A12 is the relevant zoning history.
A13 is a zoning map.
A14 is a setback comparison map I used from Atlas to estimate the setbacks of the houses
from the front property lines on the block and on Tarsdale Avenue.
And then A15 is, again, an aerial photograph.
So in the refusal, as stated, the fence can't be more than four feet nor more than 50% opaque.
So we are now requesting a six-foot ornamental fence.
We're doing the way with the solid white vinyl.
With regard to the front yard setback, 35 feet is required under RSV1, and we are proposing 20 feet.
And I'm going to address that in some permanent history.
This property was remapped probably in 2012 when he adopted the new code, and then I believe several times after that.
So the remapping or the adoption of the new code created the non-conforming launch because at the time they were created,
we have zoning permits for other properties showing what they were zoned at various times over history.
So we submit that the 75 feet is not applicable to this property.
And the proposed 69.4 feet in the refusal should be permitted to continue as a non-conforming measurement of the property.
Same thing with the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size, whereas existing is 7,753.9 square feet.
So moving on, not to belabor it, it's the application of appeal, our project information form.
My transmittal letter to the board, a copy of Mr. Kite's deed at the aforementioned BRT number.
Board of Premises at 4631 Primrose Road, consisting of 7,753.9 square feet.
Then you have the, this is the OPA block search.
As you can see, there's about 11 properties on Primrose Road from the 4600 up to 4634 Primrose, 4627 being the property to our adjacent left, and 4631 being the subject property.
Again, 4627 Primrose has its own OPA account number, therefore is an existing non-conforming lot.
has its own OPA account number therefore is an existing non-conforming lot same thing with 4631
primrose the subject having again its own OPA account number therefore it is an existing
residential lot however the zoning creates a problem with dimensions proof of tax clearance
the balance of four thousand four hundred ninety seven dollars is not due till the end of march
but as you can see all other periods are paid in full with regard to the site plan as you can see
it's an irregular shaped lot it's more narrow at the front than it is in the back
eric proposes the erection of a single family home with an interior drive a garage approximately 17
by 21 feet deep accessed from primrose road he also proposes a 15 by 26 foot pool in the rear yard
with a small cabana for some shade and respite and then again we referenced the six foot vinyl
fence in the actual original zoning plan however agreement with the neighbors we are going to
replace that with a ornamental fence 50 percent wide and they agreed that that would be a long
Tarsdale Avenue, not along the rear of the property, so this is the rendering or the
architectural elevation of the subject. Let me reduce that a little bit. So as you can see,
it's a nicely appointed house with a mixture of a stone facade with vertical siding and
carriage doors for the garage, so it'll be a nice amenity to the neighborhood.
this is a side elevation showing these the cellar
this would be the other side elevation facing tarsdale avenue
and then of course the rear elevation which would face the back towards the pool
so in the development plans again this is the original site plan uh filed with the zoning
application. There are four existing mature trees at the front corner of the property.
Two of those trees will have to be forsaken given the fact that this tree here
would be in competition with the footings of the new structure and this tree would be located in
driveway so we're going to make every attempt to keep the other two existing mature trees
the plan does call for sidewalks along Tarsdale Avenue which do not exist at this point and it's
going to replace the sidewalks along the front of the property at Primrose Road in addition to the
complete streets improvements to the corner with the handicap ADA accessible ramp
with the truncated domes crosswalks etc. Additionally he proposes three new street
trees along the sidewalk of Tarsdale Avenue so while we might be losing two trees over
here we're going to gain three over here so there's a net change of one.
um here is an aerial photograph this property is located at primrose where the red dot is primrose
road and tarstelle avenue right off of grand avenue and this would be the holy family college
campus area over here so as you can see they are all single family detached dwellings
here's a google street view of the corner again looking at the this tree would have to be
sacrificed as well as this tree over here for the driveway the trees were a concern of the
neighbor across the street and you know we are going to try to maintain the two mature trees
that we don't need to remove so again another shot showing the trees from the tarzal avenue side
this neighbor at this house back here had the concern about the most concern about the solid
white vinyl fence and we have since reached agreement with her she signed a petition of
support based upon eric's representation that he would install an ornamental fence
along tarsdale avenue as opposed to solid white vinyl we have a copy of our hosting
this picture here represents the outline or the the markings where the pool would go in the rear
yard we also have it staked out whereas the very front portion extent of the house where the garage
doors would be basically lines up with the the true front of the
basically lines up with the true front of the house directly next door to us.
They do have a little pent roof covering a small patio surface for entry into their door.
This measurement from this pent-ish street is about 13 or 14 feet,
and we submit that the measurement from the true facade of the front of the house
is approximately 20 feet to the front property line
in line with where we propose the front of our home.
Again, this would be the property stakes
showing the furthest extent to the rear yard.
This would be the property line along Tarsdale Avenue.
This area over here would represent where the sidewalks
and other amenities would go in.
another shot of the this would be the front little porch area with the driveway again
lining up with the existing home right to our left so you'll see these are the existing sidewalks
on the primrose roadside they will be replaced and improved as will the corner with the trunk
updated dome, ADA accessible ramps.
Just another shot of primrose.
I tried to get this to show the board the extent of the front yard setbacks for the
existing homes along primrose.
Again, just another corner shot.
Another additional picture of the stakeout where the property would be built.
This is the home directly across the street. We would be over here to the right.
Again, I tried to show a picture from the sidewalk on Tarsdale Avenue to show the extent of the
setbacks of the homes along the opposite side of Primrose. And I would submit that they are
pretty much equal to what we are proposing for our structure.
Again, just a Google street view of Primrose.
a google street view of Tarsdale Avenue and there are several homes on the other side of
Tarsdale Avenue that all similarly enjoy a 20 foot plus or minus setback from the property lines
so in Tarsdale's letter they had 16 members opposed with one non-opposition and of all
meeting attendees the vote was 22 to 1 in opposition so um you know keep in mind that
at least two of those uh in opposition have since signed a petition of support for this project
given the concessions by mr kite so in their letter uh they identified the four variances
as contained in the refusal and then they raised the following issues they talk about stormwater
runoff, the size of the proposed structure in proportion to the lot size, concerns relevant to
a six-foot opaque vinyl fence, which we have since conceded. The proposed home, pool, and
cabada are too large for the property. It was noted that no nearby neighbors supporting the
variance were in attendance, no letters of support provided by council, which none were requested.
And it says in the voting session after the presentation, not one of the 16 members nor
16-year neighbors supported the variance however again at least two of them have changed their mind
given the concessions so in our rebuttal letter i just indicated that the stormwater is not a zoning
issue and that should be addressed during a building permit approval process the size of
the structure the structure itself complies with the zoning dimensional regulations with
the exception of the front yard setback no other refusals were issued again the final fence has
been is being withdrawn and the adjoining neighbors support the six-foot ornamental fencing that would
be at least 50 percent opaque again the home the pool the cabana comply with all dimensional
requirements no refusals issued as a result of those again other than the front setback
and the petition of support was signed by 22 near neighbors including the two most vocal neighbors
in attendance at the RCO meeting and they reside at 9630 and 9636 Tarsdale Avenue so
again they did not request or ask us to bring a petition of support to the meeting
we you know we complied with all the requirements of notification of the meeting
and you know one other vocal neighbor or member of East Tarsdale who resides all the way over by
Glenn Ford, simply said they opposed the variance because it doesn't comply with the zoning code.
And I said, well, that's why, you know, there is this process to obtain variances
and the board is empowered to grant such relief. So based upon that.
and the board is empowered to grant such relief so based upon that we did get the petition of
support signed uh mr kite wrote in that less than 50 percent opaque along tarsdale avenue
and he initialed it and again you have the adjoining neighbors at 46 27 primrose who signed
46 21 primrose 96 30 and 36 tarsdale were the two neighbors that opposed at the rco meeting
but changed their minds given the concessions.
And additionally, across Tarsdale Avenue, you have 9623, 9619, 9611, and 9631.
And they are all homes that share a similar type of front yard setback.
So in the zoning archive, this property was zoned D4 residential back in 1973.
There is a zoning permit on file from 1961, as you'll see here, for the proposed subdivision, outlined or highlighted in yellow here, creating two lots from one.
And back then, that permit was issued for the erection of the new single-family dwelling by the Caron family, who recently sold the property a couple of years ago.
So again, we submit that these are existing non-conforming lots that don't comply with the zoning code and therefore are permitted to continue to exist.
Now the property is zoned RSD1 as opposed to what it was zoned in the past.
so again using the atlas map and the measurement tool on there coming down from
Dittman and Primrose you can see 4601 you know it's estimated to be about 22 feet
across the street 4600 24 feet 4603 is 26 feet
uh 04 is 23 feet 31 feet at 07 uh we're shirking down to under 19 feet at 46 30 or 20 i'm sorry
um you got 20 26 feet at this property this is the house next door again the pent roof sticking
out over the front entry is probably about 14 feet from the property line the two houses across
the street are well under the 35 foot requirement at 22 and 23 feet our property being here on the
corner and these are the six homes that were built more recently on Tarsdale Avenue and as you can
see they all are about 20 feet set back from the property so so we're not looking to build anything
that's out of the nature and character of the community it's a nicely appointed single-family
home, and we're looking for the small relief of a front yard setback of 20 feet as opposed to 35.
If he were to set it back 35 feet, that would reduce the rear yard such that he would not be
able to enjoy the rear yard to the extent that he would like, and he would not be able to direct a
pool. As further support, I have some other exhibits. Under the old zoning code, I did
actually find the regulations on the table. R2 had a 50-foot lot width with a 5,000 square
foot minimum lot area, as did R3, 50 and 5,000, and R4 was 35 feet wide and 3,150 square feet.
So I offer this in support that these properties, as being subdivided in 1961, were clearly
legal and, you know, conforming at the time they were created. Here's a permit from 1988 for 9611
Tarsdale showing that it was R3 residential at that time. A permit for 4627 next door to us
showing that it was R4 residential in 1973. 9630 Tarsdale Avenue showing that it was,
you know, upgraded to R2 on or before October of 2009. This is 9623 Tarsdale Avenue, you can see.
I don't know if that's R4 or R3, but either way, in the year 2000, this property was not RSD1.
9619, this was issued in 2017, this permit, and here you clearly see that they're now zoned RSD1.
Here's another RS3 for 9631 Tarsdale from 1988 and finally I have one for 4607 Primrose issued in 1972 indicating that it was R4 residential.
So again given the zoning table dimensions we submit that these properties are existing non-conforming lots and in order to build a enjoy reasonable use of the property.
And in order to build a, enjoy reasonable use of the property, we're asking for a 20-foot setback on the front of the house, along with a variance for a six-foot ornamental fence along the Tarsdale Avenue side.
I believe Eric Kite is in the audience. If he could be allowed to speak, he can verify and adopt.
Eric, if you can hear it, he's got his hand raised.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Eric Kite, E-R-I-C-K-I-T-E.
Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Eric, you've heard my representations today to the board?
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
And would you adopt them as your own testimony?
I would.
And Eric, this is going to be your primary family residence, correct?
Okay, and you did, in fact, speak to those adjoining neighbors regarding the fence,
and their issue was the white vinyl fence, not the ornamental fence?
Correct.
And did any of those neighbors say that you spoke to express any concerns
or objections to the 20-foot setback of the front of the home?
They did not.
all right that's all i that's all i have for mr kite uh mr chairman uh we did have a site visit
with councilman uh driscoll out there uh and i believe given the uh you know the close vote
between the petition signers and those that attended the meeting okay uh he's he's taking
no position on this application questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no handshare planning commission thank you sir good afternoon david vecto with the city
planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single
family detached zoning at this location with regard to the dimensional variances for lot
width and lot area the house lot already exists so the applicant does have a clear hardship
that necessitates these variances to enable viable use of their property however the applicant has
failed to show that a hardship exists requiring the variances for fences and parking so the city
planning commission recommends that the board grant the variances for lot width and lot area
but deny the variances for parking and fence height mr chairman can i address that if he doesn't have
You can, you can.
You know, he'd like to have an interior garage, so you park his car.
And in order to access that, you need a driveway from the front.
Okay, sorry.
So, MI 2022, 005305, 4631 Primrose Road, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shadi, my vote is yes.
I'm sorry about that. I was trying to hit the button there, a little technical difficulty. My vote, James Snell, my vote is yes.