Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

the February 25th, 2026 zoning board of appeals meeting. I'm Candace Brier, chairperson of the zoning board of appeals. The zoning board of appeals is a nine-person volunteer board nominated by the mayor and approved by city council. First, we will hear from planning services represented tonight by John Barrett. Then the applicant or their representative will make their presentation. Applicants will have five minutes in which to make their presentation. Staff will keep time and will announce when 30 seconds are remaining. Public comment is available in person or remotely. We will first call on individuals present to address the board, then remote participants. To speak during a public hearing or during public comment remotely, press star 9 if listening by phone or use the raise hand feature if viewing through the web link. For phone access, call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 938164810007. City staff will select callers that have raised their hand using the last three digits of your phone number or by name if available for those accessing through the web link. You will hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak. When speaking, please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sounds. We may ask questions of either the city or the applicant. We will acknowledge any written comments received by the board. We will allow an appearing party to express their support or objections. The board will then discuss the appeal and formulate a motion to approve the appeal. Five affirmative votes of the board will be required for an appeal to be granted. Finally, any qualified party who is agrieved by a decision of the board can appeal that decision to the Washington County Circuit Court on a timely basis. Roll call. Candace Brier, I am here. Dharma Aman

here. Mike Daniel here. Drew Densen here. Dave Dardy Dardy here. Christina Glusac here. Patty Lascowski. Robera Sutton here. Julie Weatherbeby here. We have a quorum. Next. um approval of the agenda. I'll note quickly I will need to recuse myself from the first item tonight um 404 West Heron Street because of a professional conflict of interest. Um otherwise are there any questions or comments on the agenda? All right. Do we have a motion to approve the agenda? Thank you, Drew. Support. Support. Thank you, Dave. All in favor say I. Opposed?

All right. Moving on to minutes. We have minutes from the January 28th, 2026 zoning board of appeals meeting. Are there any questions, comments, corrections on those minutes? All right. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Thank you, Mike. Support. Support. Thank you, Dave. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. All right. Minutes are approved. And with that, we will move into our first public hearing. petition ZBA26-00001404 West Heron Street and I will step out. And this petition this evening uh will be represented by um city planner Mariana Meline Corkran.

All right, thank you. Um so this is CVA26-0000144 West Heron Street. Um and they are requesting a variance from table 5.19-2 special parking district requirements. Um a variance of one EV installed and nine EV capable parking spaces is requested so that they can provide 10 new parking spaces in the floodway when new parking is provided in special parking districts. 90% of the spaces spaces must be EV capable and 10% must be EV installed. This is part of an associated site plan uh site plan number SP25-000018 which is currently under review. The property is zoned D2 downtown interface and R2A to family dwelling and as part of the site plan a reszoning is proposed to zone the entire site D2 downtown interface and the entire site is in the floodway flood plane. There are some definitions for EVI and EVC parking spaces included. And the property is located on the north side of Hiron Street, east of Chapen and directly west of the railroad. There are multiple existing buildings on site, mo most of which are shown on the 1931 Sanborn Fire Insurance map when the complex was operating as the artificial ice co ice plant. The property is adjacent to the old westside historic district, but is not part of the district. And it appears that there have been uh no major changes to the structures on site since their construction in the early 20th century. So there are some existing nonconformities, namely the buffer with the residential zoning district to the west. There have been recent upgrades to this parking lot which was reconfigured after a site plan was approved in 2020 and at that time uh the ZBA granted a variance from the requirement of two additional street trees. The site plan under review proposes to expand the parking lot with these 10 new spaces in the floodway as well as storm water

improvements and there are no proposed changes to the building on site. There is also included in the staff report uh some comments from our flood plane reviewer and John.

So turning your attention to the monitors. The first slide is the zoning map. You see the subject property. It's highlighted in green and I'm circling it with the cursor. It's on the north side of West Hon Street adjacent uh just west of the railroad tracks. The next slide is the location map showing you surrounding properties and existing conditions. And the next slide is the zoomedin aerial photo of the subject property and the area that uh the proposed parking improvements are back here. Do you want to say anything else about that, Mariana? Okay, moving to the next slide. This is the survey that was submitted with the application by the petitioner and the next slide is a site plan.

Yes. So, as you can see, those are the 10 parking spaces. They're at the back of the site. Um, so won't be visible from the street or near to the street, but they are entirely within the floodway. And oh, can you go back one? Sorry. Sorry. Um, so this is this is um the applicant provided in the bottom right hand corner that to meet all the floodway requirements and that's the height that an EV installed um charger would have to be at.

And the next slides are the photos of the subject property uh at our inspection. You see the first uh slide, this shows the uh front facade, the south side of the building. The next slide shows the um west side of the building where some existing or proposed parking spaces will be. And this is moving around to the back of the building and where the north side of the property and uh north side parking will be looking more towards the north and you see the adjacent railroad tracks to the right and the adjacent property to the north. And that's the end of the slides and staff presentation. And Mariana or myself can take any questions that you may have at this time. Uh Julie,

so I'm assuming that any um sort of uh issues with paving in the flood plane is a separate issue that will be taken care of in the site plan and this is just about the Eve. Yes. Okay.

Okay. So, um, if any other questions for staff, no. So, I have one question. Oh, Dave. So, are they removing the two northerly buildings? No, there are no changes proposed to the buildings on site. All the buildings are staying the same. Yes. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, if the petitioner is here or representative, please approach. Five minutes.

Good evening, uh, chair or I should say acting chair at this point and members of the ZBA. My name is Matthew Buds. Uh, I'm an attorney representing the, uh, petitioner and I will put my information on your sheet here. Thank you. You're a step ahead already.

Thank you. Okay. Um, so obviously you have the factual background from the staff as far as uh this particular item. Uh, this is the property commonly known as 404 West Hon. Um, and the request is really to uh pave a number of parking spaces that are presently gravel. Um it is uh at least in the property owner's mind I'll say continuation of improvements to the um uh remainder of the parking lot which was done in 2000. Obviously this is all its own separate um item but they are moving forward with trying to improve the property and have uh useful parking spaces throughout. Um as you heard this site is somewhat exceptional and peculiar in that it's not only uh in the flood plane but also in the flood way. Uh the other item is that the county's Allen Creek drain runs underneath a uh significant portion of this property as well. Um and so that makes it uh somewhat I'll say exceptional and peculiar and really not something that the property owner has had anything to do with or control over at this point in time. Um and so we would take the position that the site's exceptional and peculiar and that it would be impossible or impractical to install uh EV charging here. One thing I'll get out of the way early on, before the city um enacted its most recent ordinance to uh mandate the EV charging, the property owner, who is actually a supporter of EV uh in a fairly substantial way, wanted to install EV at the site, sought out grants to do so, and was told it was impossible to do on this site because of the flood plane floodway issues and putting that kind of utility construction at the site. So, this is uh it's an odd one where the property owner would love to do this and would love to have EV on the site, but it's not practical based on the flood plane and

floodway issues that are here. Um, this uh project in our estimation will add additional um I'll say compliance with the city ordinances rather than having unpaved gravel parking. You would have an improved lot. It would have necessary buffering around which will all be part of the site plan approval. And so it's seen as a general positive as far as the property owner is concerned in terms of moving this property forward into greater compliance. And allowing this uh variance in our opinion would result in substantial justice being served uh when taking into account the flood plane floodway issues and the improvements that would come to the site. This is obviously a condition that the property owner has not created in terms of where the drain is, where the flood plane is, or where the floodway uh is located as most of these buildings have been on site for uh at least if not more than 100 years at this point. Um and so I mentioned already that the property owner was a supporter of EV, sought out grant funding for that and unfortunately could not uh install these EV chargers due to the um different issues involved with this particular site. Uh this doesn't involve any changes to the building and is uh just an improvement to the parking lot area. And so the property owner's request is that a variance would be granted from the EV charging requirements. And I'm happy to answer any questions or concerns.

Any questions for the petitioner? Um seeing none. Uh questions from anyone here, right? Or anyone who's dialed in? Any any questions you'd like to come address the board? Anyone online? Don't have anybody online at this time.

Uh with that being said, the petition is closed. will discuss as a board. Um floor is open to the board. Anyone have thoughts, questions? Sensing water and electricity don't mix. We have some real electricians on this board, it looks like. Um yeah, I'm willing to entertain a motion if someone would like to make it. I'll make a motion. Dave Marty

uh ZBA 26-00001 404 West Hon Street uh in accordance with established standards for approval the zoning board of appeals hereby grants varian cable 5.19-2 special parking district requirements to not require one EV installed and nine EV capable parking spaces. Uh, who anyone seconding that Dharma? Thank you. Drew, yes. Christina,

yes. Uh, Roberta, yes. Julie, yes. Dave Dardi, yes. Dharma. Yes.

I vote yes. The motion passes. Thank you all for your time and consideration. Everybody switching seats.

All right, moving on to our next petition. Petition ZBA26-00002872 Brierwood Circle. Eric.

Okay. Uh good evening everyone. I'm Eric Paddonic, the zoning coordinator with the city of Ann Arbor. Uh so to introduce the approximately 60,000 foot subject building is zone C2B business service district and is part of the redeveloped east tenant wing at Briwood Mall. The applicant proposes two wall signs with illuminated channel letters on the subject building. One on the north elevation at 127.4 4 ft in area and 32 ft in height and one on the south elevation at 199.1 ft in area and 42 ft in height. Per section 5.24.5 B1 of the unified development code. Each building is permitted two square ft of sign area per linear foot of building frontage up to a maximum of 200 ft of sign area for permanent signs. In this case, the subject building has approximately 542 linear feet of building frontage and is therefore permitted to have 200 ft of sign area. However, the applicant seeks to install a total of 326.5 ft of wall sign area on the subject building. As a result, the applicant is requesting a 126.5T variance from section 5.24.5B1 24.5B1 of the unified development code to permit 326.5 ft of wall sign area on a building where a maximum of 200 ft of sign area is permitted. Furthermore, per section 5.24.5B2 table 5.243 243 of the unified development code. Wall sign shall be within the lowest 20 ft of the building unless the building height is 45 ft or higher in which case such sign may be placed within the uppermost 15 ft of the building. In this case, the subject building is approximately 35 ft in height where the wall sign is to be placed on the north elevation and it is

approximately 46 ft in height where the wall sign is to be placed on the south elevation. However, the applicant seeks to install a wall sign on the north elevation which is 35 ft in height at 32 feet in height. As a result, the applicant is also requesting a variance uh in this case of 12 ft from section 5.245B2 table 5.243 of the unified development code to permit a wall sign to be 32 ft in height from finished grade or wall sign shall be within the lowest 20 ft of the building. Now go through a few slides here to provide some additional context. Here's a zoomed out um which kind of shows the zoning of the subject property as well as the surrounding properties. Here we have a zoomed out aerial showing the mall relative to the surrounding properties. Uh here we have um somewhat of a site plan that was actually provided by the applicant that shows the two facads that the signs are to be placed on the north and south. Here we have uh a representation of the south elevation of the building with the sign. And then here we have one of the north elevation. And they've also kind of hypothetically shown here uh what it would look like if they were to place the sign within the compliant uh 20 foot height requirement. That kind of red box that they show there. And then we have the kind of letter set measurements themselves. The dimensions uh applicant provided some setback dimensions uh from the ring road and the kind of surrounding properties there. uh couple of examples that the applicant has provided of signage within the shopping center. Here is a photo from our site visit that shows the building kind of under

construction. It's kind of an active redevelopment site right now. See that as well. It's also another picture of the facade. And that is about it by way of slides. Uh be glad to answer any questions that you might have to the best of my ability. Thank you. Thank you, Eric. questions for staff.

It's a completely new addition. You just correct it. Okay. Correct. Yeah, they demolished the old east wing that used to be at Sears formerly and Yeah, it's a new wing. Okay, Julie. Is is this metal structure here like where the sign will go or is that just a scaffolding at the moment? I believe I would actually defer to the applicant to confirm that, but I I believe that might be part of the sign structure in fact or a false facade at least uh that it'll ultimately be placed on

related to that and maybe this is also for the petitioner, but would the rest of the building go up quite as high as that metal structure or is would it be that far above the rest of the facade. I believe that's going to define the new kind of high point of that facade. Okay, thanks. Is there a photo of the um north elevation? This is the south elevation that we're looking at right there. Yeah, we are looking at the south presently. Um we don't have one of the north elevation because of the kind of activity on the construction site. We were unable to access that. Yeah, we weren't really able to get in safely. Yeah, I got That was yeah part of the problem there.

Thanks. Any other questions for staff? All right. If the petitioner is here, if you could please come forward, sign in, state your name for the record. You'll have five minutes.

Uh there's no pen up here to sign in. My name is Rob with Allied Signs. I'm here on behalf of Dicks Sporting Goods. Excuse me for my voice, but it's that time of year. Um here we on behalf of Dix located at 8 72 Brierwood Circle, we're requesting a variance for a second wall sign at that location for the north elevation uh asking for a additional square footage of 127.4 ft and the placement of the sign above the re the um the height restriction on the facade of the building. We Dix would like to get a second sign up there for consumer identification. Uh and such as a wayfinding sign for Eisenhower Boulevard runs that way for the consumers coming in and out of the parking lot at Brierwood Mall. Uh so we're just requesting additional wall sign and the placement on the facade of that building. And yes, that height of the building is going to remain. What you saw was the structure that was unfinished on the buildout. That's what the finished buildout will be according to that drawing right there. And if you did place a sign at the 20 foot maximum overall height on a facade, it would be where that boxed in area is. So the letters would be hanging off the building.

Okay. Thank you. Questions for the petitioner? Okay.

So, uh we saw a slide of the metal structure there for a facade that goes above the height of the interior space of the building. It strikes me that the primary function of that tall taller facade is to allow for a higher signage like a higher up in the air or higher above. I with I just don't understand why that couldn't be just constructed in a way that you could bring put that dick sign right in within compliance at 20 ft. I don't understand that. If you could maybe explain why that sign cannot be at 20 ft.

Because the sign band area on the build out of the building of the facade will not allow the sign to be at 20T maximum height. They would be below the parapit on that wall. Uh the way the buildout's being done, that's the finish side and the area slide that I'm talking about, the one with the metal uh that we thought this one. So, is this what we're talking about? This slide that's up right now. Yes, that's unfinished construction of the building facade that's going to be finished, built out as the other drawing shows.

But the actual building is this concrete block piece that's right behind it, right? Is that true?

As you see it now, but that's not the finished buildout. that will be behind the buildout. When it's said and done, when it's built, that the finished facade area is going to be covering that brick work that you're looking at on the unfinished photo of the ongoing construction. I just don't it strikes me that this facade is the purpose of it is to elevate the sign that the the facade that the way it's constructed there is really unnecessary except to make a sign at a higher elevation. Well, with building the it's a design element is what I see.

Well, with the building of facade on the north elevation, it matches the south elevation. So there's uniformity there with the building and the buildout. So the the construction of the building and Dick's image and branding is similar on the north and south elevation. They want to be consistent with their marketing and branding. Thank you. Any other questions for the petition?

Okay. Thank you very much. If there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this um petition, now is your opportunity. We'll open the public hearing. Um if there's anyone here in person, please come forward now. If there's anyone accessing remotely, please press star 9 or use the raise hand button. There are no callers at this time. Thank you, John. With that, the public hearing is closed and we are in discussion.

Christina, yeah, just an observation. A lot of times when we review these sign bands, like for example at um Arborland, it's an existing condition. Um and so it, you know, they're trying to fit it in and it makes sense from the view all the way from Washington. And um but this is brand new construction. So really, I mean, the signage, that element, that facade signage element could have been adjusted to accommodate the signage. Um they yeah it it's a brand new installation. So I I feel like it could have been better accommodated um rather than asking for a variance sort of after the fact. And I'm looking at this and it I see this as the facade is basically being built as new construction with the sole purpose of elevating the signage to a higher height. Um I'm going to vote against this. I I think that the way I look at the building, it could easily accommodate a Dick sign with their logo. maybe not quite as large, but certainly with their uh logo type face that fits their branding and uh still be fine and uh and and still identify this space as a commercial space for Dicks. So, I'll be voting against this.

I have a question. Yeah. Um, when I guess I should have asked this earlier, but when you were doing your site visit, are there other um like shops at the mall that have sort of like a similar height variance or is this would this be unique to Dicks? This would be somewhat unique in the sense that it's a structure as was said which appears to be for the purpose of elevating the sign height, right? I mean, it's kind of a false facade sign structure simultaneously. I wouldn't say there's exactly a precedent for that in the mall right now. Um, yeah, I guess that's

probably the best I could do. Yeah.

May I also add a comment? Um, I like to state that a lot of communities should help support brick andmortar stores. You see a lot of stores that go out of business. There's plenty of malls all around that have closed up. Amazon has taken over. So, it's nice to see communities and board members and and have places for consumers to actually go and shop by helping supporting brickandmortar store. So the visibility for the consumer and the identification of Dicks at that location at such a big location and a outlet mall or a big footprint of that mall rental space it's important to make it look lively that that it's not closed that there's actual tenant in that store space. So, I think it's important to work with tenants of of malls that are renting spaces at brick and motor stores. My wife shops at Amazon all the time and it's terrible.

Eric, I have a qu quick question. So, you mentioned that the one side of the building exceeds the was it 45 ft or whatever. Yeah. So, they're allowed to place it within the upper most 15. side. Is that the north side or the south side? I believe that would be Let me verify my staff report. Uh that would be the south elevation uh where they're able to meet the the height requirement. Okay. So, it's the north that's in question for the Okay. Because the building height is only 35 ft, they they don't get the extra allowance that you would if you were greater than 45. Okay. So, that would enable like that's on the freeway side, right? So that's the north side is on Heisenhower Parkway side.

The north. Okay. So we're Yeah. Okay. South side's more oriented towards the freeway. So the side that's in this photo is the side that is the south as well. It's the the taller side. Yes. Okay. Oh, this is the tall. Oh, okay. Yeah, that is the the considerably about uh 10 ft or more taller than the uh the one on the north. So this right here that we're looking at, you're saying this is the south side or the north side? That's the south side. The south elevation. Y. So this is the side facing um the freeway. The freeway. Yeah.

And so the idea was to raise this so that the signs were equal on both the north and south side. Is that aesthetically to make it look right? So from both sides you don't have one sign that's no that's the reasoning

with all respect on Dave's comment as far as building that facade to get the sign higher up. If that was the case, then they would have built the south elevation at 45 feet high to get sign higher up for visibility. Then that you know that. So that wasn't that's not the plan on on the build out of the building and the sign installation for visibility and identification. So, I think um I'm just kind of really stuck on the um the uh self-imposed practical difficulty and it just feels self-imposed. I mean, it's it's this is not on the existing building. The applicant response is it's not a self-imposed practical difficulty as this is an existing building, but the difficulty is because it's not on the existing building part. So, I'm just I I don't see how I can approve this.

Any other discussion? You ready for a motion? I'm ready to make a motion.

Uh, thank you, Dave. ZBA26-00002 872 Brierwood Circle. In accordance with established standards for approval, the zoning board of appeals hereby grants a variance of 126.5 square ft from section 5.24.5B.1 area and section and section 5.24.5.B.2 two, table 5.24-3, other mixeduse and non-residential and special purpose zoning districts permanent signs to allow 326.5 square ft of wall signage, maximum of 200 allowed. A variance of 12.67 ft is also requested to allow a wall sign to be installed at 32.167 ft in height. normally a 20 foot height maximum. The signs are to be installed per the submitted plans.

Thank you, Dave. We have a motion. Do we have support? Thank you, Drew. Mike, yes. Drew, yes. Dave, no. Christina, no. Roberta, yes. Julie, no. I also vote no. Dharma, no. The request is denied.

Thanks. You too. Moving on to petition ZBA 26-000031125 Arlington Boulevard. John, whenever you're ready. Good evening. I'm John Barrett, zoning coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor. The petition before us this evening is ZBA26, excuse me,-00003 11, excuse me. Can we have quiet in the audience, please? 11:25 Arlington Boulevard is the address. Daniel Santag representing the property owners is requesting a 4ft variance from section 5.16.6 subsection A2C accessory uses and structures. If granted, the variance would allow for a 1578 ft pool enclosure to be constructed over an existing inground pool. The pool is in the sidey yard and is required to meet a minimum of 7 ft from the side lot line. The property is zoned R1A single family dwelling district. The subject property is near the intersection of Arlington Boulevard and Aberdine Drive in the Angel neighborhood. The lot is approximately 72,614 ft in size. The home was constructed in 2004. The existing pool was permitted under building permit 18-1385 and approved by the by zoning to allow an ingground pool to be located at minimum of 13 ft from the side lot line. The pool meets the required sideyard setbacks currently. The proposed building over the existing pool will not meet the sideyard setback requirement. The proposed building is 59

ft 2 1/2 in by 28 ft in for an approximate size of the 1,700 ft. The pool house will be 20 ft 6 in in height. If you'll turn your attention to the monitors, you'll see the first uh slide is the location map or excuse me, the zoning map showing the uh subject property highlighted in uh green at the center of your screen. The next slide is the location map showing surrounding properties and existing conditions. And the next slide is the zoomed in aerial photo of the subject property. And you can see the existing pool as I'm circling it with the cursor. The next slide is the survey that was submitted with the application and it shows a 7 foot dash sideyard setback and the pool is probably approximately 2 feet behind that. So the pool is situated approximately 9 ft from this side lot line property line. The next slide shows a uh site plan that was submitted by the applicant. Next slide shows uh some the floor floor plan for some future proposed uh improvements in the shaded gray and the pool to the adjacent to the left is also shaded in gray. And this is what the proposed pool enclosure will look like. As I said, this is 20 ft proposed, 6 in in height. And you see some of the elevations and what the proposed finished product will look like as it will be constructed completely over that existing pool. That's my presentation at this time. I will take any questions that you may have.

Thank you, John. Questions? D. So, I'm sorry if I'm just missing it, but what exactly are are they getting the variance to do to allow this just to allow it to exist? Period. No, to allow the building to be 3 ft from the side lot line where the requirement is seven foot varian foot variance. Yep. That's the only variance. Correct. Okay. Thanks. So, and Dave, just did you have a Yeah. So, uh, John, the just to clarify,

the only reason they need the variance is because they're building a physical structure to make the pool an indoor pool. Yes, it's an accessory building and accessory buildings when they're built in the sideyard have to meet the same setbacks as the principal structure. And so, this doesn't meet that. So if it was in the rear yard, it could be three feet, but since it's in the sidey yard, it has to be seven feet. And they're proposing it to be three feet. So it's a 4ft variance request. Gotcha. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Do you have a photo that West elevation just in terms of the grade? How is that for?

I'm sorry. I got more photos. I shorted you guys. Um these are the photos that were submitted with the application. uh the uh drone photos. I guess uh you'd have to ask the applicant that these are their photos. Um

yeah, be good to know where they were that and the these are the photos I took on my inspection. That's the front of the house and that's the existing conditions looking down from the front of the house towards the uh pool and then that's obviously the pool itself. And you can see the um ex adjacent properties in the in the background and that's the adjacent neighbor and that's I sorry I have one more question.

Yeah sure. Um, so right now the I mean the proposal is for a pool structure, right? But if we grant that approval, it could on the property if they wanted to turn that into like a dwelling unit or something, would that also be allowed because they've already received the variance? Yes. Okay. Thanks. But that would require, you know, you can talk to the applicant about that, but that would require once the pool structure is over the pool, then you'd have to demolish the pool. I was more thinking about the future use of the property if a future owner or something. Any other questions for John?

Is there a height restriction to that accessory unit?

Maximum height is 21 ft and the building height is proposed is 20 ft 6 in. Wow. Any other questions? All right. If the petitioner is here, please come forward, sign, and state your name. You'll have five minutes. Hi everybody. I'm Dan Sante on behalf of the owner. Um, thank you for considering this. um the new owner of the property doesn't really have interest in having an outdoor pool, feels that they would make use of the pool if it if it were climate controlled, weather controlled. Um we also feel that this would create a little more privacy for them uh and they would be more likely to use it as well as privacy for the neighbors if they were to the other use might be if families or kids or something were there. Now it's that noise is kept away from the neighbors. But the primary reason really is for the for the use of the owner to have it climate controlled. Um and then as far as the variance goes, um what we are what we're addressing is specifically the accessory um exception. uh 5166 A2C detached accessory buildings may occupy the side required setback provided they're set back farther from the street than any part of the principal building and they can be within 3 ft of the lot line. So what if you go to the site plan what we have is we have an existing house that is over 200 ft from the front street. Um and uh uh and this building would be

slightly closer than that. Therefore, not not qualifying for the exception. But our thought was that the spirit of the exception is to is to stop people from putting garages and sheds and what have you in front of their houses or in front of their neighbors houses in typical residential character. And this is an atypical site where we're over 200 ft away from the street. So, um, that's why we are requesting the variance. Our belief is that the irony of it is that we could add 30 ft to the garage side on the south and then the structure would be compliant with that exception. So, we have no interest in doing that, but that's why we're um applying for the variation of the variance on that. And um I think that's really the the case that we have for it.

Thank you. Any questions for the petitioner? Okay. Question. Can you speak to how you arrived at the location of the new walls? Like the distance required perhaps? Um, it's as tight as it's as tight as we can get to the pool and still keep a a safe walk path around the pool. Mhm. For deck. Okay. And what is that dimension? Just cur I can't see from the plan. I'd have to pull it back up. I want to say it's it's at its tightest it's about 42 in. Mhm. It's it's it's it's pretty close to the existing pool. Yeah. It doesn't seem um it's the same dimen there's two different dimensions right on the on the long sides I think it's 42 I think it's a little longer on the end and I I apologize I don't remember off the top of my head

I'm just saying the width it doesn't seem the pool itself doesn't seem centered within the enclosure from the plan that I'm looking at

yeah I I again like I said uh I I don't know I don't know the answer to that one I mean the reason I bring that up is I was just wondering If it if the width dimension on the left side was was adequate and provided a safe environment, why couldn't that same width be applied on the right side and perhaps then the variance wouldn't be the dimension that's being requested today? It looks like the left side is tighter. Yeah. So, we pulled it as far as we could from the property line to to get to get the 3 ft. Mhm. which would be the the the the um the stipulation in the uh exception and the building code. Mhm.

Okay. Thanks. Any other questions for the petitioner? Oh, if I still had time. Can I I got past you. You had somebody had a question about the site. It it slopes away about 10 feet from the main entry down to where the pool is and then it's another significant slope down to the neighbor uh to the north. Yeah, it's it's pretty steep sloping site.

Any other questions for the petitioner? Dave. So, I'm looking at this um play that was just up there. Um that that right there and I'm looking at this and just say thinking, couldn't I assume you're the architect?

Mhm. Um, couldn't you just like cut that wall at that lower left corner so it's parallel with the um lot line and it'll get closer to that corner of the pool. But you've got some angular walls on the other end of the structure. And I'm wondering why you couldn't just put an angular wall or two at that end of the structure and bring those walls closer to the pool and comply with our with the setback. That seems like the space is there to do that. The space is there to do that but not without modifying the pool which we were trying not to do.

Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. If there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this petition, now is your chance. Please um come forward, sign, and state your name. You'll have three minutes.

My name is uh Prasad Puck. I live at 10001 Aberdine, which is the property that slopes off the side of the pool, which I think makes me probably the most affected by this. Um, thanks for hearing me out. Um, I object to the variance. Uh, and I have significant concerns. The first is structural. So, what you cannot see from from the elevation is it's probably about a 15t, maybe even higher change in grade from where the pool is to where the the base of my lot is. I spent a considerable amount amount of money on a retaining wall making sure that that land is stable. So putting this large structure and it looks like there will be a support column that is at the site of the variance adds a lot of significant weight you know a lot of weight to that corner and could potentially destabilize the land. The problem with granting the variance in that case is my only recourse after that happens is potentially litigation with the neighbor. Um you know that's obviously timeconuming and obviously also very costly. You could get into a latigious situation with somebody that very likely has significantly more financial means than I do. Um, you could also potentially structure around that. Maybe you can reach a deal with the neighbor in advance. The problem with that, of course, is all contracts are good, but to the extent there's any issue, the first thing you're going to debate is what actually caused the destabilization. So, you know, I I I think it's a little um it's a little uh unrealistic for us to reach a resolution that way, but those aren't my only concerns. So, overall, I think that this significantly impacts the quality of my life. Um I've got two little boys. We run around in the backyard. This is a 20ft structure that's basically built right on the property line. Um the sun goes from kind of looking at that image kind of the right side of the pool all the way to the left. I think it could significantly impact the sunlight, can probably

significantly impact the plantings that I kind of have on that wall. Um, I'm unsure what consequences it could have on property values. So, I don't know. Um, it's hard to argue that it will improve the value given the change in views and sunlight. Uh, the other thing is the the proposed structure has a glass facade. So, I don't know what that's going to do to the reflective kind of qualities on my property. Believe it or not, I have a friend whose front door melted because it became basically a giant magnifying glass on his property when he lived in Baltimore. So, this stuff actually happens. Um, finally or or last couple things I would say the 30 seconds

the structure as it exists has trees. You know, to the extent trees need to be removed, that would be a problem for privacy. Um, and then lastly, you know, I did note in staff report that the applicant's response is that the outdoor pool will likely not be used by the new property owner. You know, I just want to say that this is a pool. You know, a pool was used frequently by the previous property owner. Um, I I feel very confident in saying the vast majority of pools in Ann Arbor and all over the country do not require enclosure and that is not viewed as a hardship for the pool owners. So the the person who bought this lot knew where the pool was set back rules.

Thank you. Is there anyone additional who wishes to speak?

Hello. Good evening. Mark Leage, uh 995 Aberdine. We are one of the adjoining lots to this property. I would mostly um and thank you for having us here tonight. Um, I would mostly echo what my neighbor said in terms of concerns. There's a sign and I we built the house that's to the upper right um on the picture that was just up. Um, so we are not directly we are adjoining the the uh the spot that uh we're next door neighbors to Prasad. Um, the biggest challenge that I have, well, first off, I'm not sure what what's peculiar about this situation that should allow them to get the exe the exemption. We have step setback uh ordinances for presumed reason, I'm guessing. Um, but my biggest concern is the topology of that. There is a big slope and I am concerned because on my lot just as on Prasad's lot there was a lot of work done to sort of sort of bring that slope into alignment. You know uh Prasad mentioned the retaining wall that he has we put in a retaining wall and I am concerned with that level of uh additional pressure weight on that spot and that um the building is going to be right over the top of uh Prasad's uh almost over the top of Prasad's retaining wall. So, I'm very concerned about what that means from a structural perspective. And then I think also the uh issue about privacy. While I appreciate that this enclosed structure might provide more privacy for people inside the building, I'm a little concerned with the the trees because right now there's privacy amongst the lots because of the trees. I think many of the trees will actually get disrupted as a result of the of the uh construction that will be undertaken.

Thank you. Thanks. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? All right. If there's anyone accessing remotely, please press star 9 or use the raise hand button.

Eric, do we have any We don't have any raised hands. Thank you. Um I will note in our packet, we did receive letters from U. Mark Leage as well as from um Prasad Pak. With that, the public hearing is closed and we are in discussion. Dave,

I'm looking at our um let me get my I'm looking at our uh sheet for determining whether we should grant a variance and there are five standards that we normally look at and I'd like to see the a substantial weight of um toward towards some of those standards that would say yes the variant should be granted in this case I circled no on every single one of the five standards. No, there is no practical difficulty exceptional to the peculiar to the property other than hey there's an outdoor pool which was fine for the previous people. The pra number two the practical difficulty will result from a uh which will result from a failure to grant the variance includes substantially more than mere inconvenience. No. allowing the variance will result in substantial justice being done and we hear from neighbors here that in their their sense of the justice of granting this variance. I their testimony weighs for me that no there would not be substantial justice being done by granting the the variance. Um the conditions and circumstances of the proposed variance are not self-imposed. It's, you know, they acquired this with an outdoor pool and um I see the ability to make use of it the way it is. So I I circled no there. I a variance shall be the minimum variance that will make possible a reasonable use of the land or structure. No, there's already a reasonable use of the the land and the function of the pool. I don't so I don't see a single one of our standards that have to be met to grant a variance that I could say yes to. So I will vote no on this proposal.

Any other discussion? I could make a motion.

All right. Thank you, Dave. uh ZBA 26-00003 1125 Arlington Boulevard. In accordance with the established standards for approval, the zoning board of appeals hereby grants a 4-foot variance from section 5.16.6 A2C accessory uses and structures. The variance allows construction of a 1578 foot square foot pool enclosure to be constructed over an existing inground pool. The pool is in the sideyard and is required to be a minimum of 7 ft from the side lot line. The pool house is to be built per the submitted plans.

Thank you, Dave. We have a motion. Do we have support? Is that you, Christina? Okay. Thank you. Roberta, no. Julie, no. I vote no. Dharma, no. Mike, no. Drew, no. Dave, no. Christina, no. The request is denied. Moving on to unfinished business. We have none. New business. Reports from council. Dharma. I don't have anything today that's relevant to this group. Thank you.

All right. Communications. Uh we noted the two letters that were received um regarding the Arlington Boulevard petition. Um with that, we are to public comment. If there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to the ZBA, now is your opportunity. Please come forward or press star 9. Use the raise hand function. Um you'll have three minutes. All right, seeing no one, do we have a motion to adjurnn? I just one thing. Oh, yeah, Dave. I just want to uh let people know that I will have to miss the May meeting.

Um, so just to put that on the record and I'll send to the zoning staff a note by email. Thank you. All right. Any other comments? Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Thank you, Dharma. All in favor or support. Support. Thank you, Dave. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.