The City of FerndaleAgenda

Board of Zoning Appeals MeetingTUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020 @ 7:00 PM

Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us02web.zoom.us/j/4498836027?

pwd=blc2MWlKMmxhSjUwV2QxY01sNEU4QT09

Meeting ID: 449 883 6027Passcode: FERNDALE

One tap mobile+13017158592,,4498836027#,,,,,,0#,,113153# US (Washington D.C)

+13126266799,,4498836027#,,,,,,0#,,113153# US (Chicago)

1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 3.a Approval of the minutes of January 21, 2020 4. REGULAR AGENDA 4.a Consideration of a Dimensional Variance for 133 University 4.b Consideration of a Dimensional Variance (Rear Setback) at 3178 Hilton 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 6. BOARD ITEMS 7. ADJOURNMENT

1

November 17, 2020 City Clerk

FROM: Barb Miller

SUBJECT: Approval of the minutes of January 21, 2020

INTRODUCTIONApproval of the minutes of January 21, 2020.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUNDApproval of the minutes of January 21, 2020.

BUDGETARY CONTEXT

CIP#

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXTOrganizational and Financial Excellence

RECOMMENDED ACTIONApproval the minutes of January 21, 2020

CITY OF FERNDALEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

ATTACHMENTS: BZA Minutes of 1212020.docx

2

MINUTESBoard of Zoning Appeals MEETING

January 21, 2020City Hall, 300 E 9 Mile, Ferndale MI, 48220 7:00 PM

1) ROLL CALL

COUNCIL PRESENT: Austin ColsonCarly MitchellRaylon Leaks-MayJudy PalmerIan WilliamsonLeah Deasy

COUNCIL ABSENT: Mike Steidemann

2) APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Moved by Leah Deasy, seconded by Austin Colson to approve the agenda as presented.

For:Austin Colson, Carly Mitchell, Raylon Leaks-May, Judy Palmer, Ian Williamson, Leah DeasyAgainst: NoneAbstain: None

6 - 0 - 0

MOTION CARRIED

3) ELECTIONS

Moved by Leah Deasy, seconded by Austin Colson to approve the appointments of Ian Williamson as Chair and Judy Palmer as Vice-Chair of the Board of Zoning appeals..

For:Austin Colson, Carly Mitchell, Raylon Leaks-May, Judy Palmer, Ian Williamson, Leah DeasyAgainst: NoneAbsent: Mike Steidemann

6 - 0 - 1

MOTION CARRIED

4) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

3

BZAJanuary 21, 2020

4.a Approval of the minutes of December 17, 2019 as presented.

Cover PageMinutes of 12-17-2019.docx

Moved by Austin Colson, seconded by Carly Mitchell to approve the minutes of December 17, 2019.

For: Austin Colson, Carly Mitchell, Greg Pawlica, Judy Palmer, Ian Williamson, Leah DeasyAgainst: NoneAbsent: Mike Steidemann

6 - 0 - 1MOTION CARRIED

5) REGULAR AGENDA

5.a 705 E. Bennett - 2 Dimensional Variances

Cover Page20200121-705 E Bennett BZA Staff Report.docx20200121-705-755 E Bennett BZA Application.pdf20191106-705-755 E Bennett-Site Plan.pdf

Justin Lyons presented the variances the applicant is requesting - The applicant is requesting two(2) dimensional variances for a site that was recently approved by City Council to conditionally rezone the site from C-2 (General Commercial) to R-3 (Single/Multiple-Family Residential). The applicant is proposing to add 10 units to the existing multiple-family residential building. The applicant voluntarily offered to pursue the dimensional variances as part of the conditional rezoning agreement. Corner of Fair & E Bennett – Multi-Family use, requesting a variance of 4' to add a projection.2nd request - max density per acre, 35 units/acre; this site is proposing 20 units with a variance of 4 units on just under 1/2 acre. Packet outlines requirements the BZA reviews and includes sample variance motions. This is an existing 178' and they want to go to 182' and this is a pre-existing non-conforming.

Lyons - because the building is legal, non-conforming, the city attorney said the variance is only 4', not 32'.Brian DeVries - 5/8 Architecture - elaborated on variance request. The additional 4' - 178', west side of site, existing non-conforming 9' drive, made it 12'. Second floor added cantilever structure, asking for 4' additional made the second floor slightly larger to accommodate hallway. Second request for 4 additional units - lot as it exists is much larger than minimum requirements and setbacks and ground coverage area is much smaller than allowed. Increase density from 10 to 20 and they're much smaller units 600 sf. All units have dedicated parking within lot confines. It's an extension of the building.

Palmer - west driveway is not really used, it should be egressDeVries - now, the drive going to Fair is two-way and not angled. By angling and making one-way they can get more spaces, add dumpster enclosure, and would be able to exit on Bennett.Jerry LaBlanc - owner - the entrance/exist now is only off FairPalmer - alternatives considered?

4

BZAJanuary 21, 2020

DeVries - with 4' variance on width restriction feel strongly that it's a small dimensional quality and not encroaching on setbacks in any way. Palmer - % of build on lotDeVries - with everything, we're only at 40% and allowed 70%Palmer - 4' goes in which directionDeVries - there are still 3 trees between sidewalk and building, the cantilever protects the sidewalk and we're still 10' of side setback to sparePalmer - any hardships we're denying you?DeVries - structure/property is unique, existing multi family house, changed to C2 district that didn't develop. There is a single house next to it, a church, and butts up to 8 Mile. We've asked for rezoning to R3 for neighborhood. This buffers the neighborhood to the north. Lyons - this parcel has been rezoned to R3Steidemann - with R3 you can build 3 stories? 45' does that change anything?DeVries - our alternative is to build larger units, but less, but it increases the density. Each of the 20 units would have 1 dedicated parking spaces, (24 total spaces - 4 for visitors) 9 on street parking on BennettColson - any parking on Fair? DeVries – NoLeaks-May - clarity - when we voted on rezoning, wasn't one of the issues the parkingLyons - there was conversation, Planning Commission approved a reduction of 8 spaces which moved forward to Council (will look at minutes)Deasy - 24 - 364 - I'm not seeing anything that convinces me to approve the 4'; expansions (enter the section she read from) everything else that's been non-conforming, it doesn't get them additional, can't look at only the 4', have to look at the full amountLyons - respect opinion, can provide legal opinion at next meeting - expansion 1C, city attorney said because it mentions dimensional variance, it doesn't fit within the variancePalmer - thought change of a non-conforming was not allowedDeasy - how is this different from a single non-conforming when they want to expand upward; under city attorney interpretation, it should be allowedPalmer - in past, they had to use a firewallLyons - reason it's before you is because it's existing non-conforming Palmer - when approved, they were brought back into alignment and use firewallDeVries - the residential you're using, we're not asking to go over the setbackDeasy - we had to look at the whole structure and the variance would be for the entire non-conforming; this feels like a 32' variance, not 4'Steidemann - was that dealt with because Council agreed?Lyons - Planning Commission handled the request but the footage difference is ; have always sided on the larger size variance rather than smallPalmer - having trouble because we're making it more non-conforming and code states we can't have a non-conforming be more non-conforming, unless somebody can show us something different

Public Hearing opened at 7:40 PM

Caitlyn May - has property with lease - this is the first time hearing of this, would like more affordable housing, keeping units handicapped - rent is very affordable, this property is the only one available to some of these people. Having to rehouse them while renovations are being done is difficultSteidemann - you're assuming the 2nd floor units will be charged higher rates, that eventually, the lower ones will have a rent increase

5

BZAJanuary 21, 2020

May - we realize increases have to happen but if the second floor is higher, there won't be any affordable ones availableSteidemann - there might be if he adds on, if he doesn't, there are noneMay - first floor renters will be displacedPalmer - the first floor is only affected by noise from 8 am to 5 pm, there is no affect to the first floor, it's annoying but it goes awayMay - we're asking them to stay affordable, especially the first floorPalmer - keep it up and discuss with landlordStawowy - 437 College - had many of same concerns about affordability and city giving so many variances/exceptions. Later the rent doubles. Was under understanding all of the building was being renovated. This isn't a renovation, it's an entire top floor. What's the current rent and what's the current renovated rent of both floors. Parking - there was an issue with parking and how did it get resolved? There are only 23 spaces, not 24. How does that affect the variance. There are a lot of disabled and there's only 1 handicap space. When is the project going to start/end. How long will tenants have to be moved.Palmer - we can only address the variances discussed - you have to address those who made the previous decision

Public Hearing closed at 7:48 pm

Steidemann - nice catch that space 6 is missing making it only 23 spacesLyons - if there is a missing spot they would have to find a shared parking space; after staff checks and finds something missing, projects don't get a Certificate of Occupancy if they don't provide what's requiredPalmer - so, with variance it's 24 spaces not 23Deasy - walk us through the process; understand the variances, background and decision to go for these variance rather than othersLyons - rezoning map changes; applicant brought forward with R2 as an option; conditional rezoning is a legal agreement and conditions are set forth by applicantDeasy - had they rezoned to R4, they wouldn't need the second request but would be allowed in R4There are 13 bus stops on 8 Mile, very familiar with area; I have zero concerns about parking but have concerns about more densityDeVries - with R4 there would be more variance requests, particularly lot sizeLeaks-May - so R4 would have resulted in more non-conformity?DeVries - to rezone, we weren't able to satisfy a lot of our existing conditions Leaks - May - would like some additional informationLaBlanc - did inform tenants but not the housing agencies; if it can be safely done, there's no reason for tenants to move; rents should stay very similar, we're not renovating their units; how much the rent will be will depend on soil test, banks, depends when we get through the process. Goal is to try to keep some affordable even though it's not required. Not in my mind to double their rentLeaks-May - there is some sort of timeline?LaBlanc - it would be nice to start about August - considering this is 2 buildings connected by a breezeway; we could complete one side and move some tenants there while the other side is being done, some units are vacantDeasy - having to ask the city for something is an arduous process; from your perspective have you considered wanting more than 20 because it was less of an ask?LaBlanc - probably not because of the parking and most tenants don't have a carPalmer - to Lyons - because it's nonconforming are we allowed to give a larger variance?Lyons - per city attorney, yes, you could pursue variance and it's only way you can

6

BZAJanuary 21, 2020

Palmer - I understand the attorney said you could ask, but we've never done it before. Why do it now? We have to be accountable and I'm not seeing taking something that's non-conforming and making it even more non-conformingLyons - it is non-conforming and that's when you use a variance. Palmer - 99% of those variances - never seen anything like thisLyons - you can vote to tablePalmer - is there a way of doing an addition on this building, on the same footprint, can you do less?Lyons - by ordinance you can. It's up to the applicant to say if it's possible with his building; Palmer - the 4' variance is one thing, the second one is % or dimensionalLyons - dimensional - we haven't had this one beforePalmer - 4' addition is one, creating 10 unit density is the second; would you consider 6 units instead of 10 unitsDeasy - that's why I questioned going for R4 because density would be no issue; if you increased the density you would be less variance in parking with mass transit so close; Mr LeBlanc can provide real data as to how many LeBlanc - it's concentrated in areas where the Ferndale Housing Commission buildings are locatedLyons - it came up at Planning Commission - R4 is more centralized downtown than what we asked for tonightSteidemann - there are only 2 affordable in the cityPalmer - his house is not affordable housingDeasy - property not owned by Ferndale Housing Commission should not be . . . - this is an example of our policy not aligning with what we want; he's seeking to improve a propertyMitchell - can we discuss the hardship if it's not grantedSteidemann - if it's 2 separate buildings instead of connectedDeVries - in order to make the first floor compliant, we'd have to demolish the Fair side building and what we're requesting in less destructive and invasive to tenants. We can satisfy it but it should be rezoned from the C2 that it is now and if he did nothing it would be compliantLeaksMay - wondering what the benefit of this would be, hearing it hasn't been done before. Is it aesthetics?DeVries - part of it; one of the main benefits is that it provides some protection to the first floor unitsDeasy - so there is a benefit to the first floor?LeBlanc - the overhang provides a sheltered walkway to the parking and dumpsterLeaksMay - do the tenants complain now?LeBlanc - not really, but if we go straight up, the overhang would be removedDeasy - we would need to find that approval - would not be able to support without some level of affordable housing; it's disconcerting that we passed an affordable housing policy two years ago and have done zero to date. It's not Mr LeBlanc's to provide this. Frustrating to see under 25 units LeBlanc - not adverse to that idea; it's hard to keep affordable units with less unitsDeasy - agree, not saying she wants to fail; would love to see more affordableLyons - city can only require if Planned Unit Development (PUD) - glad we have the policy now; looking forward to projects/partners but city couldn't require it of this project. Need state to make changes at the state level. Deasy - point of parking discussion can be made; we have strict parking requirementsLyons - is $15,000 to build a parking space more if it's in a deck; there's a disconnect between themSteidemann - interesting conversations, need to decide, - my point of view - anyone coming after you that has the same size lot can get the same 32'; Whether the law is right/wrong, we interpret and would have a hard time voting yes

7

BZAJanuary 21, 2020

Colson - applicant should consider their options at this point. Not comfortable to take non-conforming building and making it more non-conformingLeBlance - what exactly is your concern?Deasy - you can use 6' without a variance but without hardship nothing under unique circumstance. If you can do something and still stay within it, I would go with that. You can stay within by doing 6 units instead of 10.Steidemann - suggestion - would be in favor of approving - ok with voting with 7 if you didn't build over Fair at all. It would be a compromise unique to this propertyLyons - 6 is the maximumSteidemann - it's a suggestion; you wouldn't have the 4' variance and the other overhang is not a problemDeasy - here's my problem with that kind suggestion - there are at least 4-5 if not more with the same issue. I'm not willing to see each property owner of this size, redeveloped in it's own way. I would rather see the city attack this issue; there's a clear problem with out city codeCascio - I hear Deasy - look at the ordinances/code and checkLyons - Planning Commission reviewed all ordinances and divided up and waited on residential to make these decision - it's a long processPalmer - is there a decision?LeBlanc - definitely table, if there's a count on who would support 7Palmer - we cannot do that, 6 is within the code; you have to stay within that footprintDeVries - we can see it's not going to get approved but we can come up with a solution on the architectural side. Jerry and I are in agreement to table this. Would like to know, if we did all 3 bedroom units, the density is increasing more significantly and trying to understand. Jerry's intent is to maintain this model. Deasy - these are discussions better had at Planning Commission because they can say yes it's a great plan, than what we can do. Seems Planning Commission's hope was to move head but they have so much more room for that negotiation.Lyons - we would have to go for a use variance in addition, and they almost never do. The zoning made sense, going through with the new units. There is no recommendation from staff, we're not allowed to coach, recommend, it's up to the applicant.Palmer - difference between C2 and R3 that made this zoning better?Lyons - this made senseDeasy - were other properties rezoned or just this propertyLyons - this project gave the Planning Commission the opportunity to really look at this blockPalmer - Hilton to Fair, not east of Fair?Lyons – correctDeasy - when we passed the TOD overlay and partial 8 Mile, was there a reason not to complete the whole area. It never occurred to me to consider; it was a glaring oversiteLyons - the Planning Commission will look at this on February 5th meeting; TOD happened and then DD ownerPalmer - the applicant would like to table?LeBlanc - yes and appreciate the time.

6) ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

Ian will be at the next meeting. Lyons will confirm with city attorney on non-conforming sections of the ordinance and will be at the next meeting. PC meets at 6:30 pm 1st and 3rd Wednesday every month

8

BZAJanuary 21, 2020

7) BOARD ITEMS - none

8) ADJOURNMENT

_____________________________________Barbara Miller, Deputy City Clerk

9

November 17, 2020 Community & EconomicDevelopment

FROM: Erin Quetell

SUBJECT: Consideration of a Dimensional Variance for 133 University

INTRODUCTIONThe applicant is requesting a dimensional variance related to the standards listed in Ordinance 1087,Chapter 24, Article IX, Sec. 24-43 Residential District Schedule of Regulations lot size requirements.The existing property has a frontage width of 33 feet and is requesting a 2-foot variance as the lotwidth requirement for the R-2 district is 35 feet.

The applicant previously appeared in front of the BZA on August 20, 2019 and received thedimensional variance of 2 feet due to the uniqueness of the site. In the time since then, the applicantdid not make any significant changes to the site as far as development, so the approval has sinceexpired. However, the conditional rezoning request the property received from P-1 Parking to R-2Residential is still valid and will remain valid until June 10, 2021 as approved by City Council, or untilsignificant development has occurred.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUNDHere is an excerpt from the minutes of that meeting with the motion language and findings:

8:08 PM - Motion by Deasy to approve allow a variance of 2 feet…second by Palmer that the Boardof Zoning Appeals APPROVE the dimensional variance application to allow a variance of 2 feet toaccommodate the 33-foot lot with from the required lot width requirement of 35 feet, at 133University, Sidwell number 24-25-34-253-002, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published forthis date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings:

Findings 1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article IX, Sec. 24-43 Residential District Schedule ofRegulations lot size requirements for R-2 is 35 feet, and the applicant is requesting a 2-foot variance asthe existing property lot width is 33 feet; 2. that a practical difficulty does exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the Ordinance isunnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does not have other available alternatives inplacement and size of the structure that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met; 3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will be not observed, and the applicant will be deniedrights enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the

CITY OF FERNDALEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

10

35-foot lot width ordinance;4. That the proposal does not impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City; 5. that the plight of the applicant does result from conditions or circumstances unique to the property;and 6. that the alleged hardship was not created by the applicant, instead the hardship was created by theunique circumstances of the property. Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regardinggranting a variance have been met.

BUDGETARY CONTEXTN/A

CIP#

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXTEconomic Prosperity

RECOMMENDED ACTIONConsideration of a Dimensional Variance for 133 University

ATTACHMENTS: 20201117-133 University St-BZA Staff Report.docxBZAVarianceApplication (1).pdfDoc - Jul 10 2019 - 9-09 AM.pdfProperty Overview.pdfAugust 20 2019 BZA Minutes .pdf

11

Community and Economic DevelopmentStaff Report to the Board of Zoning Appeals November 17, 2020

133 University St (Dimensional Variance)REQUEST Dimensional Variance

APPLICANT Brian Watson931 W DraytonFerndale, MI 48220

AGENT N/A

LOCATION 133 University StreetFerndale, MI 48220

FILE NO.

PARCEL NO. 24-25-34-253-002

ZONING R-2, Single/Two-Family Residential

STAFF Erin Quetell, Environmental Sustainability Planner

Summary

The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance related to the standards listed in Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article IX, Sec. 24-43 Residential District Schedule of Regulations lot size requirements. The existing property has a frontage width of 33 feet and is requesting a 2-foot variance as the lot width requirement for the R-2 district is 35 feet.

The applicant previously appeared in front of the BZA on August 20, 2019 and received the dimensional variance of 2 feet due to the uniqueness of the site. In the time since then, the applicant did not make any significant changes to the site as far as development, so the approval has since expired. However, the conditional rezoning request the property received from P-1 Parking to R-2 Residential is still valid and will remain valid until June 10, 2021 as approved by City Council, or until significant development has occurred. Below you will find the motion and findings excerpt from the minutes:

8:08 PM - Motion by Deasy to approve allow a variance of 2 feet…second by Palmer that the Board of Zoning Appeals APPROVE the dimensional variance application to allow a variance of 2 feet to accommodate the 33-foot lot with from the required lot width requirement of 35 feet, at 133 University, Sidwell number 24-25-34-253-002, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings:

Findings 1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article IX, Sec. 24-43 Residential District Schedule of Regulations lot size requirements for R-2 is 35 feet, and the applicant is requesting a 2-foot variance as the existing property lot width is 33 feet;

12

133 University Street – Dimensional VarianceNovember 17. 2020 - Page 2 of 6

2. that a practical difficulty does exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the Ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does not have other available alternatives in placement and size of the structure that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met;

3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will be not observed, and the applicant will be denied rights enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the 35-foot lot width ordinance;

4. That the proposal does not impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City;

5. that the plight of the applicant does result from conditions or circumstances unique to the property; and

6. that the alleged hardship was not created by the applicant, instead the hardship was created by the unique circumstances of the property. Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regarding granting a variance have been met.

13

133 University Street – Dimensional VarianceNovember 17. 2020 - Page 3 of 6

14

133 University Street – Dimensional VarianceNovember 17. 2020 - Page 4 of 6

General Requirements for Appeal (Section 24-246)

In deciding appeals, the Board must find:

A. The action proposed will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties; increase the danger of fire; unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area; harm the environment; or in any other respect impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or welfare of the inhabitants of the City;

B. The action proposed will be compatible with adjacent uses, and of such height, location, size and character that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood;

15

133 University Street – Dimensional VarianceNovember 17. 2020 - Page 5 of 6

C. The action proposed will not unreasonably increase congestion in public streets, make vehicular and pedestrian traffic more hazardous than is normal for the district involved, taking into account sight distances, traffic flow, provisions for pedestrian traffic, and minimization of potential traffic conflicts;

D. The action proposed will not create a nuisance;

E. The plight of the applicant results from special or unique circumstances peculiar to the property and not from general neighborhood conditions; and

F. The alleged hardship has not been created by the applicant or any person having a current interest in the property.

ConsiderationsThe applicant must present substantial evidence to show that if the Zoning Ordinance is applied strictly, practical difficulties to the applicant will result. To grant a dimensional variance, the Board must find:

1. Compliance with the strict letter of the restrictions governing lot width will unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome.

2. The intent and purpose of this Ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

3. A lesser variance than that requested would not give substantial relief to the owner of the property or be more consistent with justice to other property owners.

4. The standards set forth in Section 24-426 are satisfied.

Potential Zoning Variance Motions

Motion by , supported by , that the Board of Zoning Appeals APPROVE the dimensional variance application to allow a variance of 2 feet to accommodate the 33-foot lot with from the required lot width requirement of 35 feet, at 133 University, Sidwell number 24-25-34-253-002, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings:

Findings1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article IX, Sec. 24-43 Residential District Schedule of

Regulations lot size requirements for R-2 is 35 feet, and the applicant is requesting a 2-footvariance as the existing property lot width is 33 feet;

2. that a practical difficulty does exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the Ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does not have other available alternatives in placement and size of the structure that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met;

16

133 University Street – Dimensional VarianceNovember 17. 2020 - Page 6 of 6

3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will be not observed, and the applicant will be denied rights enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the 35-foot lot width ordinance;

4. That the proposal does not impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City;

5. that the plight of the applicant does result from conditions or circumstances unique to the property; and

6. that the alleged hardship was not created by the applicant, instead the hardship was created by the unique circumstances of the property.

Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regarding granting a variance have been met.

Motion by , supported by , that the Board of Zoning Appeals DENY the dimensional varianceapplication to allow a variance of 2 feet to accommodate the 33-foot lot with from the required lot width requirement of 35 feet, at 133 University, Sidwell number 24-25-34-253-002, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings:

Findings1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article IX, Sec. 24-43 Residential District Schedule of

Regulations lot size requirements for R-2 is 35 feet, and the applicant is requesting a 2-foot variance as the existing property lot width is 33 feet;

2. that a practical difficulty does not exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the Ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does have other available alternatives inplacement and size of the structure that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met;

3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will be observed, and the applicant will be allowed rights enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the 35-foot lot width ordinance;

4. That the proposal does impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City;

5. that the plight of the applicant does not result from conditions or circumstances unique to the property; and

6. that the alleged hardship was created by the applicant, and not by the unique circumstances of the property.

Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regarding granting a variance have not been met.

17

Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Application 1. Identification

Applicant Name Address City/State/Zip Code Phone ( ) Email Interest in the Property (e.g. fee simple, land option, etc.) Property Owner (if other than applicant) Address City/State/Zip Code Phone ( ) Email

2. Property Information

Street Address Sidwell Number Legal Description Zoning District Area Width Depth Current Use(s) Zoning District of Adjacent Properties to the: North South East West

18

3. Request. Check the type of request you are applying for. If you are uncertain, consult Article 18 Board of Zoning Appeals or contact the Community Development Director.

Brief description of request:

4. Criteria for ALL Variances. If there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in carrying out the strict letter of this Ordinance, the BZA may grant a variance in any of its rules or provisions relating to the construction, or structural changes in, equipment, or alteration of buildings or structures, or the use of land, buildings, or structures, so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed, public safety secured, and substantial justice done. Please respond to the following statements. The applicant must demonstrate all of the following criteria in order to obtain a variance. Granting of a variance by the BZA shall not constitute an assurance that a building permit will be issued.

a. Public Safety and Welfare. Describe how the request will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties; increase the danger of fire; unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area; harm the environment; or in any other respect impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or welfare of the inhabitants of the City.

Request Type (check all applicable requests)

Zoning Ordinance Section

Complete Application Section

Nonuse or Dimensional Variance 18.07 4, 5. & 7. Use Variance Not permitted Appeals from and review any order,

requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official or body charged with the enforcement of this Ordinance, other than site plans and special land use or planned unit development applications

18.08 6. & 7.

City of Ferndale ♦ Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Application Page 2

19

b. Compatibility with Neighborhood. Describe how the request will be compatible with adjacent uses, and of such height, location, size and character that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood.

c. Traffic Impacts. Describe how the request will not unreasonably increase congestion in

public streets, make vehicular and pedestrian traffic more hazardous than is normal for the district involved, taking into account sight distances, traffic flow, provisions for pedestrian traffic, and minimization of potential traffic conflicts;

d. Nuisance. Describe how the request will not create a nuisance;

e. Unique Circumstances. Describe how the request results from special or unique

circumstances peculiar to the property that exist which are not applicable to the general neighborhood conditions.

City of Ferndale ♦ Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Application Page 3

20

f. Not Self-Created. Describe how the alleged hardship has not been created by the actions of the applicant or any person having a current interest in the property.

5. Criteria for NONUSE or DIMENSIONAL Variances. The BZA may grant an area variance only upon a finding that practical difficulties exist. Please respond to the following statements. The applicant must demonstrate all of the following criteria in order to obtain a variance:

a. General Practical Difficulty. Describe how strict compliance with the area, setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, density, or other dimensional matters unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose, or be unnecessarily burdensome.

b. Intent of Ordinance. Describe how the granting of the request will observe the intent and purpose of this ordinance and uphold substantial justice.

c. Lesser Variance. Describe how granting a lesser variance would not give substantial relief to the applicant and/or be more consistent with justice to other properties.

City of Ferndale ♦ Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Application Page 4

21

6. Criteria for APPEALS. An appeal shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of the order, determination or decision appealed from, or, if the appeal is from a decision of a public body, within thirty (30) days of the date of the approval of the minutes of the public meeting at which the decision was made. BZA shall review all documentation submitted constituting the record upon which the action appeal from was taken. Describe the nature of the appeal request, the decision that was made, when and by whom on the following page:

7. Completing the BZA Application. The following checklist includes all documents required for the Community Development Director to declare the application complete and begin the BZA process:

□ Payment in full of the required fee ($450 commercial; $175 owner-occupied single family)

□ 2 copies of the completed application form.

□ 10 copies of a plan or sketch of the site indicating the location of any and all buildings, property lines, parking lots, dimensions, and other pertinent information about the proposed variance to assist the BZA in making its decision.

□ A copy of the complete legal description of the property.

□ Proof of property ownership. I, (applicant),

do hereby swear that the information given herein is true and correct.

Signature of Applicant Date

Signature of Property Owner Date I, (property owner), hereby give permission for City of Ferndale officials, staff, and consultants to go on the property for which the above referenced site plan is proposed for purposes of verifying information provided on the submitted application.

For Community Development Director Use Fee: File No: Signature: Date:

City of Ferndale ♦ Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Application Page 5

22

23

24

25

Meeting opened at 7:06 PM (?)

Roll Call

Steidemann, Shapiro, Colson, Pawlica, Palmer, Deasy, Chair Williamson

Palmer motion, Pawlica second (unanimous) to excuse Moore

Approval of Agenda

Deasy motion, Palmer second (unanimous) to approve the agenda as presented.

Approval of Minutes Approval

Chair Williamson notes that board members can vote on minutes even if members were not present at

the prior meeting.

Pawlica – page 3 correction, only voted on the decision at City Council, not the Planning Commission

Deasy – page 2 correction, add “but” in front of a conditional rezoning

Palmer motion, Pawlica second (Unanimous)

Public Hearing

133 University Dimensional Variance

Environmental Sustainability Planner Erin Quetell summarizes the staff report outlining the 2-foot

dimensional variance request. BZA requested the applicant consider table the item and contact the

adjacent property owner about the proposal.

Applicant, Brian Watson, outlined the attempt to contact the adjacent neighbor with a certified letter

and updated the concept plan for the project. Did not hear back from the neighbor.

Chair Williamson opened the public hearing at 7:13 PM

Steve Cook (141 University): Received the letter and made accommodations to attend the meeting.

Resident for 15 (?) years at the home and had some questions about the plan. Bought the house and

adjacent lot was vacant. Was told the site was zoned for parking and provided a buffer from Woodward

Avenue. Tried to contact the owner of the vacant land previously, but did not pursue the land due to

price. Considered rezoning or adding a garage to the vacant site in the future. Shoveled the snow and

completed other maintenance on the vacant site over 15 years and valued it being part of the

neighborhood. Saw the plans for a duplex. How close will the building be to the lot line? Where will

there be parking, air conditioning units, etc?

Williamson to the applicant: You will not be seeking any other variances for the site.

Watson: Correct.

Deasy: Where does the lot line come in – 33’ in the front and slope to the side, it probably becomes 35’

before it comes to where the house is. It really is a very small variance. I understand the appeal of living

next to a lot believed to not be buildable but it’s not the motivation of anybody to purposely keep a lot

26

vacant and if it’s zoned parking and the market has not chosen to act on that then it is time to think

about doing something different with the property, in my opinion.

Cook: not excited about a 2-unit coming in and we understand we have no say and they have every right

to put whatever they want on there. We’ve been fortunate to have that for the last 15 years. I just don’t

see how it works. Would be more comfortable with a single because it ties in with what’s already there

on the street and there would be less concerns raised.

Pawlica – even if it was a single-family home, that home could be built up to 1,700 sq. ft. and it could

also still be a rental unit. Yes.

Palmer: Would the front entrances face University?

Watson: Yes, and creating a rear entrance as well.

Williamson: Are you anticipating this to be a single-story structure?

Williamson: Where would the air conditioning unit be placed?

Watson: Justin – could you clarify

Pawlica: For clarity of record, the property was requested to be rezoned by the applicant two months

ago?

Lyons: Yes.

Pawlica: The Planning Commission approved the rezoning of the P-1 district at a recent meeting.

Pawlica: Based on the Council’s desire to meet the goals of the Master Plan and provide more

residential, City Council would be likely to approve the rezoning.

Williamson: Mr. Cook – is there anything else the Board or applicant can clarify for you?

Cook: I’m assuming this would be a rental property. We’re more concerned about the number of rental

properties on our street that are less well cared for where we are already seeing isn’t maintained.

Concerned about the home value and silver maple on the property line. Do they have the right to cut

that back to the lot line?

Palmer: Technically yes. You could talk to your neighbor about the tree though.

Cook: Concerned about hedges on the property line as well.

Palmer: Being friendly neighbors can help. Did you receive the mailings from the previous meetings?

Cook: Yes, we did.

Deasy: Board is meant to consider the proposal that is before us, which is R-2, not R-1. I don’t want to

speculate on things not being presented today. It wouldn’t necessarily present less issues if the

applicant was building a single-family unit.

27

Williamson: Have you put some consideration into if the Silver Maple tree would be affected by the

plan?

Watson: We did and it did not appear to be an issue.

Williamson: Keeping the hedge would appear to be a win-win for both parties. What about your

materials?

Watson: Standard James Hardy type siding, fiberglass windows, and other materials to fit the

neighborhood.

Williamson: Are you looking for a more traditional or modern style to fit the neighborhood?

Watson: Somewhere in-between. Not exactly mirroring, but a newer home.

Williamson: Do you have an anticipated price-point for the rentals? A missing middle? Affordable?

Higher-end?

Watson: A “B” property price. Affordable but still nice.

Steidemann: Question 4, part A – You answered that “a newly constructed home would increase

property values.” Can you explain?

Watson: Any time someone is building new homes in a residential area, any new construction is always a

sign of health.

Steidemann: Question 4, part F – You stated the property width was not a self-created hardship.

Watson: the property width has been what it’s been and once we started seeking the purchase, the

width was discovered to be insufficient. We will purchase once we receive approval of the variance.

Steidemann: Would you say that would be creating the hardship for yourself, knowing what you’re

getting into?

Watson: I would not say that. We saw lots in the area and the width was determined after investigating

the property and this is part of the process we’re going through.

Steidemann: You wrote that you are writing on behalf of John B Cissell Properties, LLC. Is he the owner

of the property?

Watson: No, the trust is in John’s brother’s trust. He’s the executor.

Deasy: The lot was confirming as a P-1 as it was created, and it was the Planning Commission that made

the decision to change it to R-2, creating the hardship. Is there any insight that you could give us as to

the Planning Commission’s thought process and reasons for the rezoning.

Williamson: Certainly. The idea is similar to that of the larger potential rezoning. For this group of

properties along Woodward and when people want to building parking lots next to the residents, the

property owners are extremely upset about having a paved lot and wall separating it from the

surrounding residential district. People are not happy. We also have a Master Plan that states we should

revisit the need for all this parking land being held in reserve along this strip of Woodward and there

28

have been a lot of changes in how people get around. Ride sharing didn’t exist and it’s widely used in

Ferndale.

Discussion about ownership of the site

Deasy: Explains the practical difficulty of limited uses within R-2 district and location adjacent to an alley

with potential future transit make it a unique lot for consideration.

Discussion of correct lot width based on the survey. Applicant clarified new survey more accurate than

Oakland County Property Gateway dimensions.

8:08 PM - Motion by Deasy to approve allow a variance of 2 feet…second by Palmer that the Board of

Zoning Appeals APPROVE the dimensional variance application to allow a variance of 2 feet to

accommodate the 33-foot lot with from the required lot width requirement of 35 feet, at 133 University,

Sidwell number 24-25-34-253-002, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and

place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings:

Findings

1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article IX, Sec. 24-43 Residential District Schedule of

Regulations lot size requirements for R-2 is 35 feet, and the applicant is requesting a 2-foot variance as

the existing property lot width is 33 feet;

2. that a practical difficulty does exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the Ordinance is

unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does not have other available alternatives in placement

and size of the structure that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met;

3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will be not observed, and the applicant will be denied rights

enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the 35-foot

lot width ordinance;

4. That the proposal does not impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City;

5. that the plight of the applicant does result from conditions or circumstances unique to the property;

and

6. that the alleged hardship was not created by the applicant, instead the hardship was created by the

unique circumstances of the property. Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regarding granting

a variance have been met.

Vote: Yay’s - Shapiro, Colson, Pawlica, Palmer, Deasy

Chair Williamson (abstain), Steidemann (abstain)

Chair Williamson closed the Public Hearing at 8:12 pm

Communications and Announcements

Lyons: Discusses the proposed amendments under review at the Planning Commission.

Williamson: Recommends bringing these amendments to the BZA, in addition to the Planning

Commission. BZA has to decide if these amendments are implemented as intended.

29

Lyons: Could add a board member to work groups on amendments.

Deasy: Read Mixed Use districts and was looking for an update to the parking minimums. An incentive

for alternative forms of transportation, in lieu of parking. Not just payment in lieu of parking. Providing

those infrastructure amenities would allow buildings to be adaptively reused. References the tasting

room discussed at the Planning Commission. Demolishing housing for parking would not be helpful to

the neighborhood. The majority of the neighborhood does support lighter uses like cafes, restaurants,

retail, etc. Parking minimums in the smaller neighborhoods are outdated and neighborhoods are being

deprived of businesses to support.

Palmer: I’ve been asked twice this week why those buildings are empty. LaPrairie needs more parking.

Deasy: Don’t necessarily need more parking, but the majority of the parking is being used by one

business and residents. Could be candidate for permit parking. Could meter and enforce parking time

limits to support businesses on the corridor.

Adjournment at 8:27 pm

30

November 17, 2020 Community & EconomicDevelopment

FROM: Justin Lyons

SUBJECT: Consideration of a Dimensional Variance (Rear Setback) at 3178 Hilton

INTRODUCTIONThe applicant is requesting a dimensional variance related to the standards listed in Ordinance 1087,Chapter 24, Article V, Sec. 24-83 (Mixed Use Districts, Schedule of Regulations) rear setback in theMXD-2 siting standards.

The subject site is zoned MXD-2 (Mixed Use 2) and Chapter 24, Article V, Sec. 24-83 requires aminimum rear setback, adjacent to a residential district, of 20 feet. The applicant is requesting a rearsetback of two (2) feet from the required 20 feet for an accessory structure, for a total variance of 18feet. The subject property is adjacent to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) properties to the east. A 20feet wide public alley separates the MXD-2 zoned properties and R-1 zoned properties.

The applicant cites the existing non-conforming rear setback of the primary structure, adjacency to a20 feet wide public alley, and off-street parking/parking design requirements as consideration for thevariance request. The proposed educational greenhouse would match the existing primarystructure’s siting of 2 feet from the rear property line.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUNDPlease review the attached information, submitted by the applicant, identifying the reasons for thevariance requested.

BUDGETARY CONTEXTN/A

CIP#N/A

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXTEconomic Prosperity

RECOMMENDED ACTIONPlease see attached staff report for draft motions.

CITY OF FERNDALEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

31

ATTACHMENTS: 20201117-3178 Hilton BZA Staff Report.pdf3178 Hilton BZA Application3178 Hilton Permit Plans3178 Hilton Public Hearing Notice

32

3178 Hilton Rd – Variance Request November 4, 2020 - Page 1 of 4

Community and Economic Development – Staff Report REQUEST Dimensional Variance OWNER/APPLICANT Jai Reddy, Life Lab Kids Foundation

3178 Hilton Rd, Ferndale, MI 48220 LOCATION Corner of Hilton Rd & Shevlin St. PARCEL NUMBER 25-26-106-018 ZONING MXD-2 (Mixed Use 2) STAFF Justin Lyons, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS Board of Zoning Appeals Application – October 28, 2020 3178 Hilton Road – Permit Plans

Summary The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance related to the standards listed in Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article V, Sec. 24-83 (Mixed Use Districts, Schedule of Regulations) rear setback in the MXD-2 siting standards. The subject site is zoned MXD-2 (Mixed Use 2) and Chapter 24, Article V, Sec. 24-83 requires a minimum rear setback, adjacent to a residential district, of 20 feet. The applicant is requesting a rear setback of two (2) feet from the required 20 feet for an accessory structure, for a total variance of 18 feet. The subject property is adjacent to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) properties to the east. A 20 feet wide public alley separates the MXD-2 zoned properties and R-1 zoned properties. The applicant cites the existing non-conforming rear setback of the primary structure, adjacency to a 20 feet wide public alley, and off-street parking/parking design requirements as consideration for the variance request. The proposed educational greenhouse would match the existing primary structure’s siting of 2 feet from the rear property line. Please review the attached information, submitted by the applicant, identifying the reasons for the variance requested.

33

3178 Hilton Rd – Variance Request November 4, 2020 - Page 2 of 4

Aerial Photo of Site & Surroundings

Image of parcel from Oakland County Property Gateway (2020)

General Requirements for Appeal (Section 24-246) In deciding appeals, the Board must find:

A. The action proposed will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties; increase the danger of fire; unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area; harm the environment; or in any other respect impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or welfare of the inhabitants of the City;

B. The action proposed will be compatible with adjacent uses, and of such height, location, size and character that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood;

C. The action proposed will not unreasonably increase congestion in public streets, make vehicular and pedestrian traffic more hazardous than is normal for the district involved, taking into account sight distances, traffic flow, provisions for pedestrian traffic, and minimization of potential traffic conflicts;

D. The action proposed will not create a nuisance; E. The plight of the applicant results from special or unique circumstances peculiar to the property

and not from general neighborhood conditions; and F. The alleged hardship has not been created by the applicant or any person having a current

interest in the property.

34

3178 Hilton Rd – Variance Request November 4, 2020 - Page 3 of 4

Nonuse or Dimensional Variance Considerations (Section 24-427 (c)) The applicant must present substantial evidence to show that if the Zoning Ordinance is applied strictly, practical difficulties to the applicant will result. To grant a dimensional variance, the Board must find:

1. Compliance with the strict letter of the restrictions governing lot width will unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome.

2. The intent and purpose of this Ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done. 3. A lesser variance than that requested would not give substantial relief to the owner of the

property or be more consistent with justice to other property owners. 4. The standards set forth in Section 24-426 are satisfied.

Example Zoning Variance Motions MOTION by , seconded by , that the Board of Zoning Appeals APPROVE the DIMENSIONAL variance application to allow a variance of 18 feet from the required 20 feet rear setback adjacent to a residential district, at 3178 Hilton Road, Sidwell number 25-26-106-018, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings: Findings

1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article V, Sec. 24-83 requires a minimum rear setback, adjacent to a residential district, of 20 feet, and the applicant is requesting a variance of 18 feet;

2. that a practical difficulty does exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the Ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does not have other available alternatives that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met;

3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will be not observed, and the applicant will be denied rights enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the rear setback ordinance;

4. That the proposal does not impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City; 5. that the plight of the applicant does result from conditions or circumstances unique to the

property; and 6. that the alleged hardship was not created by the applicant, instead the hardship was created by the

unique circumstances of the property.

Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regarding granting a variance have been met. MOTION by , seconded by , that the Board of Zoning Appeals DENY the DIMENSIONAL variance application to allow a variance of 18 feet from the required 20 feet rear setback adjacent to a residential district, at 3178 Hilton Road, Sidwell number 25-26-106-018, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place, the motion is accompanied by the following findings: Findings

1. that section Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article V, Sec. 24-83 requires a minimum rear setback, adjacent to a residential district, of 20 feet, and the applicant is requesting a variance of 18 feet;

2. that a practical difficulty does not exist in that conformity with the strict letter of the Ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant does have other available alternatives that would allow for all applicable zoning requirements to be met;

3. that the intent of the City’s ordinance will be observed, and the applicant will be not denied rights enjoyed by others in the same zoning district as other property owners if required to meet the rear setback ordinance;

4. That the proposal does/does not impair the public health and safety of inhabitants of the City; 5. that the plight of the applicant does not result from conditions or circumstances unique to the

35

3178 Hilton Rd – Variance Request November 4, 2020 - Page 4 of 4

property; and 6. that the alleged hardship was created by the applicant and the hardship was not created by the

unique circumstances of the property.

Therefore, the requirements of Section 24-426 regarding granting a variance have not been met.

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

architect:

five / eighths architecturewww.5-8ths.com 707 e. lewiston avenue / # 106ferndale / michigan / 48220

contact / grant jeffriest: 248 / 981 / 8744info@5-8ths.com

client/ building owner:

lifelab kids3178 hilton rdferndale / michigan / 48220

contact / jai raddyjai.reddy@jrdsi.comjai.reddy@lifelabkids.org

3

2

147

8

10

11

12 69

5

use the sheet index grid as a reference to locate drawingson individual sheets within the set.

property description:

PIN: 25-26-106-018NRHP: nozoning: MXD-2 mixed use 2number of buildings: 1number of stories: 2 existingbuilding area: 8000 GSFparking spots: 28site acres: .605 acres

do not scale drawings. consult owner if dimensional question arises.

contractor shall provide all items, articles, materials, and operations scheduled including all labor, materials, and incidentals required for completion.

all construction shall conform to all applicable local, state, and federal codes/laws. contractor shall be responsible for obtaining all applicable building and other permits required for the completion of the work.

all dimensional lumber, plywood, particle board, fitting, and blocking shall be pressure treated/UL certified non-combustible. contractor shall verify all dimensions and conditions shown on the drawings at the job site. notify the architect or owner prior to commending work of any discrepancies, conflicts, or omissions in the construction documents and field conditions. an addendum will be issued as necessary and will become a part of the contract documents. for those discrepancies not brought to the attention of the owner, it will be assumed that the contractor has bid the more expensive method of construction.

coordinate all work before and during construction with all other affected trades.

where interfaces develop, notify owner for resolution of conflict. relocation of conflicting installed work, due to the lack of coordination or poor coordination shall not be considered extra work.

FIV

E -

EIG

HT

HS

2321

WO

LC

OT

T S

TR

EE

TF

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

248

-8

91

-27

37IN

FO

@F

IVE

-EIG

HT

HS

.CO

M

SH

EE

T N

UM

BE

R

OF

PROJECT ISSUE DATE

LIF

E L

AB

KID

S -

PA

RK

ING

LO

T

150

VE

ST

ER

ST

RE

ET

-F

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

G-0.01

TIT

LE S

HE

ET

PE

RM

IT S

ET

1

10 / 15 / 2020

G- 0.01 TITLE SHEETG- 0.02 GENERAL NOTESC- 1.01 SITE PLAN - PARKING LOTC- 1.10 SITE PLAN - SURVEYA- 2.01 ENLARGED PLANS - GREENHOUSEA- 5.01 ELEVATIONS - EXTERIORA- 7.01 DETAILSE - 1.01 ELECTRICAL

5project directory 2sheet list8sheet index

11project information7vicinity map

8

project title 3

project name:

project address:

10 / 15 / 2020

4general notes / project

LIFE LAB KIDS - PARKING LOTPERMIT SET

LIFE LAB KIDS - PARKING LOT

3178 HILTON ROADFERNDALE, MI48220

3178 HILTON RD - FERNDALE - MI - 48220

45

north arrow

centerline

5

A5.08

area reference

detail number

sheet number

detail

exteriorelevation

interior elevation

A5.08 5 detail number

sheet number

A5.08 5 detail number

sheet number

level head

0' - 1 1/2"

dimensionstring

project north

true north

room tag 5 08

room number

room level

room name

level name

5' - 8"

----

Sim

section tag

direction of section

5

A5.08

detail number

sheet number

asphalt paving

concrete

gravel

grass

concrete masonry wall

centerline

lot line

hidden, above, below

gypsum wall board

penny tile

square tile (various)

cold water supply (sized per code)

hot water supply (sized per code)

under ground sanitary sewer pipe (sized per code)

above ground sanitary sewer pipe (sized per code)

/ and> angle@ at+ height above

ABV aboveADJ adjustableAP access panelAPPROX approximate

BB baseboardBEL belowBO bottom ofBR broiler

CB caseworkCMU concrete masonry unit

D depthDF deep fryerDIM dimensionDN downDW dishwasher

(e) existingE eastEF exhaust fanELEC electricEP electrical panelEQ equalEXT exterior

FC faucetFD floor drainFL floorFF finish floor

GA gaugeGB grab barGD garbage diosposalGG gas griddleGR gradeGW grease waste dumpsterGYP gypsum wallboard

H heightHVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

INCL includeINT interior

LT lightLV lavatory

MAX maximumMIN minimumMR mirrorMT metal

N north

OC on center

PD paper dispenserPOS point of servicePR printerPROV providePT paint

RCP reflected ceiling planRF refrigeratorREF referenceRK rack

S southSF square footageSK sinkSIM similarSP speakerSPEC specifiedST stone

TC trash cartTL tileTO top ofTP toilet paperTR trash canTV televisionTYP typical

VH ventilation hoodVIF verify in field

W westW widthW/ withWC water closetWD woodWH water heaterW/O without

101

1i

1t

door tag

wall tag

window tag

room tag5 08

room number

room level

room name

This phase of the Life Lab Kids Foundation project proposes a resurfacing and restriping of an existing asphalt parking lot. The parking lot is revised to accomodate a new accessory greenhouse structure. The accessory construction will be comprised of a cast-in-place concrete slab, concrete trench wall, and prefabricated greenhouse structure. Electrical will be the only utility service in the new accessory structure will be electrical.

2015 michigan building code, mbc 2015

2015 michigan mechanical code, mmc 2015

2015 michigan plumbing code, mpc 2015

2014 national electrical code w/ state amendments, nec 2014

accessibility: michigan barrier free design law, p.a. 1966 as amended and the icc / ansi a117.1-2009 standard as referenced from chapter 11 of the 2015 michigan building code.

2015 michigan rehabilitation code

ASHRAE 90.1 (2013) Standard

8

8symbols11legend / project

1abbreviationslegend / tags 7

FIV

E -

EIG

HT

HS

2321

WO

LC

OT

T S

TR

EE

TF

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

248

-8

91

-27

37IN

FO

@F

IVE

-EIG

HT

HS

.CO

M

SH

EE

T N

UM

BE

R

OF

PROJECT ISSUE DATE

LIF

E L

AB

KID

S -

PA

RK

ING

LO

T

150

VE

ST

ER

ST

RE

ET

-F

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

G-0.02

GE

NE

RA

L N

OT

ES

PE

RM

IT S

ET

2

10 / 15 / 2020

10detail / accessible signage

2project description5applicable codes

46

48' - 8" 68' - 6 1/2" 193' - 11 1/2" 2' - 0 1/2"

1' -

7"

233' - 0"

HILTON RD

SH

ELV

IN S

T

BR

ICK

LE

Y S

T

17' -

4"

12' - 0"

24' - 0"

121' - 7"

12' -

4 1

/2"

VIF

10' -

7"

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12' - 0"10 11 12 13 14

12' -

4 1

/2"

53.0°

17 18 19 20 21 22

24 25 26 27

29

PUBLIC ALLEY

9' -

0"

18' -

0"

9' - 0"

PROPOSED 4" CONCRETE DUMPSTER PAD WITH 6'X8" CMU SCREENING WALL AND LOCKABLE DUMPSTER GATE

PROPERTY LINE

GREENHOUSE800 SF

EM

PL

OY

EE

A

ND

CO

MP

AC

T

PA

RK

ING

15

28(E) GRASS

YARD

25' - 2"

(E) SHED

16

23

A- 2.012

PROPERTY LINE

GREENBELT TREES, TYPICAL OF 17

(E) MATURE TREE

PROPOSED 6' WOOD SCREENING WALL

GRASS (E) PERGOLA

24' - 6"

(E) RESURFACED

ASPHALT PARKING LOT

RESTRIPED PARKING SPACE - TYPICAL OF 29

(E) ACCESSIBLE ENTRY

68' - 5 1/2"

REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT AND PROVIDE SOD

GROUNDCOVER

8' -

0"

16' - 0"

use and occupancy classification per chapter 3 of MBC:

304.1 Business Group B. Business Group B occupancy includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for office, professional or service-type transactions, including storage of records and accounts. Business occupancies shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

Training and skill development not in a school or academic program (this shall include, but not be limited to, tutoring centers, etc.).Professional services (physicians, etc.)

occupant load calculations per chapter 10 of MBC:

maximum floor area allowances per occupant per table 1004.1.2:

1. accessory storage areas 300 gross2. business areas 100 gross

occupants per function:

1. (800 / 300) = 2.662. (8000 / 100) = 80

TOTAL = 83 OCCUPANTS

calculations:

areas per space function per occupancy plan:

1. accessory storage areas 800 SF2. business areas 8000 SF

TOTAL 8,000 SF

Per Section 24-223(e) - Bicycle Facilities of the Ferndale Zoning Oridnance:

...provide sifficent bike racks based on a minimum of one bike for every 10 automobiles or one bike for every 3,000 square feet of building floor area, whichever is greater.

8000 SF / 3,000 = 2.26

Therefore, a bike rack that can accommodate 3 bikes will be added to the site (COMPLIES).

per section 9-10(d) - landscaping requirements of the ferndale zoning oridnance:

greenbelts shall contain one deciduous tree per each thirty linear feet or fraction thereof, of frontage onto a public right-of-way.

418' / 30' = >14 trees

and

per section 9-10(c), off-street parking lots shall contain 3 trees per 25 parking spaces within the boundaries of the parking lot.

26 provided parking spaces = 3 trees

therefore, 17 deciduous trees will be added to the site (complies).

Per Section 24-223 - Off-Street Parking Requirements of the Ferndale Zoning Oridnance:

Commercial Uses:

Therapy Centers:

1 per 250 GSF

Proposed Reuse of 3178 Hilton Rd:

Phase III total areas per massing options (square feet):

Existing – 8000 gsf 1 per 250 GSF (Therapy Centers)Greenhouse – 800 sf 1 per 250 GSF (Therapy Centers)TOTAL – 8800 gsf

8800 x 80% = 7040 gsf

7040 / 250 = 28.16 29 REQUIRED PARKING SPOTS

29 x 20% = 5.8 6 COMPACT PARKING SPOTS

Therefore, 29 parking spots are required. There twenty nine (29) restriped spots proposed, plus two (2) ADA spots, and one (1) van accessible parking spots (COMPLIES).

Per Section 24-83 - Schedule of Regulations of the Ferndale Zoning Oridnance:

For MXD-2 Mixed Use 2 Districts:

Maximum Height:

Building Height (feet): 45

Setbacks:

Front built-to (feet): 10'Side (least) (feet): 6'Side (total) (feet): 6'Rear (feet): 20'

Proposed Addition to 3178 Hilton Rd:

Existing use will remain the same:

Height:

Addition Height (feet): 30' EXISTING (complies)

Existing Lot Size:

Area (square feet) 26394 (complies)Lot Width (feet): 312 (complies)

Lot Coverage:

Building: 30% (complies)Impervious Surfaces: 60% (complies)

Setbacks:

Front (west): 10.5' EXISTING (complies)Side (north): 228' EXISTING (complies)Side (south): 2' EXISTING (complies)Rear (east): 2' NEW AND EXISTING

(does not comply)

FIV

E -

EIG

HT

HS

2321

WO

LC

OT

T S

TR

EE

TF

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

248

-8

91

-27

37IN

FO

@F

IVE

-EIG

HT

HS

.CO

M

SH

EE

T N

UM

BE

R

OF

PROJECT ISSUE DATE

LIF

E L

AB

KID

S -

PA

RK

ING

LO

T

150

VE

ST

ER

ST

RE

ET

-F

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

C-1.01

SIT

E P

LAN

-P

AR

KIN

G L

OT

PE

RM

IT S

ET

3

10 / 15 / 2020

1/16" = 1'-0" 1SITE PLAN - PARKING LOT - OPT 1

2CODE REVIEW - USE AND OCCUPANCY

3GREENBELTS AND BICYCLE PARKING

11PARKING REQUIREMENTS 8SCHEDULE OF REGULATIONS

8

47

FIV

E -

EIG

HT

HS

2321

WO

LC

OT

T S

TR

EE

TF

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

248

-8

91

-27

37IN

FO

@F

IVE

-EIG

HT

HS

.CO

M

SH

EE

T N

UM

BE

R

OF

PROJECT ISSUE DATE

LIF

E L

AB

KID

S -

PA

RK

ING

LO

T

150

VE

ST

ER

ST

RE

ET

-F

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

C-1.10

SIT

E P

LAN

-S

UR

VE

Y

PE

RM

IT S

ET

4

10 / 15 / 2020

8

1/16" = 1'-0" 1site plan / existing / ALTA/NSPS land title survey

3site plan / surveyors notes12general notes / legend

48

A- 5.01 1

A- 5.01

3

CUSTOM 48" X 96" STOREFRONT DOOR (BY MANUFACTURER)

(E) EGRESS STAIR AND EGRESS DOORS

GRASS

CUSTOM 48" X 96" STOREFRONT DOOR (BY

MANUFACTURER)

PARKING STRIPE - REFER TO SITE PLAN

SCREENING PLANTS - REFER TO SITE PLAN

ELECTRICAL SUBPANEL

8" FOUNDATION WALL - REFER TO DETAILS

(E) RESURFACED

ASPHALT PARKING LOT

GREENHOUSE FRAMING (PER MANUFACTURER) - REFER TO

SHEET A-2.02

PROPERTY LINE

(E) B

UIL

DIN

G (N

OT

IN

SC

OP

E)

GRASS 1' -

6 1

/2"

3' - 9"

2

A- 7.01

4

A- 7.01

6" MIN CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB WITH 6X6 - 1.4 X 1.4 WWF ON 6" COMPACTED

GRANULAR SOIL ATOP WELL-COMPACTED SUBGRADE

(E) ASPHALT PARKING LOT

6' TALL WOOD SCREENING FENCE -REFER TO DETAIL

41' - 3" 12' - 0"

PROVIDE 2" EXTENSION AT DOOR DROP - REFER TO A-2.02

8" CMU KNEE WALL - REFER TO DETAIL

THICKEN SLAB AT EDGE OF CONCRETE - REFER TO

DETAIL

4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK

SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT TO CREATE PLANTER BED

7' -

5 1

/2"

5' -

0"

9' -

1 1

/2"

1' -

6 1

/2"

4' - 0" 8' - 0"

8' -

5 1

/2"

4' -

0"

8' -

5 1

/2"

(E) A

SP

HA

LT

(E) EGRESS STAIR

PRIMARY STRUCTURE

SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT TO CREATE PLANTER BED

3

C- 1.01

Sim

FIV

E -

EIG

HT

HS

2321

WO

LC

OT

T S

TR

EE

TF

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

248

-8

91

-27

37IN

FO

@F

IVE

-EIG

HT

HS

.CO

M

SH

EE

T N

UM

BE

R

OF

PROJECT ISSUE DATE

LIF

E L

AB

KID

S -

PA

RK

ING

LO

T

150

VE

ST

ER

ST

RE

ET

-F

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

A-2.01

EN

LA

RG

ED

PL

AN

S -

GR

EE

NH

OU

SE

PE

RM

IT S

ET

5

10 / 15 / 2020

8

3/8" = 1'-0" 1ROOF PLAN - GREENHOUSE

3/8" = 1'-0" 2FOUNDATION PLAN - GREENHOUSE

49

4

A- 7.01

EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE

EXISTING EGRESS STAIR

8" CMU KNEE WALL -REFER TO PLANS AND DETAILS

GREENHOUSE - PER MANUFACTURER

41' - 3" 12' - 0"

13' -

3 1

/2" 10

' - 3

1/

2"3'

- 0

"

4' -

10

"5'

- 5

1/

2"3'

- 0

"

2

A- 7.01

6' -

0"

6' WOOD SCREENING FENCE - REFER TO DETAIL

PUBLIC ALLEY

19' - 2"

SET BACK - TO MATCH EXISTING

2' - 0"

ACCESSORY STORAGE STRUCTURE

20' - 10 1/2"

REVISED PARKING LOT

REFER TO SITE PLAN

13' -

3 1

/2"

VENTILATION FANS (ONE PER END OF BUILDING, STAGGERED) - REFER TO ELECTRICAL

GREENHOUSE WALL - PER MANUFACTURER

48" X 96" STOREFRONT DOOR - PER MANUFACTURER

NEW 8" CMU KNEE WALL - REFER TO PLANS AND DETAILS

REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT AND PROVIDE GRASS GROUND COVER

FIV

E -

EIG

HT

HS

2321

WO

LC

OT

T S

TR

EE

TF

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

248

-8

91

-27

37IN

FO

@F

IVE

-EIG

HT

HS

.CO

M

SH

EE

T N

UM

BE

R

OF

PROJECT ISSUE DATE

LIF

E L

AB

KID

S -

PA

RK

ING

LO

T

150

VE

ST

ER

ST

RE

ET

-F

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

A-5.01

ELE

VA

TIO

NS

-E

XT

ER

IOR

PE

RM

IT S

ET

6

10 / 15 / 2020

8

3/8" = 1'-0" 3ELEVATION - GREENHOUSE EAST/WEST

3/8" = 1'-0" 1ELEVATION - GREENHOUSE NORTH/SOUTH50

1/2" KWIK BOLT WITH 4-1/4" EMBEDMENT -INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS

CMU FOUNDATION WALL - REFER TO DETAIL

STEEL ANGLE (PER MANUFACTURER)

VERTICAL BRACE (PER MANUFACTURER)

GLAZING BAR (PER MANUFACTURER)

GLAZING (PER MANUFACTURER)

GLASS CAP (PER MANUFACTURER)

SS SCREW (PER MANUFACTURER)

SS NUT AND BOLT (PER MANUFACTURER)

4 1/

4"

0' - 2"0' - 7 1/2"

EXTEND FLOOR SLAB 2" BEYOND EDGE OF CONCRETE WALL

NEW AND EXISTING PAVING -REFER TO PLAN

8" CONCRETE WALL

STOREFRONT DOOR AND FRAME (BY MANUFACTURER)

EXTEND THICKENED FLOOR SLAB AT DOOR

1' -

0"

1' - 0"

6" COMPACTED GRANULARSOIL ON WELL-COMPACTEDSUBGRADE

6" MIN CONCRETE FLOOR SLABWITH 6X6 - 1.4 X 1.4 WWF

(E) ASPHALT PARKING LOT

A- 7.011

Sim

36"X 8" CMU KNEE WALL WITH 2" SOLID CAP AND SOLID GROUTED CORES EVERY 48"

GREENHOUSE WALL (BY MANUFACTURER)

1' -

0"

12" X 12" THICKENED PERIMETER FOOTER WITH 2X #5 REBAR THROUGHOUT

1/2" ANCHOR BOLTS, 48" O.C. WITH 7" MIN EMBEDMENT

6' -

0"

0' -

3 1

/2"3 1/

2"1"

4X4 PRESSURE TREATEDWOOD POST WITH 12"X42" CONCRETE FOOTING

1X4 WOOD SLATS -SPECIES AND FINISH TO MATCH (E) PERGOLA

FIV

E -

EIG

HT

HS

2321

WO

LC

OT

T S

TR

EE

TF

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

248

-8

91

-27

37IN

FO

@F

IVE

-EIG

HT

HS

.CO

M

SH

EE

T N

UM

BE

R

OF

PROJECT ISSUE DATE

LIF

E L

AB

KID

S -

PA

RK

ING

LO

T

150

VE

ST

ER

ST

RE

ET

-F

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

A-7.01

DE

TA

ILS

PE

RM

IT S

ET

7

10 / 15 / 2020

6" = 1'-0" 1DETAIL - GREENHOUSE BASE DETAIL

3" = 1'-0" 2DETAIL - DOOR TRANSITION

3" = 1'-0" 4DETAIL - FOUNDATION WALL

1" = 1'-0" 3TYPICAL DETAIL - SCREENING FENCE

NOT TO SCALE 5PLAN - GREENHOUSE SCHEMATIC

8

51

GFI

position load position

1

breaker size breaker size description

3

5

7

9

2

6

8

10

1211

1413

1615

1817

2019

22

120V / 150 amp / single phase

note: all circuits labeled on electrical and lighting plans with the following convention: A-#, where # indicates the circuit in this schedule

4

21

23 24

20 amps

25 26

27 28

29 30

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 ampsbasement receptacles

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps 20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps 20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps 20 amps

office receptacles (west)

open

basement lights (east)

office lighting (east)

office receptacles

south basement receptacles

office lighting (hallway)

3231

33 34

35 36

37 38

39 40

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps 20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps 20 amps

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

position load position

1

breaker size breaker size description

3

5

7

9

2

6

8

10

1211

1413

1615

1817

2019

120V / 150 amp / single phase

note: all circuits labeled on electrical and lighting plans with the following convention: B-#, where # indicates the circuit in this schedule

4

20 amps50 amps

50 amps

50 amps

50 amps

100 amps

100 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

15 ampssubfeed

40 amps

40 amps

20 amps

20 amps 20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

furnace

boiler

HVAC

open

HVAC

HVAC

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

2221

23 24

25 26

27 28

29 30

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps 20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps 20 amps

3231

33 34

35 36

37 38

39 40

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps 20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps 20 amps

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

NEW 150A SINGLE PHASE SUBPANEL - REFER TO PANEL SCHEDULE

PE

R O

WN

ER

CANARM S18-F1 STANDARD IN-WALL EXHAUST FAN115V/4A. REFER TO ELEVATIONCIRCUIT C-1

REGULATED BY CT-VC15 SINGLE STAGE MOISTURE-PROOF THERMOSTAT

CANARM S18-F1 STANDARD IN-WALL EXHAUST FAN115V/4A. REFER TO ELEVATIONCIRCUIT C-3

REGULATED BY CT-VC15 SINGLE STAGE MOISTURE-PROOF THERMOSTAT

GFI GFI

10' - 0" 20' - 0" 10' - 0"

GFI GFI

10' - 0" 20' - 0" 10' - 0"

CIRCUIT C-4MOUNT 18" AFF

CIRCUIT C-4MOUNT 18" AFF

CIRCUIT C-5MOUNT 18" AFF

CIRCUIT C-5MOUNT 18" AFF

1. The electrical contractor is responsible for obtaining an electrical permit from the city as well as adhering to all applicable electrical codes.

2. Electrical contractor to provide wired in smoke alarms, exit signs, and emergency lighting, as required by code.

3. All receptacle outlets to be GFCI protected where required by code.

4. All dimensions to be considered centerlines unless otherwise noted.

5. Exposed conduit locations to be approved by owner prior to installation, and painted to match wall or ceiling.

6. Provide outlets, in addition to those shown, to comply with applicable electric and building code.

7. All receptacle outlets to be 12" AFF unless noted otherwise.

8. All new outlets and conduit on existing walls shall be surface mounted and painted to match adjacent surfaces.

NOTE: PRIMARY STRUCTURE PANEL SCHEDULES PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY

GFCI duplex receptacle, wall mounted

electrical panel

position load position

1

breaker size breaker size description

3

5

7

9

2

6

8

10

1211

1413

1615

1817

2019

120V / 150 amp / single phase

note: all circuits labeled on electrical and lighting plans with the following convention: C-#, where # indicates the circuit in this schedule

4

20 amps20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 ampsSOUTH EXHAUST FAN

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps 20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

20 amps

NORTH EXHAUST FAN

WEST RECEPTACLES

open

open

open

open

open

open

EAST RECEPTACLES

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

open

FIV

E -

EIG

HT

HS

2321

WO

LC

OT

T S

TR

EE

TF

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

248

-8

91

-27

37IN

FO

@F

IVE

-EIG

HT

HS

.CO

M

SH

EE

T N

UM

BE

R

OF

PROJECT ISSUE DATE

LIF

E L

AB

KID

S -

PA

RK

ING

LO

T

150

VE

ST

ER

ST

RE

ET

-F

ER

ND

AL

E -

MIC

HIG

AN

-48

220

E -1.01

EL

EC

TR

ICA

L

PE

RM

IT S

ET

10 / 15 / 2020

8

1SCHEDULE - EXISTING PANEL 'A'4SCHEDULE - EXISTING PANEL 'B'

3/8" = 1'-0" 3POWER PLAN - GREENHOUSE

GENERAL NOTES - POWER PLAN

LEGEND - POWER PLAN 11

10 7SCHEDULE - NEW SUB-PANEL 'C'52

CITY OF FERNDALENOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

The City of Ferndale Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. virtually via Zoom at the following information:

Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us02web.zoom.us/j/4498836027?pwd=blc2MWlKMmxhSjUwV2QxY01sNEU4QT09Meeting ID: 449 883 6027Online Passcode: FERNDALE

Phone number: 877 853 5247 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 449 883 6027Phone Passcode: 113153

The Board of Zoning Appeals will consider an application submitted by Jai Reddy for a dimensional variance from the standards listed in Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article V, Sec. 24-83 (Mixed UseDistricts, Schedule of Regulations) at:

Sidwell No. 25-26-106-018, T1N, R11E, SEC 26 BERMORE SUB NO 1 LOTS 117 TO 132 INCL EXC W 20 FT OF LOTS 117 TO 126 INCL & EXC W 20 FT OF LOTS 129 TO 132 INCL, commonly known as 3178 Hilton.

Chapter 24, Article V, Sec. 24-83 requires a rear setback of 20 feet. The applicant is requesting a rear setback of two (2) feet from the required 20 feet for an accessory structure, for a total variance of 18 feet.

The meeting and public hearing will be held online according to the criteria listed in Public Act 2020-228.Any resident or property owner may participate in the hearing or submit written comments to the Community and Economic Development Department prior to Monday, November 16, 2020. For more information, please contact the Community and Economic Development Department at 248-546-2366 or review the request at https://www.ferndalemi.gov/council-meetings .

Erin Quetell, Environmental Sustainability PlannerCommunity & Economic Developmentced@ferndalemi.gov

53