HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 1994 Minutes Approved 01/12/95
To Clerk 01/13/95
VJgJJTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
{{�/ LFU�11( December 8, 1994, 7:30 p.m.
C� Y�HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by N. Carlson at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was
taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon H. LeBlanc
M. Clark C. Bicy
G. Hilts N. Carlson
B. Excused Absences
E. Spink
C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
J. Sturdevant, Senior Planner
II. Hearings
A. BZA-3323.94, 2019 Beal Avenue
This is a request by Steve Utley and Brenda Dimick for front yard
variances of 3'8" on Beal Avenue and 8' on Cooper Avenue, to allow
them to keep the bay window addition on the existing enclosed front
porch.
J. Ruff presented the case.
Steve Utley, applicant, presented pictures and drawings of the
addition. The Board members asked questions of the applicant. Mr.
Bicy did not see an adverse impact to the adjacent properties and did
not have a problem with the addition.
H. Leblanc made a motion to approve the front yard variances of 318" on Beal
Avenue and 8' on Cooper Avenue, to allow the bay window addition on the
enclosed front porch to remain; finding that this being a corner lot presents
a practical difficulty for any type of an addition, and that the request did not
impact adjacent properties or set an unreasonable precedent. The motion was
seconded by M. Clark.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES December 8, 1994 - Page 2
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
LeBlanc X Clark X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Hilts X Carlson X
Motion approved: BZA-3323.94 by a vote of 6 to 0.
III. TABLED ITEMS
A motion was made by G. Hilts to amend the agenda in order to consider tabled
item BZA-3317.94 at this point, seeing that Mr. Rowe was not yet present for
the variance request at 325 Lathrop Street, removing the items from the table.
Motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc, and approved unanimously by voice vote.
A. BZA-3317.94, 1215 & 1222 E. Michigan Avenue
This is a request by Robert P. Walsh, Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. ,
representing Sparrow Hospital and Health System, 1212 & 1222 E.
Michigan Avenue, for part 1A of their variance request, being a 25'
variance to the side yard setback on Jones Street for a parking
variance.
J. Ruff presented the case, reviewing the action of the Board at the
meeting of October, 1994.
Bill Vincent, representing Sparrow Hospital, presented drawings as to
how the hospital and school district propose to use the land area
presently used for the southern 2/3's of the 100 block of Jones Street
if closed as proposed. He also presented the board with an explanation
of the Lansing School Board's action to participate in this endeavor.
Questions were asked by Board members and Mr. Vincent summarized
a time table anticipated for the completion of the construction. As
planned, the proposed garage and ACCMOB Building would be occupied
in 1997. Therefore, they would like to do the work in the Jones Street
right of way in conjunction with the site work surrounding the garage.
Mr. Vincent stressed that the drawings were only schematic and that
the final plans would be completed in cooperation with the various
neighborhood groups, the Lansing School District, and the city, as
promised. Further questions arose regarding the necessity of a
sidewalk between the playground edge and the parking garage. Mr.
Vincent stated that the Hospital did not have a preference as to whether
the sidewalk was installed there or not. This detail would be worked
out in the design stage with all parties involved.
M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3317.94, part 1A, being a 25 foot
variance to the side yard setback on Jones Street for the parking deck.
Finding that the improvements appear to be an asset to all parties involved
and the variance as proposed, with the closure of Jones Street, would not
have an adverse impact on surrounding development. The motion was
seconded by G. Hilts.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES December 8, 1994 - Page 3
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
LeBlanc X Clark X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Hilts X Carlson X
Motion approved: Tabled Item, BZA-3317.94, part 1A, approved by a vote of 6 to 0.
B. BZA-3315.94, 325 Lathrop Street
This is a request by Virgil Rowe, owner of 325 Lathrop, to widen his
driveway entrance and provide a front yard parking space for one
vehicle.
J. Ruff presented the case, reviewing the information presented thus
far. He also stated that the neighborhood group looking at this matter
was informed that they did not reach a consensus on this particular item
but would form a committee to look at further requests such as this.
Mr. Rowe said that at the Monday night meeting at the school following
last months Zoning Board meeting the group had approved of his
request and that they would set up a committee to look at future front
yard parking situations.
Board members discussed the proposal. J. Sheldon stated that she was
opposed to the request, believing that other options were available and
that the front yard parking situation would be detrimental to the
neighborhood. G. Hilts stated that, because a permit is not necessary,
these front yard parking situations get built and are difficult to
enforce, but he understands that there is no simple or reasonable
solution for Mr. Rowe's situation. M. Clark stated that she was
concerned a precedent would be set, even though this is somewhat
unique, since this site is more limited than most due to the location of
the garage and existence of the joint driveway. C. Bicy stated that he
felt the same way as M. Clark, and further, that this is a difficult
situation and not Mr. Rowe's fault. H. LeBlanc also agreed with M.
Clark's opinion but thought there could be similar situations created in
the neighborhood.
J. Sheldon made a motion to deny BZA-3315.94, based on the fact that other
potential options existed and that a precedent would be established in the
neighborhood. Motion seconded by C. Bicy.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
LeBlanc X Clark X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Hilts X Carlson X
Motion approved: Tabled Item, BZA-3315.94, denied by a vote of 6 to 0.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES December 8, 1994 - Page 4
IV. Excused Absences
A. None
V. Public Comment
A. None
VI. Old Business
A. Policy and Procedures
1. We are waiting for the ethics board on this issue.
VII. Approval of Minutes
A. November 10, 1994
H. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by G. Hilts, to approve the
minutes of November 10, 1994, with corrections cited by J. Ruff (page
4, in the voting record for the motion to approve BZA-3318.94, at 2129
Hillcrest, C. Bicy voted yea, not both yea and nay) . Motion approved
unanimously by voice vote.
VIII. New Business
A. 1995 Meeting Schedule
G. Hilts made a motion, seconded by H. LeBlanc, to approve the 1995
meeting schedule. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote.
IX. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzadec.94
Rough draft to Clerk 11/23/94
Approved / /94
To Clerk / /94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
ViI %� T' OBOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
4 „ ,11, r,,,November 10, 1994, 7:30 p.m.
''`�F11';1i'G Cl�tr1 -,,..,,November
COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR
1. The meeting was called to order by N. Carlson at 7:35 p.m. Roll call was
taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon H. LeBlanc
M. Clark C. Bicy
E. Spink N. Carlson
B. Excused Absences
G. Hilts
C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. Hearings
A motion was made by M. Clark, seconded by H. LeBlanc, to hear the tabled
items before the regular hearings. Motion carried unanimously on a voice
vote.
A. Tabled Appeal: BZA-3315.94, 325 Lathrop Street
This is a request by Virgil Rowe, owner of 325 Lathrop, to widen his
driveway entrance and provide a front yard parking space for one
vehicle.
J. Ruff presented the case to the Board and passed around pictures of
the parking situation. He stated that the case had been tabled until the
neighborhood group for this area could meet and discuss the situation.
He believes that the group will meet on November 14, 1994.
C. Bicy made a motion that BZA-3315.94 be tabled again, until next month, so
that the input from the neighborhood can be considered. Motion was
supported by H. LeBlanc.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
LeBlanc X Clark X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Spink X Carlson X
Motion tabled: BZA-3315.94 by a vote of 6 to 0.
'BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES November 10, 1994 - Page 2
B. Tabled Appeal: BZA-3316.94, 6130 Lerner Way
This is a request by Robert L. and Ann E. Berger, 6130 Lerner Way,
to construct an S' deep by 32' wide open porch on the front of their
home.
J. Ruff presented the case. He received three communications this
month, and brought a "tally sheet" with him to pass out, indicating who
in the neighborhood supports the BZA and who does not. The
neighbors who sent in the three communications had signed the petition
that was presented at the last meeting. They now wish to recant their
opposition to the case. N. Carlson read the communications into the
record.
-Lucy Helton & Virgil Brown, 6100 Lerner Way, in support.
-Clayton Melch, 6211 Lerner Way, in support.
-Laura Patterson, 6210 Lerner Way, in support.
H. LeBlanc made a motion to hear additional comments to last months
presentation by Mr. Berger. J. Sheldon seconded the motion. The motion
was approved unanimously by a voice vote.
Mr. Robert Berger, owner of 6130 Lerner Way, spoke. He mentioned
that several people who had signed the petition felt that they had been
misinformed. He requested that the Board not base their decision
entirely on the petition.
A motion was made by H. LeBlanc to hear further audience comments which
presented new information only. Seconded by C. Bicy and approved
unanimously by a voice vote.
Pamela Badders, 6137 Lerner Way, addressed the Board. She stated
that she had signed the petition, and did not feel she had been mis-
informed. She stated that she would like to see the rules adhered to,
and asked that the variance not be granted.
Scott Barker, 6145 Lerner Way, spoke. He explained that he is one of
the contractors that estimated the porch job, but that he was never in
line for the job, as he simply bid it to help the Berger's determine
which of their three previous bids was reasonable. He stated that he
was not in favor of the porch from the very first, as he felt that it
stuck too far out in front.
C. Bicy inquired if Mr. Barker had circulated the petition. Mr. Barker stated
that he did, as a favor to another neighbor, carry the petition from house to
house.
John Collins, 6136 Lerner Way, addressed the Board. He stated his
support for the current zoning codes, and said that he didn't feel the
neighborhood needed this porch jutting out into the front yard. He
also stated that he had not been at the October meeting.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy stated that he felt the
porch was a beautiful thing; however, he could not approve the variance in this
particular neighborhood. He suggested that some other alternative be examined.
J. Sheldon stated that she is usually in favor of home improvement, but in this
situation, could not support the variance.
'BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES November 10, 1994 - Page 3
M. Clark asked J. Ruff to clarify the situation. J. Ruff reiterated the code,
explaining that basically, it was the height of the porch and the roof over it
that created the problem.
C. Bicy made a motion that BZA-3316.94, at 6130 Lerner Way, to build an 8'
x 32' porch onto the front of the house, be denied. He also suggested that
they seek other avenues to perhaps build something smaller in front, perhaps
without a roof, or perhaps on the back of the house. Motion seconded by J.
Sheldon.
VOTE• yea nay yea nay
Clark X Sheldon X
Spink X LeBlanc X
Bicy X Carlson X
Motion did not pass.
M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3316.94, at 6130 Lerner Way, on basis
that this is a reasonable request with no negative impacts upon the
development of the neighborhood. Supported by H. LeBlanc.
VOTE• yea nay yea nay
Clark X Sheldon X
Spink X LeBlanc X
Bicy X Carlson X
Motion did not pass: BZA-3316.94 was denied due to the lack of a favorable vote.
C. Tabled Item: BZA-3317.94, 1215 & 1222 E. Michigan Avenue, part 1A
A letter was received by Mr. Vincent of Sparrow Hospital, requesting
that this case continue to be tabled so that they can complete their
review of the comments and concerns expressed by the Board at the
October meeting, and to formulate a response.
H. LeBlanc made a motion that the Board continue to table BZA-3317.94, part
1A, seconded by M. Clark. Motion passed unanimously by a voice vote.
Mr. Vincent spoke to the Board, bringing them up to date on Sparrow's
progress.
D. BZA-3318.94, 2129 Hillcrest St.
This is a request by Bob Hackworth to construct a covered front porch
23' from the front property line at his property at 2129 Hillcrest St.
This is a requested variance of 5.75'.
J. Ruff presented the case. He also notified the Board that the Builder
and the owner had already proceeded with the work, prior to approval
by the Board. The job was red-tagged today, and a letter has been
sent to the applicant.
No one was present to represent the owner or applicant.
H. LeBlanc inquired into the history of this case. J. Ruff detailed the
process, beginning with the initial contact for the building permit to
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES November 10, 1994 - Page 4
construct the porch. The applicant knew that the porch would need a
variance.
E. Spink made a motion that BZA-3318.94 at 2129 Hillcrest be denied. Motion
seconded by J. Sheldon.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X Carlson x
Motion did not carry.
M. Clark made a motion that BZA-3318.94 at 2129 Hillcrest be approved, as
what is being done is not a negative impact. C. Bicy seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Bicy X X
Clark X Spink X
LeBlanc X Carlson X
Motion did not carry: BZA-3318.94 denied due to a lack of favorable votes.
E. BZA-3319.94, 4924 S. Cedar St.
This is a request by Clark Refining and Marketing, Inc. to erect a
canopy over the fueling pumps at their property. A four foot variance
is requested.
J. Ruff presented the case. The Planning Office has concerns about
signs being put on the canopy.
Dallas Thornton, representing Clark Oil, spoke. He told why the
canopy is considered necessary by Clark Oil. One reason is that it
keeps the concrete dry, which is a safety factor. Also, it improves the
lighting. He also stated that Clark Oil's Insurance Company has
recommended the canopy.
C. Bicy made a motion that BZA-3319.94 be denied, based upon the staff
report and that this would set a precedent.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Bicy X Clark X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Spink X
Motion Approved: BZA-3319.94 denied by a vote of 6 to 0.
F. BZA-3320.94, Lot 1, Skyview Subdivision, Cooley Dr.
This is a request by David Kovac to construct a single family residence
at this location. He is requesting a 20' front yard setback variance.
J. Ruff presented the case. This lot is currently undeveloped.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES November 10, 1994 - Page 5
David Kovac, applicant, addressed the Board. He showed a sketch of
the house. He stated that the Zoning official he spoke with, J.
Sturdevant, said that the only way to build anything on the lot was
through a variance.
Mr. Cornelius, 3400 Cooley Dr. , spoke, inquiring why the city
approved a lot of this size in the subdivision, a lot that couldn't be
built on. He made several other comments also.
A communication was read into the record from the neighbors, by the
Board Chair:
--Karen Zarka, 3401 Cooley Drive, opposing the variance request.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole.
H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3320.94, as a hardship exists, in
that the lot is a corner lot, the established setback is quite deep, and the lot
would be unbuildable without the variance. The motion was seconded by E.
Spink.
VOTE. yea nay yea nay
Clark X Spink X
LeBlanc X Sheldon X
Bicy X Carlson X
Motion Approved: BZA-3320.94, approved by a vote of 6 to 0.
G. BZA-3321.94, 3301 S. Waverly Rd.
This is a request by Ernest and Nannie V. Hudson to construct an 8' x
12' rear bedroom addition onto the back of their home. This is a
requested setback variance in the rear yard of 51.
J. Ruff presented the case.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole.
E. Spink made a motion that BZA-3321.94 be approved based upon the
excellent verbal staff report, in that a hardship existed based upon the
location and design of the structure, and that it would not adversely effect
the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Spink X
LeBlanc X Sheldon X
Bicy X Carlson X
Motion Approved: BZA-3321.94, approved by a vote of 6 to 0.
H. BZA-3322.94, 5300 S. Cedar St.
This is a request by NABI Bio Medical Center for a rear yard setback
variance of 514" for the construction of a freezer addition onto the rear
of the building.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES November 10, 1994 - Page 6
J. Ruff presented the staff report. He stated that this property is also
undergoing the rezoning process, from J-Parking to F-Commercial
district, which has staff recommendation for approval. Also, the entire
variance rests upon the pending rezoning of the property; if the
property is not rezoned, the freezer cannot be built at all.
George Swanson, Engineer for the project, appeared before the Board
to answer any questions. He felt that most of what he wanted to say
had already been covered. He also stated that there was an existing
freezer inside the building, but due to new federal storage regulations,
a much larger freezer was necessary, which would be impossible on the
inside of the building.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole.
E. Spink made a motion that BZA-3322.94, 5300 S. Cedar, be approved,
pending rezoning of the property, based upon the excellent staff report given
by Mr. Ruff. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy.
VOTE• yea nay yea nay
Clark X Spink X
LeBlanc X Sheldon X
Bicy X Carlson X
Motion Approved: BZA-3322.94, approved by a vote of 6 to 0.
III. Approval of Minutes
A. October 13, 1994, meeting.
1 C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 13,
1994, meeting. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc, and
carried unanimously by a voice vote.
IV. Excused Absences
A. There was a request for an Excused Absence from G. Hilts, who is ill.
B . E. Spink requested an excused absence for next months meeting, as he
will be out of the country.
A motion was made by M. Clark to approve the excused absences of both G.
Hilts from tonight's meeting and E. Spink from next month's meeting. The
motion was seconded by C. Bicy, and approved unanimously by voice vote.
V. Public Comment
A. None
VI. Old Business
A. Policy and Procedures
1 . We are still waiting for the ethics board on this issue.
BOARD OF ZONING ArPEALS MINUTES November 10, 1994 - Page 7
VII. New Business
A. E. Spink commented upon the role of variances in the construction of
certain projects in the city, more specifically the Sparrow project. M.
Clark also commented on how the Board may under-cut the perceptions
of what people believe.
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
Approved 11/10/94
To Clerk 11/29/94
MINUTES OF TIFF,., t&APPEALS
IJLIR NFEETING
BOARD`AF,'ZO
October��s���''��.,,.,,JNA, t'�: r,�i ,.,,
CITY HALL COUI`G ��Li' iAMBERS LOTH FLOOR LP"'J'' 107 C1 I CLEi 1
I. The meeting was called to order by J. Sheldon at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was
taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon H. LeBlanc
M. Clark C. Bicy
G. Hilts
B. Excused Absences
E. Spink N. Carlson
C. A motion was made by M. Clark to accept the excused absence requests
for N. Carlson and E. Spink. Motion seconded by C. Bicy, and carried
unanimously.
D. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
E. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
D. Witherspoon, Senior Planner
II. Hearings
A. BZA-3315.94, 325 Lathrop Street
This is a request by Virgil Rowe, owner of 325 Lathrop, to widen his
driveway entrance and provide a front yard parking space for one
vehicle.
Virgil Rowe, applicant, spoke, stating that he had lived at this address
for 26 years. He said he has worked with the neighbor lady, that they
have lived with this situation in harmony, but they feel that this is the
only way to deal with it.
Steve Turner, 309 Lathrop, spoke. He stated that he is not exactly in
opposition, but has some concerns to express. He stated that the
neighborhood has improved over the last 7 years, and asks the Board
to move thoughtfully and cautiously, and to consider the ramifications
of front yard parking in this neighborhood.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 13, 1994 - Page 2
M. M. M. Woll, Eastside neighborhood Organization, spoke, neither for
nor against. She wishes to reiterate the neighborhood organization's
desire to be notified of any variance requests which come from the east
side.
J. Ruff read several communications into the record:
D. Morris, 327 Lathrop, supporting the variance.
C. Mendenhall, 322 Lathrop, supporting the variance.
C. Holder, 328 Lathrop, supporting the variance.
N. Warn, 321 Lathrop, supporting the variance.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole, and discussion ensued. C.
Bicy stated that he finds the situation small, close, and feels that there are
too many negative possibilities. M. Clark stated that she also finds many
problems with this variance. She would like to take this issue up after the
neighborhood organization has been notified. With this in mind, she felt that
the variance request should be tabled until next month.
M. Clark made a motion to table BZA-3315.94, until next month, to receive
further comments from the neighborhood organization. Seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
LeBlanc X Clark X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Hilts X
Motion tabled: BZA-3315.94 by a vote of 5 to 0.
B . BZA-3316.94, 6130 Lerner Way
This is a request by Robert L. and Ann E. Berger, 6130 Lerner Way,
to construct an 8' deep by 32' wide open porch on the front of their
home.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
A. Berger, applicant, spoke, re-stating her position. She showed
pictures of homes with similar porches to the one they propose, as well
as pictures of her immediate neighborhood.
R. Kellogg, 6122 Lerner Way, told how she had fallen off the existing
porch, and how a new porch, and porch railing, would be better for
her.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 13, 1994 - Page 3
There were 12 communications read into the record. Of the 12, there
were 6 for the variance, and 4 against, as well as one petition of eleven
signatures against the variance.
M. Bergman, daughter of the Bergers, wrote a letter supporting the
variance.
S. Barker, 6145 Lerner Way, wrote opposed to the variance.
Petition, with 11 signatures, opposed to the variance.
P. Badders, 6137 Lerner Way, opposed to the variance.
J. Collins, 6136 Lerner Way, opposed to the variance.
M. Luea, 6224 Lerner Way, supporting the variance.
J. Borzenski, 6105 Lerner Way, supporting the variance.
D. Greer, 6115 Lerner Way, supporting the variance.
W. Welling, 6129 Lerner Way, supporting the variance.
R. Kellogg, 6122 Lerner Way, supporting the variance.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Some discussion took place.
M. Clark made a motion to table the case for 30 days, until a full board can be
in place to vote on the issue. C. Bicy seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Sheldon X
Hilts X LeBlanc X
Bicy X
Motion Tabled: BZA-3316.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
C. BZA-3317.94, 1215 & 1222 E. Michigan Avenue
This is a request by Robert P. Walsh, Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. ,
representing Sparrow Hospital and Health System, to construct a
pedestrian bridge across the 1200 block of E. Michigan Avenue and
along the Jones Street right-of-way line; an ambulatory care/medical
office building up to the Michigan Avenue and Jones Street right-of-
way line; and a 3.5 level parking garage up to the right-of-way lines
of Holmes and Jones Streets. Also, the proposed building footprint
would cover 58% of the lot area for Sparrow's property in the block
bounded by E. Michigan Avenue, Holmes, Jones, and Eureka Streets.
The Board took a five minute break.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 13, 1994 - Page 4
J. Ruff presented BZA-3317.94, 1215 and 1222 E. Michigan Avenue via
a slide show. The case was broken up into four separate sections, and
several subsections, for clarity.
J. DaMore, CEO of Sparrow Hospital, introduced several people
involved in the project. He then made four points concerning the
proposal. 1) The proposal is consistent with the master site plan that
was presented to City Council; 2) The process is an interactive
process with neighbors and friends, including the Lansing School
District and neighborhood organizations. This has helped take a good
project and make it better; 3) The proposal is consistent with the Boys
Training School plan, the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study,
and responsive to the needs of the neighbors; and 4) Sparrow is
committed to working with the community on this and all projects.
J. Ruff then went back through each part of the proposal. The Board
members asked questions of staff as well as of the petitioner.
M. M. M. Woll, 210 Ferguson, spoke. She stated that she personally
approves the proposal, and feels that this is a good start for
revitalization.
V. Hambrin, 218 Jones, spoke, stating that she also personally
supports the proposal and is happy for the Eureka Street
neighborhood. However, she is concerned for the Holmes/Jones green
spaces.
D. Hyde, 218 Jones, stated that she feels Jones Street should be
closed.
Ms. Fitzpatrick, 224 Holmes St. , stated that she recently moved here
and is not aware of all the background, however, she feels that if the
Jones block is closed, traffic will increase on Holmes Street. Also, she
doesn't like the bridge, as it blocks the view of the Capitol Building.
She hopes that the Board will take all these perspectives into
consideration.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Discussion ensued.
M. Clark made a motion to table part 1A, a 25' variance to the side yard setback on
Jones Street for the proposed parking garage, of BZA-3317.94. Motion seconded by
H. LeBlanc.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Sheldon X
Hilts X LeBlanc X
Bicy X
Motion approved: part 1A of BZA-3317.94 tabled, by a vote of 5 to 0.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 13, 1994 - Page 5
M. Clark made a motion to approve part 1B, a 25' variance to the side yard setback
of Holmes Street for the proposed parking garage, of BZA-3317.94, as there are no
residential homes facing this across Holmes Street. Motion seconded by H. LeBlanc.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
LeBlanc X Sheldon X
Clark X Hilts X
Bicy X
Motion Approved: part 1B of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
M. Clark made a motion to approve parts 2A and 2B of BZA-3317.94 together, being
20' variances' to the front yard setbacks on East Michigan Avenue, on the north and
south sides for the proposed pedestrian bridge, as it is in keeping with the typical
Michigan Avenue commercial setback. C. Bicy seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Clark X
Hilts X Bicy X
LeBlanc X
Motion Approved: parts 2A and 2B of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
M. Clark made a motion to approve part 2C of BZA-3317.94, which is a 25' variance
to the side yard setback on Jones Street for the pedestrian bridge area and is
consistant with the commercial setbacks typical of Michigan Avenue properties, and
it is a reasonable use of the lot. Motion seconded by C. Bicy.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Hilts X
LeBlanc X Sheldon X
Bicy X
Motion Approved: part 2C of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve part 3A of BZA-3317.94, a 20' variance of the
front yard setback on E. Michigan Avenue, on the south side, for the Ambulatory
Care Center/Medical Office Building (ACC/MOB) , as it is commercial frontage, there
are no negative impacts, and the stepped structure is in keeping with code. M.
Clark seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Hilts X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 13, 1994 - Page 6
Motion Approved: part 3A of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
C. Bicy made a motion to approve part 3B of BZA-3317.94, an 18' variance of the
height setback requirement for the ACC/MOB, as it is commercial frontage, there are
no negative impacts, and the stepped structure is in keeping with code. H. LeBlanc
seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X Hilts X
LeBlanc X
Motion Approved: part 3B of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
C. Bicy made a motion to approve part 3C of BZA-3317.94, a 25' variance of the side
yard setback on Jones Street for the ACC/MOB as it is a reasonable use of the lot
area and is consistant with the commercial setbacks typical for Michigan Avenue
properties. M. Clark supported the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Bicy X Clark X
Hilts X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X
Motion Approved: part 3C of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
C. Bicy made a motion to approve part 4 of BZA-3317.94, 8 o variance of the building
lot coverage of the Sparrow property on the south side of Michigan Avenue as
proposed on the plan, as it is a vast improvement of the site. H. LeBlanc supported
the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Hilts X
LeBlanc X Sheldon X
Bicy X
Motion Approved: part 4 of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
III. Approval of Minutes
A. September 8, 1994, meeting.
1 . C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes of the September
8, 1994 meeting, as typed. The motion was seconded by H.
LeBlanc, and carried unanimously.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 13, 1994 - Page 7
IV. Excused Absences
A. See item C under Call to Order, wherein E. Spink and N. Carlson have
already been granted excused absences.
V. Public Comment
A. None
VI. Old Business
A. Joella Britten, Request for re-hearing of BZA-3301.94, 1620 Perkins
Street.
A motion was made by M. Clark, seconded by H. LeBlanc, to deny the
request, as there has been no new information presented. Motion passed
unanimously.
B. Policy and Procedures
1. We are waiting for the ethics board on this issue.
VII. New Business
A. No new business.
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzaoct.94
Approved / /94
To Clerk / /94
C l..,f .r.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
�!+ ` ; k RD OF ZONING APPEALS
�,i� October 13, 1994, 7:30 p.m.
UVNI'S'1C.;�, �__YjAU COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by J. Sheldon at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was
taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon H. LeBlanc
M. Clark C. Bicy
G. Hilts
B. Excused Absences
E. Spink N. Carlson
C. A motion was made by M. Clark to accept the excused absence requests
for N. Carlson and E. Spink. Motion seconded by C. Bicy, and carried
unanimously.
D. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
E. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
D. Witherspoon, Senior Planner
II. Hearings
A. B ZA-3315.94, 325 Lathrop Street
This is a request by Virgil Rowe, owner of 325 Lathrop, to widen his
driveway entrance and provide a front yard parking space for one
vehicle.
Virgil Rowe, applicant, spoke, stating that he had lived at this address
for 26 years. He said he has worked with the neighbor lady, that they
have lived with this situation in harmony, but they feel that this is the
only way to deal with it.
Steve Turner, 309 Lathrop, spoke. He stated that he is not exactly in
opposition, but has some concerns to express. He stated that the
neighborhood has improved over the last 7 years, and asks the Board
to move thoughtfully and cautiously, and to consider the ramifications
of front yard parking in this neighborhood.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 13, 1994 - Page 2
M. M. M. Woll, Eastside neighborhood Organization, spoke, neither for
nor against. She wishes to reiterate the neighborhood organization's
desire to be notified of any variance requests which come from the east
side.
J. Ruff read several communications into the record:
D. Morris, 327 Lathrop, supporting the variance.
C. Mendenhall, 322 Lathrop, supporting the variance.
C. Holder, 328 Lathrop, supporting the variance.
N. Warn, 321 Lathrop, supporting the variance.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole, and discussion ensued. C.
Bicy stated that he finds the situation small, close, and feels that there are
too many negative possibilities. M. Clark stated that she also finds many
problems with this variance. She would like to take this issue up after the
neighborhood organization has been notified. With this in mind, she felt that
the variance request should be tabled until next month.
M. Clark made a motion to table BZA-3315.94, until next month, to receive
further comments from the neighborhood organization. Seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
LeBlanc X Clark X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Hilts X
Motion tabled: BZA-3315.94 by a vote of 5 to 0.
B. BZA-3316.94, 6130 Lerner Way
This is a request by Robert L. and Ann E. Berger, 6130 Lerner Way,
to construct an 8' deep by 32' wide open porch on the front of their
home.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
A. Berger, applicant, spoke, re-stating her position. She showed
pictures of homes with similar porches to the one they propose, as well
as pictures of her immediate neighborhood.
R. Kellogg, 6122 Lerner Way, told how she had fallen off the existing
porch, and how a new porch, and porch railing, would be better for
her.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 13, 1994 - Page 3
There were 12 communications read into the record. Of the 12, there
were 6 for the variance, and 4 against, as well as one petition of eleven
signatures against the variance.
M. Bergman, daughter of the Bergers, wrote a letter supporting the
variance.
S. Barker, 6145 Lerner Way, wrote opposed to the variance.
Petition, with 11 signatures, opposed to the variance.
P. Badders, 6137 Lerner Way, opposed to the variance.
J. Collins, 6136 Lerner Way, opposed to the variance.
M. Luea, 6224 Lerner Way, supporting the variance.
J. Borzenski, 6105 Lerner Way, supporting the variance.
D. Greer, 6115 Lerner Way, supporting the variance.
W. Welling, 6129 Lerner Way, supporting the variance.
R. Kellogg, 6122 Lerner Way, supporting the variance.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Some discussion took place.
M. Clark made a motion to table the case for 30 days, until a full board can be
in place to vote on the issue. C. Bicy seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Sheldon X
Hilts X LeBlanc X
Bicy X
Motion Tabled: BZA-3316.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
C. BZA-3317.94, 1215 & 1222 E. Michigan Avenue
This is a request by Robert P. Walsh, Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. ,
representing Sparrow Hospital and Health System, to construct a
pedestrian bridge across the 1200 block of E. Michigan Avenue and
along the Jones Street right-of-way line; an ambulatory care/medical
office building up to the Michigan Avenue and Jones Street right-of-
way line; and a 3.5 level parking garage up to the right-of-way lines
of Holmes and Jones Streets. Also, the proposed building footprint
would cover 58% of the lot area for Sparrow's property in the block
bounded by E. Michigan Avenue, Holmes, Jones, and Eureka Streets.
The Board took a five minute break.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 13, 1994 - Page 4
J. Ruff presented BZA-3317.94, 1215 and 1222 E. Michigan Avenue via
a slide show. The case was broken up into four separate sections, and
several subsections, for clarity.
J. DaMore, CEO of Sparrow Hospital, introduced several people
involved in the project. He then made four points concerning the
proposal. 1) The proposal is consistent with the master site plan that
was presented to City Council; 2) The process is an interactive
process with neighbors and friends, including the Lansing School
District and neighborhood organizations. This has helped take a good
project and make it better; 3) The proposal is consistent with the Boys
Training School plan, the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study,
and responsive to the needs of the neighbors; and 4) Sparrow is
committed to working with the community on this and all projects.
J. Ruff then went back through each part of the proposal. The Board
members asked questions of staff as well as of the petitioner.
M. M. M. Woll, 210 Ferguson, spoke. She stated that she personally
approves the proposal, and feels that this is a good start for
revitalization.
V. Hambrin, 218 Jones, spoke, stating that she also personally
supports the proposal and is happy for the Eureka Street
neighborhood. However, she is concerned for the Holmes/Jones green
spaces.
D. Hyde, 218 Jones, stated that she feels Jones Street should be
closed.
Ms. Fitzpatrick, 224 Holmes St. , stated that she recently moved here
and is not aware of all the background, however, she feels that if the
Jones block is closed, traffic will increase on Holmes Street. Also, she
doesn't like the bridge, as it blocks the view of the Capitol Building.
She hopes that the Board will take all these perspectives into
consideration.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Discussion ensued.
M. Clark made a motion to table part 1A, a 25' variance to the side yard setback on
Jones Street for the proposed parking garage, of BZA-3317.94. Motion seconded by
H. LeBlanc.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Sheldon X
Hilts X LeBlanc X
Bicy X
Motion approved: part 1A of BZA-3317.94 tabled, by a vote of 5 to 0.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 13, 1994 - Page 5
M. Clark made a motion to approve part 1B, a 25' variance to the side yard setback
of Holmes Street for the proposed parking garage, of BZA-3317.94, as there are no
residential homes facing this across Holmes Street. Motion seconded by H. LeBlanc.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
LeBlanc X Sheldon X
Clark X Hilts X
Bicy X
Motion Approved: part 1B of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
M. Clark made a motion to approve parts 2A and 2B of BZA-3317.94 together, being
20' variances' to the front yard setbacks on East Michigan Avenue, on the north and
south sides for the proposed pedestrian bridge, as it is in keeping with the typical
Michigan Avenue commercial setback. C. Bicy seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Clark X
Hilts X Bicy X
LeBlanc X
Motion Approved: parts 2A and 2B of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
M. Clark made a motion to approve part 2C of BZA-3317.94, which is a 25' variance
to the side yard setback on Jones Street for the pedestrian bridge area and is
consistant with the commercial setbacks typical of Michigan Avenue properties, and
it is a reasonable use of the lot. Motion seconded by C. Bicy.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Hilts X
LeBlanc X Sheldon X
Bicy X
Motion Approved: part 2C of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve part 3A of BZA-3317.94, a 20' variance of the
front yard setback on E. Michigan Avenue, on the south side, for the Ambulatory
Care Center/Medical Office Building (ACC/MOB) , as it is commercial frontage, there
are no negative impacts, and the stepped structure is in keeping with code. M.
Clark seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Hilts X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 13, 1994 - Page 6
Motion Approved: part 3A of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
C. Bicy made a motion to approve part 3B of BZA-3317.94, an 18' variance of the
height setback requirement for the ACC/MOB, as it is commercial frontage, there are
no negative impacts, and the stepped structure is in keeping with code. H. LeBlanc
seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X Hilts X
LeBlanc X
Motion Approved: part 3B of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
C. Bicy made a motion to approve part 3C of BZA-3317.94, a 25' variance of the side
yard setback on Jones Street for the ACC/MOB as it is a reasonable use of the lot
area and is consistant with the commercial setbacks typical for Michigan Avenue
properties. M. Clark supported the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Bicy X Clark X
Hilts X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X
Motion Approved: part 3C of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
C. Bicy made a motion to approve part 4 of BZA-3317.94, 8 o variance of the building
lot coverage of the Sparrow property on the south side of Michigan Avenue as
proposed on the plan, as it is a vast improvement of the site. H. LeBlanc supported
the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Hilts X
LeBlanc X Sheldon X
Bicy X
Motion Approved: part 4 of BZA-3317.94, by a vote of 5 to 0.
III. Approval of Minutes
A. September 8, 1994, meeting.
1. C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes of the September
8, 1994 meeting, as typed. The motion was seconded by H.
LeBlanc, and carried unanimously.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 13, 1994 - Page 7
IV. Excused Absences
A. See item C under Call to Order, wherein E. Spink and N. Carlson have
already been granted excused absences.
V. Public Comment
A. None
VI. Old Business
A. Joella Britten, Request for re-hearing of BZA-3301.94, 1620 Perkins
Street.
A motion was made by M. Clark, seconded by H. LeBlanc, to deny the
request, as there has been no new information presented. Motion passed
unanimously.
B. Policy and Procedures
1. We are waiting for the ethics board on this issue.
VII. New Business
A. No new business.
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzaoct.94
Approved 10/13/94
To Clerk 10/19/94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
�U .I; "-`' ` ' September 8, 1994, 7:30 p.m.
. ,C3�b-t,,HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOTH FLOOR
LA''"?N'•.� Gi., , �L`r.A
I. The meeting was called to order by Chair N. Carlson at 7:30 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
A. Present
N. Carlson J. Sheldon
M. Clark E. Spink
G. Hilts C. Bicy (7:36 p.m. arrival)
H. LeBlanc
B . Excused Absences
C. A quorum of Six, and then Seven, members was present, allowing
voting action to be taken at the meeting.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
J. Sturdevant, Senior Planner
E. Approval of Agenda
Dr. Spink made a motion to suspend the new agenda items, and to take
the tabled hearings first, in the order in which they were received. H.
LeBlanc supported the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
II. Hearings
A. BZA-3301.94, 1620 Perkins Street
This is a request by Joella Britten, owner of 1620 Perkins, to convert
a portion of the building to be used as a coin laundry. Including the
market, a total of 8 parking spaces are required by Sections
1284.13(c) (12) and (20) of the Zoning Code. Four (4) parking spaces
exist on site which backs up directly onto the street. A variance of
four (4) spaces is requested.
F— Rev. Bicy arrived at 7:36 p.m.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole, and discussion ensued.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 2
M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3301.94, on the basis that the code is not
causing a hardship on this property, and there is no basis for granting this
appeal.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Clark X Sheldon X
Hilts X Bicy X
Spink X
Motion denied: BZA-3301.94 by a vote of 6 to 1.
B. BZA-3305.94, 309 W. Oakland Avenue
This is a request by Wright Pendleton, 309 W. Oakland, to construct a
20' x 20' detached garage in the rear of his yard. To do this, he needs
a 17 foot setback variance to Section 1248.03(b)(7) of the Zoning Code.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Discussion took place.
Dr. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3305.94, motion seconded by M. Clark.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Sheldon X
Hilts X Spink X
LeBlanc X Carlson X
Bicy X
Motion approved: BZA-3305.94, by a vote of 7 to 0.
C. BZA-3306.94, 3240 E. Saginaw Street
This is a request by Marshall Music to mount a 42 sq. ft. wall sign on
the northeast corner of their building at 3240 E. Saginaw. This is a
variance to Section 1442.13, for a fourth wall sign and an additional 30
sq. ft. of signage total.
J. Ruff presented the case, stressing that the sign would be the bugle
boy logo, and would contain no verbiage. However, due to the size and
location desired for display, it does fall under Signage. As part of the
proposal, a variance had been granted last year regarding a rear
entrance sign. The size of that sign would be reduced by 8 sq ft, and
the extra square footage would be applied to this sign.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 3
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy questioned the
amount of wall signage they had at their previous location, and how much
signage was granted in their last variance request. E. Spink stated that he
felt a sign was necessary to identify the entrance. It was felt that Marshall
Music showed a good faith effort in voluntarily reducing the amount of signage
for the already granted rear entrance sign, as well as agreeing to never apply
for a ground pole sign.
C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3306.94, as requested. H. LeBlanc
seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Sheldon X
Hilts X Spink X
LeBlanc X Bicy X
Carlson X
Motion APPROVED: BZA-3306.94, by a vote of 7 to 0.
D. BZA-3307.94, 6300 Rosedale Road
Barry Gaukel, of 6300 Rosedale Road, has withdrawn his request to
construct a 24' x 34' detached storage building in the rear yard, and
requests a refund of his application fee.
E. Spink wanted to state that this board has no authority to grant the
refund of application fees.
N. Carlson read the letter requesting withdrawal of the variance by Mr.
Gaukel. J. Ruff stated that the appellant could file with the City
Attorney's office for his refund.
The board cannot refund the application fee, but it can accept his
withdrawal. E. Spink made a motion to do that, and M. Clark seconded
the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
LeBlanc X Carlson X
Sheldon X Clark X
Spink X Hilts
Bicy X
Motion Approved: BZA-3307.94, by a vote of 7 to 0.
E. BZA-3308.94, 5133 S. Washington Rd.
This is a request by Tracy Dilley to enclose part of the property with
an 8' high wooden fence. This is a requested variance of 5' and 2'
respectively, in the front, side, and rear yards, to Section 1292.03.
80ARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 4
J. Ruff spoke, presenting the case. The neighboring commercial
properties would be screened from the adjoining neighborhood by the
fence. Letters of support were presented from the neighbors. The
staff felt that the situation was quite unique, and not necessarily
precedent setting.
M. Clark made a motion that BZA-3308.94 be approved for an 8' fence on the
north and west sides of the property. She added that she normally would not
support such a variance, but due to the location of the property adjacent to
the commercial uses and a busy intersection, she felt that it does serve to
buffer the neighborhood and the residential area and act as a protectant.
Motion seconded by E. Spink.
E. Spink stated that he also would not normally support such a variance,
however, as long as the motion was to approve, he felt that the lattice work
should be added all around. This was not supported by the motion.
H. LeBlanc also stated that she supports only because of the unique location,
and that she only supports the 8' on north and west side.
J. Sheldon repeated the previous comments, and mentioned that the
appearance of the fence is striking. However, she indicated that she wanted
a statement included in the motion which clearly announced that this would not
be a precedent setting situation, as the situation was unique.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Clark X
Spink X Hilts X
Bicy X Carlson X
LeBlanc X
Motion Approved: BZA-3308.94, by a vote of 6 to 1.
F. BZA-3309.94, 834 Brad Street
This is a request by McCarthy Construction, on behalf of the owners
of 834 Brad Street, to install a 10' x 20' front porch with a roof having
a 30' front yard setback. This is a requested variance of 10' from
Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code.
J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the construction of the
porch was completed prior to the hearing of the case, and although the
staff was dismayed that they did this, they still feel that the porch
would not adversely affect adjoining properties, or the neighborhood,
indeed, they feel that it is a nice improvement to the home. They also
are discussing with Mr. McCarthy his premature construction of the
porch. Mr. Ruff states that Mr. McCarthy has been before the Board
of Zoning Appeals before, and is aware of the procedure.
J. Ruff read into the record a letter sent to the Board by Mr.
McCarthy, which detailed the history of the building of this porch.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 5
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. N. Carlson stated that she had
seen the porch, and found it very attractive. She also stated that Mr. McCarthy had
done contractual work for her and her husband.
J. Ruff mentioned that if N. Carlson intended to abstain from the vote, due to her
comments, then a motion must be made. H. Leblanc made a motion to excuse N.
Carlson from the vote, and M. Clark seconded the motion. The motion carried on a
voice vote, by a vote of 6 to 0.
C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3309.94, seconded by M. Clark.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
Motion Approved: BZA-3309.94, by a vote of 6 to 0, with one abstention.
The Board took a 10 minute break.
G. BZA-3310.94, 1913 Dell Road
This is a request by Lauren Tingay to construct a 24' x 36' detached
storage building in the rear yard. This is a variance to Section
1248.03(b)(2) , for 1,590 square feet of storage where only 1000 to
square feet are allowed.
J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that the appellant wished
to purchase a prefabricated building to place on his lot to operate a
hobby shop, for his wood working hobby. Staff has no objection to the
operation of a hobby shop, or an accessory structure for that use.
However, staff does not feel that they can support that much excess
square footage for an accessory structure.
Mr Tingay addressed the Board, stating that the building was a
portable classroom, needing only pillar foundations. It has a wood
floor. He now works in a small area of his two-car garage.
E. Spink asked which items Mr. Tingay made for sale. He responded
that he made picture frames, cabinets, or most anything people asked
him to build, but mostly he worked for family members and neighbors;
he's not making any money on this.
C. Bicy asked how many hours Mr. Tingay spends, per day or per
week, in the shop. He stated that he spent 12 to 16 hours per day, five
days a week, sometimes six. Rev. Bicy then asked what items he made
the most of. Mr. Tingay said that he had made a library desk for his
church two weeks ago. This, Mr. Tingay stated, took him and the guy
who works with him from the church on these projects, 12 hours a day,
five days a week getting the project done. C. Bicy inquired what other
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 6
projects he does the most. He then clarified his question by explaining
that, to him, the type of woodworking that is being done would dictate
how much space was necessary. Mr. Tingay responded that he does a
lot of cabinets and a lot of picture frames. He also stated that this
building would be large enough to close off one area for a finishing
room. He said that his daughter has an arts and crafts business, and
she cuts out articles at his shop. The dust that gets in the air from his
and from his daughters cutting gets on pieces being finished, which is
why he wants to make a finishing room.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that he fails to see
that any hardship or practical difficulty has been demonstrated, which would give
the Board the authority to authorize the appeal. J. Sheldon stated that she would
be voting against the appeal, due to the amount of square footage being requested,
as she feels this is simply too large for an "A" Residential area. There were no other
comments.
G. Hilts made a motion to deny BZA-3310.94, based on the fact that no hardship or
practical difficulty has been demonstrated, seconded by E. Spink.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
Motion Approved: BZA-3310.94 has been denied, by a vote of 7 to 0.
H. BZA-3311.94, 301 N. Sycamore Street
This is a request by Victoria S. Earhart to construct an attached
garage onto the west side of the house. This is a variance to the rear
and side yard setback requirements, Section 1256.08 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
J. Ruff presented the case. This property has been converted from a
five family structure to a single family structure. It is located on a
corner lot. Staff does not feel the addition of an attached garage to
this property would create an adverse impact on the neighborhood,
either through improper vehicular or pedestrian traffic or through size
and/or character of the structure, and staff feels that it is reasonable
given the lot size and layout of the structure on the property.
E. Spink inquired if any garage would require a variance. J. Ruff
answered that a larger detached garage could be built without a
variance.
V. Earhart, owner of 301 N. Sycamore, spoke. She presented pictures,
and told some of the history of the house. She stated that, when they
bought the house, it was a five unit, which had been cited by the city.
The previous owners had been told to bring it up to code or it would be
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 7
condemned. She also stated that she and her husband were very
concerned with maintaining the historical integrity of the property, as
well as harmony with the neighborhood, both on Sycamore and on Ionia.
She told of their desire to remove the Sycamore driveway, and move the
drive to Ionia Street.
M. Clark asked how they proposed to maintain the yard at the 2' space
at the north side of the garage. V. Earhart replied that it would be
done with weedwacker, clippers, etc. ; M. Clark enquired as to why the
garage couldn't be moved forward to allow a larger setback. Ms.
Earhart replied that it was positioned so that the neighbor could get the
amount of sunlight that she now gets.
E. Spink asked whether the removal of the drive would include removal
of the curb cut. Ms. Earhart was not sure, but felt that all the
concrete would be removed.
C. Bicy inquired whether enlarging the north setback up even one foot
wouldn't make maintenance easier. Ms. Earhart replied that she was not
the builder in the family, but felt that perhaps they could reduce the
depth of the garage by one foot. Additional discussion took place
concerning the narrow setback, and how the fire department and
building safety would feel about this.
M. Clark stated that she felt the setback must be modified, from two
feet to three feet or larger, or she would not be able to support the
variance.
E. Spink also said that he would not be able to support anything less
than a three foot setback.
S. Whitbeck, 620 W. Ionia, stated that she felt further development in
this area would definitely be beneficially, and would be a beacon for
downtown development, and would encourage a positive vote by the
B oard.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that he would
support if the setback were enlarged to three feet on the north side.
N. Carlson read two communications into the record. The first is a letter from
Colleen McNamara, of 712 W. Ionia. She lives directly behind 301 N. Sycamore, and
states that she opposes the 21' rear yard setback variance, as it backs up to her
home, which has a bank of large dining room windows and a window seat on the side
which would look out on the (proposed) garage, would block the light into the dining
room and the view of the capital dome that they currently have. She is also
concerned with water runoff. She does admire and is enthusiastic about the plans
the new owners have for the property. The other communication was a phone call
from Patricia Darrow, 307 N. Sycamore, who stated that she is the immediate
neighbor to the north, who wishes that there were more land to erect the garage,
but lacking the space, still supports the variance to build the garage.
E. Spink stated that he thinks that an attached garage is a reasonable request, that
he feels that a garage in lieu of the current surface parking was an advantage,
and he made a motion to approve, with conditions, BZA-3311.94, with a variance of
3.6' from the side yard (north) setback, and 21' from the rear yard setback, that
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 8
the hardsurfaced driveway on Sycamore Street be removed, the curb be replaced,
and further, that downspouts be placed in such a way and grading be done so that
water run off is directed away from adjoining property. Seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
Motion Approved: BZA-3311.94 passed, with conditions, by a vote of 7 to 0.
I. BZA-3312.94, 2323 E. Michigan Avenue
This is a request by Jon and Roseann Zumbrink, for a variance of 10
parking spaces for a Submarine Shop. This is in variance to Section
1284.13(c)(6) of the Zoning Code.
J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that there are presently
18 parking spaces on the site, where 28 spaces are required. Staff
feels that, because the business is primarily carry out, parking
turnover is going to be high, and approving this variance would not
create an unnecessary burden to the surrounding area. However, staff
does request screening and buffering be done between the property
and the neighborhood.
J. Zumbrink, owner, stated that the property was purchased a year
ago, and that they have been looking for a suitable tenant. They
recently signed with a company out of Detroit, Tubby's Submarine
Sandwiches. He stated that the site had been cleaned up, some repairs
had been made to the building, that a fence was in the works, and
several trees on the lot line would be coming down.
N. Carlson read a letter from the Eastside Neighborhood Organization,
which stated that they had done a survey of the commercial and
residential residents in the neighborhood. With only a request to make
sure that adequate buffering and screening be mandatory, they
support the addition of a Tubby's Sandwich shop at this location.
E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3312.94, with the condition that screening
and buffering be added; the motion was seconded by M. Clark.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
Motion Approved: BZA-3312.94 passed, with conditions, by a vote of 7 to 0.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 9
J. BZA-3313.94, 6501 S. Cedar Street, Cedar St. frontage
This is an appeal by Wolverine Development Corporation of the Zoning
Administrators decision to permit construction of two billboard sign
structures under Section 1442.22 of the Codified Ordinances of the City
of Lansing.
Because this is an appeal of the Zoning Administrators decision, J. Ruff
stated that he would not try to interpret the case, but simply state the
facts. The applicant has made an argument that billboard signs should
be considered ground pole signs because they are not specifically
excluded from the ground pole sign definition, and since they are not
excluded, should be considered as ground pole signs. All of the paper
work which was submitted is included in the staff report. As J. Ruff
understands it, the sign code's intention was to separate out types of
advertising, with ground pole sign advertising primarily dealing with
on site advertising. If it's not on-premise advertising, it's off-premise
advertising, and then is considered a billboard. If a billboard
advertises on-premise items, it is then considered a ground pole sign,
and must follow those regulations. As such, the request was for a
billboard, and a billboard is defined as a sign that advertises products
and/or services that are produced off-premise. In following the
regulations found for billboards, these signs that were constructed in
particular for BZA-3313 and BZA-3314, were constructed in accordance
with those regulations of the billboard section of the ordinance. The
property is zoned "F" commercial, and consists of two separate parcels,
one parcel on Cedar St. and one on Pennsylvania Avenue. They are not
one parcel, even though the billboard regulation does not state that you
cannot be; the regulation states that they must be 400' apart when they
are on the same side of the road. These lots are on opposing streets,
they are two lots, they have common ownership though, and common
use. This was done years ago, and was not done specifically to erect
these billboards. We do not state in the regulations that there can be
only one billboard per site. The "F" Commercial District requires a 20'
setback, as stated in the billboard section of the ordinance, billboards
must comply with the setback requirements of the zoning district in
which they are located. The billboards as proposed have a 20' setback,
to the front edge of the sign, so they do meet that criteria. They meet
all the other criteria in the sign code. In conclusion, J. Ruff stated
that the two regulations were intended to act separately from one
another, and the appellants application, in his opinion, is unfounded.
T. Burchman, Wolverine Development, requested additional time to
speak, on behalf of legal council which is there with him. He brought
along a visual, which he passed around.
J. Ruff inquired if the Board would like to honor Mr. Burchman's
request for additional time. E. Spink proposed that the Chair allow the
standard time, then extensions could be evaluated as necessary. Chair
concurred.
T. Burchman, Wolverine Development, stating that they own
approximately 20 businesses on the corridor between S. Cedar and S.
Pennsylvania Avenue: Six of these are restaurants, employing around
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 10
100 people. They pay $200,000 annually in taxes to the City of
Lansing. Our tenants follow all the local zoning and setback guidelines,
as well as the signage regulations. In addition, our tenants, especially
the restaurants, must conform to numerous and overlapping regulations
imposed by the Fire Marshall, County Health Department, and the city
inspectors, just to name a few. Why should a major, national
corporation like Adams get an advantage over local businesses. If our
tenants had tried to erect similar signs such as these at their
businesses, they would have been denied a permit. We succeed when
and if our tenants succeed. Retail businesses live, die, or succeed,
based on their signage, building identification, access, service, and
the resulting image they project on the community. We maintain that
the visual clutter of billboards advertising off-property merchandise or
services hurts small retail businesses. Billboards may distract and
confuse patrons of businesses adjacent to those billboards.
Restaurants such as F1apJack and Rally's depend in large part on
impulse customers, who make their decision on whether to eat there or
somewhere else, based on seeing the business. Billboard clutter
virtually guarantees that fewer people will see us. We are asking you
tonight to lend your support to our efforts to enforce the state, which
Adams ignored to erect the two billboards in question. We further ask
you to lend your support to enforce the sign ordinance to put billboards
on the same or equal footing with business properties and their ground
pole signs. Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, I firmly believe
that if you don't stop these billboard installations at this place, at this
time, you will see billboards erected in the City of Lansing,
approximately every 400' along major arterials. Thank you.
K. Brooks, council to Wolverine Development: If this appeal is denied,
the Board would be supporting the position that billboard companies,
such as Adams, have greater rights than local property, business
owners. We ask the board to challenge them tonight, seeing as their
here, to provide any explanation why that should be the case. I ask
staff to acknowledge, to the board, that there are inconsistencies in the
sign code. I'm going to give some history of the permits, stating that
the applications were submitted for two billboard signs, one to front on
South Pennsylvania Avenue and one to front on South Cedar Street.
These signs are less than 300' apart, and staff has pointed out that
they are on two different parcels; in reality, they are on one parcel,
with two different tax ID numbers, but the Regency Inn sits on both of
those parcels and these two signs are less than 300' apart, even though
they face two different roads. These signs both are 35' high, they
cover 672 square feet of space, and the stanchions themselves are 36"
in diameter. The 672 sq ft that they cover are approximately four times
larger than what a business or property owner can erect on their
property to advertise their business. Over almost four times larger.
We became aware of this situation on August 17 when a construction
crew showed up to begin erecting the sign. Wolverine immediately
expressed their concerns to Adams representatives, and I believe at
that time it was Melissa Swann and Ron Haas, as well as to Mr. Ruff.
On August 18 we contacted Adams and advised that Wolverine intended
to appeal the permits, and requested that they cease from construction
of the signs until the appeal could be resolved. The next day, on
August 19, we again spoke with Adams, I spoke with Mr. Ron Haas, and
I advised him that an appeal was going to be filed that day and that the
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 11
Zoning Code called for a stay once the appeal was filed. Mr. Haas, who
is here tonight, responded to me by stating that it would take much
more than a stay from the City to stop Adams from erecting these signs.
I think that's a telling point. At that point, there was one stanchion
that had been laid. At this point, both signs have now been erected.
The appeal was filed on Friday the 19th, and by that point only one
stanchion had been installed, nothing more. On Monday, the planning
department dispatched a field person to the site to instruct Adams to
discontinue the construction of the signs pending the appeal, and I
would refer you to the Zoning Code, which provides, at 1244.03(d)*,
". . .an appeal shall stay all proceedings and furtherance of the action
appealed from, unless the Division certifies to the Board after the
notice of appeal is filed, that by reason of facts stated in a Division
certificate, a stay would, in the opinion of the Division, cause imminent
peril to life or property." We didn't have that situation here. The
appeal resulted in a stay, the field representative went out and asked
Adams to cease until the appeal could be heard tonight. Adams ignored
that, they thumbed their noses at the Code. And they are thumbing
their noses I believe, at you, in light of that. They stand here with
unclean hands, they violated the ordinance, they put these signs up
under suspended permits, pending this appeal. The argument here is
much broader than staff would indicate, in terms of simply whether or
not this meets a definition of a yard pole sign, but I would like to
address some provisions in the Sign Code which I think will make
apparent what our position is. The Sign Code generally indicates that
any sign must meet the Sign Code requirements set forth in the code.
I'd like to read you a couple of definitions from Section 1442.02; it
defines a ground pole sign as "a sign which is supported by one or more
poles, uprights or braces in or upon the ground, which are not part of
a building." Period. That is the definition of a ground pole sign. It
says nothing about advertising on premises, it says nothing about
advertising off premises. If you look at this photograph, this sign
meets the definition of a ground pole sign. It is a sign supported by
one or more poles, uprights, or braces in or upon the ground, which
are not part of a building; it meets that definition. Our position is if
it meets that definition it should obviously have to comply with the
ground pole sign requirements set forth in the code. Now granted, it
also meets the definition of a billboard. However, the billboard
requirements set forth in the Sign Code are much more liberal. They
give more rights to non-property owners that property owners don't
have. It's our position that where you have two provisions that deal
with the same issue, the more stringent requirements should apply.
It's the only fair way to do it, because to say otherwise would be to say
"you as a business owner or property owner, you must comply with
these stringent requirements in terms of size, location, dimension of
your sign; however, if you want to have a billboard erected, or if
Adams Outdoor Advertising wants to come in and erect a billboard, you
can build a 672 square foot sign. In a minute I'm gonna give you some
examples of how ludicrous that type of an interpretation would be.
N. Carlson: Excuse me
K. Brooks: Yes.
N. Carlson: At this time, your time is up.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 12
K. Brooks: I would ask for an additional five minutes, since this is our
two appeals combined, I would ask for just a few more minutes, if I
may.
N. Carlson: I would have to go to the Board on that one, because it's
been 10 minutes for two speakers, so your additional time has been
granted. Is there a motion to extend the time?
At this time, E. Spink stated that he so moved, H. LeBlanc seconded,
and the motion to grant more time to Mr. Brooks was passed
unanimously by a voice vote.
K. Brooks: As I stated, this sign, in no uncertain terms meets the
definition of a yard pole sign. However, Adams has not complied with
the yard pole sign requirements. To give you a couple of examples of
how there is no logic or rational basis for the disparate treatment
between property and business owners in terms of their signage, and
Adams Outdoor Advertising or other companies of like ilk, for their
signage, would be that the F1apJack Shack, which is located adjacent
to these signs, could actually go and lease space on these billboards
from Adams, and advertise their business, saying something like,
Flapjack Shack, Stop Here, rather than have their small, more
restrictive sign. The other thing they could do, that property owners
could do, that actually own the property, they could divide a portion
of that property, and actually then lease it to Adams Outdoor
Advertising; it's no longer on their property, so arguably a billboard
could be constructed there, to advertise again, essentially on premises
activities. So those are examples of how illogical it is to have this
disparate treatment. We're asking you, and again, if you deny this
appeal, I think what you're doing is supporting the proposition that
billboard owners have greater rights in terms of signage than property
and business owners who operate on a daily basis here. What we're
asking you to do is grant this appeal, revoke the permit, permanently,
in order that the unlawful signs that have been put up in defiance of
the code, under suspended permits, be removed. We think that's the
just thing to do under these circumstances. And we think it's
supported by the sign code. Thank you very much.
N. Carlson: Thank you Mr. Brooks. Are there any questions? Seeing
none then, is there anyone else that would like to address this issue?
S. Purkiss, Manager of Flapjack Shack Restaurant: I have in front of
me 152 names that I've collected on petition, against this thing. Also,
our building is set back from Cedar quite a ways, and people can't see
it as it is. You have two signs, a sign in front, it's not in the way of
the roadway, where people are going to look at that rather than look at
the sign. Also, the city ordinance said they had to stop, and they did
not. When we first opened the restaurant, we asked to have a bigger
sign, a little higher, and we were refused that. If we were to go ahead
and do it, we would be told to stop, and of course if we didn't, what
would happen then? We employ 50 people at each store, we have two
stores in Lansing. And, I guess I'm gonna make it kinda short cause
its getting kinda late at night, but I would ask you grant that they
would not have these signs.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 13
N. Carlson: Thank you very much, Mr. Purkiss. Is there anyone else?
T. Bengtson: My name is Tom Bengtson, and I'm here to represent
Adams Outdoor Advertising Company. Contrary to the view expressed
by Wolverine representative's, as far as we are concerned, and the City
Attorney is here, and the other officials who are planning with the
situation, there was no permit which was suspended, by any city
official. City Officials, and we'll defer to your staff people, they were
present when these billboards were being erected and constructed on
the site, and they were there throughout the entire process as we went
from step one to step two to step three to step four. So, we went ahead
and completed the project. We were acting pursuant to approved
applications to erect both billboards. Now, counsel for Wolverine mis-
characterizes what was stated to Mr. Haas; if Wolverine were disturbed
by what was going on at the site, and they had no stay from either the
City Attorney, or from other City of Lansing officials, in the building
department or planning department. There's a place called the Circuit
Court, that's where lawyers go when they don't get relief otherwise.
Now, had he obtained one, from one of the Circuit Court judges, and
presented that to Mr. Haas, we immediately stop work. That's an order
of the court. If the City of Lansing had presented a stay to Mr. Haas
and Adams, that would have been the end of it. That wasn't done in
this case, so, Wolverine is painting Adams as a defiant, selfish entity,
and I'm here to submit that it's not either. either stay's as
authorized by the State or the City. That did not happen here.
Rather, Adams Outdoor Advertising, they paint us as this
conglomerate, something in the area of GM or AT&T, we complied with
the code requirements of the City. They were processed through the
City of Lansing, and approved. I believe the date was August 3, that's
somewhere in the area of two weeks after the application was filed.
Approximately two weeks later is when we commenced construction of
these two billboards, and I want to be sure that you appreciate,
construction was not commenced at 2:00 in the morning, when everyone
in the city was asleep; there was no clandestine cover-up on the part
of Adams Outdoor. This processing of the application wasn't done over
the counter in 10 minutes, and we blew people away with our
application. This was carefully, completely examined, by people on the
staff here, the Planning Commission and the Building Commission.
After they completed their review and approved it, there was a two
week lag, to where we commenced our erection of the two billboards.
Now, if it fits, or it won't rain, they try to reference it to you people,
who are going to decide this appeal. I want to ask you to consider this
400' distance between signs on the same side of the road. Now, that's
what the ordinance requires. In their presentation, their brief, they
talk about 400 feet is the requirement, and Adams violated the spirit of
the ordinance; now, I'm not talking about the express language of the
ordinance. They pick and choose. If it fits Wolverine, in an effort to
cause trouble for Adams, they say its one thing. If it goes the other
way, they disregard it. I want to underscore the benefit of staff from
the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator; in a sense, Adams
has a vested interest in this, so too does Wolverine. But the one that's
supposed to be serving you is the Planning Commission and the Zoning
Administrator. You've heard the comments made, and we, in fact,
agree with the comments offered by the Zoning Administrator. With
regard to the 35' height, and the 672' maximum size of the structure,
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 14
that's what the code permits, we didn't violate the code. We didn't
push it to 685'. With regard to the alleged blockage, I went out there
to inspect it, and in my own view, there was no blockage. But I want
to highlight for you, and you can check with your staff, that's not a
consideration under the code, whether in fact it did block it, the view
of another existing structure such as Flapjack's. That's not critical,
that's not even a factor, but assuming that you want to consider that,
I respectfully submit, this sign is 17, 18 feet off the ground, and as
you approach it as a motorist, you can look under it and you can see the
signage of these other businesses. So I would respectfully ask you to
deny the appeal, because Adams acted properly and lawfully, and fully
complied with the Zoning Ordinance of the City. Are there any
questions?
N. Carlson: No questions? Is there anyone else who would like to
address the issue?
K. Brooks: I would like to request one minute to speak.
This was put to the Board; N. Carlson stated that a motion must be
made. H. Leblanc made a motion to allow Mr. Brooks an additional
minute to speak, but the comments must be addressed to the code. J.
Sheldon seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote.
K. Brooks: Thank you. I'm not sure how my comments are limited, but
I need to make one reference to the code and one to a factual
misstatement made by Mr. Bengtson. So, if I go awry here, please tell
me, I don't want to violate any motion that you've passed. With regard
to code, they've fully ignored the ground pole definition. You've heard
nothing in response to that, because there is no response. This meets
the definition of a ground pole sign. With regard to the issue of a stay,
a stay is automatic under the code, whether the Planning Department
goes out and actually issues a written document or not is of no
consequence. Aside from that, Ms. Love advised me, and I can attest
to you, that she sent a field representative out there to advise Adams
to cease and desist from erecting this sign until this appeal could be
heard. So they were on notice not only from our office but from the
Planning Department, and I think Mr. Ruff can acknowledge that,
because, I know he was on vacation that week, but that Friday we had
asked him to issue that and he said that it would have to be taken care
of on Monday. Thank you very much.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. H. LeBlanc stated that she was
keeping a list of issues that the board was being asked to rule on. She felt that some
of the issues could be acted upon by the board, but some could not. She also stated
that nothing of this issue had come before the Planning Board, so that if anything
came up later on, there would be no question of her being in conflict of interest.
She stated that this was the first and only time she had heard this case.
J. Ruff reminded the Board that several communications had been received on this
issue. N. Carlson read one from Richard Lawrenson, Central Advertising, who
stated that he had participated in the writing of the current sign code. He said that
billboards are regulated separately from ground pole signs, that billboards are not
treated better, just different, and that the intention of the committee that wrote the
sign code was never to make billboards and ground pole signs equal.
j3OARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 15
N. Carlson then read a communication from Yolanda Bellinger, President of South
Lansing Business Association. She restated the code, as they understand it, and
asked for a review of the sign code and says that she would welcome a chance to send
a representative to work on this revision.
N. Carlson also read the petitions submitted, four and one half pages attached to a
statement which says that the undersigned find the billboards adjacent to the
Flapjack Shack restaurant aesthetically offensive due to their size, location, and
configuration. They also state that they find it unfair for business and property
owners to have tighter regulations as to size, location, and configuration of signage
than non-property owners or business owners. Each page has approximately 25
signatures per page.
The Committee of the Whole discussed this issue extensively, examining it from every
direction. After the discussion, Dr. Spink stated that he feels he would have been
forced to grant the permits, based on the current code. M. Clark agreed, finding
that the decisions were made based on code, and there were no options. She then
inquired whether the Regent Inn had a ground pole sign, and also had sold space on
their property for billboards. The answer was yes. J. Ruff stated that the
ordinance had been in effect for five years, and that until recently, there had not
been a rash of billboard permits. He feels that there had not been a lot of pressure
to deal with this. He finds that people are upset with the billboard ordinance, but
as long as the ordinance stands, he can't do anything about it. N. Carlson brought
up the petition signed by the business owners in the area, and asked what their
recourse is. J. Ruff stated that they must try to impress upon the administration
that the ordinance needs to be reexamined. G. Hilts supported the idea that the
sign code needs to be looked at, but reiterated that tonight's issue was the variance.
E. Spink made a motion to uphold the decision of Staff, in reference to appeal BZA-
3313.94, at 6501 S. Cedar, with a Cedar Street frontage, based on the current sign
code. Motion seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
Motion Approved: BZA-3313.94 denied, by a vote of 7 to 0.
K. BZA-3314.94, 6501 S. Cedar Street, Pennsylvania St. frontage
This is an appeal by Wolverine Development Corporation of the Zoning
Administrators decision to permit construction of two billboard sign
structures under Section 1442.22 of the Codified Ordinances of the City
of Lansing.
This appeal was discussed extensively under BZA-3313.94, 6501 S.
Cedar Street, Cedar Street frontage.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 16
E. Spink made a motion to uphold the decision of Staff, in reference to appeal BZA-
3314.94, at 6501 S. Cedar, with a Pennsylvania Street frontage, based on the
current sign code. Motion seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
Motion Approved: BZA-3314.94 denied, by a vote of 7 to 0.
Dr. Spink requested that the discussion of billboards be continued under New
Business.
III. Approval of Minutes
A. August 11, 1994, meeting.
1. C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 11,
1994 meeting, as typed. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts,
and carried unanimously.
IV. Excused Absences
A. None.
V. Public Comment
A. None
VI. Old Business
A. Policy and Procedures
1. We are waiting for the ethics board on this issue.
VII. New Business
A. E. Spink stated that he had been recommended for re-appointment to
the board.
B. E. Spink brought up the issue of the Contractor who completed the job
without waiting for the appeal, or getting a permit (834 Brad St. ) . He
felt that this contractor knew better, and recommends that the
secretary of the Board write the strongest possible letter to him, with
copies to city council and the licensing agent, that we disapprove of his
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 17
actions and the position that it puts this board in. The board would
like contractors to know that sometimes, structures built without
permits must be removed. In this case, it may have penalized an
innocent homeowner. To penalize the contractor, the state department
of licensing and regulation should be contacted. Another option is at
the Building office, which can charge a double fee for the permit. The
Board feels that a permit should be taken out for the porch portion of
the work, and a double fee should be charged.
C. The issue of Billboards was discussed. It was stated that there are now
companies in the area which are buying space, erecting billboards, and
leasing advertising space. E. Spink stated that he made the motion
(BZA-3313/3314.94) to support the code, but he feels that the code has
been ambiguous. He feels that the codes billboard provision is
outrageous. He wants to take action that the Planning Board, Council,
Mayor's office, etc. suspend all billboard activity until something is
written which makes sense. E. Spink made a motion that secretary
communicate with the Planning Board, Planning Department, the Mayor,
City Council President, City Attorney's office, and others that are
appropriate, requesting an emergency moratorium be put on all
billboards in the City of Lansing, until an adequate Ordinance revision
is completed. Seconded by G. Hilts. Passed unanimously by a voice
vote.
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzasept.94
Approved / /94
09-2o t.--.4o2.I (� . %1 O I\C V D To Clerk / /94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
September 8, 1994, 7:30 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by Chair N. Carlson at 7:30 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
A. Present
N. Carlson J. Sheldon
M. Clark E. Spink
G. Hilts C. Bicy (7:36 p.m. arrival)
H. LeBlanc
B . Excused Absences
C. A quorum of Six, and then Seven, members was present, allowing
voting action to be taken at the meeting.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
J. Sturdevant, Senior Planner
E. Approval of Agenda
Dr. Spink made a motion to suspend the new agenda items, and to take
the tabled hearings first, in the order in which they were received. H.
LeBlanc supported the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
II. Hearings
A. BZA-3301.94, 1620 Perkins Street
This is a request by Joella Britten, owner of 1620 Perkins, to convert
a portion of the building to be used as a coin laundry. Including the
market, a total of 8 parking spaces are required by Sections
1284.13(c)(12) and (20) of the Zoning Code. Four (4) parking spaces
exist on site which backs up directly onto the street. A variance of
four (4) spaces is requested.
E— Rev. Bicy arrived at 7:36 p.m.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole, and discussion ensued.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 2
M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3301 .94, on the basis that the code is not
causing a hardship on this property, and there is no basis for granting this
appeal.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Clark X Sheldon X
Hilts X Bicy X
Spink X
Motion denied: BZA-3301.94 by a vote of 6 to 1 .
B . BZA-3305.94, 309 W. Oakland Avenue
This is a request by Wright Pendleton, 309 W. Oakland, to construct a
20' x 20' detached garage in the rear of his yard. To do this, he needs
a 17 foot setback variance to Section 1248.03(b)(7) of the Zoning Code.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Discussion took place.
Dr. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3305.94, motion seconded by M. Clark.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Sheldon X
Hilts X Spink X
LeBlanc X Carlson X
Bicy X
Motion approved: BZA-3305.94, by a vote of 7 to 0.
C. BZA-3306.94, 3240 E. Saginaw Street
This is a request by Marshall Music to mount a 42 sq. ft. wall sign on
the northeast corner of their building at 3240 E. Saginaw. This is a
variance to Section 1442.13, for a fourth wall sign and an additional 30
sq. ft. of signage total.
J. Ruff presented the case, stressing that the sign would be the bugle
boy logo, and would contain no verbiage. However, due to the size and
location desired for display, it does fall under Signage. As part of the
proposal, a variance had been granted last year regarding a rear
entrance sign. The size of that sign would be reduced by 8 sq ft, and
the extra square footage would be applied to this sign.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 3
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy questioned the
amount of wall signage they had at their previous location, and how much
signage was granted in their last variance request. E. Spink stated that he
felt a sign was necessary to identify the entrance. It was felt that Marshall
Music showed a good faith effort in voluntarily reducing the amount of signage
for the already granted rear entrance sign, as well as agreeing to never apply
for a ground pole sign.
C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3306.94, as requested. H. LeBlanc
seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Sheldon X
Hilts X Spink X
LeBlanc X Bicy X
Carlson X
Motion APPROVED: BZA-3306.94, by a vote of 7 to 0.
D. BZA-3307.94, 6300 Rosedale Road
Barry Gaukel, of 6300 Rosedale Road, has withdrawn his request to
construct a 24' x 34' detached storage building in the rear yard, and
requests a refund of his application fee.
E. Spink wanted to state that this board has no authority to grant the
refund of application fees.
N. Carlson read the letter requesting withdrawal of the variance by Mr.
Gaukel. J. Ruff stated that the appellant could file with the City
Attorney's office for his refund.
The board cannot refund the application fee, but it can accept his
withdrawal. E. Spink made a motion to do that, and M. Clark seconded
the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
LeBlanc X Carlson X
Sheldon X Clark X
Spink X Hilts
Bicy X
Motion Approved: BZA-3307.94, by a vote of 7 to 0.
E. BZA-3308.94, 5133 S. Washington Rd.
This is a request by Tracy Dilley to enclose part of the property with
an 8' high wooden fence. This is a requested variance of 5' and 2'
respectively, in the front, side, and rear yards, to Section 1292.03.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 4
J. Ruff spoke, presenting the case. The neighboring commercial
properties would be screened from the adjoining neighborhood by the
fence. Letters of support were presented from the neighbors. The
staff felt that the situation was quite unique, and not necessarily
precedent setting.
M. Clark made a motion that BZA-3308.94 be approved for an 8' fence on the
north and west sides of the property. She added that she normally would not
support such a variance, but due to the location of the property adjacent to
the commercial uses and a busy intersection, she felt that it does serve to
buffer the neighborhood and the residential area and act as a protectant.
Motion seconded by E. Spink.
E. Spink stated that he also would not normally support such a variance,
however, as long as the motion was to approve, he felt that the lattice work
should be added all around. This was not supported by the motion.
H. LeBlanc also stated that she supports only because of the unique location,
and that she only supports the 8' on north and west side.
J. Sheldon repeated the previous comments, and mentioned that the
appearance of the fence is striking. However, she indicated that she wanted
a statement included in the motion which clearly announced that this would not
be a precedent setting situation, as the situation was unique.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Clark X
Spink X Hilts X
Bicy X Carlson X
LeBlanc X
Motion Approved: BZA-3308.94, by a vote of 6 to 1 .
F. BZA-3309.94, 834 Brad Street
This is a request by McCarthy Construction, on behalf of the owners
of 834 Brad Street, to install a 10' x 20' front porch with a roof having
a 30' front yard setback. This is a requested variance of 10' from
Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code.
J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the construction of the
porch was completed prior to the hearing of the case, and although the
staff was dismayed that they did this, they still feel that the porch
would not adversely affect adjoining properties, or the neighborhood,
indeed, they feel that it is a nice improvement to the home. They also
are discussing with Mr. McCarthy his premature construction of the
porch. Mr. Ruff states that Mr. McCarthy has been before the Board
of Zoning Appeals before, and is aware of the procedure.
J. Ruff read into the record a letter sent to the Board by Mr.
McCarthy, which detailed the history of the building of this porch.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 5
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. N. Carlson stated that she had
seen the porch, and found it very attractive. She also stated that Mr. McCarthy had
done contractual work for her and her husband.
J. Ruff mentioned that if N. Carlson intended to abstain from the vote, due to her
comments, then a motion must be made. H. Leblanc made a motion to excuse N.
Carlson from the vote, and M. Clark seconded the motion. The motion carried on a
voice vote, by a vote of 6 to 0.
C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3309.94, seconded by M. Clark.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
Motion Approved: BZA-3309.94, by a vote of 6 to 0, with one abstention.
The Board took a 10 minute break.
G. BZA-3310.94, 1913 Dell Road
This is a request by Lauren Tingay to construct a 24' x 36' detached
storage building in the rear yard. This is a variance to Section
1248.03(b)(2) , for 1,590 square feet of storage where only 1000 to
square feet are allowed.
J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that the appellant wished
to purchase a prefabricated building to place on his lot to operate a
hobby shop, for his wood working hobby. Staff has no objection to the
operation of a hobby shop, or an accessory structure for that use.
However, staff does not feel that they can support that much excess
square footage for an accessory structure.
Mr Tingay addressed the Board, stating that the building was a
portable classroom, needing only pillar foundations. It has a wood
floor. He now works in a small area of his two-car garage.
E. Spink asked which items Mr. Tingay made for sale. He responded
that he made picture frames, cabinets, or most anything people asked
him to build, but mostly he worked for family members and neighbors;
he's not making any money on this.
C. Bicy asked how many hours Mr. Tingay spends, per day or per
week, in the shop. He stated that he spent 12 to 16 hours per day, five
days a week, sometimes six. Rev. Bicy then asked what items he made
the most of. Mr. Tingay said that he had made a library desk for his
church two weeks ago. This, Mr. Tingay stated, took him and the guy
who works with him from the church on these projects, 12 hours a day,
five days a week getting the project done. C. Bicy inquired what other
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 6
projects he does the most. He then clarified his question by explaining
that, to him, the type of woodworking that is being done would dictate
how much space was necessary. Mr. Tingay responded that he does a
lot of cabinets and a lot of picture frames. He also stated that this
building would be large enough to close off one area for a finishing
room. He said that his daughter has an arts and crafts business, and
she cuts out articles at his shop. The dust that gets in the air from his
and from his daughters cutting gets on pieces being finished, which is
why he wants to make a finishing room.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that he fails to see
that any hardship or practical difficulty has been demonstrated, which would give
the Board the authority to authorize the appeal. J. Sheldon stated that she would
be voting against the appeal, due to the amount of square footage being requested,
as she feels this is simply too large for an "A" Residential area. There were no other
comments.
G. Hilts made a motion to deny BZA-3310.94, based on the fact that no hardship or
practical difficulty has been demonstrated, seconded by E. Spink.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
Motion Approved: BZA-3310.94 has been denied, by a vote of 7 to 0.
H. BZA-3311.94, 301 N. Sycamore Street
This is a request by Victoria S. Earhart to construct an attached
garage onto the west side of the house. This is a variance to the rear
and side yard setback requirements, Section 1256.08 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
J. Ruff presented the case. This property has been converted from a
five family structure to a single family structure. It is located on a
corner lot. Staff does not feel the addition of an attached garage to
this property would create an adverse impact on the neighborhood,
either through improper vehicular or pedestrian traffic or through size
and/or character of the structure, and staff feels that it is reasonable
given the lot size and layout of the structure on the property.
E. Spink inquired if any garage would require a variance. J. Ruff
answered that a larger detached garage could be built without a
variance.
V. Earhart, owner of 301 N. Sycamore, spoke. She presented pictures,
and told some of the history of the house. She stated that, when they
bought the house, it was a five unit, which had been cited by the city.
The previous owners had been told to bring it up to code or it would be
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 7
condemned. She also stated that she and her husband were very
concerned with maintaining the historical integrity of the property, as
well as harmony with the neighborhood, both on Sycamore and on Ionia.
She told of their desire to remove the Sycamore driveway, and move the
drive to Ionia Street.
M. Clark asked how they proposed to maintain the yard at the 2' space
at the north side of the garage. V. Earhart replied that it would be
done with weedwacker, clippers, etc. ; M. Clark enquired as to why the
garage couldn't be moved forward to allow a larger setback. Ms.
Earhart replied that it was positioned so that the neighbor could get the
amount of sunlight that she now gets.
E. Spink asked whether the removal of the drive would include removal
of the curb cut. Ms. Earhart was not sure, but felt that all the
concrete would be removed.
C. Bicy inquired whether enlarging the north setback up even one foot
wouldn't make maintenance easier. Ms. Earhart replied that she was not
the builder in the family, but felt that perhaps they could reduce the
depth of the garage by one foot. Additional discussion took place
concerning the narrow setback, and how the fire department and
building safety would feel about this.
M. Clark stated that she felt the setback must be modified, from two
feet to three feet or larger, or she would not be able to support the
variance.
E. Spink also said that he would not be able to support anything less
than a three foot setback.
S. Whitbeck, 620 W. Ionia, stated that she felt further development in
this area would definitely be beneficially, and would be a beacon for
downtown development, and would encourage a positive vote by the
B oard.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that he would
support if the setback were enlarged to three feet on the north side.
N. Carlson read two communications into the record. The first is a letter from
Colleen McNamara, of 712 W. Ionia. She lives directly behind 301 N. Sycamore, and
states that she opposes the 21' rear yard setback variance, as it backs up to her
home, which has a bank of large dining room windows and a window seat on the side
which would look out on the (proposed) garage, would block the light into the dining
room and the view of the capital dome that they currently have. She is also
concerned with water runoff. She does admire and is enthusiastic about the plans
the new owners have for the property. The other communication was a phone call
from Patricia Darrow, 307 N. Sycamore, who stated that she is the immediate
neighbor to the north, who wishes that there were more land to erect the garage,
but lacking the space, still supports the variance to build the garage.
E. Spink stated that he thinks that an attached garage is a reasonable request, that
he feels that a garage in lieu of the current surface parking was an advantage,
and he made a motion to approve, with conditions, BZA-3311.94, with a variance of
3.6' from the side yard (north) setback, and 21' from the rear yard setback, that
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 8
the hardsurfaced driveway on Sycamore Street be removed, the curb be replaced,
and further, that downspouts be placed in such a way and grading be done so that
water run off is directed away from adjoining property. Seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
Motion Approved: BZA-3311 .94 passed, with conditions, by a vote of 7 to 0.
I. BZA-3312.94, 2323 E. Michigan Avenue
This is a request by Jon and Roseann Zumbrink, for a variance of 10
parking spaces for a Submarine Shop. This is in variance to Section
1284.13(c) (6) of the Zoning Code.
J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that there are presently
18 parking spaces on the site, where 28 spaces are required. Staff
feels that, because the business is primarily carry out, parking
turnover is going to be high, and approving this variance would not
create an unnecessary burden to the surrounding area. However, staff
does request screening and buffering be done between the property
and the neighborhood.
J. Zumbrink, owner, stated that the property was purchased a year
ago, and that they have been looking for a suitable tenant. They
recently signed with a company out of Detroit, Tubby's Submarine
Sandwiches. He stated that the site had been cleaned up, some repairs
had been made to the building, that a fence was in the works, and
several trees on the lot line would be coming down.
N. Carlson read a letter from the Eastside Neighborhood Organization,
which stated that they had done a survey of the commercial and
residential residents in the neighborhood. With only a request to make
sure that adequate buffering and screening be mandatory, they
support the addition of a Tubby's Sandwich shop at this location.
E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3312.94, with the condition that screening
and buffering be added; the motion was seconded by M. Clark.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
Motion Approved: BZA-3312.94 passed, with conditions, by a vote of 7 to 0.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 9
J. BZA-3313.94, 6501 S. Cedar Street, Cedar St. frontage
This is an appeal by Wolverine Development Corporation of the Zoning
Administrators decision to permit construction of two billboard sign
structures under Section 1442.22 of the Codified Ordinances of the City
of Lansing.
Because this is an appeal of the Zoning Administrators decision, J. Ruff
stated that he would not try to interpret the case, but simply state the
facts. The applicant has made an argument that billboard signs should
be considered ground pole signs because they are not specifically
excluded from the ground pole sign definition, and since they are not
excluded, should be considered as ground pole signs. All of the paper
work which was submitted is included in the staff report. As J. Ruff
understands it, the sign code's intention was to separate out types of
advertising, with ground pole sign advertising primarily dealing with
on site advertising. If it's not on-premise advertising, it's off-premise
advertising, and then is considered a billboard. If a billboard
advertises on-premise items, it is then considered a ground pole sign,
and must follow those regulations. As such, the request was for a
billboard, and a billboard is defined as a sign that advertises products
and/or services that are produced off-premise. In following the
regulations found for billboards, these signs that were constructed in
particular for BZA-3313 and BZA-3314, were constructed in accordance
with those regulations of the billboard section of the ordinance. The
property is zoned "F" commercial, and consists of two separate parcels,
one parcel on Cedar St. and one on Pennsylvania Avenue. They are not
one parcel, even though the billboard regulation does not state that you
cannot be; the regulation states that they must be 400' apart when they
are on the same side of the road. These lots are on opposing streets,
they are two lots, they have common ownership though, and common
use. This was done years ago, and was not done specifically to erect
these billboards. We do not state in the regulations that there can be
only one billboard per site. The "F" Commercial District requires a 20'
setback, as stated in the billboard section of the ordinance, billboards
must comply with the setback requirements of the zoning district in
which they are located. The billboards as proposed have a 20' setback,
to the front edge of the sign, so they do meet that criteria. They meet
all the other criteria in the sign code. In conclusion, J. Ruff stated
that the two regulations were intended to act separately from one
another, and the appellants application, in his opinion, is unfounded.
T. Burchman, Wolverine Development, requested additional time to
speak, on behalf of legal council which is there with him. He brought
along a visual, which he passed around.
J. Ruff inquired if the Board would like to honor Mr. Burchman's
request for additional time. E. Spink proposed that the Chair allow the
standard time, then extensions could be evaluated as necessary. Chair
concurred.
T. Burchman, Wolverine Development, stating that they own
approximately 20 businesses on the corridor between S. Cedar and S.
Pennsylvania Avenue: Six of these are restaurants, employing around
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 10
100 people. They pay $200,000 annually in taxes to the City of
Lansing. Our tenants follow all the local zoning and setback guidelines,
as well as the signage regulations. In addition, our tenants, especially
the restaurants, must conform to numerous and overlapping regulations
imposed by the Fire Marshall, County Health Department, and the city
inspectors, just to name a few. Why should a major, national
corporation like Adams get an advantage over local businesses. If our
tenants had tried to erect similar signs such as these at their
businesses, they would have been denied a permit. We succeed when
and if our tenants succeed. Retail businesses live, die, or succeed,
based on their signage, building identification, access, service, and
the resulting image they project on the community. We maintain that
the visual clutter of billboards advertising off-property merchandise or
services hurts small retail businesses. Billboards may distract and
confuse patrons of businesses adjacent to those billboards.
Restaurants such as FlapJack and Rally's depend in large part on
impulse customers, who make their decision on whether to eat there or
somewhere else, based on seeing the business. Billboard clutter
virtually guarantees that fewer people will see us. We are asking you
tonight to lend your support to our efforts to enforce the state, which
Adams ignored to erect the two billboards in question. We further ask
you to lend your support to enforce the sign ordinance to put billboards
on the same or equal footing with business properties and their ground
pole signs. Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, I firmly believe
that if you don't stop these billboard installations at this place, at this
time, you will see billboards erected in the City of Lansing,
approximately every 400' along major arterials. Thank you.
K. Brooks, council to Wolverine Development: If this appeal is denied,
the Board would be supporting the position that billboard companies,
such as Adams, have greater rights than local property, business
owners. We ask the board to challenge them tonight, seeing as their
here, to provide any explanation why that should be the case. I ask
staff to acknowledge, to the board, that there are inconsistencies in the
sign code. I'm going to give some history of the permits, stating that
the applications were submitted for two billboard signs, one to front on
South Pennsylvania Avenue and one to front on South Cedar Street.
These signs are less than 300' apart, and staff has pointed out that
they are on two different parcels; in reality, they are on one parcel,
with two different tax ID numbers, but the Regency Inn sits on both of
those parcels and these two signs are less than 300' apart, even though
they face two different roads. These signs both are 35' high, they
cover 672 square feet of space, and the stanchions themselves are 36"
in diameter. The 672 sq ft that they cover are approximately four times
larger than what a business or property owner can erect on their
property to advertise their business. Over almost four times larger.
We became aware of this situation on August 17 when a construction
crew showed up to begin erecting the sign. Wolverine immediately
expressed their concerns to Adams representatives, and I believe at
that time it was Melissa Swann and Ron Haas, as well as to Mr. Ruff.
On August 18 we contacted Adams and advised that Wolverine intended
to appeal the permits, and requested that they cease from construction
of the signs until the appeal could be resolved. The next day, on
August 19, we again spoke with Adams, I spoke with Mr. Ron Haas, and
I advised him that an appeal was going to be filed that day and that the
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 11
Zoning Code called for a stay once the appeal was filed. Mr. Haas, who
is here tonight, responded to me by stating that it would take much
more than a stay from the City to stop Adams from erecting these signs.
I think that's a telling point. At that point, there was one stanchion
that had been laid. At this point, both signs have now been erected.
The appeal was filed on Friday the 19th, and by that point only one
stanchion had been installed, nothing more. On Monday, the planning
department dispatched a field person to the site to instruct Adams to
discontinue the construction of the signs pending the appeal, and I
would refer you to the Zoning Code, which provides, at 1244.03(d)*,
IT . . .an appeal shall stay all proceedings and furtherance of the action
appealed from, unless the Division certifies to the Board after the
notice of appeal is filed, that by reason of facts stated in a Division
certificate, a stay would, in the opinion of the Division, cause imminent
peril to life or property.IT We didn't have that situation here. The
appeal resulted in a stay, the field representative went out and asked
Adams to cease until the appeal could be heard tonight. Adams ignored
that, they thumbed their noses at the Code. And they are thumbing
their noses I believe, at you, in light of that. They stand here with
unclean hands, they violated the ordinance, they put these signs up
under suspended permits, pending this appeal. The argument here is
much broader than staff would indicate, in terms of simply whether or
not this meets a definition of a yard pole sign, but I would like to
address some provisions in the Sign Code which I think will make
apparent what our position is. The Sign Code generally indicates that
any sign must meet the Sign Code requirements set forth in the code.
I'd like to read you a couple of definitions from Section 1442.02; it
defines a ground pole sign as "a sign which is supported by one or more
poles, uprights or braces in or upon the ground, which are not part of
a building." Period. That is the definition of a ground pole sign. It
says nothing about advertising on premises, it says nothing about
advertising off premises. If you look at this photograph, this sign
meets the definition of a ground pole sign. It is a sign supported by
one or more poles, uprights, or braces in or upon the ground, which
are not part of a building; it meets that definition. Our position is if
it meets that definition it should obviously have to comply with the
ground pole sign requirements set forth in the code. Now granted, it
also meets the definition of a billboard. However, the billboard
requirements set forth in the Sign Code are much more liberal. They
give more rights to non-property owners that property owners don't
have. It's our position that where you have two provisions that deal
with the same issue, the more stringent requirements should apply.
It's the only fair way to do it, because to say otherwise would be to say
"you as a business owner or property owner, you must comply with
these stringent requirements in terms of size, location, dimension of
your sign; however, if you want to have a billboard erected, or if
Adams Outdoor Advertising wants to come in and erect a billboard, you
can build a 672 square foot sign. In a minute I'm gonna give you some
examples of how ludicrous that type of an interpretation would be.
N. Carlson: Excuse me
K. Brooks: Yes.
N. Carlson: At this time, your time is up.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September S, 1994 - Page 12
K. Brooks: I would ask for an additional five minutes, since this is our
two appeals combined, I would ask for just a few more minutes, if I
may.
N. Carlson: I would have to go to the Board on that one, because it's
been 10 minutes for two speakers, so your additional time has been
granted. Is there a motion to extend the time?
At this time, E. Spink stated that he so moved, H. LeBlanc seconded,
and the motion to grant more time to Mr. Brooks was passed
unanimously by a voice vote.
K. Brooks: As I stated, this sign, in no uncertain terms meets the
definition of a yard pole sign. However, Adams has not complied with
the yard pole sign requirements. To give you a couple of examples of
how there is no logic or rational basis for the disparate treatment
between property and business owners in terms of their signage, and
Adams Outdoor Advertising or other companies of like ilk, for their
signage, would be that the F1apJack Shack, which is located adjacent
to these signs, could actually go and lease space on these billboards
from Adams, and advertise their business, saying something like,
Flapjack Shack, Stop Here, rather than have their small, more
restrictive sign. The other thing they could do, that property owners
could do, that actually own the property, they could divide a portion
of that property, and actually then lease it to Adams Outdoor
Advertising; it's no longer on their property, so arguably a billboard
could be constructed there, to advertise again, essentially on premises
activities. So those are examples of how illogical it is to have this
disparate treatment. We're asking you, and again, if you deny this
appeal, I think what you're doing is supporting the proposition that
billboard owners have greater rights in terms of signage than property
and business owners who operate on a daily basis here. What we're
asking you to do is grant this appeal, revoke the permit, permanently,
in order that the unlawful signs that have been put up in defiance of
the code, under suspended permits, be removed. We think that's the
just thing to do under these circumstances. And we think it's
supported by the sign code. Thank you very much.
N. Carlson: Thank you Mr. Brooks. Are there any questions? Seeing
none then, is there anyone else that would like to address this issue?
S. Purkiss, Manager of Flapjack Shack Restaurant: I have in front of
me 152 names that I've collected on petition, against this thing. Also,
our building is set back from Cedar quite a ways, and people can't see
it as it is. You have two signs, a sign in front, it's not in the way of
the roadway, where people are going to look at that rather than look at
the sign. Also, the city ordinance said they had to stop, and they did
not. When we first opened the restaurant, we asked to have a bigger
sign, a little higher, and we were refused that. If we were to go ahead
and do it, we would be told to stop, and of course if we didn't, what
would happen then? We employ 50 people at each store, we have two
stores in Lansing. And, I guess I'm gonna make it kinda short cause
its getting kinda late at night, but I would ask you grant that they
would not have these signs.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September S, 1994 - Page 13
N. Carlson: Thank you very much, Mr. Purkiss. Is there anyone else?
T. Bengtson: My name is Tom Bengtson, and I'm here to represent
Adams Outdoor Advertising Company. Contrary to the view expressed
by Wolverine representative's, as far as we are concerned, and the City
Attorney is here, and the other officials who are planning with the
situation, there was no permit which was suspended, by any city
official. City Officials, and we'll defer to your staff people, they were
present when these billboards were being erected and constructed on
the site, and they were there throughout the entire process as we went
from step one to step two to step three to step four. So, we went ahead
and completed the project. We were acting pursuant to approved
applications to erect both billboards. Now, counsel for Wolverine mis-
characterizes what was stated to Mr. Haas; if Wolverine were disturbed
by what was going on at the site, and they had no stay from either the
City Attorney, or from other City of Lansing officials, in the building
department or planning department. There's a place called the Circuit
Court, that's where lawyers go when they don't get relief otherwise.
Now, had he obtained one, from one of the Circuit Court judges, and
presented that to Mr. Haas, we immediately stop work. That's an order
of the court. If the City of Lansing had presented a stay to Mr. Haas
and Adams, that would have been the end of it. That wasn't done in
this case, so, Wolverine is painting Adams as a defiant, selfish entity,
and I'm here to submit that it's not either. either stay's as
authorized by the State or the City. That did not happen here.
Rather, Adams Outdoor Advertising, they paint us as this
conglomerate, something in the area of GM or AT&T, we complied with
the code requirements of the City. They were processed through the
City of Lansing, and approved. I believe the date was August 3, that's
somewhere in the area of two weeks after the application was filed.
Approximately two weeks later is when we commenced construction of
these two billboards, and I want to be sure that you appreciate,
construction was not commenced at 2:00 in the morning, when everyone
in the city was asleep; there was no clandestine cover-up on the part
of Adams Outdoor. This processing of the application wasn't done over
the counter in 10 minutes, and we blew people away with our
application. This was carefully, completely examined, by people on the
staff here, the Planning Commission and the Building Commission.
After they completed their review and approved it, there was a two
week lag, to where we commenced our erection of the two billboards.
Now, if it fits, or it won't rain, they try to reference it to you people,
who are going to decide this appeal. I want to ask you to consider this
400' distance between signs on the same side of the road. Now, that's
what the ordinance requires. In their presentation, their brief, they
talk about 400 feet is the requirement, and Adams violated the spirit of
the ordinance; now, I'm not talking about the express language of the
ordinance. They pick and choose. If it fits Wolverine, in an effort to
cause trouble for Adams, they say its one thing. If it goes the other
way, they disregard it. I want to underscore the benefit of staff from
the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator; in a sense, Adams
has a vested interest in this, so too does Wolverine. But the one that's
supposed to be serving you is the Planning Commission and the Zoning
Administrator. You've heard the comments made, and we, in fact,
agree with the comments offered by the Zoning Administrator. With
regard to the 35' height, and the 672' maximum size of the structure,
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 14
that's what the code permits, we didn't violate the code. We didn't
push it to 685'. With regard to the alleged blockage, I went out there
to inspect it, and in my own view, there was no blockage. But I want
to highlight for you, and you can check with your staff, that's not a
consideration under the code, whether in fact it did block it, the view
of another existing structure such as Flapjack's. That's not critical,
that's not even a factor, but assuming that you want to consider that,
I respectfully submit, this sign is 17, 18 feet off the ground, and as
you approach it as a motorist, you can look under it and you can see the
signage of these other businesses. So I would respectfully ask you to
deny the appeal, because Adams acted properly and lawfully, and fully
complied with the Zoning Ordinance of the City. Are there any
questions?
N. Carlson: No questions? Is there anyone else who would like to
address the issue?
K. Brooks: I would like to request one minute to speak.
This was put to the Board; N. Carlson stated that a motion must be
made. H. Leblanc made a motion to allow Mr. Brooks an additional
minute to speak, but the comments must be addressed to the code. J.
Sheldon seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote.
K. Brooks: Thank you. I'm not sure how my comments are limited, but
I need to make one reference to the code and one to a factual
misstatement made by Mr. Bengtson. So, if I go awry here, please tell
me, I don't want to violate any motion that you've passed. With regard
to code, they've fully ignored the ground pole definition. You've heard
nothing in response to that, because there is no response. This meets
the definition of a ground pole sign. With regard to the issue of a stay,
a stay is automatic under the code, whether the Planning Department
goes out and actually issues a written document or not is of no
consequence. Aside from that, Ms. Love advised me, and I can attest
to you, that she sent a field representative out there to advise Adams
to cease and desist from erecting this sign until this appeal could be
heard. So they were on notice not only from our office but from the
Planning Department, and I think Mr. Ruff can acknowledge that,
because, I know he was on vacation that week, but that Friday we had
asked him to issue that and he said that it would have to be taken care
of on Monday. Thank you very much.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. H. LeBlanc stated that she was
keeping a list of issues that the board was being asked to rule on. She felt that some
of the issues could be acted upon by the board, but some could not. She also stated
that nothing of this issue had come before the Planning Board, so that if anything
came up later on, there would be no question of her being in conflict of interest.
She stated that this was the first and only time she had heard this case.
J. Ruff reminded the Board that several communications had been received on this
issue. N. Carlson read one from Richard Lawrenson, Central Advertising, who
stated that he had participated in the writing of the current sign code. He said that
billboards are regulated separately from ground pole signs, that billboards are not
treated better, just different, and that the intention of the committee that wrote the
sign code was never to make billboards and ground pole signs equal.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 15
N. Carlson then read a communication from Yolanda Bellinger, President of South
Lansing Business Association. She restated the code, as they understand it, and
asked for a review of the sign code and says that she would welcome a chance to send
a representative to work on this revision.
N. Carlson also read the petitions submitted, four and one half pages attached to a
statement which says that the undersigned find the billboards adjacent to the
Flapjack Shack restaurant aesthetically offensive due to their size, location, and
configuration. They also state that they find it unfair for business and property
owners to have tighter regulations as to size, location, and configuration of signage
than non-property owners or business owners. Each page has approximately 25
signatures per page.
The Committee of the Whole discussed this issue extensively, examining it from every
direction. After the discussion, Dr. Spink stated that he feels he would have been
forced to grant the permits, based on the current code. M. Clark agreed, finding
that the decisions were made based on code, and there were no options. She then
inquired whether the Regent Inn had a ground pole sign, and also had sold space on
their property for billboards. The answer was yes. J. Ruff stated that the
ordinance had been in effect for five years, and that until recently, there had not
been a rash of billboard permits. He feels that there had not been a lot of pressure
to deal with this. He finds that people are upset with the billboard ordinance, but
as long as the ordinance stands, he can't do anything about it. N. Carlson brought
up the petition signed by the business owners in the area, and asked what their
recourse is. J. Ruff stated that they must try to impress upon the administration
that the ordinance needs to be reexamined. G. Hilts supported the idea that the
sign code needs to be looked at, but reiterated that tonight's issue was the variance.
E. Spink made a motion to uphold the decision of Staff, in reference to appeal BZA-
3313.94, at 6501 S. Cedar, with a Cedar Street frontage, based on the current sign
code. Motion seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
Motion Approved: BZA-3313.94 denied, by a vote of 7 to 0.
K. BZA-3314.94, 6501 S. Cedar Street, Pennsylvania St. frontage
This is an appeal by Wolverine Development Corporation of the Zoning
Administrators decision to permit construction of two billboard sign
structures under Section 1442.22 of the Codified Ordinances of the City
of Lansing.
This appeal was discussed extensively under BZA-3313.94, 6501 S.
Cedar Street, Cedar Street frontage.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 16
E. Spink made a motion to uphold the decision of Staff, in reference to appeal BZA-
3314.94, at 6501 S. Cedar, with a Pennsylvania Street frontage, based on the
current sign code. Motion seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Sheldon X Bicy X
Clark X
Motion Approved: BZA-3314.94 denied, by a vote of 7 to 0.
Dr. Spink requested that the discussion of billboards be continued under New
Business.
III. Approval of Minutes
A. August 11, 1994, meeting.
1. C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 11,
1994 meeting, as typed. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts,
and carried unanimously.
IV. Excused Absences
A. None.
V. Public Comment
A. None
VI. Old Business
A. Policy and Procedures
1 . We are waiting for the ethics board on this issue.
VII. New Business
A. E. Spink stated that he had been recommended for re-appointment to
the board.
B. E. Spink brought up the issue of the Contractor who completed the job
without waiting for the appeal, or getting a permit (834 Brad St. ) . He
felt that this contractor knew better, and recommends that the
secretary of the Board write the strongest possible letter to him, with
copies to city council and the licensing agent, that we disapprove of his
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 1994 - Page 17
actions and the position that it puts this board in. The board would
like contractors to know that sometimes, structures built without
permits must be removed. In this case, it may have penalized an
innocent homeowner. To penalize the contractor, the state department
of licensing and regulation should be contacted. Another option is at
the Building office, which can charge a double fee for the permit. The
Board feels that a permit should be taken out for the porch portion of
the work, and a double fee should be charged.
C. The issue of Billboards was discussed. It was stated that there are now
companies in the area which are buying space, erecting billboards, and
leasing advertising space. E. Spink stated that he made the motion
(BZA-3313/3314.94) to support the code, but he feels that the code has
been ambiguous. He feels that the codes billboard provision is
outrageous. He wants to take action that the Planning Board, Council,
Mayor's office, etc. suspend all billboard activity until something is
written which makes sense. E. Spink made a motion that secretary
communicate with the Planning Board, Planning Department, the Mayor,
City Council President, City Attorney's office, and others that are
appropriate, requesting an emergency moratorium be put on all
billboards in the City of Lansing, until an adequate Ordinance revision
is completed. Seconded by G. Hilts. Passed unanimously by a voice
vote.
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzasept.94
Approved 09/08/94
To clerk 09/09/94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
August 11, 1994, 7:30 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by Chair N. Carlson at 7:30 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon
G. Hilts
M. Clark
N. Carlson
B. Excused Absences
E. Spink
C. Bicy
H. LeBlanc
C. No voting action was able to be taken, due to the lack of a quorum.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
J. Sturdevant, Senior Planner
II. Hearings
A. B ZA-3305.94, 309 W. Oakland Avenue
This is a request by Wright Pendleton, 309 W. Oakland, to construct a
20' x 20' detached garage in the rear of his yard. To do this, he needs
a 17 foot setback variance to Section 1248.03(b)(7) of the Zoning Code.
A presentation was made by J. Sturdevant, who summarized the case.
Mr. Pendleton addressed the board. He stated that he will build
whatever is approved.
There were no other comments and no action was taken.
B. BZA-3306.94, 3240 E. Saginaw Street
A request by Marshall Music to mount a 42 sq. ft. wall sign on the
northeast corner of their building at 3240 E. Saginaw. This is a
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 11, 1994, Page 2
variance to Section 1442.13, for a fourth wall sign and an additional 30
sq. ft. of signage.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
Dan Marshall, Marshall Music, came to answer questions.
No action was taken.
C. BZA-3307.94, 6300 Rosedale Road
A request by Barry Gaukel, of 6300 Rosedale Road, to construct a 24'
x 34' detached storage building in the rear yard. Section 1248.03(b)(2)
limits accessory structures to a total of 1000 sq ft. This is a requested
variance of 380 sq ft, as there is already a garage and a storage
building on this property.
J. Sturdevant presented the case.
The Board asked some questions. Mr. Gaukel stated that he currently
stores lawn equipment, snowmobiles and some wintered vehicles in the
yard and would like to have proper storage for them.
There were no other comments, and no action was taken.
D. BZA-3308.94, 5133 S. Washington Road
A request by Tracy Dilley, 5133 S. Washington Road, to enclose part
of his property with an 8' high wooden fence. This is a requested
variance of 5 feet and 2 feet respectively, in the front, side and rear
yards, to Section 1292.03 of the Zoning Code.
J. Ruff presented the case.
Tracy Dilley presented his information. He also presented a petition
with 34 names on it from neighbors, all supporting the addition of the
fence to the property.
Pat Sutherland, 5111 Tulip, spoke in favor of the project, stating that
it (an 8' fence) would block the view and the noise from the intersection
and the service station.
Rita Smrek, 5126 Tulip, called in to support Mr. Dilley, stating that
there was no objection to the fence. Felt it would be good protection as
well as nice looking (called 8-8-94 @ 12:15 p.m. ) .
Mike and Carol Saunders, 5310 Tulip, called in support of Mr. Dilley,
stating that they were in favor of the request for the fence.
John Miller, 5136 S. Washington, called on August 3, 1994, stating that
he does not object to the fence. Feels that the design and setback are
positive and justified due to the busyness of the road and the location
next to Douglas J.
No action was taken.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 11, 1994, Page 3
E. BZA-3309.94, 834 Brad Street
This is a request by McCarthy Construction, to install a 10' x 20' front
porch with a roof having a 30' front yard setback. This is a requested
variance of 10' from Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code.
J. Ruff presented the case.
Mr. McCarthy was not present, but sent a representative to read a
letter explaining his position. The letter was read. A copy of the
letter is attached.
No action was taken.
II. Old Business
A. Joella Britten was present to discuss her appeal, BZA-3301.94, 1620
Perkins Street. She stated that the store and the laundry would be
closed after 8:00 p.m. , and that there would be window service only,
for the store, from 8:00 to 11:00 p.m.
J. Sturdevant reported that he had talked with Larry Dyer, president,
Potter-Walsh neighborhood group. The group met on July 18, 1994,
and the neighborhood group did not make a recommendation. Mr.
Dyer's personal opinion was that the laundry could be a benefit to
neighborhood residents, but he highly respected the opinion of the
Community Policing Officer, who was concerned about the potential of
additional drug trafficking and other illegal activities taking place
around the property.
Special Note: Because tonight's meeting lacked a quorum, the Board will act on
these appeals at their next regular meeting.
III. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
RespectfiAly Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzaaug.94
Approved 08/11/94
To Clerk 09/09/94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
July 14, 1994, 7:30 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by Chair N. Carlson at 7:30 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
A. Present
N. Carlson J. Sheldon
M. Clark E. Spink
G. Hilts
H. LeBlanc
B . Excused Absences
C. Bicy has requested an excused absence
C. A quorum of Six members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
J. Sturdevant, Senior Planner
II. Hearings
A. BZA-3299.94, 1215 E. Michigan Avenue
This is a request by Sparrow Hospital to convert the existing surface
parking lot located at the north west corner of East Michigan Avenue
and Holmes Street to a two level parking structure. The structure
would contain parking for 258 cars, and is requested to be built up to
the property lines along both Michigan and Holmes. Sections 1258.07
and 1258.08 require front and side yard setbacks of 20 and 25 feet
respectively. The applicant, Sparrow Hospital, is requesting a
variance of both of these setback requirements in order to construct
this parking structure.
The parking structure is proposed to be partially below grade and the
overall height of the structure is not anticipated to exceed
approximately 9 feet at its highest point, near the corner of Holmes and
Michigan. The structure will incorporate a brick facade and would have
access off of Holmes Street. The proposed parking structure plan is
designed to meet the recommendations of the East Michigan Avenue
Revitalization Study.
J. Ruff presented an overview of the case. Jim Prister, of Sparrow
Hospital, then presented the entire plan.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 14, 1994 - 2
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole, and discussion ensued.
H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3299.94, based upon analysis and
hardship mentioned in the staff report, that the front and side yard setback
variance be approved with exception of the southeast corner that the setback be
approved as designed and maintained for landscaping and visibility; and further,
that the Board go on record as being in favor of the request that Sparrow be allowed
to proceed in cooperation with the City to eliminate the on-street parking and
widening the sidewalk area on Michigan Avenue, and install the diverter at Holmes
and Jerome; and finally, the Board go on record as supporting the installation of the
planters as proposed in the plan and the East Michigan Avenue plan.
Motion seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Clark X Sheldon X
Hilts X Spink X
Motion Approved: BZA-3299.94 by a vote of 6 to 0.
B . BZA-3300.94, 211 Syringa Drive
A request by Tom and Tawney Alvarado of 211 E. Syringa Drive to
construct a 24' x 30' detached garage in the rear yard of their home.
This garage would result in a second accessory structure on the site
being used to park vehicles, in addition to the carport and a total of
1036.8 ft2 of accessory structures. Sections 1248.03(b)(2) , (3), and
(5) of the Zoning Code allows for 1000 total square feet of accessory
structure, one structure to be used as a garage or carport, and limits
the size of a garage/carport to 720 ft2 respectively.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
Mrs. Alvarado presented their reasons for desiring to add enclosed
storage space to their property. She mentioned their past experiences
with theft and vandalism to their property (cars) in the carport. Mr.
Alvarado then showed pictures of their house to the board.
Mr. James Banker, 204 E. Syringa Drive, spoke in support of the
Alvarados and their proposal. He told that the neighbors polled in the
neighborhood were not opposed to the variance.
Barbara Smith, 214 E. Syringa Drive, spoke in support of the
Alvarados and their proposal also.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Very little discussion took
place.
E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3300.94, with total accessory structure
space not to exceed 1000 sq ft, and the second detached garage should therefore not
exceed 683 sq ft. , which would allow 2 accessory structures to be used for the
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 14, 1994 - 3
parking of vehicles based upon the information in the staff report and the testimony
received.
Motion seconded by M. Clark.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Sheldon X
Hilts X Spink X
LeBlanc X Carlson X
Motion Approved: BZA-3300.94, by a vote of 6 to 0.
C. BZA-3301.94, 1620 Perkins Street
This is a request by Joella Britten, owner of 1620 Perkins, to convert
a portion of the building to be used as a coin laundry. Including the
market, a total of 8 parking spaces are required by Sections
1284.13(c)(12) and (20) of the Zoning Code. Four (4) parking spaces
exist on site which backs up directly onto the street. A variance of
four (4) spaces is requested.
J. Sturdevant presented the staff report.
C. Robinson spoke on behalf of Ms. Britten, who was unable to attend.
She briefly reiterated their need for the variance.
K. Kennedy, Community Policing Officer for the area, spoke of her
concerns with this area. Her main concern is drug traffic which takes
place at the intersection. She feels that it will enhance the
neighborhood, but it will also enhance drug traffic, as well as vehicular
traffic.
Dr. Davis, 1136 Shepard, spoke. He is very involved in the
neighborhood, and has spoken with many of the neighbors. He feels
that the laundry would enhance the neighborhood, but agrees that
there need to be some stipulations that would help control drug traffic.
Working with the owners, he understands that the telephone is to be
removed, and that the evening hours will be curtailed. He supports the
variance.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. They discussed the fact of
variances being location, not owner, specific. However, if at some point in
the future an owner desired to change the use of the property, the variance
would have to be revised if it was necessary; for example, this variance, if
granted, would pertain to a coin laundry only, as presented. Considerable
discussion took place.
E. Spink made a motion to table the appeal due to the illness of the applicant.
He felt that there had been so many positive aspects mentioned, but also many
drawbacks, that the input of the owner would be very helpful. M. Clark
seconded the motion. H. LeBlanc wanted to hear the neighborhood
organizations comments as well.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 14, 1994 - 4
BZA-3301.94 was tabled by unanimous voice vote.
A five minute recess was taken.
D. BZA-3302.94, 2324 Harding Street
This is a request by Charles Langstaff to construct a 7' x 18' covered
front porch onto his single family home, which is zoned "A" Residential.
J. Ruff presented the case.
Mr. Langstaff spoke. He told that this is actually a porch replacement,
that there had been a porch of the same measurements previously,
which had been torn down and was to be replaced. He believes that the
only thing that he needs a variance for is to add the roof. He also
mentioned that there were no objections from the neighbors to his doing
SO.
There were two communications:
A phone call from Sharon Stuffenheinlein, of 2325 Harding, supporting
variance as requested at 2324 Harding Street.
A phone call from Kevin Keeter, 2314 Harding, called to give his
support to this variance, stating that it would be an improvement to the
property.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. There was no discussion.
M. Clark made a motion to support the 5' variance, stating that it would be an
improvement to the property and was in keeping with the neighborhood.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
LeBlanc X Carlson X
Sheldon X Clark X
Spink X Hilts X
Motion Approved: BZA-3302.94, by a vote of 6 to 0.
E. BZA-3303.94, 2625 LaSalle Gardens
This is a request by Kathleen Keenoy and Thomas Distal to construct
an addition onto the back of an existing garage. J. Ruff presented the
case.
Mr. Distal spoke, restating the case.
A motion was made by M. Clark to support this variance, as it seems to be a
reasonable use of this space without a negative impact, with the three conditions
stated in the staff report (1. gutters and downspouts, 2. siding to match, 3. only
one interior access door of only 6') ; the motion was seconded by E. Spink
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 14, 1994 - 5
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Clark X
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Motion Approved: BZA-3303.94, by a vote of 6 to 0.
F. BZA-3304.94, 5931 Joshua Street
This is a request by the Wilson-Deming Company to vary the front yard
setback by 5'8", to construct a three season room on the existing front
porch. J. Sturdevant summarized the case.
Dale Hall, Wilson-Deming Company, representing Mr. and Mrs. Keeney,
spoke of the improvements being made to the house at 5931 Joshua
Street, and the owners desire to add the room, which is an unheated
enclosed porch with windows all around, and one storm door.
A communication was received from Wolverine Development; they have
no objection.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. There was no discussion.
E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3304.94, seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Spink X Hilts X
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Clark X Sheldon X
Motion Approved: BZA-3304.94, by a vote of 6 to 0.
III. Approval of Minutes
A. Minutes from June 9, 1994, meeting were not ready for tonights
meeting. However, they will be ready for the next meeting.
IV. Excused Absences
A. C. Bicy requested an excused absence. Motion to approve was made by
E. Spink, seconded by H. LeBlanc. Motion approved unanimously by
a voice vote.
V. Public Comment
A. None
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 14, 1994 - 6
VI. Old Business
A. Policy and Procedures
1. None
VII. New Business
A. Election of Officers
1. E. Spink made a motion to continue the present board officers for
another year. G. Hilts seconded that motion. Motion approved
by a voice vote.
B . There was discussion regarding the potential of three absences from
next months meeting, J. Sheldon, H. LeBlanc, and G. Hilts. It was
decided that the meeting would be held as scheduled.
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectf lly Submitted,
James A. Ruff. Secret r
Y
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzaju1y.94
Approved 08/11/94
_ To Clerk 09/08/94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
June 9, 1994, 7:30 p-m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOTH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson N. Carlson at 7:30 p.m. Roll
call was taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon Rev. Bicy
G. Hilts H. LeBlanc
M. Clark E. Spink
H. P. Curran N. Carlson
B. Excused Absences
None
C. A quorum of Eight members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Sturdevant, Senior Planner
II. Hearings
A. B ZA-3298.94, 533 S. Grand (Cesar Chavez) Avenue
A request was submitted by Jesse Lothamer, owner of 533 S. Grand
(Cesar Chavez) Avenue, to utilize the second floor of the building for
office space while having six (6) on-site parking spaces. In addition
to the office space that exists on the first floor, eight (8) parking
spaces are required by Section 1285.13(d)(2) of the Zoning Code. This
is a requested variance of two (2) parking spaces.
A presentation was made by J. Sturdevant, who summarized the case.
He also read into the record comments from the City's traffic engineer.
Summarized, there is plenty of metered parking on the street for this
business. Dedicated parking on the street is not a possibility. There
were concerns about the layout of parking lot on site, the number of
employees, and future needs.
C. Bicy inquired into the number of nearby parking spaces available,
and the distances between public parking and the property. Staff
reminded the Board that a variance for front yard parking had been
granted to this property at a previous time.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES June 9, 1994 - 2
Jesse Lothamer, owner of 533 S. Grand, spoke. He briefly stated the
history of parking at this property. He mentioned that the Historic
District Commission had turned down his request to purchase and
demolish the house next to 533, in order to increase parking. He also
mentioned that the Historic District Commission had, at the same
meeting, unanimously approved a recommendation to grant a variance.
He reiterated the number of parking spaces (six) , and noted that the
front yard parking variance earlier granted was for two of those six
spaces. Mr. Lothamer showed photographs of the interior of the
building, where he has done most of the renovating. Any renovation
still to be done is on the outside of the building, and is primarily
parking. He spoke of the things that he has done so far, and
reiterated his request for a variance of two parking spaces.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Lothamer and the Board.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole.
E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3298.94, with a condition that the site plan
improvements be made prior to the occupancy of the second floor and that the site
plan improvements include paving of parking and driveway areas and the required
landscaping and buffering. Seconded by G. Hilts. E. Spink spoke to the motion,
stating that staff has given the analysis that shows that a practical difficulty does
exist in trying to acquire more parking, the applicant has made more than the normal
attempts to solve the problem. We certainly would not expect any more problems with
the vehicular or pedestrian traffic and having a historically correct building in that
location will certainly be an asset to the city as well as the neighborhood.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Spink X
Bicy X Hilts X
Clark X LeBlanc X
Carlson X Curran X
Motion Approved: BZA-3298.94 by a vote of 6 to 0.
III. Old Business
A. The need to notify the Neighborhood Associations was stressed.
B. St. Mary's Church has sent a letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals,
requesting that the application for variance of front and side yard
setbacks be withdrawn. This variance was tabled pending further
information.
A motion was made by H. LeBlanc to accept the withdrawal. Motion was
seconded by G. Hilts. It was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Burleson, from the City Attorney's office, explained the premature
demolition of the building at St. Mary's.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES June 9, 1994 - 3
IV. Public Comment
A. No public was in attendance.
V. Approval of Minutes
A. May 12, 1994, meeting
1. C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes. The motion was
seconded by H. LeBlanc. Motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0.
VI. Excused Absences
A. None.
VII. New Business
A. No New Business
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfullay Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzajune.94
„ Approved 06/09/94
To Clerk 09/09/94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
May 12, 1994, 7:30 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair J. Sheldon at 7:30 p.m. Roll
call was taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon Rev. Bicy
G. Hilts H. LeBlanc
M. Clark E. Spink
B . Excused Absences
N. Carlson
H. P. Curran
C. A quorum of Six members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
J. Sturdevant, Senior Planner
II. Hearings
A. BZA-3296.94, 3003 E. Michigan Avenue
A request was submitted by Victor Design, representing 3003 E.
Michigan Avenue Partnership, to construct three additions onto the
building at 3003 E. Michigan Avenue, which is in the 100 year flood
plain. The request was subsequently modified, eliminating the front
addition along Michigan Avenue. One of the additions requires a
setback variance of Section 1268.06(a), and both will have a floor
elevation below the 100 year flood elevation requiring a variance of
Chapter 1288 of the Zoning Code. As a corner lot, the property has
two front yards facing Homer and Michigan Avenue.
The addition onto the northwest corner of the building is proposed to
be I from the front property line along Homer Street; 20' is required.
Therefore, this is a request for setback variances of 191. The addition
will contain 700 square feet and be in the required front yard setback
off Homer Street. The second addition of 255 square feet will be located
on the northeast corner of the building. Both addititions will have floor
elevations of 832.2' and the 100 year flood elevation is 8361, therefore
a variance of 3.8' of floor elevation is requested.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 12, 1994 - 2
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case. It was
noted that part of the variance, the originally proposed front addition,
will not be necessary, as the tenant has changed since the variance was
requested. This means that one addition will contain 700 square feet
and will be in the required front yard setback off Homer Street, and the
second addition will be of 255 square feet, and located on the northeast
corner of the building. The floor elevation variance of 3.8' is still
requested.
Bob Edgar, Victor Design, addressed the Board. He stated that he had
nothing to add to Mr. Ruff's presentation, but was available for
questions. He also passed out copies of the revised site plan.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole.
E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3296.94, for the variance along Homer
Street, and based on the staff recommendation to waive requirement to flood proof
the first floor at or above the 100 year flood plain. This is a reasonable request in
that it follows the line of the existing building, and it is an extremely minimum
request, it is an addition that is crucial to any retail business that were to use the
building, the plans to square up the front and to provide the required screening and
buffering will certainly improve that corner. Additional conditions are as stated in
the staff report, with the exception of flood insurance. The motion was seconded by
M. Clark.
VOTE• yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Spink X
Bicy X Hilts X
Clark X LeBlanc X
Motion Approved: BZA-3296.94 by a vote of 6 to 0.
J. Ruff noted to the Board that even though they did not require flood insurance as
a condition, it is required by code.
B. BZA-3297.94, 1130 S. Pennsylvania Avenue
A request by the Board of Water and Light to make substantial
improvements to the existing buildings located within the floodplain
with floor elevations below the base flood elevation. The Board wishes
to convert portions of two buildings from warehouse to office space.
This is in variance of Chapter 1288 of the Zoning Code, which regulates
uses of land in the flood plain.
A presentation was made by J. Sturdevant, who summarized the case.
Jim Felts, representing the Board of Water and Light, stated that he
was available for questions, and also mentioned that the state
Department of Natural Resources has no interest in this, as there is no
expansion to take place.
Some discussion took place.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 12, 1994 - 3
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole.
E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3297.94, with the first two conditions in
staff recommendation being required, as follows:
1. A showing of good and sufficient cause:
--The Board of Water and Light is in need of additional office
space, and permitting it to renovate existing facilities to meet
this need is a good cause for the utility company's customers.
2. Failure to grant the variance would result in an exceptional
hardship to the applicant:
--Denial of the requested variance may force the applicant to
acquire additional property to meet their office space needs.
Motion seconded by M. Clark.
VOTE• yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Spink X
Bicy X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Motion Approved: BZA-3297.94, by a vote of 6 to 0.
III. Approval of Minutes
A. April 14, 1994, meeting
1. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve the minutes. The motion
was seconded by C. Bicy. Motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
IV. Excused Absences
A. H. LeBlanc moved to approve the excused absence requests from N.
Carlson and H. P. Curran. E. Spink seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
V. Public Comment
A. No Public Comments
VI. Old Business
A. No Old Business to discuss
VII. New Business
A. No New Business
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 12, 1994 - 4
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzamay.94
Approved 05/12/94
To Clerk 09/09/94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
April 14, 1994, 7:30 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by Chair N. Carlson at 7:30 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon Rev. Bicy
N. Carlson G. Hilts
H. LeBlanc M. Clark
H. P. Curran
B . Excused Absences
E. Spink
C. A quorum of Seven members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
J. Sturdevant, Senior Planner
II. Hearings
A. BZA-3292.94, 2816 Lyons Avenue
A request by Curtis S. Keyworth, of 2816 Lyons Avenue, to construct
an attached garage 22' from the rear (north) property line. Section
1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a 30' rear yard setback; therefore,
a variance of 8' is requested.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
Mr. Keyworth, owner of the property, presented a petition of support
from the surrounding neighbors.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole.
C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3292.94, finding that a hardship or practical
difficulty does exist, that the variance will be in harmony with the surrounding
development, will not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular traffic, will not be
a nuisance, and will not adversely affect future development in the area. Motion
seconded by H. P. Curran.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 14, 1994 - 2
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X Hilts X
Clark X LeBlanc X
Curran X
Motion Approved: BZA-3292.94 by a vote of 7 to 0.
B. BZA-3293.94, 137 E. Randolph Street
A request by Dorothy Soliz to construct a new home and a detached
garage on the property at 137 E. Randolph Street. The home would
have a 10' setback from the Creston Street right of way and the garage
would have a 19' setback from the Creston Street right of way. Section
1248.07 of the Zoning Code requires a 22' front yard setback from the
front property line along Creston Street. Therefore, variances of 12'
and 3' are requested respectively. To accomplish this, the applicant
proposes to remove the existing structures on the site.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
Dorothy Soliz, owner of the property, was at the meeting. She brought
with her Kathy Colby, representing MCI Builders. They were available
to answer questions. Further, they propose building an attached
garage on the south side of the house instead of building a detached
garage.
The Committee discussed the options.
M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3293.94, finding that a hardship or practical
difficulty exists due to the size and corner location of the lot, and that there will be
no adverse impact resulting from the granting of this request.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Curran X
Motion Approved: BZA-3293.94, by a vote of 7 to 0.
C. BZA-3294.94, 2819 Aurora Drive
A request by Felix Ingram to construct a deck onto the rear and west
sides of his home at 2819 Aurora Drive. The deck will be approximately
20' from the rear lot line. Since Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Code
requires a minimum rear yard setback of 301, this is a requested rear
yard variance of 10'.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 14, 1994 - 3
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case and the
staff recommendation.
Felix Ingram, owner of the property, was present to answer questions.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Mr. Ingram was asked if
there would be railings on the deck. He replied that there would be railings.
C. Bicy then inquired into the height of the deck, which Mr. Ingram stated
would be 3' to 8'. C. Bicy also inquired whether there would be lights on this
deck. Mr. Ingram answered that the deck would be lighted.
J. Sheldon made a motion to approve BZA-3294.94, finding that a hardship or
practical difficulty does exist, due to the lot configuration, that the granting of this
appeal would be an improvement to this property and would not adversely impact
surrounding properties. The motion was seconded by H. P. Curran.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Curran X
Motion Approved: BZA-3294.94, by a vote of 7 to 0.
D. BZA-3295.94, 400 Block of Justice Street
A request by Helen L. Chaffee for a reduction in the rear yard setback
from 30' to 18' in order to construct a single family home on a vacant lot
located in the 400 block and on the north side of Justice Street. Section
1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a 30' rear yard setback in the "A"
Residential District.
A presentation was made by J. Sturdevant, who summarized the case
and the staff recommendation.
Dick Cooley, 9290 Riverside, was present, representing Ms. Chaffee.
He stated that essentially, the rear yard would be to the west, where
there would be approximately 54' from the house to the property line.
He also stated that the owners are aware of the drainage problem, and
have hired an engineering firm to help with that issue.
Richard and Virginia Cooley, 6015 Loretta Street, neighbors to the
property in question, sent a card indicating their support for this
variance.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy inquired whether
there were any other drainage problems. J. Sturdevant replied that he was
not aware of any; however, he also indicated that it was dry when he was at
the property.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 14, 1994 - 4
M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3295.94, finding that a hardship or practical
difficulty does exist in that the lot is oriented parallel to Justice Street, rather than
perpendicular to it and that the variance will be in harmony with the surrounding
development, will not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular traffic, will not be
a nuisance, and will not adversely affect future development in the area. Also, the
drainage situation must be addressed during construction. The motion was seconded
by P. H. Curran.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Curran X
Motion Approved: BZA-3295.94, by a vote of 7 to 0.
III. Approval of Minutes
A. March 10, 1994, meeting
1. C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes. The motion was
seconded by G. Hilts. Motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0.
IV. Excused Absences
A. H. P. Curran moved to approve the excused absence request from E.
Spink. G. Hilts seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
V. Public Comment
Donna Wynant, Historic District Staff, presented a letter encouraging Historic
Preservation in the case of BZA-3290.94, 219 N. Seymour Avenue, St. Mary's
Parish Hall.
Stephanie Whitbeck, 620 W. Ionia, Historic District Commission Board Member,
spoke, saying that Mayor Hollister has indicated that he wished to also see the
building at 219 N. Seymour Avenue saved. She stated that Father Murray
would seriously consider saving the building, and that she has been in the
building, and that it is sturdy, not dilapidated. She asked that the Historic
District Commission be kept posted on this issue.
David Anderson, 320 W. Ottawa, spoke regarding the Commission's
recommendation and shared pictures of the Capitol and other historic
buildings with the Board.
Paul M. Scott, 412 W. Kilborn, spoke in support of the actions of the Historic
District Commission. He also asks that a subcommittee be formed to review the
ordinance and recommended changes so the Board would not have to be
bothered by some of the more minor appeals giving the administration more
latitude.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 14, 1994 - 5
VI. Old Business
None
VII. New Business
A. Nancy Carlson requested an excused absence for next months meeting.
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
Respectf, ly Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secreta
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzaapr.94
Approved / /94
04-25-9yPC;2 : 39 RCVD To Clerk / /94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
April 14, 1994, 7:30 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by Chair N. Carlson at 7:30 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon Rev. Bicy
N. Carlson G. Hilts
H. LeBlanc M. Clark
H. P. Curran
B . Excused Absences
E. Spink
C. A quorum of Seven members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
J. Sturdevant, Senior Planner
II. Hearings
A. BZA-3292.94, 2816 Lyons Avenue
A request by Curtis S. Keyworth, of 2816 Lyons Avenue, to construct
an attached garage 22' from the rear (north) property line. Section
1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a 30' rear yard setback; therefore,
a variance of 8' is requested.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
Mr. Keyworth, owner of the property, presented a petition of support
from the surrounding neighbors.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole.
C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3292.94, finding that a hardship or practical
difficulty does exist, that the variance will be in harmony with the surrounding
development, will not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular traffic, will not be
a nuisance, and will not adversely affect future development in the area. Motion
seconded by H. P. Curran.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 14, 1994 - 2
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X Hilts X
Clark X LeBlanc X
Curran X
Motion Approved: BZA-3292.94 by a vote of 7 to 0.
B . BZA-3293.94, 137 E. Randolph Street
A request by Dorothy Soliz to construct a new home and a detached
i
garage on the property at 137 E. Randolph Street. The home would
have a 10' setback from the Creston Street right of way and the garage
would have a 19' setback from the Creston Street right of way. Section
1248.07 of the Zoning Code requires a 22' front yard setback from the
front property line along Creston Street. Therefore, variances of 12'
and. 3' are requested respectively. To accomplish this, the applicant
proposes to remove the existing structures on the site.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
Dorothy Soliz, owner of the property, was at the meeting. She brought
with her Kathy Colby, representing MCI Builders. They were available
to answer questions. Further, they propose building an attached
garage on the south side of the house instead of building a detached
garage.
The Committee discussed the options.
M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3293.94, finding that a hardship or practical
difficulty exists due to the size and corner location of the lot, and that there will be
no adverse impact resulting from the granting of this request.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Curran X
Motion Approved: BZA-3293.94, by a vote of 7 to 0.
41.
C. BZA-3294.94, 2819 Aurora Drive
A request by Felix Ingram to construct a deck onto the rear and west
sides of his home at 2819 Aurora Drive. The deck will be approximately
20' from the rear lot line. Since Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Code
requires a minimum rear yard setback of 30', this is a requested rear
yard variance of 10'.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 14, 1994 - 3
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case and the
staff recommendation.
Felix Ingram, owner of the property, was present to answer questions. j
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Mr. Ingram was asked if
there would be railings on the deck. He replied that there would be railings.
C. Bicy.then inquired into the height of the deck, which Mr. Ingram stated
would be 3' to 8'. C. Bicy also inquired whether there would be lights on this
deck. Mr. Ingram answered that the deck would be lighted.
J. Sheldon made a motion to approve BZA-3294.94, finding that a hardship or
practical difficulty does exist, due to the lot configuration, that the granting of this
appeal would be an improvement to this property and would not adversely impact 3
surrounding properties. The motion was seconded by H. P. Curran.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Curran X
Motion Approved: BZA-3294.94, by a vote of 7 to 0.
D. BZA-3295.94, 400 Block of Justice Street
f.
A request by Helen L. Chaffee for a reduction in the rear yard setback
from 30' to 18' in order to construct a single family home on a vacant lot
located in the 400 block and on the north side of Justice Street. Section
1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a 30' rear yard setback in the "A"
Residential District.
A presentation was made by J. Sturdevant, who summarized the case
and"the staff recommendation.
Dick Cooley, 9290 Riverside, was present, representing Ms. Chaffee.
He stated that essentially, the rear yard would be to the west, where
there would be approximately 54' from the house to the property line.
He also stated that the owners are aware of the drainage problem, and
have hired an engineering firm to help with that issue.
Richard and Virginia Cooley, 6015 Loretta Street, neighbors to the
property in question, sent a card indicating their support for this
variance.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy inquired whether
there were any other drainage problems. J. Sturdevant replied that he was
not aware of any; however, he also indicated that it was dry when he was at
the property.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 14, 1994 - 4
M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3295.94, finding that a hardship or practical
difficulty does exist in that the lot is oriented parallel to Justice Street, rather than
perpendicular to it and that the variance will be in harmony with the surrounding
development, will not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular traffic, will not be
a nuisance, and will not adversely affect future development in the area. Also, the
drainage situation must be addressed during construction. The motion was seconded
by P. H. Curran.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Curran X
Motion Approved: BZA-3295.94, by a vote of 7 to 0.
III. Approval of Minutes
A. March 10, 1994, meeting
1. C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes. The motion was
seconded by G. Hilts. Motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0.
IV. Excused Absences
A. H. P. Curran moved to approve the excused absence request from E.
Spink. G. Hilts seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
V. Public Comment
Donna Wynant, Historic District Staff, presented a letter encouraging Historic
Preservation in the case of BZA-3290.94, 219 N. Seymour Avenue, St. Mary's
Parish Hall.
Stephanie Whitbeck, 620 W. Ionia, Historic District Commission Board Member,
spoke, saying that Mayor Hollister has indicated that he wished to also see the
building at 219 N. Seymour Avenue saved. She stated that Father Murray
would seriously consider saving the building, and that she has been in the
building, and that it is sturdy, not dilapidated. She asked that the Historic
District Commission be kept posted on this issue.
David Anderson, 320 W. Ottawa, spoke regarding the Commission's
recommendation and shared pictures of the-'Capitol and other historic
buildings with the Board.
Paul M. Scott, 412 W. Kilborn, spoke in support of the actions of the Historic
District Commission. He also asks that a subcommittee be formed to review the
ordinance and recommended changes so the Board would not have to be
bothered by some of the more minor appeals giving the administration more
latitude.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 14, 1994 - 5
VI. Old Business
None
VII. New Business
A. Nancy Carlson requested an excused absence for next months meeting.
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:%%vp\data\bza\bzaapr.94
'2„
Approved 04/14/94
To Clerk 09/09/94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
March 10, 1993, 7:30 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by Chair N. Carlson at 7:33 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon Rev. Bicy
N. Carlson Dr. Spink
G. Hilts M. Clark
B. Absent
H. P. Curran
H. LeBlanc
C. A quorum of Six members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
D. There was a motion made by Dr. Spink to accept the excused absences
of H. P. Curran and H. LeBlanc. G. Hilts seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
E. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. Approval of Agenda
A. J. Sheldon made a motion to move the public comment section of the
meeting from Item V to Item IV, immediately prior to consideration of
Tabled Items. H. P. Curran seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Spink X Sheldon X
Curran X Hilts X
*Motion passed by a vote of 5 to 1.
B . H. P. Curran made a motion to accept the withdrawl of BZA-3282.93.
H. LeBlanc seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Spink X Sheldon X
Curran X Hilts X
*Motion passed unanimously.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 10 1994 - 2
C. H. P. Curran made a motion to approve the agenda as amended. J.
Sheldon seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay ea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Spink X Sheldon X
Curran X Hilts X
*Motion passed unanimously.
III. Hearings
A. BZA-3278.93, 1404-1416 N. Larch
A petition by Brian Holbrook, of Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, a site
remediation investigation company, to place three strands of barbed
wire on top of a 6' high fence on the properties located at 1404 and 1416
N. Larch Street. Variance of Section 1290.08(a) (3)B of the Zoning
Code is requested.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff.
Brian Holbrook, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, spoke representing
the petition.
H. P. Curran made a motion to approve this petition as recommended by staff, with
the condition that the barbed wire be removed within 30 days following the removal
of the hazardous materials. This recommendation is based upon the need to prevent
trespassing on this property for health and safety considerations, and finding that
the barbed wire should not adversely affect adjacent properties.
The motion was seconded by J. Sheldon.
VOTE: yea nay ea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Spink X Sheldon X
Curran X Hilts X
*Motion to approve BZA-3278.93 passed by a vote of 5 to 1, with E. Spink casting the
dissenting vote.
B. BZA-3279.93, 2801 E. Michigan Avenue
A petition by Richard Iding, representing Bud Kouts Chevrolet, to
install a canopy with three wall signs onto their body shop building
totaling 80 sq. ft. at 2801 E. Michigan Avenue. The sales building
contains the maximum number (2) and 149 square feet of the maximum
area (150 sq. ft. ) allowed for wall signs on this property, according to
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 10 1994 - 3
Section 1442.13 of the Sign Code. Therefore, this is a requested
variance of 3 additional wall signs and 79 additional sq. ft. of sign area.
A Presentation was made by J. Ruff.
Richard Iding spoke, reiterating the position of Bud Kouts Chevrolet.
A motion was made by E. Spink to approve BZA-3279.93, based on the size of the
property, the distances of other structures from the property, and the corner lot
hardship.
The motion was seconded by J. Sheldon.
VOTE: yea nay ea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Spink X Sheldon X
Curran X Hilts X
*Motion to approve BZA-3279.93 passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
11 M. Clark came into the meeting at 8:07 p.m.
C. BZA-3280.93 3230 E. Saginaw St.
A request by Marshall Music Co. at 3230 E. Saginaw St. to erect a third
wall sign, 48 square feet in area, on the south side of their new
building, for identification. The building currently has the maximum
two wall signs containing 192 sq. ft. in area of a maximum 200 sq. ft.
in area, according to Section 1442.13 of the Sign Code. Therefore, this
is a requested variance of 1 additional wall sign and 40 additional sq.
ft. of sign area.
J. Ruff gave a presentation of the requested variance.
Dan Marshall spoke, stating that he was there to answer any questions
that the board might have.
A motion was made by E. Spink to approve BZA-3280.93, with the condition that no
ground pole sign be approved in the future if requested, finding that this situation
(located on the fringe of the mall) provides a practical difficulty and the variance
should improve circulation around the site.
The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Spink X Sheldon X
Curran X Hilts X
Clark X
*Motion to approve BZA-3280.93 passed by a vote of 7 to 0.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 10 1994 - 4
D. BZA-3281.93, 3222 S. Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. Blvd./Logan St.
To relocate the existing "Frandor's Logan Square" multi-tenant sign
from its existing location along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Blvd. /Logan St. to a location immediately north due to reconstruction
of the shopping center's entrance driveway. The sign is 30 ft. tall and
contains 344 sq. ft. in area. The proposed sign location would have a
10 ft. setback. Section 1442.12 of the Sign Code allows a sign with a
setback of 10 ft. to contain a maximum of 30 sq. ft. in area and an
overall height of 10 feet. This is a requested variance of 20 ft. in
height and 314 s q. ft. in area.
J. Ruff presented and summarized the recommendation.
Mike Williams, President of Sign Art Inc. , spoke. He mentioned that
the size of the sign is well within the scale of the site and the building,
and that the greatest difficulty to safety with the proposed sign is
presented in the southbound, right hand lane.
Communication in favor of the request was received from Jerry Green,
President, Logan Square Merchant's Association, read into record and
placed on file.
E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3281.93, as long as the sign is located 13 to
25 feet from the property line, as approved by the Planning Staff. Motion seconded
by G. Hilts.
Jack Roberts spoke, concerning the delegation of authority, to the
Planning Staff. Otherwise, if it is only a range, and the sign is
acceptable anywhere in that range, then the motion is fine.
At this time, E. Spink withdrew his motion.
Mike Williams then spoke again, requesting additional time. This was
approved by the board, who suggested a 14' setback, in order to
achieve the general goals of the Board in these matters.
H. P. Curran made a motion to approve BZA-3281.93, with a setback of 14'. G. Hilts
seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay ea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Clark X Sheldon X
Curran X Hilts X
Spink X
*Motion to approve BZA-3281.93 passed unanimously. The Board found that the
center's signage has been done in such a way so as to achieve the goals of the sign
code and the location of the sign will provide safe identification as well as be in
greater conformance with the code.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 10 1994 - 5
E. BZA-3282.93, 1934 Kingswood Drive.
This is a request by Henry and Nancy Verkaik, to construct an addition
onto the rear of their home with a rear yard setback of 27 feet. Section
1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a rear yard setback of 30 feet.
This is a requested variance of 3 feet.
J. Ruff summarized the request.
Henry Verkaik spoke, stating that he had nothing more to add to J.
Ruff's comments.
E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3282.93, based upon the staff report, which
indicates no impact upon the neighborhood, or on circulation patterns. Motion
seconded by H. P. Curran.
VOTE: yea nay ea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Clark X Sheldon X
Curran K Hilts X
Spink X
*Motion to approve BZA-3282.93 unanimously approved.
F. BZA-3283.92, City of Lansing, 1129 N. Capitol Avenue, was withdrawn.
THE BOARD TOOK A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 8:48 P.M. THE MEETING WAS CALLED
BACK TO ORDER AT 9:00 P.M.
IV. Public Comment
A. Lynn O'Connor, in favor of appeal 3277. This property was cited as a
potential lot for moving a home onto, when the school addition issue was
being resolved.
B. Denise Barowitz, 406 W. Kilborn, opposed to appeal 3277.
C. Mary Hauser, #6 Lawler Ct. , president of Old Forest Neighborhood
Association. Association voted in favor of BZA-3277.93 at November 4,
1993, meeting.
D. Sheryl Masseau, 309 W. Kilborn, opposed to Appeal 3277.
E. Eleanor Love, Manager of Planning Office, available to answer any
questions.
F. George Ledden, petitioner, Habitat for Humanity representing petition.
G. Alice Minick, 916 N. Walnut, opposed to Appeal 3277.
H. Kathy L. G. Wolcott, 931 N. Walnut, Opposed to Appeal 3277.
I. Caroline Guzman, 1114 N. Capitol, requested board to keep the overall
picture of the project in mind when considering Appeal 3277.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 10 1994 - 6
J. Tom Minick, 916 N. Walnut, opposed to Appeal 3277.
K. Phil Wolcott, 931 N. Walnut, opposed to Appeal 3277.
L. Shirley Hendy, 426 W. Kilborn, in favor of Appeal 3277.
M. Kevin Webb,528 W. Grand River, in favor of Appeal 3277.
V. Old Business
A. A motion was made by H. P. Curran to remove BZA-3277.93 from the
table. This motion was seconded by G. Hilts. It passed unanimously
on a voice vote.
1. Tabled Item, BZA-3277.93, Request by Habitat for Humanity to
relocate a single-family home onto the vacant lot at 317 W.
Kilborn. The house is proposed to sit 6' from the front property
line and 28' from the rear property line. Variance to Sections
1250.07 and 1250.09 of the Zoning Code.
E. Spink motioned to consider the letters, correspondence, and
petition received from Denise Barowitz, Old Forest Neighborhood
Association, Mr. and Mrs. Masseau, Mr. and Mrs. Wolcott,
Franklin Street Co-op, and Downtown Neighborhood Association
as read, and placed on file. G. Hilts seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously on voice vote.
J. Ruff summarized the request and facts regarding the lot
coverage, bulk, set-back, and compatibility with neighboring
structures.
H. LeBlanc related to the board and to those citizens present the
intent and language of the recommendations contained within the
Willow-Pine Amendment Plan regarding this and similar issues.
John M. Roberts, Senior Assistant City Attorney, was in
attendance to address the concern of conflict of interest, raised
in a letter regarding BZA-3277. He stated that he reviewed the
ordinance, the charter, and conflict of interest law, and stated
that, in his opinion, a conflict of interest may occur when a
board member receives an economic benefit, or the appearance of
an economic benefit from a decision that has been made by the
board, and the board member has voted on that item. Further,
the basic question that needs to be answered with regard to the
conflict of interest that has been raised in this situation is: Can
the board member's vote be independent of an association's
decision that the board member belongs to and is a board member
of? Mr. Roberts then asked Board Member Sheldon various
questions regarding her participation and roll in the Downtown
Neighborhood Association, the recommendation of the Downtown
Neighborhood Association regarding BZA-3277, and whether or
not the association voted specifically regarding BZA-3277.
Finally, Mr. Roberts asked Sheldon whether or not she felt that
she could vote independent of the Association's recommendation.
Sheldon responded yes. In summary, Mr. Roberts stated that he
did not see an impression of impropriety or conflict of interest.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 10 1994 - 7
E. Spink motioned to allow J. Sheldon to vote on BZA-3277.93, seconded by H.P.
Curran.
VOTE: yea nay ea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Curran X Spink X
*Motion to allow J. Sheldon to vote on BZA-3277.93 passed unanimously.
H. LeBlanc moved to approve the variance request, 3277.93, on the basis that the
variance would be compatible with the existing neighborhood, and neighborhood
development patterns, would not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular
circulation, would result in the elimination of a joint driveway, and would not
adversely impact the environment. Seconded by M. Clark. The board also
mentioned that the variance would be in keeping with the Willow-Pine Amendment
Plan and would result in an owner-occupied, single family dwelling. Hardship
existed based upon the shape of the lot.
VOTE: yea nay ea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Curran X Sheldon X
Spink X
*Motion to approve BZA-3277.93 was passed by a vote of 6 yeas to 1 nay. Motion
carried.
VI. Minutes
A. E. Spink made a motion to approve the minutes of February 11, 1993.
Motion seconded by H. P. Curran.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Carlson X Hilts X
Clark X Sheldon X
Curran X Spink X
*Motion to approve minutes of February 11, 1993, passed unanimously (except for
H. LeBlanc, who abstained from vote on these minutes) .
B . E. Spink made a motion to approve the minutes of March 11, 1993, June
10, 1993, July 8, 1993, and August 12, 1993. Motion seconded by H. P.
Curran.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 10 1994 - 8
VOTE: yea nay ea nay
Carlson X Hilts X
Clark X Sheldon X
Curran X LeBlanc X
Spink X
*Motion to approve minutes of March 11, 1993, June 10, 1993, July 8, 1993, and
August 12, 1993, passed unanimously.
C. J. Sheldon motioned to approve the minutes of September 9, 1993.
Motion seconded by H. LeBlanc.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Carlson X Hilts X
Clark X Sheldon X
Curran X LeBlanc X
*Motion to approve minutes of September 9, 1993, passed unanimously (except for
E. Spink, who abstained from vote on these minutes) .
D. E. Spink made a motion to approve the minutes of October 14, 1993.
Motion seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Carlson X Hilts X
Clark X Sheldon X
Curran X LeBlanc X
Spink X
*Motion to approve minutes of October 14, 1993, passed unanimously.
VII. New Business
A. Policy and Procedures: It was moved by G. Hilts, and seconded by H.
P. Curran, to place the Policy and Procedures review on the December
agenda.
B. E. Spink commented that the last meeting was incomplete, but not
tonight's meeting. He felt that the Chairperson and the audience
handled this well.
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 10:19 p.m.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 10 1994 - 9
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzanov.93
Approved / /94
03-07-ZiACu : ?6 �CVD
To Clerk / /94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
February 10, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOTH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by Chair N. Carlson at 7:34 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon Rev. Bicy
N. Carlson G. Hilts
H. LeBlanc M. Clark
B . Excused Absences
E. Spink
H. P. Curran
C. A quorum of Six members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. Hearings
A. BZA-3287.94, 333 N. Cedar Street
A request by Custom SignWorks, Inc. for the Lansing City Market, for
four new ground pole signs (96 sq. ft. ) , in addition to the existing
ground pole signs along Cedar Street; one wall sign (120 sq. ft.) ; one
roof sign (90 sq. ft. ); and two projecting signs (84 sq. ft. ) . These
are variances to Sections 1442.24(c)(1) , 1442.24(c)(2), 1442.24(b)(3) ,
1442.24(h)(2) , and 1442.24(d) of the Zoning Code.
A prbsentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
Jerry Donaldson, Manager of Lansing City Market, spoke of the needs
of the market. He defined his proposal, and answered questions posed
by the Board regarding current and proposed signage.
Robert Bennett, Chief Operating Officer of R & R Discount, which has
had a booth at the market, spoke. He feels that the City Market is
going for overkill, as a contrast to the "gentle" signage on nearby
businesses and housing units.
Robin Sawyer, owner of Custom SignWorks, 4314 S. Cedar, spoke,
concerning the needs of the market, as a part of the downtown
BOARD OF ZONING i 'EALS MINUTES February 10, 1994 - 2
revitalization. She stated that Custom Signworks does not find the
amount of signage requested to be excessive or aesthetically
displeasing.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Mr. Ruff reiterated part of
the sign code, where it deals with the Capitol Center District.
John Roberts, Senior Assistant City Attorney, spoke, reminding the Board
that they can not change a proposed variance; only the applicant can do that.
However, the board may suggest a counter proposal, with the decision to
accept being up to the applicant.
The Board engaged in discussion. M. Clark commented that a hardship or
practical difficulty exists due to the fact that the City Market is bounded by
three streets. The Chairperson took this opportunity to enquire of the
applicant if they would desire to change the appeal, to limit the appeal to the
amount of signage that the Board has jurisdiction over. The applicant
indicated that they would agree to that.
M. Clark made a motion to approve the proposal, as amended, to retain the two
ground pole signs that are existing, one at the corner of Cedar and Shiawassee, the
second at the corner of Cedar and Museum Drive, and to add up to 4 wall signs to the
building, each of which is not to exceed 50 sq. ft. in size, and that all other stray
signs around the property be removed; also, that all other matters be consistent
with the Code. Motion seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay ea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X Hilts X
Clark X LeBlanc X
Motion Approved as amended: BZA-3287.94 by a vote of 6 to 0.
B. BZA-3288.94, 119 S. Larch Street
A request by Ed Carpenter, owner of Liskey's Wheel Service, to replace
the existing wall signage on the building at 119 S. Larch Street.
Presently, there are three signs, totalling 346 sq. ft. of sign area and
the applicant wishes to replace those signs with three signs totalling 151
sq. ft. in sign area. Section 1442.24(b) of the Zoning Code allows one
wall sign and 40 sq. ft. of sign area in the Capitol Center District.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
Ed Carpenter, owner of Liskey's Wheel Service, spoke of his desire to
maintain the image presented by the Lansing Center for the Capitol
Center District. He presented a packet of information which he had
prepared, in which he tried to show what he wanted his building to look
like, as well as showing some other businesses and their signage.
Committee of the whole had no comments or questions.
BOARD OF ZONING Y_ EALS MINUTES February 10, 1994 - 3
C. Bicy made a motion to approve the reduction of signage area, from
346 to 151 sq. ft. with three signs, north, south and west sides of
building, based upon information contained in the staff report. M.
Clark seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Motion Approved: BZA-3288.94, by a vote of 6 to 0.
C. BZA-3289.94, 5025 S. Pennsylvania Avenue
A request by Hardy and Sons Signs representing Bob and Norma Love,
owners of the Penn and Jolly Marathon Gas Station, to replace the
existing 24 ft. tall Marathon I.D. and price sign that contains 69 sq. ft.
of sign area. The proposed sign would set 5 feet from the front
property line. Section 1442.12(h)(5) of the Zoning Code requires a 22'
setback for a sign of this size. This is a requested setback variance of
17 feet.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case and the
staff recommendation.
Harold Hardy, owner of Hardy and Sons Signs, stated that they can do
without the reader board on the sign in order to reduce the overall
signage area to approximately 69 sq. ft.
There was no discussion during committee of the whole.
M. Clark made a motion to approve the sign request, as amended; 20' high,
with the 5 foot setback and a maximum of 69 square feet of sign area. Motion
seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: _yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Motion Approved: BZA-3289.94, by a vote of 6 to 0.
III. Approval of Minutes
A. January 13, 1994, meeting
1. Record of the vote to rehear BZA-3274.93, page two of the
minutes, was in error. E. Spink voted NAY, not YEA, as
recorded. Minutes will be amended.
BOARD OF ZONING A EALS MINUTES February 10, 1994 - 4
2. M. Clark made a motion to approve the minutes, as amended.
The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. Motion passed by a vote
of6to0.
IV. Excused Absences
A. H. LeBlanc moved to approve the excused absence requests from E.
Spink and H. P. Curran. J. Sheldon seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
V. Public Comment
None
VI. Old Business
J. Roberts spoke concerning Ballentine Stepping Stones; he referred to the
minutes of December 9, 1993. He mentioned that the state has preempted the
city concerning day care, for six children and fewer, regardless of city
ordinance. SLU's are only for day care serving 12 and more children. The
council and the board didn't have to pass an SLU, because the way it's written
is that as long as they meet all the conditions, they don't need an SLU. The
Ballentine Stepping Stones parking variance was passed on condition that the
SLU pass, but the SLU was not necessary. If it was legally permitted, then
the variance condition is not necessary.
At this point, discussion took place with regard to the conditions.
J. Roberts also brought up the issue of Record. He mentioned that the tape
recorded meeting should be kept, in the event of an appeal. He also stated
that there are three aspects to a variance: #1. The standard; #2. The
criteria; and 43. The condition. He would like to see motions made, stating
that "after considering the condition, the criteria, and the standard."
VII. New Business
None
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzafeb.94
18-94P02 : 21 RCVD
Approved / /94
To Clerk / /94
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
February 10, 1994, 7:30 P.M. "RAFT
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by Chair N. Carlson at 7:34 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon Rev. Bicy
N. Carlson G. Hilts
H. LeBlanc M. Clark
B. Excused Absences
E. Spink
H. P. Curran
C. A quorum of Six members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. Hearings
A. BZA-3287.94, 333 N. Cedar Street
A request by Custom SignWorks, Inc. for the Lansing City Market, for
four new ground pole signs (96 sq. ft. ) , in addition to the existing
ground pole signs along Cedar Street; one wall sign (120 sq. ft. ); one
roof sign (90 sq. ft. ) ; and two projecting signs (84 sq. ft. ) . These
are variances to Sections 1442.24(c)(1), 1442.24(c)(2) , 1442.24(b)(3) ,
1442.24(h)(2) , and 1442.24(d) of the Zoning Code.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
Jerry Donaldson, Manager of Lansing City Market, spoke of the needs
of the market. He defined his proposal, and answered questions posed
by the Board regarding current and proposed signage.
Robert Bennett, Chief Operating Officer of R & R Discount, which has
had a booth at the market, spoke. He feels that the City Market is
going for overkill, as a contrast to the "gentle" signage on nearby
businesses and housing units.
Robin Sawyer, owner of Custom SignWorks, 4314 S. Cedar, spoke,
concerning the needs of the market, as a part of the downtown
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 10, 1994 - 2
revitalization. She stated that Custom Signworks does not find the
amount of signage requested to be excessive or aesthetically
displeasing.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Mr. Ruff reiterated part of
the sign code, where it deals with the Capitol Center District.
John Roberts, Senior Assistant City Attorney, spoke, reminding the Board
that they can not change a proposed variance; only the applicant can do that.
However, the board may suggest a counter proposal, with the decision to
accept being up to the applicant.
The Board engaged in discussion. M. Clark commented that a hardship or
practical difficulty exists due to the fact that the City Market is bounded by
three streets. The Chairperson took this opportunity to enquire of the
applicant if they would desire to change the appeal, to limit the appeal to the
amount of signage that the Board has jurisdiction over. The applicant
indicated that they would agree to that.
M. Clark made a motion to approve the proposal, as amended, to retain the two
ground pole signs that are existing, one at the corner of Cedar and Shiawassee, the
second at the corner of Cedar and Museum Drive, and to add up to 4 wall signs to the
building, each of which is not to exceed 50 sq. ft. in size, and that all other stray
signs around the property be removed; also, that all other matters be consistent
with the Code. Motion seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X Hilts X
Clark X LeBlanc X
Motion Approved as amended: B ZA-3287.94 by a vote of 6 to 0.
B. BZA-3288.94, 119 S. Larch Street
A request by Ed Carpenter, owner of Liskey's Wheel Service, to replace
the existing wall signage on the building at 119 S. Larch Street.
Presently, there are three signs, totalling 346 sq. ft. of sign area and
the applicant wishes to replace those signs with three signs totalling 151
sq. ft. in sign area. Section 1442.24(b) of the Zoning Code allows one
wall sign and 40 sq. ft. of sign area in the Capitol Center District.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case.
Ed Carpenter, owner of Liskey's Wheel Service, spoke of his desire to
maintain the image presented by the Lansing Center for the Capitol
Center District. He presented a packet of information which he had
prepared, in which he tried to show what he wanted his building to look
like, as well as showing some other businesses and their signage.
Committee of the whole had no comments or questions.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 10, 1994 - 3
C. Bicy made a motion to approve the reduction of signage area, from
346 to 151 sq. ft. with three signs, north, south and west sides of
building, based upon information contained in the staff report. M.
Clark seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Motion Approved: BZA-3288.94, by a vote of 6 to 0.
C. BZA-3289.94, 5025 S. Pennsylvania Avenue
A request by Hardy and Sons Signs representing Bob and Norma Love,
owners of the Penn and Jolly Marathon Gas Station, to replace the
existing 24 ft. tall Marathon I.D. and price sign that contains 69 sq. ft.
of sign area. The proposed sign would set 5 feet from the front
property line. Section 1442.12(h) (5) of the Zoning Code requires a 22'
setback for a sign of this size. This is a requested setback variance of
17 feet.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case and the
staff recommendation.
Harold Hardy, owner of Hardy and Sons Signs, stated that they can do
without the reader board on the sign in order to reduce the overall
signage area to approximately 69 sq. ft.
There was no discussion during committee of the whole.
M. Clark made a motion to approve the sign request, as amended; 20' high,
with the 5 foot setback and a maximum of 69 square feet of sign area. Motion
seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Carlson X
Bicy X LeBlanc X
Clark X Hilts X
Motion Approved: BZA-3289.94, by a vote of 6 to 0.
III. Approval of Minutes
A. January 13, 1994, meeting
1. Record of the vote to rehear BZA-3274.93, page two of the
minutes, was in error. E. Spink voted NAY, not YEA, as
recorded. Minutes will be amended.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 10, 1994 - 4
2. M. Clark made a motion to approve the minutes, as amended.
The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. Motion passed by a vote
of 6 to 0.
IV. Excused Absences
A. H. LeBlanc moved to approve the excused absence requests from E.
Spink and H. P. Curran. J. Sheldon seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
V. Public Comment
None
VI. Old Business
J. Roberts spoke concerning Ballentine Stepping Stones; he referred to the
minutes of December 9, 1993. He mentioned that the state has preempted the
city concerning day care, for six children and fewer, regardless of city
ordinance. SLU's are only for day care serving 12 and more children. The
council and the board didn't have to pass an SLU, because the way it's written
is that as long as they meet all the conditions, they don't need an SLU. The
Ballentine Stepping Stones parking variance was passed on condition that the
SLU pass, but the SLU was not necessary. If it was legally permitted, then
the variance condition is not necessary.
At this point, discussion took place with regard to the conditions.
J. Roberts also brought up the issue of Record. He mentioned that the tape
recorded meeting should be kept, in the event of an appeal. He also stated
that there are three aspects to a variance: #1. The standard; #2. The
criteria; and #3. The condition. He would like to see motions made, stating
that "after considering the condition, the criteria, and the standard."
VII. New Business
None
VIII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzafeb.94
-02.-5 02 : 19 RCVD DrK%Ar'T
Approved
To Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS LL
January 13, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOTH FLOOR
I. The meeting was called to order by Chair N. Carlson at 7:30 p.m. Roll call
was taken.
A. Present
J. Sheldon H.P. Curran
N. Carlson G. Hilts
H. LeBlanc M. Clark
Rev. Bicy Dr. Spink
B. Absent
None
C. A quorum of Eight members was present, allowing voting action to be
taken at the meeting.
D. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. Hearings
A. BZA-3274.93, 901 West Mt. Hope Avenue
A petition by Renee L.W. Ellis, 901 West Mt. Hope Avenue, to operate
a one-chair beauty salon in her home. Variance to Section
1248.03(e)(7) requested. This is a rehearing of an appeal that was
first heard, and denied due to a lack of favorable votes, at the June,
1993, BZA meeting.
A presentation was made by J. Ruff, who summarized the case, as well
as sharing additional information. A petition supporting the variance
was included in the staff report.
Renee L.W. Ellis, petitioner, spoke. She thanked the Board for re-
hearing her appeal. She addressed the parking issue, neighborhood
support, and snow removal.
Ken Eldridge, 820 Lenore, neighbor to 901 West Mt. Hope, stated that
the Ellis's keep their property clean, and stated that he agreed with
everything that Ms. Ellis had already stated.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES January 13, 1994 - 2
Margaret M. Disney, 1015 S. Grand, stated that she was familiar with
the neighborhood, and felt that their should be no problems if this
appeal is granted.
C. Bicy questioned Ms. Ellis as to her hours, how many customers she expects, and
how frequently customers will expect to utilize her services.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole, to discuss this issue.
G. Hilts spoke, saying that he felt that Ms. Ellis had already thought through her
position, and had come up with solutions to any potential problems.
Much discussion revolved around the conditions that can or cannot be placed on a
home occupation. J. Roberts responded by stating that the conditions are already
established in the code and additional conditions could not be made.
J. Roberts added two things: First, that the Board examine this case on the basis
of new evidence presented; second, that this is not a variance, per say, but under
a specific provision 1248.03(e)(7)--which he proceeded to read. He stated that, due
to the type of provision involved, the Board is not able to apply additional conditions
to the request.
P. Curran moved to rehear the issue, as the applicant had provided additional
information. G. Hilts seconded the motion. Curran went on to state that she felt
that it was reasonable for the Board to rehear the case, as there was new
information.
E. Spink commented on the neighborhood notification (300 ft. mailing) . He also
questioned the cover memo to this case, which indicated that no new information was
to be presented.
M. Clark questioned J. Roberts about whether the variance, once granted, would
remain with the property even through new owners, or whether the variance would
expire if the property was sold. J. Roberts responded that if the chair remained,
then a new owner could continue, but if the chair were removed, the new owner
would have to reapply in order to install a new chair.
Motion on floor, to rehear BZA 3274.93:
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Carlson X LeBlanc X
Clark X Sheldon X
Curran X Hilts X
C. Bicy X E. Spink X
*Motion to rehear BZA-3274.93 passed by a vote of 7 to 1.
P. Curran moved to approve BZA-3274.93, on the basis that there is no adverse
impact on properties within 300 feet, the neighbors have no objections, and that this
occupation is one that is normally approved and that we have approved in the past.
Motion seconded by G. Hilts.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES January 13, 1994 - 3
E. Spink mentioned that the Board should remember that, if this is approved, it is
a variance which can go from owner to owner, and could become a selling point for
this property.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Sheldon X Spink X
Bicy X Carlson X
Clark X Curran X
Hilts X LeBlanc X
Motion Approved: BZA-3274.93 passed by a vote of 6 to 2.
III. Old Business
A. Policy and Procedures
J. Ruff summarized the changes that had been suggested, as reflected
in the revised copy of Policy & Procedure now in the Board members
possession.
There was some discussion on the issues of Excused Absences and
Regular Meetings and Notice.
The Board decided to move through the Rules and Procedures by
starting at the beginning and working their way to the end. J. Roberts
suggested that this be done section by section, with any changes or
alterations being noted for staff correction. Much discussion took
place.
IV. Public Comment
Paul M. Scott, 412 W. Kilborn, expressed his opinion that the term "Planning
Director" must be retained in Policy and Procedures until there is a charter
change; that if Zoning Code changes are suggested to the Planning Board and
to City Council, the state law on Boards of Appeal allows the appointment of
alternates instead of absence or conflict of interest, so this should be added
to Chapter 1244 of Planning Code; and the state law allows Boards of Appeal
to impose conditions, so if conditions are desired in cases of home occupation,
ask for them. He also desired to review the decision of December 9, 1993,
which was BZA 3286.93, Ballentine Stepping Stones Parking Variance. One
section allows a variance to be made in parking--section 1284.6, and both
conditions must be met. Parking variances are not allowed under 1244.06, the
conditions that must be met are that "More than one type of use operates out
of one structure, or more than one structure jointly uses the same off street
parking facility, and the peak operating hours of each use do not overlap."
If these were not the conditions used to reach a decision, then He asks that
the Board reverse their decision, because it is outside of the jurisdiction of
the Board.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES January 13, 1994 - 4
Margaret M. Disney, who had spoken earlier, wanted to say that she is a
braille transcriber with credentials, and that if anyone needs help
transcribing minutes or etc. she would be happy to help them. She is also
adept at sign language and would like to make that available as well.
V. Approval of Minutes
A. December 9, 1993 meeting
1. Jack Roberts responded to Mr. Scott's comments concerning the
Ballentine Stepping Stones variance. He understands that Mr.
Scott has filed a written exception with the Planning Board, and
in conjunction with that, he also indicated that Mr. Scott felt
there was a lack of data, at least with reference to the December
minutes of the Board of Appeals, to which no staff report is
attached, to show that the Board of Zoning Appeals considered
the proper section of the ordinance. He then cites the particular
section that he described, or described to us this evening.
There is a specific section in the parking provisions which deals
with the granting of a variance for specific reasons with respect
to on-site parking, and those are the ones to which he refers,
and generally that particular set of sections deals with whether
or not there is other parking available, such that the number of
spaces can be available, but not necessarily on the specific
property, but perhaps on adjacent property. In that context,
that's a specific kind of variance. However, in this particular
instance, the matter was dealt with not just in this section, but
under the general provisions of variances, which are found in
the duties of this particular board and your powers. In
discussing this with Mr. Ruff it's my understanding that that
type of variance is also one which has customarily and in the past
been interpreted as a variance which can be considered in this
type of situation, the Ballentine situation, by the Board. But he
raises a problem that I wanted to talk about. In looking at the
proposed minutes, there isn't a specific finding within the
language of those things required under the variance sections in
the chapter. If this type of matter is appealed, it would be
appealed on the record. The type of record is unspecified,
whether its the minutes of the meeting, or a transcript of the
Board meeting. I ask you, before the next meeting, look at the
parts of the ordinance that Jim Ruff is going to give you, and
specifically the part that starts at Section 1244.06, Variance, and
then the sections after it.
2. C. Bicy made a motion that the minutes be approved as they are,
seconded by H. LeBlanc. Motion passed unanimously on a voice
vote.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES January 13, 1994 - 5
VI. New Business
None
VII. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
c:\wp\data\bza\bzajan.94