENT” CRITERION See also: Letters from neighbors in application packet Page 52 of 54  “NOT A GENERAL PROBLEM” CRITERION Page 53 of 54  RECOMMENDATIONS • Explore the “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances” and “not a general problem” criteria • In my opinion, this case presents a clear example of a situation where all four dimensional variance criteria can be justified as Page 54 of 54 having been met. • I would therefore be comfortable with the ZBA granting the requested variance.