Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 1990 Minutes Minutes of the Regular Meeting_ Board of Zoning Appeals December 13 , 1990 - i: _0 p . m. Lansing City Hall Washington Square Annex , 2nd floor The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Clary:: at :30 p. m. Roll call was taken. Present Priscilla Holmes Christopher Steele Edward Spink: Patricia Curran Tom Kane �'' CD - Grant Hilts Floyd Wright Hobert Hull Mary Clark, cs Staff U j Vern Fountain , Zoning Administrator Emil Winnicker , Senior Planner c Elizabeth Gunter , Recording _ Secretary Appeal #k3099 - 3310 Viola Drive This is a request by Mary Ward to convert an existing attached garage to a bedroom addition on the property located at 3310 Viola Drive. A barrier free ramp will also be added to the east side of the home. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The Code requires that one side yard shall not be less than 6' and one not less than 10' in a case where no attached garage will exist. Converting the garage and constructing the barrier free ramp as pro- posed will result in side yards of 6' and 2. 3' respectively. Holmes - If this variance were approved we would also be approving front yard parking':' Winnicker - No. Mary Ward , 3310 Viola. I 'm doing this because my father has just passed away and I 'm taking care of my handicapped mother. Right now she is sleeping in the dining room which is not comfortable for any- body. I have talked to many of my neighbors, not all , and they have no problem with what I propose. I have talked to the gentleman to the west , who would be most involved and he has no problem with it. Curran - Will the fence be removed'.' Ward - Its not going to be taken down. There's going to be a deck added to the back of the garage which would become a room and then there's t❑ be a gate because I have a dog , and a gate next to it. Holmes - Have you considered an addition to the rear• of the house':' Ward - ]: have, but I am a single parent and I don ' t have that kind of money, it would cost $6 , 000 •- $ ,000 to add an addition to the home , we figure it would be $3, 000 - $4,000 to convert the garage. Curran - Will the garage door• remain'? Ward -• The garage door• will be removed. Communication A telephone message from Ruth and Mervin Rull , 3709 Viola, across the street , have no objection. A petition for• approval from several neighbors was submitted. Committee of Whole Curran - It will not cause a problem in the neighborhood , it can be reversed . It seems to be a reasonable request. Steele - Concern that it does create a front yard parking situation even though legally it is not . The side yard variance is too close and it will create overbuilding on that size lot , it is too much of an encroachment on that size lot. Cur•r•an made a motion to approve appeal #3099. Second by Kane. Yeas: Cur•r•an , Hilts, Hull , Wright , Kane Nays: Holmes, Spink: , Steele, Clark: Appeal #3099 APPROVED. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that approval of this variance will allow reasonable uses of the property and should not adversely impact the adjacent residential development. The Board also found that two accessible par•k:ing spaces will be available on the existing driveway. Appeal #3100 - 604-606 East Sheridan Road This is a request by Ed Graham to allow for a chain link type fence 5' in height in the front yard of the property located at 604-606 East Sheridan Road. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker•. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to construct a fence 5' in the front yard along Larch Street. A height variance of 1 ' for the fence is requested. Ed Graham, 610 E. Sheridan Road. The reason for the 5 ' fence is that my 30 year old sister is moving in on that side with a large dog. We are 40' from the sidewalk. Holmes made a motion to approve Appeal #3100. Second by Wright . This is a corner lot by definition of two front yards creates a hardship. Yeas: Spink , Holmes, Curran , Hull , Hilts, Wright , Steele, Kane , Clark Nays: none Appeal #3100 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that this property is a corner lot with two front yards and there is a hardship when at- tempting to develop corner- lot. The Board does not believe that this change will adversely impact ad- joining property, nor will the open fence at the proposed location have any adverse impact on pedestrian or automobile traffic. Appeal #3101 - 3000 West Miller This is a request by Reverend Charles Bicy to allow the church to construct a bell tower reaching a height of 55' . The construction of the bell tower- is part of a church expansion. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker•. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Holmes - How does the height of the new structure compare to the height of what 's on the church now':' Winhick:er• - One steeple is about 38-40' high from the ground. 'Charles Bi cy, pastor- of the church. The bell will be a fake bell , it will be just like chimes, that will probably be electronically con- trolled. Holmes - How high is the building':' Fountain - 45' . Communication A letter from the Board of Water and Light. Proper construction methods and containment should be practiced to ensure no surface or subsurface runoff is toward the well during construction activities, as well as, for final grade and drainage. Kane made a motion to approve appeal #3101 . Second by Holmes. Yeas: Hilts, Wright , Curran , Holmes, Spink: , Steele , Hull , Kane, Clark: Nays: none Appeal #3101 APPROVED. Ed Graham, 610 E. Sheridan Road. The reason for the 5' fence is that my 80 year old sister- is moving in an that side with a large dog. We are 40' from the sidewalk:. Holmes made a motion to approve Appeal #1100. Second by Wright. This is a corner lot by definition of two front yards creates a hardship . Yeas: Spink , Holmes, Curran , Hull , Hilts, Wright , Steele , Kane, Clark: Nays: none Appeal #3100 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that this property is a corner lot with two front yards and there is a hardship when at- tempting to develop corner lot. The Board does not believe that this change will adversely impact ad- joining property, nor will the open fence at the proposed location have any adverse impact on pedestrian or automobile traffic. Appeal #3101 - 3000 North Miller This is a request by Reverend Charles Bicy to allow the church to construct a bell tower reaching a height of 55' . The construction of the bell tower is part of a church expansion . A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject- property and surrounding land use. Holmes - How does the height of the new structure compare to the height of what 's on the church now':' Winnick:er - One steeple is about 38-40' high from the ground. Charles Lei cy , pastor of the church. The bell will be a fake bell , it will be just like chimes, that will probably be electronically con- trolled . Holmes - How high is the building' ' Fountain - 45' . Communication A letter from the Board of Water and Light. Proper construction methods and containment should be practiced to ensure no surface or subsurface runoff is toward the well during construction activities, as well as, for final grade and drainage. Kane made a motion to approve appeal #3101 . Second by Holmes. Yeas: Hilts, Wright , Curran , Holmes, Spink , Steele, Hull , Kane, Clark:: Nays: none Appeal #3101 APPROVED. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the height of the church and bell tower• should not adversely impact the sur•r•ounding residential area which is sparsely developed . In addition the Board found that the height r•equir•ements in the resi- dential districts did not address special land use development , such as churches, therefore to consider a variance as requested is in [:seeping with the general content of the Code. Appeal i#3102 - 708 North Walnut Street This is a request by Carl Harms for- lot area and par•k:ing variances for• property at Toe North Walnut. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant/owner• wishes to refurbish the building into a two family dwelling. The property is cur•r•ently vacant. Holmes - Why is this in the demolition process':' Fountain - Its in the process of demolition because of code violations and it has not been occupied. The appellant was not present. Allen Smith , 710 North Walnut , owner• of blue house to the north. I would like to see this appeal denied. I don ' t think there is room. The area is already overpopulated. Mary Zeal , 421 West Madison. I have lived in the neighborhood 9 years. I have seen the house occupied and vacant. I have an interest in the area, I live there and own my home. I 'm concerned about the parking. Clark - If he doesn ' t get the variance, because of the length of time it has been vacant , its status has reverted to a single family. Zeal - Is there a time factor• for demolition? Fountain - Ther•e is a time factor•. He did pull a building permit on November 20th to do some siding as a single family. I don 't thin[:: anything has been done. Charles Bauer , 721 Seymour• , I both have my home and I rent pr•oper•ty in the block in question. The problem associated with rental property is it does not have sufficient par•k:ing space. The single problem we have in our• neighborhood is non criminal problem is insufficient parking for the tenants of multiple housing. Lucy Esmay, I own and live at 721 Walnut and I also own a house at 713 which I 'm renovating , partly with the help of the historical of the city. Parking is a big problem. I 'm not in favor• of the demolition because I don 't like to see a house torn down in the middle of the block. I want the neighborhood to bring the houses back: and not have empty spaces. But I 'm not in favor of giving him the parking vari- ance. I 'd rather see it as a single family dwelling. I live next to a 5 unit house. I constantly have to tell people to get out of my driveway. Holmes made a motion to deny appeal #3102. Second by Steele. Yeas: Holmes, Spink , Hull , Curran , Hilts, Kane, Wright , Steele Clark Nays: none Appeal #3102 DENIED. The Board does not believe there is a hardship associated with this request. The Board believes that two family use of the structure will promote over development of the site, especially as it relates to open space and the availability of off-street parking. The Board believes that the requirements of the Zoning Code allows reasonable use of the property. Appeal #3103 - 6e2O South Cedar This is a request by Gordon Long for Lansing Clarion Limited Partner- ship to replace and install two wall signs o the existing hotel at 6e20 South Cedar Street and to replace a ground pole sign on an ex- isting base. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Gordon Long , 6e2O South Cedar. The reason for the change is a change in franchise. It will change from Clarion to Holiday Inn. We find it essential to have signage. The wall signs are important to be able to see it from the turnpike and also coming down Cedar Street. The rea- son for the two signs is that we need to identify the entry, some identification coming down Cedar Street , and we need identification coming off the turnpike. The third part of our request is the sign south of the portoco. It sets right out on Cedar Street. We need the identification , we need the reader board. The additional reason we are asking for this sign alteration is that in the Holiday franchise, one of the signs that is required is called a primary sign. Its to maintain continuity. Holmes made a motion to approve two wall signs (241 sq ft) . The adoption of the new Code created a hardship in replacing the old signs. Second by Hull . Yeas: Curran , Hilts, Holmes , Hull , Spink: , Wright , Clark: Nays: Kane, Steele Appeal #3103 Two Wall Signs APPROVED. Steele made a motion to deny the request for ground/pole sign . Second by Holmes. No hardship. Yeas: Hilts , Curran , Kane , Holmes , Spink , Steele , Hull , Wright , Clark: Nays: none Appeal #3103 Ground/Pole Sign DENIED. The Board denied the request to allow a ground/pole sign of 214 square feet , however the Board tabled the alternate request presented at the meeting for a smaller ground/pole sign. This matter was tabled until the next meeting of the Board to allow the submission of a detailed drawing of the alternate proposal . The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the new wall signs would not adversely impact the adjacent properties and that a hardship did exist. The Board does not believe there is a hardship associated with the proposed new ground/pole sign , since there are alternative solutions to the establishment of a ground/pole sign. Spink made a motion to table the question of the pole sign until the next meeting and to have accurate drawings. Second by Hull . Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #3104 - 402 South Washington This is a request by Daniel Stouffer , Learning Care Inc. to operate a day care center for up to 70 children at 402 South Washington Avenue with no outdoor play space on site. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to operate a day care center for up to 0 children on the first floor of the existing building. The applicant proposes to use Reutter Park for outdoor area. Dan Stouffer , 00 West Willow and I 'm representing Learning Care Inc. We are a non profit Michigan corporation and we're primarily estab- lished to serve the downtown Lansing area. We're looking primarily at downtown employees during the day, possibly in the future, we're looking at Lansing Community College and Cooley Law School and the Secretarial Schools. There's also the third shift at GM. We will be occupying the first floor. The building is ground level so we can serve special needs children. There will be security doors. Parking will be a problem. We are possibly going to lease some spaces from Ellis parking. The biggest problem is the play area. We have Reutter Park: and the Capital lawn. If we do not get the variance we will not be able to open the center at that particular location. Will this be license the the Department of Social Services':' Stouffer - Yes. Kane - What are the requirements for green space':' Stouffer - A close proximity. Holmes - What is the internal play space requirements':' There area State Department of Social Services requirements. Stouffer• - The center• will be open from 6: 30 to 6: 30. If we could attract enough evening clientele past 6: 30 t❑ 11 : 00 between Cooley Law students and the downtown secr•etar•ial pools , we could expand our hours into the evening. We ar•e giving it a three year• period to get it go- ing. Curran - What will be the mix of children':' Stouffer• •- We will be licensed for• 8 infants and 8 toddlers , junior- preschool and a senior• preschool . Clark - How many employees':' Stouffer - We have 7 employees. Steele - Is there a parking requirement':' Fountain - The pr•oper•ty is zoned G-1 Business District , there is no parking requirement. Kane made a motion to approve appeal #3104. Second by Holmes. The hardship is the ability for• the site to provide 10,550 sq ft of out- door play space on the site, the Department of Social Services will waive onsite outdoor• play space if there is play space in a reasonable proximity to the site. Yeas: Hilts , Wright , Cur•r•an , Holmes, Spink: , Steele, Hull , Pane, Clark: Nays: none Appeal #3104 APPROVED The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that there is a need for• this type of facility in the downtown area. The Board understands that the availability of property in this vi- cinity for• the purpose of establishing a child care facility with the r•equir•ed open space is difficult to find in this area. The Board be- lieves that play space in the building and the availability of Reutter• Park (approximately 1 block away) will adequately supplement the re- quirements for• this proposed development and provide the necessary open space for• children cared for• in the facility Appeal #3105 - 408 Kalamazoo Plaza This is a request by Christman Co. to erect a ground/pole sign 40 square feet in size 10' from the front lot line to a height of 8' upon the premises known as 408 Kalamazoo Plaza. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to erect a 40 square foot ground/pole sign to identify five tenants of the building. Mr . Conrad , 1202 Ravenswood Drive, Lansing. We presented a supple- mental report. It has a brief history of the Christman Company and the variance. The site plan showing the parking conditions and the where the sign would be located. It was ourintention not to have a lot of signs put on this property. Clark - What is the rule 4+osquagr esf n the building':' Hanna - One sign , up Communication - �i�3 River Street is aP-' south of the Christman proper- A ].etter• tr•om the Board of Water and Light. proper con- proximately ii�i� feet east and slightly t very i containment should be practiced to ensure no Y , close to the tennis court on the riverside. 'r�op meth and con -a construction str•ucti on m- sur•face or subsur-face {orofinalsgraderandhdr•ainageuring activities, as well as , Holmes requests to be excused from voting. uest. Steele made a motion to approve appeal #31t75• Reasonable request- Steele Second by Hilts. Yeas: Spink: , Hull , Curran , Hilts, Kane, Wright , Steele Ways: Clark Abstain: Holmes Appeal #3105 APPROVED. and evidence that this was ted only The Board found based on testimony +or lythe property which is develop identification sign proposed a large office building• area �a uare feet of sign The Board does not believe the additional 1 - sq adverse impact the adjacent develosmen sonableince this is the will ad r•oposed the request rea only identification P 1991 Calendar motion to approve the calendar Motionfcarriedl�nani�mously- oard o+ Kane made a Second by SpinE•:. Zoning Appeals meeting. Minutes a motion . approve the NovembeNovembere, 1990 minutes as Holmes made pink: Motioncarried• ied unanimously. amended , second by S Excused Absen e nests an e::cused absence for the January 10, 1991 meeting. requests q PAGE 9 Old p��_�i n_ess thank you note from Mary Clark for the donation to Bi.ngham' s Li- A t h `/ brary. no further business he meeting adjourned at 9: 45 PM. There being t Vern Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning APPeals Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of . Zoning Appeals November 8, 1990 - 7 : 30 p.m. Lansing City Hall , Washington Square Annex 119 North Washington Square, 2nd floor Conference Room The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson H. P. Curran at 7 :30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Priscilla Holmes Mary Clark Christopher Steele Edward Spink Patricia Curran H Tom Kane Grant Hilts Floyd Wright U Bob Hull o c; r Staff r-1 U� Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator N Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner tz Elizabeth Gunter, Recording Secretary LO Spink made a motion to change the order the appeals will be heard (due to the lack of space in the conference room) . Second by Holmes . Motion carried unanimously . Appeal #3098 - NW corner Barnes & Delevan This is a request by Dick McKay to construct a two story single family home on the NW corner of Barnes and Delevan . A presentation was given by E. Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . Holmes - Why is this request on the agenda? Winnicker - There are two variance requests . Also, there were ques- tions regarding the drainage and that has been taken care of . Dick McKay - i would like to build a two story one family home. The house will set back 2C' rrcm Barnes and the driveway will be off the back on Delevan. Holmes - Has the drainage problem been remedied? McKay - The Public Service Department recommended a solution and the aossible problem has been taken care of . Bruce Stark, 1621 Beal , representing S .C.N.O . opposed to the variance request. A letter from Marge Sorrele and Naomi Essenberg opposed to the vari- ance . A letter from Pat Menning, 833 Sparrow, opposed to the construction of a new house on the corner . A letter from Fred Cook, 905 Sparrow Avenue, opposed to the request. A letter from Margaret Cook, 905 Sparrow opposed to the request. A letter from Eugene Howland, 910 W. Barnes Avenue opposed to the request. A letter from Bonney Reihmer, 909 W. Barnes, opposed to the request. Doris 1000 W Barnes; A letter from Judy Robison, 825es, objects; tothe request , and Marie Monroe , 1004 W Marlene Rabidoux, 1618 Stirling objects to the request. Betty Most, 1425 Stirling objects to the request. Suzy Cook-Stark, 1621 Beal , objects to the request. Fred Cook, 905 Sparrow, objects to the request. Holmes made a motion to deny appeal #3098 . Second by Steele . Yeas : Holmes, Curran, Spink, Hilts , Hull , Wright, Kane, Steele Nays : none Appeal #3098 DENIED. The Board does not believe there is a hardship relating to this re- The of the request will promote quest. The Board believes that appro development of the site, and would therefore haveia negatiicated -their ve in concern addition, t.._ Board also concern about possible drainage problems . As an alternative it was suggested that the lot be assembled with the lot immediately to the west, where a single family home has been con- could allow for the development of either an attached structed. This or detached garage , in conjunction with the new home on the lot to the west, and at the same time increase the amount of open space for the existing home. Aopza_ #3096 - 917 North Denison This is a request by Michael & Lourie Pruitt, 917 North Denison to sting front porch within 12' of the front construct a roof over the exi property line . was given by g , Winnicker . Slides were shown of the presentation land use . subject Property and surrounding slab poses to install a gable roof over the existing Che applicant Pro P porch . rovements , repre- Tim McCarthy. 2227 S Wadsworth, Northern Home Imp senting the Pruitt s . Holmes Will the porch be enclosed? McCarthy - No . No one spoke in opposition . ppeal # 3096 • Second by Kane . to approve a Spink made a motion Wright, Steele , Kane Yeas : Spink, Holmes , Curran, Hull , Hilts , Nays : none Appeal #3096 APPROVED _ and evidence that this is a testimony be compatible with the The Board warequ satisfied estandb the ddevelopment reasonable neighborhood- Appeal #k3097 - 1215 East Michigan This is a request by Sparrow Hospital to allow the construction of two entry enclosures . of the A presentation was g iven by V, Fountain. Slides were shown land use . subject property and surrounding the north two entry enclosures on from the proposes to con stheLenclosures would be 11 ' and The petitioner Prop One of requiring a 14 ' variance , side of the building - nalong Jerome Street requiring a variance of property the property line rear P 21 from the other would be 4 ' One proposal provides a Jim Prister representing Sparrow Hospital . for the shuttle to area for the staff who are waiting for area for staff to covered waiting proposal provides a visitors The other Prop outside, and for staff and pick them UP• take breaks wait for rides , smoke _ The proposed Sparrow Engineering . metal Project Coordinator awning type of roof over a Louie Smith, T of a canopyl � will consist of smoked wind o� a_ re will cons_-- wall serve enclosure enclosed 1 ser as a enc The partiall? 1 ; wall enclosure wil ame . plastic panels - creak. W . Lake Lansing Road. NO A letter from David McCardel , Realtors , 320 objection. ?AGE 3 Mrs . Picicci , owner of rental property at 1301 Jerome and 128 N. Holmes . No objecton. rove appeal # 3097 . Second by Spink . Steele made a motion to aPP Hull Kane Yeas : Hilts, Wright, Curran, Holmes, Spink, Steele, Nays : none Appeal #3097 APPROVED based on testimony and evidence that the en- The Board was satisfiedthe surrounding area. impact closures would not adversely Appeal #3068 - 1510 West Ionia Second by Hol mes made a motion to remove appeal #3068 from the table . Wright. Motion carried unanimously - to be wider Joseph Graves to allow a driveway arking . This is a request by nd and to use the area for off street p than 12 ' in the front ya A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . Since the initial public hearing held on August 9, 1990 for the Auto the existing concrete addition to thordrhaveabeen pose of allowing hborhood in support upp drives has remain, several responses from the neig of other existing received, and more particularly , a survey been submitted by the applicant. Joseph Graves , 1510 West Ionia. I have talked etitionseinl rs support� who have no objection. There are also several P Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #3068 . Second by Wright. Yeas : Holmes , Hull , Hilts, Kane , Wright, Curran Nays : Spink, Steele Appeal #3068 APPROVED . 1 ) That a the request subject to the following Division The Board approved roved by the Planning landscaping plan be submitted to and r area. The purpose of this that will encompass the extended parking addition is Ian is to soften any impact that the d2jveway landscape P ertias . That the approved presumed to have had on the adjacent Fall , weather permitting, or at landscape plan be implemented the month of June * latest, in the Spring of 1991 , during + i and evidence that there is a har�'- The Board found based on 'testimand ony of the lot- .-Hilts due to she size ; nut Hilts mad e a motion to approve the minutes of October 11 , s 1990 . Second by Wright . Motion carried unanimously r ei�g no ther business the meeting adj , ourned at-- 8 = 45 ?M- _he_ e � `Fur he next meeting will be December 131 1990 . AVegrnoun Secretary Appeals Board of Zoning A G E N D A Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting December 13 , 1990 - 7 : 30 PM Lansing City Hall Washington Square Annex 119 NOrth Washington Square , 2nd floor Conference Room w CD 1 . Roll Call — Excused Absence _ rc cW c 2 . Hearings and Decisions : n ti rJ Appeal #3099 Convert attached garage to bed;�g 3310 Viola Dr addition . A barrier free ramp wil Mary Ward be added . A side yard variancetois requested . Appeal #3100 To allow a chain link fence 5 ' high 604-606 E Sheridan in front yard . Code allows up to a Ed Graham 4 ' high fence . Appeal #3101 To construct a bell tower 55 ' high . 3000 N Miller Code limits height to 35 ' . Rev Charles Bicy Appeal #3102 Refurbish building as a two family 708 N Walnut dwelling . Code requires 7200 sq ft Carl Harms of lot area . Lot contains 3960 sq ft . Appeal #3103 Replace two wall signs on hotel 6820 S Cedar & replace 1 ground/pole sign . Signs Gordon Long exceed maximum size and do not meet location and height requirements . Appeal #3104 Operate day care center for 70 402 S Washington children . Code requires 10 ,550 sq ft Daniel Stouffer of outdoor play space, none is available . Appeal #3105 To erect a ground/pole sign 40 sq ft 408 Kalamazoo Plaza in area. Code allows 30 sq ft . Christman Co . 3 . Other Communication 4 . Approval of Minutes : November 8 , 1990 5 . Old Business 6 . New Business 7 . Adjourn Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals October 11 , 1990 - 7 :30 p .m. Lansing City Hall Washington Square Annex 119 N. Washington Square , 2nd floor Conference Room The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Clark at 7 :30 p .m . Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Priscilla Holmes H. P . Curran Christopher Steele Edward Spink Unexcused Absence Bob Hull o Tom Kane Grant Hilts Floyd Wright � d r'� Mary Clark r\-j Co _ Staff ::3 Vern Fountain , Zoning Administrator ND Winnicker , Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter , Recording Secretary � Tabled Appeal #3068 , 1510 West Ionia - Appellant has requested that it remain on the table until the next meeting . Appeal #3091 - 110 Verlinden This is a request by Charlene James to allow construction of a 8 ' x 12 ' addition 23 ' from the rear property line at 110 Verlinden. Code requires 30 ' . This is a request for a 7 ' variance . Fountain - Ms . James stopped at the office late this afternoon and indicated that she could not attend the meeting . A presentation was given by E. Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . Holmes - Will it be facing the back of the house? Winnicker - It will be facing east . Wright - Where will the addition be put on the house? Winnicker - At the back of the house . Approximately in the middle . No site plan was submitted . No one spoke in favor or opposition of the request . Kane made a motion to table appeal #3091 until the next meeting and that a site be plan submitted . Second by Holmes . Yeas : Holmes , Hull , Wright , Kane , Steele , Clark Nays : Spink Appeal #3091 Tabled . The Board tabled appeal #3091 for lack of information and a site plan. Appeal #3092 - 6256 GARDENIA This is a request by Paul Reed to construct an open porch with roof at 6256 Gardenia . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to construct an open front porch with a roof as part of an overall improvements to his home . Paul Reed , 6256 Gardenia. There are cracks in the cement porch and water leaks in the basement . It will also look better . No one spoke in opposition . Steele made a motion to grant appeal #3092 . It is a reasonable re- quest and the extreme setback of the neighboring house caused a hard- ship under the Code . Second by Kane . Yeas : Spink , Holmes , Hull , Wright , Steele , Kane , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3092 APPROVED . The Board approved the construction of an open porch with a roof, no closer than 141 to the front lot line . The Board believes that this is a reasonable request and a legitimate hardship exists by virtue of the irregular front yard setbacks in this block face . The Board was satisfied that the improvements will be compatible with development in the neighborhood . Appeal #3093 - 2619 MONTEGO DRIVE This is a request by Sheila Luedke to allow use of equipment in the home for a one chair beauty shop operation at 2619 Montego Drive . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Sheila Luedtke , 2619 Montego Drive . My request is for a single chair beauty shop , just for me solely to work there . My interest lies in that I had a baby a year ago . I would like to stay home with him more . It will be on a part time basis only. We still need a second income to maintain our household . T)ncL Wright - Are you aware of the conditions that are to be met regarding the present code? of the conditions were given Luedtke - I' m not aware of them . ( A copy to Mrs . Luedtke . Communication Dr . Dorothy Johnson , 2608 Dn Drive . I' m concerned that it might be a larger operation than stated Allen Luedtke , 2619 Montego . The addition was put on 4 years ago , instead of putting in windows we put in another doorwhen• thehfiredplaoe was just a family room. The chimney was P and that was put in the basement , its a completely finished drbasement ,apes is be- was put on 6 years ago . The reason we keep and we the cause it is ground level and its in the baskeeptthose drapes people closed .people staring in at night , so we usually keep goes in there . They will remain open if the beauty shop P A letter from Jon Addiss , 913 W. Holmes Rd . ) Suite 240 , Lansing other . No objection as long as she does not infringe upon the right of any person . Josette Portigo , 2706 Montego Dr . OK with us . A letter from Romeo & No problem. Kane made a motion to approve appeal �k3093 with conditions indicated . Second by Steele . YEAS : Wright , Steele , Hull , Kane , Clark Nays : Holmes , Spink. Appeal #3093 APPROVED. roved a one chair beauty shop as a home occupation sub- The Board app erson other than a member of ject to the following conditions : 1 ) No p engage in the home oc- the family residing in the dwelling ununitit haslahome occupation shall cupation. 2) The use of the dwelling be incidental and subordinate to itsuse foofrtheesidential dwellinguunOSis � used Not more than 20% of the gross floor in any way for the home occupation . 4) No change occurs inntexistt , side appearance of the dwelling . 5) Not more than one sig which does not exceed one square foot in area , is not i16jmThetsale aof is mounted flat against the wall of the dwelling. goods shall not occur in the dwelling unit or on the lot on which the dwelling unit is located . 7) No equipment is used except equipment purely domestic or household purposes , which is normally used for p purposes Equipment not normally used for purely domestic or household Appeals approves beauty salon may be installed if the Board of Zoninghair shall be installed . 9 ) equipment. 8 ) Not more than one styling cof customers is on site at one Not more than one customer or family 11 ) Approval of this time . 10 ) All parking shall be in the driveway . variance shall be applicant and site specific . PAGE 3 satisfied based on testimony that the proposed use The Board was ersely affect the surrounding properties , providing all should not adv the conditions are adhered to . Appeal #3094 - 6250 South Cedar Street To ins WIBM FM Radio , Larry Patton , General Manager ,80 ft . STL ( sta- This is a request by tall a maximum 2511 Kibby Road , Jackson. property at 6250 South Cedar tion-transmitter link) tower on the p Street . . Fountain. Slides were shown of the A presentation was given by V subject property and surrounding land use. r proposes to install a maximum 80 ft . to to relay FM The p etitione facility south of Eaton Rapids . radio signal to a transmitter Wright - Where will the tower be? t h north d rtyf the s op- line . - Approximate location will thereaprope Fountainroximately 25 ft off ping plaza area. APP i 0 neral Manager is here and he has a site plan . Spink - How close to the building will t e Fountain - The Ge hen rst Larry Patton , General Manager of the radio seStlplacew would ebeland bet this together we were not sure where the is 36 ft from the corner to would lane our tower would be flush up against the wall cause of the fire lane consideration• It our back door and the back the berm, I dingP and it would be between ft in diameter of the building s its8 ' Cellulite. The tower will be about o it will allow door of Century to the berm 6 , triangle . From the building We will be fencing the tower for about 63 ' from the towerto the berm. thought about skirting it . safety sake . We' ve Wright - Will it require guide wires or is that free standing? Patton - Free standing tower . Steele - Is there a dish at the top of it? Patton - A grid antenna. Steele - What size isit? constructed ft in diameter , constructed of tubular alu- Patton - Approximately minum for minimum wind ow us t Right o move our FM studios to Lansing . Kane - What will be the function of this tower? Patton - This will al now we' re in Jackson. appeal ��3094 be approved . Based on that they ulation. That appropriate Spink made a motion that be completed will be in compliance with FAA and FC�heePlanning Dept . , any Of the tower , as determined by in any way causing safety laced so that it is not and that if at all and that the tower be P major pedestrian or vehicle traffic interference PAGE 4 a building . Reason : limited bulk possible it be placed aginst the to date with current technology . visually and the code is not up Second by Kane . Yeas : Spink , Hull , Kane , Wright , Clark Nays : Holmes , Steele Appeal #3094 APPROVED. F14 radio roved a maximum 80 ' high metal tower to relay subject to The Board approved south of Eaton Rapregulations . signals to a transmitter facility with FAA and FCC of the tower to prohibit people from climbing the following conditions : 1 ) building 2) Appropriate fencing the tower . 3) The locationlshall b ngnext to the commercial as was indicated at the publ does not believe the installation opropetower at the location The Board impact the adjacent indicated will adversely Appeal #3095 - 1621 Jerome Street This is a request by Gary Buren to construct a 6 ' high privacy fence in the front yard at 1621 Jerome Street . Slide were shown of the A presentation was given by V . Fountain. subject property and surrounding land use . to construct a 6 ' high privacy fence in the The petitioner proposes tO create a private recreation area. front yard east of the house , a hardship created by not having Buren , 1621 Jerome . My primary a backyard may Gary ard. Not having I do not have a backy it fence is simply to some , but in our case with small children not be a hardship Especially given that particular intersection definitely becomes one . ESP If we were to construct a 3' wall it would act as a fence to give us in that area , traffic is somewhat eavy • because of fence on top by the retaining privacy , my child could climb over it . More importantly , climb on the re- fits there . l 3 ' fence would act as a the schools in the area, children constantly tn,7u- taining wall , just because the retaining wall and risking handrail for them climbing along we would like to have an Privacy, of course is the main concern , an and not be ry • o and sit in the evening area where we could g etc . It would also act as a crime deterrent , honked at , whistled at , would like to be able to put burglarized 4 times. I lawn furni- we have been burg there (gas grill , the property . something in the yard and have it stayfor the I think the style fence we chose would enhance ture) . we have taken a lot of time in �Opergy for a Its a gorgeous old home , home, rental P restoring it . It was a boarding s that were home, time to undue a lot of things a long time . It took me a long from the curb , which problem . It should not ob- done to it . Its over 45 ' The East- ways back that should not be much of a Port of the fence . struct traffic . My neighbors are in sup side Neighborhood Organization supp or me . PAGE 5 Marshall . I also have a small 'bars itdise very nam- Carl Szypula , 209 g that there is no back y lot of time there. Being ht out thing . We stand loutside eto This is a well thought at You- visit think portant to us , and people y visit and cars g° by ellin hance the property also . t is also my house . We also have a 1621 Jerome Street . I 0 lbs. Therefore , there is a Kim Buren , weighs approximately 7 things at the dog , large dog , and he weig throwing problem with the lots from school don' t believe it aggravating the problems we have on the corner . r be me a family home if someone isn't thatwthere isnnor where uct oto will eve are out type of a privacy fence , because of the or for children to enjoy themselves when theychildren , gro for privacy in and grabbing side . There' s also a concern for childnapp g especially on a corner like that . I have been there 124 Rumsey, around the corner . children of my Dick Ingersall , and having several times when the child has been out , thing that' s been al nervous when I see a child everything the road and I own , I get re concur w can understand their concern. I said here tonight . Communications Neighborhood representing the Eastside Neigbo of the area e from Mr . Wayne Wood , survey A message do not object to the fence . � A Organization. They was not taken) . Debra Schneider , owner of 1614 Jerome - I necessary solusionktota A letter from D The fence is a speak in favor of the request . difficult lot configuration. Marshall . I have no A letter from Nicolette Rose e a safe place for their and Rob Wurnmel , 12 objection to Burens putting a fence up to ha v son . is a hardship in the case of this lot and since this Holmes - There home there are very traffic has been converted balkdtoaon' t familynk fence would obstruct for outside living . vision. less then 6 ' that if thin the percent Spink - I would like In ow would like etosknow the design , would be acceptable sell of openness in the design • is more of an economical one . They type of fencing used , is a half moon Buren - The reason for 6 ' at the high point in fencing in 6 ' sections . The and runs to 6 ' shape and Therts at slats abeut 41111.1 relatively close together . the cent based on the hardship to approve appeal ��3095 , Holmes mada corner olot . Second by Steele . created by Yeas : Holmes , Hull , Kane , Steele , Wright Nays ; Spink , Clark. Appeal #3095 APPROVED. PAGE 6 high privacy fence in the required front yard . The Board approved a 6 g the cr - r a rear yard . Therefore , Board found that the location of the house on the corner o The Bo b not allowing space fo ated a hardship y request as shown on the plan submitted . Board approved the MINUTES prove the August 9 , 1990 minutes as printed . imously . Holmes made a motion to approve Second by Wright . Motion carried unan Wright made a motion to approve the September 13 , 1990 minutes as ink. corrected . Second by Sp old Business signed . Letter to Neller and Board of Realtors read and There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9 :00 PM G Vernon C. Fountain Secretary Appeals Board of Zoning pp PAGE 7 Minutes of the Regular Meeting .ard of Zoning Appeals SeoLember 13 , 1990 - 7 : 30 PM Main Board Room , # 106 Lansing School District Administration Building 519 West Kalamazoo Street , Lansing , Michigan The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Clark at 7 :30 p .m. Roll call was taken . Present Priscilla Holmes Christopher Steele Edward Spink o Patricia Curran C-D rn Tom Kane Grant Hilts-, Floyd Wright - y- Robert Hull ; Mary Clark 0 c, Staff w Vern Fountain , Zoning Administrator Emil Winnicker , Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter , Recording Secretary Tom Kane made a motion to remove appeal #3069 , #3072 and #3074 from the table . Second by Steele . Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #3068 will remain on the table . Appeal #3069 - 825 Chicago Winnicker - This was an appeal by Ellis Davis for a front yard vari- ance to construct an enclosed front porch. Since the public hearing a petition in favor of the proposal has been submitted . Spink made a motion to deny appeal #3069 . Second by Holmes . Yeas : Holmes , Curran, Spink , Hilts , Hull , Wright , Kane , Steele , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3069 DENIED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the development in this block face is established and a variation as proposed will be a major change and will be out of character with the existing devel- opment . Appeal #3072 - 504 U . Mifflin PAGE 1 �Jinnicker - This W& S ILi appeal by Anita McClelland to retain an ex- isting carport in the front yard , which is on the front property line and 1 ' from the sic.e property line . There are several letters in support for the structure and one peti- tion. Spink made a motion that appeal #3072 be denied . Second by Holmes . Yeas : Spink, Holmes , Curran, Hull , Hilts , Wright , Steele , Kane , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3072 DENIED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the carport is built up to the front property line on Mifflin Street , which they be- lieve constitut' s a major encroachment into the front yard , and is therefore a significant change to the residential block face on Mifflin Street . The Board believes that the change will establish precedent for other properties in the vicinity which could result in an adverse impact on existing and future development . Appeal #3074 - 2207 South Cedar Fountain - Thib is a request to construct a garage 4 ' from the rear property line . Spink made a motion that appeal #3074 be denied . Second by Steele . Yeas : Hilts , Wright , Curran, Holmes , Spink, Steele, Hull , Kane, Clark Nays : none Appeal #3074 DENIED. The Board found based on evidence and testimony that the previous structure had been an accessory structure to a residence while the new building would be the primary structure on the property and would be commercial instead of a residential accessory structure . The Board does not believe there is a hardship associated with this request and that the minimum requirements of the Code can be met , which they believe allows reasonable use of the property. The Board further believes that to place a primary structure four feet from the east property line would set a negative precedent for the block between Riley and Pacific where the other commercial buildings meet the minimum set back requirements . The Board believes that future land use patterns and adjacent resi- dential structures would be adversely impacted by granting this appeal. Appeal #3077 - N .W. Corner of Claremore and Coulson Court PAGE 2 This is a request by Geert D. Mulder & Sons , Inc . or a variance to construct a single family home 23 ' from the rear lot line . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . Fountain - The applicant , Mr . Mulder , called and said he could not attend the meeting tonight . Also , the person that was interested in purchasing this lot has dropped their interest . Daniel Perez , 5818 Coulson Court . I do want something done about this . I bought this house through Mulder' s with the understanding that I didn' t want to walk out my back sliding glass door and have my neighbor right there . Code requires 30 feet , I expect them to stay within the Code . Holmes - Is it possible to build a house on this lot that meets code without a variance? Fountain - Yes . Communication A letter from David L . Russell , 112 E. Claremore Drive . The builder/developer should find a buyer that will conform to the codes . A letter from Maria A . Markarian , Karen K. Richardson ,' 112 W. Claremore Drive. Protest the proposed zoning variance . The builder cannot claim hardship or practical difficulty since there are other obvious and relatively simple reasonable alternatives. A letter from Diane Rardeen , 5836 Coulson, I am opposed to the request because I feel that once the zoning rules are established they should be enforoed strictly and alterations by one party may encourage others to request alterations which may lead to the misuse of zoning rules. Spink made a motion to deny appeal #3077 . Second by Steele . Yeas : Holmes , Spink , Hull , Curran, Hilts , Kane , Wright , Steele , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3077 DENIED. The Board does not believe there is a hardship associated with this request . The Board believes that this lot is sufficient size that it can be reasonably developed without a variance. Appeal #3078 - 3110 Turner This is a request by B & J Moving & Storage for a variance request to allow for the installation of a free standing sign in the front yard at 3110 Turner . PAGE 3 A. presentation was gL� en by E. Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The petitioner proposes to erect a 5 ' x 8 ' sign within 15 ' of the front property line . Spink - How close would the sign be- to the front of the building? Winnicker - Approximately 10 feet. Spink - The size of the sign does not need a variance? Winnicker - It is not an issue . Jim Edgett , I own B & J Moving and Storage. We are starting a new business in our facility. We want the sign for identification. If you put the sign back 25 feet , no one will see the sign. Holmes - How far is it from the sidewalk to the front of the door . Winnicker - It' s 46 .75 feet . Sign 15 ' back would be 31 ' from the building . Sign 20 ' back would be 26 ' from the building . Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #3078 for a 5 ' variance . Sec- ond by Wright . Yeas : Curran , Hilts , Holmes , Hull , Spink , Kane , Steele , Wright , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3078 APPROVED. The Board approved a variance to allow a free standing sign 20 ' from the front property line. The Board believes that this distance is consistent with other set backs in the vicinity, and is therefore in keeping with the general intent of the Code . Appeal #3080 - 2317 Montego Drive This is a request by Henry Pratt for a variance to widen the driveway an extra 20 feet on the property at 2317 Montego Drive . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The petitioner proposes to widen the driveway to create an approach to a parking space for a camper on the north side of the house , Hull - I noticed there are quite a few variances there , all of them with concrete surface , have all of them filed an appeal? Fountain - Probably not . Henry Pratt , 2317 Montego . The pile of dirt back there , we do have a building permit , which we are presently putting on an enclosed back porch. The driveway variance we are asking for goes from 3 1 /2' on the approach at the sidewalk back to 16 ' along side of the garage . Because of the offset on the house which sticks out 5 ' , it would nar- PAGE 4 row the drive down to_ , . That ' s why we need than wide of an approach along side of the garage . They are approximately 24 driveways within a two block area that are wider . Hull - What kind of surface are you planning? Pratt - Concrete . Wendy Karpinski , 2200 N . Hampton Way, which is directly to the east of the property. I have a copy of the subdivision restrictions , which I know you have nothing to do with enforcing , it will show you what the people in the neighborhood were asked to comply with when they purchased their home or property and built a home . Based on the his- tory of the care of this property over the years and the disregard it has been shown for both city ordinances and for our subdivision re- strictions , my husband and I are asking that this variance be denied . Our concern is that by granting the variance it would perhaps give license to further misuse of the property. Communications A letter from Ann Lenhard , 2324 Northampton . I oppose the request for two reasons : 1 ) It is a single family home. There is a two car at- tached garage and ample driveway space for two more vehicles . . 2) I feel the additional driveway would be used to park a motor home ( house-trailer) or be a platform to rest storage sheds which is in violation of the subdivision restrictions. A letter from Robert M. Toth and Deanna L . Toth , 2321 Northampton Way. We object to the widening of the driveway. We feel alternative solutions are available . It is objectionable to view, it lowers the standards in the neighborhood and it would add to the clutter already present on the property . A letter from William E . Barkyoumb and Susie J . Barkyoumb , 2326 Montego Drive. We are supporting the request . It would enhance the residential use of the residence , not detract or limit the value of real properties in the neighborhood and would not harm the overall aesthetic value of the neighborhood . A letter from John and Sally Newton, 2301 Montego Drive . We have no objection to the request . Spink made a motion to deny appeal #3080 . Second by Holmes . Yeas : Hilts , Curran , Kane, Holmes , Spink, Steele , Hull , Wright , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3080 DENIED. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the ex- isting garage and driveway allows sufficient off street parking and therefore there is not a hardship associated with this request . Appeal -#3081 - 2412 Dunlap Street PAGE 5 This is a request by Lana Tarrow to allow for porch improvements on the home located at 2412 Dunlap Street. A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner proposes to construct a roof over on the existing 7 ' x 22 ' front porch. In addition, her plan calls for the enclosure of a 7 ' x 10 ' portion of the porch. Lana Tarrow - I recently purchased the property. I have a petition from all my neighbors on both sides of the street , they approve of the addition. The reason I want that is for some privacy. Holmes - Is your intention to move into the house? Tarrow - I moved in two weeks ago . Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3081 . Second by Holmes. Yeas : Holmes , Curran , Spink , Hilts , Hull , Wright , Kane , Steele , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3081 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that this was a rea- sonable request and it would be an improvement to the property. The Board does not believe the change will adversely impact the adja- cent properties , and therefore approval is in keeping with the general intent of the Code . Appeal #3082 - 1213 Southfield This is a request by Matthew & Deanna Hasbany to retain the existing 8 ' high screening fence . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . Matt Hasbany, 1213 Southfield - I built the fence in 1980 . Six months after I built the fence I was informed by zoning that it was against violation of code . And to rectify the situation I had to get the ad- joining property owners written permission of approval , which I did . I went ahead and put in the volley ball court ( which is an ice rink in the winter time) . Last year I had chicken wire up , zoning complained . I removed it . Then they complained about the fence . I put a great deal of expense into that backyard due to the fact my fence was ap- proved ten years ago . Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #3082 . Second by Kane . Yeas : Holmes , Curran, Hull , Wright , Steele, Kane , Clark Nays : Spink Abstain : Hilts PAGE 6 Appeal #3082 APPROVED. The Board was advised that the fence was constructed several years ago following discussion with City Enforcement Personnel , who indicated that the fence would be in conformance with the Code , providing adja- cent owners had no objection. However , there are no records to sub- stantiate this statement . The Board does not believe the fence adversely impacts the adjacent property, especially since the fence has existed for several years and there were no complaints registered by the adjacent property owners at the public hearing . Appeal #3083 - 1820 Vassar This is a request by Edward and Patricia Sladek to allow for con- struction of an addition to the rear of the house 18 ' from the back property line . A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner proposes to construct an addition to the rear of the home within 18 ' of the rear property line . The addition will include a bathroom , bedroom and family room . Edward Sladek , 1820 Vassar - This is a request to put an addition onto the back of our house . We have lived here for 14 years . My father in law lives with us now, he' s 75 . My mother is going to be moving in. The immediate problem we are facing , is my father- in-law isn' t going to be able to get up the stairs for another year . We have a large house , 5 bedrooms , but they are all upstairs . So the major portion of the addition will be for a bath and bedroom for 'him. Curran - Are you going to build this where the deck is now? Sladek - Yes , that' s correct . Wright - Is there any restriction regarding set back on swimming pools? Fountain - Yes . The zoning code regulates it and the swimming pool ordinance . Catherine Vandagens 1817 Kingswood , we just recently bought the prop- erty that' s directly behind us . We' ve only been there a month. We just learned of this . We were wandering if the trees and other bushes at the back of the line , if they were going to be taken out or will it still exist . We were concerned if we were going to lose our privacy. And will it be a single story structure. Sladek - The trees and bushes will remain. Part of the structure will be a one story Fountain - Part of our analysis was done with the understanding that this would be a one story addition. PAGE 7 Sladek - The addition will be one story . We have a two story glass structure in the back of our house now that will be removed and re- placed . Spink made a motion to approve Appeal #3083 . Second by Hilts . Yeas : Hilts , Wright , Curran, Holmes , Spink , Hull , Kane Nays : Steele , Clark Appeal #3083 APPROVED The Board found based on testimony and evidence that accessible living space for a mobility impaired person was necessary. The Board also found that the lot coverage included the swimming pool . Unlike most structures , a pool has no height or bulk above ground . Based on this , the Board does not believe that the additional amount of development requested will negatively impact the property. The Board believes these are reasonable requests and has therefore approved a variance to build a one story addition to the rear of 1820 Vassar 18 feet from the property line . Appeal #3085 - 3117 Revere Place This is a request by Larry & Jane Wilcox Olney to construct a 16 ' x 16 ' sunroom extending into the required rear yard. A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Jane Olney , Larry and I both live at 3117 Revere - We moved to this house about a year ago . We don' t have enough room to seat everyone . We would like to open up the living room , into the 16 ' x 16 ' sunroom and we would use the existing picture window and take it down to the east side of that . On both sides we would have french doors on the sunroom , and some skylights on the top. Holmes - This will be an expansion of your living space? Olney - Yes , the exterior will be the same wood siding as on the house . Communication Mr . & Mrs . Eugene Russell , neighbors , no objection to appeal . Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3085 . Second by Holmes . Yeas : Holmes , Spink , Hull , Curran , Hilts , Kane , Wright , Steele , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3085 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that this is a corner lot which restricts development of the property. PAGE 8 The Board also found unat the proposed addition will be opposite the garage of the residence to the north. Therefore , the addition should not have any adverse impact on their living environment . Appeal #3086 - 2311 South Cedar Street This is a request by Dr . R. T. Allan to place a 40 sq ft sign 10 ' from the front property line. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The building is 14 ' from the Cedar Street right-of-way. The sign will be 10 ' from the Cedar Street right-of-way and more than 20 ' from the Edison Street right-of-way. Wright - When was the building constructed? Winnicker - It has been constructed within the last few months . Ronald Allen , owner of the property. The building has just been put up and we just recently occupied it . The sign variance Iam asking for was assumed to be at the time within the new code . Apparently changed to what they are recommending at this point , 10 ' back, 30 sq ft . My original intent was to get the sign in before the new code , but be within the new code. It will be an attractive sign. Part of the sign will be for my tenant , 600 of the sign for me and 40% for the tenant . Steele made a motion to approve a setback variance of 10 feet . Second by Kane . Yeas : Curran , Hilts , Holmes , Hull , Spink , Kane , Steele , Wright , Clark Nays : none Variance for a 10 ' setback has been approved . Steele made a motion to deny the request for the size of the sign . Second by Holmes . Yeas : Kane , Holmes , Steele , Clark Nays : Hilts , Curran, Spink , Hull , Wright Motion does not pass . Spink made a motion to approve a sign 30 sq ft . Second by Wright . Yeas : Curran , Spink , Hilts , Hull , Wright Nays : Holmes , Kane , Steele , Clark The Board approved a request to place a free standing ground sign 10 feet from the west property line and a second variance to allow the sign not to exceed a total of 30 square feet . The Board believes , based on evidence and testimony that the location of the building , and the reduction in lot depth necessitated by the Cedar Street widening are sufficient reasons for permitting the sign 10 feet from the front property line . PAGE 9 ,The Board also 'believ,_ that the sign face size can be increased to 30 square feet since the majority of surrounding properties are zoned commercially and can have an unlimited sign face size . Appeal #3087 - 422 North Walnut This is a request by the Michigan Dyslexia Institute to allow a free standing sign within 4 ' of the front property line at 422 North Wal- nut . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to erect an identification sign in the front yard 4 ' from the front property line on Walnut Street . A variance of 16 ' is requested . Jerry Barker , 234 Farmstead Lane , - Lansing - I' m the Director of De- velopment and Information Services for the Michigan Dyslexia Insti- tute . We are renting that property. The use of that property is for testing a dyslexic or potential dyslexics and the tutoring of those dyslexics . The church is a very good neighbor . The parsonage behind that is our other office . We have two offices . We have one that faces Genesee and one hat faces Walnut . The office that faces Genesee is given to us by the church. The building front is being redone by the Homebuilders Association as a donation to the Dyslexia Institute . This is not a high residential area. Directions and finding their way around is a very severe problem for dyslexia . Most of the people that come to our facility are not from the Lansing area. Steele - How many people come to be tested a week? Barker - Anywhere from 4 to 6 a week . Steele - Do you provide parking for the clients . Barker - There is parking behind the building . Spink made a motion that Appeal #3087 be approved . Second by Curran. Yeas : Spink , Holmes , Curran , Hull, Hilts , Wright , Steele , Kane, Clark Nays : none Appeal #3087 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the zoning code placed a practical difficulty on the property by requiring the sign to be placed 20 ' back , especially since the existing building is less than 20 ' from the front lot line. Appeal #3088 - 334 South Butler This is a request by Willie Bradley for a parking variance of 7 spaces to allow for retail use of the property at 334 South Butler . PAGE 10 •A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to operate a retail market and take out deli from the site as well as maintain the existing two family house . Curran - Where are the apartments? by requiring the sign to be placed 20 ' back , especially since the ex- isting building is less than 20 ' from the front lot line . Appeal #3088 - 334 South Butler This is a request by Willie Bradley for a parking variance of 7 spaces to allow for retail use of the property at 334 South Butler . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to operate a retail market and take out deli from the site as well as maintain the existing two family house. Curran - Where are the apartments? and a tastee freeze , not a restaurant . The driveway is going to be used jointly. All that property is owned as one lot . The house will eventually be torn down for parking . The building not in use , the apartment on the far west side has a driveway for that . We have done everything that the City asked us to do . But every time I go there they have changes and I ended up here tonight . So I am asking is that you make a decision tonight so we can move on with this project , be- cause its been tied up too long . We really want to get this business open. Holmes - How long have you owned the property? Mr . Withers is the Bradley - I' m not the owner of the property. owner and we are working together . Wright - You said there was going to be a tastee freeze , would you have a drive-up or drive-in window service? Bradley - No , it will be a walk-up take-out window. Spink - In looking at the sketch , is the garage proposed to be gone . Bradley - There' s a vacant space between the back and the garage , that' s where the dumpster goes . Holmes - Are you aware that there' s a citizen' s committee meeting this evening that makes recommendations for that area. Bradley - No I' m not aware of the citizen' s meeting . The only meeting I' m aware of is this one . Kane made a motion to table the request so we can get input from the citizens' s council . Second by Hull . Yeas : Hilts , Curran , Holmes , Spink , Steele , Hull , Kane , Clark Nays : Wright Appeal #3088 TABLED. PAGE 11 Appeal #3089 - 4916 D� . onshire This is a request by George Burgoyne for a variance to widen a drive- way to 16 ft . wide . A presentation was given by E. Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to widen the driveway an extra 7 ft . for a total width of 16 ft . George Burgoyne , 4916 Devonshire Avenue - What I' m trying to solve is no hardship its simply a practical difficulty. We' ve lived in the house for 9 years , we like the neighborhood . When we have guests or family spending the weekend with us we have problems with parking and trying to move cars around . In winter its extremely difficult to be able to reduce our use to one vehicle , because you always have to start both cars to move them around to get them out . We walked the neighborhood and we noticed that quite a number of our neighbors with single car garages had widened their driveway in order to solve this problem. So i contacted the zoning office to see how I might be able to do the same thing to solve my practical difficulty. I have no RV , no truck , no boat , I would just like to put a car there Wright - Does the widening of the driveway include the widening of the approach? Winnicker/Burgoyne - The driveway approach is standard for residential street . I don' t think it includes widening the approach. Spink made a motion to deny appeal #3089 • Second by Steele . Yeas : Holmes , Spink , Hull , Curran , Hilts , Kane , Wright , Steele , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3089 DENIED. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that there is adequate off street parking to serve the residence . The Board does not believe there is a hardship associated with this request , therefore to grant a variance is not in keeping with the general intent of the Code . Appeal #3090 - 521 LEITRAM This is a request by Gregory Savoie to allow the construction of a 12' x 20 ' detached garage to replace the existing 10 ' x 18' garage on the rear ( west) lot line and on the side ( north) lot line and 47 ' from the front ( east) lot line . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . PAGE 12 The applicant proposes to construct a 12 ' x 20 , detached garage to replace the existing 10 x 18 garage . To be built in the same loca- tion as the existing garage on the rear and side lot line . Greg Savoie , I live at 1800 E . Holmes . - Harry Piper owns the home , he' s an elderly gentleman and he' s also handicapped . So I' m speaking for him tonight . He walks with a cane . The garage is about ready to fall over . He asked me to repair his garage . Its falling off the foundation , the bottom plat is rotted , there' s really no way to repair it . The other side of his car is just about torn up because the ga- rage is so narrow, the alley is so close and people park there and he can barely make the turn there . If it were a little wider he can get out of there a little easier . His main concern , is that he cannot take snow off his car in the winter and if he didn' t have a garage would basically be a shut in and he' s very concerned about that . Communication A message from Phil Alber of 732 W. Genesee is in favor of the vari- ance . A message from William Fraser of 516 Leitram, no objection to recon- structing the garage . Kane made a motion to approve appeal #3090 . Second by Spink . Yeas : Curran , Hilts , Holmes , Hull , Spink , Kane , Steele , Wright , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3090 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the existing ga- rage is too small to function as a garage , and the lot on which it is located is too small for any alternative expansion. The Board does not believe that the larger garage structure will have any adverse impact on the adjacent properties since the expansion will be away from the adjacent residential homes . Minutes August 9 , 1990 to be corrected . New Business_ Spink made a motion that the chairperson write a letter to the Board of Realtors , outlining the concern of ofls Bord in a building permittbylmembers nforma- tion being given about the necessity of the Board . Second by Holmes . Motion carried unanimously. Spink made a motion that the chairperson write a letter to Walter Neller Company, W. Richard Neller , President , commending him for his continued interest in Bancroft Fields #1 and his support of city ordinances . PAGE 13 Fountain - I talked to Eleanor Love , who met with the 7 Block Commit- tee on this particularissue . She could not get them to take a posi- tion . They discussed it . They didn' t say if they would endorse it or not . They did say there was a need for neighborhood services in the area . They weren' t sure if it was the best location. They did not want to see loitering , during or after operating hours . Holmes - Is it your impression that they are not going to recommend it . Fountain - My impression was that they are going to go with it . Holmes made a motion to remove Appeal #3088 from the table . Second by Kane . Motion carried unanimously. Holmes - I would like to ask Mr . Bradley what his opinion is of whether or not you' ll have a problem with loitering? Bradley - We can' t govern who comes on the property. We can put up no loitering signs Police will have to do their jobs. John Withers - I own the property. I don' t intend to have any prob- lems . There are problems all over the city. The police will have to help out with any serious problems. Wright - I am very familiar with that territory. I know the neigh- borhood well. The recent history of that corner , has been suspect , not just loitering outside in full view of everyone , that' s not the concern . Before apparently there was something going on inside , at least the city believed that there was something going on inside that was not proper . Now in this case , Mr. Bradley has full control of the inside . If people wanted to loiter there , they could loiter there right now with no business . They could loiter in the parking lot . They could do that better now than they could' if he had a legitimate business there. He has control of the inside of the building , the outside is in full view of the police and public and everybody else , and I think he has good control of it . I would rather see a business there than to have a boarded up building as it is right now. Kane - I don' t think loitering should be an issue for this Board . The issue is the parking , the site plan that' s presented here , whether a hardship based on the property and whether we are willing to give up 5 parking spaces in order for this business to operate . Holmes - I would like to clarify what is in the two houses? Bradley - One house is vacant . If the business is good , I am going to tear it down and use it for parking . Someone lives in the house on Kalamazoo , its a two unit . I may tear it down , it all depends on the business .- Kane - made a motion to approve a variance for 7 parking spaces . Second by Holmes. Reason : to improve the conditions of the property . Yeas : Holmes , Curran , Hilts , Hull , Wright , Kane Nays : Spink , Steele , Clark. PAGE 14 Appeal #3083 APPROVED Approval of the request for a variance of 7 parking spaces to operate a convenience market , take-out deli and a two unit structure ( with one bedroom each) at 334 South Butler on a site containing 15 parking spaces when the zoning code would have required -22 spaces . The Board believed based on evidence and testimony that much of busi- ness generated would be walk in trade from the surrounding neighbor- hood and state museum. The Board further believes that additional on-street parking will be available after 5 :00 PM when State employees leave the area . The Board believes that a viable business at this location is better than a vacant building and represents an improve- ment to the condition of the property. While the lot directly north of the subject parcel is also zoned IF, Commercial and has shared parking with the subject parcel previously, use of the vacant structure at 324 South Butler is prohibited since it will now have no accessible parking of its own. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10 :50 PM. G' v 4 Vernon C. Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning. Appeals PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING Board of Zoning Appeals August 9, 1990 , - 7 : 30 p.m. City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor, Conference Room The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Clark at 7 : 30 p.m. Present Excused Absence Mary Clark Grant Hilts H.P. Curran Tom Kane Priscilla Holmes Edward Spink Christopher Steele Floyd Wright Absent Robert Hull Staff Vernon C. Fountain, Zoning Administrator oo" Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner o Louise H. Christian, Recording Secretary © =1 C J ' Appeal #k3067 - 426 West St. Joseph Street 00 r-- This is a request by James Riley, owner of Riley :5u ral Home, to construct a ramp for barrier-free access 3t0 the funeral chapel and adjoining room at 426 West St aJo eplii �` Street. w A presentation was made by Mr. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Staff felt there would ' not be any impact on the adjacent residential areas . Mr. James Riley presented elevations of the proposed enclosure. Entry to the ramp would be off Chestnut Street. The ramp would be constructed onto the front of the building on the west side, parallel to Chestnut Street. It will be a part of the building, an addition to it. Wright - Will there be a wall to screen the ramp from the street? Riley - Yes, a brick wall. At present, we have at-grade access which handicapped people cannot use--we have to lift them. The law stipulates 1" of rise per foot, so because of the big difference in grade, we have a long approach. We wished it could be shorter. This is something we felt should be done for the people we serve who need it. I own the only other address on St. Joseph Street, so there is no 2 opposition there. We are negotiating for purchase of the property to the north. Jay Gupta - It is a reasonable request. I am here to support it. Communication Letter from James Barrett, President, Michigan State Chamber of Commerce. It is highly commendable that the Riley Funeral Home will voluntarily provide barrier-free access for the handicapped. Holmes made a motion to approve Appeal #3076 , second Curan. Motion carried unanimously. YEAS: Holmes, Curran, Wright, Steele, Clark. NAYS: None Appeal #3067 APPROVED unanimously. The Board believes that there is a hardship because this is a corner lot. The Board also believes provision of barrier- free access, whether or not required by law, is highly commendable. Appeal ##3068 - 1510 West Ionia Street This is a request by Joseph E. and Pamela A. Graves, 1510 West Ionia Street, for a variance to the minimum width of a driveway located at 1510 West Ionia Street. A presentation was made by Mr. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. It is an irregular-shaped lot. The drive, located in the front yard, has been in place for over a year. Joe Graves, owner of the property at 1510 West Ionia. We were not aware that we were in violation of the ordinance when we put in the driveway. Our car was smashed in front of the house; shortly after that, the other car was side- swiped. Then we decided to expand the driveway. We looked at several other drives in the immediate area. The letter from the Planning Division said we were five to six feet over. We measured it and it is 15. 6 feet. There is a difference of about 3 . 6 feet in terms of what is allowed. Communication Letter from Barbara J. Siler, 1610 Inverness. It is OK by US. Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 Letter from Kenneth L. and Toby L. Salzman, 1531 West Ionia Street ( across the street) in support. Holmes - Is this front yard parking? Fountain - Yes, it is for a variance to allow a wider drive for additional parking. Holmes - I was wondering if we need to include a statement about front yard parking in the motion. Fountain - The section quoted in the report is sufficient. Curran - I am concerned about setting a precedent in the neighborhood. We have spent years trying to maintain this single-family residential neighborhood. Front yard parking is going to cause problems, and I can' t support a motion for approval. Steele - I am concerned about it too. It is an unacceptable situation. There is another property at the corner of Inverness that has a widened driveway. The Chairman asked the appellant if he wanted his request tabled. He said he wanted it tabled. Motion by Holmes, second by Curran, to table until next time. YEAS: Wright, Curran, Holmes, Steele, Clark NAYS: None Motion carried UNANIMOUSLY to table Appeal 43068 to the September 13 , 1990 meeting. Mr. Fountain said the amount of the variance requested would be corrected from 5 . 6 feet to 3 . 41 feet. Appeal #3069 - 825 Chicago Avenue A presentation was given by Mr. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. This is an appeal by Ellis Davis, 825 Chicago, to receive a variance from the zoning code to construct an enclosed front porch 6 . 3 feet from the established front property line. The existing setback established in the blockface is 22 . 8 feet; construction will come within 16 . 5 feet of the front property line. A variance of 6 . 3 feet is requested. The setbacks on the block are staggered, with those south being closer to the property line and those north being farther back. Also the front property line is actually 10 . 5 feet back from the curbface, and therefore is inside the sidewalk line. Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 Ray Waldmiller. Mr. Davis could not be here. I will be building the porch if you approve it. All the houses on the other side of the street have porches. Any porch would have to be on the front because the backyard is tiny. There really is no backyard. Clark - Is this going to be an eight-foot-wide enclosed porch across the front of the house? Waldmiller - Yes. Clark - Is it going to be heated? Waldmiller - No. Winnicker - The lot is 74 . 5 feet deep. Any structure, front or back, would require a variance. Adding a porch is the same as an addition. Communication Shirley Smith, 903 Chicago. Telephone call--no objection. Holmes - I will not be supporting this appeal. There are several other open porches on the block that are fairly attractive. An open porch would be a reasonable request. An enclosed porch would have a negative effect on the surrounding properties. The Chairman asked the appellant if he wished to have his request tabled. He said he wanted it tabled. Motion by Curran, second by Holmes, to table Appeal #3069 to the next meeting. YEAS: Holmes, Curran, Wright, Steele, Clark NAYS: None Motion to TABLE Appeal 43069 carried unanimously. Appeal #p3070 - 409 North Jenison Avenue This is a request by Ruth Sills, 409 North Jenison Avenue, to receive a variance for a 4 . 5 foot high picket fence in the front yard. A presentation was made by Mr. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Code allows a fence in the front yard to the 3 ' level. The area to be enclosed is in the backyard. The property comes to a point at the intersection of Osborn and Jenison. Ruth A. Sills, 409 North Jenison Avenue. There is a fence behind the house, but it is a low spot and the ground is damp. Fencing in the side will provide a safe place for our children to play--we are at a major intersection. Also, the Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 middle school bus lets out in front of our house at a park- like place where the youngsters hang around. We thought a fence would deter those activities. Holmes - There is a white fence there now. Sills - Yes; there is an easement there. We cannot use the easement. Communication Letter, Mary L. Cook, 1515 Osborn Road. Protests the request. The corner is almost like a small park; a fence would destroy the aesthetic quality. The traffic hazard at the intersection would be increased; a fence would interfere with the line of sight and also reduce property value and salability. Letter, Linda and Tom Hardenbergh, 1522 Osborn. No objection. Wright - If this is a stockade fence, I could not support it; if this is a picket fence, I could support it. Clark - What is the nature of the fence, and why the 4 . 5 feet requirement? Sills - It is going to be a white-painted picket fence with 50 percent visibility, to be built by the O 'Henry Fence Company. A 4 . 5 ' tall fence will deter teenagers from jumping the fence and cutting through our property. Also, our dog could jump a 3 ' fence. The Chairman asked the appellant if she wanted to have the petition tabled; she said she wanted the Board to take action. Motion by Holmes, second by Wright, to approve the request for a picket fence 4 . 5 feet high with 50 percent visibility. YEAS: Holmes, Wright, Clark. NAYS: Curran, Steele. Appeal #3070 DENIED. With five members attending, approval requires five affirmative votes ; therefore, the petition was denied. The Board does not believe that there is a hardship. The Board believes that a 4 . 51high fence would interfere with the traffic flow at the intersection of Jenison and Osborn, and further that a 4. 5 ' high fence would have a negative impact on surrounding properties. Appeal #3072 - 504 South Mifflin Street Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 The request is for a front yard variance of 60 feet, and a side yard variance of 2 feet to allow a carport constructed in the front yard without a building permit to remain. The area is developed with single family residences on narrow lots, with no access to the backyard. At one time, there was a public alley at the rear of the lots; however, it was vacated, and now there is no access to the backyard from the rear. There is also a marked topography problem which does not allow for any construction. The structure encroaches about 1. 5 feet into the public right-of-way. Should the request be approved, the structure would have to be cut back, or moved from the public right-of-way. A presentation was made by Emil Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Wright - Is a building permit required, and was one issued? Winnicker - A building permit is required, and one was not taken out--it was built without a permit. Then it was red- tagged by the Building Safety Division, with the comment that the structure is substantial, and probably within the building code requirements. Frank Miller - I built it, and it is built right. There are no trees in the subdivision to provide shade, and though there are no walls on the structure, it will protect her automobile. Communication - None. Curran - The way the lots are organized in that neighborhood creates a practical difficulty. I would be supportive if it is moved back out of the public right-of-way. Steele - I would not support this. It is out of character for the area; it stands out like a sore thumb. The Chairperson asked the petitioner if she wanted her request tabled; she said she wanted it tabled. Motion by Steele, second by Curran, to table Appeal 43072 until next month. YEAS: Curran, Holmes, Steele, Wright, Clark. NAYS: None Motion carried UNANIMOUSLY to table Appeal 03072 to the next meeting. Appeal #3073 - 3019 Atlas Street An appeal by Jean Chance, 3019 Atlas Street, to keep an existing fence that exceeds the maximum six feet height Board of Zoning Appeals Page 7 limitation for a fence in the backyard. The fence is eight feet high, so a variance of two feet is requested. A presentation was made by Mr. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The property is located on a corner lot; part of the reason for the request is to provide for some privacy because of the shallow lot, and the proximity of a structure in the neighboring lot. The area is developed with single family residences. Vince Chovance - We went to eight feet for the fence for privacy for a hot tub. Clark - Where is the hot tub? Chovance - The hot tub is enclosed, in the breezeway between the garage and the house. Clark - Why did you extend the fence 8 feet high all the way. Chovance - The neighbor has some stuff growing there and it keeps spreading onto my property. She said she wanted it for privacy and to keep people from cutting through her yard. I told her we were installing the fence, and maybe that would stop people cutting through her property and we could get rid of the stuff that is spreading. Brian Horton, 627 Loa Street - I don' t see any problem with it, and none of the neighbors in the neighborhood do, and I think he should have an OK on it. Jeanette McGill, 633 Loa Street - It is OK with me. Stephanie Mohler - 620 Loa Street. I do not object to the height of the fence. I would like the holes around the fenceposts to be filled and the grass reseeded where I can get to it to mow the lawn, and I would like his eavestrough splash blocks turned around so that they drain in his backyard rather than in the back of my garage. Wright - What about the fence; it looks like untreated wood. Chovance - It is wolmanized pressure-treated wood. I plan to stain both sides . Between the neighbor ' s garage and the fence, I will put in stone so the grass won' t grow, for no maintenance. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Duane Hill - 635 West Dunlap. Approve of fence. Letter - Randy P. Blankenship - 3210 South Washington. No objection. Petition - Statement of approval with 18 signatures . Letter - Stephanie Mohler - 620 Loa Street. No objection to fence, providing that the owner fill the fence post holes , reseed the grass and turn around his eavestrough splash Board of Zoning Appeals Page 8 block to drain to his own backyard. . . .Now his eavestrough drains on my land in back of my garage. Letter - Richard and Andrea Spata-Merrill. Approve the 8 ' privacy fence. Motion by Steele, second by Wright, to approve Appeal 43073 subject to the owner filling the post holes, reseeding the grass and rearranging the splash blocks so that rain water runoff drains onto his own property and not onto the neighbor ' s . YEAS: Holmes , Curran, Wright, Steele, Clark. NAYS: None Appeal #3073 was unanimously APPROVED. The Board believes it is a reasonable request and does not adversely impact the adjacent properties. The Board further found that the fence is located adjacent to the driveway of the property to the east, which provides approximately 16 feet of separation between the fence and the residence. The Board does not believe that it adversely impacts this residential home from the standpoint of light, air, and view. Appeal #3074 - 2207 South Cedar Street This is a request for a variance of 21 ' from the rear yard setback to allow a garage to be reconstructed 4 ' from the rear property line. Seventeen feet of the property frontage was purchased by MDOT for the Cedar Street widening. A three-unit dwelling on the property was demolished; the garage was not purchased but was inadvertently removed. The State is willing to rebuild the garage to Code. The new building would be built four feet off the property line near the residential property directly to the rear. Wright - This is in an area where widening of Cedar Street on the east removed 17 feet from the front of each parcel. Douglas Lasher - .I would like to give you a brief history. I purchased the lot and then Michigan Dept. of Transportation bought the westerly or front 15 feet and a three-unit income property in the right-of-way that had to be taken down. The garage was torn down by mistake. Michigan Dept. of Transportation has offered to settle at replacement cost of the same size building. Having to stay back from the rear yard line 25 feet costs me about six parking spaces. Originally I was going to convert the 20x24 two-story garage to a used car lot. I want - to occupy the property for myself for my own use. I am not a car person; I am a licensed real estate broker since 1970 . The replacement building is talked about as being a garage. This is because it was a garage. it is not going to be a Board of Zoning Appeals Page 9 garage; it never will be a garage; it' s going to be an office, 20x24 . I have put together a site plan which I gave to the City. It shows the property layout with a 20x24 ' building at the rear, 4 feet from the rear property line. It was one foot from the rear property line, about one foot from the side, and one foot from the rear line. I have also included a layout of the building and the front and side elevations . Both ends are similar, with one window down and one window up. Upstairs will be storage area and downstairs is a 20x24 ' office. Basically it is about the same size as the building that was there, although I would like to have a barn roof put on it. It would be more pleasant to look at than just a 1 3/4 story garage. I don' t really need a backyard. I am asking to replace the building with the same thing that was there. Holmes - You purchased this property after the Dept. of Transportation purchased the right-of-way? Lasher - Yes. Holmes - so you were well aware of the configuration of widening when you purchased it? Lasher - Yes. I had no desire to own the three-unit. It was in very poor condition. Wright - What is the distance from that building in the background and the property line? Lasher - The property owner, Mrs. Thompson, is here; she might know. Mrs . Thompson - It is about four feet to the property line. Wright - If he puts a building up four feet from the same property line and you are already four feet from the property line, there is only eight feet between the two buildings . Lasher - I don' t know. If there were a residential occupied home eight feet from the building, I would not even ask for a variance. But I don' t consider them noncompatible uses, an office adjacent to a garage. Joy Ann Keim, MDOT - As Mr. Lasher said, he acquired the lot after we acquired it and before we tore down the two-story building and garage. Through a misunderstanding with the former owners, and who owned what and what we bought, we did tear down the garage. We left Mr. Lasher with a vacant lot. He thought he was getting a lot with a structure on it. Louise Novotny, 523 Pacific - The Planning Board told me he wants a frontage display. Why would he want a frontage display if he is going to have an office there? He told some neighbors he is going to work on old cars there. We don' t need that. Clark - Mr. Lasher, could you clarify for the Board that this will be strictly an office building? Board of Zoning Appeals Page10 Lasher - There will be no garage door on the building. It' s going to be my office. I am not employed by anyone else at this time and haven' t been since last November. Clark - So you are saying that the building is not going to be a garage, it is simply going to be an office structure, so cars can' t be pulled in and worked on, etc. Lasher - I don' t know if the property owners in the area got these [copy of 300 ' letter] . Clark - If that' s the case, it became a garage somehow. Is there any appeal that the neighbors can make? Fountain - The property is zoned commercial and could be used for any type of commercial activity permitted in that district. Clark - Once the variance is granted, it could be used for anything? Fountain - Yes, in the "F" Commercial District. Communication Telephone call - Donna Weir, 513 Pacific . Objects ; too close to residential and too noisy. Opposes. Too Telephone call - Nancy Carpenter, 535 Riley. close to residential, too intense. No objections to a Letter - Nancy Carpenter, 535 Riley. J used car sales office; however, strongly objects to car repair garage. Letter, Bruce Kutney, 531 Riley Street. Objects ; too much traffic and noise and too hazardous to school children. Signed by eight other area residents on Riley StrRileet. Street. Letter - Mrs . Dorothy A. Soderberg, Objects to a used car sales office. 528 Riley. Very Telephone call - Mrs. John Daugherty, opposed. Too close to residences and to her ba5k3ardacific. Telephone Call - Joe and Louise Novotny, Opposed. Oosed. Telephone call - Frances Zuehlke, 514 Pacific. pp Would reduce property values. Objects to Telephone Call - Essy Thompson, 512 Riley. garage. Telephone call - Helena Deig, 516 Pacific . Too close to rear lot line. Telephone call - Reva Brieeden, 521 Edison. Does not want garage. Wright - In view of the fact that this property is already 'IF" Commercial District, the future use could be something entirely different. I would concur with staff ' s position that there is no hardship; the building could be placed so that no variance would be required. Clark - If the variance is granted, will it be a Class B nonconforming? Board of Zoning Appeals Pagell Fountain - Whatever is built there will have to conform to the minimum code. Steele - Ifany comm rfence use at thewent back?there, would it have to provide a screen or Fountain - Yes . Curran - There is no economic hardship? hardship. Hardship Fountain - We don' t consider economic has to relate to the property itself , or its relationship to the topography, or to an irregular-shaped lot, or something to that effect, not economic hardship. As a staff , we did not support the request. We did not feel that there was an inability to develop the lot and still meet the minimum code. The building can be placed on the requirements of ack property so it will meet the minimum setbcan be installed and the required screening an ufferingl make use of the along the east property le and property for a used the lot neighbo°hood other behinduse. itWeshould also febe lt very strongly that protected from further encroachment. Lasher - Is that staff report available? I never saw it. I didn' t know there was any such thing. Fountain - It is available and provided to the Board before their decision. put the Lasher - All I am asking for is a variance to p replace it with a garage type building back. I have to Transportation. The building because of the Department of Tran concept of the used car lot has long since fallen by the wayside. The Chairman asked the appellant if he wanted the request tabled. He said he wanted it tabled; he also requested a copy of the correspondence. Motion by Curran, second by Wright, to tale Appeal #3074 until next month. YEAS: Holmes, Curran, Wright, Steele, Clark. Nays : None imously to table Appeal #3074 to next Motion carried unan month. The Chairman stated that next month there will be an update for absent Board members but no audience input unless the Board inquires . There will be voting action only. Appeal #3075 - 1208 Rundle Avenue This is a request by Robert N. Steffensen, 1208 Rundle Avenue, for a variance to allow the construction of a roof over an existing concrete porch. Board of Zoning Appeals Page12 A presentation was made by Vern Fountain. Slides were shown of the area and surrounding land use. The property is located on the north side of Rundle Avenue, in an area of single-family residential homes . The home has been substantially remodeled. In conjunction with the remodeling, the owner wants to replace an aluminum awning with a wood roof that will extend over the existing concrete slab. Robert Steffensen, 1208 North Rundle Avenue. Here is a letter from my neighbors . I had a permit for the cement 15 years ago. I put an awning on. At that time, the inspector told me I would not need a permit; I could use the same permit for the awning. They tell me now that was not a permanent roof , it is a temporary roof . were allowed to come Fountain - At that time, open porches within 15 feet of the lot line. Steffensen - The awning is getting old, and snow weight is making the bolts pull out. I had four posts , a post on each side and on each corner for support. That is basically all I am going to replace. The porch would have the same look and the roof. would be flush with the porch. I want to have a wood structure. Communication A letter from six neighbors on Rundle Avenue in agreement. Fountain - Staff thought if the porch roof was replaced, it would improve the front of the house. It would take away some of the plainness . The Chairman asked the appellant if he wanted his appeal tabled. He said he wanted immediate action. Motion by Curran, second by Steele to approve Appeal 3075 . YEAS: Wright, Curran, Holmes, Steele, Clark. NAYS: None Appeal 43075 APPROVED unanimously. The Board was satisfied that changes in the zoning code from the time that the initial porch was constructed presented a hardship when attempting to replace the roof structure over the existing open porch. The Board does not believe that the construction of a roof over the existing porch along with a low open railing will have any adverse impact on adjacent properties . Page13 Board of Zoning Appeals Steffensen - If I put a railing around the porch, would that affect anything? Fountain - No. Appeal #3076 - 3815 South Cedar Street This is a request by the Immaculate Heart of Mary Parish at 3815 South Cedar Strhet for frontaof41thevparisheoffices construct feet 20x41 ' addition to t out from the existing building and 5 ' 9" from the front o line along Cedar Street. area of The church is located in an The widening of South Street and the dconstruction commercil u°fsd new retaining wall along the front of the building resulte in the loss of 9 ' of front yard for the building• closer to d the proposed new additi Wright - Woul on be any the lot line than the present structure on the rn portion is Fountain - I am going to guess that the southern about ten feet back, and here he is talking about 4 There might be a difference of 4 . 4 feet. It will be 5 feet back from the retaining wall Joseph O' Leary, representing Immaculate Heart of Mary. The parish needs office space. Atedrpersons the haveoffices minimum back Of into the building; handicap place p lace to construct four steps to get up. This is the only p Handicapped persons would come in on additional persons . grade level. The Chairman asked Mr. O' Leary if he wanted immediate askedaction for or tabling to the next meeting. Mr. O' Leary immediate action. Curran to approve Appeal 3076 , Motion by Wright, second by impact the on the basis that hwouldt provide add uld not WO onalservice for the neighborhood an parishioners and the church. YEAS: Holmes, Curran, Wright, Steele, Clark. NAYS: None Appeal #3076 APPROVED unanimously. The Board was satisfied, based on testimony and evidence, that the proposed addition will not adversely impact any of the hardship in the adjacent properties , and further , that this situation relates to the widening of South Cedar Street, which took away approximately 17 feet of frontage of this property. Page14 Board of Zoning Appeals t the double driveway at Ionia and Steele - Vern, what about petition we considered Inverness , two doors down from the P tonight? It is just as unsightly. by the Fountain - I don' t know. It might have been approved Front Yard Parking Committee. I will check into it. p, roval of Minutes The minutes were APPROVED as written. Motion by Curran, second by Holmes, motion carried unanimously. Excused Absences At the July meeting, Dr. Spink requested an excused absence. Tom Kane and Grant Hilts phoned for excused absences. Motion by Holmes , second by Curran to excuse the absences of Hilts and Kane. New Business Ms. Holmes asked if a new member can stay on the Board and never show up. Fountain - I will phone Mr. Hull. Adjournment was at 9 : 16 p.m• l rnon CFount Secretary pp Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals July 12 , 1990 - 7 :30 p .m. City Hall Annex , 2nd floor , Conference Room The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Clark at 7 :30 p .m. Roll call was taken . Present Excused Absence H. P . Curran Priscilla Holmes Christopher Steele Robert Hull Edward Spink o Tom Kane Grant Hilts rn M Floyd Wright o Mary Clark a Staff 3 M Vern Fountain , Zoning Administrator ry Emil Winnicker , Senior Planner COD Elizabeth Gunter , Recording Secretary -C Wright made a motion that P . Holmes and R. Hull have an excused ab- sence . Second by Hilts . Motion carried unanimously. Election of Officers Steele made a motion to move this item to the end of the agenda. Second by Spink. Motion carried unanimously. Kane made a motion to remove appeal #3053 from the table . Second by Spink. Motion carried unanimously. Fountain - The petitioner now intends to operate the beauty salon en- tirely within the existing home as a home occupation, rather than build an addition to the building . Sheila Ledesma , 2518 Solomon Drive , and I wish to do hair out of my 'basement . Steele made a motion to approve Appeal #3053 with the following stipulations : 1 ) No person other than a member of the family residing in the dwelling unit shall engage in the home occupation . 2) The use of the dwelling unit as a home occupation shall be incidental and , subordinate to its use for residential purposes . 3) Not more than 20% of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit is used in any way for the home occupation . 4) No change occurs in the outside appearance of the dwelling. 5 ) Not more than one sign exists , which does not exceed one square foot in area, is not illuminated , and is mounted flat against the wall of the dwelling . 6 ) The sale of goods shall not oc- cur in the dwelling unit or on the lot on which the dwelling unit is located . 7 ) No equipment is used except equipment which is normally used for purely domestic or household purposes . Equipment not nor- mally used for purely domestic or household purposes may be installed - if the Board of Appeals approves such use . In this case the board is requested to approve beauty salon equipment. B ) Not more than one styling chair shall be installed . 9) Not more than one customer or family of customers is on site at one time . 10 ) All parking shall be in the driveway. 11 ) Approval of this variance shall be applicant and site specific. Second by Kane. Yeas : Curran , Hilts , Wright , Kane , Steele , Clark Nays : Spink Appeal #3053 APPROVED. The Board approved the request with the understanding that the use will be located in the basement of the existing dwelling . The Board does not believe that the intensity of use will be increased' to a point where it will adversely impact adjacent properties provid- ing all of the above conditions of approval are complied with. Appeal #3060 - 3316 Nonette This is a request by Michael Pike to construct a two car attached ga- rage to be located 5 ' from the side ( east) property line and 20 ' from the front property line on property located at 3316 Nonette . A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The petitioner wishes to construct an attached two car garage 22' wide by 24 ' deep to be located 5 ' from the side property line and 20 ' from the front property line . Steele - How far will the garage be from the neighbor? Fountain - Approximately 201 . Michael Pike , 3316 Nonette . I' m proposing a two car garage instead of one . Currently the driveway is set for one. We are a two car family . The garage is going to be flush with the house in front and back . What I' m asking for is to have a 5 ' overhang that goes over the driveway and connects with the overhang over the front porch. A letter from James Wright , 3401 Nonette Drive approves the two car attached garage. Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3060 . Second by Hilts . Yeas : Spink , Curran , Hilts , Wright , Steele, Kane, Clark Nays : none Appeal #3060 APPROVED The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the type of con- struction proposed will be compatible to other development in the vi- cinity. that the the The Board believes e ositencthe�drivewayaofetheand housence to the . proposed addition will be opp east it will not promote over crowding nor will the addition adversely impact light , air and view. Appeal #3061 - 700 Vernon This is a request by Unique Fence Company to retain a 41to 418" high picket fence in the front yard of a house at 700 Vernon Street . A presentation was given by E. Winnicker . Slides were shown of the , subject property and surrounding land use . Charley Haywood , Unique Fence Company. Our intentions were to out that corner coming back 25 ft . from the intersection in either di- rection . We can go 6 ft further to the east that wou1dn' in either problem tapering the fence down where the gate is 3 direction . Communication A letter from Beth London , Transportation. With the fence as i t of t is today would require the installation of a stop sig n.fence on Vernon should be removed to raise the safe approach speed to an acceptable speed for intersection operation with a yield sign . A communication from Dorothy Faulkner of 653 Vernon. The fence is still a hazard because it blocks the driver' s view. Laurie Schwarz of 3416 Southgate has no objection to the fence vari.- an6e . Genevieve McClintic of 634 Vernon opposes the position of the fence . Richard Coelho of 714 Parkway Drive is opposed to the variance . A letter from Kim Fleming Nokes , 700 Parkway Drive . The height of the fence should be reduced . M A letter from Lester J . ofgsafety toe the n Avenue . h traffic onbothn shouldce roads in- not be there for reasons volved . Hilts made a decision to deny appeal #3061 because there is no hard- ship or practical difficulty. Second by Wright . Yeas : Hilts , Wright , Curran Spink , Steele , Kane , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3061 DENIED not believe that there i.s a hardship associated with uire- The Board does that the minimum req into this request . The Board further believes of both ro erties , safety f the code allows reasonable installation of fences taking the menu o the protection of add qualities of consideration edeorian traffic and the aesthetic q automobile and P st neighborhood . Appeal #3062 - 600 West Shiawassee to receive a Inc . public Affairs Associates , Code to This is a request by . public requirements of the Zoning variance from the on-sitep West Shi_awassee . allow for expansion of the office use located at 600 were shown of the A presentation given was by E . subject property Winnicker. Slides w and urrounding land use . office applicant wishes to construct an addition to ment .the existing The aPP the on site parking thereby increasing letter was sent to the Downtown Neighborhood Association , Fountain - A that they were concerned about p they responded and indicated but did not oppose the variance . We are not a Tom Hoysington , partner in Public Affairs Ass inthe office on a high traffic office . Most of the partners are not our clients do not r office on a routine basis • goodoworki.ngtrelae routine basis . We work outside the office mainly. necessarily come to We feel we have a g local neighborhood association. any new staff at this time . We problems within our of- are with them. We are not adding are just trying to relieve some traffic flow p this expansion. fice by building will appeal #3062 , 600 W. Shi.awassee , Kane made a motion to app rove app roval be user not present an intensive . use of the site and this ap specific . Second by Hilt Y Kane , Wright , Steele , Clark Yeas : Spink , Curran , Hilts , Nays : None Appeal #3062 APPROVED building as allows for the expansion of the existing This variance proposed on the plans submitted June 19 , 1990 • and evidence that no increase in The Board found based on testimony ro teed i .e . no additional employees or activ- intensity of use was p P ity is proposed with the new addition. adverse impact on e will have any change is consistant with and since this c that The Board does not believe the Chang The Board indicated their previous action for this property. b precedent for any d to e th is approval shall not be in�orPootdevelopmentlinhthe vicinity . future expansion of this property PAGE 4 Appeal #3063 - 1820 South Pennsylvania ' ine Development Corporation for a variance south This iss a request by wolverine aces for the property at 1820 in the number of parking sP Pennsylvania Avenue . given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the A presentation was g land use . subject property and surrounding Restaurants wishes to lease the building for the operation of a Subway and a Cajun Joe' s Chicken . combined Subway Sandwich Shop lvania and Mt . Joe Maguire , Wolverine Development . That area of Penns y s comprised of a number of small Themtenantlweuhave specializes Hope is underparked in that area. it really minimizes the everybody in low volume , low labor kind of food service , at requirement . We found out that sitedisse is in sufficientmtodaccommot parking q that exists on that site . The parking date the retail use . We put this restau- Grant Miller , representing Subway and Cajun Joe . o �s two elt that there was a need or rant tether ether to fit this location. We separate types of busi- a restaurant . The Subway/Cajun Joe nesses . The Subway Sandwiches , the bulk of our business is at aulot time . The Cajun Joe is more a dinner item A lotofthatour orderslocatioare call of our businesscomeli.neandlk in pick itaffic . AUP - About 65� of our business is in , when they carry out . Korner I own the property across the street , Mrs . Vern Andrews , corner . en Restaurant , and hold land contract that busyllcornei � s Ketch am concerned about p operating under . A operator of Korner Kitchen , across the street . Robert Ziolkowski , parking .Concerned about overflow traffic or P g . oppose to the Pennsylvania, oPP Robert Elliott , 1808 & 1812 S. Larry Fitzsimmons and Dr . Dr . on behalf of Dr . variance . Jim speaking Alan N ieberg and Lab of Clinical Medicine . Concerned about overflow parking . & 1800 S • ro erty owners at 1720-1726 James maat � Inp favor tofgvapi.ance , the proposed business will be an Penn ylvan improvement to the area . Communication 901 E. Mt . Hope , concern that A letter from L .W. Fitzsimmons , M. D. , lot . excess parking would spill over on my parking L .W. Fitzsimmons , concern that F & N Realty , 901 E. Mt - Hope ' congestion for the neigh- traffic generated would provide excessive borhood . Oppose variance . DA(I P F Laboratory of Clinical Medicine , . letter from John Kateley , Pd • D' ' A Pennsylvania, oppose variance . 6433 S• pennsy support the 1922 S . Pennsylvania , in from Jay T . Master , e of take out restaurant A letter for this type There is a need act on traffic situation . variance . significant impact this area. Would not have sib Mt . letter from Hope , Lansing Internal Alan Nieberg , M.D. , 901 E. parking . A Concern about overflow p Medicine Associates . Mt . Hope , Lansing Hernia Cen- James E. McGillicuddy, M.D. , 901 E. Concern about overflow parking • ter . supports variance A telephone call from Charles Smith of Smith Floral request . Crystal Goodman , owners of David Goodman , Crystal parking variance . The A letter from James SS Pennsylvania. o the neighborhood . 1720 , 1726 and a p i improvement to the new building is a positive imp 1001 E. Mt . Hope , Korner Kitchen A letter from Robert Ziolknce request . Restaurant opposes the variance of property at 13�+8 Cambridge , owner Vernon J . Andrews , request . Mr . Mt . oses variance 1001 -1003 E • Hope , App site and applicant spe- ade a motion to approve appeal ��3063 , Steele m cific . Second by Curran . Curran , Kane , Steele , Wright Yeas : S Nays ; Hilts , pink , Clark Appeal #3063 DENIED- vote of 4 rove the request , which received a vote of a majority of the members There was a motion to approve be necessary to reverse and 3 nays . The concurring Appeals shall Di- yeas o f the P lann i.ng Di- serving on the Board of nAop determination on which it order , requirement , applicant a matter uP an or to effect a variance of vision or to decide in favor of the nce on the Board of is required to pass under an ordinance , aired for aP- ordinance . Since there are nine 5) membersraregreq such vote of five (5) Appeals the concurring the appeal was denied . proval . Based on the foregoing request felt that the devebepades The members voting in favor of the equest to be used could of how the property descriptionarking spaces proposed . quately served with the number of P uest felt that the required opposition to the req a very in DPP especially at this location , The members voting is critical , is limited . They were of the off-street Parking visibility compound traffic busy intersection , where osed could of land use prop parking were not opinion that the intensity if off-street it necessary for for other locations problems at thin loation especially people to look available , mak g in the immediate area . PAGE 6 Appeal #3065 - 2501 South Cedar This is a request by Douglas Sign Co. for the Servall Company to re- locate a free standing ground sign at 2501 South Cedar Street to a location 8 ' from the front property line on Cedar Street and 5 .5 feet from the front property line on Lincoln Avenue . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Doug Fulk , representing Douglas Sign Co. The sign will be in line with the other signs on the street . Spink made a motion to approve a modification for appeal #3065 to al low the erection of a free standing sign no closer than 10 feet to the front property line on Cedar Street and no closer than 20 feet to the front property line on Lincoln Avenue. Second by Kane . Yeas : Hilts , Curran , Kane , Spink , Steele , Wright , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3065 APPROVED The Board found based on testimony and evidence that there is a hard- ship created with the widening of South Cedar Street and was satisfied that the approved location will allow reasonable identification of the business . The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the proposed sign, is characteristic of other identification signs along South Cedar Street . Appeal #3066 - 2000 Beal Avenue This is a request by John Cox to construct an attached garage 20 ' x 25 ' to the west side of his home located at 2000 Beal Avenue . A presentation was given by E. Wi.nnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . John Cox , 2000 Beal . It will allow a little more security for the residents to enter the house . Steele - Will the drive to the garage be hardsurfaced? Cox - Yes it will be paved . Curran made a motion to approve appeal #3066 . Second by Hilts . Yeas : Steele , Kane , Wright , Hilts , Spink , Curran Clark Nays : none Appeal #3066 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property is a corner lot with two front yards which present the owner with a prac- tical difficulty when attempting to make any reasonable additions to i the existing structure which was constructed under previous code re- quirements . Minutes Correction made on page 2 ( zoning requirement not variance) Curran made a motion to approve the June minutes as amended . Second by Steele . Motion carried unanimously. Excused Absence E . Spink requests an excused absence for the August meeting . Election of officers Spink made a motion that Mary Clark remain as Chairperson and H. P . Curran remain as vice chairperson for the next year . Second by Steele . Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeting adjou-r"-ned a : 15 PM. /Vern Founta ' Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals June 14 , 1990 - 7 :30 p .m . Circuit Courtroom #3 , 2nd floor , City Hall The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson H.P . Curran at' 7 :30 p .m. Roll call was taken . i Present Excused Absence Priscilla Holmes Tom Kane Christopher Steele Robert Hull Edward Spink Mary Clark Patricia Curran Grant Hilts Floyd Wright Staff Vern Fountain , Zoning Administrator Emil Winnicker , Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter , Recording Secretary Holmes made a motion to excuse Tom Kane, Robert Hull and Mary Clark. Second by Wright . Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #30141 - N. W. Corner Barnes and Delevan This is a request by Dick McKay, Builder, to construct a single family home 17 ' from the front lot line along Delevan Road . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Dick McKay, builder , owner of the property at Barnes and Delevan . I' m proposing to build a two story home . The home behind me is 52 ' away . The City Engineer and Planning Dept . have been out there . Its going to be a single family home for a young couple. Holmes - Is the second house suppose to be the same elevation . McKay - No it will be loll lower . Gene Howland , 910 West Barnes , concerned about the drainage . Bruce Stark, 1621 Beal, representing South Central Neighborhood Orga- nization concerned about drainage and conforming to the rest of the neighborhood . PAGE '1 Communication Margaret Cook , 905 Sparrow Avenue Joyce M. Roche , 827 Sparrow Avenue, against the variance request . Holmes made a motion to deny appeal #3041 . Second by Hilts . There is no hardship and there will be a negative impact on the surrounding property. Yeas : Holmes , Curran , Spink , Hilts , Wright , Steele Nays : none Appeal #3041 DENIED The Board does not believe there is a hardship relating to this re quest . The Board believes that approval of the request will promotei over development of the site , and would therefore have a negative im- pact on the neighborhood . In addition, the Board also indicated their, concern about possible drainage problems . Appeal # 049 - 2221 Dillingham Avenue This is a request by James Scott to retain an existing front porch addition on the property at 2221 Dillingham Avenue. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker . Slides were shown of thei, subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner wishes to retain an existing front porch which extends! 7 .5 feet into the required front yard . James & Maryann Scott , 2221 Dillingham . We built the porch and found that with the attachment of the porch to the house is what changed the zoning requirement . There are a lot of decks in the neighborhood , it is similar to the others . Holmes - What is your reaction to removing the lattice work? Scott - We' d like to leave it . Its comfortable . These are old houses and we are just making improvements . Spink made a motion to approve the request with the condition that the porch be permitted to remain and the lattice be removed . Second by Holmes . Yeas : Spink , Holmes , Hilts , Wright , Steele , Curran Nays : none The Board approved a variance to allow the porch to remain without the lattice enclosure , and with only an open railing . The Board believes that an open porch with roof and simple railing would be more in keeping with the character of development of the area and wouldn' t be precedent setting for enclosed encroachments into the front yard . PAGE 2 Appeal #3050 - 5010 Delbrook This is a request by Bill Hastings to allow an addition in the front yard to remain on the property of 5010 Delbrook. A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant indicates that the expansion is intended to provide kitchen and dining room space for the home. Bill Hastings , 5010 Delbrook Avenue, I would like to present to you a number of signatures from next door neighbors and a letter from one of the neighbors . The carport and the porch that I' ve enclosed is in line with two houses directly to the south of me . Communication A letter from Thomas L. Dunn and Frances Dunn, 826 W. Jolly Road , support the request for the 5 ' extension. Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3050 . Second by Wright . No negative impact on the neighborhood . Yeas : Hilts , Wright , Holmes, Spink, Steele , Curran Nays : none Appeal #3050 APPROVED. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the en closure would not establish any new set back lines that would ad versely impact adjacent properties . Appeal #3051 - 2416 North East Street This is a request by Luella Rolfe to allow construction of a 50 by 50 foot storage building and parking on the property of 2416 North East- Street . i A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the, subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner proposes to construct a 50 x 50 foot addition on the east side of the existing building. The petitioner also has a request pending to rezone the ' B' Residen- tial area to ' F' Commercial . Steele - How far will the new addition be from the residence to the east? Fountain - Approximately 45 ' . Louella Rolfe was present , had nothing more to add . Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3051 . Second by Holmes. PAGE 3 I Yeas : Holmes , Spink, Hilts , Wright , Steele, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3051 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the change will allow for a building addition with the continuation of an existing building line . The Board does not believe the change will have any negative impact on the adjacent property, and it is the Board' s un- derstanding that the new addition will be constructed to take the place of several semi trailers that are now used for storage purposes . The Board was advised that the rezoning of this property is pending action by the Planning Board and Lansing City Council . Appeal #3052 - 1820 South Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by Wolverine Development Corp to allow the building at 1820 South Pennsylvania Avenue to be leased to a restaurant which sells food to be consumed either off or on the premises . A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The petitioner proposes to lease the building to Subway Restaurants which require 33 parking spaces . There are 21 spaces available re- quiring a variance of 12 spaces . Holmes - How many customers will it seat? Fountain - 32 Holmes - Will the ingress and egress on Pennsylvania Avenue be the same? Fountain - No change . Spink - Will this use take the entire building? Fountain - Yes Joe McGuire , representing Wolverine Development , 1350 Lake Lansing Road , East Lansing . The building is built for retail use , we' re, looking for a variance to allow restaurant use of the building . We do: have a restaurant tenant lined up , Subway Restaurant. Fountain - To clarify Dr . Spink' s question, will the two restaurants, occupy the entire building? McGuire - Yes . Its the same company , one lease, one tenant . Cajun] Joe is a subsidiary of Subway. Holmes - What will be your seating capacity? McGuire - We have 32 seats . Its primarily a take out facility . Representative of Subway and Cajun Joe . The subway business is pri marily 70% take out . Cajun Joe is 65% take out. But they interact ate different times , subway' s at lunch, chicken at dinner . PAGE 4 i I Dr . Robert Elliot , own two properties at 1812 and 1808 South, Pennsylvania. Opposes the variance request. If there is an overflow of parking , concerned that they will park in his driveway next door . Communication A letter from Orlando Spagnuolo, 339 Walbridge Drive , East Lansing , , owner of property located at 1012-1022 East Mt . Hope . Strongly sup port the variance . Mr . Stan Brauer , owner of 1815 S. Pennsylvania called and stated that he is not opposed to the variance request . Hilts made a motion to deny appeal #3052 . Second by Holmes . Yeas : Hilts , Holmes , Spink Nays : Curran , Steele , Wright Motion fails . Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3052 . Second by Wright . Yeas : Steele, Wright , Curran Nays : Hilts , Holmes , Spink Appeal #3052 DENIED. There was a motion to approve the request , which received a vote of 3 yeas and 3 nays . The concurring vote of a majority of the members serving on the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be necessary to reverse an order, requirement, decision or determination of the Planning Di- vision or to decide in favor of the applicant a matter upon which it is required to pass under an ordinance , or to effect a variance of such ordinance . Based on the foregoing the appeal was denied . The members voting in favor of the request felt that the developer' s description of how the property was going to be used could be ade- quately served with the number of parking spaces proposed . The members voting in opposition to the request felt that the required off-street parking is critical, especially at this location, a very busy intersection, where visibility is limited . They were of the opinion that the intensity of land use proposed could compound traffic problems at this location especially if off-street parking were not available, making it necessary for people to look for other locations in the immediate area . Appeal #3053 - 2518 Solomon This is a request by Sheila Ledesma to allow for the operation of a home occupation hairdressing salon at 2518 Solomon. A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. I i PAGE 5 Wright - How does the code address the 141 x 16 ' addition that is. proposed? Winnicker - It meets all code requirements . Its incidental, its not part of this appeal . Spink - Is there an outside entrance to the addition? Fountain - Yes . Sheila Ledesma , 2518 Solomon Drive . I have signatures from residents; in the subdivision that do not mind . My main request for this is for; the well being of my son, he will start kindergarten in the fall and my mother who has been watching him will no longer be able to . Pat Buell , 2424 Solomon, have been residence there for nine years . , She is a good neighbor , I have no objection. Jeff Kuhn, 2510 Solomon, directly west of property, no objection . Randy Major , objects to beauty shop . i Hilts made a motion to approve appeal #3053 • Second by Wright . Yeas : Curran , Hilts , Wright , Steele Nays : Holmes , Spink Appeal #3053 DENIED Fountain - I would like to ask the Board to reconsider Appeal #3053 - Holmes made a motion to reconsider Appeal #3053 • Second by Wright . Motion carried unanimously. Holmes made a motion to Table Appeal #3053 until the July meeting . Second by Hilts . Yeas : Hilts, Holmes, Spink , Steele , Wright , Curran Nays : none Appeal #3053 TABLED The Board tabled this request to allow further discussion with the Planning Division on any alternative proposals that could be consid- ered with your proposed home occupation. Appeal #3055 - 2115 Colonial Plaza This is a request by Kevin Warner to allow a 5 ' high wooden fence to remain the front yard at 2115 Colonial Plaza. A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Kevin Warner , 2115 Colonial Plaza . I have a couple of letters from the neighbors . When we built the fence we took into consideration the view of the neighbor behind us coming out of his driveway . When we bought the house in January we knew we wanted a fenced in yard . We PAGE 6 have contacted our neighbors , they did not have any negative re- sponses. We have two small children and need a fenced in back yard to keep them out of street (Pleasant Grove) . It is a high traffic area. Communication A letter from Kristine Dewitt , 2521 Pleasant Grove Road . No objection to fence , sits back far enough so as not to obstruct a driver' s view of oncoming traffic . A telephone message from Doug Perry , 2520 Fairfax , objects to fence . A letter from Conrad & Helene Bytwerk, 2509 Pleasant Grove Road , no objection to fence . Fence is attractive . They need the protection for their children . The corner is a very busy thoroughfare . A letter from Ross and Doris Downing , 2400 Pleasant Grove Road , no. objection. Pleasant Grove is a fire route , there is a middle school in the neighborhood , much traffic goes around the corner , both buses and picking up and dropping off of kids . A letter from Mr . & Mrs . Mason Smith, 2407 Fairfax Road . No objec- tion to fence. A letter from Michael & Patricia Reed, 2501 Hampden Drive , no objec- tion . The new fence improves the appearance and presents a safe place, for their children. A letter from Sara Jane Venable , 2201 Colonial Plaza, object to the: fence . Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #3055 . Second by Steele . Spink, Holmes, Hilts , Wright, Steele , Curran Nays : none Appeal #3055 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that there is a hard- ship with corner lots that have two front yards, because it limits the amount of area that can be fenced for privacy. The Board does not believe the fence as constructed has any adverse impact on the adjacent residential homes , nor does the fence adversely impact visibility o f vehicle or pedestrian traffic at this location . Appeal #3056 - 1701 Roselawn Avenue This is a request by John Moore to permit construction of a detached garage closer than 60 ' to the front property line at 1701 Roselawn Avenue . A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . PAGE 7 The applicant wishes to construct a 24 x 24 foot detached garage in the rear yard 57 .5 feet from the front property line . John Moore , 1701 Roselawn, I acquired the property about a year ago. I want it for protection of my cars . The lot is very shallow. The two and a half car garage will keep my two cars and lawn equipment . Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3056 . Second by Steele . Yeas : Hilts, Wright , Spink , Steele , Curran Nays : none Absent : Holmes Appeal #3056 APPROVED The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the proposed ga- rage is to be located behind the existing home, approximately in the middle of the lot . The Board believes that shallow depth of this lot creates a practical difficulty when attempting to make reasonable use of the property for what is allowed . The Board further found that the area of the lot exceeds the minimum requirements of the Zoning District in which it is located . Appeal #3058 - 101 Larrabee Drive This is a request by Margo Sharkey to allow use of equipment in the home for a one chair beauty shop at 101 Larrabee Drive . A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Tom Sharkey and Margo Sharkey , 101 Larrabee . This request will not alter the existing structure of the home, there will be no signs , the parking lot is pretty deep accommodating 3 1 /2 cars. Wright - Will your clients be by appointment only? Sharkey - Yes . A petition from the neighbors having no objection . Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3058 subject to the followings conditions . This is a reasonable request . Second by Wright . I . No person other than a member of the family residing in the dwelling unit shall engage in the home occupation. 2 . The use of the dwelling unit as a home occupation shall be inci- dental and subordinate to its use for residential purpose . 3 . Not more than 20% of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit is used in any way for the home occupation. 4 . No change occurs in the outside appearance of the dwelling . 5 • Not more than one sign exists , which does not exceed one square! foot in area, is not illuminated, and is mounted flat against the wall' of the dwelling , PAGE 8 i 6 . The sale of goods shall not occur in the dwelling unit or on they lot on which the dwelling unit is located. 7 . No equipment is used except equipment which his normally used for purely domestic or household purposes . Equipment not normally used for purely domestic or household purposes may be installed if the Board of Appeals approves such use . In this case the board is re quested to approve beauty salon equipment . 8 . Not more than one styling chair chair shall be installed . 9 . Not more than one customer or family of customers is on site at, one time . 10 . All parking shall be in the driveway. 11 . Approval of this variance shall be applicant and site specific . Yeas : Spink , Hilts , Wright , Steele , Curran Nays : Holmes Appeal #3058 APPROVED. The Board believes that if all of the above are adhered to this use should not have any adverse impact on adjacent development, and ap- proval is in keeping with the general intent of the Code . Appeal #3059 - 503 North Walnut Street This is a request by Ken & Tina Ashbrook of Dewitt , for a parking variance of one space and a variance for two inaccessible spaces on property located at 503 North Walnut . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to operate a small computer consulting business as an office use on the first floor and a one bedroom apartment on the second floor . We have information from the Traffic Engineer for the City that uti- lization of the meters is approximately 19% and based on that he sup- ports the variance for one space . Wright - Will these spaces be required to be hardsurfaced? Winnicker - They will be required to be hardsurfaced . Ken & Tina Ashbrook, 1632 Herbison, Dewitt . We own the building . I' m a computer consultant . My work is done on site , its more of an office location. There is one rental unit upstairs. There is a student at LCC who does not have a vehicle . Our proposed plan is to do a lot of. renovation to the property, we do intend to blacktop. We plan to use the north drive for our own parking . Its a low traffic profession . Communication A letter from Vincent Weatherspoon, former owner of 503 N. Walnut Street . The first floor has been used professionally and the second, floor has been residential since 1985 • I PAGE 9 A telephone call from Coleen McNamara of the Downtown Neighborhood Association oppose this request . Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3059 with the following recom- mendations : 1 . That the variance be user specific for the one unit apartment and the computer consulting business . Any proposal to change the office use of the intensity of use of the site will require review . 2 . That all approved parking areas be hardsurfaced and ; landscaped if possible. 3 . That all relevant requirements of the ' Building Code be met. Second by Steele . Yeas : Hilts , Spink , Steele , Wright , Curran Nays : Holmes Appeal #3059 APPROVED. j The Board believes that the use of the property based on the above' conditions will allow reasonable use of the site , without having any adverse impact on adjacent properties. The Board' s approval is based specifically on the site in question and , is not meant to establish precedent for any future request that may be! similar in nature. Minutes Holmes made a motion to approve the May 10 , 1990 minutes as amended . Second by Steele. Motion carried unanimously. Old Business Letter to developer that built on Courtland was not sent because he is no longer in business. New Business Fountain - The Mayor wants a response back in regards to increasing the application fee . Board members suggested 1 ) a double fee if the appeal is filed after the fact 2) increase fees for non-residential uses 3 ) increase taxes to cover this service . There being no further business the meeting was ad ' urned at 10 :00 P .M. ernon C. Foun in Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals PAGE 10 A G E N D A Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting June 14 , 1990 - 7 :30 P .M. City Hall , loth floor , Council Chambers 1 . Roll Call a . Excused Absence 2 . Tabled Appeal - Rehearing To allow new home with a core Appeal #3041 area of 2114" x 2714 " . Code N. W. corner Barnes & requires 24 ' x 24 ' to allow Delevan home to be placed 17 ' from the front lot line on Delevan. Code requires 20 ' setback. 3 . Hearings and Decisions : Appeal #3049 To allow an existing porch to 2221 Dillingham remain 17 .5 ' from the front lot James & Maryann Scott line . Code requires 25 ' setback . Appeal #3050 To allow an addition to remain 5010 Delbrook 25 ' of the front property line . Bill Hastings Code requires 30 ' as established Appeal #3051 To build a 50 ' x 50 ' addition 2416 N. East St 3 . 1 ' from the front lot line on Vets Ace Hardware Call St . Code requires 201 . Appeal #3052 To allow commercial development 1820 S . Pennsylvania with 21 parking spaces . Code Wolverine Dev . Corp . requires 33 spaces . Appeal #3053 To allow a beauty salon as a 2518 Solomon home occupation . Sheila Ledesma Appeal #3055 To allow an existing 5 ' high fence 2115 Colonial Plaza to remain in the front yard . Code Kevin Warner allows up to 3 ' high fence . Appeal #3056 �€ � �d . a 241x24 ' detached garage 1701 Roselawn Ave �iW om the front property line John C. Moore - —Go --nQgPires 60 ' setback . ��ll d Appeal #3058 9tjI �low a beauty salon as a home 101 Larabee St occupation . Margo Sharkey Appeal #3059 To develop a small office in the 503 N . Walnut building without off-street Ken & Tina Ashbrook parking . Code requires 4 spaces . 4 . Other Communication 5 . Approval of Minutes : May 10 , 1990 6 . Old Business 7 . New Business 8 . Adjourn A G E N D A Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting MAY 10 , 1990 - 7 :30 P .M. City Hall , 10th floor , Council Chambers 1 . Roll Call a . Excused Absence 2 . Hearings and Decisions : Appeal #3039 To retain a carport on the side 1441 Pontiac St lot line . Code requires 3 ft . Joseph Copeland setback . Appeal #3040 To erect a new identification 4510 S Pennsylvania sign 5 ' from front lot line . Lansing Community C.U. Code requires 20 ' setback . Appeal #3041 To construct a new single Barnes & Delevan family home 17 ' from the front Dick McKay lot line on Delevan . Code requires 20 ft . Appeal #3042 To erect an identification sign 4424 S Pennsylvania 5 ' from the front lot line . I .A.P . Code requires 20 ' setback . Appeal #3043 To permit a second identifi- 5815 Executive Dr cation sign on property . Code Ron Salvatore allows 1 free standing sign . Appeal #3044 To allow residential homes to 111 Garden St be developed 15 ' from front lot Gerrit J . Heuer line . Code requires 20 ft . setback . Appeal #3045 To erect a new sign 5 ' from 4316 S Pennsylvania front lot line . Code requires Capital Area School Employees 20 ' setback . Sign will be 28 sq ft . Code allows 20 sq ft . Appeal #3046 To erect a 17 ' x 30 ' addition 1800 S . Cedar 13 ' from the front lot line on Douglas Fulk Norman St . Code requires 20 ' setback . Appeal #3047 To build a detached garage 1431 Glenrose 17 .9 ' from front lot line Richard Bordayo on Redwood & 34 .6 ' from front lot line on Glenrose . Code requires 20 ' & 60 ' respect . Appeal #3048 To allow single family home 4212 Courtland 2' from side lot line . Code Century Homes reuires 6 ft . 3 • Other Communication 4 . Approval of Minutes - April 12 , 1990 5 • Old Business 6 . New Business 7 . Adjourn Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals May 10 , 1990 - 7 :30 p .m. City Hall , Council Chambers . loth floor The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Clark at 7 :30 p .m. Roll call was taken . Present Excused Absence Priscilla Holmes H. Patricia Curran Christopher Steele Grant Hilts Edward Spink Patricia Curran Tom Kane Robert Hull Floyd Wright Mary Clark Staff Vern Fountain , Zoning Administrator Emil Winnicker , Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter , Recording Secretary Welcome new Board member Robert Hull . Kane made a motion that H.P . Curran and G. Hilts be given an excused absence . Second by Spink. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #3039 - 1441 Pontiac Street This is a request by Joseph Copeland for a variance to retain the ex- . isting carport on the side lot line on the premises located at 1441 Pontiac . A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant wishes to retain the existing open detached carport in the rear yard less than 60 ' from the front property line and on the side lot line . Holmes - Do they need a floodplain variance? Fountain - No . Kane - What impact does it have on the Building Code? There was no representative present for this appeal . A letter from Juanita Aldridge , 1430 Pontiac has no objection to this request . PAGE 1 Discussion Spink - I will not be supporting this appeal . I' ve been consistent in not supporting appeals for any structures on a property line and I think we have potential for problems where certain cases owners may be forced to trespass on adjacent properties for maintenance . I think that we would be extremely remiss if we granted a variance which lim- ited the option of an adjoining owner . Wright - I will support this on the grounds that one neighbor chooses to have some protection for his car and the other one chooses not to but before they had a shared garage . Wright made a motion to approve appeal #3039 • It is a practical dif- ficulty or hardship in that the carport will be located precisely where the garage was located . If it was moved over 2-3 ' it would be extremely difficult for the resident to use that . No one is here from the adjoining property protesting , therefore they don' t disapprove of what' s there . Second by Kane . Yeas : Hull , Wright Nays : Holmes , Spink , Kane , Steele , Clark Appeal #3039 DENIED. A motion was made and supported to approve the request , which received a vote of 2 yeas and 5 nays . The concurring vote of a majority of the members serving on the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be necessary to reverse an order , requirement , decision or determination of the Planning Division or to decide in favor of the applicant a matter upon which it is required to pass under an ordinance , or to effect a vari- ance of such ordinance . Those members voting in favor of the request did not believe that the location of the carport would adversely impact the adjacent property since it replaced an old garage . Those members voting against the variance felt that it would adversely impact the adjacent properties by promoting over crowding and would not leave any on site space for continued maintenance . Since the appeal was denied it is requested to take the necessary steps to bring the structure into compliance . 1 ) Move the structure so that it is not closer than three feet to the side lot line . 2) Reduce the size of the structure so that it is no closer than three feet to the side lot line . 3) Remove the structure completely. Spink - Motion to suspend the by laws in order to here the three ap- peals #3040 , #3042 and #3045 in the following matter . That the three public hearings be held consecutively followed by a single committee of the whole meeting and then vote separately. Second by Holmes . Motion passed unanimously Appeal #3040 - 4510 South Pennsylvania PAGE 2 This is a request by Lansing Community Credit Union for a variance to place a ground sign within 5 ' of the front property line on the pre- mises of 4510 South Pennsylvania . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to place a 2 ' x 10 ' ground sign 5 ' from the front property line . David Lee , 119 Allen , Lansing , representing L . C. C.U . and Stamp Rite Sign Co. spoke in behalf of the credit union. Holmes - How tall is the sign? Lee - 4 ' 6" Steele - How far will it be from the sidewalk? Lee - The front edge of the sign will be 10 ' from the sidewalk . Communication A phone message from Dan Gillengerten , 1000 Samantha, opposes the variance . A phone message from Belle Ann Black , 4501 Pennsylvania, opposes the variance . A letter from Gary Linn and Cynthia Winn , 121 S. Foster , oppose the erection of the sign . This is a residential neighborhood , we strongly oppose a sign closer to the road than code allows . Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3040 on the basis that it is a reasonable request . Consistent with the improvement made to the property. Second by Spink. Yeas : Spink , Holmes , Hull , Wright , Steele , Clark Nays : Kane Appeal #3040 APPROVED. The Board believes that this request is reasonable , since the location of the sign will be inside of a public park way along Pennsylvania Avenue that is wider than normal . The Board also found that the ex- isting building line is 20 ' from the front lot line which prohibits the front edge of the sign from being placed 20 ' back from the front lot line. The Board believes that a practical difficulty exists in this situation . Appeal #3042 - 4424 South Pennsylvania This is a request by the Institute the toAdvancement Prosthetics for a variance to allow the applicant front property line on the premises of 4424 South Pennsylvania . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . PAGE 3 The applicant proposes to place a 4 ' x 3 .5 ' ground sign within 5 ' of the front property line . David Lee , representing I .A .P . We are changing the total design of the sign which is quite a bit smaller . Holmes - How high will the sign be? Lee - 5 ' Communication A telephone message from Dan Gillengerten , 1000 Samantha, opposes the sign request . A telephone message from Belle Ann Black, 4501 Pennsylvania, opposes the request . A letter from Gary Linn and Cynthia Winn , 121 S. Foster , oppose the erection of a larger sign that is closer to the street than code al- lows . Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3042 . Second by Wright . Yeas : Wright , Holmes , Spink , Steele , Hull , Clark Nays : Kane Appeal #3042 APPROVED The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the request is consistant with the proposed parking lot improvements for the site , which was approved by the Board . The Board believes that this request is reasonable , since the location of the sign will be inside a public park way along Pennsylvania Avenue that is wider than normal . The Board also found that the existing building line is 20 ' from the front lot line which prohibits the front edge of the sign from being placed 20 ' back from the front lot line . The Board believes that a practical difficulty exists in this situa- tion . Appeal #3045 - 4316 South Pennsylvania This is a request by Capital Area School Employees for a variance to allow the construction of a 4 ' x 7 ' sign 5 ' from the front lot line on an existing brick sign base on the premises of 4316 South Pennsylvania . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . In this case there are two variances requests , one to allow the sign 5 ' from the front lot line and the other is the square footage of the sign . Code allows 20 square feet . The applicant proposes 28 square feet . The applicant wishes to place a 4 ' x 7 ' ( 28 sq ft) sign on an existing brick base 5 ' from the front property line . The new sign will replace an existing sign located in the front yard . PAGE 4 Jane Wilcox Olney, I' m representing Capital Area School Employees Credit Union. I am a staff member of the Credit Union . We do have a unique problem here . We did an expansion on our building about a year and a half ago and the site plans were approved by the City at that time with that planter that showed in the slide that has the wall for the sign and the architects version of the sign was presented at that time and it was approved . That existing sign is a ground sign . Our property size is close to two acres and we have about 301 .2' of frontage on Pennsylvania Avenue . The businesses in that area are highly professional type businesses and we do have a vacant corner lot that is next to us . We would like to stay with the low profile ground type sign. The dimensions on this are 4 ' x 7 ' and it will be 7 ' high off the ground . Clark - Why do you want to replace the existing sign? Olney - The existing sign is mounted on the brick and its not very visible the way it is . And its deteriorated some and we would like to replace it . Communication A letter from Gary Linn and Cynthia Winn, 121 S. Foster , owners of 4419 and 4425 S. Pennsylvania, oppose the erection of the sign which is closer to the street than code allows . A telephone message from Dan. Gillengerten , 1000 Samantha, opposes the sign request . A telephone message from Belle Ann Black , opposes the sign request . Steele made a motion to approve the setback request for appeal #3045 • Second by Spink . Yeas : Holmes , Spink, Hull , Wright , Steele , Clark Nays : Kane Appeal for setback variance approved . Steele made a motion to deny the request for the size of the sign. Second by Holmes . Yeas : Holmes , Hull , Spink, Kane , Steele , Wright , Clark Nays : none Appeal for size variance denied . The Board believes that the request for the setback of the sign is reasonable , since the location of the sign will be inside of a public parkway along Pennsylvania Avenue that is wider than normal . The Board also found that the existing building line is 20 ' from the front lot line which prohibits the front edge of the sign from being placed 20 ' back from the front lot line . The Board believes that a practical difficulty exists in this situation . The Board does not believe there is a hardship for the request as it relates to the larger size sign . The Board believes that the re- quirement of the Code allowing up to a twenty square foot sign is PAGE 5 reasonable , and to allow a larger sign would establish precedent for this area, and is therefore not in keeping with the general intent of the Code . Appeal #3041 - Barnes and Delevan This is a request by Dick McKay for a variance to construct a new single family home 17 ' from the front lot line along Delevan Street . A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to construct a single family home 17 ' from the front lot line along Delevan Road. Code requires a 20 ' setback . No one was present for representation of the appeal . Bruce Stark, 1621 Beal , Lansing . I' m representing the South Central Neighborhood Organization . The SCNO opposes the 3 ' setback variance requested for the proposed two story house on the northwest corner of Barnes Avenue and Delevan . Our primary reason for that is we don' t think the proposed house should be constructed at all . The lot is 44 ' x 1001 , but we think it is inadequate to accommodate this home . It looks like it would be incompatible with the neighborhood . This is an old neighborhood , with very well kept homes . Virtually everyone of the homes in the neighborhood has a garage. There are no garages planned for either one of these homes . There are several double lots in the neighborhood. This could be a nice site for one home. Many of the homes have beautiful landscaped yards , these two lots won' t have yards . Also , with the compatibility with the neighborhood , the one that is being built currently is quite a bit above grade , it is built higher than the rest of the homes in the neighborhood . The higher grade sticks out like a sore thumb and more important issue is drain- age . SCNO would like to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood of nice old homes and hope that you would deny the zoning variance . Emly Horne , 110 W. Hodge, representing Mrs . Venzke , 1615 Delevan, who owns that home and also the empty lot at 1615 Delevan . My aunt has lived in that home since 1921 and that is when my grandfather built the home . We have looked over the site and Mrs . Venzke ap- proves of this variance . Patricia Biergans , 1720 Delevan, lived here for 25 years and I strongly oppose. Gene Howland , next door to house being built . I' m really concerned about the drainage , because it is so much higher than my lot . I' m opposed to the variance . Marge Sorrell , 912 Barnes, 2 houses from the site . I' m opposed to this because the house going up does not fit the design of the neigh- borhood and it sits so close to the lot line he is going to have problems with the drainage . PAGE 6 Gary Cochran , 809 W. Barnes , I think two houses will make it very congested and I agree with the rest of the people , as far as opposing having another house built . Naomi Essenberg , 918 W. Barnes . The house being built looks like its on a mountain. We get enough water in our basement now from the rain, much less when his water comes flowing into there . My house is a two story and that one is a one story and its higher than my house . Virginia Cochran , the neighborhood is a very pretty neighborhood . One house is enough on those lots. I think it would take away from the beauty, the environment to put another structure there . Communication A letter from William Westphal , 1711 Stirling , opposed to any vari- ance . It would restrict the view of the adjoining property. Pat Menning , 833 Sparrow, against the variance . Kane made a motion to approve appeal #3041 it is consistent with variances on corner lots and the placement of the building on the lot is consistent with placement of other buildings in the neighborhood . Second by Spink . Clark - One option we might want to consider is that since the builder was not here to speak regarding the appeal, and since we have some questions about drainage and aesthetics we could consider tabling the request . Holmes made a motion to table appeal #3041 . Second by Hull . Motion carried unanimously . This request was tabled for further study and report and when this is completed this office will notify you of the next meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals when this request will be considered . Appeal #3043 - 5815 Executive Drive This is a request by Michigan Lumber & Building Materials Association for a variance to allow for a second free standing accessory sign on the property of 5815 Executive Drive. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to erect a second free standing accessory sign for a tenant located in the rear of the existing building . Spink - Does the current sign meet the code? Winnicker - Yes it does. PAGE 7 Ron Salvatore , I represent the Michigan Lumber & Building Materials Association Our sign that identifies our association' s office is parallel to Executive Drive and its only about 4 ' tall , sits in front of a berm and its barely noticeable until your directly in front of our building . We have an L shaped building which was necessitated because we needed parking for the tenant in the rear of the building and that entrance is totally visibly unaccessible from the road and the proposed sign which would be located across the other side of our driveway would be 5 ' tall but it would be on a pole , the sign itself would have 4 faces cube but its 3 x 3 , 9 sq ft per side and it wouldn' t begin until 2 ' above the ground and it would be 3 ' high, maximum 51 . I discussed it with the gentleman from Michigan Products , our tenant , and he concurred and didn' t have a problem with it as far as it being obstructive to his driveway or access to his building . Spink made a motion that appeal #3043 be approved . Site and applicant specific . Variance for two signs would continue as long as two dif- ferent businesses occupy that building . Should it revert to a single business then they would be expected to go back to a single sign . Second by Kane . Yeas : Spink , Holmes , Hull , Wright , Steele , Kane , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3043 APPROVED. The Board found that the development is located in an industrial park, in a building that is not highly visible from the street. The Board believes that this presents a practical difficulty and providing aes- thetics are taken into consideration as they were with the existing sign , there should not be any adverse impact on adjacent properties . Appeal #3044 - 111 Garden Street This is a request by Gerrit Heuer for a variance for a front yard setback requirement to allow for placement of two homes and construc- tion of an addition within 15 ' of the front property line on the pre- mises of 111 Garden Street . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to reduce 6 existing lots to 4 , relocate two homes to newly created lots in 100 block of Garden Street and con- struct an addition to his own home at 111 Garden Street . Gerrit Heuer, the homes in question is the one that is 5 ' from the property line , and the other one is 9 ' from the property line . Nine foot is where the rest of them are and my feeling is that if I shove them back too far they will get lost . Rolland Gerard , 123 Garden Street , I lived there 28 years and some of the property around there has gone down hill quite badly. I have no objection to his moving the houses , what I would like to know is ap- proximately where he plans on putting them. I would like to know what PA( P R his intentions are in the future , what his intentions are as far as to adding on to the house and where he' s going to move these two houses . Fountain had a discussion with Mr . Heuer in regard to the setback of the homes , which include the porches . Heuer said he can adapt to it , he will take the 15 ' • Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #3044 . This is a reasonable request and it will allow homes to be located compatible with the surrounding property. Second by Spink . This motion was made with the understanding that the 15 ' setback includes the setback for the porches . Yeas : ; Wright , Holmes , Spink, Steele , Hull , Kane , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3044 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the proposed de- velopment of these properties will be in substantial conformance with existing development along Garden Street , therefore the variance is in keeping with the general intent of the Code . The Board further found that the proposed development will result in an overall improved lotting pattern , and will promote improvements to the neighborhood , consistant with the Master Plan . Appeal #3046 - 1800 South Cedar This is a request by Douglas Fulk for a front yard variance to con- struct a 17 ' x 30 ' addition to the existing sign company on the pre- mise of 1800 South Cedar . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to construct a 17 ' x 30 ' addition at the northeast corner of the building . The landscaping , screening and buffering requirements of 1983 are not met . Douglas Fulk, reside at 4450 Copper , Okemos , I own the business at South Cedar . As far as the backside of the alley, in the back when we remove old signs or we have things to go to the trash they are put back there until we have a truckload to go then it goes to the dump . The backside , by the alley, the kids play back there , they bust down trees and bushes or anything that is planted back there . We screened in our scaffolding that we put back there . We intend to , on the south side, we plan on clearing that out , putting a slab of cement there , when we do the addition, enclosing that to put all our old signs that we reuse . PAGE 9 Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #3046 subject to the following conditions . 1 ) A minimum of 5 parkaing spaces; 2) Landscape , screen-. ing and buffering ; 3) Closure of unnecessary curb cuts ; 4 ) Elimination of outdoor storage of materials . Second by Wright . The corner lot limits setback requirements . No negative affect of traffic flow is anticipated . Yeas : Holmes , Spink , Hull , Kane , Wright , Steele , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3046 APPROVED. The Board' s approval was made with the understanding that you would with this office and the Traffic Engineer on the final site plan for this property which will reflect the required off street parking , closing of unnecessary curb cuts and landscape , screening and buffering . The Board found based on testimony and evidence that this corner lot creates a hardship and limits reasonable expansion of this existing commercial development . The Board was satisfied that the addition will not interfere with either vehicular or pedestrian traffic . Appeal #3047 - 1431 Glenrose Avenue This is a request by Richard Bordayo , for a variance request to allow the construction of a detached garage on the premise of 1431 Glenrose . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to construct a 26 ' x 24 ' detached garage 17 .9 ' from the front lot line along Redwood Street and 34 .67 ' from the front lot line along Glenrose Street . Richard Bordayo , 1431 Glenrose Avenue . The garage I propose to have built between these trees will be in the same as the home as far as the color of the garage , the shingles on the roof will be the same as the home the siding will be vinyl which will be the same color as the house . Part of the reason to build it where I want it is I don' t want to eliminate the trees. I talked to the neighbors in the area, and I have a list of signatures . Dan Finey, 1409 Redwood , my property butts up to Richard' s property. This is an older neighborhood , it is a corner lot . These are all single family homes . 90% of garages are single car garages . I' m op- posing this because his two car garage will face Redwood Street . There' s no other house on the street that built a garage facing other houses . I would like to see it built where the original garage was . Communication A letter from Margaret Aguilar , 1433 Roselawn , no objection to garage . A telephone message from Robert Faggin, 1412 Redwood , oppose variance . PAGE 10 A letter from Mrs. Ronald Haruska 1523 Glenrose , objects . Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3047 providing it is in line with 'the house to the west and with the following conditions : 1 ) The garage have house type siding that is prefinished , painted or stained; 2 ) The garage have a pitched and shingled roof; 3 ) Foundation plantings be utilized to reduce the accessory structure appearance . The planting plan shall be approved by the Planning Division . Second by Kane . Hardship is due to the shape of the lot . Yeas : Holmes , Hull , Spink, Kane , Steele , Wright , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3047 APPROVED. Appeal #3048 - 4212 Courtland This is a request by Century Homes for a side yard variance to allow a house to be 2 ' from the property line . A presentation was given by E. Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant wishes to sell the property at 4212 Courtland with a clear title . The house was built too close to the side property line . Al Ralsky from Century Homes . This house was placed on the property in error by a former partner of Century Homes , who is no longer there . An easement has been approved by City Council , we request that this variance be made approved due to the fact that the expense to move the home would be prohibitive . In' addition the people that purchased the home have been transferred to another State and will be moving next month and we would like to resolve this matter if we can. Arlington Romphf, 4312 Dumpfries Circle . I have a pie shape lot, like this person has and I have been trying to get a garage put up , I' ve been there 10 years , and I' ve come downtown, and they keep telling me I have to be within 6 ' of the property line . I' ve never yet seen a pie shaped garage and still get two cars in it . I still don' t have a garage . Louis Crenshaw, attorney for owners of the property, Mr . & Mrs. Thomas Long , who own the property at 4212 Courtland . Mr . & Mrs . Long bought this property and at the closing discovered that it was PArF 11 encroaching . At the time we entered an agreement with Century Homes that they would attempt to resolve the problem that' s why we' re her today. Mr . Long is in the military and has been transferred . He' s in the process of trying to list the home to sell it . Spink - What restrictions are we putting on the adjacent property owner? Fountain - none Wright made a motion to approve appeal #3048 . There is a hardship for the present owner due to the error of the builder . Second by Holmes . Yeas : Holmes , Hull , Wright , Kane , Steele , Clark Nays : Spink Appeal #3048 APPROVED. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that this encroachment was not the fault of the current owners, and therefore the Board believes that it would be a hardship on the current owner to relocate the structure and bring it into compliance. Minutes Holmes made a motion to approve the April 12 , 1990 minutes . Second by Steele. Motion carried unanimously. Next months meeting will be held in Judge Giddings Courtroom #3 . Clark - Send a letter to the developer of Century Homes . Holmes made a motion to adjourn , second by Steele . Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeting a journed at 10 :00 p .m. ern Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals PAGE 12 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals APRIL 12 , 1990 - 7 :30 p .m . City Hall , C®UNcil Chambers . loth floor The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Clark at 7 :30 p .m . Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Priscilla Holmes Bernard Christy Christopher Steele Edward Spink Patricia Curran Tom Kane Grant Hilts Floyd Wright Mary Clark Staff Vern Fountain , Zoning Administrator Emil Winnicker , Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter , Recording Secretary Appeal #3029 - 324 North Pine This is a request by Children' s Charter of the Court of Michigan , Inc . to exceed the lot coverage allowed by the Zoning Code for property located at 324 North 'Pine Street . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . ' The applicant proposes to make both structural and parking improve- ments to the property which would result in a total lot coverage of 3 , 162 .75 square feet or 75% of the lot area . This requires a variance of 15% or 638 .25 square feet . A request to rezone the property to the ' D-2 ' District is currently pending before City Council . Holmes - Are they going to remove a portion of the building? Winnicker - In the rear . Spink - Is a front yard parking variance needed? Winnicker - No . Cheri Ross , Attorney with Children' s Charter of the Courts of Michigan , on behalf of Michael Foley. Children' s Charter is a non profit organization . Our staff is only 3 people . Curran - Are you going to do anything to the exterior of the house? Ross - There will be some facelifting , like painting . PAGE 1 Steele - Do you own the property? Ross - No we are renting right now. Steele - If you couldn' t put this many parking spaces on it , would you still acquire this house and put your office there? Ross - Spink - Are handicap parking spaces required? Ross - I don' t know. Frank Butterfield , my property is located at 520 West Ionia and I also represent the owner of the property 330 North Pine . I have a joint drive with 330 North Pine . Our concern is that there is very limited parking . There is very limited parking at the apartment building . Sharon Kellogg , Downtown Neighborhood Association . We would like to see the building occupied rather than vacant . Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #3029 . Second by Wright . Reason : There is a practical difficulty in terms of future use of this property and the size of the lot . Granting a waiver for this property for this usage would be a less intense use for them to re- quest a ' D-1 ' zoning . Also , approval be based on the conditions that the rezoning request is approved by Council . And the final develop- ment plan for the site be approved by the Public Service Department . Yeas : Holmes , Curran, Wright Nays : Spink, Hilts , Kane , Steele , Clark Appeal #3029 DENIED. There was a motion made and supported to approve the request , which received a vote of 3 yeas and 5 nays . Therefore the request is denied . The concurring vote of a majority of the members serving on the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be necessary to reverse an order , requirement , decision or determination of the Planning Division or to decide in favor of the applicant a matter upon which it is required to pass under an ordinance, or to effect a variance of such ordinance . Those members voting in favor of this request felt that the limited size of the property established a hardship , and the change would al- low reasonable use of a small parcel of land . Those members voting against the variance believe the change would promote over development of the property and therefore is not in keeping with the general intent of the Code . Appeal #3031 - 217 West Northrup This is a request by Roy Taylor to receive a variance from the zoning code that will allow for the construction of an addition to the south side of his existing home located at 217 West Northrup Street no closer than 16 ' feet of the front property line on Annapolis Drive . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . PAGE 2 The applicant proposes to build 16 ' of the front lot line , the same distance as the existing structure . This is a request for a variance of 9 ' . Roy Taylor , owner . The old kitchen and dining area is 10 ' x 12 ' . We would like to make it bigger . Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3031 . Second by Steele . Rea- son : Having two front yards is a hardship and extending the house any further than it currently sits seems reasonable . Yeas : Spink, Holmes , Curran, Hilts , Wright , Steele , Kane, Clark . Nays : none Appeal #3031 APPROVED. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that having two front yards is a hardship . The Board found that the proposed ad- dition will not extend any closer to the front lot line than the ex- isting structure , and to allow this to develop seems reasonable . The Board was also satisfied that the new addition would not adversely impact adjacent development . Appeal #3032 - 917 West Hillsdale This is a request by Gracie Ansley to utilize an existing residential structure for a two family dwelling on a lot with less than the re- quired lot area at 917 West Hillsdale . A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to rehabilitate the structure for a two family dwelling which requires 6 ,000 square feet . The lot contains 5 ,808 square feet . A variance request of 192 square feet is requested . Spink - What are the necessary driveway improvements? Fountain - They are required to have 3 improved parking spaces . Gracie Ansley, 2034 Lenawee - I just purchased the property. I knew the lady that lived there before and its been a two family apartment for over 40 years . We are in the process of renovating it . I just want to get it back to a two family. It use to be a drug house and prostitute center . Its been boarded up for the last three years . Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3032 . Second by Curran. Rea- son : They are requesting only a minimal amount of square footage , it will be a continued usage , parking requirements shall be met , no parking problem . Improved driveway is required . Renovation will be an improvement to the neighborhood . Yeas : Hilts , Wright , Curran , Holmes , Spink , Steele , Kane , Clark . Nays : none Appeal #3032 APPROVED . PAGE 3 The approval was given with the condition and understanding that off street parking requirements will be met , which shall include hard surfacing of the drives and parking area as required by code . A site plan shall be submitted to this office identifying the above . The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property is zoned ' C' Residential and was previously used as a two and three unit building and was non conforming . However , it was vacant for almost three years and lost non conforming status . The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that renova- tion will be an improvement to the neighborhood , providing all code requirements are met and therefore approval is in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Code. Appeal #3033 - 227 Custer This is a request by Gary Lintemuth to allow for construction of a deck within the required side and rear yards of the property located at 227 Custer Avenue and to erect a fence around the property that will exceed the maximum height limitations established in the Code . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to build a deck attached to the house up to both the rear and side property lines . Also , the applicant proposes a fence 8 ' high in the back yard and 6 ' high in a portion of the front yard . Gary Lintemuth , 227 Custer , resident for 12 years. When we purchased the property we were aware that there was a lack of space in the back yard . The realtors did not do a full survey. I have two front yards . The reason I want the variance , is that I feel I can improve that small parcel of property that right now is unuseable . We have no place on the property for recreational purposes . I' m asking for a clearance on a 6 ' fence up toward the street because inside there will be a spa. There will also be a gas grill and garden tools and hoses inside . I would like to keep the deck as close to floor level as possible. Given the smallness of the area and the concept of which we' re working for I think I can make this a much nicer looking piece of property in the back by utilizing a nice fence , and put in greenery back there . Clark - Will the fence be built on the lot line? Lintemuth - There is a concrete piece from an old building that sits directly on the lot line . I will be building ray fence to the inside of that . Holmes - Have you talked to the adjoining property owners? Lintemuth - Yes I have . PAGE 4 Gary Novak, 1445 Vine . I live directly across Vine Street from this property. They have improved this property throughout their ownership and its greatly enhanced the appearance of the neighborhood . I' m in favor of this fence . A letter from the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, Mary Margaret Murphy-Woll , President . The ENO supports the variance . A letter from Marion Simon, 10301 Dewitt Road , could have an adverse effect on traffic . Hilts made a motion to approve appeal #3033 in accord with development plans submitted at the meeting of April 12 , 1990 . Reason : Hardship and practical difficulty . Yeas : Holmes , Spink , Curran , Hilts , Kane , Wright , Steele , Clark . Nays : none Appeal #3033 APPROVED. These variances were approved in accord with the site development plans you submitted to the Board at their meeting of April 12 , 1990 , and on file in the Planning Division of the Department of Planning and Municipal Development . The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that hardship and practical difficulty, did exist due to the corner lot restriction and more particular in this situation since the parcel is much smaller than what is normally required . The Board does not believe the vari- ance will have any negative impact on adjacent properties. Appeal #3034 - 428 West Lenawee This is a request by Les Linsemier, 422 West Lenawee , for a zoning variance to place a one and one half by three and one half foot busi- ness identification sign in the front yard of the property at 428 West Lenawee. The sign would be located eighteen inches from the front property line . A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . Les Linsemier , I own both properties at 422 and 428 West Lenawee . We have remodeled both properties . At one time they were both going to be demolished . My office is at 422 . The property is at 428 West Lenawee the sign location will be on Lenawee street side , which is also the porch side of the building . The company that has leased this has a five year lease. They are called U.S .A. Funds and they guar- antee student loans for various educational financing for students . Their corporate headquarters are in Indianapolis . They have been in business for about 30 years . Because they are a new company they would like to have a little exposure . We are trying to work out something to place a sign within the planting bed , adjacent to the sidewalk. The sign is about 3 ' high, 3 ' in length and the sign face PAGE 5 approximately 1 .5 ' x 3 .5 ' . It will be a low key sign and fit in with the architecture of the buildings . Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3034 . Second by Curran . Yeas : Curran, Hilts , Holmes , Spink, Kane , Steele , Wright , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3034 APPROVED. The Board was satisfied that a hardship did exist in this proposal due to the placement of the existing building and its relationship to the front lot line . The Board further goes on record commending you on the excellent job you have done on rehabilitating and restoring the building at 422 and 428 West Lenawee . Appeal #3035 - 1217 Pulaski This is a request by Dean Atwood to build a detached garage at 1217 Pulaski Street closer than is permitted to the west property line on Birch Street . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to construct a garage 9 .2 ' from the west prop- erty line on Birch Street . A variance of 10 .8 ' is requested . Dean Atwood , 1217 Pulaski . I can' t get a garage unless I get this variance . In order to maintain the 20 ' clearance with a 24 ' garage , which is a standard depth , it will put me tight to the back lot line . Charles Adams , 1303 Pulaski , neighbor to the west . I have a full view of his garage, and it will be an improvement . His lot does not have the width of the lot to put his garage. A telephone message from Brent Tissue , 1210 Alsdorf has no objection to the variance request . Steele made a motion to to approve appeal #3035 . Second by Curran . Subject to staff recommendations : Demolition of the existing carport . Removal of the drive in the front of the old carport . Hardsurfacing of new driveway. Yeas : Hilts , Curran , Kane , Holmes , Spink, Steele , Wright , Clark . Nays : none Appeal #3035 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that size of this corner lot causes a hardship , when attempting to develop this usual accessory structure . The Board does not believe the proposed acces- sory structure will have any adverse impact on adjacent properties , PAGE 6 and therefore the variance is in keeping with the general intent of the code . Appeal #3036 - 500 American Road This is a request by Design & Build , Inc . , representing the owner WILX-TV Channel 10 , to construct a 100 foot high low frequency micro- wave transmission tower at their new office located at 500 American Road . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . WILX-TV Channel 10 is building a new office at this location on the southwest corner of American Road and Edgewood Boulevard and desires to relocate the existing 100 foot high tower from their present site at 100 North Pennsylvania Avenue to this site . Code restricts the structures on that property to a maximum height of 45 feet , therefore a 55 foot variance is requested . Ray Pernot , 1508 Weber Drive, Lansing , Chief Engineer of WILX-TV . We intend to relocate our tower from the corner of Michigan and Pennsylvania to the corner of Edgewood and American. The purpose of this tower is to transmit live video and video tape from our Lansing office to our Jackson studio . The hardship that would be created if we were unable to get the variance is that we would no longer be able to feed live video or video tape from that location putting us at a competitive disadvantage and possibly doing a disservice to the view- ing public . Kane - Will the existing tower at Pennsylvania be coming down? Winnicker - Yes . Wright - What is the height of the tower on Michigan Avenue? Winnicker - 1001 . A letter from Daniel J . Otto , Capital Region Airport Authority. The proposed location for the new tower does not require a permit from the Airport Authority for the height of the structure . A FAA form should be completed to determine if any problems exist with the proposed project . A letter from Joseph Sutschek , Agent for Ramco-Lansing Associates , has no objection to the variance allowing the 100 foot TV tower . Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3036 to grant a 55 ' variance , subject to the condition that the tower is to be removed if its use is discontinued , or if the owner moves . Second by Kane . Yeas : Holmes , Curran, Spink, Hilts , Wright , Kane, Steele , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3036 APPROVED. PAGE 7 This approval was given with the understanding and the condition that the tower will be located in accordance with the site plan submitted , and all other code requirements are met . If the use is discontinued or the owner moves the tower shall be removed . The Board does not believe the proposed tower will have any adverse impact on adjacent properties . Appeal #3037 - 743 N. Logan St ./Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd . This is a request by Westminster Presbyterian Church to receive a variance from the Zoning Code that will allow them to erect a sign at 743 North Logan Street/ Martin Luther King Blvd . near the southwest corner of Oakland Avenue and North Logan Street/Martin Luther King Blvd . fifteen ( 15 ' ) feet from the front property lines . A presentation was given by E. Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to replace an old existing sign with a new sign that will be located on the southwest corner of the Oakland/Logan/M.L . King Blvd . intersection 15 ' from the front property line . Code requires a 20 ' setback . Holmes - Will it be the same sign? Winnicker - It will be a new sign. Dick Ramsey, resident of Lansing . I am the moderator of Corporation Life and Finance of the Session of Westminster . Presbyterian Church. Even if we took the bushes out we can' t meet the 20 ' setback from both corners . The sign will not interfere with any traffic . Curran made a motion to approve appeal #3037 • Reason : Two front yards cause a difficulty. The sign will be located in such a way it will not interfere with traffic . Second by Hilts . Yeas : Spink , Holmes , Curran, Hilts , Wright , Steele , Kane , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3037 APPROVED. The Board believes that the location of the existing building combined with the corner lot causes a hardship when attempting to install rea- sonable identification and at the same time meet minimum code re- quirements . The Board understands that the sign will be located in such a way it will not interfere with the visibility of automotive or pedestrian traffic . Appeal #3038 - 208 N. Walnut/326-328 W. Ottawa PAGE 8 This is a request by Gregory Byrd representing David Anderson and Cathy Stull . The petitioner is restoring the historic buildings at 326-328 W. Ottawa Street and 208 N. Walnut Street for office use . A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The Zoning Code requires twenty ( 20) parking spaces for the two buildings . The property will support three parking spaces . Steele - Where are the three spaces to be provided? Fountain - In the rear of the property. Holmes - Is this in the central business district of downtown? Fountain - No . Curran - If these buildings are already used for office buildings , why are they coming to us? Fountain - Because of the cost of restoration. Patrick Reid , I represent the property owners , my address is 200 N. Washington . This building on Ottawa was built in 1887 . My client has just recently purchased it and is undertaking extensive renovation of it . In doing that , he has applied for the area to be designated as an historical district . He wants to maintain the character of the structure and the structure on Walnut that was built in 1912 . He has come up with architectural plans for this and he feels with the im- provements he' s making it is going to be a substantial improvement to that area. This is an area that is directly across from the State Capital . And at this point it is an eyesore . This fits in with the revitalization of downtown that the City of Lansing has undertaken . This property when built in 1887 and all the surrounding properties, did not allow for parking . Its been used as a five unit apartment building . Potentially , there is one site on this parcel that could have been used for parking . This building has had its use for a num- ber of years without adequate parking . The zoning on it is D-1 Pro- fessional Office , the City has determined that this is a proper use ,for the renovation of my client' s going through right now. And this particular property finds itself within the downtown area, no alter- natives for parking , all the adjacent areas are already built on . We have an advantage here , when the property was purchased , it became adjacent to two other parcels owned by the current owner . The adja- cent buildings do have parking behind them. And they have access parking . My client' s are renovating this building for leasing and if there' s no parking available , they are not going to be able to lease it out . The best alternative that we feel this property can be developed for is for commercial use , preserving its historical char- acter , providing necessary parking and we would agree with Planning and recommend that this parcel be granted a variance based upon this information. Curran - Are you going to do anything with the building on Walnut Street? Reid - Yes , that' s also being renovated . PAGE 9 Steele - Where are the three parking spaces? Reid - One of them is a handicapped spot , two are normal spots , adja- cent to alley. Steele - Is your proposal to provide three spaces or nine spaces? Reid - Our proposal is that we have three spaces that qualify for parking spaces . We have other areas available to accommodate parking , but are not within the definition of the width and length for parking . Thomas Hitch, represent the guardian of the prior owner . I am going to ask that you deny or a minimum delay and defer the decision based on the unusual circumstance that this property was acquired . It does impact significantly my client , who is the guardian, who is the nephew of the prior owner , who is Mrs . Margaret Taylor . Larry Fowler , owner of property down the street . That particular property , no matter what use you put it to you got inadequate parking . The most productive use of that property would be to use it as an of- fice because obviously they can get higher rents , if they get higher rents they can make better improvements , and you are going to have more aesthetically acceptable building . You will be stuck with some inadequate parking . If you use it as an apartment area its going to have some interest , but its not going to generate the revenue of which is going to be produced by office building . Dave Wilson , I own the property at 209 North Walnut . Given the cur- rent parking situation, I agree with Larry Fowler' s comments , if the City would see its way to opening up parking on Ottawa Street both in front of this particular parcel and further along the block in front of Mr . Fowler' s offices and also open some parking on the east side of Walnut Street , which is currently closed to parking , I think it would significantly alleviate what is now without a doubt a parking problem for those of us that are engaged in business in the area. Our concern is by changing this from what is currently a residential property to a business setting without some adjustment in terms of creating more parking in that area, we are just going to compound the problem that presently exists and make it much worse . Jim Coles , I represent the Michigan State' s Society of Professional Engineers who own the property at 215 North Walnut . I agree that this property can stand some renovating and some faeelifting . We would support any improvement in that regard . We have a parking lot in the rear of our building that. currently houses about 35 parking spaces between the two buildings , 215 and the one north of us . I day doesn' t go by that we don' t have to put a note on a car that' s parked there from someone that does not belong to either one of our organizations . We have meetings late in the evening and our people have to find other spots because they can' t park in front of our building and because our lot is full . And I certainly cannot support a variance that will al- low another shortage of 15 parking spaces in that area. Sharon Kellogg , reside at 421 West Ionia, downtown Lansing , within a block of the subject property. Tonight I' m here on behalf of the Downtown Neighborhood Association. I ' m very familiar with these properties , because I opened my real estate office here in 1976 . PAGE 10 There' s no question that parking is a precious commodity downtown. After looking into it I am convinced that this variance should be granted . I believe that this property should not be granted a vari- ance if the owner is not agreeable to putting these properties in an historic district . If they are willing to put these properties in an historic district I would definitely support it . By giving them a variance it would be acknowledging that its being granted because they are special properties , they are historical and have some architec- tural character that we should preserve. The Land Use Committee be- lieves in the heavy use of meter street parking . Gregory Byrd , I' m the appellant , the general contractor involved in the project . The owner has restored 318 Ottawa, 320-322 Ottawa. These two buildings and the two buildings for this variance have been applied for historic designation . Patrick Reid , the property was purchased from Mrs. Taylor . There was a probate court hearing , Mrs . Taylor was represented by an attorney . A letter from Sharon Wilson, Wilson Properties , 209 North Walnut . Oppose the requested parking variance . Parking in this area is al- ready overextended . A letter from Bill Acheson , Historic Preservation Planner . The His- toric District recommends that this variance be granted . It is fur- ther recommended that a historic district be formed consisting of these and as many adjacent properties as possible . Kane made a motion to table this appeal for one month at which time our staff can give us further background data in regards to the prop- erty. Second by Hilts . Yeas : Hilts , Wright , Curran , Kane Nays : Holmes , Spink , Steele , Clark Motion fails. Steele made a motion to grant a variance for 20 spaces with a stipu- lation that it be affected only upon the adoption of the historic district for the property. Second by Holmes . Yeas : Holmes , Spink, Curran, Kane , Wright , Steele , Clark Nays : Hilts Motion passed . Holmes made a motion to reconsider . Second by Curran . Motion passed . Holmes made a motion to grant a variance of 17 spaces and that it not take affect until an historic district is granted . Second by Curran . Yeas : Curran , Kane, Holmes , Spink , Steele , Wright , Clark Nays : Hilts Motion passed . PAGE 11 Approval of this request is subject to the establishment of an his- toric district for this property. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property is zoned ' D-1 ' Professional Office District which allows office develop- ment . Office development is also in accord with the Master Plan. The Board further found that the development of this property occurred at a time when off-street parking was insignificant and changing con- ditions have caused under hardship when attempting to maintain and improve the property. Other Communication A letter from Mr . Byrd , 648 South Foster, requesting that the Board review again the 747 sq ft garage . Hilts made a motion not to rehear the request . Second by Spink . Motion carried . Reason : Mr . Byrd knew what he was doing when he built the garage . There is no responsibility on the Board' s part to keep a commercial business going in a residential area. Minutes Curran made a motion to approve the March 8 , 1990 minutes . Second by Hilts . Motion carried unanimously . Old Business Mr . Fountain requests that the Board members field check all cases prior to the meeting . There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10 :30 p .m. Vernon C. un Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals PAGE 12 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals March 8 , 1990 - 7 :30 p .m . City Hall , Council Chambers . 10th floor The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Clark at 7 :30 p .m . Roll call was taken . Present Excused Absence Priscilla Holmes Bernard Christy Edward Spink Christopher Steele Patricia Curran Tom Kane Grant Hilts Floyd Wright Mary Clark 0 Staff ;.J c) rr, Vern Fountain , Zoning Administrator <� Emil Winnicker , Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter , Recording Secretary Appeal #302 - 1320 North Grand River { �� r,a This is a request for a variance to permit the construction ofc, a ad- dition to the Olympic Broil Restaurant at 1320 North Grand River Avenue, which is located in the 100 year flood plain. The applicant proposes to expand the existing building which will have its main floor approximately 1 .2 feet below the base flood elevation of the Grand River . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The code requires that when an expansion of a non-residential building occurs in the flood plain, the building shall be flood proofed or the first floor eleva- tion shall, be raised at or above the 100 year base flood elevation . Holmes - Where is the access to the single family residential to the east? Fountain - Off of Willow. Holmes - Why does this have to have a Special Land Use? Fountain - Because of the size of the property, and type of improve- ment . Jim Brown , for Richard Reaume , Architect . The reason for the addition is not for seating capacity, they are trying to stay in business by putting an adequate drive up facility, they do compete with the fast food people . In order to make the drive up work and safe for people to enter and exit the restaurant we had to flip things around and move PAGE 1 the seating . They also want to introduce handicap toilets which they did not have. A good part of the addition is trying to update it for barrier free . Its less of an infringement on the floodplain then we originally thought . Holmes - Is that eastern boundary screened and buffered now? Fountain - Yes , there' s a fence along the eastern boundary . Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #3024 . Second by Kane . This addition does not appear to present any environmental problems . Spink : Amendment to the motion to re-evaluate the screening and buffering . Yeas : Spink , Holmes , Curran , Hilts , Wright , Kane , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3024 APPROVED. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the pro- posed addition would not adversely impact the adjacent properties or create any environmental problems . The Board further requests that the Planning staff re-evaluate the screening and buffering around the site , in connection with the expansion . Appeal #3025 - 1307 Fletcher This is a request by Thomas Corby to permit the construction of an attached 20 ' x 20 ' garage on the property known as 1307 Fletcher . A presentation was given by V . Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The garage will be attached to the south side of the house 13 ' from the front property line along Fletcher and 21 ' from the rear property line . The code requires a front yard setback from Fletcher Street of 20 ' and a rear yard setback of 30 ' . Wright - Are there other garages that use the alley? Fountain - Yes Holmes - Is the new approach into the alley by recommendation of the Planning Dept or is that where the owner wants it? Fountain - Its by choice of the applicant . Thomas Corby, representing Mr . & Mrs . Alexander . The existing two buildings attached to the garage right now are useless . They' re built of 2 x 4 roof construction and its laying on a slab . Its not as valuable as a 20 x 20 garage. They will be torn down . They are not structurally sound . Curran - Will there be access from the house to the garage? Corby - No . PAGE 2 Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3025 with the condition that the the property owner remove the existing drive approach and sheds and replace the curb . Second by Holmes . Yeas : Hilts , Wright , Curran, Holmes , Spink , Kane , Clark Nays : none Appeal #3025 APPROVED. The Board found that the proposed construction would not substantially change the existing building line along Fletcher Street . The Board was satisfied that application of the minimum requirements of the code on this corner lot presented a hardship , when attempting to do normal improvements to the property. When taking this action the Board fur- ther required that you close the existing curb cut off Fletcher Street and install new curb , and also remove the existing drive way and make it into lawn area. Appeal #3026 - 4424 South Pennsylvania This is a request by the Institute of Prosthetics to reconstruct the front ( east) parking area of their property at 4424 South Pennsylvania Avenue that would result in approximately 10 , of the required front yard being used for parking/maneuvering area. A presentation was given by V . Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Clark - Is the change necessitated . because they are changing to right angle parking? Fountain - Yes . Clark - Why wouldn' t angle parking work in front of the building? Fountain - It would , they want to eliminate the north curb cut . Gaylord Acker , business administrator for Institute for Advancement of Prosthetics . The nature of our facility is treating amputees and ev- eryone coming into the front part of the building is an amputee . We have patients coming from all over the world. And most of the pa- tients are coming in as first time patients , wheelchairs or crutches . If they are coming back for repairs they are often on a crutch or on a prosthesis that is not working properly and so therefore they are walking slowly. The problem we have run into for the past 10 years is the double drive . We have a lot of local traffic using it as a turn- around . Right now the patients have to cross between their cars and the front door . The traffic coming in and around , some of them very fast , have endangered a number of our patients where they have had to step back quickly or they have to try to hurry, and in a wheelchair or crutches it hard to hurry. It made it extremely difficult with this double drive in and out . We had thought originally of having this eliminated in our improvement of the property. When they came through with the new curb on Pennsylvania we were going to change the south drive to a double drive anyway and we have that in and we would like to eliminate the north one , turn the cars parking toward the building so that no patient will have to be endangered trying to cross a PAGF driveway with cars swinging in and out . If we leave the double drive and raise a driveway on the south side of the building it will create a blind corner at the building . This would endanger staff and people coming from the lower level. Plus the turnaround traffic . You raise the drive and we already have children using skateboards going down into the parking lot . This would then allow them to skate toward Pennsylvania, which we thing would be dangerous . So , with all this in mind , we have decided it would be best to look at the safety factors of what we have before we move ahead with any further work at trying to eliminate the problems that we are currently experiencing . Clark - How many patients do .you normally have there at any one time? How many spaces do you feel you need? Acker - 7 we feel would be adequate . Most patients are from out of town. We have a lot of patients who stay at the local motels , most of the patients are from somewhere else . We only get 20-30% from Michigan. The rest fly in , most of the motels have courtesy cars , they bring patients back and forth. We would like to eliminate the turnaround traffic we get from the local people . Communication Gary L . Linn , 121 S . Foster , owner of property at 4419 and 4425 S . Pennsylvania and oppose the parking area. Esther Linn, 934 S. Dexter, owner of property at 4415 S . Pennsylvania oppose the parking area. Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3026 . Second by Hilts . Rea- son : Cars will be farther from the line . The advantage of having one curb cut closed will increase the safety of pedestrians . Yeas : Holmes , Spink, Curran, Hilts , Kane , Wright , Clark Nays : none APPEAL #3026 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that this proposed improvement would eliminate one of the existing curb cuts into the site and would therefore improve the safety level of ingress and egress to the property . The Board further believes that on site au- tomobile and pedestrian circulation will be more safer with the elim- ination of thru traffic in the drive isle . The Board does not believe that this improvement will adversely impact adjacent properties , especially with the installation of the necessary and required landscaping along Pennsylvania Avenue . Appeal #3027 - 3808 South Cedar This is a request by Ronald R. Jones to install a free standing pole sign which will be placed 15 ' from the front property line on the property located at 3808 South Cedar . PAGE 4 A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . Clark - The widening of South Cedar isn' t affecting the west side of the street at all is it? Winnicker - No , it is not . Spink - Is the sign to be centered on the pole? Winnicker - Yes . Ron Jones , president of Edwards Photographic Studio . We are actually in 3808 , we were moved out on the 26th of February. We had to vacate our building at Greenlawn and Cedar per MDOT request by March 1 . We did take off the back wall, added 24 more feet , we do have a beautiful studio inside . Because of our change of location, I really want that sign. I have been in that studio for almost 22 years I' ve owned it for over 5 years . Because we were on that corner for so many years and it is a very good business location and the one I' m in now I do not feel is quite as good . At least when people go by they will rec- ognize the sign and know where I moved . I think its imperative to my business that they get to see the same sign. Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #3027 . Reason : Hardship cre- ated by street widening . Second by Hilts . Yeas : Curran, Hilts , Holmes , Spink , Kane, Wright Nays : Clark APPEAL #3027 APPROVED The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the sign will be compatible with other identification signs in the vicinity . The Board found that your business was displaced due to the widening of Cedar Street and you would like to keep your original identifica- tion sign. The Board does not believe the sign will have any greater impact on adjacent development than the previous sign and approval is in keeping with the general intent of the code . Appeal #3030 - 2519 South Cedar This is a request by the Radio Shack Corporation, 2519 South Cedar Street , to relocate an existing pole sign in front of their building . The proposed new location will be on the north side of the building 8 ' from the front property lot line. The sign would be even with the front of the building and the lower edge would be above the roof of the building . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . PAGE 5 The State of Michigan purchase of property leaves the property line within 6 ' of the front of the building . The zoning code requires a structure such as pole sign be set back from the front property line a minimum of 201 . The variance needed to relocate the sign as requested is 12 ' . Hilts - Is the sign going to stick up above the building? Winnicker - Yes . Joe Abood , 117 E . Allegan , on behalf of the land owners and tenants . Because of the widening of the street the current position of the sign out front of the building is an impracticability. And because of the zoning ordinance requiring the sign to be moved 20 ' back it would work a hardship as far as sight line go . It wouldn' t serve a real practi- cal purpose being in that position . Communication Fred H. Rahn , Servall Company, 228 East Baltimore , Detroit , Michigan. Our company has a branch at 2501 S. Cedar Street and we would like to lend our support in favor of the Radio Shack Corporation relocating the existing pole sign in front of their building . Spink made a motion that appeal #3030 be approved . Second by Hilts . Reason : It is a reasonable request since the building is only 6 ' from the front property line . Hardship is caused by action of the govern- ment . Yeas : Hilts , Curran , Kane , Holmes , Spink , Wright , Clark Nays : none APPEAL #3030 APPROVED The Board found based on testimony and evidence that there is a hard- ship created by the widening of Cedar Street , and was satisfied that the relocation would allow reasonable identification of the business . Minutes_ Holmes made a motion to approve the February 8 , 1990 minutes . Second by Spink . Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeti was adjourned at 8 :30 P •m - Ve n Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals PAGE 6 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals February 8 , 1990 - 7 :30 p .m. City Hall , Council Chambers . loth floor The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Clark at 7 :30 p .m . Roll call was taken . Present Excused Absence Priscilla Holmes Bernard Christy Christopher Steele Edward Spink Patricia Curran Tom Kane Grant Hilts CO Floyd Wright o Mary Clark rn Staff N C � Emil Winnicker , Senior Planner o rn Elizabeth Gunter , Recording Secretary o C) Appeal #3023 - 1406 Gordon 0 This is a request by Albert Debnar to receive a variance from the zoning code that will allow for the construction of an open front porch with roof, 20 ' x 8 ' in size , 23 ' from the front lot line . The Zoning Code requires a 31 ' front yard , on the property located at 1406 Gordon . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The request is reasonable given the number of similar cases which al- ready exist in the neighborhood . Porches, both covered and uncovered are common in the neighborhood . The structure on the front of the house would be similar in appearance to others in the area. The porch would be open and not interfere with view of the surrounding proper- ties . Albert Debnar was present and had nothing to add . Communications A letter from Harriett Pincumbe , 1410 Gordon Avenue , immediately to the west , has no objection to the addition of a porch on the front of the home at 1406 Gordon . A letter from M. Tarik Atman , 1400 Gordon Avenue , next door to 1406 Gordon, has no objection to the addition. PAf:F 1 A telephone message from Janet Goff , 1414 Gordon , she has no objection to the request . Curran made a motion to grant appeal #3023 at 1406 Gordon . It does not appear that the addition will have a negative impact on the envi- ronment . Second by Kane . Yeas : Holmes . Curran , Spink , Hilts , Wright , Kane , Steele , Clark Nays : None Appeal #3023 APPROVED The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that this ad- dition would not have a negative impact on the adjacent development . Minutes Holmes made a motion to approve the January 11 , 1990 minutes . Second by Spink. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7 :45 P •m- ernon C. Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals PAr,F Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals January 11, 1990 - 7:30 p.m. City Hall , Council Chambers, loth Floor The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Clark at 7:30 pm. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Unexcused Absence Priscilla Holmes Bernard Christy Grant Hilts H. Patricia Curran Tom Kane Edward Spink Floyd Wright Christopher Steele Mary Clark Staff Vernon C. Fountain, Zoning Administrator Louise Christian, Recording Secretary Appeal #3021 , 5528 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard/South Logan Street This is a request by Lori Fudge to construct a free-standing 4'x5' sign in the required front yard setback 10'4" from the front property line. Section 1268.06(a) of the Zoning Code requires a front yard setback of 20' in the F Commercial District. The applicant is requesting a variance of 9'8" . A presentation was made by Vernon C. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Lori Fudge, owner. Our location on the curve has been difficult for clients; trying to negotiate the curve while looking for the building is potentially hazardous. The speed limit is 45 mph. I have here a letter signed by several business owners in the area stating that they are in support of us; also signatures of clients stating that the location is hard to find from a stream of fast-moving traffic. With the existing structure to the north, the white building, blocking our visibility, it is hard for clients to find us. I did have up a flashing neon sign, but want a more permanent, good-looking sign. We also want to install floodlights on the ground to illuminate the sign more fully. The sign will be perpendicular to Logan. Dale Johnston, 4622 Weswilmar, Holt, client of Exquisite Touch Salon. The aerial photo of the area is very accurate in terms of the view from the north. When you come down Logan Street, you cannot see the building at all . The first time I stopped for a haircut, I had a problem with the visibility and trying to find the driveway. People were tailgating, the place was hard to find and and it was hard to slow down and turn into the parking lot. As far as the northbound lane is concerned, the visibility is a little bit better, but the sign would enhance the visibility of the business and make the business more viable. Ms. Fudge has been in business for seven years , and the fact that she is willing to relocate to Lansing should receive some consideration. Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 Mr. Spink said that there is an obstruction caused by the configuration of the road in relation to the property, but granting the sign may not afford any greater visibility from the north. Of the alternatives proposed, I am in favor of the free-standing sign. Sometimes awning signs on buildings are not attractive. Ms. Holmes supported the request because of safety factors. The proposed placement of the sign will draw attention to the entry point at the driveway. Based on the positioning on the curve and safety of people coming off Haag Road, the proposed location is a good place for the sign. Ms. Curran said she has been in the building frequently. It is awkward partly because of the land, and partly because of the the driveway entrances and exits. It is also hard to find. She was supportive. Spink made a motion to approve Appeal #3021 be approved. Second by Steele. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the location of the existing building on the site, along with the location of adjacent building, limits visibility to this property from both north- and south-bound traffic on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard/South Logan Street. It was further found that a curve along the street also limits immediate visibility to this property, and therefore a variance as requested is in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Code. Yeas: Holmes ,. Spink, Curan, Wright, Steele, Clark. Nays: None. Appeal #3021 APPROVED. Letters, signatures and petitions in favor of the request were submitted for the record. Appeal #3022, 312 South Magnolia. This is a request by Patricia and Rod Magyar for a variance to allow the accessory structure on the property to be used for a home occupation on property located at 312 South Magnolia Street. A presentation was given by Vernon C. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land uses. The property is located at 312 South Magnolia Street on the west side of Magnolia, midway between Prospect and Kalamazoo. The lot is approximately 49'x 127 ' , and contains a single family home and detached garage in the rear yard. The garage has its access from the north-south alley that runs between Kalamazoo and Prospect. The property has no vehicular access from the front on Magnolia. The zoning is B Residential . The block and surrounding area is Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 predominantly single family homes. The request is for the use of the accessory structure as opposed to the primary structure for the home occupation. Because of the relatively small size of the residence, they do not want to lose the amount of living space in the building and wish to utilize the garage instead. Patricia Magyar, 312 South Magnolia. I am here to ask for a variance, because I want to move my work space into my home from downtown in East Lansing--I do not need to be in a retail space. Since 1976 I have rented space in East Lansing. In the last two years, that space has become less friendly--a bar has moved in downstairs, and crime and vandalism are on the increase. The garage has not been used since we bought the property. The metal overhead door is in bad condition, and we have never been able to park in the garage. We have used the slab in the back for that purpose. I do not have any retail contact. I design needle work and tools, and I have .published four books. I do not make things for anyone and no one visits. My present studio consists of two rooms of 300 square feet. I have reference materials , a collection of quilts, two drawing tables, two sewing machines, and some pressing equipment. I work on a design basis. I want a quiet, safe and well-lighted space to do a quiet business. I use the mail and the telephone. I tried to get a consensus from my neighbors. I have had no objections; everyone is in favor of this project. They liked the project being on the block, and of someone being at home in the daytime. Perhaps I should clarify that I do not sell anything, and I do not manufacture anything for sale. The business will continue as before: I am a writer and designer. There is no product to be delivered, and no customers. One other important point: there will be no plumbing installed in the garage. We will not have an accessory structure that could someday be converted into an apartment. The structure is only fifteen feet from the house and I would be using the house plumbing. The structure will be heated, insulated and wired. If I have my sewing machines, I will be happy. Rick Kibbey, 303 Shepard Street, East Side Neighborhood Organization. We have worked with Pepper from the beginning. The proposal has been approved by the membership. The footprint of the building would not be changed. There would not be any increase in traffic, no sign, and no retail . It is a good idea, and is an improvement to the utilization of the structure. Mr. Wright mentioned for reasons to approve, someone on the block would be at home during the day. Also, it contributes to the upkeep of the structure. There would be no increase in traffic, and no negative effect on the neighborhood and on the residence. Mr. Wright also mentioned the recommendations in the code as adopted by the Council about two years ago in standard guidelines for home occupations. This home occupation is not confined to the living structure, Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 it is in an accessory structure. Mr. Spink said I have difficulty finding what the hardship is. I feel we need to be cautious if we look at home occupations that are in accessory structures. Mrs. Clark said, to clarify, the issue is the location and type of structure. Mrs. Clark asked Mr. Fountain if the accessory structure were connected to the house, would it be part of the home? Mr. Fountain said, no, it would still be an accessory structure. Mr. Spink said the answer supports my concern about the code. The occupation may be conducted on the property. The code does not cause a problem. Curran made a motion to approve Appeal #3022. Second by Holmes. Yeas: Curran, Holmes , Steele, Wright, Clark. Nays: Spink. Appeal #322 APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The business will be conducted on a pre-order basis only. 2. No commodity shall be sold directly from the premises. All products to be delivered to customers. 3. The owner shall not employ anyone not a member of the family as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. 4. No sign shall be posted on the accessory structure. 5. Approval of the variances related to the home occupation is both site- and applicant-specific. Therefore, the property must be converted back to a garage or storage structure when the property is sold. 6. All other requirements of home occupations must be met ?. Any applicable building codes must be met as a result of the conversion of the structure. 8. The Board reserves the right to reconsider this request if the home occupation in any manner becomes a negative influence upon the surrounding neighborhood. The Board of Zoning Appeals found, based on testimony and evidence, that the proposed use of the accessory building, namely, the private detached garage, could be used for the location of the home occupation without interfering with the required offstreet parking for the residence. The Board found that the required offstreet parking for the site can be provided off the alley, and in front of the detached garage. The Board was satisfied, based on testimony and evidence, that the proposed home occupation would meet all the other minimum requirements of the Code. Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 Corrections to the minutes of the previous meeting: Ms. Curran noted that on page 6 it was indicated that she voted yes; however, she had an excused absence that night and so did not vote. Ms. Clark said in the matter of granting an excused absence to Grant Hilts, no action was taken. There being no further additions or corrections, the minutes were approved on a motion by Steele. Second by Spink. Motion carried unanJnously. There being no further business, the m , g ad * ed---a 8:08 p.m. V,_Se n o nta Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals