Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 1995 Minutes Draft to Clerk 12/28/95 Approved 01/11 9/6 To Clerk 01/— 12/96 - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS l DECEMBER 14, 1995, 7:30 p.m. UP CLE��1TY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Bicy at 7:30 P.M. Roll call was taken . A. pr= E. Spink H. LeBlanc M. Clark C. Bicy J. Page E. Horne B. Excused Absences G. Hilts requested an excused absence. M. Horne made a motion to excuse Mr. Hilts from tonights meeting, seconded by E. Spink. The motion carried unanimous) on a voice vote. y C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be taken the meeting. There were no unexcused absences. at D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. HEARINGS A. BZA-3380.95, 3114 Felt Street, a request by Victor lacobescu of 3114 Felt Street, of the Zoning Code allows fences of this type to be a maximum of 4' high in the front a o erect a 6' high chain link fence in the front yard of his home. Section 1292.03( t t yard. Therefore, a variance in fence height of 2' is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the fence would surround the property, and would be for security and to increase the value of the property. The fence would be an open chain-link fence, which can be seen through. There are two lots making up this property, and the surrounding propertiessingle family. it is in the north section of town between Joness Lae and Nr Ealst Street. Mr. Ruff stated that the staff report points out that generally, fences in a residential area such as this are difficult to provide a great deal of security, whether the fence is 4' or 6'. We are concerned that this will set a precedent, and don't find a peculiarity in the lot that would justify this fence. Staff recommends denial of this variance. Victor lacobescu, owner, spoke. He stated that his objective is primarily security and secondarily to increase the value of the property break in last year, and lost several items. . He stated that he had a BOARD OF ZONING APPE_ S December 14 1995 Page 2 E. Horne asked him what other types of security measures he has taken, and whether he has any type of lighting system in place. He replied that he does not, that he believes the persons breaking into his house are neighbors, people who know his schedule, when he is home and when he is not. C. Bicy asked if he had a security system in place prior to the burglary. Mr. lacobescu replied that he did not. The Vice-Chair read a letter into the record, from Walter Sherwood, 3130 Felt Street, in opposition to the variance. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Horne feels that the fence will not solve the problem, and that other options exist for yard and home security. A fence will not keep kids out. H. LeBlanc agreed with her, stating that a fence will not solve the problem. E. Spink stated that approved variances are due to hardship. He doesn't feel that security is a hardship, and he doesn't see any hardship that the Board can legally act upon. He finds no basis to approve this variance. J. Page made a motion to deny BZA-3380.95. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Horne X __Page X Spink X Motion carried: BZA-3380.95 denied by a vote of 6 - zero. B. BZA-3381.95, 420 Doris Street, a request by Neal Johnson, builder, representing the owner, Karen Bozung, to construct an 8' deep by 32.5' wide front porch on the house at 420 Doris Street. The proposed porch will be set back 22' from the front property line and, based upon the situation, a 25' front yard setback is required. Therefore, a 3' variance of Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the widest a porch could be built and still meet code would be 5' wide, which is not wide enough to be practical. Staff has recommended approval. Due to its situation, the variance will not adversely impact adjoining properties. Neal Johnson stated that the porch is of a usable style. The house is on a dead end street. He stated that no one will be hurt by this variance, but it will be an improvement for the property. J. Ruff noted that the porch has not been built. No one else spoke concerning this issue. M. Clark stated that she will be supporting this variance. BOARD OF ZONING APPE,,.uS December 14 1995 Page 3 M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3381.95 at 420 Doris Street, as it will be an improvement to the residential character and will not negatively impact adjacent properties. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Page X Spink X Horne X Bicy X Motion carried: BZA-3381.95 approved as requested, by a vote of 6 - zero. III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. PUBLIC COMMENT None V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES E. Horne made a motion to approve the minutes of October 12, 1995. The motion was seconded by M. Clark, and carried unanimously by a voice vote. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. 1996 Meeting Schedule E. Horne made a motion to accept the proposed calendar for 1996. M. Clark seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. B. E. Spink requested that he be excused from the next four meetings of the Board of Zoning Appeals. E. Horne made a motion to excuse E. Spink, seconded by H. LeBlanc. The motion was carried unanimously on a voice vote. H. LeBlanc made a motion that the Chair of this Board write a letter to the Mayor with copies to be sent to ward councilmembers, expressing the problems we have with an incomplete Board, and that we would like him to please act expeditiously to fill this Board, so that we don't have to worry about having a quorum every month. E. Horne seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously on a voice vote. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS December 14 1995 Pa e 4 VII. ADJOURNMENT A. The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals cAwpldata\bza\bzaoct.95 Draft to Clerk 12/28/95 Approved / /96 To Clerk / /96 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 14, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Bicy at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present - ==- E. Spink M. Clark H. LeBlanc J. Page =++C. Bicy E. Horne c-; B. Excused Absences c; G. Hilts requested an excused absence. M. Horne made a motion to excuse Mr. Hilts from tonights meeting, seconded by E. Spink. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. There were no unexcused absences. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. HEARINGS A. BZA-3380.95, 3114 Felt Street, a request by Victor lacobescu of 3114 Felt Street, to erect a 6' high chain link fence in the front yard of his home. Section 1292.03(a) of the Zoning Code allows fences of this type to be a maximum of 4' high in the front yard. Therefore, a variance in fence height of 2' is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the fence would surround the property, and would be for security and to increase the value of the property. The fence would be an open chain-link fence, which can be seen through. There are two lots making up this property, and the surrounding properties are all single family. It is in the north section of town between Jones Lake and N. East Street. Mr. Ruff stated that the staff report points out that generally, fences in a residential area such as this are difficult to provide a great deal of security, whether the fence is 4' or 6'. We are concerned that this will set a precedent, and don't find a peculiarity in the lot that would justify this fence. Staff recommends denial of this variance. Victor lacobescu, owner, spoke. He stated that his objective is primarily security and secondarily to increase the value of the property. He stated that he had a break in last year, and lost several items. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, November 9 1995 Page 5 that he feels this is an appropriate place for the fence and the orientation of the garage doors. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Horne X Motion carried: BZA-3379.95 approved, by a vote of 7 - 0. III. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3371.95, 132 E. Barnes J. Ruff restated the case, which was tabled at last months meeting until further information could be presented. The existing block walls that the Quinones propose to build upon would have to be reinforced. The lot coverage is the larger issue. To meet lot coverage requirements, the paved driveway on the east side of the house would have to be partially removed. Mr. Ruff stated that he doesn't see where the garage itself is at all unusual for the neighborhood. His recommendation would be that either the garage can't be built, or some of the cement be removed from the rear yard. The Quinones have indicated that they would rather remove some cement, and keep the garage. H. LeBlanc made a motion to remove this issue from the table. It was seconded by E. Horne, and approved unanimously by a voice vote. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve the 3' variance, to permit construction of the garage in the rear yard, with the condition that the yard would have to come into compliance with the lot coverage restrictions. E. Horne seconded the motion. Discussion ensued among the Board members. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Horne X Motion carried: BZA-3371.95 approved, by a vote of 7 - 0. B. Tabled Item: 3342.95, 328 S. Mifflin Street This issue was not addressed at this meeting. BOARD OF ZONING APPEmiS, December 14 , 1995 Page 2 E. Horne asked him what other types of security measures he has taken, and whether he has any type of lighting system in place. He replied that he does not, that he believes the persons breaking into his house are neighbors, people who know his schedule, when he is home and when he is not. C. Bicy asked if he had a security system in place prior to the burglary. Mr. lacobescu replied that he did not. The Vice-Chair read a letter into the record, from Walter Sherwood, 3130 Felt Street, in opposition to the variance. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Horne feels that the fence will not solve the problem, and that other options exist for yard and home security. A fence will not keep kids out. H. LeBlanc agreed with her, stating that a fence will not solve the problem. E. Spink stated that approved variances are due to hardship. He doesn't feel that security is a hardship, and he doesn't see any hardship that the Board can legally act upon. He finds no basis to approve this variance. J. Page made a motion to deny BZA-3380.95. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Horne X Page X Spink X Motion carried: BZA-3380.95 denied by a vote of 6 - zero. B. BZA-3381.95, 420 Doris Street, a request by Neal Johnson, builder, representing the owner, Karen Bozung, to construct an 8' deep by 32.5' wide front porch on the house at 420 Doris Street. The proposed porch will be set back 22' from the front property line and, based upon the situation, a 25' front yard setback is required. Therefore, a 3' variance of Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the widest a porch could be built and still meet code would be S wide, which is not wide enough to be practical. Staff has recommended approval. Due to its situation, the variance will not adversely impact adjoining properties. Neal Johnson stated that the porch is of a usable style. The house is on a dead end street. He stated that no one will be hurt by this variance, but it will be an improvement for the property. J. Ruff noted that the porch has not been built. No one else spoke concerning this issue. M. Clark stated that she will be supporting this variance. BOARD OF ZONING APPEhLS , December 14 , 1995 Page 3 M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3381.95 at 420 Doris Street, as it will be an improvement to the residential character and will not negatively impact adjacent properties. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Page X Spink X Horne X Bicy X Motion carried: BZA-3381.95 approved as requested, by a vote of 6 - zero. III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. PUBLIC COMMENT None V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES E. Horne made a motion to approve the minutes of October 12, 1995. The motion was seconded by M. Clark, and carried unanimously by a voice vote. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. 1996 Meeting Schedule E. Horne made a motion to accept the proposed calendar for 1996. M. Clark seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. B. E. Spink requested that he be excused from the next four meetings of the Board of Zoning Appeals. E. Horne made a motion to excuse E. Spink, seconded by H. LeBlanc. The motion was carried unanimously on a voice vote. H. LeBlanc made a motion that the Chair of this Board write a letter to the Mayor with copies to be sent to ward councilmembers, expressing the problems we have with an incomplete Board, and that we would like him to please act expeditiously to fill this Board, so that we don't have to worry about having a quorum every month. E. Horne seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously on a voice vote. BOARD OF ZONING APPEftLS , December 14 1995 Page 4 VII. ADJOURNMENT A. The meeting was adjourned at 8.04 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzaoct.95 Draft to Clerk 01 03 96 Approved 01/11 /95 To Clerk 01/12 /95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CL�Rf NOVEMBER 9, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present E. Spink M. Clark G. Hilts H. LeBlanc J. Page C. Bicy B. Excused Absences E. Horne called to say that she would be late, and would be arriving at approximately 8:00 p.m. C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. There were no unexcused absences. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. HEARINGS A. BZA-3376.95, Aurelius Road at Main Street, a request by New Tower Inc. to construct a 320' tall tower on the property east of Aurelius at Main Street, owned by the Board of Water and Light. The property is zoned .H. Light Industrial, which allows a maximum height of 120' according to Section 1274.09 of the Zoning code. This is a requested variance of 200' in height. This is also before the Planning Board as a SLU, to build in the flood plain. J. Ruff presented the case. Mr. Liggett and Mr. Jensen, owners, gave some background information on this proposed tower. They stated that they like this area, as it is isolated, secure, and in a favorable location for an AM tower, as AM likes a riverbed area. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, November 9 , 1995 Page 2 There was some discussion, between the Board and the appellants. H. LeBlanc asked if this tower could be used as a cellular phone tower. Mr. Liggett replied that it was a possibility, but AM towers don't operate as well when there are things hung on the tower. He said it is not likely, but not unheard of. C. Bicy asked if there would be lights on the tower. Mr. Liggett said that there may be lights, but it is not a high tower, and may not require lights. Bicy asked what the diameter of the tower would be. He was told that it would be approximately 2' wide all the way up. There were no other comments. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff described the physical characteristics of the area. He had walked along the river trail to see how the land was set. He recommended that additional screening be added to the site, along the riverbank. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3376.95, contingent on the approval of the SLU, for building in the flood plain, and the approval of a landscape plan by the Planning Office and the Board of Water and Light. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Motion carried:BZA-3376.95 approved with conditions, by a vote of 6 - 0. B. BZA-3377.95, 917 E. Cavanaugh, a request by Terrell Associates representing Quality Dairy Company, to replace the existing 96 square foot ground pole sign with a 70 square foot pole sign. The proposed 22' tall sign will have a 0' setback from the Pennsylvania Avenue right of way and a 0' setback from the E. Cavanaugh Road right of way. Section 1422.12 of the Sign Code requires a 22' setback from the right of way of both streets, thus requiring variances of 22' on each side. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this seems to be a reasonable compromise from the standpoint of the Planning Office. Any change in location or height would interfere with the traffic patterns and visibility at this corner. J. Ruff noted that E. Horne had arrived at the meeting. Brian Terrell, Terrell Associates, spoke. He stated that the existing sign is like a dinosaur; that they want to improve the appearance of the sign. Since application, the sign is proposed to be only 21' tall instead of 221. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS , November 9 1995 Page 3 C. Bicy asked if Quality Dairy had changed signs at other stores. Mr. Terrell replied that he had not done this, that Quality Dairy had simply changed the inserts on the signs in the city. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she will support the appeal, as this appears to be an improvement to the property, and is a reasonable use with the large right of way, and is in keeping with the neighborhood. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3377 at 917 E. Cavanaugh, for a 21' tall, 70 square foot sign. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Horne X Motion carried: BZA-3377.95 approved as requested, by a vote of 7 - 0. C. BZA-3378.95, 400 W. Willard Avenue, a request by JoAnn Bumbalough, owner of 400 W. Willard Avenue, to construct an attached garage and addition to the home, resulting in a 12' rear yard setback. Section 1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a 30' rear yard setback. Therefore, an 18' variance is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff has recommended approval based on the shape of the lot and the fact that a detached garage could be built on the same site with no variance. The shed shown on the site plan must be moved from its present locations, but does not have to be removed from the lot. C. Bicy inquired about the house addition shown, which will be constructed at the same time as the garage. The garage and the addition to the house could both be built without a variance, if they were not attached. The attachment is what requires that a variance be obtained before a building permit is issued. JoAnn Bumbalough spoke, stating that she is only trying to enhance the property. E. Horne inquired whether the trees will need to be removed, and if this is the house Ms. Bumbalough lives in. Ms. Bumbalough stated that she is selling the house on a land contract, and that one street tree may have to be removed due to wires. Some discussion ensued. C. Bicy stated that he would be recommending approval of this variance request. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, November 9 , 1995 Page 4 C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3378.95 at 400 W. Willard Avenue, for an 18' variance of the rear yard setback, based upon the staff report. The motion was seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Horne X Motion carried: BZA-3378.95 approved, by a vote of 7 - 0. D. BZA-3379.95, 430 N. Fairview, a request by Nancy Parsons of 430 N. Fairview Avenue, to construct a 241x 28' detached garage 3' from the north property line adjacent to Fernwood Street, removing the existing garage. Since this is a corner lot, Section 1248.07(a) of the Zoning Code requires a 20' setback from the north property line; therefore, a 17' variance is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff recommends the approval of a setback for the garage, as the garage is proposed to face on the west side, not the Fernwood Street side. However, staff also recommends that the fence only extends to the garage, with the garage wall acting as part of the fence. This eliminates the small area between fence and garage where odds and ends can collect. Mr. Ruff also mentioned the communications received; a summary list is included. M. M. Woll of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization had also communicated with the Planning Office, stating that they had done their own survey of the neighborhood, and have recommended that the variance be approved based upon the input they received, but expressed concern about the location of the fence and the proximity to the sidewalk, as a possible visibility problem; the neighbors had some concerns, but they were not overwhelming. N. Parsons, owner/occupant spoke. She restated the case, adding that they want to add lighting to the garage for security of this area. M. Clark asked about the fence, as proposed by staff. She asked if that would be a problem for Ms. Parsons, who replied that she didn't see any problem with that. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3379.95 for a front yard setback of 31, and a variance for the fence height, for the portion of the fence perpendicular to Fernwood, between the garage and the back property. line. The overhead doors must be on the west side of the garage. Motion seconded by M. Clark. E. Spink added BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, November 9 1995 Page 6 C. Communication from Traverse Bay Land Company: Withdrawal of BZA- 3328.95, at 2801 Mersey Lane. E. Horne made a motion to accept the withdrawal of B ZA-3328.95 at 2801 Mersey Lane. The motion was seconded by M. Clark, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September, 1995 minutes C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, motion seconded by J. Page, carried unanimously by a voice vote. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. None VII. ADJOURNMENT A. The meeting was adjourned at 9:58. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c.\wp\data\bza\bzaoct.95 Draft to Clerk 01/03/96 Approved / /95 To Clerk / /95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ,�1 35 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS `�` " NOVEMBER 9, 1995, 7 : 30 p.m. Li CL` RF11S"'Jilli �i I L" 1 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOTH FLOOR I . ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson G. Hilts at 7 : 30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present E. Spink M. Clark G. Hilts H. LeBlanc J. Page C . Bicy B. Excused Absences E . Horne called to say that she would be late, and would be arriving at approximately 8 : 00 p.m. C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. There were no unexcused absences. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II . HEARINGS A. BZA-3376 .95, Aurelius Road at Main Street, a request by New Tower Inc. to construct a 320 ' tall tower on the property east of Aurelius at Main Street, owned by the Board of Water and Light. The property is zoned H. Light Industrial, which allows a maximum height of 120 ' according to Section 1274 . 09 of the Zoning code. This is a requested variance of 200 ' in height. This is also before the Planning Board as a SLU, to build in the flood plain. J. Ruff presented the case. Mr. Liggett and Mr. Jensen, owners, gave some background information on this proposed tower. They stated that they like this area, as it is isolated, secure, and in a favorable location for an AM tower, as AM likes a riverbed area. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS , November 9 , 1995 Page 2 There was some discussion, between the Board and the appellants . H. LeBlanc asked if this tower could be used as a cellular phone tower. Mr. Liggett replied that it was a possibility, but AM towers don't operate as well when there are things hung on the tower. He said it is not likely, but not unheard of. C. Bicy asked if there would be lights on the tower. Mr. Liggett said that there may be lights, but it is not a high tower, and may not require lights . Bicy asked what the diameter of the tower would be. He was told that it would be approximately 2 ' wide all the way up. There were no other comments . The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff described the physical characteristics of the area. He had walked along the river trail to see how the land was set. He recommended that additional screening be added to the site, along the riverbank. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3376 . 95, contingent on the approval of the SLU, for building in the flood plain, and the approval of a landscape plan by the Planning Office and the Board of Water and Light. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Motion carried:BZA-3376 . 95 approved with conditions, by a vote of 6 - 0 . B. BZA-3377.95, 917 E. Cavanaugh, a request by Terrell Associates representing Quality Dairy Company, to replace the existing 96 square foot ground pole sign with a 70 square foot pole sign. The proposed 22 ' tall sign will have a 0 ' setback from the Pennsylvania Avenue right of way and a 0 ' setback from the E. Cavanaugh Road right of way. Section 1422 . 12 of the Sign Code requires a 22 ' setback from the right of way of both streets, thus requiring variances of 22 ' on each side. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this seems to be a reasonable compromise from the standpoint of the Planning Office. Any change in location or height would interfere with the traffic patterns and visibility at this corner. J. Ruff noted that E . Horne had arrived at the meeting. Brian Terrell, Terrell Associates, spoke. He stated that the existing sign is like a dinosaur; that they want to improve BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS , November 9 , 1995 Page 3 the appearance of the sign. Since application, the sign is proposed to be only 21 ' tall instead of 22 ' . C . Bicy asked if Quality Dairy had changed signs at other stores . Mr. Terrell replied that he had not done this, that Quality Dairy had simply changed the inserts on the signs in the city. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she will support the appeal, as this appears to be an improvement to the property, and is a reasonable use with the large right of way, and is in keeping with the neighborhood. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3377 at 917 E . Cavanaugh, for a 21 ' tall, 70 square foot sign. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Horne X Motion carried: BZA-3377.95 approved as requested, by a vote of 7 - 0. C. BZA-3378.95, 400 W. Willard Avenue, a request by JoAnn Bumbalough, owner of 400 W. Willard Avenue, to construct an attached garage and addition to the home, resulting in a 12' rear yard setback. Section 1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a 30' rear yard setback. Therefore, an 18' variance is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff has recommended approval based on the shape of the lot and the fact that a detached garage could be built on the same site with no variance. The shed shown on the site plan must be moved from its present locations, but does not have to be removed from the lot. C. Bicy inquired about the house addition shown, which will be constructed at the same time as the garage. The garage and the addition to the house could both be built without a variance, if they were not attached. The attachment is what requires that a variance be obtained before a building permit is issued. JoAnn Bumbalough spoke, stating that she is only trying to enhance the property. E. Horne inquired whether the trees will need to be removed, and if this is the house Ms. Bumbalough lives in. Ms. Bumbalough stated that she is selling the house on a land contract, and that one street tree may have to be removed due to wires. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS , November 9 , 1995 Page 4 Some discussion ensued. C. Bicy stated that he would be recommending approval of this variance request. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3378.95 at 400 W. Willard Avenue, for an 18' variance of the rear yard setback, based upon the staff report. The motion was seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Horne X Motion carried: BZA-3378.95 approved, by a vote of 7 - 0. D. BZA-3379.95, 430 N. Fairview, a request by Nancy Parsons of 430 N. Fairview Avenue, to construct a 241x 28' detached garage 3' from the north property line adjacent to Fernwood Street, removing the existing garage. Since this is a corner lot, Section 1248.07(a) of the Zoning Code requires a 20' setback from the north property line; therefore, a 17' variance is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff recommends the approval of a setback for the garage, as the garage is proposed to face on the west side, not the Fernwood Street side. However, staff also recommends that the fence only extends to the garage, with the garage wall acting as part of the fence. This eliminates the small area between fence and garage where odds and ends can collect. Mr. Ruff also mentioned the communications received; a summary list is included. M. M. Woll of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization had also communicated with the Planning Office, stating that they had done their own survey of the neighborhood, and have recommended that the variance be approved based upon the input they received, but expressed concern about the location of the fence and the proximity to the sidewalk, as a possible visibility problem; the neighbors had some concerns, but they were not overwhelming. N. Parsons, owner/occupant spoke. She restated the case, adding that they want to add lighting to the garage for security of this area. M. Clark asked about the fence, as proposed by staff. She asked if that would be a problem for Ms. Parsons, who replied that she didn't see any problem with that. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, November 9 , 1995 Page 5 E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3379.95 for a front yard setback of 3', and a variance for the fence height, for the portion of the fence perpendicular to Fernwood, between the garage and the back property line. The overhead doors must be on the west side of the garage. Motion seconded by M. Clark. E. Spink added that he feels this is an appropriate place for the fence and the orientation of the garage doors. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Horne X Motion carried: BZA-3379.95 approved, by a vote of 7 - 0. III. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3371.95, 132 E. Barnes J. Ruff restated the case, which was tabled at last months meeting until further information could be presented. The existing block walls that the Quinones propose to build upon would have to be reinforced. The lot coverage is the larger issue. To meet lot coverage requirements, the paved driveway on the east side of the house would have to be partially removed. Mr. Ruff stated that he doesn't see where the garage itself is at all unusual for the neighborhood. His recommendation would be that either the garage can't be built, or some of the cement be removed from the rear yard. The Quinones have indicated that they would rather remove some cement, and keep the garage. H. LeBlanc made a motion to remove this issue from the table. It was seconded by E. Horne, and approved unanimously by a voice vote. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve the 3' variance, to permit construction of the garage in the rear yard, with the condition that the yard would have to come into compliance with the lot coverage restrictions. E. Horne seconded the motion. Discussion ensued among the Board members. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Horne X Motion carried: BZA-3371.95 approved, by a vote of 7 - 0. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, November 9, 1995 Page 6 B . Tabled Item: 3342.95, 328 S. Mifflin Street This issue was not addressed at this meeting. C. Communication from Traverse Bay Land Company: Withdrawal of BZA- 3328.95, at 2801 Mersey Lane. E. Horne made a motion to accept the withdrawal of BZA-3328.95 at 2801 Mersey Lane. The motion was seconded by M. Clark, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September, 1995 minutes C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, motion seconded by J. Page, carried unanimously by a voice vote. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. None V II. ADJOURNMENT A. The meeting was adjourned at 9:58. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzaoct.95 Draft to Clerk 12 06 95 Approved 12/14/95 To Clerk 12/28/95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 12, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present E. Spink M. Clark G. Hilts E. Horne J. Page C. Bicy B. Excused Absences H. LeBlanc requested an excused absence to attend a conference for the Planning Board. E. Horne made a motion to grant H. LeBlanc's request, seconded by E. Spink. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. There were no unexcused absences. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. HEARINGS A. BZA-3370.95, N. E. Corner of Jolly Road and Stafford Avenue, a request by William Pomaville, owner, to build a duplex 30 feet from the front property line along Stafford Avenue, on the vacant lot at the N. E. Corner of Stafford and Jolly. Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the structure be set back at least 40 feet from the (Stafford) front property line, which is the established front yard setback required for the blockface. This is therefore a request for a variance of 10 feet. J. Ruff presented the case. The Board asked several questions to verify the information. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 2 W. Pomaville, owner, spoke. He stated that they are trying to align the house to avoid having the driveways on the side. They want the tenants to be able to put one car and their yard equipment in the garage. He also stated that there will be a basement, with 8' ceilings. E. Horne asked if the duplex would be like the neighboring houses, with vinyl siding and a similar appearance. Mr. Pomaville replied that they would. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy stated that he would be supporting this variance, recognizing that the corner location presents a problem; and also that the amount of room around both units is sufficient, although there is limited space in the back of the dwelling. E. Spink clarified the staff report. M. Clark stated that she would support this motion somewhat reluctantly, since a one family dwelling could be built. E. Horne said that she would also support the motion reluctantly, as a one family dwelling could be built, but since it is zoned "C" Residential, which allows one and two family dwellings, she will support. J. Page said that he felt the same. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3370.95, for a 10' setback variance, to build the duplex as proposed, per the architectural drawing. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Motion carried: BZA-3370.95 approved as requested, by a vote of 6 - 0. B. BZA-3371.95, 132 E. Barnes Avenue, a request by Pedro and Reyna Quinones, 132 E. Barnes, to allow the retention of a detached accessory structure, built as a garage on an existing foundation and partial wall structures up to the side and rear property lines. Section 1248.03(b)(7) requires side and rear yard setbacks of 3 feet for unattached accessory buildings. Variances of 3 feet are therefore requested. The structure is 18' x 181, and appears to be more of a storage building than a garage. Mr. Ruff requested that he be able to ask several questions of the Quinones. First, he inquired about the two driveways, one concrete and one gravel; he asked if the accessory structure is to be a garage. The Quinones replied that it will be a garage. He then asked when the driveway on the other side had been built. They replied that they had put it in the previous summer; there was no curb cut necessary, as it was already existing. Mr. Ruff then asked about the yard area, which is BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 3 going to be cut into by the two driveways. They replied that there is yard area in the rear of the house. Mr. Ruff stated that there are similar situations in this neighborhood, so that this garage is not out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. He is concerned that the lot is over-surfaced with driveway and house. He questions the purpose of the second driveway. He knows that there is a new park nearby, but is reluctant concerning approval, due to the lack of yard space. He also stated that the garage will have to be built with fire rated walls, because it is on the property line, and will have to be modified if approved. He also feels that the garage could have been placed better, and that the hard surfaced driveway may have to be reviewed. E. Spink asked about the restrictions on having two driveways on a single family residential lot. Mr. Ruff replied that there appears to have been two drives on this site, which means it would be conforming; however, if this is a new drive, and they park in the front of the house, they could be ticketed. This would be unlikely, as it would look normal. Spink asked if they would have to put in a hard surfaced driveway for the garage. Mr. Ruff said that there were options, including a ribbon type drive. Reyna Quinones spoke to the Board. She stated that she needs a garage for her car in the winter. J. Page asked why there are two driveways. She replied that this was the situation when they bought the house. C. Bicy asked why one driveway was paved. Ms. Quinones replied that the paved drive is on the side of the back door, and that this was paved because there are a lot of trees there, and when it snows everything comes in the house. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink stated that he is reluctant, being generally against building on property lines, and reluctant to having two driveways, one on each side of the house. He said that if they moved the garage forward, the 60' setback would have to be dealt with. He also is reluctant to approve an existing building, and have the Building Officials to bring the building up to code. His inclination is to vote no, but he's not sure that some of these answers couldn't be brought before the Board. C. Bicy agreed with him, stating that he has a problem with the two driveways. He stated that it's hard for him to approve something that the Planning Board is reluctant to approve. However, putting himself in the applicant's position, he understands the desire for the garage. He would like to put the ball back in Mr. Ruff's court. E. Spink suggested that the variance be tabled for a month, so more information could be gathered. J. Ruff stated that this could be done, by working with the applicants, the Building Official, and the Planner, and bringing the information back to the Board. E. Horne stated that she wants to work with the improvements to the area, that this should be an upgrade to the neighborhood. M. Clark expressed her concern with the variance for the two BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 4 lot lines, as she feels that this forces the use on the two adjacent properties. G. Hilts said that he would like to table the request until next month, so that some of these questions can be answered. E. Spink made a motion to table BZA-3371.95 at 132 E. Barnes Avenue until November 9, 1995. The motion was seconded by E. Horne, and approved unanimously on a voice vote. C. BZA-3372.95, 820 W. Mt. Hope Avenue, a request by Edward and Margaret Ellis of 820 W. Mt. Hope to build a 24' x 24' detached garage. the proposed garage will be built on a corner lot which is considered to have two front yards, one on Mt. Hope, and one on Delevan. The applicant is proposing to build the garage 16' from the front property line off of Delevan Street. Section 1248.07(a) of the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 20' from the front lot line off of Delevan Street. Therefore, a 4' variance is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff finds no adverse impact to this variance, and supports the variance as requested. Some discussion ensued. Edward Ellis, owner of the property, spoke. He stated that he has lived here for 15 years, and has never had the opportunity to park in a garage; he has had to park one vehicle in the church parking lot across the street for 15 years. Questions were asked regarding garage size and especially depth. Some options were discussed. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3372.95 at 820 W. Mt. Hope Avenue, with a 17' setback rather than the requested 16' setback, finding that the additional foot of setback will provide for approximately 20' between the garage and sidewalk, to better protect pedestrian circulation. The motion was seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Motion carried: BZA-3372.95 approved for a 17' setback, by a vote of 6 - 0. D. BZA-3374.95, 6200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, a request by Meijer Inc. to permit replacement of an existing non-conforming ground pole sign of 26' in height, 175 sq. ft. in area, and a setback of 5'10" at 6200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue. The proposed new ground pole sign is 24.6' tall BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 5 and 150 sq. ft. in area, using the existing poles. Section 1442.12(h)(8) of the sign code would only permit a sign of these dimensions if it would achieve a setback of 28' from the right of way. The applicant is requesting a sign setback of 4.33', or a variance of approximately 24' in the sign setback from the right of way of S. Pennsylvania Avenue. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this site does not have a lot of extraneous signage, either in the parking lot or on the building. This is untypical for the area. Rick Morgan, Meijers Inc. , addressed the Board. He stated that Meijers has 99 stores, and they are continually trying to upgrade their signage. He stated that the store sign has the new sign, but the gas station does not. This will keep the signage uniform. He also stated that no merchandise signs are proposed. C. Bicy asked if there were new signs at other stores, and if so, were variances required? Mr. Morgan replied that some were done as a part of store remodel's, but that most likely variances were required in some cases. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink stated that he would be voting in support of this variance, as he feels that it is a significant improvement. He hopes there will be no merchandise signs hung from the new sign. C. Bicy indicated that he also is in favor of the variance. M. Clark asked how much the sign would have to be reduced in size to make it conform to code. J. Ruff replied that, with a 5' setback, they could only have a 5' tall sign that would be 25 square feet in size, similar to the sign at the Shell Station at Cedar and Miller. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3374.95, at 6200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, finding that there is a significant improvement if the sign is built as proposed. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Motion carried: BZA-3356.95 approved by a vote of 6 - 0. E. BZA-3375.95, 1705 W. Mt. Hope Avenue, a request by Keystone Design Group, representing Rite Aid Corporation, lessee of property at 1705 W. Mt. Hope (Colonial Village Shopping Center), to remodel the tenant space including an addition and an increase in usable square footage of the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 6 store. This requires a 25' setback variance of Section 1268.08, and a variance of 8 parking spaces of Section 1285.13(c)(1) of the Zoning Code. J. Ruff presented the case. Jim White, Project Manager for Rite Aid, addressed the Board. He stated that this is not a regional shopping center, rather it is a neighborhood shopping center. He asks that the variance to parking be viewed in that light. He said that, at no time in the past two years, has the parking lot been more than 75% full. As to truck traffic, he stated that Rite Aid has 1 delivery semi, once a week, at the back door for 2 hours. All other deliveries come in by the front door, as required by Rite Aid. Primarily, the other trucks that come down the alley are for other stores in the shopping center. He stated that Morrison-Singer, out of Detroit, owns this property, and that Rite Aid has, through their lease, tenant rights to the alcove. He also stated that Rite Aid could have requested the use of the entire alcove, but out of respect for the other tenants, they are leaving space for dumpsters and etc. The addition is to be used as storage for high-turnover stock. The alcove is not now and has never been used as a turn-around, as there are too many dumpsters and other stuff stored there. Rite Aid would like, with the proper City approval, to make the alley one way, with all the appropriate signage to indicate that. Some discussion took place regarding the parking and general conditions of the store and the shopping center. G. Hilts stated that he lives nearby, and doesn't think he has ever seen the parking lot full. E. Horne said that she went by at about 4:30 p.m. and saw that someone had dumped two couches by the dumpsters. Bruce Katalanich, L & L Shop Rite Store Manager, stated that Rite Aid is a very good tenant of the Shopping Center, and that they do have most of their deliveries to the front. He stated that the problem is that they, L & L Shop Rite, do use the alley for deliveries. He said that their trucks are very long, that they are semi's. He also said that their smaller delivery trucks do back in and turn around in the alcove, mostly in the morning. He said that its easier for most of the larger trucks to come in off of Boston Blvd. and that a one way alley is not going to be in the best interest of L & L Shop Rite. Discussion ensued concerning the alley, and possible solutions for the loading and unloading of delivery trucks. Also, alternatives to the one- way alley were discussed, and options as far as altering the depth of the proposed addition, and dumpster alternatives. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Discussion ensued concerning the responsibility of the owner of this property in dealing with the needs of two of the tenants, in the alley area, in that L & L Shop Rite feels that it needs BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 7 more alley space for loading and unloading of trucks. The Board determined that they cannot settle disputes between tenants. Mr. Ruff told the Board that they have only three options, to approve the variance request, to deny the variance request, or to modify the request. The Board decided to modify the request, on the suggestion of, and cooperation by, the applicant; L & L Shop Rite concurred with the modification. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3375.95, with a modified 20' rear yard setback variance, for an approximate 20' x 40' addition with a 5' setback and a variance of the 8 parking spaces. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Motion carried: BZA-3375.95 approved by a vote of 6 - 0. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Policy and Procedures This issue was not addressed at this meeting. B. Tabled Item: 3342.95, 328 S. Mifflin Street This issue was not addressed at this meeting. C. Communication from Traverse Bay Land Company: Withdrawal of BZA- 3328.95, at 2801 Mersey Lane. E. Horne made a motion to accept the withdrawal of BZA-3328.95 at 2801 Mersey Lane. The motion was seconded by M. Clark, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT None V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ready BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 8 VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. ADJOURNMENT A. The meeting was adjourned at 9:58. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzaoc[.95 Draft to Clerk 12 06 L5 Approved 95 To Clerk 95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING Q 9 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 12, 1995, 7:30 p.m. HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present DRAFT E. Spink M. Clark G. Hilts E. Horne J. Page C. Bicy B. Excused Absences H. LeBlanc requested an excused absence to attend a conference for the Planning Board. E. Horne made a motion to grant H. LeBlanc's request, seconded by E. Spink. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. There were no unexcused absences. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. HEARINGS A. BZA-3370.95, N. E. Corner of Jolly Road and Stafford Avenue, a request by William Pomaville, owner, to build a duplex 30 feet from the front property line along Stafford Avenue, on the vacant lot at the N. E. Corner of Stafford and Jolly. Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the structure be set back at least 40 feet from the (Stafford) front property line, which is the established front yard setback required for the blockface. This is therefore a request for a variance of 10 feet. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 2 J. Ruff presented the case. The Board asked several questions to verify the information. W. Pomaville, owner, spoke. He stated that they are trying to align the house to avoid having the driveways on the side. They want the tenants to be able to put one car and their yard equipment in the garage. He also stated that there will be a basement, with 8' ceilings. E. Horne asked if the duplex would be like the neighboring houses, with vinyl siding and a sill ppearance. Mr. Pomaville replied that they would. *4P The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy stated that he would be supporting this variance, recognizing that the corner location presents a problem; and also that the amount of room around both units is sufficient, although there is limited space in the back of the dwelling. E. Spink clarified the staff report. M. Clark stated that she would support this motion somewhat reluctantly, since a one family dwelling could be built. E. Horne said that she would also support the motion reluctantly, as a one family dwelling could be built, but since it is zoned "C" Residential, which allows one and two family dwellings, she will support. J. Page said that he felt the same. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3370.95, for a 10' setback variance, to build the duplex as proposed, per the architectural drawing. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Motion carried: BZA-3370.95 approved as requested, by a vote of 6 - 0. B. BZA-3371.95, 132 E. Barnes Avenue, a request by Pedro and Reyna Quinones, 132 E. Barnes, to allow the retention of a detached accessory structure, built as a garage on an existing foundation and partial wall structures up to the side and rear property lines. Section 1248.03(b)(7) requires side and rear yard setbacks of 3 feet for unattached accessory buildings. Variances of 3 feet are therefore requested. The structure is 18' x 18', and appears to be more of a storage building than a garage. Mr. Ruff requested that he be able to ask several questions of the Quinones. First, he inquired about the two driveways, one concrete and BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 3 one gravel; he asked if the accessory structure is to be a garage. The Quinones replied that it will be a garage. He then asked when the driveway on the other side had been built. They replied that they had put it in the previous summer; there was no curb cut necessary, as it was already existing. Mr. Ruff then asked about the yard area, which is going to be cut into by the two driveways. They replied that there is yard area in the rear of the house. Mr. Ruff stated that there are similar situations in this neighborhood, so that this garage is not out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. He is concerned that the lot is over-surfaced with driveway and house. He questions the purpose of the second driveway. He knows that there is a new park nearby, but is reluctant concerning approval, due to the lack of yard space. He also stated that the garage will have to be built with fire rated walls, because it is on the property line, and will have to be modified if approved. He also feels that the garage could have been placed better, and that 41,ji and surfaced driveway may have to be reviewed. E. Spink asked about the restrictions ?having two driveways on a single family residential lot. Mr. Ruff replied that there appears to have been two drives on this site, which means it would be conforming; however, if this is a new drive, and they park in the front of the house, they could be ticketed. This would be unlikely, as it would look normal. Spink asked if they would have to put in a hard surfaced driveway for the garage. Mr. Ruff said that there were options, including a ribbon type drive. Reyna Quinones spoke to the Board. She stated that she needs a garage for her car in the winter. J. Page asked why there are two driveways. She replied that this was the situation when they bought the house. C. Bicy asked why one driveway was paved. Ms. Quinones replied that the paved drive is on the side of the back door, and that this was paved because there are a lot of trees there, and when it snows everything comes in the house. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink stated that he is reluctant, being generally against building on property lines, and reluctant to having two driveways, one on each side of the house. He said that if they moved the garage forward, the 60' setback would have to be dealt with. He also is reluctant to approve an existing building, and have the Building Officials to bring the building up to code. His inclination is to vote no, but he's not sure that some of these answers couldn't be brought before the Board. C. Bicy BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 4 agreed with him, stating that he has a problem with the two driveways. He stated that it's hard for him to approve something that the Planning Board is reluctant to approve. However, putting himself in the applicant's position, he understands the desire for the garage. He would like to put the ball back in Mr. Ruff's court. E. Spink suggested that the variance be tabled for a month, so more information could be gathered. J. Ruff stated that this could be done, by working with the applicants, the Building Official, and the Planner, and bringing the information back to the Board. E. Horne stated that she wants to work with the improvements to the area, that this should be an upgrade to the neighborhood. M. Clark expressed her concern with the variance for the two lot lines, as she feels that this forces the use on the two adjacent properties. G. Hilts said that he would like to table the request until next month, so that some of these questions can be answered. E. Spink made a motion to table BZA-337k. t 132 E. Barnes Avenue until November 9, 1995. The motion was seconded byand approved unanimously on a voice vote. ii C. BZA-3372.95, 820 W. Mt. Hope Avenue, a request by Edward and Margaret Ellis of 820 W. Mt. Hope to build a 24' x 24' detached garage. the proposed garage will be built on a corner lot which is considered to have two front yards, one on Mt. Hope, and one on Delevan. The applicant is proposing to build the garage 16' from the front property line off of Delevan Street. Section 1248.07(a) of the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 20' from the front lot line off of Delevan Street. Therefore, a 4' variance is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff finds no adverse impact to this variance, and supports the variance as requested. Some discussion ensued. Edward Ellis, owner of the property, spoke. He stated that he has lived here for 15 years, and has never had the opportunity to park in a garage; he has had to park one vehicle in the church parking lot across the street for 15 years. Questions were asked regarding garage size and especially depth. Some options were discussed. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3372.95 at 820 W. Mt. Hope Avenue, with a 17' setback rather than the requested 16' setback, finding that the additional foot of BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 5 setback will provide for approximately 20' between the garage and sidewalk, to better protect pedestrian circulation. The motion was seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Motion carried: BZA-3372.95 approved for a 17' setback, by a vote of 6 - 0. D. BZA-3374.95, 6200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, a request by Meijer Inc. to permit replacement of an existing non-conforming ground pole sign of 26' in height, 175 sq. ft. in area, and a setback of 5110" at 6200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue. The proposed new ground pole sign is 24.6' tall and 150 sq. ft. in area, using the existing poles. Section 1442.12(h)(8) of the sign code would only permit a sign of these dimensions if it would achieve a setback of 28' jkom the right of way. The applicant is requesting a sign setback 3' or a variance of approximately 24' in 46 the sign setback from the rig ^1L of S. Pennsylvania Avenue. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this site does not have a lot of extraneous signage, either in the parking lot or on the building. This is untypical for the area. Rick Morgan, Meijers Inc. , addressed the Board. He stated that Meijers has 99 stores, and they are continually trying to upgrade their signage. He stated that the store sign has the new sign, but the gas station does not. This will keep the signage uniform. He also stated that no merchandise signs are proposed. C. Bicy asked if there were new signs at other stores, and if so, were variances required? Mr. Morgan replied that some were done as a part of store remodel's, but that most likely variances were required in some cases. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink stated that he would be voting in support of this variance, as he feels that it is a significant improvement. He hopes there will be no merchandise signs hung from the new sign. C. Bicy indicated that he also is in favor of the variance. M. Clark asked how much the sign would have to be reduced in size to make it conform to code. J. Ruff replied that, with a 5' setback, they could only have a 5' tall sign that would be 25 square feet in size, similar to the sign at the Shell Station at Cedar and Miller. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 6 E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3374.95, at 6200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, finding that there is a significant improvement if the sign is built as proposed. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Motion carried: BZA-3356.95 approved by a vote of 6 - 0. E. BZA-3375.95, 1705 W. Mt. Hope Avenue, a request by Keystone Design Group, representing Rite Aid Corporation, lessee of property at 1705 W. Mt. Hope (Colonial Village Shopping Center) , to remodel the tenant space including an addition and an increase in usable square footage of the store. This requires a 25' setback variance of Section 1268.08, and a variance of 8 parking spaces of Section 1285.13(c)(1) of the Zoning Code. J. Ruff presented the case4)R44,, Jim White, Manager er for Rite Aid, addressed the Board. He stated J g that this is not a regional shopping center, rather it is a neighborhood shopping center. He asks that the variance to parking be viewed in that light. He said that, at no time in the past two years, has the parking lot been more than 75% full. As to truck traffic, he stated that Rite Aid has 1 delivery semi, once a week, at the back door for 2 hours. All other deliveries come in by the front door, as required by Rite Aid. Primarily, the other trucks that come down the alley are for other stores in the shopping center. He stated that Morrison-Singer, out of Detroit, owns this property, and that Rite Aid has, through their lease, tenant rights to the alcove. He also stated that Rite Aid could have requested the use of the entire alcove, but out of respect for the other tenants, they are leaving space for dumpsters and etc. The addition is to be used as storage for high-turnover stock. The alcove is not now and has never been used as a turn-around, as there are too many dumpsters and other stuff stored there. Rite Aid would like, with the proper City approval, to make the alley one way, with all the appropriate signage to indicate that. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 7 Some discussion took place regarding the parking and general conditions of the store and the shopping center. G. Hilts stated that he lives nearby, and doesn't think he has ever seen the parking lot full. E. Horne said that she went by at about 4:30 p.m. and saw that someone had dumped two couches by the dumpsters. Bruce Katalanich, L & L Shop Rite Store Manager, stated that Rite Aid is a very good tenant of the Shopping Center, and that they do have most of their deliveries to the front. He stated that the problem is that they, L & L Shop Rite, do use the alley for deliveries. He said that their trucks are very long, that they are semi's. He also said that their smaller delivery trucks do back in and turn around in the alcove, mostly in the morning. He said that its easier for most of the larger trucks to come in off of Boston Blvd. and that a one way alley is not going to be in the best interest of L & L Shop Rite. Discussion ensued concerning ley, and possible solutions for the loading and unloading of deliverpy #tl Also, alternatives to the one- way alley were discussed, and options as altering the depth of the proposed � p ro osed addition and dum ster alternatives. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Discussion ensued concerning the responsibility of the owner of this property in dealing with the needs of two of the tenants, in the alley area, in that L & L Shop Rite feels that it needs more alley space for loading and unloading of trucks. The Board determined that they cannot settle disputes between tenants. Mr. Ruff told the Board that they have only three options, to approve the variance request, to deny the variance request, or to modify the request. The Board decided to modify the request, on the suggestion of, and cooperation by, the applicant; L & L Shop Rite concurred with the modification. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3375.95, with a modified 20' rear yard setback variance, for an approximate 20' x 40' addition with a 5' setback and a variance of the 8 parking spaces. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Spink X Motion carried: BZA-3375.95 approved by a vote of 6 - 0. III. OLD BUSINESS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES October 12, 1995 - Page 8 A. Policy and Procedures This issue was not addressed at this meeting. B . Tabled Item: 3342.95, 328 S. Mifflin Street This issue was not addressed at this meeting. C. Communication from Traverse Bay Land Company: Withdrawal of BZA- 3328.95, at 2801 Mersey Lane. E. Horne made a motion to accept the withdrawal of BZA-3328.95 at 2801 Mersey Lane. The motion was seconded by M. Clark, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT None V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ready VI. NEW BUSINESS None V I I. ADJOURNMENT A. The meeting was adjourned at 9:58. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals cAwp\data\bza\bzaoct.95 Draft to Clerk 11/02/95 Approved 10/12/95 To Clerk 01/03 /95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ��. ri r I; �' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS t_{ CITY CLERK SEPTEMBER 14, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOTH FLOOR I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present H. LeBlanc C. Bicy G. Hilts E. Horne J. Page B. Excused Absences E. Spink M. Clark C. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. There were no unexcused absences. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. Horne made a motion to approve the agenda as amended, moving the Public Comment portion of the meeting before Old Business. H. LeBlanc seconded the motion which was carried unanimously by a voice vote. III. HEARINGS A. BZA-3359.95, 915 Cross Street This is a request by Jerry Greathouse to construct a building addition of 14' x 26' for use as a garage and deck, to the existing single family BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 2 residence at 915 Cross Street. The existing garage would be expanded to 640 sq. ft. and be constructed up to the east property line. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff has recommended that the variance be modified to have a 3' sideyard setback to allow maintenance which would lessen the requested square footage. He also stated that the Chairperson has two pieces of correspondence, one for and one against the variance, which will be read into the record. C. Bicy asked about the deck. Mr. Ruff explained the current configuration of the lot and the house. The Chairperson read the correspondence into the record. First was a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Merideth, owners of the house at 920 Cross Street, who are opposed to the variance, because this makes the encroachment to close. There was also a phone message from Mrs. Cady, 1363 Roosevelt, also is opposed to this variance. Mr. Greathouse, owner of the property, spoke. He stated that his property is on a hill, and that a retaining wall already exists. He proposes to build up the retaining wall another 3 feet for the garage. He feels that this will allow better access to his rear yard. He said that the neighbors who would be directly affected all told him that they were in favor of his request. The Board asked Mr. Greathouse several questions. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Discussion ensued. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny the appeal as filed, but to approve a variance of 1.2', for the garage to be built 3' from the property line. Motion seconded by J. Page. H. LeBlanc wanted to add that the house is built into a hill, and the deck on top of the garage is at the same level as the house, and is not adding a story at all. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3359.95 approved as modified, per staff recommendation, by a vote of 5-0. B. BZA-3360.95, 5915 Richwood BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 3 This is a request by Cellular One, for a variance for construction of 150' tall monopole cellular communication tower plus a 5' tall antenna. The appeal is for property on the extreme south end off Richwood, just north of North Cemetery. There is currently an SLU pending before City Council for approval of this use as a public utility in the DM-3 Zone. Planning Board has recommended approval with conditions. J. Ruff presented the case. He said that the appellant has provided a packet of information for the Board. He brought to the Board's attention the two colored maps included, which show the existing coverage quality for the Lansing area and the proposed results. He stated that Staff believes that it is well out of the way of interfering with low density residential use and is not in the line of sight, nor is it going to be a focal point at street level view, so staff has recommended approval with conditions; those conditions being that the tower would have to be operated and maintained in a manner that would not adversely impact the surrounding property or the operation of other area electronic communication devises. E. Horne asked what would happen if this technology became obsolete. J. Ruff stated that one town reserved the right to use the tower for other things. He also stated that a statement could be incorporated into the motion stating that Cellular One would have to remove the tower if it became obsolete. E. Horne added that landscaping should also be made part of the motion. J. Keifer, Cellular One, spoke. He introduced Doris Beck and Doug Duperow, also of Cellular One. Mr. Keifer spoke of the Special Land Use Permit request which was approved by the Planning Board, and mentioned that the Planning Board was also requiring landscaping at the site. He detailed some of the problems Cellular One had with tower placement, the many uses for cellular phones, including the importance of cellular towers in emergency communications. C. Bicy asked how high the tower was. J. Keifer stated that it was to be 150' tall. Bicy then asked what type of tower it was to be; Keifer responded that it was to be a monopole tower. E. Horne strongly reiterated her position that landscaping be done, beyond a few shrubs. J. Ruff asked that the equipment shelter be described. It was described as a pre-fabricated structure, with a brown aggregate stone finish on the exterior. However, it could be finished in any way the City would like. The shelter can be done to match the neighboring properties. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 4 There was no public comment on this issue. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3360.95 at 5915 Richwood, based upon the area, which will not reduce the residential area and has a cemetery, and a wooded area, as long as the SLU is approved, with the stone finish on the structure, landscaping of the property, and the removal of the structure if the technology becomes obsolete. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3360.95 approved with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0. C. BZA-3361.95, 3712 S. Cedar Street This is a request by Martin DuBois of Central Advertising, representing Ron Roberts of ARA Automotive, to replace the top of his 20' tall, 35 sq. ft. sign on the existing pole at 3712 S. Cedar Street 12.5' from the property line. This is the same size as the existing sign. This is a variance request of 8' in height. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff has found that even though the sign is not substantially further back or smaller than the previous sign, it is of a reasonable size for its placement and the size of the property, and the location of signs on adjacent properties. It will set either in line or behind other signs on the block. Mr. Ruff showed pictures of the desired sign to the Board. He also stated that Staff has recommended approval. Martin DuBois of Central Advertising spoke. He stated that Mr. Ron Roberts was the victim of an unscrupulous sign dealer, who assured him that the sign in question would meet code. It did not. Mr. Roberts has had the sign in his garage for about 8 months. Central Advertising told him that they would try to help him get his sign approved. Mr. DuBois then reiterated the particulars of the sign that Mr. Ruff had already stated. C. Bicy asked Mr. Roberts what he would be doing with the old sign. Mr. Roberts responded that he would destroy it. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 5 The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy stated that he would be supporting this request. H. LeBlanc stated that when driving past the site, she had noticed that the sign is not out of character with the rest of the block. E. Horn said that she would support the motion. E. Horne made a motion to approve BZA-3361.95 at 3172 S. Cedar Street, for the 8' variance, as requested. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3361.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. D. BZA-3362.95, 727 E. Paulson This is a request by M. R. Kessler Jr. to retain a 24' x 26' storage shed on the property at 727 E. Paulson. There is also an existing detached garage which measures 24' x 241. The total of both structures is 1,200 sq. ft. The applicant request a 200 sq. ft. variance. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that Staff recommends approval, with removal of the gravel drive, to be returned to lawn, so that the structure is not used as a garage. He also reiterated that the requested variance is for 200 total square feet in two storage buildings. The Board discussed the particulars of this combined lot, and the current status of the storage buildings. It was brought out that the construction of the storage building has already begun. It was also mentioned that a garage cannot exist legally on a lot without a house, as garages are secondary structures and a primary structure must first exist. Mike Nolan, Attorney for Mr. Kessler, addressed the Board. He showed photographs of the existing structure, as well as the previous structure, which has been removed. He stated that Mr. Kessler has no objection to plowing up and seeding the driveway to the accessory structure, that he is in favor of using the garage only for storage, that he appears to be simply replacing the previous, dilapidated garage. Mr. Nolan said that, in his opinion, it appears that this structure will comply with the spirit and intent of the code, and it is not out of character with the surrounding area. He recommends that the Board grant this variance. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 6 Elaine Morehead, 805 E. Paulson, neighbor to the subject property, spoke in favor of the new structure, compared to the old structure. She said that the old structure was not safe, and the new one will look better. They have no problem with this variance request. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy said that he likes the part about the improvement, referring to the photographs shown. The Board addressed several questions to Mr. Kessler. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3362.95, at 727 E. Paulson, with the condition that the driveway to the existing detached garage be returned to lawn. The garage doors may remain. Seconded by J. Page. H. LeBlanc added that the total amount of storage for this lot has not changed, and that this site is on the edge of a residential neighborhood, across from a commercial property. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3362.95 approved with conditions, by a vote of 5 to 0. E. BZA-3363.95, 4919 S. Washington This is a request by Benjamin Miller, owner, to retain a 4'2" high wood fence in the front yard of the side of the house at 4929 S. Washington. This is a corner lot at the corner of Lowcroft and S. Washington. A height variance of 112" is being requested for the existing fence. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the house is on a hill, and the fence runs along the perimeter of the hill. This area of the yard is useful rear yard, which he has fenced so that he can use it. The Board Chair read two communications into the record. The first was from the "former owners" of 4919 S. Washington, Dale and Ruth Woodwell who stated that they had originally built this fence. The second was from Norma Reyes, of 4902 S. Washington, across the street from the Millers. They say that it in no way disrupts vision, as it is so far back in the yard. Ben Miller, applicant, spoke. He stated that he was only replacing the existing fence, except that he extended it a little. He said that it is a horizontal wood fence, and he showed pictures of the old and the new BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 7 fence. He felt that his old fence was unsafe, and as his wife does day care in the home, he wanted to replace it to make it safe. H. LeBlanc stated that she has seen it and there is plenty of room for safe vehicular circulation, and it does not interfere with the corner. Tony Burk, 4913 Lowcroft, spoke, stating that he is a neighbor who helped to replace the fence. He stated that there were no problems in visibility with the fence. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3363.95 at 4929 S. Washington to retain the 4'2" fence in the front yard. Supported by J. Page and C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3363.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. F. BZA-3364.95, 1330 N. Genesee This is a request by Thomas R. McCulloch, to construct a new attached garage at 1330 N. Genesee Drive. This corner lot requires a side yard setback of 61. The proposed setback is 4.5', therefore a variance of 1.5' is requested. Also, a rear yard setback of 310" is required; the proposed setback is 31, therefore, a variance of 27' is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff has recommended approval of the requested variance. The Board Chair read a letter into the record from Marilyn Sandborn, 519 Westmoreland Avenue, in support of the variance, as it will be an improvement to an established residence, and will not alter the general appearance of the property, or adversely affect the neighborhood. Tom McCulloch spoke, telling about the condition of the old, existing garage, which needs to come down; it is attached to the house. It is a very tight fit, even though it is "technically" a two car garage. They want to replace it with a similar flat roof, which is to be used as a patio. The new garage will be of the same character as the existing garage. Mr. McCulloch's contractor, Mr. LaFave, described some of the particulars of the construction. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 8 C. Bicy asked if Mr. McCulloch was parking in the garage. He stated that he was parking in the garage, even though it leaks and is small. Much discussion ensued between the Board members, Mr. McCulloch, and Mr. LaFave. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3364.95, at 1330 N. Genesee Drive as requested based on the analysis of the adjacent lots, with practical size restrictions. He added that the exterior of the garage should be finished to match the house, and the deck walls also match. Also, that the deck be constructed with proper drainage, so that runoff does not run onto the neighboring lot. Seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3364.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. G. BZA-3365.95, 918 Prospect This is a request by Dudley Glover, owner, to convert the structure at 918 Prospect to a two family dwelling (two 1 bedroom units) . The lot contains 5445 sq. ft. of lot area, and the Zoning Code requires 6000 sq. ft. of lot area. A variance of 155 sq. ft. in lot area is requested. Staff did not recommend approval of the request. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the main difference between this request and Mr. Glover's request for this property in July is that this is a reduced request, in that instead of two 2 bedroom units, it is for two 1 bedroom units. He suggested that if this request is approved, the unit with a den have the wall removed between the den and the bedroom to prevent its use as a two bedroom. He passed the floor plan around to be reviewed. Mr. Glover spoke. He mentioned a neighbor who shares the driveway with this house, who has no objections. He told of his future plans for the property and described the current make-up of the neighborhood. C. Bicy inquired whether Mr. Glover lived in the neighborhood. Mr. Glover answered that he did not, but would be happy to. Mr. Ruff stated that he had received several letters between the two appeals, from Ms. Vivian Bloom and others in the neighborhood. He also BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 9 mentioned the second floor apartment again, which has the den. He wants a permanent way to join the rooms if the Board approves the request. The Board Chair read three communications into the record, the first from Ms. Vivian Bloom, 227 S. Eighth Street, dated July 14, 1995, who feels that we made a grave mistake, we should have approved the variance, and asks that we investigate, inspect and reconsider the variance. The second is from Alice and Robert Fall, 913 Prospect, who own two properties in the same block as 918 Prospect. They are not opposed to the variance. The third is from Mary Rodizinki of 14552 Boichot Road, who cannot believe that we voted to disallow a two unit, as this used to be a five unit, and she asks that we reconsider the variance. Cheryl Valleau, of 226 S. Eighth Street, read a letter from Mary Margaret Murphy Woll, on behalf of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, in opposition to the variance. She then spoke as a resident of the neighborhood, and a member of the Green Oaks Neighborhood Group, giving some history of the neighborhood. She spoke of the fight to reduce density, to allow people elbow room; she stated that tenants seem to have more problems in a two unit building than in a single family. She stated that Mr. Glover isn't a particularly good landlord, in that his property was a major drug house and he knew about it. She asked the Board to deny this variance. C. Bicy asked how this is a reduction, as the property used to be a five unit, and now is to be a two unit. She replied that it has been vacant for four years, therefore, it would be an increase in density if it is used as a two unit. Mr. Glover spoke again in his own behalf, concerning code compliance, tenants illegal activities, eviction of problem tenants. He stated that he has too much money invested in the two properties he owns in this area to not take an interest in the neighborhood. Vivian Bloom, 227 S. Eighth Street, spoke in favor of the variance. She stated that this property has been vacant for two years that she knew of. She stated that she gets very upset when we have so many vacant houses in the city, there are so many homeless people in Lansing, and Mr. Glover is trying to fix up a property and put people in a home. She says that reducing density denies people affordable housing. She mentioned the three colleges that are located here, and the desire of people to rent for a limited period of time. She stated that we need rentals. She also stated that some of the worst looking houses are owner occupied, single family houses. She feels that it is the responsibility of the citizens of the City of Lansing to provide affordable housing in the city; not everybody BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 10 has the means to buy housing, or maintain housing, but they do have the money for rent. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Discussion ensued concerning the zoning of the neighborhood, the status of the house as a five unit, the fight to reduce density, etc. E. Horne will be supporting the effort to make this house a one family dwelling; H. LeBlanc will not support the variance, to be consistent with the GOTAO; C. Bicy will support the variance request, because of the large size of the building; J. Page will support the variance request, also because of the size of the building. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3365.95, at 918 Prospect Street, based upon the size of the house, the nature of the two family, 1 bedroom units with the identification of hardship, and the condition that the wall be opened into the den. Seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion denied: BZA-3365.95, 918 Prospect, did not pass. H. BZA-3366.95, 5200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by Amor Signs for Admiral Petroleum to replace 5 existing wall signs with five new Admiral Petroleum Company signs at 5200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, two of which will be on the canopy. Code allows a maximum of two wall signs. Variances requested are: To allow three additional wall signs, and to allow wall signs on a building adjacent to residentially zoned land. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff doesn't find a hardship in this case, and does not recommend approval of the entire request. However, staff does request that an allowance of 3 wall signs be granted. Steve DuVall, Amor Signs, spoke. He stated that this variance would clean up the facilities; all superfluous signs would come down. He stated that the reason for the signage on the north side of the building is to gain better attention of southbound traffic on Pennsylvania. He also said that he has brought pictures which show that there are no residential neighborhoods until you get 281' west of Pennsylvania's curb. He BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 11 indicated that it would be fine with Admiral if the signage was reduced to 3 wall signs. Mr. Ruff spoke again, clarifying that he wasn't speaking of Residential Neighborhoods, but rather of Residential Zoning. Much discussion ensued. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3366.95, as modified: variance will allow two signs on the canopy and one on the building face, and to remove the sign on the south side, and the circular sign on the front, for a maximum of three wall signs to total a maximum of 150 sq. feet. Motion seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion approved: BZA-3366.95, 5200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue approved as modified by a vote of 5-0. I. BZA-3367.95, 1620 Roselawn This is a request by George Dush to build a 6' x 9.5' enclosed front porch 14.25' from the front property line of his home at 1620 Roselawn Avenue. The required setback is a minimum of 20', so this is a request for a variance of 5.75' from the front property line setback requirement. J. Ruff presented the case. George Dush, owner of the property, spoke. He stated that this is rental property, and there was damage due to rain on the existing addition. The damage can't be fixed, so he is trying to rebuild. Mr. Dush also showed pictures of the property. H. LeBlanc asked if he intended to paint the porch. He replied that he was going to paint, remove the awning, and re-roof. He also will put new gutters on, with a metal awning over the picture window. Discussion ensued. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 12 C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3367.95, seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion approved: BZA-3367.95, approved by a vote of 5-0. J. BZA-3368.95, 2511 Clifton This is a request by Craig Calkins to build a 24' x 34' detached garage for a total of 816 sq. ft. in the flood plain. The base flood elevation is approximately 840' and the proposed garage will have a floor elevation of 832.21, 7.8' below the base flood elevation. Also, they are seeking a variance of 96 sq. ft. in the size of the garage. J. Ruff presented the case. Craig Calkins spoke. He stated that he and his wife are having a child. He said that they have a large, double lot, but there is no space for storage in the house. They wish to store their patio furniture, an antique car, and their riding lawn mower. They want to make the garage deep so that they have extra storage room. There is a large mature tree in the yard they wish to save. Mr. Calkins presented a petition with 5 names, representing 4 surrounding properties, that have no objection to the proposed garage (petition in file) . No one else spoke. Mr. Calkins added that he has mailed in a Department of Natural Resources flood permit, which he indicates has been approved, but had not yet been received. E. Horne made a motion to approve BZA-3368.95, as requested, finding that the proposal is for a building with less than 1000 sq. ft. of total storage. This is taking the place of a second building being constructed in the flood plain. It was noted that this lot has more than average lot size. Seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 13 Page X Motion approved: BZA-3368.95 approved by a vote of 5-0. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item: BZA-3337.95, 3205 Forest Road, Century Cellunet. E. Horne made a motion to remove BZA-3337.95 from the table. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc, and approved unanimously on a voice vote. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3337.95, located at 3205 Forest Road, for 169' of total height with lightening rod. The motion was seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion approved: BZA-3337.95 approved by a vote of 5-0. B. Tabled Item: BZA-3342.95, Pleasant Grove at Holmes, Century Cellunet J. Page made a motion to remove BZA-3342.95 from the table. H. LeBlanc seconded the motion. It was carried by a voice vote. G. Hilts stated that he can see the need for the tower, and feels that that is as good a reason to have it as any. He feels that this location will have as little impact as any site in the city. E. Horne asked how many towers were being asked for. J. Ruff replied that they have a central located tower on river street, and that the only immediate needs are the southeast and the southwest, which are covered by the two requests being dealt with tonight, and the northeast and northwest, which will not necessarily be located within the city. Personnel from Century Cellunet spoke in connection with the future of cellular towers. They stated that the only one that is in the works at this time is north off of Willow Highway, in an industrial area. There are no other actual proposals at this time. Discussion ensued between the Board and the representatives of Century Cellunet. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14. 1995 - Page 14 C. Bicy stated that he wants the Pleasant Grove/Holmes Road site to replace the Mersey Lane site, as Mersey Lane is too residential. Discussion ensued regarding this issue. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3342.95, for 169' of monopole structure, and that the increased landscape screening and buffering that was recommended at the Planning Board level be concurred with. J. Page seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3342.95 approved with conditions, by a vote of 5-0. C. Tabled Item: BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity H. LeBlanc made a motion to remove BZA-3325.95 from the table. The motion was seconded by E. Horne and approved unanimously on a voice vote. H. LeBlanc stated that, as this request is located on a large lot, and this Board has made a precedent of approving large garages on large lots, when there are physical condition that separate it from other properties, such as this case, where the property is at the end of a dead end road. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3325.95, based on her previous statement. Motion seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity, approved by a vote of 5-0. D. Tabled Item: BZA-3353.95, 1708 W. Willow J. Ruff stated that he has worked with Bay Gas Stations, and with Mr. Sterrett, and he showed drawings of the compromise that has been worked out. Bay Gas Station is to rebuild their own fence to meet what the Sterretts were trying to do, and they will have their contractor rebuild the Sterretts fence, 8 to 9 feet behind the tree. Mr. Ruff is also going BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 15 to write the property owner of the store across the street and request that they have the telephone removed. Also, E. Horne recommended that Bay remind their customers to quiet down. LeBlanc made a motion to remove BZA-3353.95 off the table, and to approve it as proposed by Staff. The motion was seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3353.95, 1708 W. Willow, approved as modified by a vote of 5-0. V. PUBLIC COMMENT None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June, July, and August 1995 C. Bicy made a motion to approve this set of minutes as typed, with the exception of a correction to the minutes of August 10, 1995, on page 6, where the hours of operation for the proposed day care center should be 116:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m." rather than "6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m." H. LeBlanc seconded the motion, which was carried 5-0 on a voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS None V III. ADJOURNMENT A. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14 1995 - Page 16 Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzasept.95 Draft to Clerk 11/02/95 Approved / /95 To Clerk / /95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS SEPTEMBER 14, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOTH FLOOR I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present H. LeBlanc C. Bicy G. Hilts E. Horne J. Page B. Excused Absences E. Spink M. Clark C. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. There were no unexcused absences. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. Horne made a motion to approve the agenda as amended, moving the Public Comment portion of the meeting before Old Business. H. LeBlanc seconded the motion which was carried unanimously by a voice vote. III. HEARINGS A. BZA-3359.95, 915 Cross Street This is a request by Jerry Greathouse to construct a building addition of 14' x 26' for use as a garage and deck, to the existing single family residence at 915 Cross Street. The existing garage would be expanded to 640 sq. ft. and be constructed up to the east property line. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff has recommended that the variance be modified to have a 3' sideyard setback to allow maintenance which would lessen the requested square footage. He also stated that the Chairperson has two pieces of correspondence, one for and one against the variance, which will be read into the record. BOARD OF ZONING APPhALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 2 C. Bicy asked about the deck. Mr. Ruff explained the current configuration of the lot and the house. The Chairperson read the correspondence into the record. First was a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Merideth, owners of the house at 920 Cross Street, who are opposed to the variance, because this makes the encroachment to close. There was also a phone message from Mrs. Cady, 1363 Roosevelt, also is opposed to this variance. Mr. Greathouse, owner of the property, spoke. He stated that his property is on a hill, and that a retaining wall already exists. He proposes to build up the retaining wall another 3 feet for the garage. He feels that this will allow better access to his rear yard. He said that the neighbors who would be directly affected all told him that they were in favor of his request. The Board asked Mr. Greathouse several questions. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Discussion ensued. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny the appeal as filed, but to approve a variance of 1.2', for the garage to be built 3' from the property line. Motion seconded by J. Page. H. LeBlanc wanted to add that the house is built into a hill, and the deck on top of the garage is at the same level as the house, and is not adding a story at all. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3359.95 approved as modified, per staff recommendation, by a vote of 5-0. B . BZA-3360.95, 5915 Richwood This is a request by Cellular One, for a variance for construction of 150' tall monopole cellular communication tower plus a 5' tall antenna. The appeal is for property on the extreme south end off Richwood, just north of North Cemetery. There is currently an SLU pending before City Council for approval of this use as a public utility in the DM-3 Zone. Planning Board has recommended approval with conditions. J. Ruff presented the case. He said that the appellant has provided a packet of information for the Board. He brought to the Board's attention the two colored maps included, which show the existing coverage quality for the Lansing area and the proposed results. He stated that Staff believes that it is well out of the way of interfering with low density residential use and is not in the line of sight, nor is it going to be a focal point at street level view, so staff has recommended approval with conditions; those conditions being that the tower would have to be operated and maintained in a manner that would not adversely impact the surrounding property or the operation of other area electronic communication devises. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 3 E. Horne asked what would happen if this technology became obsolete. J. Ruff stated that one town reserved the right to use the tower for other things. He also stated that a statement could be incorporated into the motion stating that Cellular One would have to remove the tower if it became obsolete. E. Horne added that landscaping should also be made part of the motion. J. Keifer, Cellular One, spoke. He introduced Doris Beck and Doug Duperow, also of Cellular One. Mr. Keifer spoke of the Special Land Use Permit request which was approved by the Planning Board, and mentioned that the Planning Board was also requiring landscaping at the site. He detailed some of the problems Cellular One had with tower placement, the many uses for cellular phones, including the importance of cellular towers in emergency communications. C. Bicy asked how high the tower was. J. Keifer stated that it was to be 150' tall. Bicy then asked what type of tower it was to be; Keifer responded that it was to be a monopole tower. E. Horne strongly reiterated her position that landscaping be done, beyond a few shrubs. J. Ruff asked that the equipment shelter be described. It was described as a pre-fabricated structure, with a brown aggregate stone finish on the exterior. However, it could be finished in any way the City would like. The shelter can be done to match the neighboring properties. There was no public comment on this issue. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy made a motion to approve B ZA-3360.95 at 5915 Richwood, based upon the area, which will not reduce the residential area and has a cemetery, and a wooded area, as long as the SLU is approved, with the stone finish on the structure, landscaping of the property, and the removal of the structure if the technology becomes obsolete. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: B ZA-3360.95 approved with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0. C. BZA-3361.95, 3712 S. Cedar Street This is a request by Martin DuBois of Central Advertising, representing Ron Roberts of ARA Automotive, to replace the top of his 20' tall, 35 sq. ft. sign on the existing pole at 3712 S. Cedar Street 12.5' from the property line. This is the same size as the existing sign. This is a variance request of 8' in height. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff has found that even though the sign is not substantially further back or smaller than the previous sign, it is of a reasonable size for its placement and the size of the property, and BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES aeptember 14, 1995 - Page 4 the location of signs on adjacent properties. It will set either in line or behind other signs on the block. Mr. Ruff showed pictures of the desired sign to the Board. He also stated that Staff has recommended approval. Martin DuBois of Central Advertising spoke. He stated that Mr. Ron Roberts was the victim of an unscrupulous sign dealer, who assured him that the sign in question would meet code. It did not. Mr. Roberts has had the sign in his garage for about 8 months. Central Advertising told him that they would try to help him get his sign approved. Mr. DuBois then reiterated the particulars of the sign that Mr. Ruff had already stated. C. Bicy asked Mr. Roberts what he would be doing with the old sign. Mr. Roberts responded that he would destroy it. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy stated that he would be supporting this request. H. LeBlanc stated that when driving past the site, she had noticed that the sign is not out of character with the rest of the block. E. Horn said that she would support the motion. E. Horne made a motion to approve BZA-3361.95 at 3172 S. Cedar Street, for the 8' variance, as requested. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3361.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. D. BZA-3362.95, 727 E. Paulson This is a request by M. R. Kessler Jr. to retain a 24' x 26' storage shed on the property at 727 E. Paulson. There is also an existing detached garage which measures 24' x 241. The total of both structures is 1,200 sq. ft. The applicant request a 200 sq. ft. variance. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that Staff recommends approval, with removal of the gravel drive, to be returned to lawn, so that the structure is not used as a garage. He also reiterated that the requested variance is for 200 total square feet in two storage buildings. The Board discussed the particulars of this combined lot, and the current status of the storage buildings. It was brought out that the construction of the storage building has already begun. It was also mentioned that a garage cannot exist legally on a lot without a house, as garages are secondary structures and a primary structure must first exist. Mike Nolan, Attorney for Mr. Kessler, addressed the Board. He showed photographs of the existing structure, as well as the previous structure, which has been removed. He stated that Mr. Kessler has no objection to plowing up and seeding the driveway to the accessory structure, that he is BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6eptember 14, 1995 - Page 5 in favor of using the garage only for storage, that he appears to be simply replacing the previous, dilapidated garage. Mr. Nolan said that, in his opinion, it appears that this structure will comply with the spirit and intent of the code, and it is not out of character with the surrounding area. He recommends that the Board grant this variance. Elaine Morehead, 805 E. Paulson, neighbor to the subject property, spoke in favor of the new structure, compared to the old structure. She said that the old structure was not safe, and the new one will look better. They have no problem with this variance request. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy said that he likes the part about the improvement, referring to the photographs shown. The Board addressed several questions to Mr. Kessler. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3362.95, at 727 E. Paulson, with the condition that the driveway to the existing detached garage be returned to lawn. The garage doors may remain. Seconded by J. Page. H. LeBlanc added that the total amount of storage for this lot has not changed, and that this site is on the edge of a residential neighborhood, across from a commercial property. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3362.95 approved with conditions, by a vote of 5 to 0. E. BZA-3363.95, 4919 S. Washington This is a request by Benjamin Miller, owner, to retain a 4'2" high wood fence in the front yard of the side of the house at 4929 S. Washington. This is a corner lot at the corner of Lowcroft and S. Washington. A height variance of 112" is being requested for the existing fence. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the house is on a hill, and the fence runs along the perimeter of the hill. This area of the yard is useful rear yard, which he has fenced so that he can use it. The Board Chair read two communications into the record. The first was from the "former owners" of 4919 S. Washington, Dale and Ruth Woodwell who stated that they had originally built this fence. The second was from Norma Reyes, of 4902 S. Washington, across the street from the Millers. They say that it in no way disrupts vision, as it is so far back in the yard. Ben Miller, applicant, spoke. He stated that he was only replacing the existing fence, except that he extended it a little. He said that it is a horizontal wood fence, and he showed pictures of the old and the new fence. He felt that his old fence was unsafe, and as his wife does day care in the home, he wanted to replace it to make it safe. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 6 H. LeBlanc stated that she has seen it and there is plenty of room for safe vehicular circulation, and it does not interfere with the corner. Tony Burk, 4913 Lowcroft, spoke, stating that he is a neighbor who helped to replace the fence. He stated that there were no problems in visibility with the fence. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3363.95 at 4929 S. Washington to retain the 4'2" fence in the front yard. Supported by J. Page and C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3363.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. F. BZA-3364.95, 1330 N. Genesee This is a request by Thomas R. McCulloch, to construct a new attached garage at 1330 N. Genesee Drive. This corner lot requires a side yard setback of 6'. The proposed setback is 4.51, therefore a variance of 1.5' is requested. Also, a rear yard setback of TO" is required; the proposed setback is 3', therefore, a variance of 27' is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff has recommended approval of the requested variance. The Board Chair read a letter into the record from Marilyn Sandborn, 519 Westmoreland Avenue, in support of the variance, as it will be an improvement to an established residence, and will not alter the general appearance of the property, or adversely affect the neighborhood. Tom McCulloch spoke, telling about the condition of the old, existing garage, which needs to come down; it is attached to the house. It is a very tight fit, even though it is "technically" a two car garage. They want to replace it with a similar flat roof, which is to be used as a patio. The new garage will be of the same character as the existing garage. Mr. McCulloch's contractor, Mr. LaFave, described some of the particulars of the construction. C. Bicy asked if Mr. McCulloch was parking in the garage. He stated that he was parking in the garage, even though it leaks and is small. Much discussion ensued between the Board members, Mr. McCulloch, and Mr. LaFave. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3364.95, at 1330 N. Genesee Drive as requested based on the analysis of the adjacent lots, with practical size restrictions. He added that the exterior of the garage should be finished to match the house, and the deck walls also match. Also, that the deck be constructed with proper drainage, so that runoff does not run onto the neighboring lot. Seconded by J. Page. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 7 VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: B ZA-3364.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. G. BZA-3365.95, 918 Prospect This is a request by Dudley Glover, owner, to convert the structure at 918 Prospect to a two family dwelling (two 1 bedroom units) . The lot contains 5445 sq. ft. of lot area, and the Zoning Code requires 6000 sq. ft. of lot area. A variance of 155 sq. ft. in lot area is requested. Staff did not recommend approval of the request. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the main difference between this request and Mr. Glover's request for this property in July is that this is a reduced request, in that instead of two 2 bedroom units, it is for two 1 bedroom units. He suggested that if this request is approved, the unit with a den have the wall removed between the den and the bedroom to prevent its use as a two bedroom. He passed the floor plan around to be reviewed. Mr. Glover spoke. He mentioned a neighbor who shares the driveway with this house, who has no objections. He told of his future plans for the property and described the current make-up of the neighborhood. C. Bicy inquired whether Mr. Glover lived in the neighborhood. Mr. Glover answered that he did not, but would be happy to. Mr. Ruff stated that he had received several letters between the two appeals, from Ms. Vivian Bloom and others in the neighborhood. He also mentioned the second floor apartment again, which has the den. He wants a permanent way to join the rooms if the Board approves the request. The Board Chair read three communications into the record, the first from Ms. Vivian Bloom, 227 S. Eighth Street, dated July 14, 1995, who feels that we made a grave mistake, we should have approved the variance, and asks that we investigate, inspect and reconsider the variance. The second is from Alice and Robert Fall, 913 Prospect, who own two properties in the same block as 918 Prospect. They are not opposed to the variance. The third is from Mary Rodizinki of 14552 Boichot Road, who cannot believe that we voted to disallow a two unit, as this used to be a five unit, and she asks that we reconsider the variance. Cheryl Valleau, of 226 S. Eighth Street, read a letter from Mary Margaret Murphy Woll, on behalf of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, in opposition to the variance. She then spoke as a resident of the neighborhood, and a member of the Green Oaks Neighborhood Group, giving some history of the neighborhood. She spoke of the fight to reduce density, to allow people elbow room; she stated that tenants seem to have more problems in a two unit building than in a single family. She stated that Mr. Glover isn't a particularly good landlord, in that his property was a major drug house and BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 8 he knew about it. She asked the Board to deny this variance. C. Bicy asked how this is a reduction, as the property used to be a five unit, and now is to be a two unit. She replied that it has been vacant for four years, therefore, it would be an increase in density if it is used as a two unit. Mr. Glover spoke again in his own behalf, concerning code compliance, tenants illegal activities, eviction of problem tenants. He stated that he has too much money invested in the two properties he owns in this area to not take an interest in the neighborhood. Vivian Bloom, 227 S. Eighth Street, spoke in favor of the variance. She stated that this property has been vacant for two years that she knew of. She stated that she gets very upset when we have so many vacant houses in the city, there are so many homeless people in Lansing, and Mr. Glover is trying to fix up a property and put people in a home. She says that reducing density denies people affordable housing. She mentioned the three colleges that are located here, and the desire of people to rent for a limited period of time. She stated that we need rentals. She also stated that some of the worst looking houses are owner occupied, single family houses. She feels that it is the responsibility of the citizens of the City of Lansing to provide affordable housing in the city; not everybody has the means to buy housing, or maintain housing, but they do have the money for rent. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Discussion ensued concerning the zoning of the neighborhood, the status of the house as a five unit, the fight to reduce density, etc. E. Horne will be supporting the effort to make this house a one family dwelling; H. LeBlanc will not support the variance, to be consistent with the GOTAO; C. Bicy will support the variance request, because of the large size of the building; J. Page will support the variance request, also because of the size of the building. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3365.95, at 918 Prospect Street, based upon the size of the house, the nature of the two family, 1 bedroom units with the identification of hardship, and the condition that the wall be opened into the den. Seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion denied: BZA-3365.95, 918 Prospect, did not pass. H. BZA-3366.95, 5200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by Amor Signs for Admiral Petroleum to replace 5 existing wall signs with five new Admiral Petroleum Company signs at 5200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, two of which will be on the canopy. Code allows a maximum of two wall signs. Variances requested are: To allow three additional wall signs, and to allow wall signs on a building adjacent to residentially zoned land. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 9 J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff doesn't find a hardship in this case, and does not recommend approval of the entire request. However, staff does request that an allowance of 3 wall signs be granted. Steve DuVall, Amor Signs, spoke. He stated that this variance would clean up the facilities; all superfluous signs would come down. He stated that the reason for the signage on the north side of the building is to gain better attention of southbound traffic on Pennsylvania. He also said that he has brought pictures which show that there are no residential neighborhoods until you get 281' west of Pennsylvania's curb. He indicated that it would be fine with Admiral if the signage was reduced to 3 wall signs. Mr. Ruff spoke again, clarifying that he wasn't speaking of Residential Neighborhoods, but rather of Residential Zoning. Much discussion ensued. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3366.95, as modified: variance will allow two signs on the canopy and one on the building face, and to remove the sign on the south side, and the circular sign on the front, for a maximum of three wall signs to total a maximum of 150 sq. feet. Motion seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion approved: BZA-3366.95, 5200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue approved as modified by a vote of 5-0. I. BZA-3367.95, 1620 Roselawn This is a request by George Dush to build a 6' x 9.5' enclosed front porch 14.25' from the front property line of his home at 1620 Roselawn Avenue. The required setback is a minimum of 201, so this is a request for a variance of 5.75' from the front property line setback requirement. J. Ruff presented the case. George Dush, owner of the property, spoke. He stated that this is rental property, and there was damage due to rain on the existing addition. The damage can't be fixed, so he is trying to rebuild. Mr. Dush also showed pictures of the property. H. LeBlanc asked if he intended to paint the porch. He replied that he was going to paint, remove the awning, and re-roof. He also will put new gutters on, with a metal awning over the picture window. Discussion ensued. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES beptember 14, 1995 - Page 10 C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3367.95, seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion approved: BZA-3367.95, approved by a vote of 5-0. J. BZA-3368.95, 2511 Clifton This is a request by Craig Calkins to build a 24' x 34' detached garage for a total of 816 sq. ft. in the flood plain. The base flood elevation is approximately 840' and the proposed garage will have a floor elevation of 832.21, 7.8' below the base flood elevation. Also, they are seeking a variance of 96 sq. ft. in the size of the garage. J. Ruff presented the case. Craig Calkins spoke. He stated that he and his wife are having a child. He said that they have a large, double lot, but there is no space for storage in the house. They wish to store their patio furniture, an antique car, and their riding lawn mower. They want to make the garage deep so that they have extra storage room. There is a large mature tree in the yard they wish to save. Mr. Calkins presented a petition with 5 names, representing 4 surrounding properties, that have no objection to the proposed garage (petition in file) . No one else spoke. Mr. Calkins added that he has mailed in a Department of Natural Resources flood permit, which he indicates has been approved, but had not yet been received. E. Horne made a motion to approve BZA-3368.95, as requested, finding that the proposal is for a building with less than 1000 sq. ft. of total storage. This is taking the place of a second building being constructed in the flood plain. It was noted that this lot has more than average lot size. Seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion approved: BZA-3368.95 approved by a vote of 5-0. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item: BZA-3337.95, 3205 Forest Road, Century Cellunet. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES aeptember 14, 1995 - Page 11 E. Horne made a motion to remove BZA-3337.95 from the table. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc, and approved unanimously on a voice vote. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3337.95, located at 3205 Forest Road, for 169' of total height with lightening rod. The motion was seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion approved: BZA-3337.95 approved by a vote of 5-0. B. Tabled Item: BZA-3342.95, Pleasant Grove at Holmes, Century Cellunet J. Page made a motion to remove BZA-3342.95 from the table. H. LeBlanc seconded the motion. It was carried by a voice vote. G. Hilts stated that he can see the need for the tower, and feels that that is as good a reason to have it as any. He feels that this location will have as little impact as any site in the city. E. Horne asked how many towers were being asked for. J. Ruff replied that they have a central located tower on river street, and that the only immediate needs are the southeast and the southwest, which are covered by the two requests being dealt with tonight, and the northeast and northwest, which will not necessarily be located within the city. Personnel from Century Cellunet spoke in connection with the future of cellular towers. They stated that the only one that is in the works at this time is north off of Willow Highway, in an industrial area. There are no other actual proposals at this time. Discussion ensued between the Board and the representatives of Century Cellunet. C. Bicy stated that he wants the Pleasant Grove/Holmes Road site to replace the Mersey Lane site, as Mersey Lane is too residential. Discussion ensued regarding this issue. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3342.95, for 169' of monopole structure, and that the increased landscape screening and buffering that was recommended at the Planning Board level be concurred with. J. Page seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3342.95 approved with conditions, by a vote of 5-0. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES beptember 14, 1995 - Page 12 C. Tabled Item: BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity H. LeBlanc made a motion to remove BZA-3325.95 from the table. The motion was seconded by E. Horne and approved unanimously on a voice vote. H. LeBlanc stated that, as this request is located on a large lot, and this Board has made a precedent of approving large garages on large lots, when there are physical condition that separate it from other properties, such as this case, where the property is at the end of a dead end road. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3325.95, based on her previous statement. Motion seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity, approved by a vote of 5-0. D. Tabled Item: BZA-3353.95, 1708 W. Willow J. Ruff stated that he has worked with Bay Gas Stations, and with Mr. Sterrett, and he showed drawings of the compromise that has been worked out. Bay Gas Station is to rebuild their own fence to meet what the Sterretts were trying to do, and they will have their contractor rebuild the Sterretts fence, 8 to 9 feet behind the tree. Mr. Ruff is also going to write the property owner of the store across the street and request that they have the telephone removed. Also, E. Horne recommended that Bay remind their customers to quiet down. LeBlanc made a motion to remove BZA-3353.95 off the table, and to approve it as proposed by Staff. The motion was seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3353.95, 1708 W. Willow, approved as modified by a vote of 5-0. V. PUBLIC COMMENT None BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 1995 - Page 13 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June, July, and August 1995 C. Bicy made a motion to approve this set of minutes as typed, with the exception of a correction to the minutes of August 10, 1995, on page 6, where the hours of operation for the proposed day care center should be "6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m." rather than "6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m." H. LeBlanc seconded the motion, which was carried 5-0 on a voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS None V I I I. ADJOURNMENT A. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzasept.95 Draft to Clerk 08/22/95 Approved 09/14/95 To Clerk 09/20/95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING u. 4 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS L ,r�lt; Cli`i �LERsi AUGUST 10, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR I. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present H. LeBlanc M. Clark G. Hilts E. Horne J. Page B. Excused Absences E. Spink C. Bicy C. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. There were no unexcused absences. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. Hearings A. BZA-3353.95, 1708 W. WILLOW, a request by Rudy and Penny Sterrett, 1708 W. Willow, to retain three sections of a 6' fence along the front (west) of the house. This property is surrounded by commercial businesses to the south, east, and west, which "sandwich" it between two businesses which attract noise, lights, and traffic. The size of the fence is appropriate for the rear and side yards. However, a wood fence in the front yard should not exceed three feet. J. Ruff presented the case. R. Sterrett, owner, spoke. He considers his house to be in a "war zone" between Alro Steel, who are trying their best to keep noise down, and Bay Petroleum, who have no respect for residences in the neighborhood. There is noise and music from cars, loud and with vulgar, obscene language. Mr. Sterrett does not want his family or his tenants subjected to this. There is a liquor store across the street, which has a pay phone, with 24 hour a day activity. Mr. Sterrett claims his wife can not mow the front yard due to "terrorism." He stated that Alro Steel has grown since he bought the house. Spartan Oil has also grown. They offered to buy his house, but he declined due to the terms they offered. He invited the Board to his house for coffee, so they can see what type of terrorism he and his family are subjected to on a daily basis. He presented several photographs of his property. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page 2 Carl May, Traffic manager of Alro Steel, spoke next. He stated that he is a 45 year employee of Alro Steel. He agreed with Mr. Sterrett that business has grown. He said that the driveways are black topped, and the truck traffic is noisy at all hours. He said that Mr. Sterrett had called them to complain several times, and they got together with him to discuss possible solutions. He built the solid wood fence, 6' high down each side of his property, as a buffer. Alro Steel is in favor of these fences. He told of the street that comes out directly across from Mr. Sterretts house. The lights of every car, every truck that come down the road shine into the front windows of the house. The lights and the noise come directly into his yard. There are no residential neighbors to complain about this fence. He stated that the fences in front help give as much peace as possible. He said that Alro Steel is trying to be a good neighbor, and they feel that he deserves some peace at night. The front yard fences should be allowed to remain. Howard Soifer, Attorney representing Bay Petroleum, spoke. He stated that the station is located directly east of the subject property. Bay Petroleum requests that the variance be flatly refused. Mr. Soifer said that they consider the 6 foot fence to be a public nuisance, which the Sterretts have ignored so long that it is now the focus of a city criminal prosecution. On or about June 7, 1995, the Lansing City Attorney's office issued a criminal complaint against Mr. Sterrett, stemming directly from his maintenance of the fence in question. He referred to the several instances wherein this property has been cited as a public nuisance by Code Compliance. He stated that there have been three notices from Larry Howison. He states that the fence is a safety hazard. His client is going to pursue this issue. He also commented that the fences are twice as high as is allowed. He says that they block the view of the Bay Station, that the sign is obscured by the fence. He noted that the sign which is being blocked from eastbound traffic, is in compliance with the code. He also stated that the fence request does not reflect any practical difficulty, and that this location is not appropriate for a house, as it is fortress like in character. He also has traffic concerns, in regards to visibility of both motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. He showed the Board some pictures. M. Clark asked if the station has been cited for noise violations. Mr. Soifer stated that they have not. Mrs. Sterrett spoke. She said that they feel very unsafe, that the noise is very loud, to an unsafe level, with teenagers hanging out at the gas station, pealing out, and people loitering at the station. She also said that they have called the police about the noise, but by the time they arrive, the offending cars or people are gone. E. Horne made a motion to allow the appellant to speak. Seconded by J. Page, and approved unanimously. Mr. Sterrett spoke. He mentioned painting the back of the Bay Petroleum sign brown where it showed above their fence, as Bay did not maintain this sign. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page 3 E. Horne made a motion to table BZA-3353.95 at 1708 W. Willow so that further research may be done. Seconded by M. Clark, because she feels that a unanimous decision will be difficult to obtain at this meeting. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3353.95 tabled to the September Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. B. BZA-3354.95, 4809 BALLARD, a request by Howard Emery, owner, for a variance in square footage for an accessory structure. This is a 10 foot wide addition to the existing garage as an alternative to constructing a separate unattached structure. J. Ruff presented the case. Mary Beth Emery, owner, spoke. She said that they have lawn equipment that has to be covered. They did not know that there was no permit pulled. She said that the addition has been there since July. She stated that they want to get this done. They own so much land, they know it will not block anyones view. Mr. Emery, owner, said that the addition is 24' x 101, and he also stated that the neighbors couldn't see any sense in the need for the variance. M. Clark stated that she will support this variance. She said that the addition total is less than 1000 sq. ft. , and this is reasonable based on the lot size and orientation. H. LeBlanc agreed with M. Clark. She feels that this is a better solution than multiple buildings. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3354.95 at 4809 Ballard, a 48 sq. ft. variance for a total of 768 sq. ft. in accessory structure. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3354.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. C. BZA-3355.95, 839 N PENNSYLVANIA, a request by Ted and Sherrie Arnold, for a variance in the front yard setback of an accessory structure, square footage of an accessory structure, and a variance in the height of an accessory structure. This is for a proposed accessory structure/garage to be 48' x 36', with a 38' x 36' three car garage and a 10' x 36' workshop on the ground floor, and an 18' x 38' loft and 10' x 36' sun deck on the second floor. The lot is a former fire station located at the corner of Pennsylvania and Oakland, accessible from both streets. The existing building has been converted into a single family residence with a one chair beauty shop which is accessory to the single family use. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page 4 J. Ruff presented the case. Ted Arnold, owner, addressed the Board. He stated that this is the old #6 fire station, that he has owned it for nine years, and has spent that time restoring the building. He purchased the next house south and made a deal with the adjoining apartment building to remove the house and divide the land. The proposed garage/hobby room are to be similar to the fire house in style. He will use 400' of antique iron fence to border the property. E. Horne inquired into the proposed use of the workshop. She was told it was not a hobby, but for storage, as they collect antique advertising and memorabilia. She then stated that it would be a great improvement for the area. She is pleased with the plans for restoring the historic parts. E Horne made a motion to approve BZA-3355.95 at 839 N. Pennsylvania, as it is necessary to build the structure, and she believes it would be an improvement. Seconded by H. LeBlanc, who finds it in accordance with Goals and Objectives of the Planning Board. M. Clark stated that she will support. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3355.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. D. BZA-3356.953 3106 ALDEN DR, a request by Eugene and Marion Barnes for a side yard setback for a 14' x 22' detached garage, to be constructed on the side lot line at 3106 Alden Dr. Due to the location of the house on the lot, there is limited access to the rear yard for a detached garage to be constructed. The owners have tried to persuade various neighbors to grant them an easement over the years; the current residents of 3114 Alden Drive have given verbal approval to the use of 18" of their property to allow access to the proposed garage. Houses on either side of the subject property have garages built directly on the lot line with masonry walls to provide fire protection. J. Ruff presented the case. Eugene Barnes, owner, introduced Marion Barnes and Mrs. Vickie Pratt. Mrs. Pratt is a neighbor. She spoke, stating that it is a wonderful neighborhood. She also said that the majority of the houses were built on the lot line. She said that she supports the request. E. Horne stated that she will be supporting this variance. M. Clark said that she understands that this situation is typical of the area. She doesn't normally support these requests due to the maintenance, but as long as the deed easement is recorded, she will support it due to the unique character of the lot and development. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page 5 M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3356.95, at 3106 Alden Drive, with the following conditions: 1) that the necessary fire proofing of the garage be done as per the building code; 2) that the easement agreement from the property owners of 3114 Alden Drive be recorded with the Ingham County Register of Deeds. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3356.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. E. BZA-3357.95, 1033 KELSEY, a request by Rodney Cook, Contractor, on behalf of owner, John Costello, for a front yard setback variance to erect an 8' x 16' roof over the existing front porch, 18' from the front property line. J. Ruff presented the case. Rodney Cook spoke to the Board. He said that the existing cement slab porch is already closer than 20' from the front property line. He also stated that the roof is not to be enclosed, and that all the other houses on this side of this street face side streets, so they will not be setting precedent. He presented pictures of the site to the Board. John Costello, owner, addressed the Board. He said that the porch is convenient, and that his impression is that the neighbors are not opposed to his request. There was one communication read into the record, from Sara Waidelich, 1024 Kelsey Avenue, in favor of the variance. J. Page said that he would support this variance; he lives 1 block over and feels that it will be an improvement to the property. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3357.95, as the proposed porch is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will not set precedent. Supported by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3357.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. F. BZA-3358.95, 230 BINGHAM ST, a request by Learning Care Inc. of 217 Townsend to reduce the number of required parking spaces to zero (0) , to enable them to establish a child care center in the old fire house located at 230 Bingham Street. There are currently two apartments on the second floor, and BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page 6 a vacant first floor dance studio. The proposal is for a day care facility for up to 28 children, aged 2 1/2 to 12 years old. J. Ruff presented the case. E. Horne spoke, stating that she has a problem with regard to parking on the east side, that the need to maintain parking is an important issue for the area. She feels that the traffic would increase and it is questionable that 15 spaces would be adequate. She is concerned, and is negative to the request. Dan Stouffer, 700 W. Willow,spoke. He said that it is a small, non-profit child care to help take over the slack from the YWCA, which is presently for sale. This is a very rapid process which must move along. He also said that they would maintain the existing parking, and that there is ample lot area for play area, with the edge to be for parking. The staff all live in the area. There are three spaces, and the staff will strike a deal with the church for staff parking. He said there are 28 pre-schoolers, which is half the number that are at the YWCA. Meeting space will also be available for neighborhood meetings and etc. There is an SLU pending, and this whole deal is contingent on it. There is an October 1 deadline for a state program. This is an "At Risk" program for 4 year olds to help prepare for kindergarten at Bingham Street School. There will be a drop off and pick-up with staff nearby. The three spots seem to work well for drop off. M. Clark asked if they are buying the property. Dan Stouffer said that they have rented, which kills the organization, but they are planning to buy this property. Rent from the two apartments will pay for a mortgage. Then the child care could operate rent-free. E. Horne said that she is concerned about the traffic and the children. M. Clark asked what the hours would be. Mr. Stouffer replied that it would be from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Donna Lownsbury, 224 Bingham, spoke. She has questions due to concerns with the traffic on Bingham Street. She is concerned about 28 children playing there. She said that this lot has been kept up by herself. She also said that this request may be ok, but she would like Mr. Stouffer to meet with the neighborhood. She cannot say at this time whether she is for or against the variance. A letter from Mary Margaret Murphy-Woll, President of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, was read into the record. The ENO is in support of the variance. M. Clark spoke, stating that she came to this case with the intention to table it. However, she feels that there is incredible potential here for the area. Being as they are to serve the area, it would reduce the parking requirements. She also mentioned the previous B ZA variance for parking which was granted to Joan Nelson; the cars should have stayed longer for the previous use. She mentioned that this variance would be conditional to the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page 7 SLU and to clarifications and designation for residential use, with three spaces for residents. Also, the access is at the rear for the residents. Dan Stouffer said that if they want to require 4 parking spaces, that would be fine, they can make four available. Also, the 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. hours of operation were on the application. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3358.95, at 230 Bingham Street, a variance of eleven parking spaces, with conditions: --4 residential spaces be dedicated for residential use --SLU approval --Recognizing hours of use of child care are requested from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. for 28 children or less. Motion supported by E. Horne, who added that she supports only because the Eastside Neighborhood Organization is in support of this variance. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3358.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Policy and Procedures B. Tabled Item: 3325.95, 1715 Fidelity Court C. Three tabled items from Century Cellunet: 1. These items were not addressed at this meeting. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT None V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ready VI. NEW BUSINESS None BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page 8 VII. Adjournment A. The meeting was adjourned at 9:49. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzaaug.95 Draft to Clerk 08/22/95 Approved / /95 To Clerk / /95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD dk"6&Ik A'kALS AUGU T ,1-01! 1995, 7,:U,fp.m. CITY HALL COT �IJ' H�� ` 10TH FLOOR I. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present H. LeBlanc M. Clark G. Hilts E. Horne 0#4 J. Page 4A)b B. Excused Absences E. Spink C. Bicy C. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. There were no unexcused absences. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. Hearings A. BZA-3353.95, 1708 W. WILLOW, a request by Rudy and Penny Sterrett, 1708 W. Willow, to retain three sections of a 6' fence along the front (west) of the house. This property is surrounded by commercial businesses to the south, east, and west, which "sandwich" it between two businesses which attract noise, lights, and traffic. The size of the fence is appropriate for the rear and side yards. However, a wood fence in the front yard should not exceed three feet. J. Ruff presented the case. R. Sterrett, owner, spoke. He considers his house to be in a "war zone" between Alro Steel, who are trying their best to keep noise down, and Bay Petroleum, who have no respect for residences in the neighborhood. There is noise and music from cars, loud and with vulgar, obscene language. Mr. Sterrett does not want his family or his tenants subjected to this. There is a liquor store across the street, which has a pay phone, with 24 hour a day activity. Mr. Sterrett claims his wife can not mow the front yard due to "terrorism." He stated that Alro Steel has grown since he bought the house. Spartan Oil has also grown. They offered to buy his house, but he declined due to the terms they offered. He invited the Board to his house for coffee, so they can see what type of terrorism he and his family are subjected to on a daily basis. He presented several photographs of his property. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page 2 Carl May, Traffic manager of Alro Steel, spoke next. He stated that he is a 45 year employee of Alro Steel. He agreed with Mr. Sterrett that business has grown. He said that the driveways are black topped, and the truck traffic is noisy at all hours. He said that Mr. Sterrett had called them to complain several times, and they got together with him to discuss possible solutions. He built the solid wood fence, 6' high down each side of his property, as a buffer. Alro Steel is in favor of these fences. He told of the street that comes out directly across from Mr. Sterretts house. The lights of every car, every truck that come down the road shine into the front windows of the house. The lights and the noise come directly into his yard. There are no residential neighbors to complain about this fence. He stated that the fences in front help give as much peace as possible. He said that Alro Steel is trying to be a good neighbor, and they feel that he deserves some peace at night. The front yard fences should be allowed to remain. Howard Soifer, Attorney representing Bay Petroleum, spoke. He stated that the station is located directly east of the subject property. Bay Petroleum requests that the variance be flatly refused. Mr. Soifer said that they consider the 6 foot fence to be a public nuisance, which the Sterretts have ignored so long that it is now the focus of a city criminal prosecution. On or about June 7, 1995, the Lansing City Attorney's office issued a criminal complaint against Mr. Sterrett, stemming directly from his maintenance of the fence in question. He referred to the several instances wherein this property has been cited as a public nuisance by Code Compliance. He stated that there have been three notices from Larry Howison. He states that the fence is a safety hazard. His client is going to pursue this issue. He also commented that the fences are twice as high as is allowed. He says that they block the view of the Bay Station, that the sign is obscured by the fence. He noted that the sign which is being blocked from eastbound traffic, is in compliance with the code. He also stated that the fence request does not reflect any practical difficulty, and that this location is not appropriate for a house, as it is fortress like in character. He also has traffic concerns, in regards to visibility of both motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. He showed the Board some pictures. M. Clark asked if the station has been cited for noise violations. Mr. Soifer stated that they have not. Mrs. Sterrett spoke. She said that they feel very unsafe, that the noise is very loud, to an unsafe level, with teenagers hanging out at the gas station, pealing out, and people loitering at the station. She also said that they have called the police about the noise, but by the time they arrive, the offending cars or people are gone. E. Horne made a motion to allow the appellant to speak. Seconded by J. Page, and approved unanimously. Mr. Sterrett spoke. He mentioned painting the back of the Bay Petroleum sign brown where it showed above their fence, as Bay did not maintain this sign. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page 3 E. Horne made a motion to table BZA-3353.95 at 1708 W. Willow so that further research may be done. Seconded by M. Clark, because she feels that a unanimous decision will be difficult to obtain at this meeting. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3353.95 tabled to the September Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. B. BZA-3354.95, 4809 BALLARD, a request by Howard Emery, owner, for a variance in square footage for an accessory structure. This is a 10 foot wide addition to the existing garage as an alternative to constructing a separate unattached structure. J. Ruff presented the case. Mary Beth Emery, owner, spoke. She said that they have lawn equipment that has to be covered. They did not know that there was no permit pulled. She said that the addition has been there since July. She stated that they want to get this done. They own so much land, they know it will not block anyones view. Mr. Emery, owner, said that the addition is 24' x 10', and he also stated that the neighbors couldn't see any sense in the need for the variance. M. Clark stated that she will support this variance. She said that the addition total is less than 1000 sq. ft. , and this is reasonable based on the lot size and orientation. H. LeBlanc agreed with M. Clark. She feels that this is a better solution than multiple buildings. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3354.95 at 4809 Ballard, a 48 sq. ft. variance for a total of 768 sq. ft. in accessory structure. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3354.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. C. BZA-3355.95, 839 N PENNSYLVANIA, a request by Ted and Sherrie Arnold, for a variance in the front yard setback of an accessory structure, square footage of an accessory structure, and a variance in the height of an accessory structure. This is for a proposed accessory structure/garage to be 48' x 361, with a 38' x 36' three car garage and a 10' x 36' workshop on the ground floor, and an 18' x 38' loft and 10' x 36' sun deck on the second floor. The lot is a former fire station located at the corner of Pennsylvania and Oakland, accessible from both streets. The existing building has been converted into a single family residence with a one chair beauty shop which is accessory to the single family use. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Paae 4 J. Ruff presented the case. Ted Arnold, owner, addressed the Board. He stated that this is the old #6 fire station, that he has owned it for nine years, and has spent that time restoring the building. He purchased the next house south and made a deal with the adjoining apartment building to remove the house and divide the land. The proposed garage/hobby room are to be similar to the fire house in style. He will use 400' of antique iron fence to border the property. E. Horne inquired into the proposed use of the workshop. She was told it was not a hobby, but for storage, as they collect antique advertising and memorabilia. She then stated that it would be a great improvement for the area. She is pleased with the plans for restoring the historic parts. E Horne made a motion to approve BZA-3355.95 at 839 N. Pennsylvania, as it is necessary to build the structure, and she believes it would be an improvement. Seconded by H. LeBlanc, who finds it in accordance with Goals and Objectives of the Planning Board. M. Clark stated that she will support. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3355.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. D. BZA-3356.95, 3106 ALDEN DR, a request by Eugene and Marion Barnes for a side yard setback for a 14' x 22' detached garage, to be constructed on the side lot line at 3106 Alden Dr. Due to the location of the house on the lot, there is limited access to the rear yard for a detached garage to be constructed. The owners have tried to persuade various neighbors to grant them an easement over the years; the current residents of 3114 Alden Drive have given verbal approval to the use of 18" of their property to allow access to the proposed garage. Houses on either side of the subject property have garages built directly on the lot line with masonry walls to provide fire protection. J. Ruff presented the case. Eugene Barnes, owner, introduced Marion Barnes and Mrs. Vickie Pratt. Mrs. Pratt is a neighbor. She spoke, stating that it is a wonderful neighborhood. She also said that the majority of the houses were built on the lot line. She said that she supports the request. E. Horne stated that she will be supporting this variance. M. Clark said that she understands that this situation is typical of the area. She doesn't normally support these requests due to the maintenance, but as long as the deed easement is recorded, she will support it due to the unique character of the lot and development. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page 5 M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3356.95, at 3106 Alden Drive, with the following conditions: Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3356.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. E. BZA-3357.95, 1033 KELSEY, a request by Rodney Cook, Contractor, on behalf of owner, John Costello, for a front yard setback variance to erect an 8' x 16' roof over the existing front porch, 18' from the front property line. J. Ruff presented the case. Rodney Cook spoke to the Board. He said that the existing cement slab porch is already closer than 20' from the front property line. He also stated that the roof is not to be enclosed, and that all the other houses on this side of this street face side streets, so they will not be setting precedent. He presented pictures of the site to the Board. John Costello, owner, addressed the Board. He said that the porch is convenient, and that his impression is that the neighbors are not opposed to his request. There was one communication read into the record, from Sara Waidelich, 1024 Kelsey Avenue, in favor of the variance. J. Page said that he would support this variance; he lives 1 block over and feels that it will be an improvement to the property. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3357.95, as the proposed porch is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will not set precedent. Supported by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3357.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. F. BZA-3358.95, 230 BINGHAM ST, a request by Learning Care Inc. of 217 Townsend to reduce the number of required parking spaces to zero (0), to enable them to establish a child care center in the old fire house located at 230 Bingham Street. There are currently two apartments on the second floor, and a vacant first floor dance studio. The proposal is for a day care facility for up to 28 children, aged 2 1/2 to 12 years old. J. Ruff presented the case. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page 6 E. Horne spoke, stating that she has a problem with regard to parking on the east side, that the need to maintain parking is an important issue for the area. She feels that the traffic would increase and it is questionable that 15 spaces would be adequate. She is concerned, and is negative to the request. Dan Stouffer, 700 W. Willow,spoke. He said that it is a small, non-profit child care to help take over the slack from the YWCA, which is presently for sale. This is a very rapid process which must move along. He also said that they would maintain the existing parking, and that there is ample lot area for play area, with the edge to be for parking. The staff all live in the area. There are three spaces, and the staff will strike a deal with the church for staff parking. He said there are 28 pre-schoolers, which is half the number that are at the YWCA. Meeting space will also be available for neighborhood meetings and etc. There is an SLU pending, and this whole deal is contingent on it. There is an October 1 deadline for a state program. This is an "At Risk" program for 4 year olds to help prepare for kindergarten at Bingham Street School. There will be a drop off and pick-up with staff nearby. The three spots seem to work well for drop off. M. Clark asked if they are buying the property. Dan Stouffer said that they have rented, which kills the organization, but they are planning to buy this property. Rent from the two apartments will pay for a mortgage. Then the child care could operate rent-free. E. Horne said that she is concerned about the traffic and the children. M. Clark asked what the hours would be. Mr. Stouffer replied that it would be from 6a.m. to6p.m. Donna Lownsbury, 224 Bingham, spoke. She has questions due to concerns with the traffic on Bingham Street. She is concerned about 28 children playing there. She said that this lot has been kept up by herself. She also said that this request may be ok, but she would like Mr. Stouffer to meet with the neighborhood. She cannot say at this time whether she is for or against the variance. A letter from Mary Margaret Murphy-Woll, President of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, was read into the record. The ENO is in support of the variance. M. Clark spoke, stating that she came to this case with the intention to table it. However, she feels that there is incredible potential here for the area. Being as they are to serve the area, it would reduce the parking requirements. She also mentioned the previous BZA variance for parking which was granted to Joan Nelson; the cars should have stayed longer for the previous use. She mentioned that this variance would be conditional to the SLU and to clarifications and designation for residential use, with three spaces for residents. Also, the access is at the rear for the residents. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page 7 Dan Stouffer said that if they want to require 4 parking spaces, that would be fine, they can make four available. Also, the 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. hours of operation were on the application. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3358.95, at 230 Bingham Street, a variance of eleven parking spaces, with conditions: --4 residential spaces be dedicated for residential use --SLU approval --Recognizing hours of use of child care are requested from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. for 28 children or less. Motion supported by E. Horne, who added that she supports only because the Eastside Neighborhood Organization is in support of this variance. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3358.95 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Policy and Procedures B. Tabled Item: 3325.95, 1715 Fidelity Court C. Three tabled items from Century Cellunet: 1. These items were not addressed at this meeting. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT None V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ready VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. Adjournment A. The meeting was adjourned at 9:49. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 1995 - Page S Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzaaug.95 Draft to Clerk 08/22/95 Approved 09/14/95 EE To Clerk 09/20/95 17 INUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 'L. U' ` BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JULY 13, 1995, 7:30 p.m. Lh�4 jyEij vl HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR I. The meeting was called to order by acting Chair C. Bicy at 7:37 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present C. Bicy M. Clark G. Hilts E. Horne J. Page B. Excused Absences E. Spink H. LeBlanc C. Unexcused Absences None 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 II. Hearings A. BZA-3347.95, 921 W. Holmes Road This is a request by Gary Shushtari of the Eyde Company to retain a 1018" x 29' picnic shelter 218" from the rear (south) lot line of the property at 921 W. Holmes Rd. The property is zoned "F" Commercial District which requires a rear yard setback of 25' (Section 1268.08 of the Zoning Code) . Therefore, a rear yard setback variance of 22VI is requested. The Employees utilize this shelter for smoking and eating during working hours. J. Ruff presented the staff report. E. Horne asked about landscaping, and M. Clark asked for clarification of the case. Mark Clouse, Eyde Company, presented the client information. He said that the tenants requested a smoking area, as the I.R.S. is required to be non- smoking by federal guideline. The parking spaces on the west side of the building are at a premium, and therefore they built the shelter at the rear. He agreed that it was built without a permit, but stated that landscaping will be put into place in September or October. He also said that they have no intention of enclosing the shelter, that it is only a covered area, which was required by the Building Board of Appeals. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Some discussion ensued. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 2 M. Clark made a motion to approve with conditions that the required landscape screening and buffering be completed this fall and the structure include gutters and downspouts to direct the water runoff away from the neighboring properties. Supported by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3347.95 approved unanimously B. BZA-3348.95, 918 Prospect This is a request by Dudley Glover, Landlord, to convert the structure at 918 Prospect to a two family dwelling (one 1 bedroom and one 2 bedroom unit) . The lot contains 5445 sq. ft. of lot area and Section 1250.06(b) of the Zoning Code requires 6000 sq. ft. of lot area. A variance of 555 sq. ft. in lot area is requested. In the past, the property was a nonconforming multi-family dwelling but has since lost its nonconforming status and must conform to the "C" Residential District in which it is located. J. Ruff presented the case. Dudley Glover, owner, spoke. He stated that he lived at 3900 Stillwell, and that the house on Prospect has 2000 sq. ft, with a bath and a half. He stated that there is plenty of parking and plenty of space to live comfortably as a two family dwelling. Vivian Bloom, 227 S. Eighth, spoke in support of Mr. Glovers request. She stated that there are too many homeless in this city, and lots of students, who could utilize this property. She feels that it is too large a house for one family. Cheryl Valleau, 226 S. Eighth St. , spoke on behalf of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization. She said that they do not support this variance. They are trying to promote home ownership in this neighborhood, which is already crowded. There are problems with another house in the neighborhood, right next to 918 Prospect, which is owned by Mr. Glover. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she is president of the Green Oaks Target Area Organization, and excused herself during the discussion of this at the TAO meeting. She also stated that she would not support this variance. E. Horne made a motion to deny the request based upon the City's and Neighborhood report which would result in the property remaining a single family dwelling. Motion seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion did not carry by a vote of 3 to 2. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3348.95. J. Page seconded the motion. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 3 VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion did not carry by a vote of 3 to 2. BZA-3318.95 was not approved due to the lack of an approved motion. C. BZA-3349.95, 3501 Coachlight Common This is a request by Amir Hodge to construct a 24' x 24' attached garage onto the south side of his home at 3501 Coachlight Common, up to the south property line. Since this is a corner lot, Section 1248.07(b) requires a setback of 20'; therefore, a variance of 20' is requested. J. Ruff presented the case and recommended that only an 18' variance be approved to maintain at least 2' from the lot line for maintenance and safety if the sidewalk were ever moved to the edge of the right of way. Amir Hodge spoke. He stated that he wanted an attached garage, so that they wouldn't have to give up 3/4's of their backyard space to a detached garage. He said that there was plenty of room for a Miller Road expansion. G. Hilts asked if this will go into the easement. Mr. Ruff said that it would, but he had gotten approval from the Board of Water and Light for the encroachment. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. There was no discussion. M. Clark made a motion to approve an 18' variance for a 22' wide garage, based upon reasonable use and lack of negative impact. Motion seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion approved: BZA-3349.95 passed unanimously. D. BZA-3350.95, 1207 Pershing This is a request by Sally Keisling to construct a rear addition onto her home at 1207 Pershing Drive, 3.9' from the east side lot line. Section 1248.08(b)(2)(B) of the Zoning code requires a side yard setback of 4.7; ; therefore, a variance of .8' or 92" is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. S. Keisling spoke. She said that they are requesting that the existing wall be able to go straight back. She said that they are having trouble with the living room because of the driveway. The loss of 1 foot inside is difficult and the jog in the wall won't benefit the neighbors. She asked that the Board please approve her request, and thanked them for their consideration. J. Ruff read a letter into the record from Ms. Olga Muth, 1213 Pershing Dr, who is a next door neighbor, recommending approval. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 4 Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Horne made a motion to approve based upon the staff report and the lack of impact on the neighborhood. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3350.95 approved by a unanimous vote. E. BZA-3351.95, 1256 W. Northrup This is a request by Tracie Lynn Balzer to construct a 24' wide by 31' deep attached garage on the north side of her home at 1256 W. Northrup St. Since this is a corner lot, the setback off of the north property line along Mel Avenue is required to be approximately 30' (Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code) . A 6' setback is requested. Also, the garage would contain 744 sq. ft. in area, which exceeds the maximum size of a garage of 720 sq. ft. by 24 sq. ft. (Section 1248.03(b)(5) of the Zoning Code) . Therefore, variances of 24' in setback and 24 sq. ft. in area are requested respectively. J. Ruff presented the case. Ron Sickles, 2575 Willoughby, spoke on behalf of the owner, Tracie Lynn Balzer. He stated that the 24' x 31' garage would improve the visibility of the house, that it would be 8' from the sidewalk, and that the entire garage would be behind the front line of the house next door. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. The Board had no problem with the setback variance, but felt that the size issue was questionable. They discussed possible options with the applicant. E. Horne made a motion to approve BZA-3351.95 as there are no anticipated adverse impacts, and the request is in harmony with development. Motion seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion was not carried. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3351.95 for the setback variance, but not for the size variance, as the code had not created a size hardship. G. Hilts seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion Carried: BZA-3351.95 approved, with modifications, unanimously. The applicant can determine how best to eliminate 24 sq. ft. in area from the building without going closer to the property line. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 5 F. BZA-3352.95, 3003 E. Michigan Avenue This is a request by Skyline Outdoor Advertising to erect a 672 sq. ft. billboard sign to a height of 41', 25' above the grade of US-127 on the Homer Street side of the property at 3003 E. Michigan Avenue. Homer Street is classified as a minor arterial and separates this property from the US-127 right of way. Section 1442.22 of the Sign Code restricts billboards located on minor arterials to 300 sq. ft. in area and since the property does not directly abut US-127, the sign is limited to 35' in height. Therefore, this is a request for variances of 372 sq. ft. in area, and 6' in height. J. Ruff presented the case. M. Brogan, an attorney representing Skyline Advertising, 200 N. Washington Square, presented graphics. He gave Skyline Advertising Company's view of the Sign Code; they consider Michigan Avenue a major arterial, and they feel that they are along the interstate and a ramp of the interstate, which allows the height requested. They want a sign which will be behind the store (Staples) without blocking the signs on the building. They feel that the sign is not that significant in height or area. They believe that the variance will allow them to construct a billboard consistant in height and size with others along this portion of US-127. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. J. Page feels that Skyline should stay within the size allowed. He will not be voting in favor of the request. E. Horne spoke of the Michigan Avenue Revitalization plans. She feels that this big sign is not in accordance with the sign code. G. Hilts indicated that he will not support the variance request, as did M. Clark. G. Hilts made a motion to deny this request, based upon the fact that it does not meet criteria for approval, would set precedent, and violates the intent of the sign code. Motion seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3352.95 denied by a unanimous vote. III. Excused Absences A. Dr. Spink and H. LeBlanc were granted excused absences. IV. Public Comment A. None V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures We are waiting for the Ethics Board on this issue. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 6 B. Reconsideration of BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity Road John Nelson, owner of 1715 Fidelity Road, spoke. He talked about the survey he and his wife compiled, of all the oversize buildings in their area of the city. He spoke of old sheds that had been torn down on his property. He stated that they would reside the whole building and they would remove one older sliding door. No one else spoke. The Board discussed this issue. G. Hilts stated that as far as he is concerned, it is a garage. He realizes that the neighbors now do not oppose this structure, but feels that that could change. He doesn't find the other buildings that the Nelson's spoke of to be comparable, due to the time that they were constructed. J. Page stated that he is willing to support this issue due to the size of the lot, it is off the main road, and the neighbors support it. E. Horne also will be supporting this variance. She feels that the lot size can accommodate the size of the building, and that there is a lot of land remaining on the lot. E. Horne made a motion to approve the variance to allow a permit, which will permit the retention of the addition to the garage, as it doesn't adversely impact the neighborhood, is in harmony with the landscape, will not adversely impact circulation, and the lot is very large. Motion seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion did not pass by a vote of 3 to 2. M. Clark said that she would agree to 1000 sq. ft. in one building. G. Hilts says it could be regrettable. M. Clark would like to consider 1000 sq. ft. as one building, M. Clark made a motion to approve 1000 sq. ft. as one structure. G. Hilts seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion did not pass by a vote of 2 to 3. E. Horne made a motion to table this variance once again so that it can be straightened out, specifically whether it is an accessory structure or a garage. J. Page seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote C. Tabled Item: BZA-3334.95, 3120 N. Cambridge Dr. J. Ruff updated the Board on this case. Mr. Barry Wood, architect, was hired to find a proper solution to this design situation. He spoke to the Board, stating that he was involved with a house BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 7 approximately 500' away. He presented pictures of this. He also restated the case, and showed how their new proposal, while similar to the last, is actually smaller than the previous request. Their purpose was to get away from the shared drive and get the cars under cover while making aesthetic improvements. M. Clark asked about the playhouse and storage area. Mrs. Hourani said that the playhouse can come down. It was stated that the neighbors are selling a piece of property, and they are in support of this variance. Dr. Hourani mentioned that it is difficult sharing a driveway. Mrs. Hourani said that the aesthetics of this are important to them, and that this proposal will look nice. The Board discussed this issue. M. Clark said that she can live with the 1200 square feet of garage, if the shed and playhouse are removed. J. Page said that he would support the variance, and he feels it is similar to the previous case. M. Clark replied that in this case, the garage is totally attached, and in the other it was not attached, and it is not contained within one building, so it is not a size that would promote other uses. G. Hilts concurred with M. Clark. M. Clark made a motion to approve this variance for 1200 sq. ft. with configuration and improvements as proposed in the modified proposal, if all other accessory structures are removed finding it is confined to limit uses, and the shared drive is eliminated. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion Passed: BZA-3334.95, 3120 N. Cambridge Dr. , approved by a unanimous vote. D. Reconsideration of B ZA-3346.95, Cellular Tower at Pleasant Grove and Holmes Road. J. Ruff shared information for reconsideration. Larry Linvalle, Traverse Bay Land Company, spoke to the Board. He said that this would be a monopole as opposed to the usual lattice type pole, that this site was chosen to replace the Mersey Lane site, that this is a less populated area. He said that he missed the last meeting due to being mailed an incorrect schedule. He also said that the Oneida development representative did not know exactly where the site would be, and only one of the partners was opposed. They have studied the area, and there is a lot of wetlands around this site which could restrict development. Planning Staff will send information to the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board will wait for the information prior to deciding this case. VI. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes were not ready for this meeting VII. New Business A. Election of Officers BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 8 1. M. Clark made a motion to nominate G. Hilts for Chairperson. Motion seconded by J. Page, and carried unanimously. G. Hilts is the new Chairperson for the Board of Zoning Appeals. 2. M. Clark made a motion to nominate C. Bicy for Vice-Chairperson. E. Horne seconded the motion. C. Bicy was elected Vice-Chairperson of the Board of Zoning Appeals by a unanimous vote. VIII. Adjournment A. The meeting was adjourned at 10:43. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzaju1.95 Draft to Clerk 08/22/95 Approved / /95 To Clerk / /95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEttING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALSe)9 ; <1 1: JULY 13, 1995, 7:30 p:m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER'SP.l,flTq. UA06iZEkr% L-. I. The meeting was called to order by acting Chair C. Bicy at 7:37 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present C. Bicy M. Clark G. Hilts E. Horne J. Page B. Excused Absences E. Spink H. LeBlanc 0#4#tr C. Unexcused Absences None 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 II. Hearings A. B ZA-3347.95, 921 W. Holmes Road This is a request by Gary Shushtari of the Eyde Company to retain a 1018" x 29' picnic shelter 218" from the rear (south) lot line of the property at 921 W. Holmes Rd. The property is zoned "F" Commercial District which requires a rear yard setback of 25' (Section 1268.08 of the Zoning Code) . Therefore, a rear yard setback variance of 2214" is requested. The Employees utilize this shelter for smoking and eating during working hours. J. Ruff presented the staff report. E. Horne asked about landscaping, and M. Clark asked for clarification of the case. Mark Clouse, Eyde Company, presented the client information. He said that the tenants requested a smoking area, as the I.R.S. is required to be non- smoking by federal guideline. The parking spaces on the west side of the building are at a premium, and therefore they built the shelter at the rear. He agreed that it was built without a permit, but stated that landscaping will be put into place in September or October. He also said that they have no intention of enclosing the shelter, that it is only a covered area, which was required by the Building Board of Appeals. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Some discussion ensued. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 2 M. Clark made a motion to approve with conditions that the required landscape screening and buffering be completed this fall and the structure include gutters and downspouts to direct the water runoff away from the neighboring properties. Supported by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3347.95 approved unanimously B. BZA-3348.95, 918 Prospect This is a request by Dudley Glover, Landlord, to convert the structure at 918 Prospect to a two family dwelling (one 1 bedroom and one 2 bedroom unit) . The lot contains 5445 sq. ft. of lot area and Section 1250.06(b) of the Zoning Code requires 6000 sq. ft. of lot area. A variance of 555 sq. ft. in lot area is requested. In the past, the property was a nonconforming multi-family dwelling but has since lost its nonconforming status and must conform to the "C" Residential District in which it is located. J. Ruff presented the case. Dudley Glover, owner, spoke. He stated that he lived at 3900 Stillwell, and that the house on Prospect has 2000 sq. ft, with a bath and a half. He stated that there is plenty of parking and plenty of space to live comfortably as a two family dwelling. Vivian Bloom, 227 S. Eighth, spoke in support of Mr. Glovers request. She stated that there are too many homeless in this city, and lots of students, who could utilize this property. She feels that it is too large a house for one family. Cheryl Valleau, 226 S. Eighth St. , spoke on behalf of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization. She said that they do not support this variance. They are trying to promote home ownership in this neighborhood, which is already crowded. There are problems with another house in the neighborhood, right next to 918 Prospect, which is owned by Mr. Glover. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she is president of the Green Oaks Target Area Organization, and excused herself during the discussion of this at the TAO meeting. She also stated that she would not support this variance. E. Horne made a motion to deny the request based upon the City's and Neighborhood report which would result in the property remaining a single family dwelling. Motion seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion did not carry by a vote of 3 to 2. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3348.95. J. Page seconded the motion. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 3 VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion did not carry by a vote of 3 to 2. BZA-3318.95 was not approved due to the lack of an approved motion. C. BZA-3349.95, 3501 Coachlight Common This is a request by Amir Hodge to construct a 24' x 24' attached garage onto the south side of his home at 3501 Coachlight Common, up to the south property line. Since this is a corner lot, Section 1248.07(b) requires a setback of 20'; therefore, a variance of 20' is requested. J. Ruff presented the case and recommended that only an 18' variance be approved to maintain at least 2' from the lot line for maintenance and safety if the sidewalk were ever moved to the edge of the right of way. Amir Hodge spoke. He stated that he wanted an attached garage, so that they wouldn't have to give up 3/4's of their backyard space to a detached garage. He said that there was plenty of room for a Miller Road expansion. G. Hilts asked if this will go into the easement. Mr. Ruff said that it would, but he had gotten approval from the Board of Water and Light for the encroachment. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. There was no discussion. M. Clark made a motion to approve an 18' variance for a 22' wide garage, based upon reasonable use and lack of negative impact. Motion seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion approved: BZA-3349.95 passed unanimously. D. BZA-3350.95, 1207 Pershing This is a request by Sally Keisling to construct a rear addition onto her home at 1207 Pershing Drive, 3.9' from the east side lot line. Section 1248.08(b)(2)(B) of the Zoning code requires a side yard setback of 4.7; ; therefore, a variance of .8' or 92" is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. S. Keisling spoke. She said that they are requesting that the existing wall be able to go straight back. She said that they are having trouble with the living room because of the driveway. The loss of 1 foot inside is difficult and the jog in the wall won't benefit the neighbors. She asked that the Board please approve her request, and thanked them for their consideration. J. Ruff read a letter into the record from Ms. Olga Muth, 1213 Pershing Dr, who is a next door neighbor, recommending approval. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES JulV 13 1995 - Page 4 Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Horne made a motion to approve based upon the staff report and the lack of impact on the neighborhood. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay ea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3350.95 approved by a unanimous vote. E. BZA-3351.95, 1256 W. Northrup This is a request by Tracie Lynn Balzer to construct a 24' wide by 31' deep attached garage on the north side of her home at 1256 W. Northrup St. Since this is a corner lot, the setback off of the north property line along Mel Avenue is required to be approximately 30' (Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code) . A 6' setback is requested. Also, the garage would contain 744 sq. ft. in area, which exceeds the maximum size of a garage of 720 sq. ft. by 24 sq. ft. (Section 1248.03(b)(5) of the Zoning Code) . Therefore, variances of 24' in setback and 24 sq. ft. in area are requested respectively. J. Ruff presented the case. Ron Sickles, 2575 Willoughby, spoke on behalf of the owner, Tracie Lynn Balzer. He stated that the 24' x 31' garage would improve the visibility of the house, that it would be 8' from the sidewalk, and that the entire garage would be behind the front line of the house next door. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. The Board had no problem with the setback variance, but felt that the size issue was questionable. They discussed possible options with the applicant. E. Horne made a motion to approve BZA-3351.95 as there are no anticipated adverse impacts, and the request is in harmony with development. Motion seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay ea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion was not carried. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3351.95 for the setback variance, but not for the size variance, as the code had not created a size hardship. G. Hilts seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay ea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion Carried: BZA-3351.95 approved, with modifications, unanimously. The applicant can determine how best to eliminate 24 sq. ft. in area from the building without going closer to the property line. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 5 F. BZA-3352.95, 3003 E. Micbigxn Avenue This is a request by Skyline Outdoor Advertising to erect a 672 sq. ft. billboard sign to a height of 411, 25' above the grade of US-127 on the Homer Street side of the property at 3003 E. Michigan Avenue. Homer Street is classified as a minor arterial and separates this property from the US-127 right of way. Section 1442.22 of the Sign Code restricts billboards located on minor arterials to 300 sq. ft. in area and since the property does not directly abut US-127, the sign is limited to 35' in height. Therefore, this is a request for variances of 372 sq. ft. in area, and 6' in height. J. Ruff presented the case. M. Brogan, an attorney representing Skyline Advertising, 200 N. Washington Square, presented graphics. He gave Skyline Advertising Company's view of the Sign Code; they consider Michigan Avenue a major arterial, and they feel that they are along the interstate and a ramp of the interstate, which allows the height requested. They want a sign which will be behind the store (Staples) without blocking the signs on the building. They feel that the sign is not that significant in height or area. They believe that the bariance will allow them to construct a billboard consistant in height and size with others along this portion of US-127. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. J. Page feels that Skyline should stay within the size allowed. He will not be voting in favor of the request. E. Horne spoke of the Michigan Avenue Revitalization plans. She feels that this big sign is not in accordance with the sign code. G. Hilts indicated that he will not support the variance request, as did M. Clark. G. Hilts made a motion to deny this request, based upon the fact that it does not meet criteria for approval, would set precedent, and violates the intent of the sign code. Motion seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion carried: BZA-3352.95 denied by a unanimous vote. III. Excused Absences A. Dr. Spink and H. LeBlanc were granted excused absences. IV. Public Comment A. None V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures We are waiting for the Ethics Board on this issue. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 7 approximately 500' away. He presented pictures of this. He also restated the case, and showed how their new proposal, while similar to the last, is actually smaller than the previous request. Their purpose was to get away from the shared drive and get the cars under cover while making aesthetic improvements. M. Clark asked about the playhouse and storage area. Mrs. Hourani said that the playhouse can come down. It was stated that the neighbors are selling a piece of property, and they are in support of this variance. Dr. Hourani mentioned that it is difficult sharing a driveway. Mrs. Hourani said that the aesthetics of this are important to them, and that this proposal will look nice. The Board discussed this issue. M. Clark said that she can live with the 1200 square feet of garage, if the shed and playhouse are removed. J. Page said that he would support the variance, and he feels it is similar to the previous case. M. Clark replied that in this case, the garage is totally attached, and in the other it was not attached, and it is not contained within one building, so it is not a size that would promote other uses. G. Hilts concurred with M. Clark. M. Clark made a motion to approve this variance for 1200 sq. ft. with configuration and improvements as proposed in the modified proposal, if all other accessory structures are removed finding it is confined to limit uses, and the shared drive is eliminated. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion Passed: BZA-3334.95, 3120 N. Cambridge Dr. , approved by a unanimous vote. D. Reconsideration of BZA-3346.95, Cellular Tower at Pleasant Grove and Holmes Road. J. Ruff shared information for reconsideration. Larry Linvalle, Traverse Bay Land Company, spoke to the Board. He said that this would be a monopole as opposed to the usual lattice type pole, that this site was chosen to replace the Mersey Lane site, that this is a less populated area. He said that he missed the last meeting due to being mailed an incorrect schedule. He also said that the Oneida development representative did not know exactly where the site would be, and only one of the partners was opposed. They have studied the area, and there is a lot of wetlands around this site which could restrict development. Planning Staff will send information to the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board will wait for the information prior to deciding this case. VI. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes were not ready for this meeting VII. New Business A. Election of Officers BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 6 B. Reconsideration of BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity Road John Nelson, owner of 1715 Fidelity Road, spoke. He talked about the survey he and his wife compiled, of all the oversize buildings in their area of the city. He spoke of old sheds that had been torn down on his property. He stated that they would reside the whole building and they would remove one older sliding door. No one else spoke. The Board discussed this issue. G. Hilts stated that as far as he is concerned, it is a garage. He realizes that the neighbors now do not oppose this structure, but feels that that could change. He doesn't find the other buildings that the Nelson's spoke of to be comparable, due to the time that they were constructed. J. Page stated that he is willing to support this issue due to the size of the lot, it is off the main road, and the neighbors support it. E. Horne also will be supporting this variance. She feels that the lot size can accommodate the size of the building, and that there is a lot of land remaining on the lot. E. Horne made a motion to approve the variance to allow a permit, which will permit the retention of the addition to the garage, as it doesn't adversely impact the neighborhood, is in harmony with the landscape, will not adversely impact circulation, and the lot is very large. Motion seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion did not pass by a vote of 3 to 2. M. Clark said that she would agree to 1000 sq. ft. in one building. G. Hilts says it could be regrettable. M. Clark would like to consider 1000 sq. ft. as one building, M. Clark made a motion to approve 1000 sq. ft. as one structure. G. Hilts seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Motion did not pass by a vote of 2 to 3. E. Horne made a motion to table this variance once again so that it can be straightened out, specifically whether it is an accessory structure or a garage. J. Page seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote C. Tabled Item: BZA-3334.95, 3120 N. Cambridge Dr. J. Ruff updated the Board on this case. Mr. Barry Wood, architect, was hired to find a proper solution to this design situation. He spoke to the Board, stating that he was involved with a house BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 13, 1995 - Page 8 1. M. Clark made a motion to nominate G. Hilts for Chairperson. Motion seconded by J. Page, and carried unanimously. G. Hilts is the new Chairperson for the Board of Zoning Appeals. 2. M. Clark made a motion to nominate C. Bicy for Vice-Chairperson. E. Horne seconded the motion. C. Bicy was elected Vice-Chairperson of the Board of Zoning Appeals by a unanimous vote. VIII. Adjournment A. The meeting was adjourned at 10:43. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzaju1.95 Draft to Clerk 08/22/95 Approved 09/14/95 To Clerk 09/20/95 '.7 h i, C'. 2 LANSING' CITY CLERK` MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JUNE 8, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR I. The meeting was called to order by N. Carlson at 7:34 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present E. Spink C. B icy H. LeBlanc G. Hilts J. Page E. Horne N. Carlson B. Excused Absences J. Sheldon M. Clark C. Unexcused Absences None D. A quorum of seven members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. E. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. Hearings A. BZA-3341.95, 505 N. Foster Avenue This is a request by Keith & Pauline Gilbert to rebuild and enlarge the rear room of their house at 505 N. Foster Avenue. This is a proposed 6' x 12' addition 8.5' from the rear property line. The requested variance is 21.5' from Section 1248.09 of the Zoning Code, which requires a 30' rear yard setback for new construction. J. Ruff presented the staff report. Jack Mosher, representing the owners, Pauline & Keith Gilbert, stated that there currently is an unsafe and unhealthy condition at the house, and it is more costly to repair the addition than it is to replace it. BOARD OF ZONING APeEALS MINUTES June 8, 1995 - Page 2 E. Horne asked if Mr. Gilbert was the owner of the vacant lot next to 505 N. Foster. He is not. N. Carlson read a letter into the record, from Lawrence Gibson, of 247 Wedgewood, Charlotte. He is the owner of the adjoining property to the Gilbert's. He supports the variance. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3341.95, finding that the requested setback is no closer to the lot line than the existing structure, is of minimum size, and that the proposed addition is an improvement to the property. Supported by J. Page. H. LeBlanc also mentioned that there was a hardship, which is that the lot is very shallow. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3341.95 approved unanimously B. BZA-3342.95, 328 S. Mifflin Street This is a request by Michael Fulton to build a one story auto detail shop at 328 S. Mifflin Street in the flood plain of the Red Cedar River. The base flood elevation is approximately 835.5' and the proposed structure will have a floor elevation of approximately 8301, 5.5' below the base flood elevation. Section 1288.05 of the Zoning Code requires new nonresidential construction to be elevated above the base flood elevation in accordance with State and Federal regulations. J. Ruff presented the case. He discussed the situation at this location, the surrounding buildings, the effects of the '75 flood, and the added expense of flood insurance for the building as proposed. H. LeBlanc asked what was meant by an "Auto Detail Shop", and whether this use is allowed in the "F" Commercial Zone. Mike Fulton, applicant, spoke. He gave some history of his business, and spoke of the problems that the city has with this property. He stated that his business doesn't use chemicals, that basically they use soap and water, and wash cars for the local car dealers. He also stated that this improvement to the property is extremely important to his business, and that without it, he will probably be forced to go out of business. He then showed pictures of the Mifflin Street property. C. Bicy inquired about the cost of flood insurance. Mr. Fulton stated that it would be $2200.00/year, which is double his current costs for insurance. He doesn't feel that it is out of line. He says that he did $100,000.00 worth of BQARD OF ZONING Al-.eEALS MINUTES June 8, 1995 - Page 3 business last year, and has five employees, two of whom are part time. He feels that they are in a position to expand, if he can build the new building. Many questions were asked and much discussion ensued concerning the nature of the business, and how the applicant has attempted to locate a suitable location over the past two years. The applicant also stated that the building would be a peaked roof, vinyl sided pole-barn style building, wide open inside with 3 stalls and 3 doors on each end of the building. He stated that he would be willing to design the building to blend in with the neighborhood, including landscaping. There would be no public parking necessary, only for employees. Steve Nikkel, 525 Kipling Blvd, spoke. He supports the variance, feeling that it would be a welcome relief to see better quality buildings on this Street. He does have a concern as to how the waste water would be dealt with. N. Carlson inquired if a DNR permit would be necessary. The applicant believes that he will need one. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Discussion ensued. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny BZA-3342.95, as there is no demonstrated hardship, and the property could be elevated. Motion seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion did not carry due to lack of consensus. A motion was made by C. Bicy to table the appeal until a site plan is available to see if parking and site plan can meet guidelines based upon the flood plain. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion to table BZA-3342.95 passed unanimously. C. BZA-3343.95, 221 N. Washington Square This is a request by Action Signs for Ameritech, for a variance from Section 1442.24(b) of the Building and Housing Sign Code to permit 53.3 sq. ft. of wall signage in the Capitol Center District. The sign regulations applicable to the Capitol Center District limit wall signage to 40 sq. ft. per business with BOARD OF ZONING APSEALS MINUTES June 8, 1995 - Page 4 the exception that the Board of Zoning Appeals may permit larger wall signs up to the maximum city-wide limitations. Ameritech wants to install a 37 sq. ft. wall sign in addition to their current 16.3 sq. ft. wall sign. J. Ruff presented the case, mentioning that the staff report recommends approval of the variance. Dan Fedewa, Action Signs, spoke. He briefly stated the existing signage and the requested addition to the signage. He also stated that the sign would be oval in shape. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. There was no discussion prior to the motion. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3343.95, finding that it is a reasonable sign for identification, . Motion seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion approved: BZA-3343.95 passed unanimously. D. BZA-3344.95, 522 W. Hillsdale Street This is a request by Kathleen Gaydos to erect an 8 foot tall privacy fence along the north and west edge of the existing 1 foot tall rear deck on the property at 522 W. Hillsdale. Chapter 1292.03(b) of the Zoning Ordinance restricts the heights of fences in side and rear yard areas to six feet. Since the proposed height of the fence from the ground is 9 feet, this is a request for a variance of 3 feet from the 6 foot tall height restriction on fences. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff recommended approval, as there would be no adverse effects. E. Horne inquired about the light and air movement requirement. Mr. Ruff stated that this issue had been addressed, and it was felt that the fence, even at 8 feet, would not impede the circulation of air, or block the sunlight. Kathleen Gaydos spoke about the rear yard at 522 W. Hillsdale, which is very shaded to the degree that no grass will grow. The apartment building is situated so that the residents can look into the back yard, affording her no privacy. She feels that the fence and deck will take care of these problems. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. J. Page stated that he had seen the yard, and with the situation, felt that he could support the variance. H. LeBlanc stated that she normally would not support a variance for a 9 foot fence, but that she also has seen the site and feels that it is supportable. E. Horne said that she will support it. C. Bicy also will support this variance, due to the proximity of the BOARD OF ZONING APrEALS MINUTES June 8, 1995 - Page 5 apartment building. E. Spink stated that this situation is unique, and would not set a precedent; he will support the variance. C. Bicy made a motion to approve B ZA-3344.95, due to the practical difficulty at this location. Seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3344.95 approved by a unanimous vote. E. BZA-3345.95, 2227 W. Miller Road This is a request by Kevin West to erect a 6 foot tall wood privacy fence along the west and south property line of the property at 2227 W. Miller Road. Chapter 1292.03(a)(1) of the Zoning Code restricts the height of privacy fences in front yard areas to three feet. The 6 foot tall fence is also proposed to come to the corner of S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd and Kenbrook Road. Chapter 1292. (a)(2) also restricts heights of fences at street intersections to three feet tall. This is therefore a request for a variance of three feet from Sections 1292.03(a)(1) and (2) . J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the staff has recommended approval, with the exception of the corner. He gave several alternatives concerning the corner, to meet safety requirements. E. Horne stated that she had been at the property to check it; she is also concerned about visibility at the corner. E. Spink stated that he didn't want to encourage residential properties to become stockades. E. Horne enquired if the West's had considered any alternatives. Mr. West said that he was willing to do anything required. Mr. Ruff stated that the ordinance is for fences and hedges, that anything exceeding three feet in height is an issue for a variance. G. Hilts mentioned that a hedge grows, and he feels it to be a lot less desirable than a fence. Dr. Spink doesn't feel that vegetation will grow at this location, and doesn't feel that there is a problem if the traffic engineer doesn't find a problem. Mr. West addressed the Board. He stated that there is a party store across M.L. King Jr. Blvd. He has a 10 year old daughter, and he doesn't want her to witness all the things that go on in the parking lot of the store. He stated that someone jumped the curb and ran into his cyclone fence, leaving a hole in it. He feels that a wooden fence, while it would not stop a car, would at least slow it down. He spoke of the noise factor, and the distractions posed by his volleyball court to traffic. He feels that a fence would cut down on both of these issues. He is willing to change his proposal at the corner of Kenwood and M.L.King. He only wants to make his property less noisy, and more safe. Mr. Ruff asked what type of fence is being proposed. Mr. West BOARD OF ZONING APrEALS MINUTES June 8, 1995 - Page 6 stated that he wants a dog-eared fence, stained, with the good side out and a gate off of Kenbrook. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy understands his desire for a fence, but wants the corner at Kenbrook and M.L.King to be set in, as he feels that the fence as proposed could cause problems, perhaps accidents. A letter sent in by Carolyn M. Rohrbacher, 6129 Kenbrook Road, was read into the record by the Chairperson. She is opposed to the variance as requested. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3345.95. with the exception of the corner of Kenbrook and S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. , to be set in 25' from the corner. Motion seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3337.95 was approved by a vote of 6 to 1. F. BZA-3346.95, Pleasant Grove at Holmes This is a request by Traverse Bay Land Company, representing Century Cellunet, to construct a 150' tall cellular communications tower (plus a 19' lightening rod) on the property located approximately 660' north and 400' east of the intersection of Pleasant Grove and Holmes Roads. Section 1248.10 of the Zoning Code limits the height of structures in the "A" Residential district to 351; a height variance of 134' is therefore requested. The applicant also has a petition pending before the Lansing City Council for approval of a Special Land Use Permit for this property. J. Ruff presented the case, including the staff recommendation that the case be tabled, pending the resolution of the Special Land Use issue. However, staff does feel that this is a better location than other proposals that have been received. H. LeBlanc mentioned that the Planning Board had asked Century Cellunet how many cellular towers are needed for Lansing. She said that they stated that they need one at each of the four corners of the city, which may or may not be located within the city limits. This is only what Century Cellunet needs for their company. Other cellular companies will have their own needs. E. Horne gave some information concerning the proposed development of the neighboring property. C. Bicy stated that he would not be in favor of this tower, as he would not want to live in an area with a tower. C. Bicy made a motion to deny BZA-3346.95, at Pleasant Grove and Holmes Roads, as it would be inappropriate for the future development of the adjacent property. Seconded by E. Horne E. Spink asked what the effect would be if the Board of Zoning Appeals denied every tower request that was brought before it. He wondered if we would be BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES June 8, 1995 - Page 7 forcing an action that we would be in favor of. Much discussion ensued concerning the future of technology, land use issues, and the Board of Zoning Appeals. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion not carried by a vote of 4 to 3. H. LeBlanc made a motion to table BZA-3346.95, based upon the need for further information as to the location of the tower, landscaping of the site, and future development arrangements of the adjacent property. Supported by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion not carried by a vote of 4 to 3. III. Excused Absences A. H. LeBlanc requested an excused absence from the July 13, 1995, meeting. E. Horne made a motion to grant this excused absence, seconded by J. Page. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. B. M. Clark had called and requested an excused absence from tonights meeting. E. Horne made a motion to grant this request, seconded by E. Spink. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. IV. Public Comment A. None V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures We are still waiting for the Ethics Board, as well as the Planning Board, who are working on their own Policy and Procedures manual, which we will use as a model. BOARD OF ZONING APrEALS MINUTES June 8, 1995 - Page 8 B. Century Cellunet, 2801 Mersey Lane No new information at this time. C. All other tabled items are to remain on the table at this time. VI. Approval of Minutes A. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve the April 13, 1995 minutes as typed. Seconded by E. Spink, and approved by a voice vote. C. Bicy, G. Hilts, and E. Horne were absent from that meeting and therefore did not vote. B. C. Bicy made a motion to approve the May 11, 1995 minutes as typed. Seconded by G. Hilts, and approved by a voice vote. E. Horne, H. LeBlanc, and J. Page did not vote as they were absent from that meeting. VII. New Business A. The Nelson's, BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity Rd, are asking for reconsideration, and have submitted new information. C. Bicy made a motion to reconsider the case in the next meeting, with further information from staff to be presented. Seconded by J. Page. Motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. B. Chair N. Carlson stated that she will be moving soon and will send a letter of resignation. Election of officers will take place at the July meeting. VIII. Adjournment A. The meeting was adjourned at 10:19. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzajune.95 Draft to Clerk / /95 DRAFT Approved / /95 1i ;� To Clerk / /95 Lg;SIC +� CITY CLER ( MINUTESING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JUNE 8, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOTH FLOOR I. The meeting was called to order by N. Carlson at 7:34 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present E. Spink C. Bicy H. LeBlanc G. Hilts J. Page E. Horne N. Carlson B. Excused Absences J. Sheldon M. Clark C. Unexcused Absences None D. A quorum of seven members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. E. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. Hearings A. BZA-3341.95, 505 N. Foster Avenue This is a request by Keith & Pauline Gilbert to rebuild and enlarge the rear room of their house at 505 N. Foster Avenue. This is a proposed 6' x 12' addition 8.5` from the rear property line. The requested variance is 21.5' from Section 1248.09 of the Zoning Code, which requires a 30' rear yard setback for new construction. J. Ruff presented the staff report. Jack Mosher, representing the owners, Pauline & Keith Gilbert, stated that there currently is an unsafe and unhealthy condition at the house, and it is more costly to repair the addition than it is to replace it. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES June 13, 1995 - Page 2 E. Horne asked if Mr. Gilbert was the owner of the vacant lot next to 505 N. Foster. He is not. N. Carlson read a letter into the record, from Lawrence Gibson, of 247 Wedgewood, Charlotte. He is the owner of the adjoining property to the Gilbert's. He supports the variance. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink made a motion to approve B ZA-3341.95, finding that the requested setback is no closer to the lot line than the existing structure, is of minimum size, and that the proposed addition is an improvement to the property. Supported by J. Page. H. LeBlanc also mentioned that there was a hardship, which is that the lot is very shallow. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3341.95 approved unanimously B. BZA-3342.95, 328 S. Mifflin Street This is a request by Michael Fulton to build a one story auto detail shop at 328 S. Mifflin Street in the flood plain of the Red Cedar River. The base flood elevation is approximately 835.5' and the proposed structure will have a floor elevation of approximately 8301, 5.5' below the base flood elevation. Section 1288.05 of the Zoning Code requires new nonresidential construction to be elevated above the base flood elevation in accordance with State and Federal regulations. J. Ruff presented the case. He discussed the situation at this location, the surrounding buildings, the effects of the 175 flood, and the added expense of flood insurance for the building as proposed. H. LeBlanc asked what was meant by an "Auto Detail Shop", and whether this use is allowed in the "F" Commercial Zone. Mike Fulton, applicant, spoke. He gave some history of his business, and spoke of the problems that the city has with this property. He stated that his business doesn't use chemicals, that basically they use soap and water, and wash cars for the local car dealers. He also stated that this improvement to the property is extremely important to his business, and that without it, he will probably be forced to go out of business. He then showed pictures of the Mifflin Street property. C. Bicy inquired about the cost of flood insurance. Mr. Fulton stated that it would be $2200.00/year, which is double his current costs for insurance. He doesn't feel that it is out of line. He says that he did $100,000.00 worth of BOARD Or ZONING APPEALS MINUTES June 13, 1995 - Page 3 business last year, and has five employees, two of whom are part time. He feels that they are in a position to expand, if he can build the new building. Many questions were asked and much discussion ensued concerning the nature of the business, and how the applicant has attempted to locate a suitable location over the past two years. The applicant also stated that the building would be a peaked roof, vinyl sided pole-barn style building, wide open inside with 3 stalls and 3 doors on each end of the building. He stated that he would be willing to design the building to blend in with the neighborhood, including landscaping. There would be no public parking necessary, only for employees. Steve Nikkel, 525 Kipling Blvd, spoke. He supports the variance, feeling that it would be a welcome relief to see better quality buildings on this Street. He does have a concern as to how the waste water would be dealt with. N. Carlson inquired if a DNR permit would be necessary. The applicant believes that he will need one. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Discussion ensued. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny BZA-3342.95, as there is no demonstrated hardship, and the property could be elevated. Motion seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X O Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion did not carry due to lack of consensus. A motion was made by C. Bicy to table the appeal until a site plan is available to see if parking and site plan can meet guidelines based upon the flood plain. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion to table BZA-3342.95 passed unanimously. C. BZA-3343.95, 221 N. Washington Square This is a request by Action Signs for Ameritech, for a variance from Section 1442.24(b) of the Building and Housing Sign Code to permit 53.3 sq. ft. of wall signage in the Capitol Center District. The sign regulations applicable to the Capitol Center District limit wall signage to 40 sq. ft. per business with BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES June 13, 1995 - Page 4 the exception that the Board of Zoning Appeals may permit larger wall signs up to the maximum city-wide limitations. Ameritech wants to install a 37 sq. ft. wall sign in addition to their current 16.3 sq. ft. wall sign. J. Ruff presented the case, mentioning that the staff report recommends approval of the variance. Dan Fedewa, Action Signs, spoke. He briefly stated the existing signage and the requested addition to the signage. He also stated that the sign would be oval in shape. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. There was no discussion prior to the motion. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3343.95, finding that it is a reasonable sign for identification, . Motion seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion approved: BZA-3343.95 passed unanimously. D. BZA-3344.95, 522 W. Hillsdale Street This is a request by Kathleen Gaydos to erect an 8 foot tall privacy fence along the north and west edge of the existing 1 foot tall rear deck on the property at 522 W. Hillsdale. Chapter 1292.03(b) of the Zoning Ordinance restricts the heights of fences in side and rear yard areas to six feet. Since the proposed height of the fence from the ground is 9 feet, this is a request for a variance of 3 feet from the 6 foot tall height restriction on fences. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff recommended approval, as there would be no adverse effects. E. Horne inquired about the light and air movement requirement. Mr. Ruff stated that this issue had been addressed, and it was felt that the fence, even at 8 feet, would not impede the circulation of air, or block the sunlight. Kathleen Gaydos spoke about the rear yard at 522 W. Hillsdale, which is very shaded to the degree that no grass will grow. The apartment building is situated so that the residents can look into the back yard, affording her no privacy. She feels that the fence and deck will take care of these problems. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. J. Page stated that he had seen the yard, and with the situation, felt that he could support the variance. H. LeBlanc stated that she normally would not support a variance for a 9 foot fence, but that she also has seen the site and feels that it is supportable. E. Horne said that she will support it. C. Bicy also will support this variance, due to the proximity of the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES June 13, 1995 - Page 5 apartment building. E. Spink stated that this situation is unique, and would not set a precedent; he will support the variance. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3344.95, due to the practical difficulty at this location. Seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X 104P Page X Horne X Carlson X 1� Motion carried: BZA-3344.95 approved by a unanimous vote. E. BZA-3345.95, 2227 W. Miller Road This is a request by Kevin West to erect a 6 foot tall wood privacy fence along the west and south property line of the property at 2227 W. Miller Road. Chapter 1292.03(a)(1) of the Zoning Code restricts the height of privacy fences in front yard areas to three feet. The 6 foot tall fence is also proposed to come to the corner of S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd and Kenbrook Road. Chapter 1292. (a)(2) also restricts heights of fences at street intersections to three feet tall. This is therefore a request for a variance of three feet from Sections 1292.03(a)(1) and (2) . J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the staff has recommended approval, with the exception of the corner. He gave several alternatives concerning the corner, to meet safety requirements. E. Horne stated that she had been at the property to check it; she is also concerned about visibility at the corner. E. Spink stated that he didn't want to encourage residential properties to become stockades. E. Horne enquired if the West's had considered any alternatives. Mr. West said that he was willing to do anything required. Mr. Ruff stated that the ordinance is for fences and hedges, that anything exceeding three feet in height is an issue for a variance. G. Hilts mentioned that a hedge grows, and he feels it to be a lot less desirable than a fence. Dr. Spink doesn't feel that vegetation will grow at this location, and doesn't feel that there is a problem if the traffic engineer doesn't find a problem. Mr. West addressed the Board. He stated that there is a party store across M.L. King Jr. Blvd. He has a 10 year old daughter, and he doesn't want her to witness all the things that go on in the parking lot of the store. He stated that someone jumped the curb and ran into his cyclone fence, leaving a hole in it. He feels that a wooden fence, while it would not stop a car, would at least slow it down. He spoke of the noise factor, and the distractions posed by his volleyball court to traffic. He feels that a fence would cut down on both of these issues. He is willing to change his proposal at the corner of Kenwood and M.L.King. He only wants to make his property less noisy, and more safe. Mr. Ruff asked what type of fence is being proposed. Mr. West BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES June 13, 1995 - Page 6 stated that he wants a dog-eared fence, stained, with the good side out and a gate off of Kenbrook. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy understands his desire for a fence, but wants the corner at Kenbrook and M.L.King to be set in, as he feels that the fence as proposed could cause problems, perhaps accidents. A letter sent in by Carolyn M. Rohrbacher, 6129 Kenbrook Road, was read into the record by the Chairperson. She is opposed to the variance as requested. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3345.95. with the exception of the corner of Kenbrook and S. Martin Luther• King Jr. Blvd. , to be set in 25' from the corner. Motion seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea na Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3337.95 was approved by a vote of 6 to 1. F. BZA-3346.95, Pleasant Grove at Holmes This is a request by Traverse Bay Land Company, representing Century Cellunet, to construct a 150' tall cellular communications tower (plus a 19' lightening rod) on the property located approximately 660' north and 400' east of the intersection of Pleasant Grove and Holmes Roads. Section 1248.10 of the Zoning Code limits the height of structures in the "A" Residential district to 35'; a height variance of 134' is therefore requested. The applicant also has a petition pending before the Lansing City Council for approval of a Special Land Use Permit for this property. J. Ruff presented the case, including the staff recommendation that the case be tabled, pending the resolution of the Special Land Use issue. However, staff does feel that this is a better location than other proposals that have been received. H. LeBlanc mentioned that the Planning Board had asked Century Cellunet how many cellular towers are needed for Lansing. She said that they stated that they need one at each of the four corners of the city, which may or may not be located within the city limits. This is only what Century Cellunet needs for their company. Other cellular companies will have their own needs. E. Horne gave some information concerning the proposed development of the neighboring property. C. Bicy stated that he would not be in favor of this tower, as he would not want to live in an area with a tower. C. Bicy made a motion to deny BZA-3346.95, at Pleasant Grove and Holmes Roads, as it would be inappropriate for the future development of the adjacent property. Seconded by E. Horne E. Spink asked what the effect would be if the Board of Zoning Appeals denied every tower request that was brought before it. He wondered if we would be BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES June 13, 1995 - Page 7 forcing an action that we would be in favor of. Much discussion ensued concerning the future of technology, land use issues, and the Board of Zoning Appeals. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X Bicy X Hilts X Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion not carried by a vote of 4 to 3. H. LeBlanc made a motion to table BZA-3346.95, based upon the need for further information as to the location of the tower, landscaping of the site, and future development arrangements of the adjacent property. Supported by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X LeBlanc X 6' Bicy X Hilts X :P- Page X Horne X Carlson X Motion not carried by a vote of 4 to 3. III. Excused Absences A. H. LeBlanc requested an excused absence from the July 13, 1995, meeting. E. Horne made a motion to grant this excused absence, seconded by J. Page. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. B. M. Clark had called and requested an excused absence from tonights meeting. E. Horne made a motion to grant this request, seconded by E. Spink. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. IV. Public Comment A. None V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures We are still waiting for the Ethics Board, as well as the Planning Board, who are working on their own Policy and Procedures manual, which we will use as a model. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES June 13, 1995 - Page 8 B. Century Cellunet, 2801 Mersey Lane No new information at this time. C. All other tabled items are to remain on the table at this time. VI. Approval of Minutes A. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve the April 13, 1995 minutes as typed. Seconded by E. Spink, and approved by a voice vote. C. Bicy, G. Hilts, and E. Horne were absent from that meeting and therefore did not vote. B . C. Bicy made a motion to approve the May 11, 1995 minutes as typed. Seconded by G. Hilts, and approved by a voice vote. E. Horne, H. LeBlanc, and J. Page did not vote as they were absent from that meeting. VII. New Business A. The Nelson's, BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity Rd, are asking for reconsideration, and have submitted new information. C. Bicy made a motion to reconsider the case in the next meeting, with further information from staff to be presented. Seconded by J. Page. Motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. B. Chair N. Carlson stated that she will be moving soon and will send a letter of resignation. Election of officers will take place at the July meeting. VIII. Adjournment A. The meeting was adjourned at 10:19. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzajune.95 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 1995 - Page 2 VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3331.95 approved unanimously There is a request to hear a case out of order. G. Hilts made a motion to take BZA-3339.95 at this time. M. Clark seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. BZA-3339.95, 227 E. South St. This is a request by property owner Gary Calkins to vary the number of parking spaces at this rental property to allow two dwelling units. Currently there is only one parking space. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that, as far as staff was concerned, the size of the site does not support the request. He stated that there doesn't seem to be any means to resolve this issue, as there is no vacant land abutting this lot. There simply is not enough room to support the additional parking on the site. G. Calkins, owner of 227 E. South St. , spoke. He stated that this is the first time he has been in a situation, as a landlord, wherein he can't use the a property as he would like, and must seek a variance. He stated that he could modify the garage and come up with two parking spaces, which still isn't the required four. He tried to lease some property across the street, which didn't work out. He said that it appears to have been constructed as a three unit building. He says it isn't a very practical single family, he is attempting to reduce it to two units, and he is trying to keep his tenants to those with only one vehicle. C. Bicy inquired where visitors parked. Mr. Calkins said that they park on the street, and in the past they have parked across the street. Suzy Cook-Stark, president of River Point Neighborhood Association, stated that the Neighborhood Association cannot support the variance, as they have spent a lot of time revising their master plan, which calls for a reduction in density, and having three, or even two, units on this corner really increases density. This area is very high in rentals, and they are seeking to reduce the numbers, to reduce crime, and make it a more desirable place for people to buy property. She stated that she has looked at Mr. Calkins other properties in the city, and they seem to be fine properties, but this one is simply to small to be a multi-family unit. She says that the neighborhood organization feels that to maintain this property as multi-family creates a substandard housing issue. Priscilla Holmes, 220 Reo Avenue, addressed the Board. She stated that she owned property in Riverpoint, and that she worked on the Masterplan. She said that this corner was targeted as being to dense. She also said that the house was most recently occupied by an elderly lady and her brother, that there were two apartments, and that they had no car. She said that the neighborhood knew that there would be a problem here, and had considered requesting that the city purchase the house and demolish it because there is BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 1995 - Page 3 a house very close to it on Platt St. and one very close on South St. She said that for the future development of this corner and this neighborhood, it is important that this house be a single family. N. Carlson read a letter into the record, from Jerry Lawson. This letter included photographs. The letter stated that cars park over the sidewalk frequently, that it is a three unit building, and that the garage has not been used as such for 15 years, but rather as storage. Mr. Lawson writes that if the garage were demolished, it would free space large enough to park 4 cars. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark asked how zoning got the case. J. Ruff stated that it came to us through Code Compliance, that the property is zoned multi-family, and that parking is the only issue that must be dealt with. Discussion ensued concerning the staff recommendation. E. Spink made a motion to deny this request, based on the staff report and comments from the neighborhood group in this area, in the attempt to reduce density as indicated by the master plan. Motion seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3339.95 denied unanimously. C. BZA-3332.95, 4924 S. Cedar St. This is a request by Midway Signs Inc. to replace an existing 88 sq. ft. ground pole sign with a 50 sq. ft. 17110" tall ground pole sign, 211" from the front yard property line. This is a 15111" setback variance request. J. Ruff presented the case, stating that it is almost identical to BZA-3331.95, except that the sign is requested to be 1 foot closer to the lot line. He also noted that this property does not have a canopy, it is an open property. Mr. Crumb, Midway Sign Co. , spoke. He did mention the temporary sign which was erected recently to replace the old sign which blew down. He stated that it was smaller than the post sign that was there, and larger than the proposed sign, which would be turned in to the property. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. There was no discussion prior to the motion. C. Bicy made a motion to approve the requested variance of 15'11" from the front yard setback, for the 50 sq. ft. , 16' tall sign, to extend away from the front lot line, with the leading edge of the sign to be 211" from the front property line. Motion seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion approved: BZA-3332.95 passed unanimously. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 1995 - Page 4 D. BZA-3336.95, 1112 Reo Road This is a request by Rechers Friday III, to construct a 24' x 24' detached garage 45' from the front property line. This is a request for a variance of 15' from the required front yard setback. J. Ruff presented the case. Hugh Wering, contractor, stated that Mr. Friday was in attendance, but had asked him to attend in case there were any questions. C. Bicy asked what the regular size is for a garage. Mr. Wering answered, stating that the request is for a little more room than a two car garage requires, which is to be used for storage. There were no more questions, and no one to address the Board. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. There was no discussion prior to the motion. E. Spink made a motion to approve the request for a 15' variance of the setback requirements, for a detached garage, 45' from the front property line, noting that the size if the garage is below what is allowed by code. Seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3336.95 approved by a unanimous vote. E. BZA-3337.95, 3205 Forest Road This is a request by Traverse Bay Land Company, representing Century Cellunet, to construct a 150' tall cellular telephone tower with a 19' lightening rod, for a total of 169 feet. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the property is used as a nursery, on a 16 acre lot, the tower would be located at the extreme northwest corner of the lot, near Evergreen Cemetery, and would have little adverse effect on surrounding properties. This property is currently being looked at by the Planning Board, for a Special Land Use. It is a public utility, and as such requires a Special Land Use to be located in the "A" Residential district, or in almost any residential area. Staff recommends approval of the Special Land Use request, but the Planning Board has not yet taken action. We, as a staff, are supporting this location for this particular tower, but we want to have the policy set as far as whether the use should be there, prior to this Board of Zoning Appeals taking action. If the use is not permitted, this Board would not need to take action, so therefore, we request that this issue be tabled at this time, after hearing any public comment. Larry Linvale, of Traverse Bay Land Co. , spoke. He detailed their proposal, their desire for a site which would not be objected tao by the neighbors. N. Carlson asked about the easement. Mr. Linvale stated that they have proposed an easement through the cemetery to the Parks Dept. He says that they understand that if the Planning Board and the BZA approve this, that parks will likely approve it also. They are requesting a permit from the DNR to use this area, which is wetlands. M. Clark asked about the notation that this is an East Lansing site. Mr. Linvale replied that this is only Century Cellunet's identifying terminology, that it is indeed in the City of Lansing. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 1995 - Page 5 The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Mr. Spink mentioned that he hoped the Parks Board had addressed the second page of the April 5 letter to the BZA from Century Cellunet that says in the next to last paragraph, that the area will be restored "as close as possible" to conditions before construction. He feels that this is rather loose terminology. This comment was brought to the attention of D. Schafer of the Parks Dept. who was in attendance. Mr. Linvale stated that the intention of that language was to pertain only to the leased site, not to easements or surrounding areas. C. Bicy made a motion to table the request pending action by the Planning Board and City Council for the Special Land Use request. Seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3337.95 was tabled. F. BZA-3338.95, 6900 Cooper Road This is a request by John M. Duly, owner, to construct a covered but unenclosed front porch on his property. To do this, he needs an 8' variance of the front yard setback. J. Ruff presented the case, stating that staff recommends approval. John M. Duly, owner, spoke to the Board, showing them a picture of the house and a sketch of the proposed porch. He feels that the porch would improve the value of the house, and by putting a porch on, where the other houses in the neighborhood do not have porches, he feels will break up the monotony. He also stated that he has no intention to close in the porch. As there were no others present to address the board, they dissolved into Committee of the Whole. N. Carlson read a communication into the record which was sent by Pat and Dan Sullivan, of 6900 Calson. They feel that the porch would be a nice addition to the neighborhood, and provided it meets all building codes, they would like the variance approved. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3338.95, at 6900 Cooper Road, be approved for a front yard unenclosed porch which would create a front yard setback of 20'. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3338.95 passed unanimously. G. BZA-3340.95, Shiawassee Street Bridge This is a request by the City of Lansing Parks Department for a variance of the flood plain and of side yard setbacks to allow the construction of a 1600 square foot storage building adjacent to the Shiawassee Street Bridge. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 1995 - Page 6 Portions of this property are currently used as a right of way for a public street, as the City Market's parking lot, and as a public park. J. Ruff presented the case. He said that this would be to replace an existing building which is currently located under the Shiawassee Street Bridge, but due to the rebuilding of the bridge, the storage building has to be relocated. It will not interfere with any parking or with park use. Dick Schaefer, Lansing Parks and Recreation, spoke. He told that the construction of the new building, if located next to the bridge, would be covered by the federal monies which are paying for the bridge. He also stated that it is the most convenient site for them. Jon Dowling, Assistant City Engineer, spoke. He talked about how the new bridge would span the river, and the process they have gone through to satisfy the Federal Highway Commission. Discussion ensued between Mr. Dowling and the Board. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink made a motion that BZA-3340.95, for the Shiawassee St bridge variances for the flood plain and setbacks for the proposed storage building be approved. Seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3340.95 approved unanimously. III. Excused Absences A. C. Bicy made a motion to excuse E. Horne from tonights meeting. Seconded by M. Clark. Motion approved unanimously on a voice vote. IV. Public Comment A. Mrs. Nelson, of 1715 Fidelity spoke. She stated that someone on the board had said at the last meeting that they like to stay consistent with decisions. This was in reference to the large garage at Cambridge. She would like to know how this is consistent, as the same person voted against their variance. She also wanted to know how the Shiawassee Street Bridge variance differs from theirs. V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures J. Ruff updated the Board on this issue. He also mentioned the tabled variance requests, leading to brief Board discussion. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 1995 - Page 7 VI. Approval of Minutes A. There were no minutes ready for approval at this meeting. VII. New Business A. There will be a request to reconsider BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity. This will be taken up at a future meeting. B. New officers were discussed. This will be done at the July meeting. Tonight, Dr. Spink made a motion that Rev. Bicy replace J. Sheldon as the new vice- chair for the remainder of the term. Supported by M. Clark. Approved unanimously by a voice vote. VIII. Adjournment A. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzamay.95 s Draft to Clerk 06/06/95 Approved / /95 To Clerk / /95 . J i1i L' 22 LPJ„' :lk D C1 i Y CLERK MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING Board OF ZONING APPEALS MAY 11, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY 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 E. Spink C. Bicy M. Clark G. Hilts N. Carlson B . Excused Absences H. LeBlanc J. Page J. Sheldon E. Horne C. Unexcused Absences None 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 II. Hearings A. BZA-3331.95, 3612 S. M. L. King Jr. Blvd. This is a request by Midway Signs Inc. to replace an existing 84 sq. ft. ground pole sign 3'1" from the front yard property line. This is a 12111" setback variance. J. Ruff presented the staff report. He remarked that the graphic shows an 18' tall sign, but the request is for a 16' tall sign. He also noted that the staff recommends approval. Mr. Crumb, Midway Signs, spoke. He briefly detailed their position. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. There was no discussion prior to the motion. E. Spink made a motion that BZA-3331 .95, at 3612 S. M. L. King Jr. Blvd, be approved for the erection of a 50 square foot pole sign with the condition that one of the existing wall signs be removed. Further, the pole sign is to be 16' tall and 3'1" from the front property line. The new sign is to be installed only after compliance with the sign code as related to wall.signs. Supported by G. Hilts. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 1995 - Page 2 VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion carried: B ZA-3331.95 approved unanimously There is a request to hear a case out of order. G. Hilts made a motion to take B ZA-3339.95 at this time. M. Clark seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. BZA-3339.95, 227 E. South St. This is a request by property owner Gary Calkins to vary the number of parking spaces at this rental property to allow two dwelling units. Currently there is only one parking space. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that, as far as staff was concerned, the size of the site does not support the request. He stated that there doesn't seem to be any means to resolve this issue, as there is no vacant land abutting this lot. There simply is not enough room to support the additional parking on the site. G. Calkins, owner of 227 E. South St. , spoke. He stated that this is the first time he has been in a situation, as a landlord, wherein he can't use the a property as he would like, and must seek a variance. He stated that he could modify the garage and come up with two parking spaces, which still isn't the required four. He tried to lease some property across the street, which didn't work out. He said that it appears to have been constructed as a three unit building. He says it isn't a very practical single family, he is attempting to reduce it to two units, and he is trying to keep his tenants to those with only one vehicle. C. Bicy inquired where visitors parked. Mr. Calkins said that they park on the street, and in the past they have parked across the street. Suzy Cook-Stark, president of River Point Neighborhood Association, stated that the Neighborhood Association cannot support the variance, as they have spent a lot of time revising their master plan, which calls for a reduction in density, and having three, or even two, units on this corner really increases density. This area is very high in rentals, and they are seeking to reduce the numbers, to reduce crime, and make it a more desirable place for people to buy property. She stated that she has looked at Mr. Calkins other properties in the city, and they seem to be fine properties, but this one is simply to small to be a multi-family unit. She says that the neighborhood organization feels that to maintain this property as multi-family creates a substandard housing issue. Priscilla Holmes, 220 Reo Avenue, addressed the Board. She stated that she owned property in Riverpoint, and that she worked on the Masterplan. She said that this corner was targeted as being to dense. She also said that the house was most recently occupied by an elderly lady and her brother, that there were two apartments, and that they had no car. She said that the neighborhood knew that there would be a problem here, and had considered requesting that the city purchase the house and demolish it because there is BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 1995 - Page 3 a house very close to it on Platt St. and one very close on South St. She said that for the future development of this corner and this neighborhood, it is important that this house be a single family. N. Carlson read a letter into the record, from Jerry Lawson. This letter included photographs. The letter stated that cars park over the sidewalk frequently, that it is a three unit building, and that the garage has not been used as such for 15 years, but rather as storage. Mr. Lawson writes that if the garage were demolished, it would free space large enough to park 4 cars. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark asked how zoning got the case. J. Ruff stated that it came to us through Code Compliance, that the property is zoned multi-family, and that parking is the only issue that must be dealt with. Discussion ensued concerning the staff recommendation. E. Spink made a motion to deny this request, based on the staff report and comments from the neighborhood group in this area, in the attempt to reduce density as indicated by the master plan. Motion seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3339.95 denied unanimously. C. BZA-3332.95, 4924 S. Cedar St. This is a request by Midway Signs Inc. to replace an existing 88 sq. ft. ground pole sign with a 50 sq. ft. 17'10" tall ground pole sign, 2'1" from the front yard property line. This is a 15'11" setback variance request. J. Ruff presented the case, stating that it is almost identical to BZA-3331.95, except that the sign is requested to be 1 foot closer to the lot line. He also noted that this property does not have a canopy, it is an open property. Mr. Crumb, Midway Sign Co. , spoke. He did mention the temporary sign which was erected recently to replace the old sign which blew down. He stated that it was smaller than the post sign that was there, and larger than the proposed sign, which would be turned in to the property. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. There was no discussion prior to the motion. C. Bicy made a motion to approve the requested variance of 15'11" from the front yard setback, for the 50 sq. ft. , 16' tall sign, to extend away from the front lot line, with the leading edge of the sign to be 2'1" from the front property line. Motion seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion approved: BZA-3332.95 passed unanimously. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 1995 - Page 4 D. BZA-3336.95, 1112 Reo Road This is a request by Rechers Friday III, to construct a 24' x 24' detached garage 45' from the front property line. This is a request for a variance of 15' from the required front yard setback. J. Ruff presented the case. Hugh Wering, contractor, stated that Mr. Friday was in attendance, but had asked him to attend in case there were any questions. C. Bicy asked what the regular size is for a garage. Mr. Wering answered, stating that the request is for a little more room than a two car garage requires, which is to be used for storage. There were no more questions, and no one to address the Board. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. There was no discussion prior to the motion. E. Spink made a motion to approve the request for a 15' variance of the setback requirements, for a detached garage, 45' from the front property line, noting that the size if the garage is below what is allowed by code. Seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3336.95 approved by a unanimous vote. E. BZA-3337.95, 3205 Forest Road This is a request by Traverse Bay Land Company, representing Century Cellunet, to construct a 150' tall cellular telephone tower with a 19' lightening rod, for a total of 169 feet. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the property is used as a nursery, on a 16 acre lot, the tower would be located at the extreme northwest corner of the lot, near Evergreen Cemetery, and would have little adverse effect on surrounding properties. This property is currently being looked at by the Planning Board, for a Special Land Use. It is a public utility, and as such requires a Special Land Use to be located in the "A" Residential district, or in almost any residential area. Staff recommends approval of the Special Land Use request, but the Planning Board has not yet taken action. We, as a staff, are supporting this location for this particular tower, but we want to have the policy set as far as whether the use should be there, prior to this Board of Zoning Appeals taking action. If the use is not permitted, this Board would not need to take action, so therefore, we request that this issue be tabled at this time, after hearing any public comment. Larry Linvale, of Traverse Bay Land Co. , spoke. He detailed their proposal, their desire for a site which would not be objected tao by the neighbors. N. Carlson asked about the easement. Mr. Linvale stated that they have proposed an easement through the cemetery to the Parks Dept. He says that they understand that if the Planning Board and the BZA approve this, that parks will likely approve it also. They are requesting a permit from the DNR to use this area, which is wetlands. M. Clark asked about the notation that this is an East Lansing site. Mr. Linvale replied that this is only Century Cellunet's identifying terminology, that it is indeed in the City of Lansing. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 1995 - Page 5 The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Mr. Spink mentioned that he hoped the Parks Board had addressed the second page of the April 5 letter to the BZA from Century Cellunet that says in the next to last paragraph, that the area will be restored "as close as possible" to conditions before construction. He feels that this is rather loose terminology. This comment was brought to the attention of D. Schafer of the Parks Dept. who was in attendance. Mr. Linvale stated that the intention of that language was to pertain only to the leased site, not to easements or surrounding areas. C. Bicy made a motion to table the request pending action by the Planning Board and City Council for the Special Land Use request. Seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3337.95 was tabled. F. BZA-3338.95, 6900 Cooper Road This is a request by John M. Duly, owner, to construct a covered but unenclosed front porch on his property. To do this, he needs an 8' variance of the front yard setback. J. Ruff presented the case, stating that staff recommends approval. John M. Duly, owner, spoke to the Board, showing them a _picture of the house and a sketch of the proposed porch. He feels that the porch would improve the value of the house,and by putting a porch on, where the other houses in the neighborhood do not have porches, he feels will break up the monotony. He also stated that he has no intention to close in the porch. As there were no others present to address the board, they dissolved into Committee of the Whole. N. Carlson read a communication into the record which was sent by Pat and Dan Sullivan, of 6900 Calson. They feel that the porch would be a nice addition to the neighborhood, and provided it meets all building codes, they would like the variance approved. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3338.95, at 6900 Cooper Road, be approved for a front yard unenclosed porch which would create a front yard setback of 20'. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X -Motion carried: BZA-3338.95 passed unanimously. G. BZA-3340.95, Shiawassee Street Bridge This is a request by the City of Lansing Parks Department for a variance of the flood plain and of side yard setbacks to allow the construction of a 1600 square foot storage building adjacent to the Shiawassee Street Bridge. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 1995 - Page 6 Portions of this property are currently used as a right of way for a public street, as the City Market's parking lot, and as a public park. J. Ruff presented the case. He said that this would be to replace an existing building which is currently located under the Shiawassee Street Bridge, but due to the rebuilding of the bridge, the storage building has to be relocated. It will not interfere with any parking or with park use. Dick Schaefer, Lansing Parks and Recreation, spoke. He told that the construction of the new building, if located next to the bridge, would be covered by the federal monies which are paying for the bridge. He also stated that it is the most convenient site for them. Jon Dowling, Assistant City Engineer, spoke. He talked about how the new bridge would span the river, and the process they have gone through to satisfy the Federal Highway Commission. Discussion ensued between Mr. Dowling and the Board. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink made a motion that BZA-3340.95, for the Shiawassee St bridge variances for the flood plain and setbacks for the proposed storage building be approved. Seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3340.95 approved unanimously. III. Excused Absences A. C. Bicy made a motion to excuse E. Horne from tonights meeting. Seconded by M. Clark. Motion approved unanimously on a voice vote. IV. Public Comment A. Mrs. Nelson, of 1715 Fidelity spoke. She stated that someone on the board had said at the last meeting that they like to stay consistent with decisions. This was in reference to the large garage at Cambridge. She would like to know how this is consistent, as the same person voted against their variance. She also wanted to know how the Shiawassee Street Bridge variance differs from theirs. V.. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures J. Ruff updated the Board on this issue. He also mentioned the tabled variance requests, leading to brief Board discussion. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 1995 - Page 7 VI. Approval of Minutes A. There were no minutes ready for approval at this meeting. VII. New Business A. There will be a request to reconsider BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity. This will be taken up at a future meeting. B. New officers were discussed. This will be done at the July meeting. Tonight, Dr. Spink made a motion that Rev. Bicy replace J. Sheldon as the new vice- chair for the remainder of the term. Supported by M. Clark. Approved unanimously by a voice vote. VIII. Adjournment A. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzamay.95 Draft to Clerk 06/01/95 Approved 06/08/95 _ To Clerk 06/14/95 r'U;. f i i J• J �l`'T 1`:J CITY CL �irMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING Board OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 13, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY 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 H. LeBlanc E. Spink M. Clark J. Page N. Carlson J. Sheldon B. Excused Absences C. Bicy G. Hilts E. Horne C. Unexcused Absences None D. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. E. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator Mr. Ruff made a request that we add BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity, to new business, for consideration by the Board. II. Hearings A. BZA-3333.95, 1006 S. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by David Boynton to convert a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling. Two one bedroom dwelling units are proposed for the first and second floors. It had been used as a two unit several years ago. This is a requested variance of 1,080 sq. ft. to Section 1250.06(b), which regulates lot size. J. Ruff presented the staff report, which recommended approval based upon past history and the similar character of the area. Mr. Boynton, appellant, addressed the Board. He shared photographs of the area. He stated that he planned to put a lot of money into the building. He BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 13, 1995 - Page 2 also stated that his wife's family has owned the property for some time, and yhey were the owner's who had it as a two unit rental. J. Sheldon inquired about the parking situation. Mr. Boynton replied, describing how they have used it in the past. J. Sheldon also commented upon a van parked between the two garages. Dr. Spink inquired of Mr. Ruff what the lot restrictions were for the neighboring lot which had contained a building which has burned down. Mr. Ruff indicated that it was a buildable lot. H. LeBlanc asked when the building stopped being a two unit. Mr. Boynton indicated that it had been probably seven years. Peter Munoz, 1008 Climax, indicated that he had been a resident of this area since 1957. He told about the fire at the neighboring house which he says occurred six years ago. He said it has always been a single family home. He told about several other houses in the neighborhood, and stated that he doesn't think that they need another multi-family dwelling. He told of problems with drugs and prostitution in the neighborhood, and reiterated his feeling that another multi-family dwelling would be a mistake in this neighborhood. David Kletke, 1012 Climax, spoke. He is a 20 year resident of Climax Street. He stated that the neighborhood has some two and three family homes, with adequate parking, which are well taken care of. He states that the newer rental properties in the area have many problems, both with parking and with trash. He told how he has cleaned up some properties himself. He spoke of the area further north on Pennsylvania Avenue, and how multiple family dwellings have become a real problem; he does not want these problems further south on Pennsylvania Avenue. He asks the Board to abide by the rules, and not let any more houses become two or three family dwellings on lots which are to small. Mr. Boynton again addressed the Board. He stated his desire to bring the house into compliance. He also stated that he is reducing the number of bedrooms from 4 to 2 total in the building. He says it will be a very nice house, which he intends to keep that way. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she will not be supporting the appeal, feeling that the Zoning Code was written for good reason. She felt that the point of North Pennsylvania is well taken, which as multi-family is a blight to the area. She feels that this neighborhood has kept the area nice, and the action requested in this appeal would not help this area. H. LeBlanc agreed with this. She spoke of the attempt to not increase density in this area. J. Sheldon commented that she also would not support, and felt that the parking situation is not favorable. Dr. Spink feels that it will be a real struggle to keep this area from becoming like N. Pennsylvania Ave. He wonders how much less dense two one bedroom units are than one four bedroom unit. M. Clark stated that this situation came up in her neighborhood, and it was argued that the one unit was more dense than the two unit. However, two families use more pizza delivery's, more phone repair-persons, and more visitors than one family, even if it is a large family. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 13, 1995 - Page 3 M. Clark made a motion to deny the request, as the lot area is not large enough to support the use of a two unit, and the possibility for negative impact on the neighborhood is great. Supported by J. Sheldon. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Sheldon X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X Carlson X Spink X Motion carried: B ZA-3333.95 denied B. BZA-3334.95, 3120 N. Cambridge Dr. This is a request by David L. Toomey Builders, representing the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Hourani, to allow construction of a 40' x 40' addition onto the existing garage. This is a variance in square footage of accessory structures and a variance in the allowed size of a garage. The subject property shares a drive with the neighbors to the west. Part of the purpose of this request is to provide for parking for childrens vehicles and etc. The joint drive creates a problem between the properties. The staff doesn't see a practical difficulty or hardship. However, we have considered the request, the location, size and character; it is very similar to a case we heard several months ago. It is a large lot, able to absorb the size of the structure well, so the staff didn't see a problem or an adverse impact. The problem is that it potentially sets a precedent. Staff did not make a recommendation. Dr. Spink inquired about the size of the garage. He wondered if the covered pedestrian-way was part of the garage. Mr. Ruff replied that it was. Discussion ensued. H. LeBlanc asked about the configuration of the garage. Mr. Toomey, applicant, spoke. He told of the property owners desire to alleviate problems with parking. He showed pictures of the two adjoining properties, a copy of the survey, and a draft of the agreement between the neighbors. Mr. Ruff enquired about the direction the garages open in, and about the lot line. Mr. Toomey presented letters from three of the neighbors, all supporting the variance request. M. Clark asked if the two car garage will remain. Mr. Toomey indicated that it would remain. H. LeBlanc asked about the length of the garage. Mr. Toomey stated that the Hourani's have three children who drive, and a summer van, which will total approx. 5 vehicles at this property. The length is to accommodate all these vehicles. Mr. Toomey stated that the building would be a totally brick building, that they would be willing to narrow the breezeway, if code so requires. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 13, 1995 - Page 4 Dr. Spink asked if it would be brick on all sides. Mr. Toomey indicated that it would be. N. Carlson read the three letters into the record. They were from George Belon, 3115 N. Cambridge, Brian Jefferies, 3229 Moores River Drive, and The Genesse's of 3124 N. Cambridge. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Dr. Spink brought up the subject of the breezeway again, as he wants to make sure that it will not be an open breezeway, which indicates to him that it would be counted as part of the garage. M. Clark stated that she will not be supporting this. She feels that it will be aesthetically pleasing, but finds no hardship or practical difficulty that is caused by the code, which is designed to provide appropriate sizes, and she doesn't feel that they have any basis for granting this, other than that the appellant desires to have this, and they are able to construct a beautiful building, but doesn't feel it is in keeping with the intent of the code. H. LeBlanc stated that she also could not support it. She feels that it is very similar to a recent case, wherein the Board decided that it was not appropriate to allow a large garage, and she feels that the Board must be consistent. There is no hardship, and she finds no overwhelming reason why these people should be allowed to do this. She also agreed that it looks like a very nice structure. J. Sheldon indicated that she would not support this request. She also commented on the similarity to a recent appeal. She feels that just because a person has a very large lot, it does not mean that they should construct buildings,as large, and a many, as they want. She will be supporting the code in this appeal. J. Page feels that the code is written to protect the neighborhood, and in cases where the neighbors don't have a problem, he doesn't have a problem. He will be supporting the appeal. H. LeBlanc stated that the code needs to be looked at, and the issue of large buildings on large lots addressed. However, the Board should support the ordinance that we now have N. Carlson stated that the letter from the neighbors is not as informative as it should have been. She wonders if the neighbors, other than the adjacent neighbors, realize the size that has been requested. E. Spink says he is having a hard time with this. He doesn't see the potential for misuse in this case that he has in other cases. He feels that the size of the garage fits into the neighborhood. He stated that he is not positive that storage of vacation vehicles is a right; however, he does understand that perhaps covered storage is better than open storage for a vehicle that is used regularly. He stated that he will be consistent and support the approval of this variance, as he feels it is unique, and does not carry with it some of the warnings that the code speaks to. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny the request, due to the lack of hardship or practical difficulty, and that the variance requested is considerable. H. LeBlanc stated that she could support a smaller variance than this one. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 13, 1995 - Page 5 H. LeBlanc made a motion that BZA-3334.95 be denied, as there is no hardship presented, and that the variance being requested is a considerable variance from the present code. Seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Page X Spink X Carlson X Motion defeated: BZA-3334.95 not approved by a vote of 4 to 2. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3334 at 3120 N. Cambridge Dr. Motion seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Page X Spink X Carlson X Motion defeated: BZA-3334.95 not approved by a vote of 4 to 2. E. Spink made a motion to table BZA-3334.95, seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Page X Spink X Carlson X Motion approved: BZA-3334.95 tabled by a vote of 5 to 1. C. BZA-3335.95, 601 S. Cesar Chavez Avenue This is a request by Donald Hartwick, representing the owner, Dr. Michael Hutcheson, to construct an addition onto the side of the structure and another addition onto the rear of the structure. These are both setback variances. J. Ruff presented the case. He mentioned the previous setback variance which was heard in February of this year, a variance for an addition which would come out not quite to the south edge of the existing part of the building. Partly because it would have had to have been reheard, because the dimensions were incorrect on the site plan, they accepted what was advertised as the dimensions, which meant that they had to keep the building away from the edge. Also, it didn't consider the need for the exterior elevator extension onto the rear of the structure, which extends over an existing stairway and into the rear yard requirement. The elevator would be 12' from the rear property line, which is an S' variance, and a revised side yard setback of 3.5', since the side structure is now proposed to be 6.5' from the property line, in line with the existing structure. Staff found no negative impacts, and the Historic District Commission is reviewing the design to ensure that it follows guidelines. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 13, 1995 - Page 6 Don Hartwick, Architect representing the owner, spoke. He told of their design, and plans for the entire building. He also stated that the design plan had not yet been approved by the Historic District Commission. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Dr. Spink stated that he found it to be a reasonable amendment, consistent with the staff report, and what they had approved before. He made a motion to allow construction of a side and rear addition to the structure at 601 S. Cesar Chavez, of 6.5' from the side property line and 12' from the rear property line. Supported by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Page X Spink X Carlson X Motion. carried: B ZA-3335.95 approved by a vote of 6 to 0. III. Excused Absences A. There are three requests for excused absences, from C. Bicy, G. Hilts, and E. Horne. M. Clark moved that the absences be excused, seconded by E. Spink, approved 5 to 1 by a voice vote. Dissenting vote cast by N. Carlson. IV. Public Comment A. Dave Williams spoke to the board, representing the Nelson's, on Fidelity. He commented on the other large garages in the area, and asked that the request of his client be reconsidered. V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures J. Ruff updated the Board on this issue B . Century Cellunet's tabled request concerning the telecommunications tower J. Ruff stated that this would not be heard this month, and probably not be heard in May either. However, he stated that they did have another request to be heard in May but didn't want to elaborate at this time. VI. Approval of Minutes A. March 9, 1995 H. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by M. Clark, to approve the minutes of March 9, 1995. Motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 13, 1995 - Page 7 VII. New Business A. There is a request to reconsider BZA-3325.95. 1715 Fidelity. J. Ruff instructed the Board on the two items the Board should consider, one item being the potential of the case to be reheard, based on the two motions made. He stated that there could be another motion made to approve the variance, which was not made. He also stated that there was the consideration that a full Board has not been present at recent meetings, although eight members were at the meeting at which this variance was heard. Dr. Spink spoke, addressing the issue of reconsideration of cases. He stated that he felt this issue had already been addressed (at a previous meeting) , and felt that it had been agreed that., as long as a quorum were present, the size of the board was totally inappropriate as a basis for reconsideration. He stated that all we can guarantee is a legal board. M. Clark commented on the fact that it was unusual for eight members to be present. She asked if the appellant had new information. If not, she felt that the case should not be reheard. H. LeBlanc stated her support for this opinion. N. Carlson restated the issue, stating that only if new information were presented, would the case be reconsidered. H. LeBlanc made a motion, based on the letter distributed at the last meeting, that BZA-3325.95 not be reheard as there was no new information. Seconded by E. Spink. H. LeBlanc then stated that, if the appellant supplies new evidence, then the case could be reconsidered. The motion passed 5 to 1 by a voice vote, with the dissenting vote being made by J. Page. B. H. LeBlanc requested an excused absence from the May meeting, as did J. Page. M. Clark made a motion to accept the excused absence, j. Sheldon seconded. Motion approved unanimously by voice vote. C. J. Sheldon requested an excused absence from the next two meetings, being May and June. H. LeBlanc made a motion to excused J. Sheldon, seconded by E. Spink. Motion approved unanimously by voice vote. VIII. Adjournment A. The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzaapr.95 Draft to Clerk 06/Ol/95 DRAFT Approved / /95 '• ;'" To Clerk / /95 LAi ISIING (;I I y 44Ri TES OF THE REGULAR MEETING Board OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 13, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY 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 H. LeBlanc E. Spink M. Clark J. Page N. Carlson J. Sheldon B. Excused Absences C. Bicy G. Hilts E. Horne C. Unexcused Absences None D. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. E. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator Mr. Ruff made a request that we add BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity, to new business, for consideration by the Board. II. Hearings A. BZA-3333.95, 1006 S. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by David Boynton to convert a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling. Two one bedroom dwelling units are proposed for the first and second floors. It had been used as a two unit several years ago. This is a requested variance of 1,080 sq. ft. to Section 1250.06(b) , which regulates lot size. J. Ruff presented the staff report, which recommended approval based upon past history and the similar character of the area. Mr. Boynton, appellant, addressed the Board. He shared photographs of the area. He stated that he planned to put a lot of money into the building. He BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 13, 1995 - Page 2 also stated that his wife's family has owned the property for some time, and yhey were the owner's who had it as a two unit rental. J. Sheldon inquired about the parking situation. Mr. Boynton replied, describing how they have used it in the past. J. Sheldon also commented upon a van parked between the two garages. Dr. Spink inquired of Mr. Ruff what the lot restrictions were for the neighboring lot which had contained a building which has burned down. Mr. Ruff indicated that it was a buildable lot. H. LeBlanc asked when the building stopped being a two unit. Mr. Boynton indicated that it had been probably seven years. Peter Munoz, 1008 Climax, indicated that he had been a resident of this area since 1957. He told about the fire at the neighboring house which he says occurred six years ago. He said it has always been a single family home. He told about several other houses in the neighborhood, and stated that he doesn't think that they need another multi-family dwelling. He told of problems with drugs and prostitution in the neighborhood, and reiterated his feeling that another multi-family dwelling would be a mistake in this neighborhood. David Kletke, 1012 Climax, spoke. He is a 20 year resident of Climax Street. He stated that the neighborhood has some two and three family homes, with adequate parking, which are well taken care of. He states that the newer rental properties in the area have many problems, both with parking and with trash. He told how he has cleaned up some properties himself. He spoke of the area further north on Pennsylvania Avenue, and how multiple family dwellings have become a real problem; he does not want these problems further south on Pennsylvania Avenue. He asks the Board to abide by the rules, and not let any more houses become two or three family dwellings on lots which are to small. Mr. Boynton again addressed the Board. He stated his desire to bring the house into compliance. He also stated that he is reducing the number of bedrooms from 4 to 2 total in the building. He says it will be a very nice house, which he intends to keep that way. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she will not be supporting the appeal, feeling that the Zoning Code was written for ood reason. She felt that the point of North Pennsylvania is well taken, which as M lti-family is Yn a blight to the area. She feels that this neighborhood has kept the area nice, and the action requested in this appeal would not help this area. H. LeBlanc agreed with this. She spoke of the attempt to not increase density in this area. J. Sheldon commented that she also would not support, and felt that the parking situation is not favorable. Dr. Spink feels that it will be a real struggle to keep this area from becoming like N. Pennsylvania Ave. He wonders how much less dense two one bedroom units are than one four bedroom unit. M. Clark stated that this situation came up in her neighborhood, and it was argued that the one unit was more dense than the two unit. However, two families use more pizza delivery's, more phone repair-persons, and more visitors than one family, even if it is a large family. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 13, 1995 - Page 3 M. Clark made a motion to deny the request, as the lot area is not large enough to support the use of a two unit, and the possibility for negative impact on the neighborhood is great.' Supported by J. Sheldon. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Sheldon X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X Carlson X Spink X Motion carried: BZA-3333.95 denied B. BZA-3334.95, 3120 N. Cambridge Dr. This is a request by David L. Toomey Builders, representing the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Hourani, to allow construction of a 40' x 40' addition onto the existing garage. This is a variance in square footage of accessory structures and a variance in the allowed size of a garage. The subject property shares a drive with the neighbors to the west. Part of the purpose of this request is to provide for parking for childrens vehicles and etc. The joint drive creates a problem between the properties. The staff doesn't see a practical difficulty or hardship. However, we have considered the request, the location, size and character; it is very similar to a case we heard several months ago. It is a large lot, able to absorb the size of the structure well, so the staff didn't see a problem or an adverse impact. The problem is that it potentially sets a precedent. Staff did not make a recommendation. Dr. Spink inquired about the size of the garage. He wondered if the covered pedestrian-way was part of the garage. Mr. Ruff replied that it was. Discussion ensued. H. LeBlanc asked about the configuration of the garage. Mr. Toomey, applicant, spoke. He told of the property owners desire to alleviate problems with parking. He showed pictures of the two adjoining properties, a copy of the survey, and a draft of the agreement between the neighbors. Mr. Ruff enquired about the direction the garages open in, and about the lot line. Mr. Toomey presented letters from three of the neighbors, all supporting the variance request. M. Clark asked if the two car garage will remain. Mr. Toomey indicated that it would remain. H. LeBlanc asked about the length of the garage. Mr. Toomey stated that the Hourani's have three children who drive, and a summer van, which will total approx. 5 vehicles at this property. The length is to accommodate all these vehicles. Mr. Toomey stated that the building would be a totally brick building, that they would be willing to narrow the breezeway, if code so requires. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 13, 1995 - Page 4 Dr. Spink asked if it would be brick on all sides. Mr. Toomey indicated that it would be. N. Carlson read the three letters into the record. They were from George Belon, 3115 N. Cambridge, Brian Jefferies, 3229 Moores River Drive, and The Genesse's of 3124 N. Cambridge. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Dr. Spink brought up the subject of the breezeway again, as he wants to make sure that it will not be an open breezeway, which indicates to him that it would be counted as part of the garage. M. Clark stated that she will not be supporting this. She feels that it will be aesthetically pleasing, but finds no hardship or practical difficulty that is caused by the code, which is designed to provide appropriate sizes, and she doesn't feel that they have any basis for granting this, other than that the appellant desires to have this, and they are able to construct a beautiful building, but doesn't feel it is in keeping with the intent of the code. H. LeBlanc stated that she also could not support it. She feels that it is very similar to a recent case, wherein the Board decided that it was not appropriate to allow a large garage, and she feels that the Board must be consistent. There is no hardship, and she finds no overwhelming reason why these people should be allowed to do this. She also agreed that it looks like a very nice structure. J. Sheldon indicated that she would not support this request. She also commented on the similarity to a recent appeal. She feels that just because a person has a very large lot, it does not mean that they should construct buildings as large, and a many, as they want. She will be supporting the code in this appeal. J. Page feels that the code is written to protect the neighborhood, and in cases where the neighbors don't have a problem, he doesn't have a problem. He will be supporting the appeal. H. LeBlanc stated that the code needs to be looked at, and the issue of large buildings on large lots addressed. However, the Board should support the ordinance that we now have N. Carlson stated that the letter from the neighbors is not as informative as it should have been. She wonders if the neighbors, other than the adjacent neighbors, realize the size that has been requested. E. Spink says he is having a hard time with this. He doesn't see the potential for misuse in this case that he has in other cases. He feels that the size of the garage fits into the neighborhood. He stated that he is not positive that storage of vacation vehicles is a right; however, he does understand that perhaps covered storage is better than open storage for a vehicle that is used regularly. He stated that he will be consistent and support the approval of this variance, as he feels it is unique, and does not carry with it some of the warnings that the code speaks to. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny the request, due to the lack of hardship or practical difficulty, and that the variance requested is considerable. H. LeBlanc stated that she could support a smaller variance than this one. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 13, 1995 - Page 5 H. LeBlanc made a motion that BZA-3334.95 be denied, as there is no hardship presented, and that the variance being requested is a considerable variance from the present code. Seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Page X Spink X Carlson X Motion defeated: BZA-3334.95 not approved by a vote of 4 to 2. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3334 at 3120 N. Cambridge Dr. Motion seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Page X Spink X Carlson X Motion defeated: BZA-3334.95 not approved by a vote of 4 to 2. E. Spink made a motion to table BZA-3334.95, seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Page X Spink X Carlson X Motion approved: BZA-3334.95 tabled by a vote of 5 to 1. C. BZA-3335.95, 601 S. Cesar Chavez Avenue This is a request by Donald Hartwick, representing the owner, Dr. Michael Hutcheson, to construct an addition onto the side of the structure and another addition onto the rear of the structure. These are both setback variances. J. Ruff presented the case. He mentioned the previous setback variance which was heard in February of this year, a variance for an addition which would come out not quite to the south edge of the existing part of the building. Partly because it would have had to have been reheard, because the dimensions were incorrect on the site plan, they accepted what was advertised as the dimensions, which meant that they had to keep the building away from the edge. Also, it didn't consider the need for the exterior elevator extension onto the rear of the structure, which extends over an existing stairway and into the rear yard requirement. The elevator would be 12' from the rear property line, which is an 8' variance, and a revised side yard setback of 3.5', since the side structure is now proposed to be 6.5' from the property line, in line with the existing structure. Staff found no negative impacts, and the Historic District Commission is reviewing the design to ensure that it follows guidelines. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 13, 1995 - Page 6 Don Hartwick, Architect representing the owner, spoke. He told of their design, and plans for the entire building. He also stated that the design plan had not yet been approved by the Historic District Commission. Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Dr. Spink stated that he found it to be a reasonable amendment, consistent with the staff report, and what they had approved before. He made a motion to allow construction of a side and rear addition to the structure at 601 S. Cesar Chavez, of 6.5' from the side property line and 12' from the rear property line. Supported by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Page X Spink X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3335.95 approved by a vote of 6 to 0. III. Excused Absences A. There are three requests for excused absences, from C. Bicy, G. Hilts, and E. Horne. M. Clark moved that the absences be excused, seconded by E. Spink, approved 5 to 1 by a voice vote. Dissenting vote cast by N. Carlson. IV. Public Comment A. Dave Williams spoke to the board, representing the Nelson's, on Fidelity. He commented on the other large garages in the area, and asked that the request of his client be reconsidered. V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures J. Ruff updated the Board on this issue B . Century Cellunet's tabled request concerning the telecommunications tower J. Ruff stated that this would not be heard this month, and probably not be heard in May either. However, he stated that they did have another request to be heard in May but didn't want to elaborate at this time. VI. Approval of Minutes A. March 9, 1995 H. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by M. Clark, to approve the minutes of March 9, 1995. Motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. BOARD OF ZONING APk EALS MINUTES April 13, 1995 - Page 7 VII. New Business A. There is a request to reconsider BZA-3325.95. 1715 Fidelity. J. Ruff instructed the Board on the two items the Board should consider, one item being the potential of the case to be reheard, based on the two motions made. He stated that there could be another motion made to approve the variance, which was not made. He also stated that there was the consideration that a full Board has not been present at recent meetings, although eight members were at the meeting at which this variance was heard. Dr. Spink spoke, addressing the issue of reconsideration of cases. He stated that he felt this issue had already been addressed (at a previous meeting) , and felt that it had been agreed that, as long as a quorum were present, the size of the board was totally inappropriate as a basis for reconsideration. He stated that all we can guarantee is a legal board. M. Clark commented on the fact that it was unusual for eight members to be present. She asked if the appellant had new information. If not, she felt that the case should not be reheard. H. LeBlanc stated her support for this opinion. N. Carlson restated the issue, stating that only if new information were presented, would the case be reconsidered. H. LeBlanc made a motion, based on the letter distributed at the last meeting, that BZA-3325.95 not be reheard as there was no new information. Seconded by E. Spink. H. LeBlanc then stated that, if the appellant supplies new evidence, then the case could be reconsidered. The motion passed 5 to 1 by a voice vote, with the dissenting vote being made by J. Page. B. H. LeBlanc requested an excused absence from the May meeting, as did J. Page. M. Clark made a motion to accept the excused absence, j. Sheldon seconded. Motion approved unanimously by voice vote. C. J. Sheldon requested an excused absence from the next two meetings, being May and June. H. LeBlanc made a motion to excused J. Sheldon, seconded by E. Spink. Motion approved unanimously by voice vote. VIII. Adjournment A. The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzaapr.95 Approved 4/13/95 To Clerk 4/20/95 20 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING e�rl;%�,� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS E;;. �I i CLERK BOARD 9, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY 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 H. LeBlanc E. Spink M. Clark G. Hilts N. Carlson E. Horne C. Bicy B. Excused Absences J. Page J. Sheldon C. Unexcused Absences None D. A quorum of seven members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. E. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. Hearings A. BZA-3328.951 2801 Mersey Lane This is a request by Traverse Bay Land Company, representing Century Cellunet, to erect a 150' telecommunications tower. The property is presently zoned "C.U.P.",' Community Unit Plan. The applicant has petitioned the Lansing City Council to rezone this property to "DM-2" Residential District and for approval of a Special Land Use Permit. In addition to the pending Zone Change and Special Land Use Permit, completion of this project will require a variance from Section 1254.10 to permit construction of the 150 foot tall tower, or 105 feet over the 45 foot height limit. J. Ruff presented the staff report. He stated that some of the people who should have been notified of tonights meeting were not notified. He said that the public hearing would be held tonight, although it will have to be re-heard. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS .MINUTES March 9, 1995 - Page 2 However, those appearing at tonight's meeting would not have to attend the next one. Also, he stated that it had recently been learned that not only does Century Cellunet want to erect a 150' tower, but they will need a 20' antennae on top of the tower. It must be re-advertised for a total of 170'. Also, staff is not prepared to ask the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve this request at this time, or to act upon it, because the land use issues are not finalized as of yet. These items, which are before the Planning Board, will require resolution prior to final action by the Board of Zoning Appeals. This is not expected until some time in April. Lyn Fitzsimmons, applicant, spoke concerning the request. He described the photographs being passed around, told a little about Century Cellunet, and why they need this antenna. He stated that the specific site area had been chosen by the McElmurry's and adjusted by Century Cellunet so that there was a safe fall zone to any of the existing structures. He explained a letter included in the board member packets from the tower manufacturer demonstrating that these towers are built to withstand excessive forces, and are uniquely designed so they do not tip over like a tree. In addition, they (Century Cellunet) have placed the tower so that there is adequate clear space from the surrounding structures. He told how they had interpreted the ordinance, feeling that they were exempt from height restrictions, and indicated that they felt that they were considered a utility, but also stated that they would accept the 170' adjustment. He said that there needs to be a clear line of sight from the antenna on the tower structure to the antenna on the mobile phone unit. They feel the 170' high tower is the lowest height that would accomplish this. He talked about how the tower works, what they need, and how they chose the type of construction, which they feel is the strongest, and the least intrusive. He stated that the proposed site is an unmanned site, all equipment will be within a chain link fence which is roughly 60' x 801, to provide security for the site, and to protect the public. They understand that there are many steps to go through to obtain permission for this tower. G. Hilts asked about the 150' radius; he feels that some apartments are within that distance. Mr. Fitzsimmons agreed with this, but stated that the manufacturer feels this is sufficient space. E. Horne inquired about the type of construction the small building will be. Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that it is a pre-fab with brick facing, to be harmonious with the surroundings. Henderson Bodiford, 3545 Inverary Drive, is "vehemently opposed" to the zoning change, and to the tower going up. His property is directly behind the subject property, and he feels that this is a nice residential community and this tower would be a disgrace. He feels that.it would tend to devalue the nearby properties, and would effect radio and tv signals, and possibly pacemakers. He also said that the land owner probably doesn't live in this area. He was not notified, and said many others were not notified. He feels that this tower is ludicrous for their neighborhood, and doesn't feel there is any reason to put it there except for entrepreneurial reasons. He feels it would deface the looks of the neighborhood. The equipment house is quite near his property, and he might want to build something further back on his BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES March 9, 1995 - Page 3 property. He does not want to look at this every morning, even though it is in the back yard. Dr. Spink stated that this is a Board of Zoning Appeals, that this Board can only, ever, deal with the height of the tower, not IF the tower can be built. Mrs. Bennett, 3622 Christine, lives across the street from the proposed tower. She stated that she did not want to look at this thing every day of her life. She told of her husband, who has a heart pacemaker, and the things he is to avoid. She says the neighborhood is quiet, and that they don't need any surprises. She agreed with Mr. Bodifords comments. She feels it would be a monstrosity. Maynard Mutz, 3711 Glasgow, spoke. He said that he just had a heart bypass, and will have a pacemaker installed. He will be looking out his back window at the tower. Francisca Kidder, 3617 Glasgow, spoke. She stated that she did not know anything about this, until her neighbor told her. She doesn't feel it will be safe, and she has three little kids, and feels it will be a threat to her family. Margaret Henrize, 3601 Inverary, feels that this will be a detriment to her neighborhood. She has been in the area since 1960, and wants to know who would buy their properties if this was put up. She wants her objection registered. Greg Fox, 3801 Glasgow, stated that he is a Cellunet user. He feels that the height of the tower is a make or break issue for the installation of the tower at this location. He doesn't feel that this tower is necessary for the public good. He also is concerned that the tower could fall down in severe weather. He has only been in the neighborhood for 7 months, but agrees with the residents who have been there longer. He states that he is opposed to the tower. N. Carlson said that she had received one piece of correspondence regarding this case, from Ruby Bennett, who spoke tonight. She said that, as Mrs. Bennett had said basically the same thing, she would not read the letter, but does want its receipt on record. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy stated that he lives in the area of the tower, and wants it known that he definitely will not be voting in favor of this variance. He stated that he is against this, even though he lives 5 houses from it. E. Spink spoke concerning new technology, which includes towers, and how this must mesh with the general good. He stated that he has voted on 5 towers in his tenure with the BZA, and has seen none in so inappropriate a location. He requested that staff examine the fencing, and feels that another variance may be in order to deal with this (razor wire fencing) . Mr. Ruff concurred. E. Horne is very concerned about towers, and the aesthetic in neighborhoods. She said that the city owns park lands and other open areas, and wonders if the city couldn't work with companies requesting towers. She feels that there is a need to study this issue, and that it is not going to be the last tower request we will see. N. Carlson says she works for the DNR, and says that the State Police have requested putting up over BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES March 9, 1995 - Page 4 500 new towers through out the state, mostly in parks and recreation areas, and in our state forests. She says that towers are here to stay, and they are coming and coming fast. H. LeBlanc feels that this is an inappropriate location for a tower, and that the Board should put together a list of appropriate locations, as there will be more tower requests. G. Hilts spoke about the attractive nuisance aspect of this tower. He knows that children will find a way to get inside. E. Spink inquired how people are notified of meetings, and who, specifically, gets a notification. J. Ruff explained for Board of Zoning Appeals, and Planning Board. G. Hilts made a motion to table the request until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Bicy X Spink X Carlson X Motion carried: The request will be re-heard next month. B. BZA-3329.95, 1423 Boston Blvd. This is a request by Arnold W. Zeile to construct a single story rear addition at this address, 20 feet from the rear property line. This is a requested variance of 10 feet from the code. J. Ruff presented the staff report. He stated that the addition is for a first floor laundry, bathroom, and recreational room. He also stated that the home is very shallow, only 20', and the applicants desire additional first floor space. E. Horne asked what the blue green thing on the back of the garage was, and Mr. Ruff replied that it was a free standing shed which Mr. Zeile uses for gardening tools and such. She also asked if there had ever been an alley behind the house. Mr. Zeile spoke. He stated that he had lived there for 42 years, and has never know there to be an alley. He said that the request is due to his wife's precarious health. He states that they are senior citizens, and they would like to avoid the stairs. He said that he had spoken with several of the adjacent neighbors, and they don't object, and that most of the neighbors wouldn't be able to see the addition anyway. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. There were no comments. E. Spink made a motion to approve the request, based upon the staff report and the appellant's comments. Motion seconded by G. Hilts. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES March 9, 1995 - Page 5 VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Horne X Hilts X Spink X Bicy X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3329.95 approved by a vote of 7 to 0. C. BZA-3330.95, 5200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by Amor Sign Studios, Inc. representing Admiral Petroleum Company, to replace an existing ground pole sign with a 17' tall, 80 ft2 ground pole sign 15'8" from the front property lines. A variance of 5'4" is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. Steve DuVall, Amor Sign Studios, appeared before the Board. He stated that he felt Mr. Ruff had given adequate information and that he had nothing to add. E. Spink made a motion that BZA-3330.95, at 5200 S. Pennsylvania, be approved as outlined in the staff report, as an improvement to meet the sign code and the aesthetics of the area. G. Hilts seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Horne X Hilts X Spink X Bicy X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3330.95 approved by a vote of 7 to 0. III. Excused Absences A. J. Sheldon had requested an excused absence for this meeting during the February meeting. J. Page called to request an excused absence. H. LeBlanc made a motion to excuse J. Page from this meeting. The motion was seconded by E. Spink, and passed unanimously on a voice vote. IV. Public Comment A. The Board received a letter from the Nelson's with a request for reconsideration of their appeal. Mr. Ruff encourages that the Board look at the information in the letter, examine the minutes from last months meeting, and the staff report, and that the Board take action to hear the request at BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES March 9, 1995 - Page 6 next months meeting. Mr. Ruff feels that it could be reconsidered in its present form, if the Board agrees. G. Hilts made a motion to take up the issue of BZA-3325.95, at next months meeting. E. Horne seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a voice vote. V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures Mr. Ruff reported that the Planning Board is now working on their Policy and Procedures manual, and seem to be doing very well. They are not doing the ethics portion until the Ethics Board finishes theirs. The BZA will be able to use Planning Boards Policy and Procedures manual as a guide. At this point, Dr. Spink asked permission to be excused. G. Hilts made a motion to grant permission, seconded by E. Horne, passed unanimously on a voice vote. VI. Approval of Minutes A. February 9, 1995 E. Horne made a motion, seconded by H. LeBlanc, to approve the minutes of February 9, 1995, as corrected (page 2, E. Horne commented, not J. Sheldon, that "quite a large garage could be constructed within code") . Motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. C. Bicy abstained, as he was not at the meeting of February 9, 1995. VII. New Business A. E. Horne asked for a point of information concerning Executive Sessions. Are they the same as Committee of the Whole at the Planning Board? Discussion ensued, with the conclusion that the BZA is much more informal than the Planning Board, although we do try to follow Robert's Rules of Order. VIII. Adjournment A. C. Bicy made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. M. Clark seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously by a voice vote. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzamar.95 Approved / /95 DRAFT To Clerk / /95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING LAr� N'S! f^ ru CL�Rf� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS �:�.� �� f , MARCH 9, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOTH FLOOR I. The meeting was called to order by N. Carlson at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present H. LeBlanc E. Spink M. Clark G. Hilts N. Carlson E. Horne C. Bicy B. Excused Absences J. Page J. Sheldon C. Unexcused Absences None D. A quorum of seven members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. E. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. Hearings A. BZA-3328.95, 2801 Mersey Lane This is a request by Traverse Bay Land Company, representing Century Cellunet, to erect a 150' telecommunications tower. The property is presently zoned "C C.U.P.", Community Unit Plan. The applicant has petitioned the Lansing City Council to rezone this property to "DM-2" Residential District and for approval of a Special Land Use Permit. In addition to the pending Zone Change and Special Land Use Permit, completion of this project will require a variance from Section 1254.10 to permit construction of the 150 foot tall tower, or 105 feet over the 45 foot height limit. J. Ruff presented the staff report. He stated that some of the people who should have been notified of tonights meeting were not notified. He said that the public hearing would be held tonight, although it will have to be re-heard. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES March 9, 1995 - Page 2 However, those appearing at tonight's meeting would not have to attend the next one. Also, he stated that it had recently been learned that not only does Century Cellunet want to erect a 150' tower, but they will need a 20' antennae on top of the tower. It must be re-advertised for a total of 1701. Also, staff is not prepared to ask the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve this request at this time, or to act upon it, because the land use issues are not finalized as of yet. These items, which are before the Planning Board, will require resolution prior to final action by the Board of Zoning Appeals. This is not expected until some time in April. Lyn Fitzsimmons, applicant, spoke concerning the request. He described the photographs being passed around, told a little about Century Cellunet, and why they need this antenna. He stated that the specific site area had been chosen by the McElmurry's and adjusted by Century Cellunet so that there was a safe fall zone to any of the existing structures. He explained a letter included in the board member packets from the tower manufacturer demonstrating that these towers are built to withstand excessive forces, and are uniquely designed so they do not tip over like a tree. In addition, they (Century Cellunet) have placed the tower so that there is adequate clear space from the surrounding structures. He told how they had interpreted the ordinance, feeling that they were exempt from height restrictions, and indicated that they felt that they were considered a utility, but also stated that they would accept the 170' adjustment. He said that there needs to be a clear line of sight from the antenna on the tower structure to the antenna on the mobile phone unit. They feel the 170' high tower is the lowest height that would accomplish this. He talked about how the tower works, what they need, and how they chose the type of construction, which they feel is the strongest, and the least intrusive. He stated that the proposed site is an unmanned site, all equipment will be within a chain link fence which is roughly 60' x 801, to provide security for the site, and to protect the public. They understand that there are many steps to go through to obtain permission for this tower. G. Hilts asked about the 150' radius; he feels that some apartments are within that distance. Mr. Fitzsimmons agreed with this, but stated that the manufacturer feels this is sufficient space. E. Horne inquired about the type of construction the small building will be. Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that it is a pre-fab with brick facing, to be harmonious with the surroundings. Henderson Bodiford, 3545 Inverary Drive, is "vehemently opposed" to the zoning change, and to the tower going up. His property is directly behind the subject property, and he feels that this is a nice residential community and this tower would be a disgrace. He feels that it would tend to devalue the nearby properties, and would effect radio and tv signals, and possibly pacemakers. He also said that the land owner probably doesn't live in this area. He was not notified, and said many others were not notified. He feels that this tower is ludicrous for their neighborhood, and doesn't feel there is any reason to put it there except for entrepreneurial reasons. He feels it would deface the looks of the neighborhood. The equipment house is quite near his property, and he might want to build something further back on his BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES March 9, 1995 - Page 3 property. He does not want to look at this every morning, even though it is in the back yard. Dr. Spink stated that this is a Board of Zoning Appeals, that this Board can only, ever, deal with the height of the tower, not IF the tower can be built. Mrs. Bennett, 3622 Christine, lives across the street from the proposed tower. She stated that she did not want to look at this thing every day of her life. She told of her husband, who has a heart pacemaker, and the things he is to avoid. She says the neighborhood is quiet, and that they don't need any surprises. She agreed with Mr. Bodifords comments. She feels it would be a monstrosity. Maynard Mutz, 3711 Glasgow, spoke. He said that he just had a heart bypass, and will have a pacemaker installed. He will be looking out his back window at the tower. Francisca Kidder, 3617 Glasgow, spoke. She stated that she did not know anything about this, until her neighbor told her. She doesn't feel it will be safe, and she has three little kids, and feels it will be a threat to her family. Margaret Henrize, 3601 Inverary, feels that this will be a detriment to her neighborhood. She has been in the area since 1960, and wants to know who would buy their properties if this was put up. She wants her objection registered. Greg Fox, 3801 Glasgow, stated that he is a Cellunet user. He feels that the height of the tower is a make or break issue for the installation of the tower at this location. He doesn't feel that this tower is necessary for the public good. He also is concerned that the tower could fall down in severe weather. He has only been in the neighborhood for 7 months, but agrees with the residents who have been there longer. He states that he is opposed to the tower. N. Carlson said that she had received one piece of correspondence regarding this case, from Ruby Bennett, who spoke tonight. She said that, as Mrs. Bennett had said basically the same thing, she would not read the letter, but does want its receipt on record. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy stated that he lives in the area of the tower, and wants it known that he definitely will not be voting in favor of this variance. He stated that he is against this, even though he lives 5 houses from it. E. Spink spoke concerning new technology, which includes towers, and how this must mesh with the general good. He stated that he has voted on 5 towers in his tenure with the BZA, and has seen none in so inappropriate a location. He requested that staff examine the fencing, and feels that another variance may be in order to deal with this (razor wire fencing) . Mr. Ruff concurred. E. Horne is very concerned about towers, and the aesthetic in neighborhoods. She said that the city owns park lands and other open areas, and wonders if the city couldn't work with companies requesting towers. She feels that there is a need to study this issue, and that it is not going to be the last tower request we will see. N. Carlson says she works for the DNR, and says that the State Police have requested putting up over BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES March 9, 1995 - Page 4 500 new towers through out the state, mostly in parks and recreation areas, and in our state forests. She says that towers are here to stay, and they are coming and coming fast. H. LeBlanc feels that this is an inappropriate location for a tower, and that the Board should put together a list of appropriate locations, as there will be more tower requests. G. Hilts spoke about the attractive nuisance aspect of this tower. He knows that children will find a way to get inside. E. Spink inquired how people are notified of meetings, and who, specifically, gets a notification. J. Ruff explained for Board of Zoning Appeals, and Planning Board. G. Hilts made a motion to table the request until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Hilts X Bicy X Spink X Carlson X Motion carried: The request will be re-heard next month. B. BZA-3329.95, 1423 Boston Blvd. This is a request by Arnold W. Zeile to construct a single story rear addition at this address, 20 feet from the rear property line. This is a requested variance of 10 feet from the code. J. Ruff presented the staff report. He stated that the addition is for a first floor laundry, bathroom, and recreational room. He also stated that the home is very shallow, only 20', and the applicants desire additional first floor space. E. Horne asked what the blue green thing on the back of the garage was, and Mr. Ruff replied that it was a free standing shed which Mr. Zeile uses for gardening tools and such. She also asked if there had ever been an alley behind the house. Mr. Zeile spoke. He stated that he had lived there for 42 years, and has never know there to be an alley. He said that the request is due to his wife's precarious health. He states that they are senior citizens, and they would like to avoid the stairs. He said that he had spoken with several of the adjacent neighbors, and they don't object, and that most of the neighbors wouldn't be able to see the addition anyway. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. There were no comments. E. Spink made a motion to approve the request, based upon the staff report and the appellant's comments. Motion seconded by G. Hilts. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES March 9 1995 - Page 5 VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Horne X Hilts X Spink X Bicy X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3329.95 approved by a vote of 7 to 0. C. BZA-3330.95, 5200 S. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by Amor Sign Studios, Inc. representing Admiral Petroleum Company, to replace an existing ground pole sign with a 17' tall, 80 ft2 ground pole sign 15'8" from the front property lines. A variance of 5'4" is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. Steve DuVall, Amor Sign Studios, appeared before the Board. He stated that he felt Mr. Ruff had given adequate information and that he had nothing to add. E. Spink made a motion that BZA-3330.95, at 5200 S. Pennsylvania, be approved as outlined in the staff report, as an improvement to meet the sign code and the aesthetics of the area. G. Hilts seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Horne X Hilts X Spink X Bicy X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3330.95 approved by a vote of 7 to 0. III. Excused Absences A. J. Sheldon had requested an excused absence for this meeting during the February meeting. J. Page called to request an excused absence. H. LeBlanc made a motion to excuse J. Page from this meeting. The motion was seconded by E. Spink, and passed unanimously on a voice vote. IV. Public Comment A. The Board received a letter from the Nelson's with a request for reconsideration of their appeal. Mr. Ruff encourages that the Board look at the information in the letter, examine the minutes from last months meeting, and the staff report, and that the Board take action to hear the request at BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES March 9 1995 - Page 6 next months meeting. Mr. Ruff feels that it could be reconsidered in its present form, if the Board agrees. G. Hilts made a motion to take up the issue of BZA-3325.95, at next months meeting. E. Horne seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a voice vote. V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures Mr. Ruff reported that the Planning Board is now working on their Policy and Procedures manual, and seem to be doing very well. They are not doing the ethics portion until the Ethics Board finishes theirs. The BZA will be able to use Planning Boards Policy and Procedures manual as a guide. At this point, Dr. Spink asked permission to be excused. G. Hilts made a motion to grant permission, seconded by E. Horne, passed unanimously on a voice vote. VI. Approval of Minutes A. February 9, 1995 E. Horne made a motion, seconded by H. LeBlanc, to approve the minutes of February 9, 1995, as corrected (page 2, E. Horne commented, not J. Sheldon, that "quite a large garage could be constructed within code") . Motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. C. Bicy abstained, as he was not at the meeting of February 9, 1995. VII. New Business A. E. Horne asked for a point of information concerning Executive Sessions. Are they the same as Committee of the Whole at the Planning Board? Discussion ensued, with the conclusion that the BZA is much more informal than the Planning Board, although we do try to follow Robert's Rules of Order. VIII. Adjournment A. C. Bicy made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. M. Clark seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously by a voice vote. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzamar.95 Approved 03/09/95 To Clerk 03/16/95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FEBRUARY 9, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY 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 G. Hilts N. Carlson E. Horne J. Page E. Spink B. Excused Absences None C. Unexcused Absences C. Bicy D. A quorum of eight members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. E. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator F. Introduction of new Board Members E. M. Horne and J. Page were introduced. ry �7 II. Hearings ,=T A. BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity Street This is a request by Jon Nelson to construct a 32' x 27' addition onto an existing 19' x 27' detached garage located in the flood plain. This is a requested variance of 377' to section 1248.03(b)(2) , limiting the square footage of accessory structures to 1000 sq. ft. ; a requested variance of 657 sq. ft. to Section 1248.03(b)(5) , which limits the maximum size of a garage to 720 sq. ft. ; and a requested variance to Section 1288.10, which allows construction of new buildings in the flood plain only upon approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. J. Ruff presented the case, outlining the requested variances for building. The Board members asked questions regarding the potential for this variance to be precedent setting. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 9, 1995 - Page 2 Jon and Jennifer Nelson, applicants, spoke to the Board. They admitted that they did know that they were in violation of code when they began to build, but they wanted their vehicles under cover for the winter. They stated that the nearby park is being cleaned up, and that the neighbors do not object. Mr. and Mrs. Nelson presented letters from the neighborhood, photos, and a drawing. They felt that the garage was insignificant when compared to the lot size. They also stated that the DNR had granted them a permit to build the garage addition in the flood zone. Their existing shed which was at the back of the building, had already been torn down. The Board enquired if the two lots could, at some point, be separated and the other lot sold off. Mr. Ruff indicated that it would be unlikely since there are no sewers for the area and it is his understanding that the Public Service Dept. does not allow septic systems for new homes. Greg Noss, 1731 Fidelity, spoke. He said that he wanted to make a few points. He stated that it is a very rural area, and that since the Nelson's moved in, they have increased the value of the property; he stated that there were no more houses on the street to be concerned about; he stated that the new building couldn't be easily seen from the road, even with the leaves off the trees; he said that he had talked to others in the neighborhood and no one was opposed; and he thanked the Board for the City cleaning up Crego park. N. Carlson read the names of seven neighbors who were in favor of the building. They are: Marie Tower, Greg Noss, Terry Caluette, Betty Meyers, Lawrence Salsbury, Gilbert Ibbera, Samuel Macies. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink spoke. He felt that the board must be careful, as others can turn things into precedent that weren't intended to be such. He feels that the board must be careful, as variances may be used to re-write code. E. Horne commented that quite a large garage could be constructed within code. M. Clark stated that she was trying to weigh two points, one being that, in terms of lot size, the request does not seem unreasonable. The other concern is that of future use, as oversize garages can become body shops or other businesses which can have a negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of noise and other adverse conditions. J. Ruff commented on the increase in requests for garage size variances, comparing the usual request with this particular request. He stated that, if this request were approved, the fact that the Board heard this case, and recorded it, serves as future deterrent to converting the garage to a business. He also spoke of a potential future change in the code to allow a more graduated scale of garage size. E. Spink compared this situation to another similar situation on Mt. Hope Avenue, wherein the owners were not allowed to put garage doors on the storage building. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 9, 1995 - Page 3 G. Hilts stated that he feels this is a request for a garage, not a storage shed. He also has a problem with the owners building the addition, then requesting a variance when they were discovered. He stated that he cannot support this variance. E. Spink stated that he will not support this request for storage, as he also feels that it is really a request for a garage. He stated that the driveway is not restricted, and feels that the code provides sufficient storage space for a one family dwelling and that this owner is blessed with property. E. Spink made a motion to deny the request, as the present code allows sufficient space for a one family lot, and that there is no demonstration of hardship. G. Hilts seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Hilts X Page X Horne X Spink X Carlson X Motion not carried: The board was evenly split, 4 voting yea and 4 voting nay. E. Spink made a motion to approve the variance to construct at or just below the flood elevation for Code Allowed Buildings. Motion seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Hilts X Page X Horne X Spink X Carlson X Motion carried: The flood elevation portion of the variance passes by a vote of 6 yea to 2 nay. The variance is partially approved. No other motions were made. B. BZA-3326.95, 601 S. Cesar Chavez, a request by Donald Hartwick to construct an 11.6' x 21.2' addition onto the south side of the building at 601 S. Cesar Chavez, 7 feet from the (south) side property line. This is a requested variance of 3' to the minimum side yard setback requirement of 10 feet. J. Ruff presented the staff report. Don Hartwick, contractor/applicant, presented information on the case. He described how they were rearranging the existing facilities and adding an elevator. He said that the other choices were worse, they could put an 8' addition on the front of the building, or a small addition on Hillsdale Street. Their only other choice was that which is requested. which will provide a great impact on the floor plan. This will be a two story addition, there will be no windows, and will leave a BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 9, 1995 - Page 4 pleasing roof line, which will improve the appearance and be in keeping with its historical nature. There were no other comments. A letter which supported the variance request from the Lansing Historic District Commission was read into the record by N. Carlson, Chair. E. Spink made a motion to approved the request, based upon Dr. Hutchinson's long term commitment to improvement, this improvement is in keeping with the Historic District, and the restrictive site conditions create a hardship. Seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay ea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Hilts X Page X Horne X Spink X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3326.95 approved by a vote of 8 to 0. C. BZA-3327.95, 1940 N. Larch (S.E. Corner of N. Larch and Lake Lansing Road), a request by Gregory Lentz for a 17' setback variance to erect a ground pole sign for a new business. The Sign Code requires a 21' setback for a 72 sq. ft. ground pole sign. The proposed ground pole sign would set back 4' from the front property line. J. Ruff presented the case. Gregory Lentz, owner/applicant of 1940 N. Larch, stated that the shape of the lot is trapezoidal, and sought to clarify the setting of his property and its uniqueness. He spoke of his desire to lessen the impact of this shop on the neighborhood. J. Ruff questioned Mr. Lentz in an attempt to clarify the case. Pat Hunt of 12586 Wood Road, co-owner of 610 Woodbury, spoke. She stated that the primary objection is that there are only a few homes, many of the adjoining property owners work 2nd and 3rd shift and sleep during the day. Noise and parking are anticipated to be a problem. At this point, E. Spink asked for a point of order to remind the Board, as well as the speaker, that the parking problems, the building, traffic, and other issues mentioned are not issues this Board can consider; the only issue for this Board is the sign. He stated that he felt it would be proper to keep the statements limited to the sign. The Board and the speaker concurred. Ms. Hunt stated that the traffic flowing off of Lake Lansing is not visible at this time, and a sign could further obstruct vision, making it worse. They would rather not have a sign at all. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES Feuruary 9, 1995 - Page 5 Janice Frasier, 611 Woodbury, stated that she is opposed due to the visual obstacle, that there are lots of accidents now, and feels that with a sign there it would be worse. E. Spink asked for further clarification from J. Ruff as to the site and layout of the sign. J. Ruff did this. M. Clark inquired of J. Ruff whether there was mention in the code of the obstruction of vision by parked vehicles. J. Ruff indicated that this is not addressed in the parking regulations. G. Hilts inquired why the sign couldn't be set right next to the building? J. Ruff answered that the overhead doors to the building would be on the west side, which prevents the sign from being placed there. The applicant added some architectural information for the placement being further away. E. Spink asked J. Ruff about the staff recommendation, whether they consider eight feet to be the maximum setback that they consider appropriate to this property. J. Ruff responded that the architect wanted to keep the sign foundation away from the building foundation. The eight foot setback is the closest practical distance. He also stated that, because of the site limitations, the opportunity arises for a grade level sign, but that was more obstructing of view than getting it up a little bit and away from the visibility problem at street level. E. Spink made a motion that BZA-3327.95 at 1949 N. Larch be approved for a 12' setback variance to erect a 20' tall, 63 square foot ground pole sign which would be set back 8 feet from the front property line, to become as conforming to the ordinance as is reasonable in this situation, based upon the staff report. G. Hilts seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Hilts X Page X Horne X Spink X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3327.95 approved by a vote of 8 to 0. III. Excused Absences A. J. Sheldon asked for an excused absence from the March meeting. E. Horne made a motion to excuse her, seconded by H. LeBlanc. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. NOTE: H. LeBlanc asked for and received an excused absence for the March meeting at the January meeting. IV. Public Comment A. None BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 9, 1995 - Page 6 V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures 1. We are waiting for the ethics board on this issue. VI. Approval of Minutes A. January 12, 1995 E. Spink made a motion, seconded by G. Hilts, to approve the minutes of January 12, 1995, as typed. Motion carried unanimously on a voice vote, with the exception of Page and Horne, who were not in attendance at that meeting. VII. New Business A. E. Spink thinks he has seen a new type of accessory structure: A small satellite dish. He feels that it does not look as bad as the brown dumpsters in front yards. VIII. Adjournment A. Meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzafeb.95 95-02-24P03 : 9 RCVD Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FEBRUARY 9, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOTH 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 G. Hilts' N. Carlson E. Horne J. Page E. Spink B. Excused Absences None C. Unexcused Absences C. Bicy D. A quorum of eight members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. E. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator F. Introduction of new Board Members E. M. Horne and J. Page were introduced. II. Hearings A. BZA-3325.95, 1715 Fidelity Street This is a request by Jon Nelson to construct a 32' x 27' addition onto an existing 19' x 27' detached garage located in the flood plain. This is a requested variance of 377' to section 1248.03(b)(2), limiting the square footage of accessory structures to 1000 sq. ft. ; a requested variance of 657 sq. ft. to Section 1248.03(b)(5), which limits the maximum size of a garage to 720 sq. ft. ; and a requested variance to Section 1288.10, which allows construction of new buildings in the flood plain only upon approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. J. Ruff presented the case, outlining the requested variances for building. The Board members asked questions regarding the potential for this variance to be precedent setting. 4 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 9, 1995 - Page 2 Jon and Jennifer Nelson, applicants, spoke to the Board. They admitted that they did know that they were in violation of code when they began to build, but they wanted their vehicles under cover for the winter. They stated that the nearby park is being cleaned up, and that the neighbors do not object. Mr. and Mrs. Nelson presented letters from the neighborhood, photos, and a drawing. They felt that the garage was insignificant when compared to the lot size. They also stated that the DNR had granted them a permit to build the garage addition in the flood zone. Their existing shed which was at the back of the building, had already been torn down. The Board enquired if the two lots could, at some point, be separated and the other lot sold off. Mr. Ruff indicated that it would be unlikely since there are no sewers for the area and it is his understanding that the Public Service Dept. does not allow septic systems for new homes. Greg Noss, 1731 Fidelity, spoke. He said that he wanted to make a few points. He stated that it is a very rural area, and that since the Nelson's moved in, they have increased the value of the property; he stated that there were no more houses on the street to be concerned about; he stated that the new building couldn't be easily seen from the road, even with the leaves off the trees; he said that he had talked to others in the neighborhood and no one was opposed; and he thanked the Board for the City cleaning up Crego park. N. Carlson read the names of seven neighbors who were in favor of the building. They are: Marie Tower, Greg Noss, Terry Caluette, Betty Meyers, Lawrence Salsbury, Gilbert Ibbera, Samuel Macies. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink spoke. He felt that the board must be careful, as others can turn things into precedent that weren't intended to be such. He feels that the board must be careful, as variances may be used to re-write code. J. Sheldon commented that quite a large garage could be constructed within code. M. Clark stated that she was trying to weigh two points, one being that, in terms of lot size, the request does not seem unreasonable. The other concern is that of future use, as oversize garages can become body shops or other businesses which can have a negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of noise and other adverse conditions. J. Ruff commented on the increase in requests for garage size variances, comparing the usual request with this particular request. He stated that, if this request were approved, the fact that the Board heard this case, and recorded it, serves as future deterrent to converting the garage to a business. He also spoke of a potential future change in the code to allow a more graduated scale of garage size. E. Spink compared this situation to another similar situation on Mt. Hope Avenue, wherein the owners were not allowed to put garage doors on the storage building. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 9, 1995 - Page 3 G. Hilts stated that he feels this is a request for a garage, not a storage shed. He also has a problem with the owners building the addition, then requesting a variance when they were discovered. He stated that he cannot support this variance. E. Spink stated that he will not support this request for storage, as he also feels that it is really a request for a garage. He stated that the driveway is not restricted, and feels that the code provides sufficient storage space for a one family dwelling and that this owner is blessed with property. E. Spink made a motion to deny the request, as the present code allows sufficient - space for a one family lot, and that there is no demonstration of hardship. G. Hilts seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Hilts X Page X Horne X Spink X Carlson X Motion not carried: The board was evenly split, 4 voting yea and 4 voting nay. E. Spink made a motion to approve the variance to construct at or just below the flood elevation for Code Allowed Buildings. Motion seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Hilts X Page X Horne X Spink X Carlson X Motion carried: The flood elevation portion of the variance passes by a vote of 6 yea to 2 nay. The variance is partially approved. No other motions were made. B. B ZA-3326.95, 601 S. Cesar Chavez, a request by Donald Hartwick to construct an 11.6' x 21.2' addition onto the south side of the building at 601 S. Cesar Chavez, 7 feet from the (south) side property line. This is a requested variance of 3' to the minimum side yard setback requirement of 10 feet. J. Ruff presented the staff report. Don Hartwick, contractor/applicant, presented information on the case. He described how they were rearranging the existing facilities and adding an elevator. He said that the other choices were worse, they could put an 8' addition on the front of the building, or a small addition on Hillsdale Street. Their only other choice was that which is requested. which will provide a great impact on the floor plan. This will be a two story addition, there will be no windows, and will leave a BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 9, 1995 - Page 4 pleasing roof line, which will improve the appearance and be in keeping with its historical nature. There were no other comments. A letter which supported the variance request from the Lansing Historic District Commission was read into the record by N. Carlson, Chair. E. Spink made a motion to approved the request, based upon Dr. Hutchinson's long term commitment to improvement, this improvement is in keeping with the Historic District, and the restrictive site conditions create a hardship. Seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Hilts X Page X Horne X Spink X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3326.95 approved by a vote of 8 to 0. C. BZA-3327.95, 1940 N. Larch (S.E. Corner of N. Larch and Lake Lansing Road), a request by Gregory Lentz for a 17' setback variance to erect a ground pole sign for a new business. The Sign Code requires a 21' setback for a 72 sq. ft. ground pole sign. The proposed ground pole sign would set back 4' from the front property line. J. Ruff presented the case. Gregory Lentz, owner/applicant of 1940 N. Larch, stated that the shape of the lot is trapezoidal, and sought to clarify the setting of his property and its uniqueness. He spoke of his desire to lessen the impact of this shop on the neighborhood. J. Ruff questioned Mr. Lentz in an attempt to clarify the case. Pat Hunt of 12586 Wood Road, co-owner of 610 Woodbury, spoke. She stated that the primary objection is that there are only a few homes, many of the adjoining property owners work 2nd and 3rd shift and sleep during the day. Noise and parking are anticipated to be a problem. At this point, E. Spink asked for a point of order to remind the Board, as well as the speaker, that the parking problems, the building, traffic, and other issues mentioned are not issues this Board can consider; the only issue for this Board is the sign. He stated that he felt it would be proper to keep the statements limited to the sign. The Board and the speaker concurred. Ms. Hunt stated that the traffic flowing off of Lake Lansing is not visible at this time, and a sign could further obstruct vision, making it worse. They would rather not have a sign at all. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES Feoruary 9, 1995 - Page 5 Janice Frasier, 611 Woodbury, stated that she is opposed due to the visual obstacle, that there are lots of accidents now, and feels that with a sign there it would be worse. E. Spink asked for further clarification from J. Ruff as to the site and layout of the sign. J. Ruff did this. M. Clark inquired of J. Ruff whether there was mention in the code of the obstruction of vision by parked vehicles. J. Ruff indicated that this is not addressed in the parking regulations. G. Hilts inquired why the sign couldn't be set right next to the building? J. Ruff answered that the overhead doors to the building would be on the west side, which prevents the sign from being placed there. The applicant added some architectural information for the placement being further away. E. Spink asked J. Ruff about the staff recommendation, whether they consider eight feet to be the maximum setback that they consider appropriate to this property. J. Ruff responded that the architect wanted to keep the sign foundation away from the building foundation. The eight foot setback is the closest practical distance. He also stated that, because of the site limitations, the opportunity arises for a grade level sign, but that was more obstructing of view than getting it up a little bit and away from the visibility problem at street level. E. Spink made a motion that BZA-3327.95 at 1949 N. Larch be approved for a 12' setback variance to erect a 20' tall, 63 square foot ground pole sign which would be set back 8 feet from the front property line, to become as conforming to the ordinance as is reasonable in this situation, based upon the staff report. G. Hilts seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Hilts X Page X Horne X Spink X Carlson X Motion carried: BZA-3327.95 approved by a vote of 8 to 0. III. Excused Absences A. J. Sheldon asked for an excused absence from the March meeting. E. Horne made a motion to excuse her, seconded by H. LeBlanc. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. NOTE: H. LeBlanc asked for and received an excused absence for the March meeting at the January meeting. IV. Public Comment A. None BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 9, 1995 - Page 6 V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures 1. We are waiting for the ethics board on this issue. VI. Approval of Minutes A. January 12, 1995 E. Spink made a motion, seconded by G. Hilts, to approve the minutes of January 12, 1995, as typed. Motion carried unanimously on a voice vote, with the exception of Page and Horne, who were not in attendance at that meeting. VII. New Business A. E. Spink thinks he has seen a new type of accessory structure: A small satellite dish. He feels that it does not look as bad as the brown dumpsters in front yards. VIII. Adjournment A. Meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzafeb.95 Approved 02/09/95 95-G2-22P02 : C�, i,::�,�. PP To Clerk 02/22/95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 12, 1995, 7:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10TH FLOOR I. The meeting was called to order by N. Carlson at 7:33 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present J. Sheldon H. LeBlanc M. Clark C. Bicy G. Hilts N. Carlson E. Spink B . Excused Absences None 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 II. Hearings A. B ZA-3324.95, 202 S. Holmes Street This is a request by Richard Divine of Dioxco, Inc. , representing Lynn Yothers, owner of 202 S. Holmes Street, to construct a 30' x 20' addition to the west side of the house, resulting in a 7' front yard setback along Eureka Street, a 20' rear yard setback to the west property line, and a building lot coverage of 43.11 o. J. Ruff presented the case. Lynn Yothers presented information. Rev. Bicy inquired as to how much work she will be doing at this location. Ms. Yothers replied that there was not much, but that this is her self expression. She presents shows to schools and to others. This room will be a multi use space, including a laundry/bath and a family room. The type of work she will do there is primarily oil painting, however, she also paints using other media. Troy Spitzley, architect, spoke. He stated that this improvement to the neighborhood will not hinder anyone's view. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES January 12, 1995 - Page 2 Comments from Richard Berry of 1228 Eureka Street were read into the record. He stated his concerns that the view from his living room to the east will be blocked and that the property values of homes in the area will be lost due to Sparrow Hospital's expansion. M. Clark spoke, stating that she is opposed to the lot coverage, feeling that it is a problem in this area of the City. However, she would support the other requested variances. G. Hilts spoke. He stated that he understands the situation, and feels that 3% lot coverage is not a very big deal. E. Spink spoke. He is concerned that this addition is to do business. If the goal of this major addition was to expand the residential aspects of the house, he could be agreeable, but is not willing to concede 3% lot coverage. M. Clark made a motion to approve the front yard setback variance of 13' and rear yard setback variance of 51; finding that since this is a corner lot it is restricted to where an addition could be placed, this is an appropriate request. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Spink X Motion approved: The side and rear yard setback portions of BZA-3324.94 were passed by a vote of 7 to 0. M. Clark made a motion to deny the appeal of lot coverage, finding that it would set a residential precedent and could adversely impact the area. E. Spink seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Spink X Motion approved: The lot coverage portion of BZA-3324.94 is denied by a vote of 5 to 2. III. Excused Absences A. None BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES January 12, 1995 - Page 3 IV. Public Comment A. None V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures 1. We are waiting for the ethics board on this issue. VI. Approval of Minutes A. December 8, 1994 C. Bicy made a motion, seconded by G. Hilts, to approve the minutes of December 8, 1994, as typed. VII. New Business A. H. LeBlanc requested an excused absence for March 9, 1995. G. Hilts made a motion to approve the request, seconded by E. Spink. Motion carried by voice vote. VIII. Adjournment A. Meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzajan.95 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 110 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT JANUARY 12, 1995, 7:30 p.m. �,r_-J-1'S1! !G CI i`(%Ty11;HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOTH FLOOR I. The meeting was called to order by N. Carlson at 7:33 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present J. Sheldon H. LeBlanc M. Clark C. Bicy G. Hilts N. Carlson E. Spink B. Excused Absences None 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 II. Hearings A. B ZA-3324.95, 202 S. Holmes Street This is a request by Richard Divine of Dioxco, Inc. , representing Lynn Yothers, owner of 202 S. Holmes Street, to construct a 30' x 20' addition to the west side of the house, resulting in a 7' front yard setback along Eureka Street, a 20' rear yard setback to the west property line, and a building lot coverage of 43.110. J. Ruff presented the case. Lynn Yothers presented information. Rev. Bicy inquired as to how much work she will be doing at this location. Ms. Yothers replied that there was not much, but that this is her self expression. She presents shows to schools and to others. This room will be a multi use space, including a laundry/bath and a family room. The type of work she will do there is primarily oil painting, however, she also paints using other media. Troy Spitzley, architect, spoke. He stated that this improvement to the neighborhood will not hinder anyone's view. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES January 12, 1995 - Page 2 Comments from Richard Berry of 1228 Eureka Street were read into the record. He stated his concerns that the view from his living room to the east will be blocked and that the property values of homes in the area will be lost due to Sparrow Hospital's expansion. M. Clark spoke, stating that she is opposed to the lot coverage, feeling that it is a problem in this area of the City. However, she would support the other requested variances. G. Hilts spoke. He stated that he understands the situation, and feels that 3 0 lot coverage is not a very big deal. E. Spink spoke. He is concerned that this addition is to do business. If the goal of this major addition was to expand the residential aspects of the house, he could be agreeable, but is not willing to concede 3% lot coverage. M. Clark made a motion to approve the front yard setback variance of 13' and rear yard setback variance of 5'; finding that since this is a corner lot it is restricted to where an addition could be placed, this is an appropriate request. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay ea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Spink X Motion approved: The side and rear yard setback portions of B ZA-3324.94 were passed by a vote of 7 to 0. M. Clark made a motion to deny the appeal of lot coverage, finding that it would set a residential precedent and could adversely impact the area. E. Spink seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Sheldon X Bicy X Hilts X Carlson X Spink X Motion approved: The lot coverage portion of B ZA-3324.94 is denied by a vote of 5 to 2. III. Excused Absences A. None BOARD OF ZONING t-iPPEALS MINUTES January 12, 1995 - Page 3 IV. Public Comment A. None V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures 1. We are waiting for the ethics board on this issue. VI. Approval of Minutes A. December 8, 1994 C. Bicy made a motion, seconded by G. Hilts, to approve the minutes of December 8, 1994, as typed. VII. New Business A. H. LeBlanc requested an excused absence for March 9, 1995. G. Hilts made a motion to approve the request, seconded by E. Spink. Motion carried by voice Vote. VIII. Adjournment A. Meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals c:\wp\data\bza\bzajan.95