HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 1991 Minutes ctw
� -<
70
C
� CS
co c�
s—�
c�
Boardof
Zoning
Appeals
JULY 11 , 1991
CITY OF LANSING , MICHIGAN
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT
119 NORTH WASHINGTON SQUARE
LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933
-_ r 1 7 A n n A Of-C
A G E N D A
Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
July 11 , 1991 - 7 : 30 PM
City Hall, loth floor , Council Chambers
1. Roll Call
a. Excused Absence
2. Hearings and Decisions:
Appeal #3141 Expand usable floor space into
426 W. St. Joseph front yard. There are 39 on
James Riley site parking spaces , 73 are
required.
Appeal 43142 To enclose an existing front
2000 William Street porch to within 23 . 5 ' of the
Stuart Hanley Jr. front property line. Code
requires 26 . 71 .
Appeal #3143 To construct a single family
SW corner Fredrick & Turner house to within 20 ' of front
James E. Ballard property line. Code requires
32 ' .
Appeal #3144 To permit a carport to remain
1033 Kelsey Avenue 6" from side lot line. Code
John Costello requires 31 .
Appeal #3145 To construct a house on
NW corner Clarmore Dr vacant lot. 25 ' from rear
and Coulson Court property line. Code requires
Geert Mulder & Sons 301 .
Appeal #3146 To install a 114 sq. ft ground
2122 N. M L King/Logan pole sign, 24 ' in height, up to
Pro Bowl the front lot line. Code
requires 25 ' setback.
Appeal #3147 To construct a 12 sq ft ground
900 W. Ottawa St. pole sign within 5 ' of property
David Lee line. Code requires minimum
10 ' setback.
Appeal 43148 To construct a single family
1939 Fairmont dwelling 21 ' from front property
Christopher Goodrich line. Code requires 271 .
3 . Other Communication
4 . Approval of Minutes : June 13 , 1991
5 . Old Business
6 . New Business: Election of Officers
7. Adjourn
• 3lq3
=El
A
3H5
CITY of LANSING
T-
L]
lac. 96-12.8. Standards for judging variances
Sec. 9612.6. Variances.
In considering a pro)xwed variance from this chapter, the 1>osr
(1) For all of tilethe variances describod in subsection (2), of zoning appeals shall first, in each Specific case,determine that
board of zoning appeals has the power to authorize a variance. rnclical difficulties or unnecessary hardships exist according to
For the purposes of lhia section,variance means a mcKlificalion of the following standards:
the Strict letter of this chapter, granted when strict enforcement (a) The pro{oiled use will lie of such location, size and charac-
of this chapter would cause practical di(ficullies or unnecessary ter that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and
hardship• orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood;
(2) Die board of lolling appenls rnay grant variances for all of (b) The proposeL' use will be of a nature that will make vehic-
the following: ular and pedestrian traffic no more hazardous than is nor-
(a) Modification of the dimensional requirements as may be mal for the district involved, taking into consideration
necessary to secure appropriate improvement of a let which vehicular turning movements in relation to routes of trsf-
is of such shape or so located with relation to aurrounding fic now, proximity and relationship to intersections, ade-
development or physical characteristics dial it cannot oth- quacy of sight distances, location and access of off-street
el-wise be appropriately improved without such modification; parking, and provisions for pedestrian traffic, with partic-
(b) Modification of zoning requirements for ad3itions or en- ular attention to minimizing child-vehicle contacts in resi-
largements to existing structures,provided that all require- dential districts; periods of
rnents for the particular use in the zoning district where (c) The location, size, intensity, site layout and p
such use is first permitted cannot be met without physical operation of any such proposed use will be designed to
hardship pertaining to the shape of the lot, and adjacent eliminate a possible nuisance emanating therefrom which
land uses or topography. might be noxious to the occupants of any other nearby
(3) When considering a variance described in subsection (2). permitted
uses,. hethertby reason of dust, noise, fumes,
n.
smok
the (ward of zoning appeals shall consider the following criteria (d) The location end height of structures, end joint driveways
in determining if a practical difficulty or unnecessary ltardsltip and tire locution, nature and height of walls and fences
exists:
(a) if the owner of the lot complies with the provisions of this will be such that the proposed use will not interfere with
irage velopment and Use
chapter,he or she can secure no reasonable return from,or lace
make no reasonable use of, his or her property; land said slle lrurclurest or d unreasonably affeclotheir
value. (Ord. No. 636, 9-7-83)
(b) The hardship results from the application of this chapter
to his or her lot, rather than from Some other factor;
(c) The ha,ds)rip is not the result of his or her own actions;
(d) The hardship is peculiar to the lot of the applicant.
(4) The procedure for obtaining a variance in accordance with
this section shall be the same as those outlined in section 36-12.3.
(Ord. No. 636, 3.7-83)
APPEAL #3141
426 WEST ST. JOSEPH STREET
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: James R. & Deresa O.Riley
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Variance of Section 1260 . 06
and 1284 . 13 (c) ( 14)
PURPOSE: To allow the construction of an
addition onto the front (west &
south) sides of the existing
Riley Funeral Home
EXISTING LAND USE: Funeral Home
EXISTING ZONING: 'D-l ' Professional Office
and ' DM-4 ' Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: See Z-7-91 - D-1 Prof. Ofc.
LOCATION: 426 W. St. Joe at Chestnut St.
SIZE & SHAPE: 142 ' x 165 ' rectangular
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Residential Single and
Multi Family
S: I-496
E: State Chamber of Commerce
W: Residential Single and
Multi Family
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: 'DM-4 ' Residential
S: I-496
E: 1D-1 ' Professional Office
W: ' DM-4 ' Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Use (River Island
Amendment Plan)
CASE HISTORY: Aug. 9 , 1990 - Variance granted to
construct barrier free access ramps
(enclosed) into required front yard
setback. The requested dimensional
variance is the same as this
approved variance.
AGENCY' RESPONSES:
The petitioner wishes to construct an addition onto the structure into
the required 20 ' front yard that not only provides barrier free access
ramps but also an office and two ' slumber ' rooms . The south front
yard variance requested is for 6 . 33 ' since the addition would be
13 . 66 ' from the St. Joseph Street right-of-way line. The west front
yard variance requested is for 5. 75 ' since the addition would be
14 . 25 ' from the Chestnut Street right-of-way line. These are vari-
ances of Section 1260 . 06 .
Also, since the proposed addition increases the usable floor area of
the structure, the property is required to meet the parking require-
ment of 73 spaces in this case. The property currently contains ap-
proximately 38 parking spaces necessitating a 35 parking space vari-
ance of Section 1284 . 13 (c) ( 14 ) .
Hardship and/or Practical Difficulty
The petitioners wish to expand the buildings footprint to better ac-
commodate the service their business provides. The petitioners wish
to be more efficient with the interior use of their structure by add-
ing two ' slumber' rooms off of the main Chapel and an office near the
existing offices contained within their building.
The hardship/practical difficulty is based upon the existing layout of
the interior. The location of the addition was dictated by the inte-
rior layout of the building. This practical difficulty meets the
criteria to be heard by Board.
Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed addition will face residential uses to the west. I-496
freeway and St. Joseph Street border the applicant' s property to the
south. The Riley Funeral Home, to which the ramp will be attached,
presents on office like facade to the surrounding land uses . The ad-
dition should not radically change the appearance of the existing
structure , if the architectured style of the building is reflected in
the addition.
The residential neighborhood to the east is separated from the new
structure by Chestnut Street. The right-of-way for Chestnut provides
for a wide parkway having approximately forty ( 40 ' ) feet of green area
from the Riley structure to Chestnut Street curb. Another thirty
( 301 ) feet of green from the residential structure to the curb is
provided on the opposite side of Chestnut. This should provide a wide
enough separation from the neighborhood to allow harmonious
co-existance.
A majority of their parking needs are accommodated on site since the
funeral home staggers its schedule of activities. The funeral home
also has a working agreement with their office neighbor, the Michigan
State Chamber of Commerce. As the need arises, which is seldom they
utilize each others parking. Their lots are adjacent to one another.
2
For funeral services the petitioner lines any vehicles involved in the
procession down the central drive aisle. This is typical for most of
the funeral homes . Many of the larger funerals are held at area
churches which most times can accommodate the larger groups of people.
The functional operation of the funeral home works and therefore does
not present a conflict for the neighborhood.
Traffic and Parking
In addition to the above information, the Board should be aware that
the petitioners are pursuing the rezoning of an adjacent parcel to
provide for a better parking arrangement which will provide at least
an additional 10 spaces and better on-site circulation.
The proposed addition will not take away from parking and will not
interfere with circulation or sight distances.
Other
As shown on the site plan, the office and ' slumber' room additions are
basic extensions of the access ramp enclosure already approved by the
Board. The architectural character of the building is proposed to be
maintained with the addition.
Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval of the requested variances.
3
n orF —
U L
C�✓�IF OFF
I
ylC G�'IAG�
Q 3F F
1- I
❑ IF
- � StQtr
------ CF
1 c�
'�26 W. 5T J05E�F1
A
irlichigan James Barren
State Presicent
Chamber of Cnief Executive officer
Commerce
May 24, 1991
Mr. Jim Rutt
City Planning Department
City Hall Annex
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Dear Mr. Rutt,
On August 9, 1990, a variance in zoning was granted by
the Zoning Board to James R. Riley to make an addition to the
Riley Funeral Home, which is located at 426 W. St. Joseph
Street in Lansing. We understand that the guidelines of the
Building and Safety Department require that additional
parking spaces are needed for such an addition.
This is to advise that the Michigan State Chamber of
Commerce has no objection to the Riley Funeral Home using
some of our parking spaces if the need should arise. Our
offices are located at 600 S. Walnut Street,, adjacent to the
Riley Funeral Home and we have over sixty parking spaces on
our property.
We are pleased to offer our suppert tc Mr. Riley.
Please let me know if you have any questions .
Sincerely,
,- {� ---
cc: James Riley
600 S.Wainut Street
Lansing, Ml 48933
Tel: 517 1 371-2100 .
Fax: 517 37 i-7224
(517) 372-6009
.Riley Funeral Home
426 W. St. Joseph Street
Lansing, Michigan 48933.2222
May 31 , 1991
Board of Zoning Appeals
City of Lansing
Planning Division, Second Floor
119 North Washington Square
Lansing, MI 48933
Dear Board Members:
On August 9, 1990, a variance to reduce the yard set-back and construct a
barrier free ramp at the Riley Funeral Home was approved. We would like to
thank you very much.
In the process of planning for this construction, we have discovered that we
have a great need for additional office and storage space. We feel that it
would be prudent to incorporate the two projects. The planned additional
office and storage space would not materially or adversely reduce the set back
more. The variance would continue laterally 12 feet north on the west s:1de,
and 42 feet east on the south side.
We feel that if you would amend this variance to permit this addition, it
would greatly enhance our opportunity to grow and better serve our clients.
A diagram and plan showing this amendment is attached.
Thank you:
James R. Riley, Sr.
Director
APPEAL #3142
2000 WILLIAM STREET
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: W. Stuart Hanley Jr.
4107 Thackin Dr.
Lansing, MI 48911
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Represents owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Variance to established
front yard setback.
PURPOSE: To permit enclosure of
existing front porch within
23 . 5 ' of front property line.
EXISTING LAND USE: Single family dwelling
EXISTING ZONING: 'B' Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: same
LOCATION: North side of William Street
SIZE & SHAPE: Rectangular parcel ( 40x171 . 5)
containing 6 ,860 sq ft
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: One family dwelling
S: One family dwelling
E: One family dwelling
W: One family dwelling
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: 'B' Residential District
S: 'B' Residential District
E: 'B ' Residential District
W: 'B ' Residential District
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Continued low density residential
CASE HISTORY: No previous action requested
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: To enclose an existing front porch
which will come within 23 . 5 ' of
front property line. Established
front yard setback is 26 . 7 ' . There-
fore, a variance of 3 . 2 ' is requested.
Analvsis
The applicant wishes to enclose a front porch at 2000 William Street.
The established front yard setback within 180 feet of the subject
property is 26 . 7 feet. The enclosed front porch would come to within
23 . 5. feet of the front property line. Therefore a variance of 3 . 2
feet is requested.
The applicant already has a cement slab and awning cover over the
porch area. The new enclosed porch will be the 'same size.
Given the varied topography and front yard setbacks, the applicant
believes that a practical difficulty exists.
Evaluation
Section 1244 . 06 ( 1 ) - ( 4 ) requires that the all proposed variances be
evaluated according to the following criteria.
1. Compatibility with Surrounding Development
2 . Impact on Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation Patterns
3 . Impact on Environmental Features
4. Impact on Future General Patterns of Development
Compatibility with Surrounding Development
The porch would be similar to several other houses in the neighbor-
hood. The setback varies, not substantially, but enough that the
proposed porch would not appear to negatively impact surrounding de-
velopment.
Also, the changes in topography create a less than even setback situ-
ation.
Impact on Circulation Patterns
The porch would in no way create any changes in vehicular or pedes-
trian circulation patterns :
Impact on Environmental Features
No change in any environmental feature is anticipated as a result of
the proposal.
Impact on Future Development Patterns
The proposal is unique to this location and not applicable to most of
the city. No general precedent will result from approval of this
proposed porch.
Summary -
The proposed enclosed front porch will not negatively impact the sur-
rounding neighborhood, traffic patterns, environmental features or
future development. It will be an enhancement to the house and
neighborhood as well as a benefit to the resident.
2
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the 6 x 15 front porch enclosure at 2000
William Street to within 23 . 5 ' of the front property line.
3
LD
'F
(F IF IF !F IF IF 1,= UF ` ll`
f�IGG�Ar�lS
.L LT � Its
LZI -
I�
8ZA 3lgZ
N
_ f_ r
� �r F
r' ,:�;I
f /�—
C
v c.J
w�_
c �%�����
t
Q ��
� C�� C
���
��
r
- uz�
u J ,�
77ae s
i
i
_
.: - ,
,o
I I
,
1
I
1. '
APPEAL #3143
SW CORNER OF FREDRICK AND TURNER STREETS
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: James E. Ballard
P O Box 1001
Lansing MI
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Variance of 12 ' to front yard
setback requirement
PURPOSE: To allow for construction of single
family home
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
EXISTING ZONING: ' A' Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: NA
LOCATION: SW Corner of Fredrick & N.
Turner Streets
SIZE & SHAPE: 49 ' x 1501 /7350 sq ft
Rectangular
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single family residential
S: Single family residential
E: Church/School
W: Single family residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: ' A' Residential
S: ' A' Residential
E: ' B' Residential
W: ' A' Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential,
Northeast Master Plan
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to
construct a single family
dwelling within 20 ' of the
front property line along
Fredrick Street.
Analysis
Section 1248 . 07 (b) of the Zoning Code requires in this case a front
yard setback along Fredrick street of 32 ' . The applicant proposes to
construct a single family home within 20 ' of the front property line.
A variance of 12 ' is therefore required.
Hardship or Practical Difficulty
The lot is a lot of record located on a corner and is only 49 ' wide.
Also, the established setback along Fredrick Street is exaggerated.
One structure is set back 58 ' .
Compatibility with the Surrounding Neighborhood
The development proposed is consistent with the mixed single family
residential development characteristic of the area. Housing types
range from modest older homes to more recently constructed public
housing units.
Front yard setbacks in the area are not uniform. Most homes in the
blockface have setbacks which are similar to the one proposed except
for the one directly west of the subject property. This structure is
the one set back 58 ' resulting in the exaggerated established setback
requirement. Construction of the new home as proposed will have lit-
tle affect on this adjacent property. The structure here is on the
far west side of a double lot. The new structure will be closer to
Turner Street. Enough separation will be maintained so that unob-
structed views will largely be maintained.
Impact on Circulation and Parking
None anticipated.
Impact on the Environment
None anticipated. The new home will be positive to the area.
Impact on Future Development
None anticipated. The granting of the variance would have the affect
of reducing the established front yard setback in the blockface. It
offsets, however, the one structure set far back.
Other
No comments received as of July 1 , 1991 . The rationale for maintain-
ing the established front yard setback in the ' A' Residential Zoning
District is to assure unobstructed access to properties and to main-
tain unobstructed views from adjacent property. Both objectives are
met in the case at hand.
2
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the variance be approved as requested. A le-
gitimate hardship exists given the corner lot and exaggerated setback
requirement. The proposal will result in improvement to the property
and is in character with surrounding development.
3
i
A IF
1 D _.
Ll
Ic -
L", ❑ ��
15G'
DFI 7 \ \
F
IF IT _
it
❑ tr LCI IF Dip
r _ _
1- Ll L
BZA 3lg3
3300 F�OG�- M. TOPNEP-
1,CoNT ygka V41eiA Ncj� 12 BEET
j
I
Vv
1 i
� I
J � I
I
V-1 iy
i
i
IJLj
APPEAL #3144
1033 KELSEY AVENUE
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: John Costello & Diane Chaney
1033 Kelsey Avenue
Lansing MI
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Side yard variance of 2 ' 6"
PURPOSE: To allow a carport, located 6"
from the side lot line, to remain.
EXISTING LAND USE: Single family residential
EXISTING ZONING: 'B' Residential
LOCATION: 1033 Kelsey Avenue
SIZE & SHAPE: 501w x 80 ' d ( 4000 sq ft)
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single family residential
S: Single family residential
E: Single family residential
W: Single family residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: ' B' Residential
S: 'B' Residential
E: ' B' Residential
W: 'B' Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: SouthWest Area Comprehensive
Plan - 7-14 du/acre
CASE HISTORY: Carport was built onto house in
early June and was "red tagged"
by Bldg Safety Dept. 6/14/91
to obtain a permit.
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: Allow carport to remain.
Analysis
Section 1248 . 03 (N) ( 3 ) of the Code requires carports to be set back
from the side lot line a minimum of 3 ' .
In this case, the carport was built 6" from the side lot line.
Hardship or Practical Difficulty
None exists within the meaning of the Code. The house is currently
located on this 55 ' wide lot. The size of the lot and the placement
of the house, does not leave any alternatives, other than a detached
garage in the rear yard. With only 80 ' of depth to the lot, a de-
tached garage would be difficult to maneuver into and would take up
1/3 to 1/2 of the rear yard.
The applicant constructed- a 12 ' wide carport, not realizing a building
permit was required. Staff believes this to be a reasonable request.
Compatibility With the Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject house is located in a neighborhood, predominantly made up
of single family homes with small detached garages. The carport in
question is adjacent to a deep rear yard of 2501 South Martin Luther
King Jr. Blvd/Logan Street. Six feet is the minimum distance a
carport can be to any structure built on an adjacent lot. This re-
quirement is therefore satisfied. Applicant proposes to keep the
carport open on three sides as it currently exists, giving access into
the rear yard. The applicant has indicated that the carport, if ap-
proved, will be painted along with the house in July.
Impact on Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic
None anticipated. One parking space is available in the carport, and
one space is available behind it in the driveway, without overhanging
the sidewalk.
Impact on the Environment
None anticipated.
Impact on Future Development Patterns
None anticipated.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the request for a 2 . 5 ' side yard variance be granted
to allow the carport to remain as constructed.
Staff also recommends the applicant hardsurface the driveway to bring
it into compliance with the code and that the carport be finished
within 30 days of the Board' s approval.
2
MORTGAGE REPORT
!GEE: GMAC tlortgage.Cerp-
TITLE CO.: Stewart Title Co.
JF.TGAGOR:
John Costello ZOMMITMENT NO.: i-9-12560
PROPERTYADDRESS: 1033 Kelsey Ave. , Lansing, MI
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The West 55 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Resubdivision
of Blocks 17, 21 and of and
parttof3thehNortheasth 72 11/4uofv Section in o29,ck 30T4Nr R2W,
ELMHURST SUBDIVISION of a p plat
City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, according n ham CouoedeRecords.
thereof, as set forth in Liber 7 of Plats, page 38, g
�� KELSEY AVENUE
Curb
Cone.,
3 L o I -�
N /4=4'Co,,c. I
- 32.7'
I \'
O� N From,e Nause N -- I W�
1 l -2.7' Q
7 Zr' 6• irk
p /3.7 Qo O 2
L I O
N N
`�9,5' � 55• JI
I I 1
i I
I
I
mmu astern that
la rllntnhand�ha�llherr1ait no encroachments uponCM1 Or at�hrted on pnmltuedwenilwy eroibed hyyelthehlmprovemeAt orr impro enunn of eery
adjoining premises,except as Indicated./further to Nfy that there are no"cord plat raxmrn(s affecrm the tract In shows ionon,except a notta�dr.
ew
l furth rr certify that this(r hlOR7�.IGF.RE!'ORT xnr prepared fo,Identlftoariore purpor�monly for'heend l of�0 6"Wed relied nupon,fo�thr
and is not intended or rrprnrn red to he a lend or proprny line runny;that no gprope ry and owerroroccuPant.
-d is not int of any Jenne bulldln�,or other ImprovemcoI liner.No reipondb!llty is extended herrin to The pnxn(or Jutun
itc
,[ DATE //-/3-83 SCALE: r' 20' MARVIN F. FOUTY, P.C.
PROJ. PJO. R,�/7 -
LAND SURVEYING 8 MAPPING
FIELD BY: 12y DRAWN BY: TPB SHEET OF
1551 Hoslell Road
r P.O. Box 707
Hoelell, Mlchlyan 46840
�i Phone: 517-339-1263
� R GIST D AN SURVEYOR :0. 8989
I
II I
l
L
'D
�✓ j - ❑ U -
L� c �c 1c tlF
Ir � F-LL
IF /fir
❑ a
IV �
2F � ❑
�r
�o
�r
97A 3i �I
N 10-3 KF L-5EY
APPEAL #3145
NW CORNER OF CLAREMORE DRIVE AND COULSON COURT
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Geert D Mulder & Sons
4433 W. Saginaw St.
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner/Builder
REQUESTED ACTION: Variance of Section 1248 . 09
PURPOSE: To allow the construction of
a house.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
EXISTING ZONING: 'A' Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: same
LOCATION: NW corner of Claremore Dr. &
Coulson Ct.
SIZE & SHAPE: 751w x 105 ' rectangular
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single Family Residential
S: Single Family Residential
E: Single Family Residential
W: Single Family Residential
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: 'A' Residential Dist.
S: 'A' Residential Dist.
E: ' A' Residential Dist.
W: 'A' Residential Dist.
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Low density residential
( Southeast Area Comprehensive
Plan, 1990 )
CASE HISTORY: September 1990 - 7 ' rear yard
variance denied
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: To construct a single family home
with an attached garage 23 ' from
rear (west) lot line.
Analysis
This is a request by Geert D. Mulder & Sons, Inc. to construct a
single family home on a vacant lot at the northwest corner of
Claremore Drive and Coulson Court 23 ' from the rear (west) lot line.
Section 1248 . 09 of the Zoning Code requires a 30 ' rear yard setback.
A variance of 7 ' is requested.
Hardship or Practical Difficulty
Two situations create a hardship/practical difficulty for the devel-
opment of this platted lot, First, it is a corner lot and two front
yard setbacks are required. This factor dramatically alters the size
of building envelope in comparison to a similar size interior lot.
Secondly, the established average front yard setback is 25 ' , 5 ' more
than the minimum of 20 ' . This factor compounds the first factor.
These two factors create the hardship that allows the Board to hear
and decide upon the request.
Background
Last year, the petitioner requested a similar variance but the house
was oriented with an attached garage on the east side of the house
nearest the intersection. The current request places the attached
garage on the west side of the home in a more conventional manner.
The previous request was denied.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Development
The property is a part of a subdivision developed with single family
homes and the associated accessory structures. The proposed single
family home is similar in size and character as the existing homes .
By placing the attached garage onto the west side of the home, the
home will be nearer the intersection and aesthetically fit with the
neighborhood.
If the variance is not granted a house with an attached garage would
be required to be more square in shape. Otherwise, the house would
have to be built without a two car garage and the Board may then have
to address a variance from a homeowner for a garage.
The site plan as shown illustrates a home placed in such a manner that
provides for maximum set backs to adjoining properties. The proposed
structure should not interfere with the enjoyment of adjoining prop-
erties.
Impact on Vehicular & Pedestrian Circulation
This plan illustrates the driveway located away from the intersection
approximately 80 ' . An adverse impact is not anticipated.
2
Impact on the Environment
An adverse impact is not anticipated.
Impact on Future Development
An adverse impact is not anticipated. The proposed location of the
structure will not prevent neighboring parcels to be developed to
their maximum extent.
Staff Recommendation
The staff believes there exists a hardship/practical difficulty in
this case. The staff also believes the proposed structure is reason-
able, consistant in size to those of the neighborhood and will not
interfere with the use of the adjoining properties. Therefore, the
staff recommends approval of the variance of Section 1248 . 09 of the
Zoning Code.
3
O
L , L
Lj
, L ❑L:l
❑
LOT l5y LANCEKI VIL. AGE 5Du-r 1 IUD, 3
�O TCZ
� C � �9 Q � ! ?�•�rah P O
7' �eVEL.
�°� o ---- -- /
n '
riZ=D 1NHITE ENGI, E"LEPW:G CC),
LANISINIG, MIC"HIGAN, 4890W
APPEAL #3146
2122 NORTH LOGAN
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: James Johns, Pro Bowl Lanes
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Setback variance of 25 ' .
PURPOSE: To allow a 114 sq ft ground/pole
sign, 24 ' in height to be installed
on the front property line at the
North M.L.King/Logan ROW line .
EXISTING LAND USE: Commercial
EXISTING ZONING: ' F' Commercial, ' J' Parking,
CUP
PROPOSED ZONING: ' F' Commercial
LOCATION: The proposed sign would installed
at the north end of the parking
area
SIZE & SHAPE:
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Commercial
S: River & Residential
E: Residential
W: Industrial
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: ' F' Commercial
S: 'B' Residential
E: ' A' Residential
W: ' H' Light Industrial
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial
CASE HISTORY: New ground/pole sign requested
in anticipation of the Women' s
National Bowling Tournament
scheduled for next year in Lansing
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: To install a 114 sq ft ground/pole
sign 24 ' in height on the west
property line .
Analysis
James Johns of Pro Bowl Lanes West is requesting a variance to install
a new ground/pole sign of 114 sq ft in area, 24 ' in height with the
leading edge of the sign located up to the front property line. The
sign would be located at 2122 North Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd/Logan
Street at the north end of the parking area.
Section 1442. 12 (h) ( 5 ) of the Lansing Sign Code requires that a sign of
this area and height be set back 25 ' from the property line. This is
a request for a variance of 25 ' of set back.
Hardship/Practical Difficulty
The right-of-way of North M.L.King Jr. Blvd/Logan St. is extremely
wide in this area. In order to achieve a 25 ' set back the sign would
have to be located 104 feet from the curb line of North M.L.King/Logan
St. This would place the sign towards the middle of the north end of
the parking area reducing the visibility of the sign to traffic coming
from the south.
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Use
This area of North M.L.King/Logan St. is commercial and industrial in
its land uses and open in appearance. The proposed sign would be in
keeping with the land uses and scale of the area.
Impact on Vehicular/Pedestriana Circulation
There would be no negative impact on vehicular/pedestrian circulation.
Impact on Environmental Features
There would be no negative impact on environmental features.
Impact on General Patterns of Development
There would be no negative impact on the development of the area.
Other
The existing ground/pole sign near the building on the property would
be removed.
Recommendation
The staff recommends that the variance to allow the installation of a
new ground/pole sign up to the front property line be allowed as re-
quested. The width of North M.L. King/Logan Street right-of-way
presents an unusual hardship in the use of a ground/pole sign.
2
i
o
rim
l;z O I F
Q
EID 144
_ 0
A �F o
Ifs' IF
25c .
an
GZA 3l�(
N 21 ZZ N. GO GAf� ��
S
o •r '
SALES CONSULTANT
j ' u JOB LOCATION
8
DRAWING NUMBER
' R : 1
Notes& Revisions
- pro;shop -
CE11Tlusna'RAco -.
SIGNS
1716 N.Grand R;wer Ave
timing.a 48906
.• 517/313.87JI -
0.
Custom pcsign 8 talwivalinn
Service•installation
APPEAL #3147
900 WEST OTTAWA
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: David C. Lee
154 S.- Larch
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Represents owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Variance
PURPOSE: To allow the erection of a 12 '
sign within 5 ' of the Ottawa
Street property line of this
property.
EXISTING LAND USE: Office
EXISTING ZONING: ' D-1 ' Professional Office
PROPOSED ZONING: No change
LOCATION: 900 West Ottawa
SIZE & SHAPE: 74. 25 ' x 132 '
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single family residential
S: Commercial (Letts Bridal)
E: Vacant
W: Office
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: 'DM-3 ' Residential
S: ' J' Parking & ' F' Commercial
E: 'DM-3 ' Residential
W: ' D-1 ' Professional Office
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Office
CASE HISTORY: -Part of Lansing' s, original plat
-Zoning changed from ' C' to ' D-1
1962
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: To erect a 12 sq ft sign within 5 '
of the front property line along
Ottawa Street.
Background
This applicant wishes to construct a 12 sq ft ground/pole sign along
the Ottawa Street frontage for the office building located at the
northwest corner of Ottawa and Butler Streets . The proposed placement
of the sign is within five feet of the south property line. Chapter
1442 . 24 of the City' s Code requires a 10 ' minimum setback for ground/
pole signs in the Capital Center District. The sign in question will
require a 5 ' variance.
Hardship or Practical Difficulty
Ottawa Street has a 82 . 5 ' right-of-way width. Although there is a
28 . 6 ' distance between the building and sidewalk, the right-of-way
extends 8 ' inside the sidewalk. This is a circumstance which makes
the installation of a sign according to Code requirement a hardship.
Usually the distance between sidewalk and right-of-way line is 1 or 2
feet. The eight foot distance is larger than normal. This the staff
believes creates a practical difficulty.
Neighborhood Development
This sign will be placed closest to commercial and office uses. Res-
idents living on property to the north will be unable to see the sign
from their property. It is felt that the proposed location of the
sign will be in harmony with the development of the surrounding
neighborhood.
Traffic and Parking
This sign will not affect traffic or parking. Sight distance will be
maintained given that the sign will be nearly 50 ' from the driveway at
Ottawa as well as the intersection of Ottawa and Butler.
Intensity of Use
This sign should not create a nuisance for occupants of surrounding
property. The sign is 12 square feet of space and five foot height,
which is a reasonable size for the business it advertises. There will
be no dust, noise, fumes or vibration associated with the sign.
Lighting of the sign will be internal and therefore not affect other
properties .
Location and Height
The intent of more stringent sign restrictions in the Capitol Center
District isto protect vistas associated with the Capitol building.
The modern nature of the sign does not coordinate with the architec-
ture of the Capitol. However, there is sufficient distance between
the subject property and the Capitol to minimize the impact.
2
Recommendation
The staff recommends approval of the variance to allow a 12 square
foot sign, approximately 5 ' high, within 5 ' of the south property line
of the property (Ottawa Street side) at 900 West Ottawa.
3
lb"NIA
IF
IF IF I� IF
(G -
Q
Q E
IF
I
N
IF IFBZA 3lq7
�r vV i
- OTTgGVA
J
1J 900 W, 07TAWA
5/GN 5�T BACK VQ, MIVC� Ol 5 ffi
.ri DLTH pro". L,U� -1 Z'S
C V(L1C
JvCVGfi -� L �
w E �G/ .•} }r n�o / .
Z:i..9
, .
\ Z+tA_10
UL
lC.
LU
fe
7cv�n N L, 7-4
i
P:-'V PJ L" 1 C" v \V A L..K C72Aofl (� NALK oo.Oo
VJ L'7) —' l
MPL. N
D E Nil] STRY .
OF GREATSR L-V\ ,� \ .j
DENTAL IMPLANTS
GENERAL DENTISTRY
•- ._ -V•
i
APPEAL #3148
1939 FAIRMONT
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Christopher Goodrich
1373 Sebewaing
Okemos, MI 48864
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Variance to front yard setback
PURPOSE: To construct a single family
dwelling within 21 ' of front
property line.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant land
EXISTING ZONING: ' A' Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: 'A' Residential
LOCATION: Northside of Fairmont at
Aurelius Road
SIZE & SHAPE: Rectangular parcel (78 x 103 )
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: Single family dwelling
S: Single family dwelling
E: Single family dwelling
W: Single family dwelling
SURROUNDING ZONING: N: ' A' Residential
S: ' A' Residential
E: 'A' Residential
W: 'A' Residential
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION: Low density residential
development
CASE HISTORY: No previous action requested
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
DEVELOPER' S PROPOSAL: To construct a single family
dwelling within 21 ' of front
property line. Established
front yard is 271 . Therefore
a variance of 6 ' is requested.
Analysis
The applicant wishes to construct a new single family dwelling 21 feet
from the front property line. The established front yard setback for
this property is 27 feet. Therefore a variance of six ( 6 ' ) feet is
requested.
Due to the configuration of the house, the location of several trees
on the. site and the desire to maintain rear yard space, the applicant
believes that sufficient practical difficulties exist to grant the
variance.
Evaluation
Section 1244 . 06 (c) ( 1 ) -( 4) requires that all proposed variances be
evaluated according to the following criteria:
1 . Compatibility with Surrounding Neighborhood
2 . Impact on Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
3 . Impact on Environmental Features
4. Impact on Future General Patterns of Development
Compatibility with Surrounding Development
The proposed structure will be a single family dwelling similar to
others in the area. Even though the proposed structure meets the
standard minimum requirement of twenty feet, the established front
yard setback in this particular situation is 27 feet, placing the
leading portion of the garage six feet ahead of the adjacent struc-
tures . It should also be noted that the portion which encroaches is
the garage which is the greatest distance away from the adjacent res-
idential structures . The position of the house with the garage in
this location will afford some degree of privacy from Aurelius Road, a
busy collector street.
It would appear that the house could be moved back 3 . 5 feet however,
this would not be sufficient to gain the required front setback
Therefore, the applicant chose to maintain the greater rear yard and
be sensitive to existing tree placement.
It would appear that the proposal is generally compatible with sur-
rounding development.
Impact on Vehicular and/or Pedestrian Circulation
The proposal will not change pedestrian or vehicular circulation in
and around the site. Sufficient space should be gained in the 21 feet
to permit off street parking for two vehicles plus the two spaces in
the garage .
Impact on Environmental Features
The proposal is in part designed to retain as many of the existing
trees as possible. This would be an enhancement to the visual envi-
ronment.
2
It should also be noted that this lot is one in a series designed with
proper slcpe in the rear yard to provide appropriate storm water run
off to the drain at Aurelius Road. The applicant must, in conformance
with the plat of South Pines assure tht the drainage pattern is main-
tained.
Done property, the proposed development would enhance the visual and
physical environment.
No other environmental impacts are anticipated.
Impact on Future General Land Use Patterns
The subject property is the last lot in this subdivision. Therefore,
there is no precedent which could be set within this area.
No impact on general patterns of development is anticipated.
Summary
The proposal will be generally compatible with the surrounding neigh-
borhood, will not impact circulation patterns, will enhance the envi-
ronment and will not establish any precedent for general development.
It will provide a degree of privacy from Aurelius Road, save several
existing trees and assure an adequate rear yard.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance to place the leading edge of
the garage of the proposed new single family dwelling at 1939 Fairmont
21 feet from the front property line which encroaches six feet into
the established front yard.
3
-.INWAIb� b2bl N
l9b ) � V29
J!
71 77
I
--C
z
S
1 '
IY671
LOT NO. 23
z
�I
1939(} p
l
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Appeals
December 12 , 1991 - 7 : 30 PM
City Hall Council Chambers loth floor
Q
The meeting was called to order by Chair H.P. Curran at 7 : 3(f:2-pm
Roll call was taken.
Present ra
Joan Sheldon
Edward Spink ~'
Grant Hilts ro
Bob Hull cn
Floyd Wright O
Mary Clark
Christopher Steele
H. P. Curran
Staff
Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator
Don Hanna, Graphic Coordinator
Tabled Appeal 03171 , 326 North Cedar.
To allow a wall sign 64 sq ft to remain on the side of the
commercial building.
Fountain - There was a public hearing regarding appeal *3171 at
the last meeting. It is a request by Bonnie Weiss to maintain an
existing wall sign on the north side of the building located at
326 North Cedar. The subject property is on the east side of
Cedar south of Shiawassee . Its a long narrow building
Spink made a motion to remove appeal 43171 from the table.
Second by
Motion carried unanimously.
Bonnie Weiss , business address is 326 North Cedar, Lansing. I 'm
here to ask you for a variance to allow me to keep the entire
north wall sign because of the south bound traffic, that ' s my
only visible advertising. My building is so narrow that it does
exceed what the code requires . The canopy is an appendage of the
building itself . The lettering on it would constitute a sign,
however that is not visible to the southbound traffic and by the
time people drive by me they are past my driveway and can' t come
back because of the one way street. Therefore in my original
request I felt that if I couldn' t retain both signs I would be
willing to take the letters off the canopy, however, after
viewing it and after listening to your review of my appeal I feel
it is not out of line asking to leave the lettering on the canopy
also, because it is not obtrusive , it doesn' t obstruct anything
and I feel that it is a legitimate business request.
Committee of Whole
Wright - I feel the canopy sign in this particular place was not
obtrusive. I 'm in favor of keeping both signs .
A letter from Patrick Lindemann, First Ward Councilmember - The
sign is not out of place. Full support of allowing the variance
and to keep the existing sign.
Steele made a motion to approve appeal 03171 , its a reasonable
request and there is a hardship created by the one way street.
Second by Spink, make it applicant specific.
Yeas : Spink, Clark, Sheldon, Hull, Hilts , Wright, Steele, Curran
Nays : none
Appeal #3171 APPROVED.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the use is
located at a one-way street, and business identification is
limited to one way traffic. The Board believes that this
presents a hardship, and therefore approval is in keeping with
the general intent of the Code.
Appeal #3176 - 900 block of River Street
This is a request by Ralph Gregory representing Wolverine Towers ,
Inc . to construct a 380 ' high communications tower where zoning
code limits the height of structures to 1201 . Also a 26 x 42
block building to house electric equipment.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of
the subject property and surrounding land use.
Ralph Gregory, 910 Roxford, East Lansing. Presented material.
This tower is part of the information age. We, as a society are
moving into non wire communications . We are replacing our wires .
And we are replacing them with a very efficient use of our radio
spectrum (mobile communication) . One tower will serve the entire
metropolitan area. Its needed, its in the right place, there is
no alternative, its benign, its not an eyesore, its economic
development, its progressive, its the future and I ask your
approval of it. Its only a height variance.
Wright - What broadcast frequencies will you be operating on in
this location?
Gregory - We will be operating in VHF 150 UHF 450 and some 900 .
Wright - Will any of your frequencies interfere with any of the
frequencies commonly used by general public.
Gregory - No. When you look at the radio spectrum we are removed
from the AM FM and TV bands , so it can' t bleed over.
We are dealing with a tiny fraction of the power that standard
broadcast uses.
Wright - What is the radius of the distance you are covering on
your broadcast?
Gregory - Pagers work 20 miles . You have to have a tall tower,
you can' t broadcast low, because its so low power, it has to go
out unobstructed over to the horizon and that ' s as far as it will
go. Its very low power in the context of radio frequency and its
never been a problem. The problem with interference comes with
too many of them located in one spot and they interfere with each
other . They don ' t interfere with radio and tv reception.
Steele - Where will the tower be located that your proposing?
Gregory - The tower we are proposing is about 6 blocks directly
west of the Board of Water & Light tower. It will be between the
BWL and smoke stakes .
Steele - What is the height of the BWL tower?
Gregory - 350 ' and mine is 3801 .
Gregory - There is no electricity here at all. We are going to
put cones on the guy wires and we will be fencing the tower and
the building in.
Clark - How many tenants do you perceive this tower to handle
without running into interference type problems?
Gregory - The limitation won' t be interference it will be
loading. It depends , some have multiple frequencies .
Jack Soltow, 905 River Street, I ' d like to speak on behalf of Mr .
Gregory. I own property on three sides of the location of the
proposed tower. I did own on four sides but I donated one side
for the Riverwalk to the City of Lansing. When I purchased the
property it was a pretty rough area, I have cleaned it up and I
think Mr. Gregory would be a welcome addition. I have no
objection to the height of the tower.
i
Vic Jackson, Systems Engineer and Regional Technical Advisor for
Ameritech Mobile Communications/Paging Services. My office is at
3000 East Michigan. No objection.
Priscilla Holmes , 220 Reo Avenue. I have a packet of
information. This is a historical site. My position is not based
on visual pollution rather based on environmental issues . This
entire parcel is in the floodplain and raises question about the
future stability of the site and the wisdom of placing a building
with electronic equipment in the flood plain.
The land on which this tower is to be placed is not stable .
Harry Edwards , 1134 Platt Street, about 4 blocks away from the
site. I looked into this historical well and everything else and
where a lot of money was put into the walkway. People should not
have to see a big tower. I 'm working on trying to put an
historical marker on that site.
I don' t need another bYg tower in my backyard, there ' s other
places on the outskirts of town that the tower could be put on.
Communications
A letter from Councilmember Patrick Lindemann, support the
proposal.
R. A. Ophaug, Board of Water and Light, Engineering Planning.
Nat Hammond, Hamco Management, represents owners of Whitehall and
Riverbend Apartment buildings , have no objections to this
project.
Thomas M. Burchman, Wolverine Development Corporation, no
objection to the proposed communications tower and concrete block
building.
Robert R. Campbell, Campbell, Inc. 925 River Street, support the
growth of modern communications in our community.
David Premoe, E. R. Premoe Construction Co. , Inc. , located on the
same property as the communication tower and building. No
objections to the proposal.
Emerson B. Ohl, Economic Development Corporation, City of
Lansing, no objection.
Committee of Whole
Wright - Will be supporting the variance.
Spink made a motion to approve appeal 43176 be approved, a tower
of 380 ' on vacant property on the west side of 900 block of River
Street, and revoke action of June 13 , 1985 , on appeal #2679 ;
place a specific time table of 2 years for the development; and
the applicant obtain all the necessary permits ; attention to
screening and buffering along the riverwalk if appropriate.
Second by Hilts .
Steele - Concern that this is a height variance . How many more
towers will be in this area? There is a visual pollution issue.
Yeas : Hilts , Wright, Clark, Spink, Hull, Curran
Nays : Sheldon, Steele
Appeal #3176 APPROVED
The approval is based on the following conditions :
1 . That the approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals at their
meeting of June -i3 , 1985 for a communication tower on the
northwest corner of Elm and River Street, Appeal 42679 , us hereby
revoked.
2 . This approval is valid for a period of two years from the date
of the Board of Zoning Appeals action.
3 . That attention be given to landscape, screening and buffering
along the Riverwalk if necessary and the plan be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Division prior to any construction.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property
is zoned ' H' Light Industrial which allows the proposed
development with the exception of the height of the proposed
structure. This they believe to be a hardship created by the
Code and therefore to consider a variance of this nature is in
keeping with the general intent of the Code.
The Board also found that the area in which the proposed tower
will be located is developed with non residential uses .
The Board recognized the adjacent riverwalk and is therefore
requesting, if necessary, improved landscaping and buffering
adjacent to the riverwalk.
Also, the proposed development requires that all local, state,
and federal laws and requirements be met, which includes but is
not limited to approval by the Federal Aviation Administration,
the issuance of building permits at the local level and the
issuance of flood plain permits at both the state and local
level, because the site is located in the 100 flood plain of the
Red Cedar River.
Minutes
Clark made a motion to approve the November 14 , 1991 minutes ,
second by Hull. Motion carried unanimously.
Notice of Public Meetings for 1992 , approved
Curran requested an attendance list.
Meeting adjourned.
Vernon C. Eo n
" Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Appeals
November 14, 1991 - 7 : 30 PM
City Hall, Council Chambers, loth floor
The meeting was called to order by Chair H.P. Curran at 7 : 30 PM.
Roll call was taken.
Present Excused Absence
Joan Sheldon Ed Spink
B. Hull tv
Floyd Wright Unexcused Absence
Mary Clark = '
C. Steele 7 : 35 Grant Hilts tv '
H. P. Curran
Staff ::3
N c�
Jim Ruff, Senior Planner i
Don Hanna, Graphic Coordinator � I
On tonight ' s agenda are 5 sign code variances . Each of these
variances deal with the new sign code and how they relate to
existing signs .
In 3 of the 5 cases, the sign variance requests involve signs being
updated. Signs which do not conform to the currant sign code.
This situation leaves the owners with the following alternatives :
1 . Remove the sign completely and install one according to the
code - this may not be feasible or practical;
2 . Replace only the plastic face of the sign leaving the signs
setback post, frame and height the same; or
3 . Request a variance that would allow the owner to improve the
situation and conform to the code as much as practical but
still not meet the code' s requirement. A compromise
situation.
The goal of the code is to improve the unsightly sign situation we
have in the City and if when existing signs are updated the signage
situation is improved from the City' s standpoint then it is
something the City and this Board needs to consider in helping to
achieve the goals of the ordinance.
As we go through the various sign requests you will see the
requested changes as well as the signage improvements .
With that said lets proceed.
Appeal #3165 - 5208 S . Logan/M.L. King
This is a request by Paul Vlahakis to replace an existing
ground/pole sign with a new ground/pole sign 120 sq ft, 18 ' high,
5 . 5 ' from the front property line on property located at 5208 S .
Logan/M.L. King.
A presentation was given by J. Ruff . Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Paul Vlahakis - The sign location is important due to the location
of the driveway. The sign will help clean up the cluttered
appearance. All tenants will then have a tenant I .D. space on the
sign. They have owned the property 4-5 months and have been
improving its appearance. (A sketch was presented of the proposed
sign. )
Dan Johnson - Will improve the appearance of the property.
Correspondence
A letter from Betty Niklas, 1225 W. Jolly Road. No objection to
the replacing of the sign.
Clark - Expressed that she was in favor since it would visually
clean up the signage on the property.
Steele made a motion to approve Appeal #3165 . Second by Hull .
Yeas : Clark, Sheldon, Hull, Wright, Steele, Curran
Nays : none
Appeal #3165 APPROVED
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that it is
reasonable to allow the reconstruction of a new sign in the same
location as the existing sign. If it were required to be set back
it would be within the line of traffic associated with the off-
street parking lot.
It was further agreed that the new sign would be more appealing and
would clean up the advertising characteristics on the property.
Appeal #3166 - 4020 South Cedar
This is a request by Carol Osmar to construct a 45 sq ft
ground/pole sign with a 5 .5 ' setback on the property known as 4020
South Cedar.
A presentation was given by J. Ruff . Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Tony Simmons representing Coleman Rentals - Received the site plan
from the owner. This would be a new sign compatible with the
building signage. There would be a 10 ' clearance under the sign to
allow for good visibility for traffic at the intersection.
Hull - Would the wall sign be removed or retained?
Ruff - Retained.
Brian Terrell (Terrell Signs) expressed support for identification
sign for people to safely find the location.
Correspondence
Donald Baumer, objects to the request.
Doris Walker, feels it was an accident prone corner.
Clark expressed support for the request since it was unique
situation with a physical problem because of the job in the right-
of-way and that it meets the intent of the Code, and is in keeping
with the other signs that will be allowed by Code.
Clark made a motion to approve appeal #3166 . Second by Wright.
Yeas : Wright, Sheldon, Clark, Steele, Hull, Curran
Nays : none
Appeal #3166 APPROVED
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the Cedar
Street right-of-way at this location is irregular and therefore
constitutes a hardship when attempting to place a sign to met the
intent of the Code.
The Board does not believe that the location of the sign will have
any adverse impact on either pedestrian or automobile traffic,
since it is a single pole sign and will be elevated where the view
of traffic will not be obstructed.
Appeal #3167 - 1712 Osborn Road
This is a request by Carol Osmar to construct a 10 ' x 18111"
addition on the north side of the house 26 ' from the rear property
line on premises known as 1712 Osborn Road.
A presentation was given by J. Ruff . Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Edward Osmar stated that they added height to the retaining wall to
protect the yard from erosion problems, and with the sewer in the
rear yard the storage building would have to go right up next to
the house so he wanted to attach it.
Sheldon asked about changing the windows to access the deck on top
of the storage addition. Yes, they need replacement and could be
replaced with a door.
Steele - Is a side yard setback necessary?
Ruff - No.
Clark made a motion to approve appeal #3167 , based upon the
topography situation, drain situation, reasonable request and
enhances the use and function of the property. Second by Steele.
Yeas : Hull, Sheldon, Clark, Wright, Steele, Curran
Nays : none
Appeal #3167 APPROVED
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the
topography of the land and the location of the existing sewer man
hole in the rear yard of this property limits the buildable area of
the lot.
The Board further believes that the request is reasonable and it
will enhance the use of the property.
Appeal #3168 - 918 South Pennsylvania
This is a request by R.W. Mercer to construct a fuel island canopy
6 ' from the front (east) lot line on premises known as 918 South
Pennsylvania.
A presentation was given by J. Ruff . Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Dan Messerly (R.W. Mercer, contractor) - The proposed canopy would
provide customers protection from the weather by overhanging the
eastern most drive aisle 8 ' . The canopy would be about as high as
the light post that exists on pump island.
Steele - Will the canopy have signage on it?
No (pictures of similar canopies were shown)
Charles Goodrich (Manager) - Even though the station is currently
full service the canopy will help protect customers , employees and
the computerized pumps, In the future and without the canopy it
will not get used as it should. The canopy should increase
business since people shy away from uncovered pumps in poor
weather. Mr. Goodrich presented a petition that was collected from
neighbors supporting the proposal . He stated the fence, a basket
weave style, along the south property line is only about 10 ' from
the roadway which helps block the view from the south, but the only
thing to look at is the intersection of Pennsylvania and I-496 .
Clark - Would I be correct to assume that if the appeal wasn' t
approved there would only be a 2 ' overhang of the eastern most
drive aisle.
Messerly - That would be correct.
Betty Goodrich (owner) - spoke regarding her good working
relationship with her neighbors and that if there have been
problems they have been discussed with them and resolved. She
stated the neighbor to the south works nights and could not be in
attendance but did write a supportive note on the petition. She
would like this to be approved to finish upgrading her property.
(Petition submitted)
Executive Session
Clark stated that she would not support the request to be
consistent in order to avoid visual intrusions of the Cedar and
Pennsylvania corridor. It would have an overall negative impact on
the residential use of the area.
Steele stated that he would not support it because he believed it
to be overbuilding of the site, intruding into the visual/public
space of the Pennsylvania corridor. The code requirement minimizes
the impact .
Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3168 . Second by Sheldon.
Yeas : Wright, Curran
Nays : Sheldon, Clark, Steele, Hull
Appeal #3168 DENIED
The Board believes that the canopy as proposed would have an
overall negative impact on the adjacent residential use and the
visual impact along the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor. In addition
it was further believed that the proposed canopy would contribute
to over development of the site which is not in keeping with the
general intent of the Code.
Appeal #3169 - 900 block River Street
This is a request by Ralph Gregory to construct a communications
tower 380 ' high and a 36 x 42 unmanned concrete block shed in the
900 block of River Street.
A presentation was given by J. Ruff . Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Ralph Gregory gave his professional and community service
background and that in essence this proposal was an economic
development project. A project that is hi-tech infrastructure for
non wire communication by radio waves . This type of project
requires a high unobstructed tower. This type of tower has 3 types
of tenants .
1 . Private users with their own frequency (commercial or
institutional uses) for mobile communications .
2 . Community repeaters - A community shared use frequency - for
those who utilize it less and can't afford their own
frequency.
3 . Common carriers - Pager' s and cellular phones . This tower
would primarily carry pager type communications .
This is a growing industry and soon to be used by everybody. The
building and tower base would be fenced for security and be
unmanned, just housing the electrical equipment .
Clark - Are there any health/safety concerns associated with the
tower and its use?
Gregory - There are not.
Steele - What would be the maximum wattage emitted from the tower?
Gregory - 36 whip type antennas at a maximum of 1000 watts each,
thus equalling 36 , 000 watts maximum compared to WSYM transmittal at
5, 000, 000 watts .
Steele - Are there any other possible locations?
Gregory - I have spent 3 years trying to find a suitable site close
enough to downtown to serve the downtown requirements .
Steele - What about the Michigan National Tower as a location?
Gregory - The buildings tower is overloaded already for a structure
not designed for that purpose.
Hull - Would there be any hazardous electrical current on the
tower?
Gregory - No the tower would only have wires similar to your TV
antennae wire only bigger.
Priscilla Holmes spoke regarding the area. The tower location is
about 2 1/2 blocks from residential, 4 blocks from B.O.C. Tower and
8-10 blocks from Board of Water & Light tower. She said she was
well aware of the tower issues and that she was opposed to the
tower approved in 1985 . She stated that there will be an impact on
the residential area around the tower and that a tower of this
height is not beneficial to residents of the area.
Executive Session
Steele expressed concern with the intensity of the size next to the
park and the visual clutter of towers . He will not support the
variance.
Wright stated that there are other towers close to residential
areas (WSYM & WILS) that have not been a problem and his own
personal experience working around receivers much of his life has
not caused him any ill affects . He will not object to the
proposal .
Wright made a motion to approve appeal #3169 . Second by Clark.
Yeas : Hull, Wright, Clark, Curran
Nays : Sheldon, Steele
Motion did not pass for lack of votes for majority.
Appeal #3169 DENIED
Those members of the Board voting against this request indicated
their concern with the intensity and size of the proposed tower and
the visual impact that it may have on the adjacent development.
They also were concerned about the clustering of towers in this
specific area and the adverse impact it may have on existing
development.
Appeal #3170 - 2100 Pleasant Grove
This is a request by Kenneth Kruger to allow for a driveway 18 ' in
width in the front yard on the premises known as 2100 Pleasant
Grove.
A presentation was given by J. Ruff. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Kenneth Kruger stated that he lacked parking on site for overnight
guests . If people parking in the street overnight it is illegal .
He does not have any options .
Dan Anderson, 2117 Hampden spoke in favor of the petition stating
that Mr. Kruger would ont do anything that would look bad or be of
poor appearance.
Communication
Mr. & Mrs . Shaver, 2106 Pleasant Grove Road, opposed.
Agnes Stump and Judith Stump, 2218 Pleasant Grove Road against the
request.
Douglas Scott, 2100 Belmont Drive, unnecessary except to widen the
garage.
"A Good Neighbor" opposed would take on business appearance.
Arthur and Katherine Kapp, 2224 Belaire Drive, strongly oppose.
Mrs . Doris C. Coppins, 2018 Pleasant Grove Road, oppose.
Sheldon made a motion to deny appeal #3170 . Would result in a poor
situation leading to deterioration and have an adverse impact on
neighborhood. Second by Steele.
Yeas : Clark, Sheldon, Hull, Wright, Steele, Curran
Nays : none
Appeal #3170 DENIED
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the
existing driveway and garage provided adequate off street parking
for the single family home. The Board further believes that
approval of this request would not be in the best interest of the
neighborhood since it would create a non residential appearance to
the property and contribute to deterioration of the residential
character of the area.
Appeal #3171 - 326 North Cedar
This is a request by Bonnie Weiss to allow a wall sign 64 sq ft in
size on the side of the building on the premises of 326 North
Cedar.
A presentation was given by J. Ruff . Slides were show of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Bonnie Weiss, spoke regarding her petition and the need for
identification noting that it appears as a corner lot since the
corner lot at Shiawassee and North Cedar is a parking lot. She
also presented to the Board three letters from nearby adjoining
properties supporting her request (K-P Fleet Parts, Inc. ,
Riverfront Cycle and Jimmy G' s) .
Communications
A letter from Knight and Phyllis McKesson, 532 E. Shiawassee in
support of the request.
Pat Lindemann had discussed his support of the request to Jim Ruff
so it was explained that because of the unique properties in the
downtown area that have narrow frontages and deep buildings these
should be considered favorably and not penalized. Further that the
sign is quite small compared to the wall it is on and there is a
need in this situation with the heavy one way traffic, small
frontage and the appearance of this being a corner lot to have
reasonable signage facing north.
Clark made a motion to approve appeal #3171 . Second by Steele.
During discussion there seemed to be a consensus to also keep the
signage on the awning.
Steele made a motion to Table appeal #3171 until the next meeting
so that if necessary a greater variance can be advertised.
Second by Wright. Motion carried unanimously.
Appeal #3172 - 5100 South Cedar
This is a request by D.O.C . to construct an addition 18 ' from the
rear (west) lot line on the premises known as 5100 South Cedar.
A presentation was given by J. Ruff . Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Al Ludwick from Stein Hinckle Dawe Wood & Johnson, Architects
answered questions from the Board regarding the trees to be
removed.
Clark made a motion to approve appeal #3172 . Seeing that it would
not adversely impact the surrounding property. That it was a
reasonable request based upon it location and lack of impact on
surrounding property. Second by Steele.
Yeas : Clark, Hull, Sheldon, Steele, Wright, Curran
Nays : none
Appeal #3172 APPROVED
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the
proposed addition would not adversely impact the surrounding non
residential uses . The Board further believes that this is a
reasonable request based on the location and its relationship to
the adjacent non residential uses .
Appeal #3173 - 1201 North Cedar
This is a request by Mooney Oil to replace an existing 116 sq ft
ground/pole sign with a 90 sq ft ground/pole sign 19 ' in height and
4 ' from the front lot lines on property known as 1201 North Cedar.
A presentation was given by J. Ruff . Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Brian Terrell, Terrell and Associates supplied copies of the
existing and proposed sign elevations and high lighted the
differences .
James Parker, Controller of Mooney Oil Corp. stated that since
there was a branding change to CITGO the signage must be changed
and the proposed compromise provides the necessary message with
less clutter.
Hull made a motion to approve appeal #3173 with the conditions that
the billboard on site be removed. The signage improvements out
weigh the alternatives associated with denial . Second by Clark.
Yeas : Sheldon, Clark, Steele, Hull, Wright, Curran
Nays : none
Appeal #3173 APPROVED
The appeal was approved with the understanding that the existing
10 ' x 16 ' billboard on the north side of the property will be
removed and no other sign will take its place.
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that
approval of this request would be in keeping with the general
intent of the Code based on the fact that the existing sign would
be improved upon and that other existing signage would be removed
to bring the property into closer compliance with the sign code.
Appeal #3174 - 601 West Saginaw
This is a request by Terrell Associates to allow for a pole sign
142 sq ft in size 21 ' from the front property line and 25 ' in
height on the premises of 601 West Saginaw.
A presentation was given by J. Ruff . Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Brian Terrell, Terrell and Assoc. - stated that this was different
that the last appeal in that there wasn't as much to compromise on.
He provided the Board with existing and proposed sign elevations
noting the difference in that overall it would be shorter and
cleaner in appearance with the pricing signs incorporated into the
identification sign. A total of 10 sq ft smaller in area.
Tonie Marie Miernik, 629 W. Lapeer St. expressed that the
neighborhood consensus was that if the sign was going to be smaller
they support. If it were going to be enlarged they would be
against the proposal .
Charlie Coughlin, 616 W. Lapeer wishes to support if not moved
further away from Saginaw Street.
Communication from Jane and Julio Pereida, 600 W. Lapeer support
the request.
Executive Session
Steele expressed that he thought the City was giving too much on
the appeal .
Discussion centered around "Good Chicken" sign which was on the
existing pole sign and would remain. It is a fairly large,
complicated sign that was not being reduced.
Hull asked if the petitioner could work with the staff to reduce
the signage proposed to present at the next meeting.
James Parker (Mooney Oil Corp. ) stated that CITGO, in their
anticipation to get the identification changed may not want to
wait.
Brian Terrell stated that the sign size was the smallest the CITGO
sign manufacturer would recommend for this site and the need for
sufficient site distance for drivers to change lanes as needed.
They may opt to just change the plastic insert in the existing
sign. They believe the proposed sign will be nicer looking than if
just face changed.
Clark made a motion to approve appeal #3174 with the understanding
that the existing "Total, Superstop and Price Sign" be removed and
repL_aced with a "CITGO" sign no larger than 70 sq ft in size and
that no other signs permanent or temporary will be added to the
existing pole .
Yeas : Sheldon, Hull, Wright, Clark, Curran
Nays : Steele
Appeal #3174 APPROVED
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the
reconstructed ground/pole sign would be in closer conformance with
the requirements of the Sign Code and therefore approval was in
keeping with the general intent of the Code.
Minutes
Sheldon made a motion to approve the October 10 , 1991 minutes as
written. Second by Clark. Motion carried unanimously.
Wright made a motion to approve the September 12 , 1991 minutes as
written. Second by Steele .
New Business
Wright report problem with the attendance to rethink policy of
granting excused absences automatically - written policy exists
regarding attendance to not be absent more than 3 consecutive
meting and 25% of this unexcused absence . Due to lack of quorum,
attempt to improve situation, at least by not automatically
granting excused absences .
Clark, significant impact on Board.
Wright - vacancy on Appeal board since July 1 and this contributes
to the problem.
Meeting adjourned at 10 : 30 PM.
Vernon C . Fountain
Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Appeals
October 10 , 1991 - 7 : 30 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers , 10th floor
The meeting was called to order by Chair H. P. Curran at 7 : 30 p.m.
Roll call was taken. cp
Fri
Present Excused Absence
Cy-
Edward Spink Christopher Steele
Mary Clark
Joan Sheldon t�
Grant Hilts
Floyd Wright
rn
Robert Hull
H Patricia Curran
Staff
Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator
Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner
Appeal #3162 - 918 South Pennsylvania
This is a request by R. W. Mercer Co. representing the owner, to
construct a fuel island canopy 2 ' from the front (east) lot line upon
the premises known as 918 South Pennsylvania Avenue.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The owner is currently making improvements to the existing Sunoco
Station and as part of those improvements wishes to construct the 36 '
x 54 ' canopy over the drive lanes at the pump islands , 2 ' from the
front lot line.
Dan Messerly, 2322 Brookland Road, Jackson. I work for R. W. Mercer
with the company doing the construction and represent the Goodrich' s .
The Goodrich' s feel this canopy would be a valuable asset to the
neighborhood as well as their station and provide additional lighting,
that the area does not have. It will add additional safety for their
customers when they fuel their cars. The pumps will be under a canopy
which will afford protection from rain, snow and ice. There are some
adjacent businesses similar fueling locations on Pennsylvania that do
have canopies that extend about the same distance from their property
lines . The Meijers station on South Pennsylvania, the Admiral station
on Pennsylvania and the Action Auto on Pennsylvania and Mt. Hope.
Spink - The canopy at Meijer' s meets code, and the Action Auto did not
take a variance .
Spink - You spoke of the canopy as an asset for lighting, there are
currently two pole lights on each island. Would this canopy provide
considerable more lighting than is currently provided?
Messerly - Yes it would. There will be four light fixtures that shine
down on the pump islands . The canopy will have approximately 12
lights underneath it.
Spink - Does the owner intend to change from the present program of
having all islands full service as opposed to self serve?
Charles Goodrich, 2250 Pine Tree Road, Holt - Right now, we intend to
stay as we are. In the future my supplier would like us switch to
self serve with at least one island. As far as the lighting is con-
sidered, we close at 9 : 00 PM. So all the light will be shut off .
Spink - How much signage is proposed on the canopy?
Goodrich - Just the Sunoco emblem.
Sheldon - Has there been any communication from the neighbor directly
south?
Curran - No.
Hilts made a motion to approve appeal #3162 . Reason: Hardship, dif-
ficulty due to the placement of the islands . Second by Wright.
Yeas : Curran, Hilts , Wright
Nays : Clark, Hull, Sheldon, Spink
Motion did not carry. Appeal #3162 DENIED.
The Board did not believe that there is a hardship associated with
this request and the construction of a canopy at this location could
have an adverse impact on the adjacent residential development to the
south in terms of light, air and view.
Appeal #3163 - 4920 Alpha Street
This is a request by George Welsh that will allow for a driveway 17 '
in width in the front yard on the property located at 4920 Alpha
Street.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
George Welsh, 4920 Alpha Street. on my block half of the houses have
double width driveways . Every two story house has a double wide drive
except mine. The reason I would like this is because we can' t park
two cars one behind the other because it overlaps the city sidewalk.
I 'm retired and my wife works it would be nice if her car could be in
the garage especially in the winter.
Communication
A letter from Robert Large, 4926 Alpha Street - no objection.
Valerie Clark, 5000 S. Pennsylvania. I 'm in the same situation. One
driveway and two cars at the residence. Residents on each side of us
park their car in the yards and its destroying the lawns . I think it
lowers property value, on my property because we don' t do it, it
really upsets us . Trying to switch cars is extremely difficult on
Pennsylvania. I think its a good idea and I 'm for it .
Spink made a motion to deny appeal #3163 . Second by Sheldon.
Yeas : Spink
Nays : Curran, Clark, Hull, Sheldon, Hilts , Wright
Motion failed.
Hilts made a motion to approve appeal #3163 . This is a reasonable
request. Second by Hull.
Yeas : Curran, Hull, Hilts , Wright
Nays : Clark, Sheldon, Spink
Appeal #3163 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.
There are eight ( 8 ) members serving on the Board of Zoning Appeals ,
therefore five ( 5 ) affirmative votes are required for approval.
The Board does not believe that there is a hardship associated with
this request and that they further believe that the existing driveway
and garage provides adequate off street parking for the single family
home at this location.
Appeal #3164 - 2522 Champion Way
This is a request by Jeffrey Dupler to construct a 20 ' x 24 ' attached
garage within 4 ' of the east side lot line at 2522 Champion Way.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Jeffrey Dupler, 2522 Champion Way. I 'm asking for a 2 ' variance.
There still will be 19 ' between where the garage would end and the
house on the other side of me. The reason I want it, I just moved in
last year, the existing driveway was already there and its 16 ' wide.
Somehow he built that 6 ' from the property line. And there ' s another
2 ' between the driveway and the house. To put up a symmetrical garage
I need 2 ' on each side of the driveway. I 'm the only house in the
neighborhood without a garage. It would fit right into the neighbor-
hood. I have a letter from my neighbor on the east side. He has no
objection.
Spink made a motion to approve Appeal 03164 . With the staff recom-
mendation that it is based on the approval of the neighbor of 2600
Champion Way. That the residential be garage be constructed with
materials to match the home and all easements be settled in writing.
Second by Clark.
Yeas : Curran, Clark, Hull, Sheldon, Hilts , Wright, Spink.
Nays : none
Appeal 43164 APPROVED
This appeal was approved with the understanding that 1) the addition
will be in character with the existing residential home, in other
words it will be constructed with the materials to match the home; 2 )
that final clearance to encroach into the easement along that property
line be approved by the Department of Public Service and Board of Wa-
ter and Light or any other utility company that may have an interest
at this location.
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the ap-
proval of this variance to allow a garage 4 ' from the east property
line should not have any adverse impact on the adjacent property since
the adjacent home is constructed in such a way that the garage area
for that home is adjacent to the proposed attached garage.
Minutes
Clark made a motion to approve the July 11 , 1991 minutes . Second by
Hilts . Motion carried.
Clark made a motion to approve the August 8 , 1991 minutes . Second by
Hilts . Motion carried.
Hull made a motion to excuse C. Steele. Second by Hilts . Motion
carried.
E. Spink requests an excused absence from the November 14 , 1991
meeting.
Meeting adjourned. 8 : 20 PM
ernon C. ountain
Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 12 , 1991- 7 : 30 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers , loth floor
The meeting was called to order by Chair H. P . Curran at 7 : 30 p.m.
Roll call was taken.
Present
Christopher Steele
Edward Spink
Patricia Curran
Grant Hilts c�
Floyd Wright
Robert Hull
Mary Clark :-
Staff
Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator
Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner
Tabled Appeal 3152 - 6421 Rosedale Road
Wright made a motion to remove appeal 1#3152 from the table. Second by
Hull. Motion carried unanimously.
Fountain - There was a hearing on this appeal at the last meeting, and
as a result of further questions regarding the size of the structure
proposed to be built, you tabled the request. The Planning Division
staff discussed other size pole barns with the applicant, smaller than
what was requested. There is an addendum in your report . The dis-
cussion we had with the Alvarado ' s indicated that they really needed
the depth that they proposed. They did indicate that they could man-
age with a smaller building with a width of 24 ' to 301 . However, they
did prefer 301 . The staff indicated that, based on the size of the
property, we would support either width.
There is a letter of support from our neighbor that came last time.
Hilts made a motion to approve a 30 ' x 40 ' storage facility because of
the large size of the lot and it would not set a precedence. Second
by Wright.
Yeas : Hilts, Wright, Curran
Nays : Clark, Spink, Steele, Hull
Motion failed.
Clark made a motion to approve a 24 ' x 401 . Second by Steele.
PAGE 1
"yeas : Hilts , Clark, Wright, Steele, Curran
Nays : Spink, Hull
Appeal 73152 Approved to allow a 24 ' x 40 ' storage building.
The Board approved a variance to allow a 24 ' x 40 ' storage building in
the approximate location shown on the plan that was submitted. The
Board found based on testimony and evidence that the lot on which you
propose to construct a pole barn is of sufficient size to allow this
storage building without promoting overdevelopment of the site.
The Board also found that similar variances have been granted in the
vicinity for storage buildings of approximately the same size.
The Board does not believe that this will establish precedent because
their approval is based on lot size and location.
Appeal ,-';3154 - 5700 South Pennsylvania
This is a request by Victor Design, representing Discount Tire Company
for a rear yard setback variance to allow the construction of a stor-
age addition 412" from the rear (west) property line upon the premises
known as 5700 South Pennsylvania Avenue.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use .
Clark - Is any landscaping required?
Winnicker - No
Communication
A letter from Michael Sturley, Community Mental Health Board, property
owner to the west of Discount Tire. Not opposed, however, wood re-
taining wall should be replaced with a more substantial structure.
Also, provide sufficient parking for their employees , customers and
cars in storage.
Bob Edgar with Victor Design, representing Discount Tire. The pro-
posed addition is within the existing variance that was granted in
1987 .
Clark - Are there any plans for landscaping?
Edgar - We ' re just going to put some gravel and stone in there.
Spink - I am concerned that they may have out grown the site.
Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3154 , but will oppose it, be-
cause no hardship was presented. Second by Clark.
Edgar - The purpose of the facility is to alleviate a maintenance
problem that exists at present. Discount Tire has a volume of ap-
proximately 100 tires a day that they discard. The facility they are
PAGE 2
using now is sized only to contain only about 250-275 tires and in-
creasing the size of the storage facility for this use would alleviate
the necessity for storing used tires outside the storage facility that
presently exist.
Fountain - This is a viable business and what is proposed will not
include the intensity of use .
Yeas : Hilts , Clark, Wright, Curran
Nays: Hull, Spink, Steele
Appeal #3154 APPROVED
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the ad-
dition would be an improvement to the property, since it would provide
for additional storage of used tires, removing them from view and
providing security.
The Board further found that the proposed addition will abut existing
parking associated with office development, therefore no adverse im-
pact is anticipated.
Appeal #3155 - 630 W. Mt. Hope
This is a request by Jon & Lisa Wilson to recieve a variance that will
allow a deck to remain within 12 . 5 ' of the front property line .along,_ .
Beal Street.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Communication
A letter from Mr. & Mrs . Ronald Kruger, 1841 Beal Avenue, right next
door to property, in opposition.
A letter from Roy and Nancy Guerrero, Jr. , 628 W. Mt. Hope. Unless
the whole outside fencing is of one type either privacy or chain link
and the deck and stairs are completely inspected and safe for everyone
we will not consent to the deck.
A letter from Maria Guerrero, 633 W. Mt. Hope, the deck and steps
should be presentable and level, if not I cannot agree to the vari-
ance.
Curran - Did you have a contractor build the steps?
Mr. Wilson - No, I am a first time home owner. I did build the deck.
I had Roy, one of the neighbors who wrote a letter, help me and he
looked at the design, and I don' t feel that it is unsafe, and it does
not rest on the cement steps underneath. It has It has poles in front
and back and they are bolted in. I 'm sure that when it was checked
out by the City they would have stated if they thought it was unsafe
and its not unsafe. My neighbors don' t like me because of my dogs . I
have two big dogs , a great dane and Berman shepard and they did take
me to court on having these dogs because the dogs got loose. That ' s
PAGE 3
why I have changed the fencing. I feel it is quite safe now and since
I have put up the deck and the railing I feel it helps keep the dogs
in. As far as getting a building permit I 'm a first time home owner,
and I had no idea. I have put thousands of dollars into this property
and I feel really terrible that these people have all said this but
they all dislike us . We are going to sell the house, we are not wel-
come in the neighborhood. But what they are saying is very untrue.
I ' ve put lot of money into this house, I have improved the neighbor-
hood 75% and I have brought up the value of my own house.
Hull made a motion to approve appeal #3155 subject to the deck meeting
code requirements . The corner lot presents a hardship.
Yeas : Hilts , Clark, Spink, Steele, Hull, Hull, Wright, Curran
Nays : none
This approval was conditioned upon all improvements to the deck meet-
ing the minimum requirements of the Building Code.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property is
located at the intersection of two streets a corner lot, which they
believe limits reasonable development of the property without having
to encroach into the minimum required setbacks.
The Board does not believe that the deck as it exists has any adverse
impact on adjacent properties and to allow this type of construction
to remain is in keeping with the general intent of the Code .
Appeal #3156 - 127 E. Mason
This is a request by Ronald Weck to construct an 8 ' high privacy fence
along the side and rear lot lines of his property at 123 E. Mason
Street.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Communication
A letter from 11 property owners of Mason Street, Donald Street and
Rouse Street. Also enclosed 5 pictures . The property owners request
denial of 8 ' high privacy fence.
Curran - Why do you want an 8 ' high fence?
Weck - The windows of the neighbor are even with the top of the fence.
There is no privacy at all. As far as all the debris around the
house, I am completely remodeling the house and I did not have time to
take care of it. Its gone now. As far as all the other cars , they' re
not all mine.
Clark - The fence that is there now is 61 ?
Weck - Yes .
Clark - How are you proposing to make it 8 ' ?
Weck - Lattice along the top._
PAGE 4
Curran - Will the fence be completely around your property, on both
sides?
Weck - Both sides and the back. I have a letter from the two people
in the back and several other neighbors that say they would not mind
the fence at all.
Diane Fisher, 209 E. Mason, property owner. Opposes fence .
Spink made a motion to deny appeal #3156 . Second by Hilts .
Yeas : Spink, Hilts , Hull, Wright, Clark, Steele, Curran
Nays : none
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that a hard-
ship did not exist in this situation that the requirements of the Code
are reasonable.
The Board further believes that it is not intent of the Code to allow
anything over a 6 ' high fence in the residential areas and further
that it could have an adverse impact on privacy and security in the
area.
Appeal #3157 - 516 Community
This is a request by Linton St.a.11ons, Jr. to keep a front and side
deck closer than permitted by code on property located at 516 Commu-
nity Street.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Curran - How did we find out it was being built?
Fountain - Code Enforcement Division discovered the construction dur-
ing routine inspections of the neighborhood.
A letter from Cruz and Maria Villarreal, 524 Community. Would like
this project to be the legal size for our future plans . We do not
mind the front side to remain the size it is now.
Linton Stalling Jr. I have some photographs. The house is set on a
lot that is 55 ' across and 140 ' long, there is no other place I can
set that for my mother, she is a senior citizen, and needs to have
somewhere to sit when its warm during the summers . I am going to have
a garage put in for her, for storage, on the other side. And I don' t
have a place to set that deck adequate enough to where I feel she
would be safe. I have a letter from the neighbors .
Clark made a motion to approve a front yard variance. Second by
Steele.
Yeas : Spink, Clark, Hull, Hilts , Wright, Steele, Curran
Front yard variance approved.
PAC;R
Clark made a motion to deny a side vard variance of 2 1/2 feet. There
does not appear to be a hardship there and it appears to have a nega-
tive impact on the surrounding properties . Second by Spink.
Yeas : Clark, Spink, Steele
Nays : Hilts , Wright, Hull, Curran
Hilts made a motion to approve the side yard variance. Second by
Wright.
Yeas : Hilts , Wright, Hull, Curran
Nays : Clark, Spink, Steele
Motion for side yard variance approved.
The Board approved this variance for an existing deck to remain 20 '
from the front property line and 3 ' from the side property line.
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the ex-
isting deck had little or no impact on adjacent properties especially
since it is to be retained as an open deck with no roof .
Appeal #3158 - 527 Hamilton
This is a request by J. G. Hoffineyer to construct a 5 ' x 24 ' deck
which will extend across the front of the home at 527 Hamilton.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
J G Hoffineyer, 527 Hamilton. My folks built this house in the 150 ' s .
I have inherited the house and I plan to live there. My wife would
like a porch on the front.
Karen Johns , 531 Hamilton, does not object to the appeal.
Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3158 based on the fact that
property clearly presents a problem with the code as elevation. Sec-
ond by Clark.
Yeas : Spink, Hull, Hilts , Clark, Wright, Steele, Curran
Nays : none
Appeal 43158 APPROVED.
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the ele-
vation of this property as it relates to adjacent properties is such
that the addition is not expected to have any adverse impact on the
adjacent residential homes .
Appeal #3159 - 400 block East Edgewood
This is a request by Joseph Sutschek for Ramcc-Lansing Associates to
expand the existing Edgewood Towne Centre Shopping Center located in
the 400 block of East Edgewood Boulevard with a total of 2 , 221 parking
spaces .
PAGE 6
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Joe Sutschek, Director of Predevelopment and land acquisition for
Randall Guershinson. I have been working on this site for about 2 1/2
years .
The basis of the appeal is based on 20 years of studies of shopping
the center industry which were done at three separate times by three
separate independent agencies with no direct relation to our company
or this project when they were done. What we are proposing is that we
would provide 1609 , almost half way of what the code would require and
what the industry says is really the minimum. We think clearly there
is a hardship involving the nationally recognized and documented re-
quirement for shopping centers versus what the Lansing Code require-
ments are.
Hull - Are there going to be restaurants on the separate lots and if
so where will they park?
Joe Sutschek - They will park on their own property.
Wright made a motion to approve appeal #3159 . Reason: There is more
than adequate parking. Second by Hilts .
A letter from Dick Neller, Walter Nelier Enterprises, Inc . , 122 S .
Grand approves of the variance request.
Yeas : Hilts , Clark, Hull, Spink, Steele, Wright, Curran
Nays : none
Appeal #3159 APPROVED
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the parking
requirments that are currently in the zoning ordinance are under
review and it has been determined that the ratio of parking to build-
ing area as required by the ordinance is excessive. The Board was
advised that amendments will be recommended in the near future.
The Board was also given the information provided and following pre-
sentation and review of all available information, the Board was sat-
isfied that the request to vary the parking requirements was reason-
able.
Appeal #3160 - 4115 Devonshire
This is a request by Patricia Marrison representing the owners of 4115
Devonshire to construct an attached 18 ' x 24 ' garage which will come
to one foot from the south side property line.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use .
A letter from Keith G. Davis , Chairman, Board of Trustees, Pennway
Church of God fully support the variance .
PAGE 7
Patricia Marrison, representing parents who recently acquired 4115)
Devonshire. The reason for the attached garage versus an unattached
garage is my parents are both elderly, my mother is not in good
health, she has arthritis , she has had a knee replaced so we are
looking for direct access to the house especially in the winter and
inclement weather. There is a 12 ' easement which allows more than
enough room on the other side for access to maintain the side of the
garage.
Owner of the home to the south - My concern is the easement being used
as a driveway to the back lot. If this garage is built will that
easement be used to get to the back 1 for parking cars . It would be
within feet of my bedroom windows .
Clark made a motion to approve appeal #3160 , having the buffer zone of
the easement between it and the adjacent property is a unique case and
lessens any negative impact that might be otherwise involved. Second
by Steele .
Yeas : Hilts , Clark, Spink, Steele, Hull, Wright, Curran
Nays : none
Appeal 43160 APPROVED.
The Board found based on this evidence that the proposed addition
would be adjacent to an existing 12 ' right-of-way and or easement that
provides access to property to the east. Based on this unique situa-
tion the Board did not believe that the proposed garage addition 1 '
from the property line would have any negative impact on existing or
future development in the area.
Appeal 43161 - 3421 Turner Street
This is a request by John Monroe to construct a 24 ' x 24 ' detached
garage 17 . 4 ' from the front property line along Hylewood at property
located at 3421 Turner Street.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Clark - What is the setback of the house?
Fountain - 17 ft.
Curran - Will the driveway have .to be changed or extended and widened
at the back?
Fountain - yes .
John Monroe, 15752 Greenway Drive, I 'm representing the owner Mr .
Schramm who was unable to attend tonight.
Clark made a motion to approve appeal #3161 with the understanding
that the existing driveway be removed with construction of the new
driveway approach to the garage and the new drive be no wider than the
width of the garage doors . Second by Spink.
Yeas : Spink, Hilts , Hull, Wright, Clark, Steele, Curran
PAGE 3
Nays : none Appeal #3161 APPROVED
The appeal was approved with the condition that the existing driveway
be removed concurrently with the new drive that will be installed to
serve the new garage and that the new driveway be constructed so that
it is no wider than the door into the new garage.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the garage will
be no closer than the existing home constructed on the property and
that there is sufficient distance between the proposed garage and the
closest residence to the west so that it should not have any adverse
impact on light, air and view to the adjacent property.
Curran - Ron Onufer asked the Board to consider being on TV.
Board not in favor of idea.
Meeting adjourned. 9 : 45 PM
ern_on C. Fountain
Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
PAGE 9
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Appeals
August 8 , 1991 - 7 : 30 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chamwers, 10th floor
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson H P Curran at 7 : 30 p.m.
Roll call was taken.
Present Excused Absence
m
Christopher Steele
Edward Spink
Patricia Curran
Grant Hilts
Floyd Wrightcc
Robert Hull
Mary Clark --a -'
Staff
N
Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator -�
Don Hanna
Appeal #3149 - 548 Tisdale
This is a request by Beverly Devereaux to construct a 14 ' x 221 • de-
tached garage, 35 ' from the front property line line at 548 Tisdale.
A presentation was given by Vern Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Beverly Devereaux, 1869 Tupelo Trail, Holt, Michigan. The property
does fall off toward the rear lot line.
Steele - The garage could not be built parallel to the front of the
house.
Fountain - It drops off at the back and it could cause for substantial
filling when making the staff recommendations . We took that into
consideration as well as making sure the garage would not be in front
of the other structures . There will be separation between the pro-
posed structure and the one to the east.
Hull - Where was the other garage located?
Fountain - THe old garage was almost along side of the house.
Clark made a motion that BZA #3149 at 548 Tisdale be approved, because
placing the garage in the location proposed would not have a negative
impact on the surrounding properties and because of the topography of
the lot creates a hardship. Second by Hilts .
Yeas : Clark, Hull, Hilts , Wright, Curran
Mays : Spink, Steele
Appeal #3149 APPROVED
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the proposed lo-
cation of the garage, does not extend in front of the residence on
does not extend in front of the residence
either side, and the garage, ill be located a substantial distance
on either side, and the garage w
from the home to the east.
I was also found that the topography of the lot makes it difficult to
locate the garage further back on the property.
The Board does not believe
the
on thesite
adjacentlocation
res�dence r the pthe�eforearape
will have a negative impact with the general intent of the
proval of this request is in keeping
Code.
Appeal #3150 - 101 West Miller Road
that
This is a request by Douglas and
61 in height o inc the efront ryard ealong
will allow them to keep a fen
Coulson Street on their property located at 101 West Miller Road.
A presentation was given by
V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Curran - Will the fence be even with the garage? to
Fountain - It could go even with the garage
they
, in asking to
of
place it on the property line, which is approximatelyby approximately
the garage. Right now it is in the right-of-way
5 ' -61 , they' ll have to move it.
Douglas West, 101 West Miller and Julie West. We have a petition and
some letters from neighbors that support the fence.
Clark - Will you have to remove any of the trees?
West - I ' ll have to cut quite a bit of tree away so that I could put
the fence up.
- We put the fence up where an existing fence was , we
en
Julie West art of our property. Otherwise we
didn' t realize that it wasn' t p
wouldn' t have put it there in the first place.
Communication
A letter from Edward A. Quenby, 3434 Loren Drive, Jackson, owns ad-
jacent property, has no objection to the fence.
Steele made a motion to app
rove appeal #3150 . Hardship due to the
two
is a corn
narrowness of the lot and the stipulationst to removeer the ofence hfrom
front yards. Including th
angle south corner. Second by Wright
public row and
Yeas : Hull, Hilts , Wright, Steele, Curran
PAGE 2
Nays : Spink, Clark
Appeal 03150 APPROVED
The approval was given subject to the following conditions : 1 ) That
the existing fence be removed from the public right-of-way of Coulson
Court. 2) That the south east corner of the fence be angled as nec-
essary to provide proper sight distance for the driveway serving the
property to the south.
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that a hard-
ship exists due to the narrowness of the lot, and that it is a corner
lot with two front yards .
Appeal 43151 - 1321 South Briarfield Drive
This is a request by Sharon Yerian of 1321 S. Briarfield Drive to
construct an open front porch, 20 ' long and 6 ' deep, into the estab-
lished front yard. The front porch is proposed to extend out from the
house 6 ' and be 20 ' from the front property line.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Sharon Yerian, 1321 S. Briarfield. I would like the porch because
presently my house fa:.`s a northeast direction. The sun fades my
carpeting and drapes and furniture. I would also like a porch to sit
on and face the street. I also feel it would enhance the appearance
OIL the neighborhood.
Wright - Is the front of this house line up with the other houses.
Fountain - Yes .
Wright - Are there any other houses with front porches?
Fountain - I don' t recall any.
Clark made a motion that appeal 43151 be approved because there is no
negative impact on the surrounding property. A covered porch will
improve the looks of the property and make the front of the house more
useable. Second by Spink.
Yeas : Hilts , Clark, Hull, Spink, Steele, Wright, Curran
Nays : none
Appeal #3151 APPROVED
The Board does not believe that the addition will have a negative im-
pact on the adjacent residential development. The Board also believes
it will improve the appearance of the structure. In addition the
Board also notes that the 20 ' setback is a minimum code requirement,
below the required established.
Appeal #3152 - 5421 Rosedale Road
PACE 3
This is a request by Gerald and Jacqueline Alvorado to construct a 32 '
x 40 ' pole barn accessory storage structure on their property at 6421
Rosedale Road. This is in addition to the 14 ' x 37 ' detached acces-
sory structure now on site.
Jackie Alvorado, I 'm a school teacher, so I guess I 'm a little over
prepared tonight. I do have some visual aids and some hand outs for
everybody. Lack of storage space is creating a hardship for us pri-
marily because of our 26 ' motorhome which is a late model. Its ex-
posed to the elements year round and we notices its beginning to
weather. In addition we have a fishing boat, with a 50 hp motor that
also exposed to the elements year round and these two items alone
represent about $40 , 000 worth of investments that we would like to
protect. The second factor of hardship is that we are both school
employees for the Lansing School District and school board policy
mandates that we have to live within the City of Lansing. Its very
difficult for us from the aspect of security. When our motorhome or
boat is removed from our driveway its a red flag to anyone else that
we are not home. There have been three recent break ins on the south
end of Rosedale Road. A practical solution for us would be to store
the boat and the motorhome in an enclosed building so no one would
know we are not at home. Our request is reasonable because of the
unique size of our lot. We spoke with our adjacent neighbors before
we appealed and they had no objections.
Wriylilt - Will you have to remove some of the trees in the back?
Alvorado - We have it planned where it will fit in between.
Robert Van Ness , 6401 Rosedale, next door and I am in support of this
pole barn.
Ron Onufer, 6435 Rosedale, south of the subject property and while we
never met our neighbors, the petitioners , I do not have any objections
to it, but I 'mnot wonderfully in support of it because the deep part
of our backyards is a wonderful rural character to our subdivision and
our street is unique on the east side of Rosedale having deep lots .
There is a large pine tree between our backyard and there backyard
that would basically block our view of the proposed building so it
doesn' t hurt. So from another perspective and another neighbor no
objection.
Committee of the Whole
Clark - I have real concerns about a pole barn of this size. Because
even though you are not going to have a driveway back there as long as
you own it, the potential exists for the next owner to construct a
drive and use it for commercial use or whatever. Did you choose this
size for any particular reason, would a smaller size meet your needs,
would you consider a smaller size or is this the only size your in-
terested in?
Alvorado - The motor home is 26 ' . We want to store our other things .
There have been break ins and we don' t like to leave them out. I
guess if that' s the only way we could, then we ' d have to come back and
petition for another size.
TI)7T/ L it
Clark - To avoid coming back, would you consider any other option? Or
do you want us to just consider this size?
Alvorado - We havn' t thought about that.
Wright - What is the height limitation?
Fountain - No more than 15 ' high.
Maxine Kiter, 6342 Rosedale lived there for 41 years . I don' t think
they have room on the north side of their house for access to their
back yard. So they would have to go on the south side and their
driveway is on the northside. So does that mean they will have to go
across the front yard.
Alvorado - There is room on the north side.
Hull made a motion to table the appeal. Second by Clark.
Yeas: Hilts , Clark, Hull, Wright, Curran
Nays: Spink, Steele
This request was tabled until the next meeting of the Board to allow
to work out any alternatives with the Planning staff, that may reflect
a smaller building.
Appeal #3153 - 4642 Kessler Drive
This is a request by Matt Ellsworth to construct a 17 ' x 38 ' attached
garage 3 ' from the side property line and 24 ' from the inside edge of
the sidewalk and 22 ' from the front property line on the premises
known as 4642 Kessler Drive.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Spink - What is the purpose of the garage going in front of the house?
Fountain - Roofline appearance and the intent to improve the design.
Spink - Are there two sheds there?
Fountain - Yes .
Andrew Beauchene, 910 Wisconsin. I 've known Mr. Ellsworth for 7-8
years. Very responsible person. He just recently purchased the
house. Currently he has no basement. Within code to build a garage,
we ' d like to only move the garage forward 3 ' and that moves it into
the current 241 . 3 ' to the side. If we don' t get the side footage it
really limits the use of the garage. The front is mostly aesthetics ,
he ' s very concerned with maintaining nice aesthetics .
Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3153 the hardship being the
topography of the land does not detract in any way from garage in that
proportion and the relationship of the two driveways appropriate .
Second by Wright.
'eas : Spink, Hilts , Hull, Wright, Clark, Curran
Pays : Steele
appeal #3153 APPROVED.
based on testimony and evidence that the garage addi-
rhe Board foundto the house to the south relate
tion will
should adjacent
adve�sely the ampactaliving conditions as they
therefore
to light, air and view. h between your e south, which helps to maintain open
e in topography,d the property to th
It was also found that there is a change
property an
space.
minutes Spink made
Spink - Page 3 fill in blank.
Page 9 typo address wrong. Second by
a motion to approve the June 13 , 1991 minutes as amende .
Wright. Motion carried unanimously-
Meeting adjourned at 8 : 55 PM.
Vernon C. FotmCain
Secretary A eals
Board of Zoning pp
PAGE 6
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Appeals
July 11 , 1991 - 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 c�
ca -<
H. P. Curran Christopher Steele o -
Edward Spink
Grant Hilts
Floyd Wright a
Robert Hull
Mary Clark
N c,
Staff
N
Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator
Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner
Curran made a motion to excuse C. Steele. Second by F-.,- Wright.
Motion carried unanimously.
Appeal #3141 - 426 West St. Joseph
This is a request by James and Deresa Riley to expand the usable floor
space of the Riley Funeral Home located at 426 West St. Joseph
Street, 5 . 75 ' into the required front yard and Chestnut Street and
6 . 33 ' into the required front yard on St. Joseph Street a setback of
20 ' is required.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
A variance granted in 1990 will allow the owners to construct a new
entryway with a barrier free ramp. The owners have since decided to
expand the proposed construction. The owners are anticipating ex-
panding the parking lot if they receive a rezoning from the City
Council.
James Riley - In regards to the parking spaces. We now have a peti-
tion in to the Planning Department for rezoning of two other proper-
ties that we have adjoined to give us an additional 35 parking spaces .
We would meet the required parking spaces.
Wright - Would you tell us where these additional properties are lo-
cated?
Riley - They are north and east of the funeral home, along Chestnut
and St. Joseph Street.
Fountain - The properties Mr. Riley is speaking of , is the second
house north on Chestnut and first one east of funeral home on St.
Joseph Street.
Clark - If that happens will the use have the required parking?
Fountain - Yes, but they still need a variance as requested before the
Board.
Curran made a motion to approve appeal #3141 . Second by Spink.
Yeas : Spink, Curran, Hull, Hilts, Wright, Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3141 APPROVED.
The Board believes that the existing orientation of the building on
the site and the fact that the facility is on a corner lot does con-
stitute a legitimate hardship, and that the proposal is a reasonable
expansion which will also provide barrier free access into the exist-
ing building.
The Board felt that the nature of your business does not consistently
create a demand for over 73 parking spaces and that overflow parking
is accommodated through an agreement with the Michigan Chamber of
Commerce to utilize some of their off street parking during off hours
of their operation. In addition the Board was advised that you have
requested rezoning of two adjacent proper�ies for the purpose of ex-
panding off street parking. The application for rezoning is being
processed through the Planning Board and City Council at the present
time . if approved 20-40 additional parking spaces may be provided on
the rezoned property.
Appeal 43142 - 2000 William Street
This is a request by Stuart Hanley, Jr. to enclose and existing front
porch at 2000' William Street which will come to within 23 . 5 ' of the
front property line.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
William Stuart Hanley Jr. , 4107 Thackin Drive, and I 'm here this eve-
ning representing my mother, Mrs. Doris Hanley, who currently resides
at 2000 William Street. The Hanley family has resided at this loca-
tion for the last 36 years , and have always been considerate and con-
cerned neighbors .
Curran - Will all the bushes be torn down?
Hanley - No.
Rudolph Wilson, 1921 Williams St. , I 'm a neighbor of Doris Hanley and
we are trying to keep our properties up and I would like to see this
granted to her, she has kept her property up real good.
Communication
letter from Mr. & Mrs . Clifford Greene have no objection.
telephone message from Augustine Robertson, has no objection.
ion to approve appeal #3142 . This is a reasonable
pink made a mot
_equest based on the topography and would be an improvement to the
)roperty. Second by Hilts
teas : Hilts , Wright, Curran, Spink, Hull, Clark
Jays : none
Phe Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the en-
:�losure of this porch would not have any adverse impact on the adja-
zent properties . The Board further believes that . the proposed con-
struction will improve the development on this site and therefore the
variance is in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning
Appeal #3143 - SW corner Turner and Frederick Streets
This is a request by James E. Ballard that will allow for the con-
struction of a single family house on the southwest corner of Fredrick
and Turner Streets .
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The applicant propose to construct the home within 20 ' from the front—
property line.
James Ballard, I"m here to request a variance.
Hull - Is this just going to be a single family house, without a ga-
rage?
Winnicker - In this case,
on corner,
Aadetached attached
garagegwouldlhaPeoto
ably fit in here without a Problem
have a variance.
Spink made a motion that appeal #3143 be approved as requested.
ot and the exaggerated setback due to
Hardship because of a corner l
the placement of one of the nearby homes . Second by Wright.
Yeas: Spink, Hull, Curran, Hilts, Wright, Clark
Nays : none
Appeal #3143 APPROVED.
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence thatts tsezcor-
ner lot in this situation creates a hardship The Board of
the structure that could be developed on the property,
fur-
ther found that the established
duebtok in the the deepbsetbackeofnoneestruck
Street is somewhat exaggerated
ture. The Board does not believe that the reduction of the front yard
resulting f development
°mthis ance will have any ad-
along Frederick Street
verse impact on adjacent residential
Appeal #3144 - 1033 Kelsey Avenue
PAGE 3
John Costello and Diane Chaney to permit a
zis is a request by erty known as 1033 Kelsey Avenue.
arport to remain on proP
prese
ntation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
ubject property and surrounding land use .
I own the house. I did not know at the time we were
ohn Costello, permit for whatever. The lady to the right
;oppose to have a building P I talked to her she has no problem uwpitan
)f me, her house faces Logan, off . I 'm planning on putting
_t as far as water running from her property line. The people
�avestrough to take the water away
een
able
t a
old
_O the le
ft of her are Spanish and I hav�he°nebghborhood t e h
andtheysay
Df them, but I do have some letters from
that it is alright. I think it will improve the property.
Curran - Did you build that yourself?
Costello - Yes I did.
reside at 1033 Kelsey. I have a letter from a neighbor
Diane Diane Chaney, Sara Waidelich, 1024 Kelsey,
a letter from Elizabeth Kalka, 2401 Logan, her prop-
that I received this afternoon, problem in this
jection. Also, sees no serious P
erty line butts up to the carport,
matter. W e have recently painted the house and the carport wool
match if allowed.
Comt,,unication objection.
�
A letter from Elizabeth Kalka, 2401 S. Logan, no
2404 Sterling Avenue no objection.
,
A letter from Ruth Tomanica, Would like a
2501 S. Logan St. and
p, letter from Juanita Whittington,bng
ton, on my property
guarantee that there the gas, water, and electri no encroachment cal-telephone lines .
second concerned a the gas lines , tele-
Clark - Do you have any information regarding
phone, etc.
Fountain - No. But that can be checked out.
appeal #3144 . No second. _
Spink made a motion to deny PP subject to the follow-
Curran made a motion to approve appeal #3144 , be
at the construction of the carport beminstalledwithin
along
ing. 1) that 2 that eaves
days of the date of letter ; ) and 4) that a
west side of the carport so as to prevent
eehardsurfacede onto the a old
ja-
the w 3 ) that the driveway
cent property; our building permit application that would
survey be submitted with y
definitely shoo encroachment on the adjacent proper-
defini y w that there is nWright.
ty. Second by
Yeas : Curran, Hilts , Hull, Wright
Nays : Spink, Clark
Appeal #3144 APPROVED.
PAGE 4
was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the
air and
ie Board and of the
ort at its present location dsence°titnabutsrethetreargy
Grp adjacent
property
�ew of the adj to the west.
-operty immediately in this situation because
fte Board also believes there is a hardship t that would be easily
hallow depth roperhyr reasonable alterna-
f the s th of the lot there parking for this P
ive to provide covered p
ccessible.
,ppeal #
3145 - NW corner of Claremore Drive & Coulson Court se on
ns to
:his is
a request by Gee rt D. Mulderr&of°Claremo�esDrive and Coulson
she vacant
t at the the rearn(west)sproperty line.
:ourt Slides were shown of the
A presentation was given by Vern Fountain.
subject property
and surrounding land use.
Mulder & Sons . A house is enhance
Tom Mulder , president of Geert D. The house next door has an a -
by
to having
a garage added on to it.
it.ta is
ch ed garage. It is sold to atomer who would like
a good side yard on this development.
Communication 112 W. Claremore
A letter from Karen Richardson and Maria Markarian,
rose the request.Drive . oppose approved. Second by Curran.
Spink made a motion that appeal #3145 be Clark
Yeas: Hilts , Curran, Spink, Hull, Wright,
Nays : none
Appeal #3145 APPROVED
ny and evidence that this is aec°ally
rner
The Board found based on of a home th The Board further found the
which limits the size of a home that can be constructed especially
is
lot garage as prop
with an attached gingle home with an attached garage
proposal to construct a developmentlin the neighborhood.
consistent with existing
and is in keeping with the
believes that the variance is reasonable and will have n
The Board properties ,
adverse 1ntenttofntherZoningngode.
general
Appeal #3146 - 2122 N Martin L King
Blvd/Logan Street
114
b James Johns of Pro Bowl Lanes
front1propertYnstall aline
This is a request Y 24 + in height on
the square foot ground/pole sign,
at 2122 N Martin L King Blvd/Logan Street.
A presentation was given by.
V, Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
PAGE 5
from Central Advertising-
There is an
,id
Kehren represenay width at this location
bmitted.
;eptional right-of-w appeal 43146 be approved as su
ink made a
motion to approve
cond by Wright' Clark
S . Curran, Spink, Hilts , Hull, Wright'
as :
ys _ none ht-of-way
)peal 43146 APPROVED the rig
testimony and evidence that Street was ex-
Martin L King it Blvd/Loge to be set back a
1e Board found baseof°Dr that this
long this section wires an identification d reasonable
wide which require The Board believes
essively distance from the street' ing to establish
ubstantial a hardship when attempt
constitute the business in the blockface.
goes _
_dentification for propose sign at this location pre
that the p and will not
the Board believes adjacent properties
adverse inpact on ent in the vicinity-
no develop
cedent for other
3147 - 900 West Ottawa to con-
Appeal # resenting Dr Crawford irV_
Lee representing� of the Ottawa S=-�,
request by David E. Sign within
This pis aa12 sal ,1` ground/Pole
struc�- at goo West Ottawa Street. the
property line � Slides were shown of
en by V• mountain•
was g- land use.
A presentation and surrounding
subject property they called this afraid if
resentative here, The applicant
- There is no rep in Kalamazoo. code re
Fountain had an emergency , have a
d said they n and have it back g where
an to construct a new Scgose to the building that corner.
they were be very to keep it open in
it, it wouldhere, they want of the Sign
quires roblem around the base
security prob to do some screening Hilts .
Also, they 3147 . Second by
approve appeal #
Spink made a motion to pp Wright, Clark
Yeas: Spink, Curran, Hull, Hilts ,
Nays : none sign
Appeal 43147 APPROVED and evidence that the proposed
testimony the previous identifi-
smaller than adjacent properties .
The Board found based i would be act on adz especially
for this office building and have less imp land uses ,
sign on the site that the surrounding
cation further noted are non residential•
The Board posed to the sign
those that will be ex
Appeal 43148 - 1939 Fairmont
PAGE 6
a new
uct
le
b Christopher Goodrich tlinenonrthe vacant lotgat
its is a request Y erty
,roily dwelling 21 ' from the front pro P
39 Fairmont (NW corner of Fairmont and Aurelius) - were shown of the
a Slides w
n by V. Fountain.
was give
presentation ubject property and surrounding land use. be
with Goodrich Builders . This is the last lot to
'red Scheiterlein, The reason we are asking for
some
sign vegetation on the lot.
wilt in the South Pine Subdivision.
also buffer the house as much as
variance is there is sig There are other sites
najor trees and our intention iS ng Aurelius .
Dossible fro the tthatihaveiidentse �cal site plans .
in the subdivision
Hull - Will there be a garage?Scheiterlein - yes there is an attached garage •
person whose home is
Raymond J. Barton, representing
Mitch State, the p its
the lot. It provides for the best use of lanshe land,
to main-
being built on There are also p
a corner lottreesdifficult to develop.
an possible as well as a berm for the area.
tain as many Okemos .
Ray Barton, 4655 Dobie Road, Suite 100 , lot
Fairmont, house next door to the wes�hef lot ethat
David Greiner, 1933 Sykes , ,_940 Carson,
line . I 'm also representing Dennisen and the others in the neighborhood
lace the house. We have two concerns .
borders the north lot lio• p h the back
fully approve of where
drain and allows the water from
area has a natural drain that flows o!lt through rf
First, and
a, the that lot to a surface
yards and thisof°thes block eto flow houtntdrainage problems in the past
at least half There had been
have
drain on Aurelius Road.. The other concern we
subdiv The developer/builder of this
with some of the hus°fntheepropertysion• vision and as I mentioned
is with the developerver of the entire which the neighbors feel was
house was the developer
in the P the developer.
We had a drainageP
unattended to what it should have been by
Communication Opposes the request.
A letter from Cindy Helms , 1930 Fairmont St.
#11, We are the people who will
Jolly Road, e already at the
Mitchell Stutes , 2417 E. at that and
in the house. We talked about the drainage
be living the hole and they eliminating
it the same kind of pitch and actually eliminating
in, so
time the man was out to dig lanned to P
we spoke of keeping various
keep the drainage as it is and avoid
the two basement windows that e had originally ome into that area.
we could continue t
problems that we might run in to should water ased on the fact that it
rove appeal #3148 b that there
Spink made a motion t° approve garage only,
is a corner lot, that the variance is for the g the extension of the
set in the neighborhood, Also the Board
is no precedent being privacy for the subdivision. in the
garage provides somDepartment to the concern of the drainage
alert the Planning
. PAGE 7
ea and the otheramenities that should be completed in the subdivi-
ilts enrt
.on. second by Clark
gas: Hilts , Wright, Curran, spink, Hull,
,ys ; none
ppeal #3148 APPROVED corner
based on testimony and evidence that be laced on the
than can be Pdevelopment.
he Board found tit with existing of the
of which limits the size of the structure
port The
>roperty and still maintain compatibility
was the only P yard*
found that the garage
the required front y
'he Board further encroaching buffer the
garage at this location willr help
for resi-
;tructure that wotha be
g establish P that their
3oard believes recognized
impact of traffic from me. The Board furthersimilar cases but
living in the home. precedent for
dents The
action is not intended evaluatedlsh a P Corner lot.
on the basis of its location in re-
is that it is a proper
that this property was
you make every effort to maintain P
lationship to Aurelius Road andthe fact to Create any adverse impact
Board further requests
when constructing the home so as
drainageproperties or the site in question.
on adjacent pro P
July 1 , 1991 ending ersJune 30 , 1992 .
Election of Of f_ i_ C
For the next fiscal year. beginning
PatriciaCurran be nominated as ChaiandnVera
that i as Vice Chairman
spink made a motion Steele be nominated
further Christopher further that the nominations e
n ,rain be nominated as Secretary and
r OL_!t e instructed to Cast an unanimous ballot o
closed and the Sesecond by Hull.
their election. adjo rned at 9 : 15 PM-
There ere being no further business the meeting
ern on
C. go ain
Secretary eals
Board of Zoning APP
-PAGE 8
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Appeals
June 13 , 1991 - 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 Tom Kane
Christopher Steele
Edward Spink to c
Patricia Curran N
Grant Hilts
Floyd Wright
Robert Hull
Mary Clark
Staff
Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator
Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner __r_
Ron Kimler has requested that Appeal 43136 be heard first because of a
conflict in time.
Steele made a motion to consider Appeal #3136 first. Second by
Wright. Motion carried unanimously.
This is a request by Ron Kimler of Fabricraft, Inc. on behalf of
Bootleggers Lounge to erect a new canopy sign at 5910 S. Pennsylvania
Avenue.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The proposed canopy sign would be placed across the east and north
face of the building with a portion of the canopy and sign above the
roof line.
Ron Kimler - What we are attempting to do here is to mask off the
front of the building. In so doing we would put a canopy structure
that would change the appearance . of the building. We are a Traverse
City based sign and canopy company. We have done a number of project
in the area, Williams Auto World, Shaheen Chevrolet, Sneekers Res-
taurant, etc. Basically, what we try to do in a situation like this
is combine the merits of an awning system where there are problems
with sun or keeping rain off customers head, along with the design
capabilities of using steel and fabric to renovate buildings. The
wall height on the corner of the building is 815" so we only have 5"
to do anything. It would be impossible to put even a sign on the
building. We are not asking for something outlandish, we' re just
trying to make a decent proposition for the building owner and to
bring it up to compatible valuation of the other property in the area.
What does the sign say?
Kimler - Dream Girls .
Hull - Is there any other opportunities for signage on the property?
Kimler - Yes there is a free standing sign there.
Hull - What will happen to that?
Kimler - There will be sign faces made.
Wright - Is the canopy itself permitted, without a message on it?
Fountain - Yes it would.
Alfreda Schmidt - I 'm here to express concern on behalf of several
area businesses, Lansing Christian school, some apartment dwellers. I
want you to be aware that this is a business that is not welcome in
the south end of town. They are going to have topless dancing at this
location. I understand the sign is one that will have to represent
some kind of announcement to that. I don' t know exactly what that is.
South Pennsylvania is one of our most attractive streets in Lansing.
I have police records about the activities of Bootleggers. They are
not particularly impressive. What I 'm here to say is that if you have
the opportunity to dwarf what they are asking for, I know there are
many people that would appreciate that.
Holmes - What is the question before council?
Schmidt - The approval of cabaret license.
Communication
Lansing Christian School, Robert Kill, The business near school,
Bootleggers , the proposed name of the new business is" Dream Girls
Where the Fantasy Begins" . the staff, board, students, and their
families at Lansing Christian Schools are opposed to a name of this
kind and of course the type of business it implies. Our concern is
the same as that of society, we continue to place great importance on
the libration and empowerment of women. This agenda also continues to
be an important part of education. It is a sad reflection on our
community that the sexploitation of women is still alive and well in
Lansing. I"m sure citizens of Lansing find it offensive in the ex-
treme that this proposed name degrades women into girls and makes
their importance in life to be fantasies for males. Men and women
alike are disturbed by this kind of advertising. Busloads of children..
pass this establishment every day. This is nothing more than a busi-
ness of female exploitation and teaches our children over and over
that women are sex objects. Men are encouraged to mentally abuse
women as a society, we approve of those practices by promoting mes-
sages like the proposed sign. At the same time public debate urges
empowerment in equality of women. The City has a duty to all its
citizens to keep the public domain free of signs that encourage
exploitation of any sex, race or group of people. As an educator I
know that role modeling is a powerful a powerful technique for shaping
students thinking and behavior. By allowing an establishment of this
kind and sexually exploit a sign the City is giving conspicuous les-
sons to our youth that abusive and degrading practices are acceptable ,
in our community. Experience in other communities show that the eth-
ical behavior of their citizens improves when businesses that degrade
certain segments of society are restricted. Please act in favor of
the vast majority of Lansing citizens who are opposed to the degrada-
tion of minorities and women. I strongly urge you to reject the
wording of this sign and all others like it so that our community ex-
hibits only the highest values towards all of its citizens.
Wright - There is nobody here from the management of the enterprise.
Nobody here that could answer any questions. There is a lot of con-
cern about this. Is there any control on what could be put on the
sign?
Fountain - No
Holmes - Will not be supporting this appeal, not based on what' s on
the sign but the fact that there is a free standing sign on the prop-
erty and the canopy is allowed without any sign on it.
Holmes - make a motion that appeal 43136 be denied based that there is
no hardship created by the ordinance and secondly there is an existing
sign on the property which allow for appropriate advertisement of
whatever business their conducting. Second by Curran.
Yeas: Spink, Holmes, Curran Hull, Hilts, Wright, Clark,
Nays : none
Abstain: Steele
Appeal 03136 DENIED.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property
currently has a free standing ground pole sign located in the front
which they believe allows reasonable identification for the property,
and therefore do not believe there was any specific hardship associ-
ated with this request.
The Board did indicate that they felt a canopy across the front and
north side of the building would improve the overall appearance of the
building but again did not believe that there was a hardship involved
that necessitated granting a canopy sign for further identification of
the property.
Appeal 43132 - 109 Allen
This is a request by Joann Neuroth to expand and enclose a rear porch
at 109 Allen Street which will extend to within 13 feet of the rear
property line.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The petitioner wishes to construct a 5 x 12 rear porch which will be
13 ' from the rear property line.
Joann Neuroth, 109 Allen. My plan is to build a handicap access ramp
to my house and in order to do so we' re going to enclose the lead to
structure in the back and in order to make that 5 ' wide for the en-
trance you need to back it up one more foot toward fence then it is
now.
Holmes - Do you occupy the property?
Neuroth - Yes
A letter from John Hershey, owner and occupant of 112 Allen Street,
strongly urges granting the variance. She has maintained property,
. very tasteful and top quality in improvements.
A letter from Carolyn Shafer, 222 Leslie Street, supports the request,
owns property two and three doors from Ms. Neuroth. Property backs
up to a commercial building' s parking lot, there are no resident
neighbors to be infringed on.
A letter from Claudia Martin, Boynton Photography owner Gary has no
objections , 1600 East Michigan Avenue.
Spink made a motion that appeal 43132 , 109 Allen, be granted. Second
by Holmes .
Wright - The Zoning Committee met on granting the Class A status on
this property, the Zoning Committee is going to recommend approval to
the Planning Board.
Yeas : Hilts , Wright, Curran, Holmes, Spink, Steele, Hull, Clark
Nays : none
Appeal #3132 APPROVED.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property is
owner occupied, it is well maintained and is an asset to the neigh-
borhood. The Board does not believe that the addition will have any
adverse impact on the adjacent development since it will be directly
opposite a commercial parking lot.
It was further understood by the Board of Zoning Appeals that you had
applied for Class A nonconforming status with the Planning Board,
which requires approval by the Planning Board prior to the proposed
expansion taking place.
Appeal #3133 - 1532 Ili:inois Avenue
This is a request by Jerry L. Thelen to build a front covered porch,
27 ' long by 617" wide on the property known as 1532 Illinois Avenue.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Jerry Thelen, 1532 Illinois Street. No comments.
Holmes - How much further will the new porch will extend beyond the
existing stairway on the porch?
Thelen - About 1 1/2 ' .
Curran made a motion to approve appeal #3133 , 1532 Illinois, compati-
ble with the neighborhood, no negative impact on the neighborhood.
Second by Hilts.
Yeas: Curran,; Hilts, Holmes, Hull, Spink, Steele, Wright, Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3133 APPROVED.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that there were other
porch additions constructed on the front of residential homes in this
vicinity, some of which are open and some enclosed. The Board be-
lieves that your proposed addition will be compatible with existing
development and will not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood.
Based on the plans you submitted the Board believes that this will be
an attractive addition to your home.
Appeal #3134 - 1000 Lincoln Avenue
This is a request by Jerry Bernath, architect representing Bethany
Baptist Church at 1000 Lincoln Avenue to construct a barrier free
entranceway onto the building.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The petitioner wishes to construct an addition which will provide
barrier free access to the church buildings and serve as an entryway.
The property is required to contain 135 parking spaces based upon
maximum seating in the church. Ninety nine ( 99 ) spaces are available
on site.
John Coakley with Bernath Coakley Associates, Architects, 4101 W. St.
Joseph. we represent Bethany Baptist Church. I 'm here with several
members of the church and Pastor John Harrison. There are two build-
ings on the site. The main chapel or the auditorium is separate from
the building in the rear which is classrooms, and administrative of-
fices. The only way to get to one or the other is to go outside.
This connection between the two buildings will facilitate movement
back and forth between the two buildings but basically its going to be
filled up with ramps.. It will not increase the demand for parking on
the site. We don' t feel it will have any adverse effect on the
neighborhood.
Communication
A letter from Ralph Opper, Opper Wilson Ltd. 416 N. Homer St. Owner
of a 12 unit apartment building at 1016 East Greenlawn. Property
adjoins property owned by Church. No objection to the, variance.
Never had a problem with Church parking.
A letter from Mike and Mary Eavey, 1014 Tisdale. No objection. It is
a positive change. Will not affect parking.
Wright - Request for granting Class A status is before the Planning
Board the Zoning and Ordinance Committee has met on this and they are
recommending approval of the Class A status based upon three condi-
tions . 1) BZA approve the variance for parking; 2) parking lot be
ved plan; and 3 ) the structure be con
striped according to an appro -
structed as proposed this year any proposed delays in construction
would have to be approved by the Planning Board.
Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #3134 at 1000 Lincoln Avenue
based on that the approval of variance would not increase the inten-
sity of building in any way. Second by Spink, also include recommen-
dations of Planning Department.
Yeas: Hilts, Curran, Holmes, Spink, Steele, Hull, Wright, Clark
Nays: none
Appeal 43134 APPROVED
The Board' s approval is subject to the following conditions: 1) that
the Planning Board approve the application for Class A nonconforming
status and 2) that the existing parking lot be striped in accord to an
approved plan which shall be submitted to the Planning Division for
approval.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the proposed
barrier free addition will not increase the intensity of land use nor
will it remove any of the 99 existing off street parking.
The Board was satisfied that the approval of this variance is in
keeping with the general intent of the Code. It will improve and the
functional use of the buildings without adversely impacting the adja-
cent property
Appeal #3135 - 2114 North East Street
This is request by Joanne Fillwock, representing Metro Plus Credit
Union, at 2114 North East Street. A 1920 sq ft addition to the south
side of the existing building is proposed which would have a 2018"
setback from the east ( rear) property line. The setback of this ad-
dition is to equal that of the existing building on site.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Joann Fillwock, we are requesting a variance. The addition sfor1si ply
going to be a continuation of the existing building.
its sq
ft not 1900 . We' re hoping you approve the variance. The addition
will be abutting against a primarily industrial lot. We do not feel
that it will detract from the neighborhood.
Communication
A telephone message from Luke Scafer, in favor of variance.
Steele made a motion that appeal 43135 be approved. Its a reasonable
ll. Spink include the recommendations of the
request. Second by Hu
staff .
Yeas: Holmes, Spink, Hilts, Hull, Wright, Steele, Clark
Nays: none
Abstain: Curran
Appeal #3135 APPROVED.
This appeal was approved subject to the following conditions: 1) that
the applicant submit and have approved by the Planning Division a
landscape plan for the property with a time table for implementation;.
2 ) that the design and layout of the parking lot be reviewed and ap-
proved by the Planning Division to improve the off street parking
layout and the internal circulation on the property.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that, the proposed ad-
dition will include an extension of the existing rear wall rofethe
building that will not come any closer to the east (rear) property
o P Y
line. The Board believes that this request is reasonable. The pro-
posed addition will be directly opposite industrial zoned and devel-
oped property and therefore have little or no impact..
Appeal 43137 - 4615 Tranter
This is a request by the Capitol Area Transportation Authority for the
construction of anter office
Avenuedition to within 217thofwest side the frontof the propertycline.
located at 4615 Tran
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Spink - Is there a reason why they are extending the office area be-
yond the maintenance facility?
Winnicker - No particular reason.
Bob Smith, Hobbs and Black Architects, 215 S. Washington. I have a
site plan here that is a little more detailed. There is the existing
building, behind that is a bus storage and in the back third of the
building is the maintenance area. The only available area to add on
was the area to the north. CATA has projected that this will satisfy
all of their administration needs for their forseeable future. I do
need to make one correction, the existing building showed thaththe
existing administration was 2 .7" from the property
line. etaken a survey and determined that to be 1 . 89 ' , a little less than 2 ' .
We would like to match that existing plane.
Holmes - Does the request for the amount of the variance need to be
changed?
Winnicker - Yes
Smith - It would really be 23 . 11 '
Curran made a motion to approve appeal #3137 . Second by Holmes. From
22 . 5 ' to 23 . 21 .
Yeas: Spink, Holmes, Curran, Hull, 13il.ts , Wright, Steele, Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3137 APPROVED.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property is
zoned 'H' Light Industrial District which allows development that is
proposed for this site. The Board does not believe that the proposed
expansion will have any adverse impact on adjacent properties . The
Board recognized the residential
development
industrial west,
areawhich
in-
clude deep lots that are screened
sub-
stantial row of pine trees.
Appeal 43138 - 2101 Wabash
covered
This is a requoft by Kim H.the existingBfrontrporchc27s u ' '
deck in place
6rof the front property
line.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Jim, 10730 Skinner Hwy, Dimondale. Kim Butcher could not be here and
I 'm here to answer any questions. It won' t be going out any further
than what it is . The blocked porch that is there is in real bad
shape. So it would be a definite improvement.
Spink made a motion that appeal #3138 , 2101 Wabash be approved. Sec-
ond by Curran.
Yeas: Hilts, Wright, Curran, Holmes, Spink, Steele, Hull, Clark
Nays : none
Appeal #3138 APPROVED
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the residential
setbacks along this blockface are irregular and therefore there is a
practical difficulty associated with this request when given the type
of development proposed. The Board does not believe that the change
will have any adverse impact on the adjacent properties . Since there
is a substantial separation between the homes located on the east and
west side of this property there should not be any impact on light,
air and view. The Board believes that the approval of this variance
is in keeping with the general intent of the Code.
Appeal 43139 - 2110 North Larch .
This is a req�hsi8by Marshall
Haney
att2110 operate
Northa sit Larchdown and take out
restaurant w Parking spaces
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Marshall Haney, 516 Spring Street, Grand Ledge, for Mike Daleon.
Under the City ordinances he can only have seating for 15 and he an-
ticipates that 80-85o of his business bistgoinngtov e taIe out, which
means that parking spots are going
ds to
the tree, I can' t answer that.
Spink made a motion that appeal 43139 at 2110 North Larch be approved
based on the fact that there are 23 parking spaces on the property
that can be used and it is desirable to maintain green space when
ap-
un-
derstand and with the additional requirement that the appellant
that he may
andrequired
thattotherdumpster be the
f eaaedlonaSecondklby
spaces if needed
Holmes.
Yeas: Holmes , Spink, Hull, Curran, Hilts , Wright, Steele, Clark
Nays : none
Appeal #3139 APPROVED
This approval was given with the understanding that following opening
of the restaurant facility if there is a need for additional parking
it will be required to expand the off street parking to meet the min-
imum requirements of the Code. All off street parking shall be im-
proved which includes hard surfacing and striping.
The Board in approving this request recognizes your intent to preserve
the minimum amount of green space on site and believes that it is
reasonable to allow a variance since there is the option off availablestreet t
provide for the minimum number of parking spaces,
park-
ing becomes a problem.
Appeal #3140 - 1616 Clifton
This is a request by Alicia Bleil, contractor for Eve Brown, owner, to
build an enclosed 10 ' x 12 ' screen porch onto the rear of the house
located at 1616 Clifton Avenue 17 . 5 ' from the rear property line.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Eve Brown, 1616 Clifton Avenue. I intend to landscape around the
proposed screened in porch.
Communication
A letter from Eve Brown, stating the neighbors Mr. & Mrs. T.
Rusesky, 1602 Clifton; Mr. & Mrs, H. Salmon, 1619 Harding; Mr. &
Mrs . C. Smith, 1629 Harding; and Mr. & Mrs. O. Bennett,
1620
Clifton expressed
ofnthe objections
at 1616 the
CliPtons of building a screen
porch in the back
letter from Joanne and Richard Hodges at 1626 Clifton, have no ob-
A
jection to to Eve Brown' s request to build an enclosed screen porch at
her residence.
rove appeal #3140 on the basis that there
Steele made a mcreatedobyPthe irregular shape of the lot. Second by
is a hardship
Wright.
Holmes - if this is in the flood plain, does it require a variance?
Winnicker - No it does not.
Yeas: Curran, Hilts , Holmes, Hull, Spink, Steele, Wright, Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3140 APPROVED
Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that a hard-
Theshape of the
ship did exist in this si ua the development ofr this asite.
lot, which they believe limits
Board does not believe that the proposed addition will have any
The ro erties and therefore is in keeping
adverse impact on the adjacent p P
with the general intent of the Code.
Minim
rove the May 9 , 1991 minutes. Second by
Curran made a motion
tunanimously.
a
Holmes . Motion passed
There being no further business the meeting djourned at 9 : 00 PM.
ernon C. Fountain
Secretary A eals
Board of Zoning PP
PAGE 10
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Appeals
June 13 , 1991 - 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 Tom Kane
Christopher Steele CO
Edward Spink `
Patricia Curran _73 '
Grant Hilts c� '
Floyd Wright ►-A
Robert Hull
Mary Clark
Staff CIO
Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator C-n
Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner
Ron Kimler has requested that Appeal #3136 be heard first because of a
conflict in time.
Steele made a motion to consider Appeal #3136 first. Second by
Wright. Motion carried unanimously.
This is a request by Ron Kimler of Fabricraft, Inc. on behalf of
Bootleggers Lounge to erect a new canopy sign at 5910 S. Pennsylvania
Avenue.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The proposed canopy sign would be placed across the east and north
face of the building with a portion of the canopy and sign above the
roofline.
Ron Kimler - What we are attempting to do here is to mask off the
front of the building. In so doing we would put a canopy structure
that would change the appearance of the building. We are a Traverse
City based sign and canopy company. We have done a number of project
in the area, Williams Auto World, Shaheen Chevrolet, Sneekers Res-
taurant, etc. Basically, what we try to do in a situation like this
is combine the merits of an awning system where there are problems
with sun or keeping rain off customers head, along with the design
capabilities of using steel and fabric to renovate buildings . The
wall height on the corner of the building is 815" so we only have 5"
to do anything. It would be impossible to put even a sign on the
building. We are not asking for something outlandish, we' re just
trying to make a decent proposition for the building owner and to
bring it up to compatible valuation of the other property in the area.
What does the sign say?
Kimler - Dream Girls.
Hull - Is there any other opportunities for signage on the property?
Kimler - Yes there is a free standing sign there.
Hull - What will happen to that?
Kimler - There will be sign faces made.
Wright - Is the canopy itself permitted, without a message on it?
Fountain - Yes it would.
Alfreda Schmidt - I 'm here to express concern on behalf of several
area businesses, Lansing Christian school, some apartment dwellers. I
want you to be aware that this is a business that is not welcome in
the south end of town. They are going to have topless dancing at this
location. I understand the sign is one that will have to represent
some kind of announcement to that. I don' t know exactly what that is.
South Pennsylvania is one of our most attractive streets in Lansing.
I have police records. about the activities of Bootleggers. They are
not particularly impressive. What I 'm here to say is that if you have
the opportunity to dwarf what they are asking for, I know there are
many people that would appreciate that.
Holmes - What is the question before council?
Schmidt - The approval of cabaret license.
Communication
Lansing Christian School, Robert Kill, The business near school,
Bootleggers, the proposed name of the new business is" Dream Girls
Where the Fantasy Begins" . the staff, board, students, and their
families at Lansing Christian Schools are opposed to a name of this
kind and of course the type of business it implies. our concern is
the same as that of society, we continue to place great importance on
the libration and empowerment of women. This agenda also continues to
be an important part of education. It is a sad reflection on our
community that the sexploitation of women is still alive and well in
Lansing. I"m sure citizens of Lansing find it offensive in the ex-
treme that this proposed name degrades women into girls and makes
their importance in life to be fantasies for males. Men and women
alike are disturbed by this kind of advertising. Busloads of children
pass this establishment every day. This is nothing more than a busi-
ness of female exploitation and teaches our children over and over
that women are sex objects. Men are encouraged to mentally abuse
women as a society, we approve of those practices by promoting mes-
sages like the proposed sign. At the same time public debate urges
empowerment in equality of women. The City has a duty to all its
citizens to keep the public domain free of signs that encourage
exploitation of any sex, race or group of people. As an educator I
know that role modeling is a powerful a powerful technique for shaping
students thinking and behavior. By allowing an establishment of this
kind and sexually exploit a sign the City is giving conspicuous les-
sons to our youth that abusive and degrading practices are acceptable
in our community. Experience in other communities show that the eth-
ical behavior of their citizens improves when businesses that degrade
certain segments of society are restricted. Please act in favor of
the vast majority of Lansing citizens who are opposed to the degrada-
tion of minorities and women. I strongly urge you to reject the
wording of this sign and all others like it so that our community ex-
hibits only the highest values towards all of its citizens.
Wright - There is nobody here from the management
ofithe
s a eoteofrcon-
Nobody here that could answer any questions .
cern about this. Is there any control on what could be put on the
sign?
Fountain - No
Holmes - Will not be supporting this appeal, not based on what' s on
the sign but the fact that there is a free standing sign on the prop
erty and the canopy is allowed without any sign on it.
Holmes - make a motion that appeal 43136 be denied based that there is
no hardship created by the ordinance and secondly there is an existing
sign on the property which allow for appropriate advertisement of
whatever business their conducting. Second by Curran.
Yeas : Spink, Holmes, Curran Hull, Hilts, Wright, Clark,
Nays: none
Abstain: Steele
Appeal 43136 DENIED.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property
currently has a free standing ground pole sign located in the front
which they believe allows reasonable identification for the property,
and therefore do not believe there was any specific hardship associ-
ated with this request.
The Board did indicate that they felt a canopy across the front and
north side of the building would improve the overall appearance of the
building but again did not believe that there was a hardship involved
that necessitated granting a canopy sign for further identification of
the property.
Appeal #3132 - 109 Allen
ar
This is a request by
which wnn illoth to extendeXtonwithdine131ose feetaofethep�ear
rch
at 109 Allen
property line.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The petitioner wishes to construct a 5 x 12 rear porch which will be
13 ' from the rear property line.
Joann Neuroth, 109 Allen. My plan is to build a handicap access ramp
to my house and in order to do so we' re going to enclose the lead to
structure ineedetoabackait up oneemoreofoot etoward 5 ' fence wide fthen or h e bck it is
trance you n
now.
Holmes - Do you occupy the property?
Neuroth - Yes
A letter from John Hershey, owner and occupant of 112 Allen Street,
strongly urges granting the variance. She has maintained property,
very tasteful and top quality in improvements.
A letter from Carolyn Shafer, 222 Leslie Street, supports the request,
owns property two and three doors from Ms. Neuroth. aProre erty backs
up to a commercial building' s parking lot,
thereident
neighbors to be infringed on.
A letter from Claudia Martin, Boynton Photography owner Gary has no
objections, 1600 East Michigan Avenge.
Spink made a motion that. appeal #3132, 109 Allen, be granted. Second
by Holmes .
Wright - The Zoning Committee met on granting the Class A status on
this property,
the Zoning Committee is going to recommend approval to
the Planning Board.
Yeas: Hilts, Wright, Curran, Holmes, Spink, Steele, Hull, Clark
Nays : none
Appeal 43132 APPROVED.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property is
owner occupied, it is well maintained and is an asset to the neigh-
borhood. The Board does not believe that the addition will have any
adverse impact on the adjacent development since it will be directly
opposite a commercial parking lot.
It was further understood by the Board of Zoning Appeals that you had
applied for Class A nonconforming status with the Planning Board,
which requires approval by the Planning Board prior to the proposed
expansion taking place.
Appeal 43133 - 1532 Illinois Avenue
This is a request by Jerry L. Thelen to build a front covered porch,
27 ' long by 617" wide on the property known as 1532 Illinois Avenue.
A presentation was given y
lFountain• Slides were shown of the
subject property and sou
Jerry Thelen, 1532 Illinois Street. No comments.
Holmes - How much further will the new porch will extend beyond the
existing stairway on the porch?
Thelen - About 1 1/2 ' .
Curran made a motion to approve appeal 43133 , 1532 Illinois, compati-
ble with the neighborhood, no negative impact on the neighborhood.
Second by Hilts.
Yeas- Curran, Hilts, Holmes, Hull, Spink, Steele, Wright, Clark
Nays: none
Appeal 43133 APPROVED.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that there were other
porch additions constructed on the front of residential homes in this
vicinity, some of which are open and some enclosed. The Board be-
lieves that your proposed addition will be compatible with existing
development and will not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood.
Based on the plans you submitted the Board believes that this will be
an attractive addition to your home.
Appeal #3134 - 1000 Lincoln Avenue
This is a request by
Jerry Bernath, architect representing Bethany
Baptist Church at 1000 Lincoln Avenue to construct a barrier free
entranceway onto the building.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The petitioner . wishes to construct an addition which will provide
barrier free access to the church buildings and serve as an entryway.
The property is regherchurch.contain
Ninety nineparking
spaces
based
spacesareavaiilable
maximum seating in t
on site.
John Coakley with Bernath Coakley Associates, Architects, 4101 W. St.
Joseph. we represent Bethany Baptist Church. I 'm here with several
two
members of the church and Pastor
oor therauditoriumrisare separateufrom
ings on the site. The mai chapel
the building in the rear ewhich to onesorothe,other and adisntsotgotoutside.
faces. The only way tog
This connection between t�Wtwo
buibdingsngs will but basicallylitstgoingvtoebe
nt
back and forth between the
o
. It will not increase the demand for parking on
filled up with ramps.
it will have any adverse effect on the
the site. We don' t feel
neighborhood.
Communication
A letter from Ralph Opper, Opper Wilson Ltd. 416 N. Homer St. Owner
of a 12 unit apartment building at 1016 East Greenlawn. Property
adjoins property owned by Church. No objection to the variance.
Never had a problem with Church parking.
a
A letter from Mike and Mary Eavey, 1014 Tisdale. No objection. It is
a positive change. Will not affect parking.
Wright - Request for granting Class A status is before the Planning
Board the Zoning and Ordinance Committee has met on this and they are
recommending approval of the Class A status based upon
threerking lot be
tions . 1) BZA approve the variance for parking;
ing to an approved plan; and 3) the struc
striped accordture be con-
structed proposed this year any proposed delays in construction
would have to approved by the Planning Board.
Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #3134 at 1000 Lincoln Avenue
would n
he inten-
based on that the approval of variance also include t
includerecommen-
sity of building in any way. Second by Spink,
dations of Planning Department.
Yeas: Hilts, Curran, Holmes , Spink, Steele, Hull, Wright, Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3134 APPROVED
t to the following
conditions: 1) that
The Board' s approval is. subjec
the application for Class A nonconforming
the Planning Board approve
status and 2) that the existing parking lot be striped in accord to an
approved plan which shall be submitted to the Planning Division for
approval. ence
at the
sed
The Board found based on testimonyand eviatensityhof landpuseonoa
barrier free addition will not increase
will it remove any of the 99 existing off street parking.
The Board was satisfied that the approval of this variance is in
It will keeping with the general intent of the
Codversely impacting vthe nadjae
functional use of the buildings without
cent property
Appeal 43135 - 2114 North East Street
This is request by
Joanne Fillwock, representing Metro Plus Credit
ft addition to the south
ed
Union, at 2114 North East Streetis propos192 q which would have a 20 ' 8"
side of the existing building
erty line. . The setback of this ad-
setback from the east (rear) prop dition is to equal that of the existing building on site.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Joann Fillwock, we arly
e requesting a variance. The add
Its°for itin s1500psq
existing building.
going to be a continuation of the ex
ft not 1900 . We ' re hoping you approve the variance. The addition
will be abutting against a primarilystrial lot. We do not feel
that it will detract from the neighborhood
Communication
A telephone message from Luke Scafer, in favor of variance.
Steele made a motion that appeal *3135 be approved. Its a reasonable
ll. Spink include the recommendations of the
request. Second by Hu
staff .
Yeas: Holmes, Spink, Hilts, Hull, Wright, Steele, Clark
Nays: none
Abstain: Curran
Appeal #3135 APPROVED.
subject to
This appeal was approvedthe following conditions: 1) that
by the Planning Division a
the applicant submit and have approved
landscape plan for the property with a time table for implementation;
2) that the -design and layout of the parking lot be reviewed anadap-
proved by the Planning Division to improve the off street parking
layout and the internal circulation on the property.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the proposed ad-
the
dition will include an extension of the existing ro ethe
building that will not come any closer to the east (rear) p P
rty
line. The Board believes that this request
istreason ble. and hdePro-
el-
posed addition will be directly Opposite
oped property and therefore have little or no impact.
Appeal #3137 - 4615 Tranter
This is a request by
the Capitol Area Transportation Authority for the
construction of an office addition to the west side of the facility
located at 4615 Tranter Avenue within 217" of the front property
A presentation was given b • nuseer. Slides were shown of the
din
subject property and surrounding land
Spink - Is there a reason why they are extending the office area be-
yond the maintenance facility?
Winnicker - No particular reason.
Bob Smith, Hobbs and Black
littleArchitects,
detailed; WTheregisnthe existing
site plan here that is
building, behind that is a bus storage and in the back third of the
building is the maintenance area. The only available area to add on
fy
was the area to the north. CATA needs aforrtheired that forseeablesfuturewill satlsdo
all of their administration need to make one correction, the existing building showed that the
line. We have
existing administration was 2 .7 from the property
taken a survey and determined that to be 1 . 89 ' , a little less than 2 ' .
We would like to match that existing plane.
Holmes - Does the request for the amount of the variance need to be
changed?
Winnicker - Yes
Smith - It would really be 23 . 11 '
Curran made a motion to approve appeal #3137 . Second by Holmes. From
22 . 5 ' to 23 . 2 ' .
urran, Hull, Hilts, Wright, Steele, Clark
Yeas: Spink, Holmes , C
Nays : none
Appeal 43137 APPROVED.
and evidence that the property is
The Board found based on testimony proposed
zoned 'H' Light Industrial District
doeswhich
notallows
believevthatmthe propt is
proposed for this site. The B
properties. The
expansion will have any
adverse impact on adjacent madj to the west, which in
Board recognized the residential develop sub-
clude deep lots that are screened from the industrial area by
stantial row of pine trees.
Appeal #3138 - 2101 Wabash
This is a request by Kim H.
Butcher, to construct a 7 ' x 24 ' covered
deck in place of the existing front porch 27 ' 6" of the front property
line.
A presentation was g
subject property iven by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
P and surrounding land use.
im 10730 Skinner Hwy, Dimondale. Kim Butcher could not be here and
J questions. It won' t be going out any
I 'm here to answer any q porch that is there is in real bad
than what it is . The blocked p
shape. So it would be a definite improvement.
Spink made a motion that appeal #3138 , 2101 Wabash be approved. Sec-
and by Curran.
Yeas: Hilts , Wright, Curran, Holmes, Spink, Steele, Hull, Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3138 APPROVED
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the residential
setbacks along this blockface are i thl isrequestar and twhen f thereore given type
practical difficulty associated with
of development proposed. The Boaedadjacentoes not
properties. Since there change will have any adverse impact on th J on
a substantial separation between tuldhomesnot becanyd impact eonalight,
is there should
west side of this property at the royal of this variance
air and ping withethe ageneral rd eintent ves hof the Code.
is in keeping
Appeal #3139 - 2110 North Larch
to operate a sit down and take out
This is a request by Marshall
Haney
at 2110 North Larch.
restaurant with 18 parking Paces
�_ �n o
presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
A Pr and surrounding land use.
subject property for Mike Daleon.
516 Spring Street, Grand Ledge,
Marshall Haney, have seating for 15 and he an-
ordinances he can only going to be take out, which
Under the City regards to
ticipates that 80-850 of his going to be turningover. In
means that parking spots are going
the tree, I can' t answer that. roved
S ink made a motion that appeal #3139 at 2110 North Larch be approved
p parking spaces on the property
based on the fact that there are 23 P green space when ap-
h the additional requirement that the appellant un-
that can be used and it is desirable to maintain g parking
propriate and with
derstand that he may required to ha.rdsurface the fenced.
additionalP
spaces
if needed and the that the dumpster be fenced. Second by
Holmes. Clark
Yeas: Holmes , Spink, Hull, Curran, Hilts, Wright, Steele,
Nays : none
Appeal #3139 APPROVED ° ening
iv en with the understanding that following P
This approval was g
if there is a need for additional parking
of the restaurant facility arking to meet the min-
it will be required
eexpand
et P parking shall be im-
imum requirementsand striping.
proved which includes hard surfacing our intent to preserve
The Board in approving this request recognizes y
the mini
mum amount of green space on site and believes that it is
since , if off street park-
provide is spacesthe option available o
reas
onable to allow a variance s
provide for the minimum number o parking
ing becomes a problem.
Appeal #3140 - 1616 Clifton for Eve Brown, owner, to
This is a request by Alicia Bleil, contractor
porch onto the rear of the house
build an enclosed 10 ' x 12 screen P property line.
located at 1616 Clifton Avenue 17 . 5 ' from the rear ere shown of the
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides w
subject property and surrounding land use.
Brown, 1616 Clifton Avenue. I intend to landscape around the
Eve proposed screened in porch.
Communication r. & Mrs . T.
A letter from Eve Brown, stating the neighbors MH
H. Salmon, 1619 Harding; Mr.
Rusesky, 1602 Clifton; Mr. & Mrs , & Mrs. O. Bennett,
Mrs .
C. Smith, 1629 Harding; and Mr. a screen
Clifton expressed no objection 1616to tClihe Ptons °f building
porch in the back of the house
A letter from Joanne and Richard Hodges at 1626 Clifton, have no ob-
jection to to Eve Brown' s request to build an enclosed screen porch at
her residence.
e appeal #3140 on the basis that there
Steele made a motion to approv
irregular shape of the lot. Second by
is a hardship created by the
Wright.
d plain, does it require a variance?
Holmes - If this is in the floo
Winnicker - No it does not.
ull, Spink, Steele, Wright, Clark
Yeas : Curran, Hilts , Holmes , H
Nays: none
Appeal #,3140 APPROVED
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that a hard-
f the
ship did exist in this situation due to the development irrthisa shape o
lot, which they believe limits the
ave
ny
The e.
Board does not believe that the
ropePtiessed addition annd therefore islinhkeeping
adverse impact on the add P
with the general intent of the Code.
Minutes
ve the May 9 , 1991 minutes . Second by
Curran made a motion to app
ro
Holmes. Motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business the meeting a ourned at 9 : 00 PM-
There
C. Fountain
Secretary pP
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Appeals
May 9 , 1991 - 7 : 30 PM
City Hall, loth Floor, Conference Room
i
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Clark at 7 : 30
PM. Roll call was taken:
Present Excused Absence
H. P. Curran Edward Spink
Robert Hull Grant Hilts
Floyd Wright Tom Kane
Christopher Steele _
Priscilla Holmes ( 7 : 04 ) r
Mary Clark H ` ,
Staff
Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner w :
Donna Wynant, Senior Planner G�
c�
Wright made a motion to excuse E. Spink, G. Hilts, & T. KaneT
Second by Curran. Motion approved unanimously.
Appeal #3125 - 2806 Byron Circle
This is a request by Charles and Jeanne Spadafore for the
construction of a family room addition ( 40 ' x 181 ) , 18 ' from the
rear property line located at 2806 Byron Circle.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of
the subject property and surrounding land use.
The applicant proposes to remove an existing deck and construct
an addition to the home within 18 ' of the rear property line.
Charles Spadafore, the structure will be exactly where the deck
is now. We just want to make it a year round environment to the
home.
Communication
David McCardel - no opposition.
Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #3125 based on the
irregular shape of the lot. It appears to be in conformity with
development in the vicinity. Second by Steele.
Wright - This situation is unique in that the backyard does not
impact on another residence, provided that the parkland remains
parkland, no negative impact on the surrounding neighbors is
anticipated.
Wright, Steele, Clark
Yeas: Holmes , Curran,
Hull, I
Nays: none
Appeal #3125 APPROVED. ro osed j
and evidence that th�hPrePore l
osite (open space) park land,
The Board found based on testimony uirements should not have any i
rear addition willheeereapr yard req
the reduction in adjacent property. '
negative impact on the
Appeal 43126 - 4801 South Cedar
of Richter' s Gardens at 480
This is a request by Robert Richter ware foot ground/pole sign to
South Cedar Street to
erect a 120 square of the sign on the
a height of 28 lioe tCedar Streeth the g
front property of
E. Winnicker. Sl
r ides were shown of
A presentation was given by land use.
the subject property and surrounding
This is an appeal for Richter allowdhim to locate ens to eaa
Winnicker Code that willro erty line. The
variance from the Zoning from the front property back from the
sign approximately
code requires
variance is for 18 ' , wires 2
requested
line
front property . angles toward the
would be inside a fence which ang
The proposed signerty, and would be 10 ' from the front property
front of the prop t
line. took 1.7 '
ro ect lwhtr where they
by 17 ' ,
- In the Cedar StreeheydWidened the r g
Wright
off the east side of Cedar
did this extend that far south?
Winnicker - I don' t believe it did.
m Richter' s Gardens. I have a revised drawing
Dave Richter from s clearer to you.
that will explain some of these thing
presently is not -visible from the
The sign that I have- there Pon the front of the store about
6will
north. We Put a new awning closer
years ag
o and the sign we have is almostit unoteencroach any
give us a little
ethan then sbgnstt° the south of us-
to Cedar S
Holmes - What are the dimensions of the sign?
Richter - 10 ' x 12
height on these signs that are
Audience - Is there a maxoneum arstreet?
located within the Catmaximum based on the size of aependingaod
Winnicker - There is
setback of the sign, there is a variable chart,
the you choose.
what size sign Y
Glenn DeYoung, 516 Robert Street. I have no objection to the
sign, I 'm just concerned about the lighting on the sign.
Richter - We normally try to set the timing pm our sign to have
it turn off by 10 : 30-11 : OO .PM.
Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3126 , given the right-of-
way and the existing parking into the right-of-way its a
sufficient setback for that site.
Second by Curran.
Yeas : Holmes, Hull, Curran Wright, Steele, Clark
Nays: none
Y
Appeal 43126 APPROVED.
This approval was given with the understanding and condition that
the existing ground/pole sign will be removed concurrently with
the installation of the new ground/pole sign.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the public
right-of-way at this location is wider than normal causing for a
much greater sign set back than normal from the actual street
pavement.
The Board believes that the additional public right-of-way
constitutes a hardship when attempting to establish the location
of an identification within a reasonable distance from the street '
right-of-way.
Appeal #3127, 3431 Radford Drive
This is a request by John Day to construct an enclosed 8 ' x 16 '
front porch at 3431 Radford Drive.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of "
the subject property and surrounding land use.
The proposed porch would have a front yard set back of 23 ' from
the front property line along Radford Drive.
i
John Day, 3431 Radford Drive. I 'm trying to make it better for t
my residents and a lot of them like to walk outside but when it _
gets a little nasty outside they can use the porch.
Communication
Mr. Torres, 3439 Danbury Crossroads, no objection.
Steele - How will this relate to the setback of the houses along
Bradford?
Winnicker - The established setback is at 291 . There is a curve
in the street so the setbacks would not be uniform.
resent entrance on the front, has an entrance that
Wright - Thep on the left side
goes straight in it, looks like there' s a step
oing t
is the entrance go be moved?
of the porch, I + not sure whether I 'm going to go
Day - Right at this time , floor.
with a slab or with a raised up
Steele - How many people are in the house?
Day - 5 adults plus our family. will
Curran made a motion to grant appeal #3127 , a variance
of the of 6 ' !
interfere with the view neighborhoodrs s it will appear �
not in with the rest of the
to be keeping
Second by Holmes .
es , Curran, Hull, Wright, Steele, Clark
Yeas : Holm
Nays: none
Appeal #3127 APPROVED.
s satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the
The Board wa impact the adjacent
proposed addo e development-
addition
`'J air, view nor will the
standpoindtvofsely light,
property,
addition be out of character with existing s
A eal #3128 428 F illey Street ruct a covered porch,
This is a request by
Terry Gaffney to const
wide by
26 ' long on to the fr
6 + 7cnt of the house at 428 Filley
Street.
given by D. Wynant. Slides were shown of the
A presentation wad surrounding land use*
subject property an
to remove the existing concrete stoop and I
Mr. Gaffney proposes orch 17 . 9 '
from the front property 4
awnings to build the front p
line.
building a porch with just a roof on it or an
Holmes Are you
enclosed porch?
Wynant - Roof covered without enclosures. It will
Street. Presented a picture.
Terry Gaffney 428 Filley porch.
not be enclosed. It will be an old fashioned
Communications
4 Filley, no objection.
James Hetler, 43
Chris Holmes, 3428 Bradford Dr
Mr . Goff , 422 Filley, no objection
to approve appeal #3s c
Second by Steele.
Holmes made a motion en
is consistent with the
Reasons: The addition of an °P -porch ear to have a negative
surrounding property and does not aPP
effect - Wright, Clark
Yeas: Curran, Holmes , Hull, Steele ,
Nays: none
Appeal 43128 APPROVED
testimony and evidence that and
existing development,
ion will be compatible with the vicinity-
he
porch$Oaaa tas satisfied base development in
porch a negative impact on
should not have a
Appeal #3129, 503 South Dexter family room, bath
nest by and at 503 South
a
Fred Moore to construe front
This is a req garage (24 ' x 24' ) in the rear yard
(north)
and attached g
Dexter. This will extookland within 17 • 5 °
property line along Br
Wynant. Slides were shown of the
A presentation was given by D' land use.
subject property and surrounding turn my
Fred Moore, 503 S. Dexter.
what I propose to do ldry facilities . We
And as long hide a
e into a bathroom andowatherf°irstlfloorun i bigger for a
.garage facilities a little b gg
don' t have any ears ,
we want to make it there eo le
we' re doing that,
house. We havavei37dsignatures of P P
bed. We have a give it up. I have
so we don' t want to g
With no objection.
Communication natures .
Petition with no objection and several sig
Pe No objection-
Teglive, 555 S Dexter Dr.
Donna wambaugh support, has lived across
David Calibresse, 3212 Allen Avenue,
the street for 15 years .
Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #
3129 . Reason: The lot
H n the corner and for that reason there is a
is a pie shaped lot °Curran.
hardship. Second by Clark
Yeas : Wright, Curran, Holmes , Steele, Hull,
Nays: none
Appeal #3129 APPROVED
ny and evidence that the
a hardship, when attempting
he lot, presents e Board does not believe
The Board was satisfied based on testimo h
irregular shape oro property as proposed. T
to d this p P
to develop
M
k-
ill have any negative impact on the
the proposed addition erties.
adjacent residential prop
Appeal #3131
3322 North East Street Y
to construct
uest by Steve Wilson oom the°rearllotrline*
This a 15 ,ix 60 ' storage building 10 from
D, were shown of the
`,lynant. Slides
A presentation was given by land use.
subject property and surrounding
to construct a 15 ' x
60 ' addition to an
es
building within 10 ' of the rear lot line.
The petitioner propos
existing commercial b
What is the height of the proposed structure?
Steele W- 1 1/2 stories.
Winnicker and the residential
Holmes - Is the fence between the building
ce d the entire length of the
yards? fence where the tires
Winnicker - The fen does not extend Just a security
residential properties.
are stored. Mr. Messiah
Wilson Builders, 12260 State Road• just over a
Steve Wilson, He' s been there j purchased
just moved into this business new tires and when re P k. They are
month. They are into selling et that cleaned
business there were a lot of old tires out bac
this b what we' re trying to do is g
fenced in right now,
up. 15 ' x 60 � ' I
built ld North East Street,
Barbaro, I 'm concerned about this building,on No to keep
FredObjection to anything being
have no obj
But I like it will be
Keep it uniform with the building
because We uniform business there.
everything
fine. Ilan include fencing?
_ f this is approved, will the site P
Holmesdit
Winnicker _ . ions: As Yes ,
rove appeal 43131. Con
Holmes made a motion access
proper plan detailing parking, and
ro ,oper developed and implemented;
staff recommends , a P
building location and landand buffering between the abutting
prevent
that it include screening Second by Hull.
ial and that there be some kind of barrier to is lot
resident ro riate places •
parking in inapp P
I believe the addition here it is
that is there are limitations
roundin
0
Reason: Basis for
where you can put additions , protection for the sur
placed w ill provide greater
exists.
residential then currently Clark
Yeas: Curran, Holmes, Hull, Wright'
Nays: Steele
Appeal #3131 APPROVED
- Include in letter that we
took the action with the
Clark the Code does not allow for outside storage d•
understanding that
plan being submitted to an
approval is subject to a site P parking,
This PP Division prior to the issuance o
approved by the planning site plan shall show detaia d buffering•
building permits , said, e screening
access , building location and landscape size
testimony and evidence lhateSpecially f
limited reasonable development of the s
te
The Board found based on
lot • n conjunction with this nonresidential use.
thestorage i
the need for
believe the proposed addition wilacsa adversely
development and may
The Board does not br the residential.
impact the adjacent residential
reasonabl
e transition between the business and
Minutes to approve the minutes.
April 11 , 1990 Hull made a motion
Second by Steele ,
nt
will be up and she will not be
Priscilla Holmes appointme
requesting to be reappointed.
Meeting adjourned at 9: 00 PM
AVern
Fou4 ain
Secretary Appeals
Board of Zoning
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Appeals
March 14, 1991 - 7: 30 PM
Lansing City Hall Washington Square Annex
119 North Washington Square, 2nd floor
-
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Clark at 7: 30 PM.
Roll call was taken.
PRESENT E|UCJSEM ABSENCE
Priscilla Holmes Christopher Steele
Edward Spink
Patricia Curran
Tom Kane 7: 55 PM
~ co
Grant Hilts
+^
Floyd Wright
Robert Hull W
Mary Clark CD
ma
St�ff r �
Emil Winnicker , Senior Planner
Donovan Hanna
Hanna
Tabled Appeal #3110, 915 East Michigan
mn |
Holmes made a motion to remove appeal #3110 from the table. Second by
Curran. Motion carried unanimously.
Darwin Brewster , 915 East Michigan. Currently there is a 4x8 sign on
the east side of the buifding. We want the sign back a little more so
the population coming west can see the facility as well as the people
coming east. With the locust trees in the summer there won 't be much
to see. The other sign is a separate business, this business is owned
by the hospital . Sparrow Health Care is separate from the actual
hospital , we're just renting the building space, owned by the same
parent cooperation. As far as governing wise we are separate. That 's
the reason for the two signs. Either one of the two signs that we
would be moving down would fit into this location with ample space.
Spink - We have to look at the total piece of property the fact that
we have different businesses in the same building has no bearing on
the signage. The code speaks to the property not the number of busi-
nesses in/on the property.
Clark - What kind of signage would be allowed?
Hanna - That falls into what we categor-ize as a Shopping Center , two
businesses in the same building , using the same parking area, become a
shopping center. The wall signs allowed under the code would be ac-
cording to the amount of footage of the building they utilize.
Winnicker - So each would be allowed a sign , the size being dictated
by the lineal footage in front of the building. The size of the signs
would be limited because its in the Capitol District.
Hanna - The maximum size would be 40 square feet.
Holmes - Where do you anticipate your clients will be parking?
Brewster - The parking will be to the east where one building is being
taken down.
COMMITTEE DF Wt ... LE
What size is the sign? Will it be in the front or the side of the
building?
Brewster - It will be 77 sq ft. The larger one in the front and the
smaller one on to the side for visibility from Michigan and
Pennsylvania.
Spink made a motion that appeal #3110 at 315 East Michigan Avenue be
denied. Second by Hull . Reason: Sign Code Ordinance has just been
established , that allows sufficient sign usage for the building and
recognize that additional signage would not be legal on that building
and we intend to uphold the intent of the new code.
Yeas: Holmes, Curran , Spink , Hilts, Hull , Wright , Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3110 DENIED.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that a hardship or
practical difficulty as defined in the Zoning Code does not exist in
this case to legitimize the granting of the variance. ,
`
In addition , the property is located in the Capitol Center District ,
an area where more restrictive sign regulations are applied. The
Board feels that exceeding allowable limits for signs in the district
will result in degrading the visual environment.
Appeal 43115 - Coulson Court and Claremore Drive
This is a request by Geert D. Mulder & Bons for a 6' rear yard set-
back variance in order to construct a new home on a vacant parcel .
'
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The petitioner proposes to construct a single family home 24' from the
rear (east) lot line. Code requires a rear yard setback of 30' .
_
Holmes - Facing Claremore , is the house is going to be oriented toward
Coulson.
Winnicker - The house would face Coulson.
Holmes - The next house on Claremore, how far is it setback?
Winnicker - The setback that is established on this blockface is 25' .
Tom Mulder - These are my last two lots in this part of the subdivi-
sion. What I do, when I get an offer from somebody who wants a cer-
tain house on a lot and. the lot is not big enough I have to come here
and see what I can do for them. These are houses that run from 1 ,000
square feet on up to 1 ,600 square feet. It is affordable housing the
lots are affordable lots. Behind this garage would be their backyard ,
the location will not screen anybody's view.
The following calls have been received: David Russell of 112 E.
Claremore is not opposed to request . Susan Robbins of 115 E.
Claremore is opposed to request. Mr. & Mrs. Bradley Westen of 121
E. Claremore is opposed to request.
Mrs. Pam Sage called in opposition to the variance for the rear yard
setback. She and her husband believe it would be too crowded for the
area. They reside at 120 E. Claremore.
These are houses that run from 1 ,000 square feet on up to 1 ,600 square
feet. It is affordable housing the lots are affordable lots. Behind
this garage would be their backyard , the location will not screen
anybody's view.
The following calls have been received: David Russell of 112 E.
Claremore is not opposed to request. Susan Robbins of 115 E.
Claremore is opposed to request. Mr. & Mrs. Bradley Westen of 121
E. Claremore is opposed `to request.
Mrs. Pam Sage called in opposition to the variance for the rear yard
setback. She and her husband believe it would be too crowded for the
area. They reside at 120 E. Claremore.
remain even with the variance and that the proposal for development is
consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Appeal #3116 - 117 West Northrup
'
This is a request by Lynn C. Frandsen to remove an existing 24' x 34'
detached garage and construct a new 24' x 34' storage/workshop in its
place and build d new 16' x 22' attached garage upon the premises
known as 117 West Northrup Street.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The proposed storage/workshop will contain 816 square feet and the new ,
attached garage will contain 352 square feet for a total of 1168
square feet. Code allows up to 1000 square feet of floor area for
accessory structures.
Spink - With the erection of a new garage they would be required to
have a hard surface driveway.
Winnicker - Correct.
A letter from appellant .
Lynn Frandsen , 117 West Northrup. I have applied for this variance
for a couple of reasons. I would like to have an attached car garage
to the house for coming home at night and getting in the house. The
workshop out in back this garage that is out there now is an old farm
structure. It has been built on two different slabs. I an not sure
if there is footings underneath it. Under the new building I would
like to put footings, I would like to have a workshop at one end. Up
until about 2 1/2 years ago I was a carpenter by trade. I had my own '
business. The overhead door is because of riding lawn mower ,
rotatillers, other gas operated equipment for this property we have.
I have 4 boys that help me maintain it right now. This is the reason
why we want the variance. The hardsurface driveway in the drawings
will be up to the property line up to the front of the house, then it
steps back in. There will be other work to remodel the house and to
fix it up to make it more comfortable, and more suited to the neigh-
borhood.
Holmes - How did you select the size of 24' x 34' for the new build-
ing?
Frandsen - That is the existing building there now. If we can put a
14' storage area by that on one end that gives me a nice workshop for
my woodworking tools that I have.
Holmes - Are you going tc1 put cars in the new storage area?
Frandsen - I can 't rule that out. As of right now, no there will not
be any cars. If I ever put that property up for sale, I only have a
one car attached garage. Most people have two car garages. I don 't
want to put a two car garage on the back of the house it spoils the
whole backyard.
gf WhN�
Holmes - I 'm real concerned about the future use of the second build-
ing.
'
Frandsen - As long as I live there, there won 't be a business. Can I
still have overhead doors?
Winnicker - The overhead door is something we would have to consider
because the new code we have differentiates between a garage and a
storage building and a garage is defined as a structure with an over-
head door and a concrete driveway leading to that structure. So one
or the other would have to be removed , there's also the possibility of
relocating a door so that the driveway would not lead to the front of
the structure. Only one garage can be on the site.
Holmes made a motion to deny appeal #3116. Second by Spink. Reasons:
There does not appear to be a hardship in this case, that the second
detached building would still be allowable and useable within the
guidelines of the code.
Yeas: Hilts, Wright , Curran , Holmes, Spink Hull , Kane, Clark
Nays: none '
Appeal #3116 DENIED
Winnicker - I want to clarify that there seemed to be a discrepancy in
what was being requested and what was advertised. I want to suggest
that we table this case. And let the staff determine exactly what the
applicant wants and we may have to readvertise this. I am asking that '
you reconsider.
Wright - In view of staffs recommendation to us I would move to
reconsider the previous question appeal 43116. Second by Holmes.
Yeas: Hilts , Wright , Curran , Holmes, Hull , Kane Clark
Nays: Spink.
Motion carries.
Wright made a motion to that appeal #3116 be tabled for 30 days or
until the next meeting of this Board. Second by Curran.
Yeas: Hilts, Wright , Curran , Holmes, Hull , Kane, Clark
Nays: Spink
Motion carries.
The Board tabled the appeal to allow you to meet with the Planning
Division staff to clarify the status and meaning of the appeal , and to
verify your intentions. `
It is my understanding that in subsequent conversations with Mr.
Winnicker , you have arrived at a satisfactory solution to the problem
that will make it unnecessary to seek a variance to the Zoning Code.
With this knowledge , the Board will likely act at its next meeting to
be held April 11 , 1991 to reaffirm its original position to deny the
appeal as filed. The Board chose to reconsider their first position
which was to deny the request . Unless, prior to the April meeting we
receive information contrary to your most recently stated position we
will proceed to process the appeal in this manner.
`
Appeal #3117 - 3305 Viking Street
This is a request by Mr. & Mrs. Gary Vertz Jr to construct a 6' high
solid fence on their property at 3305 Viking Street.
A presentation was given by E. Winni�ker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The proposal is to erect a 6' high fence in the front yard of the
property along Herrick Street. Code limits the height of a solid
fence in the front yard to 3' .
Gary Vertz , 3305 Viking. (Petition from adjoining neighbors - no ob-
jection) . The fence in question is almost identical to the one across
the street from me, which was up. And there are several fences in
that whole area that are in violation of the code. But because of the
age of that subdivision and the size of it , it makes it a little more
possible to put it , its almost like another lot. Fencing with a 6'
wooden fence would make it look nicer than a 4 ' chain link which
eventually rusts and make the neighborhood look worse than it is. The
neighborhood is currently being bought by single families, where at
one time it was rented out , it has come long way in the last few
years. The fence won 't pose restrictions at the intersection of
Herrick and Viking. The house actually becomes an obstruction before
the fence would ever become an obstruction.
Curran - You dont ' want a chain link fence because you think its going
to rust?
Vertz - Yes I would like a little more privacy with a 6' privacy
fence. The problem with a 4' its easier for people to jump , I want to
put a garden in the yard , I would like to leave my grill out all sum-
mer.
Spink made a motion that Appeal #3117 at 3305 Viking Street be denied.
Second by Curran. No hardship based on code.
Yeas: Holmes, Spink , Hull , Curran , Hilts , Kane, Wright , Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3117 DENIED. '
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that a legitimate
hardship or practical difficulty as defined in the code does not exist
in this case since altyrnatives exist to erect a fence within code
requirements.
In addition , the Board feels that an adequate back yard area would
still exist even if you were to erect a 6' high privacy fence far
enough back from the Herrick Street front property line to meet the
Zoning Code setback requirement.
Appeal #3118 - 327 Wayburn Road
'
'
This is a request by Mark Buren representing Marilyn McGuire to con-
struct an open front porch and handicap ramp at 327 Wayburn Road which
will extend to within 13. 75' of the front property line.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land ugg.
The petitioner proposes to construct a 12' x 26' open wood deck with
door cover (5x6) which extends 6. 25' into the 2()' required front yard.
Mark Buren , Bowker Builders. The situation is that there is a handi -
capped child , she is 6 years old , wheel chair bound and the request is
to have a ramp full length of the house, in front. We needed the full
length of the house simply for the fall , (26' ) . It is a single woman ,
pushing the chair. She wanted as little pitch as possible, so we
needed the full distance. We are asking for 12' , 7' of which will
come out the door (porch top) to get her to the driveway. The rear is
the only possibility of other exit and at this point its got a treated
deck , it would be a tremendous cost to remove. The only other alter-
native would be down the side of the house, which would be on the
driveway , it would cover the driveway by 4' which would be 8' of
drive, which could easily be hit by a car. The hardship is we have no
other place to put the ramp. The ramp will be removable.
A letter from James L. Mango and Ellen K. Stehouwer , 2418 Markley
Place , in support of the request .
Kane made a motion that appeal #3118, 327 Wayburn , be approved. The
hardship caused by the code. The setback of the house does not allow
them to use their front entrance. Second by Hilts.
Yeas: Curran , Hilts , Holmes, Hull , Spink , Kane, Wright , Clark
Nays: none P 0 1 Appeal #3118 APPROVED
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that a legitimate
hardship exists in this case since the proposed location of the bar-
rier free ramp is the only feasible location and that no other alter-
native exists.
In addition the Board believes that the proposed project will have no
effect on the character `of the neighborhood and no impact on adjacent
property owners.
Holmes made a motion to approve the February 14, 1991 minutes. Second
by Curran. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9: 00 PM.
Vern FOUI`ltai n
Secretary
Board of Zoning Appe,�l.s
' .
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Appeals
April 11 , 1991 - 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.
~ oo
Grant Hilts Pat Curran :/ '
Christopher Steele Priscilla Holmes ZA
Edward Spink
Tom Kane
�z
'
Floyd Wright CO '
Robert Hull
�r -
z
Mary Clark
Staff ^�
cz �
Vern Fountain , Zoning Administrator
Emil Winnicker , Senior Planner
Tabled Appeal #3116 - 117 West Northrup
Kane made a motion that Appeal #3116 be removed from the table. Sec-
ond by Steele Motion carried unanimously.
Winnicker - You will recall that there was some confusion on part of
the appellant of what he actually asked for. The staff did meet with
the applicant and we did certify, and it was agreed that he had in-
deed , on his application requested a variance of 168 square feet over
the allowable 1 ,000 total , for accessory structures. He also indica-
ted that he had come up with a plan that would allow him to construct
an accessory structure within the code, he would not need a variance.
Wright - Is the applicant requesting that it be withdrawn?
Winnicker - He did not indicate that it be withdrawn. He realized
that the feeling of the` Board was that they were not going to grant
what he had asked for and he acknowledged that in our conversation.
He was satisfied that with the alternative we came up with.
Wright made a motion to deny appeal #3116. Second by Steele. .
Yeas: Hilts, Kane , Hull , Steele, Spink , Wright , Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3116 DENIED.
The Board was advised that you arrived at a satisfactory solution to
your problem that makes it unnecessary for them to consider a variance
to the Zoning Code.
'
Since this is the case the Board does not believe there is a hardship
associated with the variance request. Appeal #3119 - 1301 South
Pennsylvania
This is a request by Douglas Finley for the City of Lansing Parks De-
partment to receive a variance to erect a new entrance sign at 1301
South Pennsylvania for the purpose of identifying the Potter Park Zoo.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The new ground/pole sign will have 58. 5 square feet of area, it will
be 13. 5' high and will set back 12' from the front lot line on
Pennsylvania Avenue. The sign code allows up to 50 square feet of
sign area, allows a maximum sign height of 8' and a minimum setback of
20' from the front lot line.
Clark - Is it going back in the same location?
Fountain - Approximately the same location.
Doug Finley, Director of Potter Park Zoo. Our goal is to upgrade the
sign that is there, principally in appearance, aesthetics, but also in
the use of materials, that sign has been there since the 1950's, and
it has a tilt to it and it has other things that we would like to
correct. We will be using wood materials , consistant with the image
that is there today, we will be putting it in the same hole, the sign
shape will be the same type configuration. The only difference will '
be, rather than having a piece hanging down from the bottom, which
describes events that are taking place, we will be moving that to the
back of the sign , and that gives us an option to put some announce-
ments utilizing that space and that adds a few square foot to the
sign. The real issue here is the setback. Years ago, the trolley
traveled down Pennsylvania Avenue and had its turn around spot in
front of Potter Park and there's a balloon in the right of way at the
Potter Park entrance. From 496 to the railroad tressle the
Pennsylvania right-of-way is 901 , but it balloons out to 120' right in
front of the park. That makes the sign technically in the balloon
right-of-way. The Public Service Department has not identified a
reason why we should maintain that right-of-way and will move toward
vacating it , that is a longer process than this, that will solve the
problem the next time this issue might come up.
`
Hull - What type of material will the sign be constructed from?
Finley - We will not be using plastic , the original proposal of
plastic was for a light weight removable piece and that 's the back
piece only, that we have to get up and down a ladder to change for the
announcements. We want to use a light weight material for that piece.
It would be either plastic or a very thin 1 /4" plywood surface ,
plastic is easier to work with for painting on that remains an option
to us. The rest of the sign will be an iron I beam welded encased in
wood with a wood sign hanging down off the front. At the back of the
sign will be changeable copy with the optional plastic insert , it is
not a lighted sign.
`
Steele - I understand the need for the size and the setback variance,
but why the height variance?
Fountain - Because of the closeness to the property line, and the
railroad right-of-way.
Spink made a motion that the three variances be voted on separately.
Second by Hull . Motion carried unanimously.
Spink made a motion that the setback for appeal #3119 be approved.
Second by Steele. Reason: The sign is in the same location that it
is presently in and any further back would deter motorists from seeing
where the entrance of the zoo is.
Yeas: Hilts, Kane , Hull , Steele, Spink , Wright , Clark
Nays: none
Variance for setback approved.
Spink made a motion that the height variance requested for appeal
#3119 be approved. Second by Steele. Reason: In this location it
needs to be that high to avoid obstructing vehicle vision.
Yeas: Hilts, Kane, Hull , Steele, Spink , Wright , Clark
Nays: none
Variance for height approved.
Steele made a motion to approve the size for appeal #3119. Reason:
To provide visibility for the sign location where visibility is pres-
ently obscured. Second by Wright.
Yeas: Hilts , Kane, Hull , Steele, Wright ,
Nays: Spink , Clark
Variance for size approved.
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the pro-
posed sign will not adversely impact the adjacent properties, which is
the railroad to the north and park land to the west , south and east.
The Board also found that the street right-of-way at this location is
wider than the average along Pennsylvania Avenue requiring additional
set back for the sign from the street.
Appeal #3120 - 307 East Mt. Hope Avenue
This is a request by Richard M. Bowen for property at 307 East Mt. '
Hope. Mr. Bowen wishes to convert the single family structure on
site for two family use. The converted structure would contain two
one bedroom units.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The Zoning Code requires 5600 square feet of lot area for a duplex as
proposed. The lot at 307 E. Mt. Hope as an area of 4191 square
feet.
`
'
Dick Bowen , the structure there was originally built for two families.
I have rental property next door. I 'm going to be living there my-
self .
Steele - Is the driveway off Mt. Hope a shared driveway?
Bowen - The driveway belongs to 311 , but I own 311 Mt. Hope.
Steele - How much space is there between this house and 311?
Bowen - About 14' .
Steele - So there isn 't room for two driveways?
Bowen - No there isn 't. The tenants next door at 311 are using the
drive.
Clark - Is there a legal easement or something? In the property de-
scription is it defined as a shared drive? Or does the drive belong
to 311?
Bowen - I 'm not sure. It 's being used as a shared drive.
Wright - What is considered proper parking?
Fountain - At least 3 spaces off the alley.
Wright - And it should be hardsurfaced?
Fountain - Yes
Roger Merrill , 1805 Herbert St. I 'm opposed to allowing this vari-
ance, for the following reasons: Approval of this variance will en-
courage others to do likewise thus creating more density in an already
crowded neighborhood; single family homes with 33' wide lots do not
have adequate parking for today's families; there is not room for a
private drive at 307 E. Mt. Hope, where no parking is allowed on the
street. It has a joint drive with an alley entering into a one car
garage. Approval of this variance will accelerate a decline of this
old neighborhood which some of us are trying very hard to prevent.
Two family rental units in older homes with absentee owners have been
a constant source of disruptive problems, probably aggravated by the
overcrowding conditions. I am therefore opposed to allowing the
variance of the Zoning Code at 307 E. Mt. Hope Avenue. We should
try to upgrade this district by enforcing the code with existing two
family units. And by upgrading this code to meet future needs. Up-
grading could occur with a closing of aIley's where litter and trash
is dumped. Cars and motorcycles disturb the peace, vandals have a
field day and criminals ` have an easy unseen access to homes. I want
to see the district upgraded and I hope other property owners agree.
A letter from George Smalley, 213 East Mt. Hope, against We vari-
ance, we already have a parking problem with cars parking in front
yards , the wrong side of the street and blocking the alleys.
QommiURR at
Steele - will not support appeal , the code is proper in determining
this lot is too small for a two family dwelling , no hardship.
'
Steele made a motion to deny appeal #3120 at 307 E. Mt. Hope on the
basis there is no hardship. Second by Spink.
Yeas: Hilts, Kane, Hull , Steele, Spink , Wright , Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3120 DENIED
The Board does not believe there is a hardship associated with this
request.
The Board believes that a single family home on this small lot allows
reasonable use of the property. The Board further believes more in- '
tense use of the structure will promote over development of the prop-
erty, and therefore the requested variance is not in keeping with the
general intent of the Code.
Appeal #3122 - 420 West Hillsdale
This is a request by Gregory Byrd on behalf of James Dart to receive a
variance from the zoning code that will allow for the construction of
a 12' x 14 ' addition to the rear of the house on the property located
at 420 West Hillsdale Street 15' from the rear property line.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Steele - You said it would only slightly enlarge the porch , what are
the dimensions?
Winnicker - The deck and the porch go approximately the entire length
of the house. It comes within 21 ' of the rear property line. The
proposed addition will not be as wide as the roof and deck , but would
come 6' closer to the rear property line, so there isn 't a great deal
of difference in the total square footage between the two.
Gregory Byrd , I 'm the builder on the project not the owner. The lot
depth of 66' will still preserve 15' to the rear , the view is very
open , the owner to the east is also the owner to the north because
their lot is L shape. We really aren 't building close to another
structure.
Spink made a motion that appeal #3122 be approved. Second by Kane.
Reason: The code does cceate the hardship.
Steele - Not supporting motion , the enclosed addition extends too
close to the back lot line, overdevelopment of the lot.
/
Yeas: Hilts, Kane, Hull , Spink , Wright , Clark
Nays: Steele
Appeal #3122 APPROVED
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the lot size is
below minimum standards and to apply the minimum code requirements to
any improvements presents a hardship , especially when the intent is to
up grade the property, and not increase the intensity of use.
.
Appeal #3123 - 2109 Pollard
This is a request by Michael Clark , owner and resident of 2109 Pollard
Street to construct a 24' x 24' attached garage onto his home 8' from
the rear (west) property line.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
There area three hardships that we believe are legitimate. The first
is being that it is located on a corner , requirement of front yards;
second that the easement required that the house be set back an un-
usual distance, particularly on a corner lot; and third is that a ga-
rage of any kind would require a variance, attached or detached , be-
cause it could not meet the setback requirements.
Hilts - Was the easement for vision purposes?
Winnicker - Sewer easement.
Wright - If the house is set back , it is not up to code?
Winnicker - Where the garage would be built is the rear yard , that 's
32' ; the back of the house is actually the side yard.
Michael Clark , owner of house. When we bought this lot we originally
wanted to put the house the other way, but because of the easement we
couldn 't do that. We didn 't know that until the builder went down to '
apply for the permit , that there is an easement running through that
yard. My house is only about a foot from the easement. There is ab-
solutely no other way I could possibly build this house on that lot ,
it was almost deemed unbuildable, it was the only place I could actu-
ally put this house. And when the builder sat down to review this , he
said we could call the back part the side yard and the west the back.
But when we went to get the permit they said no we can 't do that ,
that 's the back yard , because of the way its set. Then we had to ap-
ply for the variance and that 's where we're at now. There's nobody on
that side of me, its an empty lot. There's not anybody around that it
would affect. I would just like to upgrade my house, I have a couple
of nice cars I would like to use the garage for , plus a workshop , and
to keep my tools and everything else that I have. That 's the reason
for the garage.
gf Wh�l�
`
Spink - This is another case where the code creates the hardship. If
we've allowed him to build a house , and a new house I think its pretty
clear that we better let him build a garage, and since we allowed him
to build a house there, its only logical that 's where the garage goes.
Spink made a motion that appeal #3123 be approved. Second by Wright.
Yeas: Hilts , Kane, Hull , Steele, Spink , Wright , Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3123 APPROVED
The Board believes that the irregulr shaped corner lot , with the
utility easement that has restricted plcement of the home, has created
a hardship when attempting to construct a garage as proposed.
The Board does not believe the proposed location of the garage will
adversely impact the adjacent properties, and approval is in keeping
with the general intent of the Code.
Appeal #3124 - 4722 North Grand River Avenue
This is a request by David Dore to install a 48 square foot free
standing ground/pole sign with the leading edge abutting the front
property line at 4722 North Grand River Avenue.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Kane - Is that setback consistant along Grand River?
Fountain - It gets a little irregular to the east. There are some
areas further to the east where its less than 100' .
Kane - How much less?
Fountain - Grand River is suppose to be 100' all the way down thru in
some case it is 90' .
Steele - To what extent is the new sign different from the old sign?
Fountain - Approximately same location. The proposed sign is a low
profile sign approximately 6' high and 12' wide.
Spink - The only variance is for setback?
Fountain - Yes.
Pat Basgall , Operation Manager for Carquest . We 're intending to in-
stall a ground sign on a berm with landscaping to improve the aes-
thetics of the area. The existing sign is barely visible when your
coming from west , unless you know its there you can hardly see the
sign. To put a ground sign in the same spot sets it back so far that
the cyclone fence to the west blocks the view completely. Their fence
is right on the property line, and we are trying to position the sign
between the telephone pole and our existing sign , and there's a tree
there as well that obstructs the view. So that a 16'variance would '
position it so that we c'puld see it coming from the west. We have
purchased property on the west and demolished a home there last year
to improve the visibility on that side and give us more parking as
well .
Clark - The proposed sign will be further toward the street? '
Basgall - The existing pole is where the back end of the sign would be
and the sign will go forward.
Steele - Will it extend into the right-of-way?
Basgall - No it will not.
Spink - Where is the 16' 7,
--
,
Leading edge of the sign will be on the front property line.
Kane made a motion that appeal #3124 at 4722 N. Grand River be ap-
proved. Reason: Hardship is the developed by the fact that the di-
mension from the curb line to the property line is 27' it places a
hardship on the ability to install a sign , a low sign that is visible.
Second by Spink.
Yeas: Hilts, Kane, Hull , Steele, Spink , Wright , Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3124 APPROVED
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property line
is approximately 27' from the curb or street line , and the code re-
quires an additional 16' set back from the front lot line, for a
ground/pole sign.
The Board believes that the total set back for the ground/pole sign is
excessive and that there is a hardship when attempting to establish
reasonable identifica tion for this property. Especially when the
location of adjacent develoment is taken into consideration .
The Board also recognized that the proposal is to erect a low profile
ground/pole sign with landscaping , which they believe will be attrac-
tive to the site.
The Mayor 's office wants an update on name, phone numbers, etc.
Mi Iut.9��
Hull made a motion to approve the March 14, 1991 minutes. Second by
Steele. Motion passed unanimously.
New BUPiDESS
The Council Chambers is now available.
There being no further businessmeeting j d t 8: 45 PM.
`
;Fountain /
Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Zoning Appeals
February 14, 1991 - 7: 30 p. m.
Lansing City Hall Washington Square Annex
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson H. P. Curran at i: •35
p. m.
Roll call was taken.
F'resent Excused Absence
Priscilla Holmes Tom Kane
Christopher Steele Mary Clark
k
Edward Spink C �?
Patricia Curran
Floyd Wright Unexcused Absence
Robert Hull �� :� r
Grant Hilts
Staff i cr
CO -
Vern Fountain , Zoning Administrator OO
Donovan Hanna, Graphic Coordinator
Elizabeth Gunter , Recording Secretary
Appeal #3110 - 915 East Michigan
This is a request by Sparrow Health Care to erect two wall signs on
the property located at 915 East Michigan Avenue.
A presentation was given by Vern Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Sparrow Health Care Pharmacy proposes two wall signs, one of 69 square
feet on the front of the building and one of 77 square feet on the
east side of the building for• a total of 146 square feet of wall
signage. The Lansing Sign Code limits the amount of sign display al-
lowed on this property because it is located in the Capitol Center
District , to 40 square feet.
No representation.
Fountain - Mr. Pr•i ster• called and said he would not be able to attend
the meeting.
Holmes - Where will the front sign be placed''
Hanna - In the recessed area of the building.
Holmes made a motion to table appeal #31 10 for more information.
Second by Spink:. Motion carried unanimously.
Appeal #3112 - Tecumseh River Road
This is a request by Meridian Remodeling Company to remove the exist-
ing garage and construct a bedroom addition in its place, as well as a
new attached garage on the property at 1716 Tecumseh River- Road.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing attached garage and
construct a bedroom addition in its place 5' from the rear property
line and build a new attached garage 2' from the rear .lot line.
Mike Markey from Meridian Remodeling , 2296 Jolly Road , Ok:emos, MI
4oe64. The current home owners are requesting the addition and
renovations. They have lived in the house for over 30 years. The
reason for the bedroom addition is that in their retirement ages they
would like to remain in the house and have a first floor accessibility
for down the road so that they an maintain their home ownership , for a
considerable more length of time, compared to the way the house is set
up now with all the bedrooms upstairs. Currently, there is an at-
tached 1 1/2 car garage that would be replaced by the bedroom addition
at the same time they would be like to install a new attached two car
garage with the same points of ingress and egress. They have talked
with the neighbors and they have not shown any disapproval . By virtue
of the configuration of the lot it is difficult to put any kind of
addition on.
Spink - The addition is ^' greater than the present garage':'
Markey - Correct.
Curran - What will the exterior look
Markey - It will match the house.
Communication
A telephone call from Lester and Alta Hansens of 3135 N. Grand River
Avenue , no objection.
Mrs. Vander•k:olk:, We have spoken with our neighbors and we tried to
take into consideration what they will be looking at from their
houses. The view will be much nicer after this is done.
Spink: made a motion that appeal #3112 be approved; allowing the bed-
room addition to be constructed leaving a 5' rear yard; the garage
addition be modified allowing the garage to be constructed at least 3'
from the north lot line; and the concrete pad on Tecumseh River Road
side of the garage be removed. Second by' Holmes.
Yeas: Spink , Holmes, Hull , Wright , Steele, Curran
Nays: none
Appeal #3112 APPROVED, as modified.
The Board denied the request as filed to construct an attached garage
2' from the rear lot line and approved a variance to allow the at-
tached garage to be constructed no closer than 3' from the rear lot
line with the understanding that the remaining concrete patio will be
removed concurrently with the new construction.
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that size of
the lot and its irregular• shape presents a hardship. The Board does
not believe the new addition will adversely impact the adjacent prop-
erties.
Appeal #3113 - 2121 Raymond Drive This is a request by Betty Ferguson
to expand and enclose an existing open front porch at 2121 Raymond
Drive.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The applicant proposes to enclose and expand the existing front porch
from 7 x 12 to 11 x 22 which will extend to within 10. 4' of the front
property line.
Wright - Where is the entrance of the porch (front or side) ?
Fountain - On the south side.
Curran - Is the picket fence on the lot line'-'
Fountain - Yes
Spink: - How much front yard will be left`
Fountain - Approximately 10 feet.
Betty Ferguson , 2207 Raymond Drive. I brought a letter from Mr.
Stoffer , he lives next door. Mr. Staffer has no objection to the
expansion and enclosure of the front porch. We hope it will improve
the neighborhood , and with warehouses across the street it is kind of
hard to do.
Steele - Do you live in this house':'
Ferguson - No, this is my brother 's house. He is moving from
Connecticut and he's fixing this house up as his retirement house.
That 's why he is not here tonight , he is in Connecticut.
Communication A telephone message from Inez Sanders, 2236 North Grand
River , she has no objection.
A letter from Nat Hammond , owner of ^,•.a^'i.20 and 2230 Raymond Drive. Mr.
Hammond does not have' any objection.
Spink made a motion that appeal #3113 be approved as presented based
on the fact that the placement of the house creates a hardship and to
increase the living space and to enclose the porch near a warehouse
area is another hardship. Second by Wright.
Yeas: Wright , Holmes, Spink: , Steele, Hull , Curran
Nays: none
Appeal #3113 APPROVED.
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the placement of
the house on the lot creates a hardship . The Board also believes that
it is reasonable to allow the expansion as proposed because of the
close proximity of this property to the industrial and Warehouse uses
located across the street. The Board does not believe the change will
adversely impact adjacent development.
Tabled Appeal #3091 , 110 Verli.nden
Holmes made a motion to remove the appeal from the tabled. Second by
Spink:. Motion carried unanimously.
This appeal was presented at the October 11 , 1990 meeting. It was
tabled in January pending the receipt of a site plan.
There has been no contact with the petitioner and no site plan has
been submitted.
Holmes made a motion to deny appeal #3091 . Second by Spink. Reason:
Incomplete information.
Yeas: Holmes, Spink , Hull , Wright , Steele, Curran
Nays: none
Appeal #1091 DENIED.
The decision to deny this request was based upon a lack of information
on the proposal . Specifically, no site plan was submitted for the
project.
Minutes
Holmes made a motion to approve the December 13, 1990 minutes. Second
by Spink:. Motion carried unanimously.
Spink: made a motion to approve the January 10, 1991 minutes. Second
by Wright. Motion carried unanimously.
Wright made a motion for an excused absence for Mary Clark. Second by
Steele. Motion carried unanimously.
New Business
Ed Spink requests an excused absence from the March 14, 1991 meeting.
Wright made a motion for an excused absence for Spink:. Second by
Holmes. Motion carried unanimously.
Christopher Steele requests an excused absence from the March 14, 1991
meeting. Holmes made a motion for an excused absence for Steele.
Second by Spink. Motion carried unanimously.
r
`k
t'
"here being no further• business the meeting was adjourned at 8: 25 PM.
Cf. ernon C. Fountain
Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
i
Minutes of the Regular- Meeti nq
Board of Zoning Appeals
January 10, 1991 - i: 3(D P. M.
Lansing City Hall Washington Square Annex , 2nd floor-
The meeting was called to or-der, by Chair-per-son Mary C1 ar-k: at r : 30 p. m.
Roll call was taken.
Present Excused Absence
H. P. Cur•r-an Pr-i sci l l a Holmes
Christopher- Steele Robert Hull
Edward Spink: 8: C?5 PM
Tom h:::ane
Grant Hilts
Floyd Wright
Mary Clark:
Staff
Vern Fountain , Zoning Admi ni str-ator i
Emil Winnick:er• , Senior- Planner-
Elizabeth Gunter , Recor•din.g Secr•etar•y
G.,
Appeal #3103 - 682(i South Cedar- CD
w
A presentation was given by V. Fountain.
Fountain - At the hearing last meeting , the Board approved a variance
to construct two wall signs, and denied the initial application for
the ground/pole sign which was to replace the sign that is there now.
The Board tabled action on the alternative proposal for- a ground/pole
sign submitted by Mr-. Long pending a site plan that would show what
Mr-. Long 's alternative was.
Mr. Long presented a new site plan.
Wright made a motion that appeal #3103 relating to the alternative
ground/pole sign be removed from the table. Second by Curran. Motion
carr-i ed unanimously.
Long - We ar-e ask:inq to be allowed to erect the primary sign as indi-
cated , it is a reduction in size, its very clean , there is no obs-
tr•ucti on.
Fountain - It is in keeping with the intent of the new sign ordinance
and it reduces the size of that sign , and it still allows reasonable
identification for- any existing facility.
A letter from Gordon Long.
Cur-r•an made a motion to approve Appeal #3101 (ground/pole sign) .
Second by Steele. Reason: It will remain on the same post; it is
less in square footage; it is in the same location; and it is a result
of changing owner-ship.
Yeas: Cur-r-an , Hilts, Wright , Steele, F`:ane, Clar4::.
Nays: none
APPEAL #3101 (Ground/Pole Sign) APPROVED
The sign was found to be non-conforming because it does not meet the
minimum dimensions r-equi r•ed of the sign code.
The approval was based on the revised drawing that you submitted
showing a new sign "head" on top of the existing sign str•uctur•e, which
will be no l ar•ger than 99" x 138" .
The Board understands that , the existing sign structure supporting the
sign shall be the same. We have a drawing of the sign "head" which
r-ef l ects the Board of Zoning Appeals approval .
The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the new sign will
be smaller- in size and lower- in height than the existing identifica-
tion sign . Ther•ef or-e the Board believes that approval is in keeping
with the general intent of the Code.
Appeal #3(?91 - 110 Ver-linden
Fountain - This appeal was tabled about 3 months ago. The reason it
was tabled is the Board held a hearing and the petitioner was not
present. She had called and said she works at that time. She had not
submitted a site plan to show the proposed addition. So the Board
tabled the appeal until a site plan was presented. She said she
probably would not build the addition until spring.
Kane made a motion to table #3091 until the next meeting. Second by
Wright. Motion car-r-ied unanimously.
Appeal #3106 - 2709 Midwood
This is a request by David Hayes to construct an 8' :: 12' roof over
the existing front porch at 2709 Midwood.
A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
The petitioner- proposes to construct a roof over- an existing front
porch slab that is 12' wide and extends 8' from the house. The roof
extending from the house 8' will be approximately 24. 5' from the front
property line.
David Hayes, I am a builder- , and this is my daughters house.
Kane made a motion to approve appeal #.3106. Second by Hilts. Reason:
It will not represent an undue inappropriate use of the property; and
will not adversely affect the immediate surroundings.
Yeas: Curran , Hilts , Kane, Wright , Steele, Clark
Nays: none
Appeal 43106 APPROVED.
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the ad-
dition will not affect pedestrian or vehicular circulation or light ,
air and view of neighboring homes.
Appeal #310 7 - 807 East Miller Road
This is a request by Mary Ann Wesley to construct a 7. 5' open front
porch addition at 807 East Miller Road. The porch will come to within
14. 7' of the front property line.
A presentation was given by E. Winnicker•. Slides were shown of the
subject property and surrounding land use.
Mary Wesley. Originally there was a deck: for a number of years down
at grade level and it had deteriorated. It did not have a roof over
it. The steps were exposed to the weather and deteriorated , so we
were not using the front entrance any longer. We had planned to take
care of that and my husband became ill and passed away. Regardless, I
went ahead with our plan to upgrade and make it better and to put the
roof on to preserve the entrance. I thought because it was a re-
placement , it was OK I wasn 't aware that a permit was necessary.
Steele - The front edge of the porch , how far is it from the curb':'
Winnicker• - Its 14. 7' from the front property line.
Communication
A letter from Jack & Clara Tillman , 6020 Orchard Ct. We have no ob-
jection unless the structure will block the view of traffic when one
comes to a stop on Miller & Orchard Court Streets.
Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3107. Second by Kane.
Yeas: Curran , Hilts, Kane, Steele, Wright , Clark
Nays: none
Appeal #3107 APPROVED.
The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the ad-
dition is compatible with other surrounding land uses. It does not
create a visibility problem as it relates to circulation , and it does
not adversely impact environmental features or set precedent for
future development.
Appeal #31 C.)8 - 3904 Deer--Field
This is a request by Philip Fowler to keep a b' high stockade fence in
the front yard on the pr-oper-ty located at 3904 South Deer--Field.
A presentation was given by E. Winnick:er-. Slides were shown of the
subject pr-oper•ty and Sur-r-ounding land use.
The applicant proposes to retain a 6' high stockade fence constructed
in the front yard along Hi 1 1 crest Street on the corner- lot.
Philip Fowler- - I went to my immediate neighbors and they signed a
statement which said they do not find the fence to be offensive or- a
hazard. When I constructed the fence along Hillcr•est I did not know
it was consi der-ed a f r•ont yard. I always thought of it as my backyard
or-- side yard. If I have to move my fence back to the edge of my ga-
r,age I lose about a 1/3 of my yard space. That 's why I applied for a
variance to see if I could keep it up.
Cur-r•an - How -Far- would you like it to qo'-'
Fowler- - I just want it to go to the edge of my garage.
Communication
A letter- from RIchard Bok:ovoy and Donalda Bok.-ovoy, 4009 South
Deerfield , do not have any objections.
Kane made a motion to approve appeal #3108. Reason: The fence does
not create the normal site problems and the aesthetics problems that
it would in a typical front yard situation. Second by Wright.
Yeas: Hilts, f::ane, Wright , Clark:
Nays: Cur-r-an , Steele , Spink:
Appeal #310e DENIED.
A motion was made to approve your- request which received a vote of 4
yeas and 3 nays. However , Section 1244. 07 of the Planning and Zoning
Code states that "the concurring vote of a majority of the members
ser-ving on the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be necessary to r-ever-se
an order- , requir-ement , decision or- deter-mi nati on of the Planning Di-
vision or- to decide in favor of the applicant a. matter upon which it
is requi red to pass under• an ordinance, or- to effect a var-iance of
such ordinance" .
Since this is a 9 member board , five affirmative votes ar-e necessary
to approve the change. Those members voting in favor- of the request
did not believe the fence presents any site problems, or adversely
impacts the aesthetic qualities of the area. Those members voting
against the request felt that the fence does have a negative impact on
the neighborhood.
Di dew Sits?ne=s 14 , 1991
Tom F:ane has req uested an excused absence for• the Febr•uar•y
meeting.
Wright made a motion to e;:cuse Bob Hu11 , Second by Cur'r'an •
in no further• business the meeting was adjourned at 8: 15 PM.
There be 9
ern Fountain
Secr etar•y gpeal s
Board of Zoning