Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 1999 Minutes Draft to Clerk 12/15/99 Approved 01/19/00 To Clerk 01/20/00 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 9, 1999, 7:30 P.M. WftOUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick V. Earhart B. Burgess G. Hilts R. McCloud Staff: J. Ruff A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Change in agenda: Item B under"Old Business"was incorrectly labeled on the agenda as BZA- 3528.99. The case was corrected to BZA-3531.99. E. Horne made motion to approve agenda. Supported by V. Earhart. Carried unanimously for approval. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3562.99, 6140 Pleasant Grove Rd. J. Ruff presented the case. This is a request by SBA Inc. requesting a variance for a proposed 190-foot high communication tower. The property is zoned G-2 Wholesale District and Chapter 1272 restricts the limits in the G2 District to 40 feet in height. Therefore, there is a requested variance of 150 feet. The purpose of this variance is to help replace what has recently been done at the school board where they turned down the Hill Center for Academics and Technology, the contract with SBA, to construct a tower there. Everything was in order, site plan, building permits, ready to roll. They spent about 4 months in finance committee trying to finalize the deal and finally convinced them to move it through to the school board, and the board turned it down. He stated that SBA wanted to look at a different site, and then came up with this site which is adjacent at Pleasant Grove, Miller and M-99. It's a storage warehouse site. He also stated that if they weren't utilizing the school districts ahead of time they probably would have come up with the site right next door, which is a storm water detention pond area for the City of Lansing, because it met a lot of the criteria, but because they were trying to assist the school district, they chose the Hill site, which they also thought was a very reasonable site due to its size and the proximity of utilities. SBA has a tenant already lined up for the tower, but will have to delay the project until this is taken care of. Staff has looked at the site and believes it is an excellent location. On the south side there's a 60-foot right-of-way with an easement for a storm drain line covered with trees, which provides a buffer to the south and the expressway. The Planning Board took action to approve on 12/8/99; only the applicant was there to speak for the case. Staff recommends approval with the five basic conditions: monopole tower, tower provide for co-location of antennas to reduce need for additional towers, use shall not interfere with communications of local hospitals and emergency services, tower shall be accessible for security, and special land sue be approved by City Council. Also, when City Council BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBr-R 9, 1999 PAGE 2 approved the land use, they stated that the BZA must approve the height variance. Planning Board took action to pursue a revocation of the special land use on the Hill site for the purpose of preventing another opportunity without further review to put another tower there, thus working against the plan of reducing the number of towers in the city. The applicant, Mark Roberts, 26211 Central Park Blvd., Suite 415, Southfield, MI 48076 (representing SBA), stated that this is a site for which they had already gained approval when they ran into a glitch with the school district and had to relocate. He thinks that this is probably a better site since it is close to utilities and the expressway and is screened by trees and residential neighborhoods. He believes that the location meets the city's intent to reduce the number of towers. A. Frederick commented that this was heard at the Planning Board meeting Tuesday night and was referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee; fortunately the Z&O Committee was planning to meet during recess. They took it up, since there was a delay in SBA's schedule and recommended its approval and reported that out to the full board, and the board voted that evening. He commented that the board was able to save SBA a little time by pushing it through so fast, and the timing of the BZA meeting also worked in SBA's favor. Mr. Roberts thanked A. Frederick for the effort. M. Clark moved that BZA-3562.99, 6140 Pleasant Grove Rd., be approved with the conditions indicated in the report for the 150' variance. Supported by V. Earhart. E. Horne commented that she is pleased with the location; she is happy it is on the outskirts. On a roll call vote,there were 7 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously with the following conditions: monopole tower, tower provide for co-location of antennas to reduce need for additional towers, use shall not interfere with communications of local hospitals and emergency services, tower shall be accessible for security, and special land sue be approved by City Council. B. BZA-3563.99, 235 N. Fairview J. Ruff made the presentation. This is a request by Kevin Ditmer, 235 N. Fairview, for a variance in the front yard setback in order to build a detached carport garage 10 feet from the front property line, which faces Vine St. This is a corner lot, the north property faces Vine St. Section 1248.07b of the Zoning Code requires a minimum setback of 20 feet from the property line; the applicant is requesting a setback of 10 feet. Therefore, the 10 foot variance is requested. This corner situation -they would have normally been allowed a side yard setback in this situation. He pointed out the house in question on the map. All the four houses that face the other streets face outside, so this would normally be a side yard setback with a 6 foot minimum setback. But there's a house - 2010 Vine St. - it's the tail end of 2 lots, and because this house faces Vine St., it makes a front yard setback on this side for all 4 other houses as well. Mr. Ditmer's father checked the setbacks of the other structures, and the other structures will all be closer to the property line than the garage, so the garage will not be in front of the front line of these structures even with the 10 foot setback. There is a little oddity here with the right-of-way that he hopes will be corrected at some time: there's a little 3 foot extra space next to this lot. It at some time the applicants could get that space from the State it would create a 13 foot setback. J. Ruff hasn't even talked to them about that; the Assessor's Office is trying to make an effort in this. The applicant came in at first for an 18' deep by 22' wide carport with a 12 foot setback from the property line; at some point in time the applicant hopes to enclosed the carport and make a garage out of it. After discussion they decided to apply for a 20'x 22'garage so there would be 20' of depth inside the structure, so that if it were enclosed the applicants could have a garage and not have to come back to the Board for two extra feet. There would be 18' between the front of the garage and the sidewalk, so there's just enough space to park in front of the garage without going into the sidewalk. It won't interfere with the views down the street or from the neighbor's BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 9, 1999 PAGE 3 driveway-the carport would be on the side closest to the neighbor's driveway at 2010 Vine, which is a very shallow lot. Because of the hardships involved with this corner lot, which is 33'wide, and the lack of adverse impact on adjoining properties, the staff is recommending approval. K. Ditmer stated that the proposal is self-explanatory, and offered to answer any questions. There were none. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3563.99, 235 N. Fairview, a front yard setback variance of 10 feet from the north property line for the proposed detached carport garage. Seconded by R. McCloud. A. Frederick commented that this was a very easy call; it is clear that the zoning code is the cause, and the Board is almost required to approve this variance. On a roll call vote,there were 7 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch - remains tabled B. BZA-3531.99, 221-227 N. Capitol Response received from Steve Owen from Capitol Outlook LLC withdrawing their application for a setback variance for a parking garage between two historic churches. V. Earhart moved to take the case off the table in order to accept the withdrawal. Seconded by A. Frederick. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. E. Horne moved to accept the withdrawal of the case. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. C. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan -no action taken D. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw- no action taken V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. J. Ruff thanked the Board and talked about upcoming activity, including research on code amendments regarding garages and front yard setbacks, as well as amendments regarding motor vehicle sales. He stated that he would like to eliminate some of the cases having to do with obvious natural variances. M. Clark asked about vehicle nuisances. Discussion ensued regarding the nuisance section of the city code and the Landscape Screening and Buffering Ordinance. G. Hilts asked if everyone had received an invitation to the City Council party next week. He suggested that the Board members lobby the Council to recruit more members. A. Frederick commented that the Planning Board met with the planning staff on 12/8 to review the work that has been done and to provide direction to the staff for the next year. He suggested that staff keep a record of variances by type and frequency and report this to the Planning Board for potential code changes. He then summarized the Planning Board's recommendation to seek revocation of the Special Land Use for the Lansing School District Discussion took place. A. Frederick moved that the Board request staff to explore revocation of the variance and find out if it is even possible. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 9, 1999 PAGE 4 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of November 18, 1999 E. Horne commented that as she arrived late, her comments were recorded, but her presence in the roll call was not. A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes with the correction. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS None VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 12/15/99 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CUE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 9, 1999, 7:30 P.M. ' CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Clark A. Frederick V. Earhart B. Burgess G. Hilts R. McCloud E. Horne Staff: J. Ruff A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Change in agenda: Item B under"Old Business"was incorrectly labeled on the agenda as BZA- 3528.99. The case was corrected to BZA-3531.99. E. Horne moved to approve the agenda. V. Earhart seconded. Approved unanimously. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3562.99, 6140 Pleasant Grove Rd J. Ruff presented the case. This is a request by SBA Inc, requesting a variance for a proposed 190-foot high communication tower. The property is zoned G-2 Wholesale District and Chapter 1272 restricts the limits in the G-2 district to 40 feet in height, therefore there is a requested variance of 150 feet. The purpose of this variance is to help replace what has recently been done at the school board where they turned down the Hill Center for Academics and Technology, the contract with SBA, to construct a tower there. Everything was in order, site plan, building permits, ready to roll. They spent about 4 months in finance committee trying to finalize the deal and finally convinced them to move it through to the school board, and the school board turned it down. He stated that SBA wanted to look at a different site, and they came up with this site which is adjacent at Pleasant Grover, Miller and M-99. It's a storage warehouse site. He also stated that if they weren't utilizing the school districts ahead of time they probably would have come up with the site right next door, which is a storm water detention pond area for the City of Lansing, because it met a lot of the criteria, but because they were trying to assist the school district, they chose the Hill site, which they also thought was a very reasonable site due to its size and the proximity of utilities. SBA has a tenant already lined up for the tower, but will have to delay the project until this is taken care of. Staff has looked at the site and believes it is an excellent location. On the south side there's a 60-foot right-of-way with an easement for a storm drain line covered with trees, which provides a buffer to the south and the expressway. The Planning Board took action to approve on 12/8/99; only the applicant was there to speak for the case. Staff recommends approval with the five basic conditions: monopole tower, tower provide for co-location of antennas to reduce need for additional towers, use shall not interfere with communications of local hospitals and emergency services, tower shall be accessible for security, and special land use be approved by City Council. Also, when City Council approved the land use, they stated that the BZA must approve the height variance. Planning board took action to pursue a revocation of the special DRAFT 2 land use on the Hill site for the purpose of preventing another opportunity without further review to put another tower there, thus working against the plan of reducing the number of towers in the city. The applicant, Mark Roberts, 26211 Central Park Blvd, Suite 415, Southfield, MI 48076 (representing SBA), stated that this is a site for which they had already gained approval when they ran into a glitch with the school district and had to relocate. He thinks that this is probably a better site since it is close to utilities and the expressway and is screened by trees and residential neighborhoods. He believes that the location meets the city's intent to reduce the number of towers. A. Frederick commented that this was heard at the Planning Board meeting Tuesday night and was referred to the Zoning and Ordinance Committee; fortunately the Z&O Comm. was planning to meet during recess. They took it up, since there was a delay in SBA's schedule and recommended its approval and reported that out to the full board, and the board voted that evening. He commented that the board was able to save SBA a little time by pushing it through so fast, and the timing of the BZA meeting also worked in SBA's favor. Mr. Roberts thanked A. Frederick for the effort. M. Clark moved that BZA-3562.99, 6140 Pleasant Grove Rd., be approved with the conditions indicated in the report for the 150' variance. Supported by V. Earhart. E. Horne commented that she is pleased with the location; she is happy it is on the outskirts. On a roll call vote, there were 7 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously with the following conditions: 1) monopole tower; 2) tower provide for co-location of antennas to reduce need for additional towers; 3) use shall not interfere with communications of local hospitals and emergency services; 4)tower shall be accessible for security; and 5) special land use be approved by City Council. B. BZA-3563.99, 235 N. Fairview J. Ruff made the presentation. This is a request by Kevin Ditmer, 235 N. Fairview, for a variance in the front yard setback in order to build a detached carport garage 10 feet from the front property line, which faces Vine St. This is a corner lot, the north property faces Vine St. Section 1248.07b of the Zoning Code requires a minimum setback of 20 feet from the property line; the applicant is requesting a setback of 10 feet, therefore the 10 foot variance is requested. This corner situation -they would have normally been allowed a side yard setback in this situation. He pointed out the the house in question on the map. All the four houses that face the other streets face outside, so this would normally be a side yard setback with a 6 foot minimum setback. But there's a house- 2010 Vine St. - it's the tail ends of 2 lots, and because this house faces Vine St., it makes a front yard setback on this side for all 4 other houses as well. Mr. Ditmer's father checked the setbacks of the other structures, and the other structures will all be closer to the property line than the garage, so the garage will not be in front of the front line of these structures even with the 10 foot setback. There is a little oddity here with the right-of-way that he hopes will be corrected at some time: there's a little 3 foot extra space next to this lot. If at some time the applicants could get that space from the State it would create a 13 foot setback. J. Ruff hasn't even talked to them about that; the Assessor's Office is trying to make an effort in this. The applicant came in at first for an 18' deep by 22'wide carport with a 12 foot setback from the property line; at some point in time the applicant hopes to enclose the carport and make a garage out of it. After discussion they decided to apply for a 20'x 22' garage so there would be 20' of depth inside the structure, so that if it were enclosed the applicants could have a garage and not have to come back to the Board for two extra feet. There would be 18' between the front of the garage and the sidewalk, so there's just enough space to park in front of the garage without going into the sidewalk. It won't interfere with the views down the street DRAFT 3 or from the neighbor's driveway-the carport would be on the side closest to the neighbor's driveway at 2010 Vine, which is a very shallow lot. Because of the hardships involved with this corner lot, which is 33'wide, and the lack of adverse impact on adjoining properties, the staff is recommending approval. K. Ditmer stated that the proposal is self-explanatory, and offered to answer any questions. There were none. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3563.99, 235 N. Fairview, a front yard setback variance of 10 feet from the north property line for the proposed detached carport garage. Seconded by R. McCloud. A. Frederick commented that this was a very easy call; it is clear that the zoning code is the cause, and the Board is almost required to approve this variance. On a roll call vote, there were 7 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch - remains tabled B. BZA-3531.99, 221-227 N. Capitol Response received from Steve Owen from Capitol Outlook LLC withdrawing their application for a setback variance for a parking garage between two historic churches. V. Earhart moved to take the case off the table in order to accept the withdrawal. Seconded by A. Frederick. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. E. Horne moved to accept the withdrawal of the case. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. C. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan - No action taken D. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw- No action taken V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. J. Ruff thanked the Board and talked about upcoming activity, including research on code amendments regarding garages and front yard setbacks, as well as amendments regarding motor vehicle sales. He stated that he would like to eliminate some of the cases having to do with obvious natural variances. M. Clark asked about vehicle nuisances. Discussion ensued regarding the nuisance section of the city code and the Landscape Screening and Buffering Ordinance. G. Hilts asked if everyone had received an invitation to the City Council party next week. He suggested that the Board members lobby the Council to recruit more members. A. Frederick commented that the Planning Board met with the planning staff on 12/8 to review the work that has been done and to provide direction to the staff for the next year. He suggested that staff keep a record of variances by type and frequency and report this to the Planning Board for potential code changes. He then summarized the Planning Board's recommendation to seek revocation of the Special Land Use for the Lansing School District. Discussion took place. A. Frederick moved that the Board request staff to explore revocation of the variance and find out if it is even possible. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. DRAFT 4 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of November 18, 1999 E. Horne commented that as she arrived late, her comments were recorded, but her presence in the roll call was not. A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes with the correction. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS None. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 12/01/99 Approved 12/09/99 To Clerk 01/19/00 c I`x"~n MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS .':' r, P:°i 3 J NOVEMBER 18, 1999, 7:30 P.M. Lts7y,il� r�l i1' CI ��'� CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. G. Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Clark A. Frederick V. Earhart B. Burgess G. Hilts R. McCloud Staff: J. Ruff J. Sturdevant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA J. Ruff requested to add under NEW BUSINESS -the Board's next meeting. No motion made. III. HEARINGSIACTION A. BZA-3559.99, 824 Bates J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that this request is the same property that the Board looked at last month for 824 Bates Street. The difference between this request and the one that the Board reviewed last month is the applicant has decided that instead of an 8' porch, she needs a 10'wide porch which requires an additional 2' of variance. Part of the reason for this is that there was some misunderstanding on the original request that they reviewed last month where the applicant had asked for a range and J. Sturdevant took the first number that was listed which was for an 8' porch. He stated that if he had realized at that time, he would have put the larger variance in the report at that time. The report the Board had in front of them is the same report as reviewed last month with the changes struck out and the additional information inserted. Instead of a variance of 1.6' from the front yard setback requirement, the extra 2' on the porch would require a variance of 3.6' for the 10' porch. With that, staff recommends approval. Linda Regis, 824 Bates, addressed the Board. She stated that last time there was a meeting, there was a misunderstanding about it. It didn't get fully discussed the way that she had put it down. She stated that she asked for up to 12% but she would settle for 10' -that is enough. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark moved that BZA-3559.99, 824 Bates, be approved for the 3.6'variance requested for the same reasons that the Board approved the variance last month. It is a reasonable setback and reasonable use of property. The irregular setbacks and distances up and down the street are part of the reason that the variance is needed. Supported by B. Burgess. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. B. BZA-3560.99, 1700 W. Willow J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this is a requested sign variance for an existing service station at 1700 W. Willow. It is presently a Bay Petroleum Corp. station. They are changing name brands on it to Citgo similar to what the Board reviewed a DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPE 3 MEETING MINUTES NOVER -R 18, 1999 PAGE 2 J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this is a requested sign variance for an existing service station at 1700 W. Willow. It is presently a Bay Petroleum Corp. station. They are changing name brands on it to Citgo similar to what the Board reviewed a couple of years ago on North East St. What the applicant intends to do is to remove a free standing sign which is 70 square feet in size. It extends 8V into the right of way. It has a flashing arrow on it and is non-conforming in many senses of the word today. In doing so, the applicant would like to relocate a new 50 square foot goal post sign which would be located in the island on the corner of Willow and Comfort Street. In doing so, they are making a significant improvement in the size of the sign - reducing it from 70 to 50 square feet and they are locating it further back in the island. The property is 12,000 square feet in size. It is primarily residentially zoned around the site with the exception of heavy industrial zoning and land uses to the west. The station is being improved and modified. The variances requested require a 16'/2 ft variance and a 15 ft variance respectively from the two street frontages. Being a corner lot, it would normally be required to have an 18 ft setback for this size of sign. This sign is designed to have head room underneath it and then is elevated above. It is very similar to one that was approved on North East Street in a similar fashion that the Board reviewed a couple of years ago. Staff believes that this meets the intent of what the Board has sought in modifying existing commercial non-conforming sign situations where conformance, even though it is not practical to meet it because then the sign would end up in the circulation pattern of two drive aisles, it does improve the sign situation over the existing. Staff recommends approval. A. Frederick asked about the first sentence at the bottom of page 2. The word "setback" was left out. He stated that he assumes that the setback cannot be increased any more without really disrupting everything. J. Ruff referred to the site plan attached in the packet. He discussed the location of the sign and setbacks. Mr. David Suty, vice president of Bay Petroleum, addressed the Board. He stated that over the years working with the Planning Department and especially Jim Ruff- he has done a super job meeting with the community and the relationships that he has developed with the business community. Speaking for Bay, he really appreciates that. This particular site Bay has been operating for about 30 years. The sign that is erected there now has been there that long. As Jim had mentioned, the sign is in the right of way approximately 8 '/2 ft with a flashing arrow on it. It is approximately 70 square feet. They are proposing to change this to a new sign thus the request before the Board today. It is because they have an existing site that is rather small, existing islands, curb cuts. To meet the current sign ordinance of 18 feet would mean they would have to close a couple curb cuts. They would have trouble getting cars to and from their gasoline island. It wouldn't be a safe thing to stick in the middle of a parking lot. They feel that they do have a hardship, but at the same time they can substantially improve the position of the sign and meet the intent as best they can with the current sign code by moving it back into the property as a whole with modest setbacks of 1.6 and 3 feet. In fact, they are expanding the existing planting area that the pole is in now to accommodate this sign. They are moving that in to the maximum so that they can have good flow through the ingress and egress. The sign would be about 29% smaller, less than it is today and slightly shorter in height. He referred to a picture of the sign that he passed to the Board. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that when he read the report, he assumed that the word "setback"was going into that sentence. When he assumed so, he thought that the proposal seemed to attempt to meet the Zoning Code to get them closer to less intrusive signs. He thinks that the appellant had done a good job in trying to meet that and in reducing the square footage of the sign as well. These lots with two front yards or corner lots always seem as though they are a difficult one to DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APP -S MEETING MINUTES NOVE►"—ER 18, 1999 PAGE 3 make under the Zoning Code. To him, it seems like a reasonable request. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3560.99, 1700 W. Willow, a variance of 16.5 feet and 15 feet. Seconded by V. Earhart. On a roll call vote,there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. C. BZA-3561.99, 709 N. Larch St. J. Sturdevant presented the case. He referred to the graphic drawings in the Board reports. He stated that this is the former site of Leon's Foods. It is zoned light industrial. The applicant has cleared the site and is building a new facility from the ground up. This facility is a combination of a gasoline filling station and convenience store as well as a McDonalds Restaurant. He thinks that there is one other facility that is similar to this down off of Dunckel Rd. near US-127/496 where it is kind of a hybrid between two different uses in one building. The applicant has recently gotten approval of a site plan for this development. He referred to that approval in the report. The proposed ground pole sign is located near the corner of Larch and Saginaw. He referred to the drawing in the packet. He stated that the Sign Code allows a sign of 142 square feet. However, it would have to be limited in height to 30 feet and setback 30 feet from the property line with a height of 30 feet. The applicant is proposing to have the sign 31.58 feet, therefore they are requesting a variance of 1.58 feet in height. It would have to be set back a minimum of 30 feet for the square footage of the sign that is proposed. They are looking at a variance of 16 feet, which means a 14 foot variance in the setback. When the Planning Office analizes a variance request such as this, the first thing they look at is "Does a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship exist?" This site being built brand new from the ground up, there is plenty of opportunity to design into the site design and into the layout of the property an appropriate place to put the kind of sign that they would expect to have. They have not done that here. They have decided to request a sign that is larger than the code allows and to have it up closer to the property line than the code would allow for a sign of that particular size. J. Sturdevant brought this point up at the site plan review process for this property. The surrounding neighborhood is commercial in nature. There are other signs in the area, but there are also other businesses that, as they have updated, have brought their signage into conformance with the code. Because the hardship, he feels, is self created in this way, he cannot rightfully recommend approval of it. He recommends denial. V. Earhart asked a question related to the map attached to the packet. Discussion ensued regarding zoning of particular areas on the map. J. Ruff explained area and zoning referring to map. A. Frederick stated that on the description of the variance, it sounded to him like the setback distance was determined by the height. J. Sturdevant stated that the chart in the Sign Code that covers that matter goes by two different items -setback and square footage. Essentially the setback is one foot back for every foot up. With that, it gradually allows the square footage of the sign to increase up to a maximum of 170 square feet with a 30' high sign that is set back 30'. A. Frederick asked in order to have this sign where the applicant wants it, what would the maximum height be? J. Sturdevant stated that the sign would be 16 feet. J. Ruff explained that the difference in this case is that they have a maximum height allowance for signs of 30' and the code doesn't go beyond that. With this proposed to be in excess of 30', they stated the variance as such so that everything above 30' has to be varied and the setback for this sign also has to be varied from their maximum standard. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APP' .S MEETING MINUTES NOVEF`ER 18, 1999 PAGE 4 Jeff Abood, Mooney Oil Corporation SuperMart Inc., addressed the Board. He stated that originally when they submitted their application, he submitted a drawing. He met with Mr. Sturdevant on a couple of occasions regarding what can be done and what was allowed and Mr. Sturdevant detailed that indicating through the ordinance what the requirements were and they have tried to comply with the ordinance given the restrictions that they have on the site. He doesn't believe at this time that they actually need a sign that is 317". He referred to a drawing of the sign. He stated that he doesn't believe that they need to go quite that high with their sign. Secondly, he stated that in regards to the 16 foot setback, from the original site plan that he presented to Mr-Sturdevant, he then faxed over an amended site plan showing that the curb radius was taken in. He referred to a fax and map that was sent to the office. He now shows a 22' setback. J. Sturdevant stated that was done after he prepared the report. He stated that as he explained to the applicant on the phone how the report was, then.the applicant tried to amend that at the meeting as he is doing now. Mr. Abood stated that the setback they currently have is 22'. He stated that he has competing interests there. He has a convenience store on the site. He has a gas station and McDonalds-all of which would like to get as much visibility as possible. At this time, they are not indicating any signage for the convenience store and they have taken the signage down - really they qualify for two pole signs on the site-they have tried to combine that into one sign and putting the family of concerned interests on that sign and try to minimize their signage for the site with regards to centrally locating them on the corner. He stated that he understands that practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship are the standards that the Board follows in order to grant a variance. They have taken some very concerted efforts to make substantial improvements to this site. He is sure that the Board is familiar with how this location sat for years and years with the old Leon's buildings on there. Just by removing those was a significant eye sore taken away from that marquis corner in the city of Lansing. They have tried to work with the neighbors with regards to during and throughout the construction period, they have kept the roads swept, they have kept enough aggregate on the ground as to not track any mud out. They have been concerned about the neighbors. Hopefully the neighbors will be their customers and they certainly don't want to get off on the wrong foot with any of their neighbors. The animal hospital to the north has been very cooperative with them. There is a dilapidated fence that the applicant is planning on taking out and doing some landscaping with regards to that north property line. Their landscaping is going to be significant on the site. They intend to make this a premier location in Lansing. Their landscaping contract is approximately$30,000, not that there is a lot of greenbelt there, but what greenbelt is going to be there will have underground sprinkler systems, nice grass, berming, trees. That was submitted on their landscape legend with their original site plan that went through the city. They have struggled with this site in that they had initially requested three curb cuts on the site. They had their building set up so that their drive through would allow for as much flow as possible in regards to the drive through so that they could eliminate any kind of stacking problems. After working with MDOT, they had to actually turn the building 45 degrees because it was the position of MDOT that the curb cut on the eastern part of the site was not in the best interest of traffic pulling out onto Saginaw. So that made for a lot of recalculating with regards to their site to make everything come off Saginaw through that one curb cut. But he believes that they have accomplished a pretty good flow and site plan to accommodate the businesses that are going to be located there. The important thing with their signage and why they are requesting a variance to allow more height and more square footage is that they are dealing with two one-way streets - two one-way streets that they have one sign. In regards to the Burger King next door, they have an enormous sign. That obviously was done prior to the current ordinance that is in place. But as one is driving down Saginaw going east, that Burger King sign is very close to the road and very large. He feels strongly.that in order for a potential customer to recognize what is available on that site that signage is important so that they have enough notice to anticipate to get into the correct lane and go into the curb cut. When you are dealing with two one-way streets, it DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APP _S MEETING MINUTES NOW -ER 18, 1999 PAGE 5 adds somewhat of a more difficulty when you are dealing with signage in that you have to try to accommodate traffic invisibility so that people are going to be able to access your site. Also he believes that with the curb cuts that they have off of Larch heading north, they have the similar problems with needing visibility of a sign and having clear site lines. These are the reasons that they feel a variance of some type is in order for this location. As far as doing something different with the site plan in its initial stages, the circulation pattern on the site given there is a drive through, pumps and a canopy, this was really the only available location to place those things. They are dealing with city lots that don't have extra space. In order to have a good circulation pattern on the site, you have to try to give as much room for turning radius and so on. The only thing that he could do after talking to Mr. Sturdevant was to try to bring that curb radius on that southeast corner in as far as he could without inhibiting the traffic flow that currently exists on the site. For these reasons, they would like the Board to consider allowing them to have some type of flexibility with their signage. V. Earhart asked question in regards to map of area. J. Ruff clarified for her. Mr. Abood stated that they put all new curb and gutter and sidewalk all the way around the site. They are trying to make this a premier location for that corner. Hopefully it will be something that will benefit the city. B. Burgess asked if the changeable copy was for gas prices or what? Mr. Abood stated that it has to be for their price packs. M. Clark asked about the 2"d curb cut on Saginaw. Is there only one curb cut or two? Mr. Abood stated that there is only one curb cut on the west side of the property. General discussion ensued regarding curb cuts and entrances and exits. Mary McMinn, McDonalds, addressed the Board. She stated that McDonalds is excited about this prospect. This is the first time that she has been able to be before this board. She has been working as a real estate rep for McDonalds for about 5 years in the Lansing area and this is the first time that she has had the opportunity to be here. It is a real pleasure for her. As Mr. Abood stated, the family of signs is the best way to identify what is on the site and eliminate clutter, so that they would become a focal point and not an eye sore in Lansing. They are keeping all of their signage very sharp, very detailed and to the point. The Mooney's have gone back and readjusted the site. They turned the building and now they went back and extended the landscaping and cut into the drive so that they could get 22' that the setback would be. If they could get a variance for the 25' setback, in other words 3 feet, they can live with that and do signage that is appropriate with that. If she looks at the square footage then at a 25' setback would be 120 square feet. In other words, if they could have 120 square feet of signage at 22', that would work. They can scale down their sign. She told Mr. Ruff before their meeting that the sign that they are showing is the smallest sign that they have on this site. They are comfortable with the traffic that is there that the signage will be there. It will be a great location. They can take care of their needs at 25 feet high set back 22 feet. So it is only a 3 foot variance. V. Earhart clarified: 25 feet high, 120 square feet, 22 feet from both of the lines. M. McMinn stated that was correct. So it is actually only a 3 foot variance from the ordinance. In actuality, if you include the easement area for the utilities which is 6 or 8 feet, they are actually 30 feet back, but they don't allow you to include that. So it is actually 30 feet back from the property line, but there is an 8 foot easement in there for DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APP _S MEETING MINUTES NOVE" -ER 18, 1999 PAGE 6 utilities. She stated that they are trying very hard to work with the Board on this particular case. M. Clark asked what the variance is for that setback? J. Ruff stated that it was a 3'setback. He stated that a 25'tall sign, regardless of its area, requires a 25'setback. It is basically a 3'setback variance. General discussion ensued regarding easements, setbacks, etc. A. Frederick asked staff if this was a standard size lot? J. Ruff stated that it is a combination of lots. He referred to the plat map in the file. He then explained where the lots were, their size, etc. General discussion ensued regarding the lot size, size of sign, etc. M. Clark asked what the limitations of the easement were? Was it just for that lot or all the way down? J. Ruff stated that they're not sure exactly what the easement is. M. McMinn stated that she believed that the easement was a utility easement. General discussion ensued in relation to property lines, easements, etc. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart moved to table BZA-3561.99, 709 N. Larch. Seconded by M. Clark. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request has been tabled. Variance may not be necessary. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch - remains tabled B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol - remains tabled C. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan J. Ruff passed around a letter received for this case. M. Clark read letter to Board. J. Ruff stated that letter was the attachment to the original letter that was received earlier. M. Clark stated that her concern with the letter was that all of the conditions in the letter are referring to MSHDA employees and clients. If, at some point, someone else ended up in that building other than MSHDA, does that mean that they won't provide parking for them or if MSHDA left, are they not committing the parking to an additional use at some future date. All of the conditions are strictly MSHDA related. E. Horne agreed with what M. Clark stated. She stated that you don't know in the future what is going to be happening. MSHDA might want to sublet some of the space with other clientele and they won't know who it might be. J. Ruff stated that the letter should state "any and all occupants". He stated that he would talk to Sam Eyde and get a revised letter. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APF LS MEETING MINUTES NOVE- 'ER 18, 1999 PAGE 7 E. Horne also wondered who would prove this. She believes that there needs to be some checks and balances. General discussion ensued regarding paying for a study, parking enforcement, impact on the neighborhood, etc. M. Clark stated that she thinks in general city wide what they are talking about is something that needs to be considered. Specifically on the eastside, particularly in that particular corridor there has been so much controversy and effort over the years with Sparrow Hospital and the parking problems that existed on Michigan Avenue that to do this without a great deal of care and consideration is really risky. G. Hilts stated that his thought is to be careful in setting precedent because of all those years of work. A. Frederick stated that he has also heard comments that the Planning Board meetings, regarding the downtown area, that with the new buildings that are being rehabilitated and people moving in and the shift of tenants from old buildings to new buildings that they have reached capacity on their parking. He recalled a few months before hearing comments that won't happen for a while. General discussion ensued regarding parking areas and capacity. J. Ruff stated that they had done a parking study back in 1989. They are doing an RFP/Q for another study but broadening the scope of it somewhat. One of the answers that they are trying to get right now is participation from the state in financing it with them because they are including a lot of state facilities. They are awaiting their answer. They intend to do this by the end of the year and have a consultant on hand to do a study and qualify the need and location and system-wide what can the city do to improve its parking posture generally, not just how to add more spaces here, but take a look at their policies and objectives and how to carry them out. M. Clark stated that she received a call from Rick Kibbey from the Eastside Neighborhood Organization who was extremely concerned about an agreement that would be made that would say if they ever need it they will develop the property on Shiawassee without something being attached to the deed of the property like an easement. His concern was that if there isn't some kind of a legal attachment to that property, it will just slip through at some point. A. Frederick stated that the tone of the letter sounded like they didn't believe there was a problem. He thinks that they believe they are promising something that they will never have to do. He stated that he might agree with them if they said that the parking code requirements were a little too stringent or not. Nevertheless, the codes are there for them to see and understand before they start developing buildings. He stated that it sounds to him that it is primarily an issue of"let's save a little bit of money and only develop what we absolutely and positively can get away with". If they believe that the parking requirements are to stringent then let them go to the people who can change the rules and make their case there, rather than make their case before this Board. He believes that they can get some economic realization out of that property as it sits without having to deal with changing the parking rules. He is still not convinced that he should grant them anything unless they were more likely to come up with a real solid promise other than "here, we'll make some parking". M. Clark stated that her concern at this point is that the Board is not even granting them a variance at this point. They are saying that they don't need a variance anymore because they are going to make this deal and we will set aside this property for this use, so we don't need a variance. She stated that this is a way of getting around the whole thing. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPI S MEETING MINUTES NOVEL- ;ER 18, 1999 PAGE 8 G. Hilts stated that was his thought on setting precedent. A. Frederick stated that if they are saying that they don't need a variance, then the Board can take it off the table and deny it. He stated that he is not sure that they are making any agreement with the Board or with anybody else. But if they are going to make an agreement, they should make it with somebody who has the authority to accept it and he doesn't believe that is the Board. M. Clark stated that it becomes an issue that Jim R. needs to clarify, if they are saying that they are going to withdraw their request for variance, what authority of the department in general in making those kinds of deals when obviously a parking variance for 735 E. Michigan is required? J. Ruff stated that the property is zoned light industrial. The parking code allows options of using property in an industrial district up to 1000 feet away and not providing shuttle service. It doesn't have to be on site. Just like this property has the building and the parking around the building plus a lot across Hosmer St. The H-Light Industrial District allows up to 1000 feet to lease or obtain your parking to meet your code requirement separate from the lot itself. What they are requesting here is that-there are two things: 1)they are committing to use that lot for parking which is within 1000 feet. They could go within one mile and shuttle people and it doesn't have to be that lot; it can be any lot within 1000 feet. They are committing a lot that Eydes already own to providing that need. What they are asking the City is not to develop that lot with hard surface parking if it is not going to get used. He stated that he has suggested to them that they don't want a problem in the neighborhood because they could build the lot, meet their parking requirement and people still don't use it. There is nothing that says that people would have to park there and walk to the building. They could park in the neighborhood and walk to the building. They could find it easier to park on the street and walk to the front door. M. Clark stated that was exactly the war that was fought with Sparrow for 20 years. J. Ruff stated that Sparrow is not zoned industrial. The parking issue is the same, but the approach has to be thought about from a different vantage point because they have other opportunities that they could do, but it might not be practical. He doesn't know that employees would willingly walk from one spot from 960 feet away to the building. The point is how does the Board tie it in so that they can help control the parking. The gain in this is having their commitment to help monitor the situation in an agreeable manner so that if there is a problem, they have a system set up to help rectify the problem. He stated that MSHDA should be, and Mr. Greiner agreed with him, in the business of making sure they help neighborhoods. Thinking about this, how do we get them tied in to helping watch themselves. The other option they came to the Board with, when they were looking at rehabilitating and re-zoning the Civic Center, they approached the Planning Office and stated that they were going to re-zone 735 E. Michigan too to G-1 so that there would be no parking requirement. The office would not recommend this and it is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. J. Ruff also stated that further, Mr. Greiner stated that he didn't want to re-zone that because if he re-zones it to G-1, they won't get justification to pay for the on-site parking. The state won't require them to put the parking in, then they wouldn't pay for it. J. Ruff stated that the question, as it comes, how do they best get this here? Nobody disagrees with having MSHDA there necessarily but they are concerned about the parking impact. M. Clark stated that her other concern with the letter is that it states that"he will monitor this". But if MSHDA buys it, is MSHDA also signing a letter stating that they will monitor and is he tying the property to the building if he no longer owns the building? J. Ruff agrees with M. Clark. He stated that they could require them to put that in an easement deed restriction and the only way that Planning would eliminate that deed DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APP" '.S MEETING MINUTES NOVEV,ER 18, 1999 PAGE 9 restriction was that if you had another substitute for that or you reduce the usable square feet in the building to meet what parking you had available there or somewhere else. The monitoring is the difficult part. M. Clark stated that she agrees with Rick Kibbey that perhaps having a deed restriction is the only way to really efficiently monitor it without making somebody go around and be in an enforcement mode for the next 20 years. J. Ruff stated that he is not sure if he can get a deed restriction. The reason he says that is not because of necessarily Mr. Eyde, but he is not sure if he can get MSHDA and Eyde to do that. He stated that he can go back and talk about how to get as much assurances as possible of how this would work and whether it would be a letter of agreement that is placed on file through council and the city clerk and amended to the deed or their lease agreement, etc. That may help as well. He also stated that one of the things tonight's variances has brought up was Bay Petroleum on W. Willow. They built a new canopy a few years back in 1993. The canopy is allowed with a 12 foot setback. Jim Sturdevant discovered when they went through the rehabilitation process of this building to go to Citgo that the canopy is only 10 feet away. Things tend to, in some ways, catch up. They are cutting off 2 feet of that canopy to comply. That is just an example of catching up that happens from time to time. A. Frederick asked if J. Ruff knew if either the Eydes or Mr. Greiner have gone to the neighborhood to present the issue? As he recalled, the last time he talked to them that they said it was something that would be a good thing to do to at least present their side to the neighborhood. J. Ruff stated that he didn't know if they had. He stated that he thought information like this was conveyed to Mr. Kibbey. M. Clark stated that she didn't know whether the neighborhood was contacted either. A. Frederick stated that before he makes any decision on this, he wants to hear if they did what they said they were going to do. He thinks that it is up to them. J. Ruff stated that his biggest concern is that if he makes Eydes build a lot in this situation, it still might not get used. Then he has to go and create this system of trying to get MSHDA employees to park on MSHDA property. General discussion ensued regarding parking areas, locations, where people will actually park, etc. It was decided to leave this case on table at this time. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. NONE VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of October 14, 1999 A. Frederick moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. 2000 Meeting Dates J. Ruff presented dates for the Year 2000 meetings. V. Earhart moved to accept Year 2000 meeting dates. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. B. G. Hilts requested excused absences for January through May DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPr '.S MEETING MINUTES NOVEP'"ER 18, 1999 PAGE 10 A. Frederick moved to accept excused absences. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. C. December meeting will start early with holiday party trays for Board members who are invited to bring a guest. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:05 p.m.. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Ad inistrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 12/01/99 Approved 12/15/99 To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 0 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVEMBER 18, 1999, 7:30 P.M. CI,Y CLERtITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. G. Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Clark A. Frederick V. Earhart B. Burgess G. Hilts R. McCloud E. Horne (Arrived 7:52 p.m.) Staff: J. Ruff J. Sturdevant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA J. Ruff requested to add under NEW BUSINESS -the Board's next meeting. No motion made. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3559.99, 824 Bates J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that this request is the same property that the Board looked at last month for 824 Bates Street. The difference between this request and the one that the Board reviewed last month is the applicant has decided that instead of an 8' porch, she needs a 10'wide porch which requires an additional 2' of variance. Part of the reason for this is that there was some misunderstanding on the original request that they reviewed last month where the applicant had asked for a range and J. Sturdevant took the first number that was listed which was for an 8' porch. He stated that if he had realized at that time, he would have put the larger variance in the report at that time. The report the Board had in front of them is the same report as reviewed last month with the changes struck out and the additional information inserted. Instead of a variance of 1.6'from the front yard setback requirement, the extra 2' on the porch would require a variance of 3.6' for the 10' porch. With that, staff recommends approval. Linda Regis, 824 Bates, addressed the Board. She stated that last time there was a meeting, there was a misunderstanding about it. It didn't get fully discussed the way that she had put it down. She stated that she asked for up to 12', but she would settle for 10' - that is enough. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark moved that BZA-3559.99, 824 Bates, be approved for the 3.6' variance requested for the same reasons that the Board approved the variance last month. It is a reasonable setback and reasonable use of property. The irregular setbacks and distances up and down the street are part of the reason that the variance is needed. Supported by B. Burgess. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 2 B. BZA-3560.99, 1700 W. Willow J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this is a requested sign variance for an existing service station at 1700 W. Willow. It is presently a Bay Petroleum Corp. station. They are changing name brands on it to Citgo similar to what the Board reviewed a couple of years ago on North East St. What the applicant intends to do is to remove a free standing sign which is 70 square feet in size. It extends 8'6" into the right of way. It has a flashing arrow on it and is non-conforming in many senses of the word today. In doing so, the applicant would like to relocate a new 50 square foot goal post sign which would be located in the island on the corner of Willow and Comfort Street. In doing so, they are making a significant improvement in the size of the sign - reducing it from 70 to 50 square feet and they are locating it further back in the island. The property is 12,000 square feet in size. It is primarily residentially zoned around the site with the exception of heavy industrial zoning and land uses to the west. The station is being improved and modified. The variances requested require a 16'/Z ft variance and a 15 ft variance respectively from the two street frontages. Being a corner lot, it would normally be required to have an 18 ft setback for this size of sign. This sign is designed to have head room underneath it and then is elevated above. It is very similar to one that was approved on North East Street in a similar fashion that the Board reviewed a couple of years ago. Staff believes that this meets the intent of what the Board has sought in modifying existing commercial non-conforming sign situations where conformance, even though it is not practical to meet it because then the sign would end up in the circulation pattern of two drive aisles, it does improve the sign situation over the existing. Staff recommends approval. A. Frederick asked about the first sentence at the bottom of page 2. The word "setback" was left out. He stated that he assumes that the setback cannot be increased any more without really disrupting everything. J. Ruff referred to the site plan attached in the packet. He discussed the location of the sign and setbacks. Mr. David Suty, vice president of Bay Petroleum, addressed the Board. He stated that over the years working with the Planning Department and especially Jim Ruff- he has done a super job meeting with the community and the relationships that he has developed with the business community. Speaking for Bay, he really appreciates that. This particular site Bay has been operating for about 30 years. The sign that is erected there now has been there that long. As Jim had mentioned, the sign is in the right of way approximately 8 '/2 ft with a flashing arrow on it. It is approximately 70 square feet. They are proposing to change this to a new sign thus the request before the Board today. It is because they have an existing site that is rather small, existing islands, curb cuts. To meet the current sign ordinance of 18 feet would mean they would have to close a couple curb cuts. They would have trouble getting cars to and from their gasoline island. It wouldn't be a safe thing to stick in the middle of a parking lot. They feel that they do have a hardship, but at the same time they can substantially improve the position of the sign and meet the intent as best they can with the current sign code by moving it back into the property as a whole with modest setbacks of 1.6 and 3 feet. In fact, they are expanding the existing planting area that the pole is in now to accommodate this sign. They are moving that in to the maximum so that they can have good flow through the ingress and egress. The sign would be about 29% smaller, less than it is today and slightly shorter in height. He referred to a picture of the sign that he passed to the Board. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that when he read the report, he assumed that the word "setback" was going into that sentence. When he assumed so, he thought that the proposal seemed to attempt to meet the Zoning Code to get them closer to less intrusive signs. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 3 He thinks that the appellant had done a good job in trying to meet that and in reducing the square footage of the sign as well. These lots with two front yards or corner lots always seem as though they are a difficult one to make under the Zoning Code. To him, it seems like a reasonable request. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3560.99, 1700 W. Willow, a variance of 16.5 feet and 15 feet. Seconded by V. Earhart. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. C. BZA-3561.99, 709 N. Larch St. J. Sturdevant presented the case. He referred to the graphic drawings in the Board reports. He stated that this is the former site of Leon's Foods. It is zoned light industrial. The applicant has cleared the site and is building a new facility from the ground up. This facility is a combination of a gasoline filling station and convenience store as well as a McDonalds Restaurant. He thinks that there is one other facility that is similar to this down off of Dunckel Rd. near US-127/496 where it is kind of a hybrid between two different uses in one building. The applicant has recently gotten approval of a site plan for this development. He referred to that approval in the report. The proposed ground pole sign is located near the corner of Larch and Saginaw. He referred to the drawing in the packet. He stated that the Sign Code allows a sign of 142 square feet. However, it would have to be limited in height to 30 feet and setback 30 feet from the property line with a height of 30 feet. The applicant is proposing to have the sign 31.58 feet, therefore they are requesting a variance of 1.58 feet in height. It would have to be set back a minimum of 30 feet for the square footage of the sign that is proposed. They are looking at a variance of 16 feet, which means a 14 foot variance in the setback. When the Planning Office analizes a variance request such as this, the first thing they look at is "Does a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship exist?" This site being built brand new from the ground up, there is plenty of opportunity to design into the site design and into the layout of the property an appropriate place to put the kind of sign that they would expect to have. They have not done that here. They have decided to request a sign that is larger than the code allows and to have it up closer to the property line than the code would allow for a sign of that particular size. J. Sturdevant brought this point up at the site plan review process for this property. The surrounding neighborhood is commercial in nature. There are other signs in the area, but there are also other businesses that, as they have updated, have brought their signage into conformance with the code. Because the hardship, he feels, is self created in this way, he cannot rightfully recommend approval of it. He recommends denial. V. Earhart asked a question related to the map attached to the packet. Discussion ensued regarding zoning of particular areas on the map. J. Ruff explained area and zoning referring to map. A. Frederick stated that on the description of the variance, it sounded to him like the setback distance was determined by the height. J. Sturdevant stated that the chart in the Sign Code that covers that matter goes by two different items- setback and square footage. Essentially the setback is one foot back for every foot up. With that, it gradually allows the square footage of the sign to increase up to a maximum of 170 square feet with a 30' high sign that is set back 30'. A. Frederick asked in order to have this sign where the applicant wants it, what would the maximum height be? J. Sturdevant stated that the sign would be 16 feet. J. Ruff explained that the difference in this case is that they have a maximum height allowance for signs of 30' and the code doesn't go beyond that. With this proposed to be DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 4 in excess of 30', they stated the variance as such so that everything above 30' has to be varied and the setback for this sign also has to be varied from their maximum standard. Jeff Abood, Mooney Oil Corporation SuperMart Inc., addressed the Board. He stated that originally when they submitted their application, he submitted a drawing. He met with Mr. Sturdevant on a couple of occasions regarding what can be done and what was allowed and Mr. Sturdevant detailed that indicating through the ordinance what the requirements were and they have tried to comply with the ordinance given the restrictions that they have on the site. He doesn't believe at this time that they actually need a sign that is 317'. He referred to a drawing of the sign. He stated that he doesn't believe that they need to go quite that high with their sign. Secondly, he stated that in regards to the 16 foot setback, from the original site plan that he presented to Mr. Sturdevant, he then faxed over an amended site plan showing that the curb radius was taken in. He referred to a fax and map that was sent to the office. He now shows a 22' setback. J. Sturdevant stated that was done after he prepared the report. He stated that as he explained to the applicant on the phone how the report was, then the applicant tried to amend that at the meeting as he is doing now. Mr. Abood stated that the setback they currently have is 22'. He stated that he has competing interests there. He has a convenience store on the site. He has a gas station and McDonalds- all of which would like to get as much visibility as possible. At this time, they are not indicating any signage for the convenience store and they have taken the signage down - really they qualify for two pole signs on the site -they have tried to combine that into one sign and putting the family of concerned interests on that sign and try to minimize their signage for the site with regards to centrally locating them on the corner. He stated that he understands that practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship are the standards that the Board follows in order to grant a variance. They have taken some very concerted efforts to make substantial improvements to this site. He is sure that the Board is familiar with how this location sat for years and years with the old Leon's buildings on there. Just by removing those was a significant eye sore taken away from that marquis corner in the city of Lansing. They have tried to work with the neighbors with regards to during and throughout the construction period, they have kept the roads swept, they have kept enough aggregate on the ground as to not track any mud out. They have been concerned about the neighbors. Hopefully the neighbors will be their customers and they certainly don't want to get off on the wrong foot with any of their neighbors. The animal hospital to the north has been very cooperative with them. There is a dilapidated fence that the applicant is planning on taking out and doing some landscaping with regards to that north property line. Their landscaping is going to be significant on the site. They intend to make this a premier location in Lansing. Their landscaping contract is approximately $30,000, not that there is a lot of greenbelt there, but what greenbelt is going to be there will have underground sprinkler systems, nice grass, berming, trees. That was submitted on their landscape legend with their original site plan that went through the city. They have struggled with this site in that they had initially requested three curb cuts on the site. They had their building set up so that their drive through would allow for as much flow as possible in regards to the drive through so that they could eliminate any kind of stacking problems. After working with MDOT, they had to actually turn the building 45 degrees because it was the position of MDOT that the curb cut on the eastern part of the site was not in the best interest of traffic pulling out onto Saginaw. So that made for a lot of recalculating with regards to their site to make everything come off Saginaw through that one curb cut. But he believes that they have accomplished a pretty good flow and site plan to accommodate the businesses that are going to be located there. The important thing with their signage and why they are requesting a variance to allow more height and more square footage is that they are dealing with two one-way streets-two one-way streets that they have one sign. In regards to the Burger King next door, they have an enormous sign. That obviously was done prior to the current ordinance that is in place. But as one is driving down Saginaw DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 5 going east, that Burger King sign is very close to the road and very large. He feels strongly that in order for a potential customer to recognize what is available on that site that signage is important so that they have enough notice to anticipate to get into the correct lane and go into the curb cut. When you are dealing with two one-way streets, it adds somewhat of a more difficulty when you are dealing with signage in that you have to try to accommodate traffic invisibility so that people are going to be able to access your site. Also he believes that with the curb cuts that they have off of Larch heading north, they have the similar problems with needing visibility of a sign and having clear site lines. These are the reasons that they feel a variance of some type is in order for this location. As far as doing something different with the site plan in its initial stages, the circulation pattern on the site given there is a drive through, pumps and a canopy, this was really the only available location to place those things. They are dealing with city lots that don't have extra space. In order to have a good circulation pattern on the site, you have to try to give as much room for turning radius and so on. The only thing that he could do after talking to Mr. Sturdevant was to try to bring that curb radius on that southeast corner in as far as he could without inhibiting the traffic flow that currently exists on the site. For these reasons, they would like the Board to consider allowing them to have some type of flexibility with their signage. V. Earhart asked question in regards to map of area. J. Ruff clarified for her. Mr. Abood stated that they put all new curb and gutter and sidewalk all the way around the site. They are trying to make this a premier location for that corner. Hopefully it will be something that will benefit the city. B. Burgess asked if the changeable copy was for gas prices or what? Mr. Abood stated that it has to be for their price packs. M. Clark asked about the 2nd curb cut on Saginaw. Is there only one curb cut or two? Mr. Abood stated that there is only one curb cut on the west side of the property. General discussion ensued regarding curb cuts and entrances and exits. Mary McMinn, McDonalds, addressed the Board. She stated that McDonalds is excited about this prospect. This is the first time that she has been able to be before this board. She has been working as a real estate rep for McDonalds for about 5 years in the Lansing area and this is the first time that she has had the opportunity to be here. It is a real pleasure for her. As Mr. Abood stated, the family of signs is the best way to identify what is on the site and eliminate clutter, so that they would become a focal point and not an eye sore in Lansing. They are keeping all of their signage very sharp, very detailed and to the point. The Mooney's have gone back and readjusted the site. They turned the building and now they went back and extended the landscaping and cut into the drive so that they could get 22'that the setback would be. If they could get a variance for the 25' setback, in other words 3 feet, they can live with that and do signage that is appropriate with that. If she looks at the square footage then at a 25'setback would be 120 square feet. In other words, if they could have 120 square feet of signage at 22', that would work. They can scale down their sign. She told Mr. Ruff before their meeting that the sign that they are showing is the smallest sign that they have on this site. They are comfortable with the traffic that is there that the signage will be there. It will be a great location. They can take care of their needs at 25 feet high set back 22 feet. So it is only a 3 foot variance. V. Earhart clarified: 25 feet high, 120 square feet, 22 feet from both of the lines. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 6 M. McMinn stated that was correct. So it is actually only a 3 foot variance from the ordinance. In actuality, if you include the easement area for the utilities which is 6 or 8 feet, they are actually 30 feet back, but they don't allow you to include that. So it is actually 30 feet back from the property line, but there is an 8 foot easement in there for utilities. She stated that they are trying very hard to work with the Board on this particular case. M. Clark asked what the variance is for that setback? J. Ruff stated that it was a 3' setback. He stated that a 25'tall sign, regardless of its area, requires a 25' setback. It is basically a 3' setback variance. General discussion ensued regarding easements, setbacks, etc. A. Frederick asked staff if this was a standard size lot? J. Ruff stated that it is a combination of lots. He referred to the plat map in the file. He then explained where the lots were, their size, etc. General discussion ensued regarding the lot size, size of sign, etc. M. Clark asked what the limitations of the easement were? Was it just for that lot or all the way down? J. Ruff stated that they're not sure exactly what the easement is. M. McMinn stated that she believed that the easement was a utility easement. General discussion ensued in relation to property lines, easements, etc. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart moved to table BZA-3561.99, 709 N. Larch. Seconded by M. Clark. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request has been tabled. Variance may not be necessary. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch - remains tabled B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol - remains tabled C. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan J. Ruff passed around a letter received for this case. M. Clark read letter to Board. J. Ruff stated that letter was the attachment to the original letter that was received earlier. M. Clark stated that her concern with the letter was that all of the conditions in the letter are referring to MSHDA employees and clients. If, at some point, someone else ended up in that building other than MSHDA, does that mean that they won't provide parking for them or if MSHDA left, are they not committing the parking to an additional use at some future date. All of the conditions are strictly MSHDA related. E. Horne agreed with what M. Clark stated. She stated that you don't know in the future what is going to be happening. MSHDA might want to sublet some of the space with DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 7 other clientele and they won't know who it might be. J. Ruff stated that the letter should state "any and all occupants". He stated that he would talk to Sam Eyde and get a revised letter. E. Horne also wondered who would prove this. She believes that there needs to be some checks and balances. General discussion ensued regarding paying for a study, parking enforcement, impact on the neighborhood, etc. M. Clark stated that she thinks in general city wide what they are talking about is something that needs to be considered. Specifically on the eastside, particularly in that particular corridor there has been so much controversy and effort over the years with Sparrow Hospital and the parking problems that existed on Michigan Avenue that to do this without a great deal of care and consideration is really risky. G. Hilts stated that his thought is to be careful in setting precedent because of all those years of work. A. Frederick stated that he has also heard comments that the Planning Board meetings, regarding the downtown area, that with the new buildings that are being rehabilitated and people moving in and the shift of tenants from old buildings to new buildings that they have reached capacity on their parking. He recalled a few months before hearing comments that won't happen for a while. General discussion ensued regarding parking areas and capacity. J. Ruff stated that they had done a parking study back in 1989. They are doing an RFP/Q for another study but broadening the scope of it somewhat. One of the answers that they are trying to get right now is participation from the state in financing it with them because they are including a lot of state facilities. They are awaiting their answer. They intend to do this by the end of the year and have a consultant on hand to do a study and qualify the need and location and system-wide what can the city do to improve its parking posture generally, not just how to add more spaces here, but take a look at their policies and objectives and how to carry them out. M. Clark stated that she received a call from Rick Kibbey from the Eastside Neighborhood Organization who was extremely concerned about an agreement that would be made that would say if they ever need it they will develop the property on Shiawassee without something being attached to the deed of the property like an easement. His concern was that if there isn't some kind of a legal attachment to that property, it will just slip through at some point. A. Frederick stated that the tone of the letter sounded like they didn't believe there was a problem. He thinks that they believe they are promising something that they will never have to do. He stated that he might agree with them if they said that the parking code requirements were a little too stringent or not. Nevertheless, the codes are there for them to see and understand before they start developing buildings. He stated that it sounds to him that it is primarily an issue of"let's save a little bit of money and only develop what we absolutely and positively can get away with". If they believe that the parking requirements are to stringent then let them go to the people who can change the rules and make their case there, rather than make their case before this Board. He believes that they can get some economic realization out of that property as it sits without having to deal with changing the parking rules. He is still not convinced that he should grant them anything unless they were more likely to come up with a real solid promise other than "here, we'll make some parking". DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 8 M. Clark stated that her concern at this point is that the Board is not even granting them a variance at this point. They are saying that they don't need a variance anymore because they are going to make this deal and we will set aside this property for this use, so we don't need a variance. She stated that this is a way of getting around the whole thing. G. Hilts stated that was his thought on setting precedent. A. Frederick stated that if they are saying that they don't need a variance, then the Board can take it off the table and deny it. He stated that he is not sure that they are making any agreement with the Board or with anybody else. But if they are going to make an agreement, they should make it with somebody who has the authority to accept it and he doesn't believe that is the Board. M. Clark stated that it becomes an issue that Jim R. needs to clarify, if they are saying that they are going to withdraw their request for variance, what authority of the department in general in making those kinds of deals when obviously a parking variance for 735 E. Michigan is required? J. Ruff stated that the property is zoned light industrial. The parking code allows options of using property in an industrial district up to 1000 feet away and not providing shuttle service. It doesn't have to be on site. Just like this property has the building and the parking around the building plus a lot across Hosmer St. The H-Light Industrial District allows up to 1000 feet to lease or obtain your parking to meet your code requirement separate from the lot itself. What they are requesting here is that-there are two things: 1) they are committing to use that lot for parking which is within 1000 feet. They could go within one mile and shuttle people and it doesn't have to be that lot; it can be any lot within 1000 feet. They are committing a lot that Eydes already own to providing that need. What they are asking the City is not to develop that lot with hard surface parking if it is not going to get used. He stated that he has suggested to them that they don't want a problem in the neighborhood because they could build the lot, meet their parking requirement and people still don't use it. There is nothing that says that people would have to park there and walk to the building. They could park in the neighborhood and walk to the building. They could find it easier to park on the street and walk to the front door. M. Clark stated that was exactly the war that was fought with Sparrow for 20 years. J. Ruff stated that Sparrow is not zoned industrial. The parking issue is the same, but the approach has to be thought about from a different vantage point because they have other opportunities that they could do, but it might not be practical. He doesn't know that employees would willingly walk from one spot from 960 feet away to the building. The point is how does the Board tie it in so that they can help control the parking. The gain in this is having their commitment to help monitor the situation in an agreeable manner so that if there is a problem, they have a system set up to help rectify the problem. He stated that MSHDA should be, and Mr. Greiner agreed with him, in the business of making sure they help neighborhoods. Thinking about this, how do we get them tied in to helping watch themselves. The other option they came to the Board with, when they were looking at rehabilitating and re-zoning the Civic Center, they approached the Planning Office and stated that they were going to re-zone 735 E. Michigan too to G-1 so that there would be no parking requirement. The office would not recommend this and it is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. J. Ruff also stated that further, Mr. Greiner stated that he didn't want to re-zone that because if he re-zones it to G-1, they won't get justification to pay for the on-site parking. The state won't require them to put the parking in, then they wouldn't pay for it. J. Ruff stated that the question, as it comes, how do they best get this here? Nobody disagrees with having MSHDA there necessarily but they are concerned about the parking impact. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 9 M. Clark stated that her other concern with the letter is that it states that "he will monitor this". But if MSHDA buys it, is MSHDA also signing a letter stating that they will monitor and is he tying the property to the building if he no longer owns the building? J. Ruff agrees with M. Clark. He stated that they could require them to put that in an easement deed restriction and the only way that Planning would eliminate that deed restriction was that if you had another substitute for that or you reduce the usable square feet in the building to meet what parking you had available there or somewhere else. The monitoring is the difficult part. M. Clark stated that she agrees with Rick Kibbey that perhaps having a deed restriction is the only way to really efficiently monitor it without making somebody go around and be in an enforcement mode for the next 20 years. J. Ruff stated that he is not sure if he can get a deed restriction. The reason he says that is not because of necessarily Mr. Eyde, but he is not sure if he can get MSHDA and Eyde to do that. He stated that he can go back and talk about how to get as much assurances as possible of how this would work and whether it would be a letter of agreement that is placed on file through council and the city clerk and amended to the deed or their lease agreement, etc. That may help as well. He also stated that one of the things tonight's variances has brought up was Bay Petroleum on W. Willow. They built a new canopy a few years back in 1993. The canopy is allowed with a 12 foot setback. Jim Sturdevant discovered when they went through the rehabilitation process of this building to go to Citgo that the canopy is only 10 feet away. Things tend to, in some ways, catch up. They are cutting off 2 feet of that canopy to comply. That is just an example of catching up that happens from time to time. A. Frederick asked if J. Ruff knew if either the Eydes or Mr. Greiner have gone to the neighborhood to present the issue? As he recalled, the last time he talked to them that they said it was something that would be a good thing to do to at least present their side to the neighborhood. J. Ruff stated that he didn't know if they had. He stated that he thought information like this was conveyed to Mr. Kibbey. M. Clark stated that she didn't know whether the neighborhood was contacted either. A. Frederick stated that before he makes any decision on this, he wants to hear if they did what they said they were going to do. He thinks that it is up to them. J. Ruff stated that his biggest concern is that if he makes Eydes build a lot in this situation, it still might not get used. Then he has to go and create this system of trying to get MSHDA employees to park on MSHDA property. General discussion ensued regarding parking areas, locations, where people will actually park, etc. It was decided to leave this case on table at this time. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. NONE VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of October 14, 1999 A. Frederick moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 10 VII. NEW BUSINESS A. 2000 Meeting Dates J. Ruff presented dates for the Year 2000 meetings. V. Earhart moved to accept Year 2000 meeting dates. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. B. G. Hilts requested excused absences for January through May A. Frederick moved to accept excused absences. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. C. December meeting will start early with holiday party trays for Board members who are invited to bring a quest. Vlll. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 12/01/99 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS r,p NOVEMBER 18, 1999, 7:30 P.M. L `'j `' l �L�F`CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. G. Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Clark A. Frederick V. Earhart B. Burgess G. Hilts R. McCloud Staff: J. Ruff J. Sturdevant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA J. Ruff requested to add under NEW BUSINESS -the Board's next meeting. No motion made. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3559.99, 824 Bates J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that this request is the same property that the Board looked at last month for 824 Bates Street. The difference between this request and the one that the Board reviewed last month is the applicant has decided that instead of an 8' porch, she needs a 10'wide porch which requires an additional 2' of variance. Part of the reason for this is that there was some misunderstanding on the original request that they reviewed last month where the applicant had asked for a range and J. Sturdevant took the first number that was listed which was for an 8' porch. He stated that if he had realized at that time, he would have put the larger variance in the report at that time. The report the Board had in front of them is the same report as reviewed last month with the changes struck out and the additional information inserted. Instead of a variance of 1.6'from the front yard setback requirement, the extra 2' on the porch would require a variance of 3.6'for the 10' porch. With that, staff recommends approval. Linda Regis, 824 Bates, addressed the Board. She stated that last time there was a meeting, there was a misunderstanding about it. It didn't get fully discussed the way that she had put it down. She stated that she asked for up to 12', but she would settle for 10' - that is enough. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark moved that BZA-3559.99, 824 Bates, be approved for the 3.6'variance requested for the same reasons that the Board approved the variance last month. It is a reasonable setback and reasonable use of property. The irregular setbacks and distances up and down the street are part of the reason that the variance is needed. Supported by B. Burgess. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. B. BZA-3560.99. 1700 W. Willow J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this is a requested sign variance for an existing service station at 1700 W. Willow. It is presently a Bay Petroleum Corp. station. They are changing name brands on it to Citgo similar to what the Board reviewed a DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 2 J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this is a requested sign variance for an existing service station at 1700 W. Willow. It is presently a Bay Petroleum Corp. station. They are changing name brands on it to Citgo similar to what the Board reviewed a couple of years ago on North East St. What the applicant intends to do is to remove a free standing sign which is 70 square feet in size. It extends 8'6" into the right of way. It has a flashing arrow on it and is non-conforming in many senses of the word today. In doing so, the applicant would like to relocate a new 50 square foot goal post sign which would be located in the island on the corner of Willow and Comfort Street. In doing so, they are making a significant improvement in the size of the sign - reducing it from 70 to 50 square feet and they are locating it further back in the island. The property is 12,000 square feet in size. It is primarily residentially zoned around the site with the exception of heavy industrial zoning and land uses to the west. The station is being improved and modified. The variances requested require a 16'/z ft variance and a 15 ft variance respectively from the two street frontages. Being a corner lot, it would normally be required to have an 18 ft setback for this size of sign. This sign is designed to have head room underneath it and then is elevated above. It is very similar to one that was approved on North East Street in a similar fashion that the Board reviewed a couple of years ago. Staff believes that this meets the intent of what the Board has sought in modifying existing commercial non-conforming sign situations where conformance, even though it is not practical to meet it because then the sign would end up in the circulation pattern of two drive aisles, it does improve the sign situation over the existing. Staff recommends approval. A. Frederick asked about the first sentence at the bottom of page 2. The word "setback" was left out. He stated that he assumes that the setback cannot be increased any more without really disrupting everything. J. Ruff referred to the site plan attached in the packet. He discussed the location of the sign and setbacks. Mr. David Suty, vice president of Bay Petroleum, addressed the Board. He stated that over the years working with the Planning Department and especially Jim Ruff- he has done a super job meeting with the community and the relationships that he has developed with the business community. Speaking for Bay, he really appreciates that. This particular site Bay has been operating for about 30 years. The sign that is erected there now has been there that long. As Jim had mentioned, the sign is in the right of way approximately 8 '/z ft with a flashing arrow on it. It is approximately 70 square feet. They are proposing to change this to a new sign thus the request before the Board today. It is because they have an existing site that is rather small, existing islands, curb cuts. To meet the current sign ordinance of 18 feet would mean they would have to close a couple curb cuts. They would have trouble getting cars to and from their gasoline island. It wouldn't be a safe thing to stick in the middle of a parking lot. They feel that they do have a hardship, but at the same time they can substantially improve the position of the sign and meet the intent as best they can with the current sign code by moving it back into the property as a whole with modest setbacks of 1.6 and 3 feet. In fact, they are expanding the existing planting area that the pole is in now to accommodate this sign. They are moving that in to the maximum so that they can have good flow through the ingress and egress. The sign would be about 29% smaller, less than it is today and slightly shorter in height. He referred to a picture of the sign that he passed to the Board. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that when he read the report, he assumed that the word "setback"was going into that sentence. When he assumed so, he thought that the proposal seemed to attempt to meet the Zoning Code to get them closer to less intrusive signs. He thinks that the appellant had done a good job in trying to meet that and in reducing the square footage of the sign as well. These lots with two front yards or corner lots always seem as though they are a difficult one to DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 3 make under the Zoning Code. To him, it seems like a reasonable request. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3560.99, 1700 W. Willow, a variance of 16.5 feet and 15 feet. Seconded by V. Earhart. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. C. BZA-3561.99, 709 N. Larch St. J. Sturdevant presented the case. He referred to the graphic drawings in the Board reports. He stated that this is the former site of Leon's Foods. It is zoned light industrial. The applicant has cleared the site and is building a new facility from the ground up. This facility is a combination of a gasoline filling station and convenience store as well as a McDonalds Restaurant. He thinks that there is one other facility that is similar to this down off of Dunckel Rd. near US-127/496 where it is kind of a hybrid between two different uses in one building. The applicant has recently gotten approval of a site plan for this development. He referred to that approval in the report. The proposed ground pole sign is located near the corner of Larch and Saginaw. He referred to the drawing in the packet. He stated that the Sign Code allows a sign of 142 square feet. However, it would have to be limited in height to 30 feet and setback 30 feet from the property line with a height of 30 feet. The applicant is proposing to have the sign 31.58 feet, therefore they are requesting a variance of 1.58 feet in height. It would have to be set back a minimum of 30 feet for the square footage of the sign that is proposed. They are looking at a variance of 16 feet, which means a 14 foot variance in the setback. When the Planning Office analizes a variance request such as this, the first thing they look at is "Does a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship exist?" This site being built brand new from the ground up, there is plenty of opportunity to design into the site design and into the layout of the property an appropriate place to put the kind of sign that they would expect to have. They have not done that here. They have decided to request a sign that is larger than the code allows and to have it up closer to the property line than the code would allow for a sign of that particular size. J. Sturdevant brought this point up at the site plan review process for this property. The surrounding neighborhood is commercial in nature. There are other signs in the area, but there are also other businesses that, as they have updated, have brought their signage into conformance with the code. Because the hardship, he feels, is self created in this way, he cannot rightfully recommend approval of it. He recommends denial. V. Earhart asked a question related to the map attached to the packet. Discussion ensued regarding zoning of particular areas on the map. J. Ruff explained area and zoning referring to map. A. Frederick stated that on the description of the variance, it sounded to him like the setback distance was determined by the height. J. Sturdevant stated that the chart in the Sign Code that covers that matter goes by two different items - setback and square footage. Essentially the setback is one foot back for every foot up. With that, it gradually allows the square footage of the sign to increase up to a maximum of 170 square feet with a 30' high sign that is set back 30'. A. Frederick asked in order to have this sign where the applicant wants it, what would the maximum height be? J. Sturdevant stated that the sign would be 16 feet. J. Ruff explained that the difference in this case is that they have a maximum height allowance for signs of 30' and the code doesn't go beyond that. With this proposed to be in excess of 30', they stated the variance as such so that everything above 30' has to be varied and the setback for this sign also has to be varied from their maximum standard. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 4 Jeff Abood, Mooney Oil Corporation SuperMart Inc., addressed the Board. He stated that originally when they submitted their application, he submitted a drawing. He met with Mr. Sturdevant on a couple of occasions regarding what can be done and what was allowed and Mr. Sturdevant detailed that indicating through the ordinance what the requirements were and they have tried to comply with the ordinance given the restrictions that they have on the site. He doesn't believe at this time that they actually need a sign that is 317". He referred to a drawing of the sign. He stated that he doesn't believe that they need to go quite that high with their sign. Secondly, he stated that in regards to the 16 foot setback, from the original site plan that he presented to Mr. Sturdevant, he then faxed over an amended site plan showing that the curb radius was taken in. He referred to a fax and map that was sent to the office. He now shows a 22' setback. J. Sturdevant stated that was done after he prepared the report. He stated that as he explained to the applicant on the phone how the report was, then the applicant tried to amend that at the meeting as he is doing now. Mr. Abood stated that the setback they currently have is 22'. He stated that he has competing interests there. He has a convenience store on the site. He has a gas station and McDonalds - all of which would like to get as much visibility as possible. At this time, they are not indicating any signage for the convenience store and they have taken the signage down - really they qualify for two pole signs on the site -they have tried to combine that into one sign and putting the family of concerned interests on that sign and try to minimize their signage for the site with regards to centrally locating them on the corner. He stated that he understands that practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship are the standards that the Board follows in order to grant a variance. They have taken some very concerted efforts to make substantial improvements to this site. He is sure that the Board is familiar with how this location sat for years and years with the old Leon's buildings on there. Just by removing those was a significant eye sore taken away from that marquis corner in the city of Lansing. They have tried to work with the neighbors with regards to during and throughout the construction period, they have kept the roads swept, they have kept enough aggregate on the ground as to not track any mud out. They have been concerned about the neighbors. Hopefully the neighbors will be their customers and they certainly don't want to get off on the wrong foot with any of their neighbors. The animal hospital to the north has been very cooperative with them. There is a dilapidated fence that the applicant is planning on taking out and doing some landscaping with regards to that north property line. Their landscaping is going to be significant on the site. They intend to make this a premier location in Lansing. Their landscaping contract is approximately$30,000, not that there is a lot of greenbelt there, but what greenbelt is going to be there will have underground sprinkler systems, nice grass, berming, trees. That was submitted on their landscape legend with their original site plan that went through the city. They have struggled with this site in that they had initially requested three curb cuts on the site. They had their building set up so that their drive through would allow for as much flow as possible in regards to the drive through so that they could eliminate any kind of stacking problems. After working with MDOT, they had to actually turn the building 45 degrees because it was the position of MDOT that the curb cut on the eastern part of the site was not in the best interest of traffic pulling out onto Saginaw. So that made for a lot of recalculating with regards to their site to make everything come off Saginaw through that one curb cut. But he believes that they have accomplished a pretty good flow and site plan to accommodate the businesses that are going to be located there. The important thing with their signage and why they are requesting a variance to allow more height and more square footage is that they are dealing with two one-way streets -two one-way streets that they have one sign. In regards to the Burger King next door, they have an enormous sign. That obviously was done prior to the current ordinance that is in place. But as one is driving down Saginaw going east, that Burger King sign is very close to the road and very large. He feels strongly that in order for a potential customer to recognize what is available on that site that signage is important so that they have enough notice to anticipate to get into the correct lane and go into the curb cut. When you are dealing with two one-way streets, it DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 5 adds somewhat of a more difficulty when you are dealing with signage in that you have to try to accommodate traffic invisibility so that people are going to be able to access your site. Also he believes that with the curb cuts that they have off of Larch heading north, they have the similar problems with needing visibility of a sign and having clear site lines. These are the reasons that they feel a variance of some type is in order for this location. As far as doing something different with the site plan in its initial stages, the circulation pattern on the site given there is a drive through, pumps and a canopy, this was really the only available location to place those things. They are dealing with city lots that don't have extra space. In order to have a good circulation pattern on the site, you have to try to give as much room for turning radius and so on. The only thing that he could do after talking to Mr. Sturdevant was to try to bring that curb radius on that southeast corner in as far as he could without inhibiting the traffic flow that currently exists on the site. For these reasons, they would like the Board to consider allowing them to have some type of flexibility with their signage. V. Earhart asked question in regards to map of area. J. Ruff clarified for her. Mr. Abood stated that they put all new curb and gutter and sidewalk all the way around the site. They are trying to make this a premier location for that corner. Hopefully it will be something that will benefit the city. B. Burgess asked if the changeable copy was for gas prices or what? Mr. Abood stated that it has to be for their price packs. M. Clark asked about the 2"d curb cut on Saginaw. Is there only one curb cut or two? Mr. Abood stated that there is only one curb cut on the west side of the property. General discussion ensued regarding curb cuts and entrances and exits. Mary McMinn, McDonalds, addressed the Board. She stated that McDonalds is excited about this prospect. This is the first time that she has been able to be before this board. She has been working as a real estate rep for McDonalds for about 5 years in the Lansing area and this is the first time that she has had the opportunity to be here. It is a real pleasure for her. As Mr. Abood stated, the family of signs is the best way to identify what is on the site and eliminate clutter, so that they would become a focal point and not an eye sore in Lansing. They are keeping all of their signage very sharp, very detailed and to the point. The Mooney's have gone back and readjusted the site. They turned the building and now they went back and extended the landscaping and cut into the drive so that they could get 22'that the setback would be. If they could get a variance for the 25'setback, in other words 3 feet, they can live with that and do signage that is appropriate with that. If she looks at the square footage then at a 25' setback would be 120 square feet. In other words, if they could have 120 square feet of signage at 22', that would work. They can scale down their sign. She told Mr. Ruff before their meeting that the sign that they are showing is the smallest sign that they have on this site. They are comfortable with the traffic that is there that the signage will be there. It will be a great location. They can take care of their needs at 25 feet high set back 22 feet. So it is only a 3 foot variance. V. Earhart clarified: 25 feet high, 120 square feet, 22 feet from both of the lines. M. McMinn stated that was correct. So it is actually only a 3 foot variance from the ordinance. In actuality, if you include the easement area for the utilities which is 6 or 8 feet, they are actually 30 feet back, but they don't allow you to include that. So it is actually 30 feet back from the property line, but there is an 8 foot easement in there for DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 6 utilities. She stated that they are trying very hard to work with the Board on this particular case. M. Clark asked what the variance is for that setback? J. Ruff stated that it was a 3' setback. He stated that a 25' tall sign, regardless of its area, requires a 25' setback. It is basically a 3' setback variance. General discussion ensued regarding easements, setbacks, etc. A. Frederick asked staff if this was a standard size lot? J. Ruff stated that it is a combination of lots. He referred to the plat map in the file. He then explained where the lots were, their size, etc. General discussion ensued regarding the lot size, size of sign, etc. M. Clark asked what the limitations of the easement were? Was it just for that lot or all the way down? J. Ruff stated that they're not sure exactly what the easement is. M. McMinn stated that she believed that the easement was a utility easement. General discussion ensued in relation to property lines, easements, etc. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart moved to table BZA-3561.99, 709 N. Larch. Seconded by M. Clark. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request has been tabled. Variance may not be necessary. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch - remains tabled B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol - remains tabled C. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan J. Ruff passed around a letter received for this case. M. Clark read letter to Board. J. Ruff stated that letter was the attachment to the original letter that was received earlier. M. Clark stated that her concern with the letter was that all of the conditions in the letter are referring to MSHDA employees and clients. If, at some point, someone else ended up in that building other than MSHDA, does that mean that they won't provide parking for them or if MSHDA left, are they not committing the parking to an additional use at some future date. All of the conditions are strictly MSHDA related. E. Horne agreed with what M. Clark stated. She stated that you don't know in the future what is going to be happening. MSHDA might want to sublet some of the space with other clientele and they won't know who it might be. J. Ruff stated that the letter should state "any and all occupants". He stated that he would talk to Sam Eyde and get a revised letter. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 7 E. Horne also wondered who would prove this. She believes that there needs to be some checks and balances. General discussion ensued regarding paying for a study, parking enforcement, impact on the neighborhood, etc. M. Clark stated that she thinks in general city wide what they are talking about is something that needs to be considered. Specifically on the eastside, particularly in that particular corridor there has been so much controversy and effort over the years with Sparrow Hospital and the parking problems that existed on Michigan Avenue that to do this without a great deal of care and consideration is really risky. G. Hilts stated that his thought is to be careful in setting precedent because of all those years of work. A. Frederick stated that he has also heard comments that the Planning Board meetings, regarding the downtown area, that with the new buildings that are being rehabilitated and people moving in and the shift of tenants from old buildings to new buildings that they have reached capacity on their parking. He recalled a few months before hearing comments that won't happen for a while. General discussion ensued regarding parking areas and capacity. J. Ruff stated that they had done a parking study back in 1989. They are doing an RFP/Q for another study but broadening the scope of it somewhat. One of the answers that they are trying to get right now is participation from the state in financing it with them because they are including a lot of state facilities. They are awaiting their answer. They intend to do this by the end of the year and have a consultant on hand to do a study and qualify the need and location and system-wide what can the city do to improve its parking posture generally, not just how to add more spaces here, but take a look at their policies and objectives and how to carry them out. M. Clark stated that she received a call from Rick Kibbey from the Eastside Neighborhood Organization who was extremely concerned about an agreement that would be made that would say if they ever need it they will develop the property on Shiawassee without something being attached to the deed of the property like an easement. His concern was that if there isn't some kind of a legal attachment to that property, it will just slip through at some point. A. Frederick stated that the tone of the letter sounded like they didn't believe there was a problem. He thinks that they believe they are promising something that they will never have to do. He stated that he might agree with them if they said that the parking code requirements were a little too stringent or not. Nevertheless, the codes are there for them to see and understand before they start developing buildings. He stated that it sounds to him that it is primarily an issue of"let's save a little bit of money and only develop what we absolutely and positively can get away with". If they believe that the parking requirements are to stringent then let them go to the people who can change the rules and make their case there, rather than make their case before this Board. He believes that they can get some economic realization out of that property as it sits without having to deal with changing the parking rules. He is still not convinced that he should grant them anything unless they were more likely to come up with a real solid promise other than "here, we'll make some parking". M. Clark stated that her concern at this point is that the Board is not even granting them a variance at this point. They are saying that they don't need a variance anymore because they are going to make this deal and we will set aside this property for this use, so we don't need a variance. She stated that this is a way of getting around the whole thing. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 8 G. Hilts stated that was his thought on setting precedent. A. Frederick stated that if they are saying that they don't need a variance, then the Board can take it off the table and deny it. He stated that he is not sure that they are making any agreement with the Board or with anybody else. But if they are going to make an agreement, they should make it with somebody who has the authority to accept it and he doesn't believe that is the Board. M. Clark stated that it becomes an issue that Jim R. needs to clarify, if they are saying that they are going to withdraw their request for variance, what authority of the department in general in making those kinds of deals when obviously a parking variance for 735 E. Michigan is required? J. Ruff stated that the property is zoned light industrial. The parking code allows options of using property in an industrial district up to 1000 feet away and not providing shuttle service. It doesn't have to be on site. Just like this property has the building and the parking around the building plus a lot across Hosmer St. The H-Light Industrial District allows up to 1000 feet to lease or obtain your parking to meet your code requirement separate from the lot itself. What they are requesting here.is that-there are two things: 1)they are committing to use that lot for parking which is within 1000 feet. They could go within one mile and shuttle people and it doesn't have to be that lot; it can be any lot within 1000 feet. They are committing a lot that Eydes already own to providing that need. What they are asking the City is not to develop that lot with hard surface parking if it is not going to get used. He stated that he has suggested to them that they don't want a problem in the neighborhood because they could build the lot, meet their parking requirement and people still don't use it. There is nothing that says that people would have to park there and walk to the building. They could park in the neighborhood and walk to the building. They could find it easier to park on the street and walk to the front door. M. Clark stated that was exactly the war that was fought with Sparrow for 20 years. J. Ruff stated that Sparrow is not zoned industrial. The parking issue is the same, but the approach has to be thought about from a different vantage point because they have other opportunities that they could do, but it might not be practical. He doesn't know that employees would willingly walk from one spot from 960 feet away to the building. The point is how does the Board tie it in so that they can help control the parking. The gain in this is having their commitment to help monitor the situation in an agreeable manner so that if there is a problem, they have a system set up to help rectify the problem. He stated that MSHDA should be, and Mr. Greiner agreed with him, in the business of making sure they help neighborhoods. Thinking about this, how do we get them tied in to helping watch themselves. The other option they came to the Board with, when they were looking at rehabilitating and re-zoning the Civic Center, they approached the Planning Office and stated that they were going to re-zone 735 E. Michigan too to G-1 so that there would be no parking requirement. The office would not recommend this and it is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. J. Ruff also stated that further, Mr. Greiner stated that he didn't want to re-zone that because if he re-zones it to G-1, they won't get justification to pay for the on-site parking. The state won't require them to put the parking in, then they wouldn't pay for it. J. Ruff stated that the question, as it comes, how do they best get this here? Nobody disagrees with having MSHDA there necessarily but they are concerned about the parking impact. M. Clark stated that her other concern with the letter is that it states that"he will monitor this". But if MSHDA buys it, is MSHDA also signing a letter stating that they will monitor and is he tying the property to the building if he no longer owns the building? J. Ruff agrees with M. Clark. He stated that they could require them to put that in an easement deed restriction and the only way that Planning would eliminate that deed DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 9 restriction was that if you had another substitute for that or you reduce the usable square feet in the building to meet what parking you had available there or somewhere else. The monitoring is the difficult part. M. Clark stated that she agrees with Rick Kibbey that perhaps having a deed restriction is the only way to really efficiently monitor it without making somebody go around and be in an enforcement mode for the next 20 years. J. Ruff stated that he is not sure if he can get a deed restriction. The reason he says that is not because of necessarily Mr. Eyde, but he is not sure if he can get MSHDA and Eyde to do that. He stated that he can go back and talk about how to get as much assurances as possible of how this would work and whether it would be a letter of agreement that is placed on file through council and the city clerk and amended to the deed or their lease agreement, etc. That may help as well. He also stated that one of the things tonight's variances has brought up was Bay Petroleum on W. Willow. They built a new canopy a few years back in 1993. The canopy is allowed with a 12 foot setback. Jim Sturdevant discovered when they went through the rehabilitation process of this building to go to Citgo that the canopy is only 10 feet away. Things tend to, in some ways, catch up. They are cutting off 2 feet of that canopy to comply. That is just an example of catching up that happens from time to time. A. Frederick asked if J. Ruff knew if either the Eydes or Mr. Greiner have gone to the neighborhood to present the issue? As he recalled, the last time he talked to them that they said it was something that would be a good thing to do to at least present their side to the neighborhood. J. Ruff stated that he didn't know if they had. He stated that he thought information like this was conveyed to Mr. Kibbey. M. Clark stated that she didn't know whether the neighborhood was contacted either. A. Frederick stated that before he makes any decision on this, he wants to hear if they did what they said they were going to do. He thinks that it is up to them. J. Ruff stated that his biggest concern is that if he makes Eydes build a lot in this situation, it still might not get used. Then he has to go and create this system of trying to get MSHDA employees to park on MSHDA property. General discussion ensued regarding parking areas, locations, where people will actually park, etc. It was decided to leave this case on table at this time. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. NONE VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of October 14, 1999 A. Frederick moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. 2000 Meeting Dates J. Ruff presented dates for the Year 2000 meetings. V. Earhart moved to accept Year 2000 meeting dates. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. B. Q. Hilts requested excused absences for January through May DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1999 PAGE 10 A. Frederick moved to accept excused absences. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. C. December meeting will start early with holiday party trays for Board members who are invited to bring a guest. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 11/05/99 Approved 11/18/99 To Clerk 11/22/99 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS , �`� OCTOBER 14, 1999, 7:30 P.M. L' ' y yv^ 1 J ,�, CLEdITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:30 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick V. Earhart B. Burgess G. Hilts Staff: J. Ruff L. Davis S. Quon J. Sturdevant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. R. McCloud called on October 141h and requested an excused absence. Motion by A. Frederick to accept absence. Seconded by V. Earhart. Carried unanimously to approve. ll. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. Horne requested to add "City of Lansing Housing Market Analysis" to New Business. V. Earhart made motion to approve agenda with additions. Supported by G. Hilts. Carried unanimously for approval. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3554.99. 907 W. Saginaw J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Andrew Brodie, representing the owner, St. Luke Baptist Church, to use Genesee Park, one block north of their Child Care Facility with a maximum of 15 children, as an alternative play area to the on site play area required by ordinance. Based upon Section 1268.03(i)(1) of the Zoning Code, a child care facility in a 'F' Commercial District is permitted if it provides and maintains on the lot not less than 5,000 sq ft of open space. Therefore, this is a request for a variance for the on site open space requirement. He stated that they intend to use an off site location which would be Genesee Park which is approximately one block away. The property is zoned F-Commercial. It is right on West Saginaw Street. It is near the intersection with Butler. The property has received a Special Land Use for a church in that district. They wish to also accommodate an ancillary use of this child care facility to a maximum of 15 children. That is all the facility could accommodate by state regulations. The application for a child care facility then falls under another set of guidelines and regulations which requires on site play area. Again, their desire is to have off site play area. The proposed area that they would use would be Genesee Park. He referred to the map in the board packet which illustrates location of property, parking, etc. One of the problems with this is that Genesee Park may not be around as a park permanently. It is not dedicated for park use. It was where an apartment building was. The city bought it and tore it down. The proposal is to resell the land for the development of a couple of single family homeowner occupied homes that could be developed by one of the cooperative housing units that the city uses through the Development Office such as Ferris Development, Franklin Street, etc. that can do more of a home on a non-profit basis and help somebody get into it that maybe DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 2 doesn't have a normal down payment for a home. That is the proposal at present. The property size is not large enough on itself to accommodate the play area. It is not part of a larger center, although it appears to be similar to a strip mall. The property itself is only 2300 square feet in size. That is approximately the size of the building. There is no outdoor play space. His understanding that the accommodation of the 15 children inside would allow for their interior activity space, but that was the maximum that the facility could have. He referred to extra pictures that were sent to the Board separate from their packets. The real difficulty is that they don't have the on site land and yet there is property around that could potentially be used. Their concern is the fact that the land might not be around for long. One alternative would be the Black Child and Family Institute which is nearby. That is another contemplation, but it is not owned by the city and they don't have any jurisdiction on that property either. He stated that it is difficult for staff to support the request without having the support play space. He was hoping that the applicant could explain how they were planning on handling the children, etc., but the applicant is not here. He stated that the Board has granted variances in the past for some of the downtown child care facilities that have parks or open space nearby such as Durant Park or Willow Park. It's not generally done for an open piece of land that could become private property within a matter of months. B. Burgess asked about what the licensing requirements for the daycare center are regarding outdoor play space? J. Ruff stated that for the state licensing requirement, it wouldn't be near as much space. It is a much smaller area. But he doesn't know exactly how much it is. B. Burgess stated that the Board's concern is that the daycare center would not be able to operate without outdoor space. General discussion ensued regarding child care facilities, etc. V. Earhart stated that the report indicates that there is no play equipment. Over the course of the summer, play equipment has been put in but it is not for small children. Also, the Black Family& Child Institute is not just nearby, it is kiddy corner across the street. In terms of how far the children would have to walk, they would still have to go across the street. Right now they are in the process of changing Ionia, Shiawassee and Genesee from one-way to two-way streets. That may, very well, impact on the traffic on the surrounding streets making a bigger traffic problem there. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess moved to table BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw. Supported by G. Hilts. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X Hilts X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-1, BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw has been tabled. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 3 B. BZA-3555.99. 3132Ingham Sam Quon, Senior Planner, presented case. Mr. Lamar is requesting a variance for a 1,152 square foot garage and a total accessory structure area of 1,296 square feet. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing garage that is 528 square feet and construct a new 24x48 garage. Currently, there is also a 12x12 storage building on the property. The new garage will bring the total area of accessory structure to 1,296 square feet. Mr. Lamar is requesting a variance to be able to build the larger garage in order for him to park and store his 25 foot travel trailer on his property. In order to park his trailer at this time, he parks it on a concrete pad in back of his garage. He basically needs to use his neighbor's property in order to maneuver the travel trailer to his back yard and park it on the pad. In addition, Mr. Lamar also has back problems which makes it difficult for him to turn and back up his travel trailer. He referred to the site plan and photos attached to the board packets. J. Ruff also noted that besides the travel trailer, Mr. Lamar seriously dabbles with radio controlled airplanes. Right now he does this in his basement. He would like to be able to do that in his garage. Also, the concrete pad that Mr. Lamar put in did not require a building permit, but it is already that size. V. Earhart asked what he meant by"it is already that size"? J. Ruff stated that he poured a concrete pad that is already 24'x48' in size where Mr. Lamar currently parks his travel trailer. S. Quon stated that section 1248.03(b)(6)of the Zoning Code allows the garage to be up to 720 square feet. Section 1248.03(b)(2)of the Zoning Code allows a total amount of accessory structure not to exceed 1000 square feet. Mr. Lamar is, therefore, requesting a variance for 432 square feet for a garage addition as well as a variance for 296 square feet for total accessory structure. The code requires the Board to look at four criteria: is there a hardship and practical difficulty; the compatibility with surrounding neighborhood; any impact on circulation patterns; and impact on environment or development patterns. Basically, the property is in the 'A' Residential District which permits garages up to 720 square feet and up to 1000 square feet of total accessory structure. The properties in this neighborhood are similar in shape and size to his property. The lot is not of such a shape or location that would warrant a variance. The variance request is not reasonable because it exceeds the maximum area for a garage by 432 square feet and total allowable for accessory structures by 296 square feet. The hardship or practical difficulty in this case is not the result of the property, but because Mr. Lamar owns a trailer. Therefore, a hardship or practical difficulty does not exist. As with compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods, properties in this neighborhood have garages that currently meet code. This proposed garage would be almost twice the size of the typical garage in this neighborhood. Therefore, it would be out of character. As for the impact on circulation pattern, this proposed variance would not have any impact on vehicular circulation in the neighborhood or any pedestrian circulation in the neighborhood. There are not any anticipated impacts on the development pattern of this area as well. Staff recommends denial of this variance request for 432 square feet of additional garage area and 296 square feet of total accessory structure area. However, staff would support a variance for 136 square feet for an 856 square foot garage. This alternative would provide enough flexibility to accommodate the applicant's need for an additional garage area and, at the same time, be under the maximum 1000 square feet of allowable accessory structure area. He referred to a sketch in the board packet of a garage that would meet that requirement. V. Earhart asked what would happen to the current storage building? S. Quon stated that it will be demolished or removed. J. Ruff questioned if V. Earhart was asking about the garage or the storage building? DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 4 J. Ruff stated that the 12x12 structure will remain as part of the total accessory structure. Mr. James Lamar, 3132 Ingham St., addressed the Board. He stated that the concrete was there to move the old garage back. The most easy and feasible way that he could see to store the trailer and still not take anymore lawn out was to just build a garage big enough that they could back straight up the driveway and not use the neighbor's yards, driveways, or anything else in order to store the trailer plus put both vehicles in the garage itself. He took up a petition around the neighborhood and everyone signed it. They don't have a problem with him building this size of a garage. He gave the petition to the Board. V. Earhart stated to the applicant that she understands that he wants the larger building. Can he get the trailer into the 12' space that has been provided on the proposal? Mr. Lamar stated that he hasn't seen the proposal. J. Ruff stated that Mr. Lamar had given him the specification for the 48'. Mr. Lamar could explain the need for the truck and trailer. V. Earhart stated that it isn't the 48'that she is questioning. She is questioning the 12' at the other end. V. Earhart showed the proposal to Mr. Lamar. Discussion ensued regarding space for the trailer. Mr. Lamar stated that now is the time to store his trailer. He wants to make sure that when they are gone traveling that it is in safe keeping. They have already had some problem with security with the trailer. He stated that it is a means of safe keeping if they don't take the trailer or it is a means of storing it in an easy way without having to use his neighbor's driveways or his other neighbor's back yard. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that the size of the garage is a bit big for that neighborhood. It would be out of place. It will come back and haunt the Board in the future. A. Frederick stated that he has a problem defining a practical difficulty because he believes that the travel trailer could be stored off site in some commercially available storage area. But he also knows that the Board is having more requests for variances for larger garages than the Zoning Code calls for because lots are getting bigger and also people are getting more things to put in their garages. He is torn between saying yes or no. He does think that Mr. Lamar does get satisfactory use out of his property as it is and that they could make accommodation to park the travel trailer off site in someplace that is locked up and safe from vandalism. He doesn't know if he could support this variance. He believes that there might be a good argument for granting it as well. V. Earhart asked Mr. Frederick if he was speaking of the variance that was requested or the variance that was suggested? A. Frederick stated that he was referring to either variance. He was speaking about a variance in general. M. Clark stated that, for the record, she wanted to indicate that Mr. Lamar submitted a petition with approximately 20 names and also an additional card in support of the proposed garage. G. Hilts stated that he could see going with bigger garages in some of the neighborhoods that might be developing where the lots are bigger and it is more to scale. But when you get into the older neighborhoods and increasing garage size, it starts being out of place and starts taking up more space. It blocks more view of surrounding people, etc. He doesn't see where the code in DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 5 this case allows the Board to make a decision to give the applicant a variance regardless. That is the first test, the hardship or practical difficulty, which in this case is self imposed. He would have to vote no. B. Burgess stated that he feels the same way as G. Hilts. It seems that this type of neighborhood is the kind of neighborhood that the Zoning Code was written around or existed when no Zoning Code was there. He doesn't believe that there is a hardship-there is no hardship with the land. The Board is looking at this in longer terms. There is also an issue of starting businesses in such garages in these types of neighborhoods. There is no guarantee that wouldn't happen in the future. He would vote against this request. J. Ruff stated that when he met with Mr. Lamar, he talked about the possibility that around the first of the year, the Board would be proposing some new legislation or ordinance amendments regarding garages and garage size. He gave Mr. Lamar that option to wait until the Board knew a little more of what the Council would do for larger garages of that sort. The other difficulty here is that this is a decent size lot- 70'x 187'. The lots are all basically the same size in the neighborhood. As he explained to Mr. Lamar the idea that if it were approved it would be like approving in that size garage for that whole neighborhood because they are all similar in size. E. Horne stated that she agrees with B. Burgess. She believes that the Board needs to take a look at the whole neighborhood. She thinks that it is not in character. Once a character is established, the Board should uphold it as well as meeting the requirements of the code. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3555.99, 3132 Ingham St. Seconded by E. Horne. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was denied unanimously. C. BZA-3556.99, 824 Bates J. Sturdevant presented the case. He referred to the staff report showing the map of the area and subject property. It is on Bates St. on the north end of Lansing just east of Northeast St. It is the 2"d block in from Northeast St. to the east of Northeast St. The applicant has a single family home there. It is a neighborhood of single family homes. The lot sizes in the neighborhood are all similar. They are about 50'wide by approximately 150' deep. In regards to the area map, the setback of the houses from Bates St. is largely varied. Some set right up close, some set back 60' or more. The applicant's house is somewhere in the middle about 42' back from the property line currently. The applicant is requesting permission to build an addition onto the front of the house. It will be a covered front porch which will be screened and heated. That porch that the applicant is proposing would encroach into the established front yard setback area by about 1.6'. The current average for established setback for her residence is 36' and she is requesting that her porch be allowed to have a setback of 34.4'. He referred to the report and Table 1 for setbacks and code requirements. Two houses directly to the west of the applicant's are quite a bit closer to the street with setbacks of 20' and 28'. Houses adjacent to the east are about even with what the applicant's house is currently. Given that there is such a wide variation in front yard setbacks in the neighborhood, from about 20' on up to 50', he believes that creates enough of a hardship to grant a small variance from the average setback of 36'given in mind that the applicant will still be well within the absolute minimum that the code requires for a front yard setback of 20'. With that hardship in mind, he believes that the applicant's request is reasonable and he recommends approval. A. Frederick asked him to explain how he got the average? J. Sturdevant explained that the area map that is in the report is at a scale of 1 inch to approximately 100'. He explained that he took the front lefthand corner of the property and measured 180'to the west. Any lot that falls within that 180' he has to measure the setback on those houses, which includes the next 4 houses because they are all 150' lots. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 6 A. Frederick asked if he figures the applicant's property in that? J. Sturdevant stated that no, he figures the properties on either side of the applicant's. General discussion ensued regarding setback measurements and averages. M. Clark asked if this was a heated porch? J. Sturdevant stated that it was. M. Clark asked what the difference is between an addition to a house and a porch? J. Ruff stated that it is the same thing. M. Clark stated that the only concern she has with an addition is that once the addition has been made, she is not willing to approve in a year or two from now, adding on a porch. Linda Regis, 824 Bates St., and nephew addressed the Board. He passed out pictures to the Board relating to the house and surrounding area. He stated that they put on their application that they would like it to be anywhere from 8-12'. That is an issue as to what would be the maximum that could be built. He stated that he knows the rule gives 4 houses on each side and that is how the calculations are made, but those would be the 4 worst houses to choose from. If you went down another house or two, they are closer. Across the street, 98% of the houses are closer. He referred to the pictures passed out. Ms. Regis stated that neighbors called in to the Planning Office to tell us that it was OK with them. She also received a letter from a neighbor but she forgot it. J. Sturdevant stated that he does have communications to read into the record. The nephew stated that Ms. Regis was hoping for 12'. M. Clark asked if the formal request was for 8'? J. Sturdevant stated that is what was on the application form. That is what was processed. M. Clark asked for clarification as to what this addition is. Ms. Regis stated that it is a porch. It will have windows and the entrance to the home. M. Clark asked where the entrance would be? Ms. Regis stated that the entrance would be in the front with steps. M. Clark asked if it was going to be heated and totally enclosed? Ms. Regis stated that it would be. J. Sturdevant stated that he received phone calls today; one from Ms. Brenda Rux, 812 Bates St. that says that she is in support. She lives a couple of doors down. She says that she also speaks for her mother, Ruth Cummings, who lives at 900 Bates which is a couple doors down in the next direction. Ms. Cummings is supportive as well. He also received a call from Lee Jesko at 820 Bates who said that she had no objection to the applicant's request. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 7 G. Hilts stated that he doesn't see any adverse impact for this request. V. Earhart agrees with G. Hilts. A. Frederick stated that the practical difficulty for him is when the houses were built and when the zoning code went into effect. He thinks that they tried when they developed the zoning code to take that into account that the houses were there before. The average calculations are confusing. E. Horne stated that it will still be within the established front yard setbacks and also it is within the limits of the code. V. Earhart moved that BZA-3556.99, 824 Bates, the variance requested from the established front yard setback at 824 Bates St. of 1.6' be approved. Seconded by E. Horne. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. D. BZA-3557.99, Moores River Estates S. Quon presented the case. MSM Development is requesting a variance for a 736 square foot garage. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family residential structure at 3400 Oakmont Drive in Moores River Estates, which is a condominium complex. This proposed house will be approximately 1,800 square feet with a 736 square foot attached 3-car garage. He referred to the attached floor plan and elevation of the design of the house and garage in the board packet. Moores River Estates condominium bylaws do not permit the use of common area for the purpose of storage. Each co-owner shall use their own garage for the purpose of storage. The bylaws also specify that any recreational vehicles or trailers may not be stored or parked on the premises of the project unless approved by the Board of Directors or an area designated by the association. He also referred to a fax from the association and a copy of the deed restriction. Section 1248.03(b)(6) of the code allows only 720 square feet of garage area. Therefore, the applicant is asking for a variance of 16 square feet of additional garage area. Because of the deed restrictions in the condominium complex, which does not allow separate accessory structures, homes within the estates are not permitted to have one. This variance request will enable the applicant to park their vehicles and store their supplies and materials in the garage. A practical difficulty exists due to the deed restrictions at Moores River Estates even though the Zoning Code would permit them to have an accessory structure in order to store supplies and materials. Therefore, the practical difficulty in this case is not the result of the owner's own action, but because of the deed restrictions. Therefore, the variance request for the additional 16 square feet is reasonable. Most of the homes in this neighborhood have two-car garages that meet code. There are no condominiums there with accessory structures. He referred to attached photos of the property site and of adjacent homes in the board packet. The design of this proposed garage will be integrated in such a way that it will have a unified style to make the attached garage compatible with the other condominiums in this neighborhood. The approval of this garage will not impact any type of future development in this area and it won't have any impact on vehicular or pedestrian circulation. Staff recommends approval of this variance request for 16 square feet of additional garage area to build a 736 square foot attached garage. V. Earhart made a point of clarification. S. Quon has talked about other condominiums. There is no such thing as a condominium. You cannot go out and capture a condominium. You have structures and you have a legal way of owning them. The legal way of owning them is called a condominium association. The question here is: Are we using a common area? Is the 16 square feet that are being asked for part of a common area? Because if it is part of a common area, the Board doesn't have anything to do with it. It is part of the condominium agreement. If it is not part of the common area, if it is in fact part of the household area that the owner of the property is developing, then the Board may have something to do with it. We have to start from the very beginning and find out what is the common area. An accessory structure to her is another structure in DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 8 the back. It is not 16 square feet added onto a garage. But what she doesn't know is whether the owner is trying to build that 16 square feet in the common area, and if he is trying to build it in the common area, the Board can't do anything about it. J. Ruff stated that was a good example of ownership,just like a lease or a plat. A condominium sets up a situation where each participant in a condominium owns some personal property area which generally is the building itself and maybe some other improvements associated with that building. The remaining area is common and sometimes those are set up as envelopes where you can build anywhere in that envelope or it can be stated that it is the size of the principal structure. Shawn McCardel, representing 1/3 of MSM Development, addressed the Board. He passed to the Board a plot plan that shows the general common elements that surround the structure. It is his understanding that within their condominium development that as long as the structure or footprint that they propose meets the setback requirements of both the city and the association, because they also have setback requirements, that the structure itself would be the owners and that the area outside of that would be considered a general common element. If you take into consideration the 22' in depth of the garage, all they are asking to do is extend the length of the building less than 1'to make up the 16 square feet. J. Ruff stated that it would be 9 inches. They could cut 9 inches off the side of the garage and it would be 720 square feet. S. McCardel stated that their role in the development now is that they have purchased the last phase and %from the original developer. His partners and him are developing the last phase of the development. They are asking for a favorable decision for the following reasons: 1)it has been stated that the association does not permit outhouses or sheds or barns to store anything. They are asking for a variance of 9 inches; 2)The house fits the setback requirements both for the city and the association; 3)The trend now if you get into a certain price range is to go for a larger garage, possibly a 3-car garage. That is what they are wanting in this situation. Recent precedence has been set for getting a 3-car garage. V. Earhart asked if Mr. McCardel was maintaining that this was personal rather than common area? S. McCardel stated that was correct. V. Earhart asked what was going to be stored in it? S. McCardel stated that what Mr. & Mrs. Schultz would be storing, to his understanding, is general household supplies. They have 2 cars right now. He hasn't visited their existing home, but he senses that they will be downsizing. A lot of times what they run into in the market that they are in is that families are downsizing so they need extra space to store things that they have collected over the years. V. Earhart asked if they were talking about recreational vehicles or trailers? S. McCardel stated no. M. Clark stated that she would think that the applicant would need a variance from the Board for the size variance and then whether it is in a common area or not is something that he has to iron out with the condominium association. But he would still need the Board's variance. S. McCardel stated that in talking with the manager of the association, it was batted around with the original developer 9 or 10 years ago when it first started that if there was DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 9 a large demand for accessory buildings amongst the members of the association, there is a certain part of the land that is there now that has been set aside that the members might be able to put a pole building back there. He doubts very highly that will ever happen. It is used as a general park area with fill dirt in there. V. Earhart asked if it was part of the house and not an accessory structure? S. McCardel stated that it was part of the house. V. Earhart asked if it was big enough to hold three vehicles? J. Ruff stated that it was. The minimum set garage size built today is 20x20 for a two car garage. Most cars can get in. People with pickup trucks might not have enough room. M. Clark asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they convened into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that he is confused why the Board is here for this particular appeal. Are they here to enforce the restrictions on the deed and condominium rules or are they here to enforce the zoning code. It sounds to him like the reason why the variance was requested was because the restrictions on the deed and the condominium rules are more strict than the Zoning Code. He doesn't know if he can see support for this. This doesn't seem to be a hardship that will keep the applicant from making reasonable use of the property. M. Clark asked for clarification on the 720 square feet and 1,000 square feet. General discussion ensued regarding variances of garages and structure space. J. Ruff explained code requirements regarding garages and what was and was not allowed. B. Burgess stated that the applicant has a comment and he would like to hear it. S. McCardel stated that the reason he is here is not because of the association. The association doesn't have objection to the plan that they have put forth. He stated that the reason he is here is the garage that they have is 736 square feet which is 16 square feet over what is permitted. If he was building this home in a neighborhood as platted under different regulations as opposed to asking for a 16 square foot or 9 inch variance, it is his understanding that he could go out and build 1,000 square feet accessory building. He is here because of the city requirements, not because of the association. When they first started the development, he and his partner flew in an architect that used to reside in this area and is familiar with that section of town. The architect visited with him and drove through the community. They tried to design architecturally buildings that were agreeable to what the original developer had started 10 years ago. Now they have made some changes, maybe used more modern materials and fresher look that is more consistent with architecture that is desired today. But they made an effort on this particular building to maintain the same trim design, the same architecture, etc. to make it consistent with the condominium association. Really, this is a custom home. They are trying to make an effort to make it blend in with what is in the community. A. Frederick stated that his question was the purpose why they want the larger garage- it appeared to him that from the report it is wanted for storage because there isn't enough storage because of the rules of the condominium association. That, to him, says that Mr. McCardel is here because of the condominium rules, not the Zoning Code because his purpose is to get more storage. S. McCardel stated that it could be interpreted that way. The way that they look at it is that the condominium bylaws that are in the master deed create the hardship for them. Now they have to come to the Board to ask for the 16 square foot variance. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 10 V. Earhart stated that she still thinks that whatever the condominium association decides to do is beside the point. They need 16 square feet variance so that this particular home owner can have a 3-car garage. When the Board asked the people on Cambridge, they didn't ask"what are you going to do with your 3`d stall?". The Board is not asking that question. The Board doesn't care. Now if the condominium association cares and this is a violation under the condominium association rules, then the lawyers representing the association are going to sue the owner. That is not the problem of the Board. The problem is will the Board grant 16 square feet to permit this home owner to have a 3-car garage which on other occasions have been told is an up and coming thing in housing, it is something that people want, they are getting more cars, they have children, etc. A. Frederick stated that on the Board's decision on the appeal on Cambridge, the applicant indicated that he wouldn't build an accessory structure. This case is much like the current request for variance. V. Earhart stated that in this case the condominium association bylaws say that you can't have an accessory structure is giving the Board the same promise. There is also better enforcement since the association will know what happens. E. Horne asked what the size of the lot is. S. McCardel stated that it is awfully difficult because you don't really get a lot. The building itself is 76' in width and then there will be a minimum of 12' on the south end and 25' on the other end which would bring it all up to a little over 100' in width. The depth, between that and the next structure to the west, is easily 100'. These are rough references. J. Ruff showed E. Horne maps of the lot area. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3557.99, Moores River Estates, a variance for 16 square feet of additional garage area for a total 736 square feet of attached garage. Seconded by V. Earhart. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. E. BZA-3558.99, 446 Everett J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Mr. Anderson at 446 Everett Dr. for a variance to construct a 6' high fence in the front yard of the property at 446 Everett. It is zoned 'A' Residential and is a single family house. It is typical of the area. It is a corner lot- regular in size. Averages are approximately 100x107 and is about 1/4 of an acre. The property at 446 Everett Dr. has two front yards each requiring a 20'front yard setback. Fences in particular, have a separate code when it comes to how they determine where fences can be. He referred to a map in the board packet showing where the fence should be. This property, as a corner lot, it already has a fence that was previous to the code. That fence is getting older. The applicant is a newer owner of the home and they are upgrading the home - rehabilitating much of the interior as well as going to be redoing the landscape on the exterior. He referred to graphics in packet regarding the fence. Right now there is about 1,170 square feet encompassed by the fence that is in the front yard. The house has a small room off to the side of the house likened to a study. There is overgrown landscaping around that room as well as around the corner of the site. What the applicant is requesting to do is, when he rebuilds the fence and re-landscapes everything, to extend the fence a little further toward the Everett Dr. property line and then return it back to the house encompassing a little additional yard area where the study would look out on. That would be an additional approximately 390 square feet of lot area. In many situations that the Board has looked at before, they have looked at corner lots having that 2nd front yard, some restriction on yard area and private yard space also the ability to have private recreation space and also trying to balance out the views that the ordinance is intended to preserve in a neighborhood. Here there is an existing fence that could probably be rebuilt over time and kept in shape- although the applicant is looking to replace the fence in its entirety and the landscaping as well. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 11 Another part of this is, in looking at the situation there is also a fence right across the street which comes out in a similar fashion out to the yard facing Lenawee St. There are a couple of existing situations right near by. It is not necessarily unique to the area. Staff can understand the reason for wanting to encompass more area in the rear yard. He personally walked the area and stated that it is long and narrow in its positioning. The existing situation by having that extra 1,100 square feet out there is quite a nice addition to the rear yard. His concern especially comes up with the granting of the additional square footage, yet understanding the desire of the applicant. They are recommending that the area basically remain consistent with the total area that is encompassed by the fence. In trying to incorporate that extra side room there would mean pulling the fence a little further away from the sidewalk to keep that same approximate 1,190 square feet front yard area enclosed. It would shape it a little differently. It also then would bring the fence a little closer in conformance with moving it back and out of the front yard area a little further from the street opening up the view down the street. He noted that some of the streets are all angled with curves -they are not straight roads. He referred to a map in the packet showing the shapes of the roads and yards. The staff's recommendation is to allow the fence to extend closer to Everett Dr. but in doing so, move it back a little bit from Lenawee to keep the approximate same 1,190 or so square feet encompassed. That is the staffs recommendation. David Anderson, 446 Everett, addressed the Board. He stated that when they bought the house in January, they asked the owners if there were any leaks in the basement. He was told that they had lived there for 40 years and never had a problem in the basement. After one good rain, there was a substantial amount of water in the basement. He stated that the problem with his house is that the house to the west of him is about 18 inches higher than his house and all the water slants towards him. He stated that Mr. Ruff came out and looked at the house himself. What started this whole affair was how to stop the water from coming into the basement. He stated that the solution to that- and he had a number of different folks look at it- is slanting the earth away from the house at a slight grade down close to the property line. Then he has what looks like a berm, but it is really just going back to the existing level at his neighbor's house. In doing that,for probably 90' of the 107'they are losing about 3 %feet of usable space up to the fence in order to stop the water from going into the house by changing the grade. The only area that he doesn't have to do that is about 20'towards Lenawee. If he adopts the proposal of the department, they will lose 240' or 250' of back yard because of the berm that had to be created because of the drainage. He realizes that is his problem but that is the only way that he could come up with to avoid the water pouring into his basement when it rained. He doesn't want to do like the house across the street did. They brought their fence right out to the sidewalk into the road right of way and all the way up to the middle of their house. He doesn't want to do that. He wants to stay back inside the road right of way and what he is talking about is moving about 16'further towards Everett with the fence. What he wants to do is put a hottub back there which he wouldn't do if he didn't have the space because of the space he is losing because of the drainage issues. If this isn't allowed, then he will just nurse his fence along that he has there because to move the backyard he would lose too much back yard because of the drainage. He is losing about 240' square feet of back yard in order to deal with the drainage problem. This would be far less intrusive than next door. He is trying to meet what he thinks the zoning intends which is to let their be clear vision for one thing when people drive around the corner. He has already removed some large visually intrusive vegetation which really stopped you from seeing anywhere. It is much easier to see while driving now. It is a lot safer there. He is not going to go the length of the house, but he does want to include that little room. The suggestion by the department, while he really appreciates them trying to find a solution, he would just nurse the present fence along because of what he would lose there -the inability to have a good place for a hottub. The kind of fence that he will have along the street, the fence will be about 4 '/z feet and then there will be the lattice above that. He showed the Board a drawing of such a fence. That fence will be in the front yard. He would hope that the Board would consider his request. If not, than nothing will really change in terms of where the fences are which really means that he can't replace DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 12 the fence. He wants to have some ability to use the back yard and have some privacy. Because of the short block, he doesn't see how this would be such a significant precedent when you look at the odd shape of the blocks that they have in that neighborhood and the odd curved streets. He appreciated Mr. Ruff coming out and looking at it with him to brainstorm with him both for his drainage problems and the fence ordinance. V. Earhart asked about the report which states that it is a 6' high solid fence. Mr. Anderson just said it would be a 4' high solid with lattice on the top. J. Ruff stated that the only fence allowed in the front yard area would be a 3' high fence unless it is more than 75% open which is like a chain link fence or a split rail fence, then it could be 4' high. It is presently a 6' high shadowbox fence. The design will only be 4 '/2' high solid and then there will be lattice. The lattice would be 60-80% closed depending on the type of lattice. D. Anderson stated that it is open a little bit, but not much. It is just more attractive than having a picket fence or something like that. J. Ruff stated that he wanted to make sure that Mr. Anderson didn't misunderstand what the suggestion was of staff which was that it would take about 5-6' off of that area from the sidewalk a little further back. He referred to the site plan. M. Clark asked D. Anderson if he did understand the staff's recommendation and he wasn't interested in it? D. Anderson stated that he believes that is the only area that he has the whole yard. Everywhere else is where he is losing the space. He thinks that it would be quite a bit more than 34. He stated that they are already about 4' off the sidewalk because of the road right of way and then if he moves it another 5-6', he thinks he would be better off with the fence the way it is now. He stated that the contractors are out there now digging and tearing up and planting now. One section of the fence had to be removed so that they could get in and out. With all the space he is losing with the drainage, he appreciates the consideration, but that is the area where he isn't losing any space-the south end of the yard. M. Clark asked if what J. Ruff is proposing is the square footage of the yard would remain the same. The square footage of the area fenced in - it would just be a different configuration. J. Ruff stated that the yard is relatively flat compared to the house. Although, the yard does slope from the neighbors toward his. The only way to resolve the drainage is to create a drainage swale of some sort. What the applicant is doing is create as much of a flat valley in one area, but that means that he will have to have more slope in another area near the property line. In effect, he will have a more landscaped area that will be somewhat of a hill area there that will be less usable. J. Ruff stated that he did not take that into account when he discussed the report with Susan Cantlon. B. Burgess stated that he was curious what the practical difficulty is with the lot when the water is coming in. Is that a land problem? J. Ruff stated that there could be multiple ways of resolving the water issue, but every time he tries to use a dry well in the city, Public Service Department says not to bother because it just won't drain. It will fill up and overflow too fast because of all the clay in the soil. To keep a more natural environment of using surface drainage, this is a solution of putting a grade to the yard where before,with the angles of the roof, there were a lot of drains coming down in the back corner. He referred to a picture in the packet. The way to help take care of some of that problem as well as to move the water away from the DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 13 house quicker if it falls off is to do that with slopes or with culverts, etc. B. Burgess asked what J. Ruff's thoughts were on it now that he has all the pertinent information? J. Ruff stated that he would like to see the fence moved a little further back as an improvement to coming closer to the code in this situation. He also understands that the applicant is losing some space here. If there is any accommodation that can be made, whether it be even a few feet to make up the difference would be helpful. D. Anderson stated that if he needs to move the fence back, he is already out of the right of way. He would rather do that than not have any fence there. He doesn't want the fence that is there now to remain. He wants to put a good fence in there. V. Earhart stated that she would like more information. She proposed to table the request until more information could be obtained between J. Ruff and D. Anderson. D. Anderson stated that he has all the equipment there right now. He stated that it's too costly to keep the equipment there for any period of time. J. Ruff stated that there probably won't be any new information in a month. If there is anything that can be done, he thinks that it is an accommodation for enlarging the area. The Board also needs to keep in mind that there is not going to be a sign on this fence that says "This fence received a variance". So what ends up happening is that other people see the fence and they think that they should be able to do that too. They don't know all the struggle that Mr. Anderson goes through with the drainage, etc. As a staff, we have to relay that information when we go out and correct another situation. If there could be some accommodation, he believes that would be reasonable. Eighteen inches is something that moves the fence a little further back and they can say that it is at least an accommodation to resolve the issue of the drainage along with accommodating some of the yard space. V. Earhart withdrew her suggestion. M. Clark asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they convened into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that the drainage problems are certainly, to him, a practical difficulty. Mr. Anderson had nothing to do with that. The issue to him is not whether it is granted, but how much. V. Earhart stated that she agrees with A. Frederick. That is basically what she wanted to do was to have the time to look at how much. B. Burgess asked how it would read if they approved 18 inches? J. Ruff stated that it would be approved with condition that the fence be relocated an additional 18 inches away from the Lenawee St. right of way. General discussion ensued regarding where fence would be in relation to house, etc. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3558.99, 446 Everett for a 6'fence with the condition that the fence along Lenawee be moved back 18 inches from the property line and not extend any further than the study area of the house. Seconded by G. Hilts. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 14 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch - remains tabled B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol - remains tabled C. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan J. Ruff stated that he has received a letter of withdrawal for this case. E. Horne moved to remove BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan from the table. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous. J. Ruff stated that the case was tabled for a parking number variance for the rehabilitation of the old library for the MSHDA offices. Part of the discussion last time was about the other properties that Mr. Eyde owned that are relatively close by and if those could be incorporated. They convinced, and Mr. Eyde agreed, that he would have that one that is within about 900' on Shiawassee St-there is land there available. The agreement that they are going to work with is that he is responsible for the parking for that building for MSHDA. The city is not going to make him develop the parking unless it is necessary. In doing this, they are going to have a advisory group noted from Mr. Eyde so that they can keep track of this. Mr. Greiner, who is with the Michigan State Housing Development Authority(MSHDA) should be involved in the neighborhood. He thinks that this is a good way for him to be involved. Also they are talking about the East Michigan Avenue business people who have an organization also. They also want to include the neighborhood area as well in this group. They will review the use of the parking. If there are problems with the parking such as employees parking on the street when they don't need if there is room in the parking lots -that is one corrective management measure that MSHDA will work with the city on -to help free up enough street parking for visitors to businesses and so on. Another issue would be is if people parked on the streets in the neighborhood and the parking lot was full. If they have a full parking lot and they have more parking, then Mr. Eyde is committed to building additional parking to accommodate that. The land is available presently even if it was used without it being developed for parking on a limited basis until parking could be developed. They have done this in a few other cases. Generally, it is on site to try to preserve lawn area and landscape area - increase the amount of landscape area. A developer would show where they would get the extra parking on the site. They have given the Planning Office enough reason to believe that they don't need to develop the parking to support the businesses there. So, they don't make them put it in unless they exceed their parking demand. That is what they have been looking at. Mr. Eyde wants to take care of MSHDA's parking. In the industrial district, he has the opportunity to not have on site parking. It could be within one mile if it is shuttled and 1000 feet if it is not shuttled. M. Clark stated that her concern is not whether he has it or not, but is he always going to have it available when MSHDA leaves in 15 years and he puts in a bunch of offices. Is there some legal requirement that the vacant land be connected with this property as parking for this? J. Ruff stated that particular vacant land - no. He explained some options that Mr. Eyde would have with the land to the Board. M. Clark stated that her concern is that 10 years from now, nobody is going to remember that the piece of property was dedicated to this building. J. Ruff stated that when they review permits, those are the things they look for. They calculate the usable square footage and document it. General discussion ensued regarding permits, flagging the property, etc. J. Ruff stated that he and Sam Quon have been setting up a GIS system that enables DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 15 them to track properties and conditions of those properties more efficiently. It would work for variances, permits, etc. M. Clark asked if neighborhoods would be notified of these things? J. Ruff stated that there would be a volunteer from the neighborhood organization, a volunteer from the Eastside Commercial Club, a representative from MSHDA, a representative of Eyde's Company and the Planning Office that would meet regularly and review that. M. Clark asked if there would be something in writing - documented -to the adjacent neighborhoods that would be most affected? She stated that there needs to be something formal in that process so that notification is sent to someone. J. Ruff stated that it was a good point and could be done. General discussion and explanation ensued regarding notification and other cases such as this. V. Earhart moved to table BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan since the attached letter referred to in the letter from Mr. Eyde was not attached. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to table. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. NONE VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of September 9, 1999 V. Earhart moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by A. Frederick. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Officers V. Earhart moved to have G. Hilts as chair. Seconded by A. Frederick. Carried. B. Burgess volunteered as co-chair. Seconded by V. Earhart. Carried. B. Housing Market Study E. Horne attended the Housing Market Study meeting last night. She thinks that when the Planning Board has their hearing regarding this study that the Board of Zoning Appeals as well as the Historic District Commission should be present. She also requested copies for both the BZA and HDC of the summary sheet of the Housing Market Study. J. Ruff stated that it would be put on the Planning Board meeting for next Tuesday, October 191h at 7:00 p.m. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 11/05/99 Approved To Clerk _.MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ~" OCTOBER 14, 1999, 7:30 P.M. ,,VCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:30 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick V. Earhart B. Burgess G. Hilts Staff: J. Ruff L. Davis S. Quon J. Sturdevant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. R. McCloud called on October 14" and requested an excused absence. Motion by A. Frederick to accept absence. Seconded by V. Earhart. Carried unanimously to approve. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. Horne requested to add "City of Lansing Housing Market Analysis"to New Business. V. Earhart made motion to approve agenda with additions. Supported by G. Hilts. Carried unanimously for approval. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Andrew Brodie, representing the owner, St. Luke Baptist Church, to use Genesee Park, one block north of their Child Care Facility with a maximum of 15 children, as an alternative play area to the on site play area required by ordinance. Based upon Section 1268.03(i)(1) of the Zoning Code, a child care facility in a 'F' Commercial District is permitted if it provides and maintains on the lot not less than 5,000 sq ft of open space. Therefore, this is a request for a variance for the on site open space requirement. He stated that they intend to use an off site location which would be Genesee Park which is approximately one block away. The property is zoned F-Commercial. It is right on West Saginaw Street. It is near the intersection with Butler. The property has received a Special Land Use for a church in that district. They wish to also accommodate an ancillary use of this child care facility to a maximum of 15 children. That is all the facility could accommodate by state regulations. The application for a child care facility then falls under another set of guidelines and regulations which requires on site play area. Again, their desire is to have off site play area. The proposed area that they would use would be Genesee Park. He referred to the map in the board packet which illustrates location of property, parking, etc. One of the problems with this is that Genesee Park may not be around as a park permanently. It is not dedicated for park use. It was where an apartment building was. The city bought it and tore it down. The proposal is to resell the land for the development of a couple of single family homeowner occupied homes that could be developed by one of the cooperative housing units that the city uses through the Development Office such as Ferris Development, Franklin Street, etc. that can do more of a home on a non-profit basis and help somebody get into it that maybe DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 2 doesn't have a normal down payment for a home. That is the proposal at present. The property size is not large enough on itself to accommodate the play area. It is not part of a larger center, although it appears to be similar to a strip mall. The property itself is only 2300 square feet in size. That is approximately the size of the building. There is no outdoor play space. His understanding that the accommodation of the 15 children inside would allow for their interior activity space, but that was the maximum that the facility could have. He referred to extra pictures that were sent to the Board separate from their packets. The real difficulty is that they don't have the on site land and yet there is property around that could potentially be used. Their concern is the fact that the land might not be around for long. One alternative would be the Black Child and Family Institute which is nearby. That is another contemplation, but it is not owned by the city and they don't have any jurisdiction on that property either. He stated that it is difficult for staff to support the request without having the support play space. He was hoping that the applicant could explain how they were planning on handling the children, etc., but the applicant is not here. He stated that the Board has granted variances in the past for some of the downtown child care facilities that have parks or open space nearby such as Durant Park or Willow Park. It's not generally done for an open piece of land that could become private property within a matter of months. B. Burgess asked about what the licensing requirements for the daycare center are regarding outdoor play space? J. Ruff stated that for the state licensing requirement, it wouldn't be near as much space. It is a much smaller area. But he doesn't know exactly how much it is. B. Burgess stated that the Board's concern is that the daycare center would not be able to operate without outdoor space. General discussion ensued regarding child care facilities, etc. V. Earhart stated that the report indicates that there is no play equipment. Over the course of the summer, play equipment has been put in but it is not for small children. Also, the Black Family & Child Institute is not just nearby, it is kiddy corner across the street. In terms of how far the children would have to walk, they would still have to go across the street. Right now they are in the process of changing Ionia, Shiawassee and Genesee from one-way to two-way streets. That may, very well, impact on the traffic on the surrounding streets making a bigger traffic problem there. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess moved to table BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw. Supported by G. Hilts. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X Hilts X Burgess X Clark X I[Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-1, BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw has been tabled. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 3 B. BZA-3555.99, 3132 Ingham Sam Quon, Senior Planner, presented case. Mr. Lamar is requesting a variance for a 1,152 square foot garage and a total accessory structure area of 1,296 square feet. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing garage that is 528 square feet and construct a new 24x48 garage. Currently, there is also a 12x12 storage building on the property. The new garage will bring the total area of accessory structure to 1,296 square feet. Mr. Lamar is requesting a variance to be able to build the larger garage in order for him to park and store his 25 foot travel trailer on his property. In order to park his trailer at this time, he parks it on a concrete pad in back of his garage. He basically needs to use his neighbor's property in order to maneuver the travel trailer to his back yard and park it on the pad. In addition, Mr. Lamar also has back problems which makes it difficult for him to turn and back up his travel trailer. He referred to the site plan and photos attached to the board packets. J. Ruff also noted that besides the travel trailer, Mr. Lamar seriously dabbles with radio controlled airplanes. Right now he does this in his basement. He would like to be able to do that in his garage. Also, the concrete pad that Mr. Lamar put in did not require a building permit, but it is already that size. V. Earhart asked what he meant by "it is already that size"? J. Ruff stated that he poured a concrete pad that is already 24'x48' in size where Mr. Lamar currently parks his travel trailer. S. Quon stated that section 1248.03(b)(6) of the Zoning Code allows the garage to be up to 720 square feet. Section 1248.03(b)(2) of the Zoning Code allows a total amount of accessory structure not to exceed 1000 square feet. Mr. Lamar is, therefore, requesting a variance for 432 square feet for a garage addition as well as a variance for 296 square feet for total accessory structure. The code requires the Board to look at four criteria: is there a hardship and practical difficulty; the compatibility with surrounding neighborhood; any impact on circulation patterns; and impact on environment or development patterns. Basically, the property is in the 'A' Residential District which permits garages up to 720 square feet and up to 1000 square feet of total accessory structure. The properties in this neighborhood are similar in shape and size to his property. The lot is not of such a shape or location that would warrant a variance. The variance request is not reasonable because it exceeds the maximum area for a garage by 432 square feet and total allowable for accessory structures by 296 square feet. The hardship or practical difficulty in this case is not the result of the property, but because Mr. Lamar owns a trailer. Therefore, a hardship or practical difficulty does not exist. As with compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods, properties in this neighborhood have garages that currently meet code. This proposed garage would be almost twice the size of the typical garage in this neighborhood. Therefore, it would be out of character. As for the impact on circulation pattern, this proposed variance would not have any impact on vehicular circulation in the neighborhood or any pedestrian circulation in the neighborhood. There are not any anticipated impacts on the development pattern of this area as well. Staff recommends denial of this variance request for 432 square feet of additional garage area and 296 square feet of total accessory structure area. However, staff would support a variance for 136 square feet for an 856 square foot garage. This alternative would provide enough flexibility to accommodate the applicant's need for an additional garage area and, at the same time, be under the maximum 1000 square feet of allowable accessory structure area. He referred to a sketch in the board packet of a garage that would meet that requirement. V. Earhart asked what would happen to the current storage building? S. Quon stated that it.will be demolished or removed. J. Ruff questioned if V. Earhart was asking about the garage or the storage building? DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 4 J. Ruff stated that the 12x12 structure will remain as part of the total accessory structure. Mr. James Lamar, 3132 Ingham St., addressed the Board. He stated that the concrete was there to move the old garage back. The most easy and feasible way that he could see to store the trailer and still not take anymore lawn out was to just build a garage big enough that they could back straight up the driveway and not use the neighbor's yards, driveways, or anything else in order to store the trailer plus put both vehicles in the garage itself. He took up a petition around the neighborhood and everyone signed it. They don't have a problem with him building this size of a garage. He gave the petition to the Board. V. Earhart stated to the applicant that she understands that he wants the larger building. Can he get the trailer into the 12'space that has been provided on the proposal? Mr. Lamar stated that he hasn't seen the proposal. J. Ruff stated that Mr. Lamar had given him the specification for the 48'. Mr. Lamar could explain the need for the truck and trailer. V. Earhart stated that it isn't the 48'that she is questioning. She is questioning the 12' at the other end. V. Earhart showed the proposal to Mr. Lamar. Discussion ensued regarding space for the trailer. Mr. Lamar stated that now is the time to store his trailer. He wants to make sure that when they are gone traveling that it is in safe keeping. They have already had some problem with security with the trailer. He stated that it is a means of safe keeping if they don't take the trailer or it is a means of storing it in an easy way without having to use his neighbor's driveways or his other neighbor's back yard. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that the size of the garage is a bit big for that neighborhood. It would be out of place. It will come back and haunt the Board in the future. A. Frederick stated that he has a problem defining a practical difficulty because he believes that the travel trailer could be stored off site in some commercially available storage area. But he also knows that the Board is having more requests for variances for larger garages than the Zoning Code calls for because lots are getting bigger and also people are getting more things to put in their garages. He is torn between saying yes or no. He does think that Mr. Lamar does get satisfactory use out of his property as it is and that they could make accommodation to park the travel trailer off site in someplace that is locked up and safe from vandalism. He doesn't know if he could support this variance. He believes that there might be a good argument for granting it as well. V. Earhart asked Mr. Frederick if he was speaking of the variance that was requested or the variance that was suggested? A. Frederick stated that he was referring to either variance. He was speaking about a variance in general. M. Clark stated that, for the record, she wanted to indicate that Mr. Lamar submitted a petition with approximately 20 names and also an additional card in support of the proposed garage. G. Hilts stated that he could see going with bigger garages in some of the neighborhoods that might be developing where the lots are bigger and it is more to scale. But when you get into the older neighborhoods and increasing garage size, it starts being out of place and starts taking up more space. It blocks more view of surrounding people, etc. He doesn't see where the code in DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 5 this case allows the Board to make a decision to give the applicant a variance regardless. That is the first test, the hardship or practical difficulty, which in this case is self imposed. He would have to vote no. B. Burgess stated that he feels the same way as G. Hilts. It seems that this type of neighborhood is the kind of neighborhood that the Zoning Code was written around or existed when no Zoning Code was there. He doesn't believe that there is a hardship- there is no hardship with the land. The Board is looking at this in longer terms. There is also an issue of starting businesses in such garages in these types of neighborhoods. There is no guarantee that wouldn't happen in the future. He would vote against this request. J. Ruff stated that when he met with Mr. Lamar, he talked about the possibility that around the first of the year, the Board would be proposing some new legislation or ordinance amendments regarding garages and garage size. He gave Mr. Lamar that option to wait until the Board knew a little more of what the Council would do for larger garages of that sort. The other difficulty here is that this is a decent size lot- 70'x 187'. The lots are all basically the same size in the neighborhood. As he explained to Mr. Lamar the idea that if it were approved it would be like approving in that size garage for that whole neighborhood because they are all similar in size. E. Horne stated that she agrees with B. Burgess. She believes that the Board needs to take a look at the whole neighborhood. She thinks that it is not in character. Once a character is established, the Board should uphold it as well as meeting the requirements of the code. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3555.99, 3132 Ingham St. Seconded by E. Horne. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was denied unanimously. C. BZA-3556.99, 824 Bates J. Sturdevant presented the case. He referred to the staff report showing the map of the area and subject property. It is on Bates St. on the north end of Lansing just east of Northeast St. It is the 2nd block in from Northeast St. to the east of Northeast St. The applicant has a single family home there. It is a neighborhood of single family homes. The lot sizes in the neighborhood are all similar. They are about 50'wide by approximately 150' deep. In regards to the area map, the setback of the houses from Bates St. is largely varied. Some set right up close, some set back 60' or more. The applicant's house is somewhere in the middle about 42' back from the property line currently. The applicant is requesting permission to build an addition onto the front of the house. It will be a covered front porch which will be screened and heated. That porch that the applicant is proposing would encroach into the established front yard setback area by about 1.6'. The current average for established setback for her residence is 36' and she is requesting that her porch be allowed to have a setback of 34.4'. He referred to the report and Table 1 for setbacks and code requirements. Two houses directly to the west of the applicant's are quite a bit closer to the street with setbacks of 20' and 28'. Houses adjacent to the east are about even with what the applicant's house is currently. Given that there is such a wide variation in front yard setbacks in the neighborhood, from about 20' on up to 50', he believes that creates enough of a hardship to grant a small variance from the average setback of 36' given in mind that the applicant will still be well within the absolute minimum that the code requires for a front yard setback of 20'. With that hardship in mind, he believes that the applicant's request is reasonable and he recommends approval. A. Frederick asked him to explain how he got the average? J. Sturdevant explained that the area map that is in the report is at a scale of 1 inch to approximately 100'. He explained that he took the front Iefthand corner of the property and measured 180'to the west. Any lot that falls within that 180' he has to measure the setback on those houses, which includes the next 4 houses because they are all 150' lots. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 6 A. Frederick asked if he figures the applicant's property in that? J. Sturdevant stated that no, he figures the properties on either side of the applicant's. General discussion ensued regarding setback measurements and averages. M. Clark asked if this was a heated porch? J. Sturdevant stated that it was. M. Clark asked what the difference is between an addition to a house and a porch? J. Ruff stated that it is the same thing. M. Clark stated that the only concern she has with an addition is that once the addition has been made, she is not willing to approve in a year or two from now, adding on a porch. Linda Regis, 824 Bates St., and nephew addressed the Board. He passed out pictures to the Board relating to the house and surrounding area. He stated that they put on their application that they would like it to be anywhere from 8-12'. That is an issue as to what would be the maximum that could be built. He stated that he knows the rule gives 4 houses on each side and that is how the calculations are made, but those would be the 4 worst houses to choose from. If you went down another house or two, they are closer. Across the street, 98% of the houses are closer. He referred to the pictures passed out. Ms. Regis stated that neighbors called in to the Planning Office to tell us that it was OK with them. She also received a letter from a neighbor but she forgot it. J. Sturdevant stated that he does have communications to read into the record. The nephew stated that Ms. Regis was hoping for 12'. M. Clark asked if the formal request was for 8'? J. Sturdevant stated that is what was on the application form. That is what was processed. M. Clark asked for clarification as to what this addition is. Ms. Regis stated that it is a porch. It will have windows and the entrance to the home. M. Clark asked where the entrance would be? Ms. Regis stated that the entrance would be in the front with steps. M. Clark asked if it was going to be heated and totally enclosed? Ms. Regis stated that it would be. J. Sturdevant stated that he received phone calls today; one from Ms. Brenda Rux, 812 Bates St. that says that she is in support. She lives a couple of doors down. She says that she also speaks for her mother, Ruth Cummings, who lives at 900 Bates which is a couple doors down in the next direction. Ms. Cummings is supportive as well. He also received a call from Lee Jesko at 820 Bates who said that she had no objection to the applicant's request. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 7 G. Hilts stated that he doesn't see any adverse impact for this request. V. Earhart agrees with G. Hilts. A. Frederick stated that the practical difficulty for him is when the houses were built and when the zoning code went into effect. He thinks that they tried when they developed the zoning code to take that into account that the houses were there before. The average calculations are confusing. E. Horne stated that it will still be within the established front yard setbacks and also it is within the limits of the code. V. Earhart moved that BZA-3556.99, 824 Bates,the variance requested from the established front yard setback at 824 Bates St. of 1.6' be approved. Seconded by E. Horne. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. D. BZA-3557.99, Moores River Estates S. Quon presented the case. MSM Development is requesting a variance for a 736 square foot garage. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family residential structure at 3400 Oakmont Drive in Moores River Estates, which is a condominium complex. This proposed house will be approximately 1,800 square feet with a 736 square foot attached 3-car garage. He referred to the attached floor plan and elevation of the design of the house and garage in the board packet. Moores River Estates condominium bylaws do not permit the use of common area for the purpose of storage. Each co-owner shall use their own garage for the purpose of storage. The bylaws also specify that any recreational vehicles or trailers may not be stored or parked on the premises of the project unless approved by the Board of Directors or an area designated by the association. He also referred to a fax from the association and a copy of the deed restriction. Section 1248.03(b)(6) of the code allows only 720 square feet of garage area. Therefore, the applicant is asking for a variance of 16 square feet of additional garage area. Because of the deed restrictions in the condominium complex, which does not allow separate accessory structures, homes within the estates are not permitted to have one. This variance request will enable the applicant to park their vehicles and store their supplies and materials in the garage. A practical difficulty exists due to the deed restrictions at Moores River Estates even though the Zoning Code would permit them to have an accessory structure in order to store supplies and materials. Therefore, the practical difficulty in this case is not the result of the owner's own action, but because of the deed restrictions. Therefore, the variance request for the additional 16 square feet is reasonable. Most of the homes in this neighborhood have two-car garages that meet code. There are no condominiums there with accessory structures. He referred to attached photos of the property site and of adjacent homes in the board packet. The design of this proposed garage will be integrated in such a way that it will have a unified style to make the attached garage compatible with the other condominiums in this neighborhood. The approval of this garage will not impact any type of future development in this area and it won't have any impact on vehicular or pedestrian circulation. Staff recommends approval of this variance request for 16 square feet of additional garage area to build a 736 square foot attached garage. V. Earhart made a point of clarification. S. Quon has talked about other condominiums. There is no such thing as a condominium. You cannot go out and capture a condominium. You have structures and you have a legal way of owning them. The legal way of owning them is called a condominium association. The question here is: Are we using a common area? Is the 16 square feet that are being asked for part of a common area? Because if it is part of a common area, the Board doesn't have anything to do with it. It is part of the condominium agreement. If it is not part of the common area, if it is in fact part of the household area that the owner of the property is developing, then the Board may have something to do with it. We have to start from the very beginning and find out what is the common area. An accessory structure to her is another structure in DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 8 the back. It is not 16 square feet added onto a garage. But what she doesn't know is whether the owner is trying to build that 16 square feet in the common area, and if he is trying to build it in the common area, the Board can't do anything about it. J. Ruff stated that was a good example of ownership,just like a lease or a plat. A condominium sets up a situation where each participant in a condominium owns some personal property area which generally is the building itself and maybe some other improvements associated with that building. The remaining area is common and sometimes those are set up as envelopes where you can build anywhere in that envelope or it can be stated that it is the size of the principal structure. Shawn McCardel, representing 1/3 of MSM Development, addressed the Board. He passed to the Board a plot plan that shows the general common elements that surround the structure. It is his understanding that within their condominium development that as long as the structure or footprint that they propose meets the setback requirements of both the city and the association, because they also have setback requirements, that the structure itself would be the owners and that the area outside of that would be considered a general common element. If you take into consideration the 22' in depth of the garage, all they are asking to do is extend the length of the building less than 1'to make up the 16 square feet. J. Ruff stated that it would be 9 inches. They could cut 9 inches off the side of the garage and it would be 720 square feet. S. McCardel stated that their role in the development now is that they have purchased the last phase and '/z from the original developer. His partners and him are developing the last phase of the development. They are asking for a favorable decision for the following reasons: 1)it has been stated that the association does not permit outhouses or sheds or barns to store anything. They are asking for a variance of 9 inches; 2)The house fits the setback requirements both for the city and the association; 3)The trend now if you get into a certain price range is to go for a larger garage, possibly a 3-car garage. That is what they are wanting in this situation. Recent precedence has been set for getting a 3-car garage. V. Earhart asked if Mr. McCardel was maintaining that this was personal rather than common area? S. McCardel stated that was correct. V. Earhart asked what was going to be stored in it? S. McCardel stated that what Mr. & Mrs. Schultz would be storing, to his understanding, is general household supplies. They have 2 cars right now. He hasn't visited their existing home, but he senses that they will be downsizing. A lot of times what they run into in the market that they are in is that families are downsizing so they need extra space to store things that they have collected over the years. V. Earhart asked if they were talking about recreational vehicles or trailers? S. McCardel stated no. M. Clark stated that she would think that the applicant would need a variance from the Board for the size variance and then whether it is in a common area or not is something that he has to iron out with the condominium association. But he would still need the Board's variance. S. McCardel stated that in talking with the manager of the association, it was batted around with the original developer 9 or 10 years ago when it first started that if there was DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 9 a large demand for accessory buildings amongst the members of the association, there is a certain part of the land that is there now that has been set aside that the members might be able to put a pole building back there. He doubts very highly that will ever happen. It is used as a general park area with fill dirt in there. V. Earhart asked if it was part of the house and not an accessory structure? S. McCardel stated that it was part of the house. V. Earhart asked if it was big enough to hold three vehicles? J. Ruff stated that it was. The minimum set garage size built today is 20x20 for a two car garage. Most cars can get in. People with pickup trucks might not have enough room. M. Clark asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they convened into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that he is confused why the Board is here for this particular appeal. Are they here to enforce the restrictions on the deed and condominium rules or are they here to enforce the zoning code. It sounds to him like the reason why the variance was requested was because the restrictions on the deed and the condominium rules are more strict than the Zoning Code. He doesn't know if he can see support for this. This doesn't seem to be a hardship that will keep the applicant from making reasonable use of the property. M. Clark asked for clarification on the 720 square feet and 1,000 square feet. General discussion ensued regarding variances of garages and structure space. J. Ruff explained code requirements regarding garages and what was and was not allowed. B. Burgess stated that the applicant has a comment and he would like to hear it. S. McCardel stated that the reason he is here is not because of the association. The association doesn't have objection to the plan that they have put forth. He stated that the reason he is here is the garage that they have is 736 square feet which is 16 square feet over what is permitted. If he was building this home in a neighborhood as platted under different regulations as opposed to asking for a 16 square foot or 9 inch variance, it is his understanding that he could go out and build 1,000 square feet accessory building. He is here because of the city requirements, not because of the association. When they first started the development, he and his partner flew in an architect that used to reside in this area and is familiar with that section of town. The architect visited with him and drove through the community. They tried to design architecturally buildings that were agreeable to what the original developer had started 10 years ago. Now they have made some changes, maybe used more modern materials and fresher look that is more consistent with architecture that is desired today. But they made an effort on this particular building to maintain the same trim design, the same architecture, etc. to make it consistent with the condominium association. Really,-this is a custom home. They are trying to make an effort to make it blend in with what is in the community. A. Frederick stated that his question was the purpose why they want the larger garage - it appeared to him that from the report it is wanted for storage because there isn't enough storage because of the rules of the condominium association. That, to him, says that Mr. McCardel is here because of the condominium rules, not the Zoning Code because his purpose is to get more storage. S. McCardel stated that it could be interpreted that way. The way that they look at it is that the condominium bylaws that are in the master deed create the hardship for them. Now they have to come to the Board to ask for the 16 square foot variance. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 10 V. Earhart stated that she still thinks that whatever the condominium association decides to do is beside the point. They need 16 square feet variance so that this particular home owner can have a 3-car garage. When the Board asked the people on Cambridge, they didn't ask "what are you going to do with your 3rd stall?". The Board is not asking that question. The Board doesn't care. Now if the condominium association cares and this is a violation under the condominium association rules, then the lawyers representing the association are going to sue the owner. That is not the problem of the Board. The problem is will the Board grant 16 square feet to permit this home owner to have a 3-car garage which on other occasions have been told is an up and coming thing in housing, it is something that people want, they are getting more cars, they have children, etc. A. Frederick stated that on the Board's decision on the appeal on Cambridge, the applicant indicated that he wouldn't build an accessory structure. This case is much like the current request for variance. V. Earhart stated that in this case the condominium association bylaws say that you can't have an accessory structure is giving the Board the same promise. There is also better enforcement since the association will know what happens. E. Horne asked what the size of the lot is. S. McCardel stated that it is awfully difficult because you don't really get a lot. The building itself is 76' in width and then there will be a minimum of 12' on the south end and 25' on the other end which would bring it all up to a little over 100' in width. The depth, between that and the next structure to the west, is easily 100'. These are rough references. J. Ruff showed E. Horne maps of the lot area. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3557.99, Moores River Estates, a variance for 16 square feet of additional garage area for a total 736 square feet of attached garage. Seconded by V. Earhart. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. E. BZA-3558.99, 446 Everett J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Mr. Anderson at 446 Everett Dr. for a variance to construct a 6' high fence in the front yard of the property at 446 Everett. It is zoned 'A' Residential and is a single family house. It is typical of the area. It is a corner lot- regular in size. Averages are approximately 100x107 and is about 1/4 of an acre. The property at 446 Everett Dr. has two front yards each requiring a 20' front yard setback. Fences in particular, have a separate code when it comes to how they determine where fences can be. He referred to a map in the board packet showing where the fence should be. This property, as a corner lot, it already has a fence that was previous to the code. That fence is getting older. The applicant is a newer owner of the home and they are upgrading the home - rehabilitating much of the interior as well as going to be redoing the landscape on the exterior. He referred to graphics in packet regarding the fence. Right now there is about 1,170 square feet encompassed by the fence that is in the front yard. The house has a small room off to the side of the house likened to a study. There is overgrown landscaping around that room as well as around the corner of the site. What the applicant is requesting to do is, when he rebuilds the fence and re- landscapes everything, to extend the fence a little further toward the Everett Dr. property line and then return it back to the house encompassing a little additional yard area where the study would look out on. That would be an additional approximately 390 square feet of lot area. In many situations that the Board has looked at before, they have looked at corner lots having that 2nd front yard, some restriction on yard area and private yard space also the ability to have private recreation space and also trying to balance out the views that the ordinance is intended to preserve in a neighborhood. Here there is an existing fence that could probably be rebuilt over time and kept in shape - although the applicant is looking to replace the fence in its entirety and the landscaping as well. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 11 Another part of this is, in looking at the situation there is also a fence right across the street which comes out in a similar fashion out to the yard facing Lenawee St. There are a couple of existing situations right near by. It is not necessarily unique to the area. Staff can understand the reason for wanting to encompass more area in the rear yard. He personally walked the area and stated that it is long and narrow in its positioning. The existing situation by having that extra 1,100 square feet out there is quite a nice addition to the rear yard. His concern especially comes up with the granting of the additional square footage, yet understanding the desire of the applicant. They are recommending that the area basically remain consistent with the total area that is encompassed by the fence. In trying to incorporate that extra side room there would mean pulling the fence a little further away from the sidewalk to keep that same approximate 1,190 square feet front yard area enclosed. It would shape it a little differently. It also then would bring the fence a little closer in conformance with moving it back and out of the front yard area a little further from the street opening up the view down the street. He noted that some of the streets are all angled with curves-they are not straight roads. He referred to a map in the packet showing the shapes of the roads and yards. The staff's recommendation is to allow the fence to extend closer to Everett Dr. but in doing so, move it back a little bit from Lenawee to keep the approximate same 1,190 or so square feet encompassed. That is the staff's recommendation. David Anderson, 446 Everett, addressed the Board.. He stated that when they bought the house in January, they asked the owners if there were any leaks in the basement. He was told that they had lived there for 40 years and never had a problem in the basement. After one good rain, there was a substantial amount of water in the basement. He stated that the problem with his house is that the house to the west of him is about 18 inches higher than his house and all the water slants towards him. He stated that Mr. Ruff came out and looked at the house himself. What started this whole affair was how to stop the water from coming into the basement. He stated that the solution to that- and he had a number of different folks look at it- is slanting the earth away from the house at a slight grade down close to the property line. Then he has what looks like a berm, but it is really just going back to the existing level at his neighbor's house. In doing that, for probably 90' of the 107'they are losing about 3 '/2 feet of usable space up to the fence in order to stop the water from going into the house by changing the grade. The only area that he doesn't have to do that is about 20'towards Lenawee. If he adopts the proposal of the department, they will lose 240' or 250' of back yard because of the berm that had to be created because of the drainage. He realizes that is his problem but that is the only way that he could come up with to avoid the water pouring into his basement when it rained. He doesn't want to do like the house across the street did. They brought their fence right out to the sidewalk into the road right of way and all the way up to the middle of their house. He doesn't want to do that. He wants to stay back inside the road right of way and what he is talking about is moving about 16' further towards Everett with the fence. What he wants to do is put a hottub back there which he wouldn't do if he didn't have the space because of the space he is losing because of the drainage issues. If this isn't allowed, then he will just nurse his fence along that he has there because to move the backyard he would lose too much back yard because of the drainage. He is losing about 240'square feet of back yard in order to deal with the drainage problem. This would be far less intrusive than next door. He is trying to meet what he thinks the zoning intends which is to let their be clear vision for one thing when people drive around the corner. He has already removed some large visually intrusive vegetation which really stopped you from seeing anywhere. It is much easier to see while driving now. It is a lot safer there. He is not going to go the length of the house, but he does want to include that little room. The suggestion by the department, while he really appreciates them trying to find a solution, he would just nurse the present fence along because of what he would lose there-the inability to have a good place for a hottub. The kind of fence that he will have along the street, the fence will be about 4 '/2 feet and then there will be the lattice above that. He showed the Board a drawing of such a fence. That fence will be in the front yard. He would hope that the Board would consider his request. If not, than nothing will really change in terms of where the fences DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 12 are which really means that he can't replace the fence. He wants to have some ability to use the back yard and have some privacy. Because of the short block, he doesn't see how this would be such a significant precedent when you look at the odd shape of the blocks that they have in that neighborhood and the odd curved streets. He appreciated Mr. Ruff coming out and looking at it with him to brainstorm with him both for his drainage problems and the fence ordinance. V. Earhart asked about the report which states that it is a 6' high solid fence. Mr. Anderson just said it would be a 4' high solid with lattice on the top. J. Ruff stated that the only fence allowed in the front yard area would be a 3' high fence unless it is more than 75% open which is like a chain link fence or a split rail fence, then it could be 4' high. It is presently a 6' high shadowbox fence. The design will only be 4 'h' high solid and then there will be lattice. The lattice would be 60-80% closed depending on the type of lattice. D. Anderson stated that it is open a little bit, but not much. It is just more attractive than having a picket fence or something like that. J. Ruff stated that he wanted to make sure that Mr. Anderson didn't misunderstand what the suggestion was of staff which was that it would take about 5-6' off of that area from the sidewalk a little further back. He referred to the site plan. M. Clark asked D. Anderson if he did understand the staff's recommendation and he wasn't interested in it? D. Anderson stated that he believes that is the only area that he has the whole yard. Everywhere else is where he is losing the space. He thinks that it would be quite a bit more than 34. He stated that they are already about 4' off the sidewalk because of the road right of way and then if he moves it another 5-6', he thinks he would be better off with the fence the way it is now. He stated that the contractors are out there now digging and tearing up and planting now. One section of the fence had to be removed so that they could get in and out. With all the space he is losing with the drainage, he appreciates the consideration, but that is the area where he isn't losing any space - the south end of the yard. M. Clark asked if what J. Ruff is proposing is the square footage of the yard would remain the same. The square footage of the area fenced in - it would just be a different configuration. J. Ruff stated that the yard is relatively flat compared to the house. Although, the yard does slope from the neighbors toward his. The only way to resolve the drainage is to create a drainage swale of some sort. What the applicant is doing is create as much of a flat valley in one area, but that means that he will have to have more slope in another area near the property line. In effect, he will have a more landscaped area that will be somewhat of a hill area there that will be less usable. J. Ruff stated that he did not take that into account when he discussed the report with Susan Cantlon. B. Burgess stated that he was curious what the practical difficulty is with the lot when the water is coming in. Is that a land problem? J. Ruff stated that there could be multiple ways of resolving the water issue, but every time he tries to use a dry well in the city, Public Service Department says not to bother because it just won't drain. It will fill up and overflow too fast because of all the clay in the soil. To keep a more natural environment of using surface drainage, this is a solution of putting a grade to the yard where before, with the angles of the roof, there were a lot of drains coming down in the back corner. He referred to a picture in the packet. The way to help take care of some of that problem as well as to move the water DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 13 away from the house quicker if it falls off is to do that with slopes or with culverts, etc. B. Burgess asked what J. Ruff's thoughts were on it now that he has all the pertinent information? J. Ruff stated that he would like to see the fence moved a little further back as an improvement to coming closer to the code in this situation. He also understands that the applicant is losing some space here. If there is any accommodation that can be made, whether it be even a few feet to make up the difference would be helpful. D. Anderson stated that if he needs to move the fence back, he is already out of the right of way. He would rather do that than not have any fence there. He doesn't want the fence that is there now to remain. He wants to put a good fence in there. V. Earhart stated that she would like more information. She proposed to table the request until more information could be obtained between J. Ruff and D. Anderson. D. Anderson stated that he has all the equipment there right now. He stated that it's too costly to keep the equipment there for any period of time. J. Ruff stated that there probably won't be any new information in a month. If there is anything that can be done, he thinks that it is an accommodation for enlarging the area. The Board also needs to keep in mind that there is not going to be a sign on this fence that says "This fence received a variance". So what ends up happening is that other people see the fence and they think that they should be able to do that too. They don't know all the struggle that Mr. Anderson goes through with the drainage, etc. As a staff, we have to relay that information when we go out and correct another situation. If there could be some accommodation, he believes that would be reasonable. Eighteen inches is something that moves the fence a little further back and they can say that it is at least an accommodation to resolve the issue of the drainage along with accommodating some of the yard space. V. Earhart withdrew her suggestion. M. Clark asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they convened into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that the drainage problems are certainly, to him, a practical difficulty. Mr. Anderson had nothing to do with that. The issue to him is not whether it is granted, but how much. V. Earhart stated that she agrees with A. Frederick. That is basically what she wanted to do was to have the time to look at how much. B. Burgess asked how it would read if they approved 18 inches? J. Ruff stated that it would be approved with condition that the fence be relocated an additional 18 inches away from the Lenawee St. right of way. General discussion ensued regarding where fence would be in relation to house, etc. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3558.99, 446 Everett for a 6'fence with the condition that the fence along Lenawee be moved back 18 inches from the property line and not extend any further than the study area of the house. Seconded by G. Hilts. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was approved unanimously. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 14 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch - remains tabled B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol - remains tabled C. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan J. Ruff stated that he has received a letter of withdrawal for this case. E. Horne moved to remove BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan from the table. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous. J. Ruff stated that the case was tabled for a parking number variance for the rehabilitation of the old library for the MSHDA offices. Part of the discussion last time was about the other properties that Mr. Eyde owned that are relatively close by and if those could be incorporated. They convinced, and Mr. Eyde agreed, that he would have that one that is within about 900' on Shiawassee St-there is land there available. The agreement that they are going to work with is that he is responsible for the parking for that building for MSHDA. The city is not going to make him develop the parking unless it is necessary. In doing this, they are going to have a advisory group noted from Mr. Eyde so that they can keep track of this. Mr. Greiner, who is with the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) should be involved in the neighborhood. He thinks that this is a good way for him to be involved. Also they are talking about the East Michigan Avenue business people who have an organization also. They also want to include the neighborhood area as well in this group. They will review the use of the parking. If there are problems with the parking such as employees parking on the street when they don't need if there is room in the parking lots-that is one corrective management measure that MSHDA will work with the city on -to help free up enough street parking for visitors to businesses and so on. Another issue would be is if people parked on the streets in the neighborhood and the parking lot was full. If they have a full parking lot and they have more parking, then Mr. Eyde is committed to building additional parking to accommodate that. The land is available presently even if it was used without it being developed for parking on a limited basis until parking could be developed. They have done this in a few other cases. Generally, it is on site to try to preserve lawn area and landscape area- increase the amount of landscape area. A developer would show where they would get the extra parking on the site. They have given the Planning Office enough reason to believe that they don't need to develop the parking to support the businesses there. So, they don't make them put it in unless they exceed their parking demand. That is what they have been looking at. Mr. Eyde wants to take care of MSHDA's parking. In the industrial district, he has the opportunity to not have on site parking. It could be within one mile if it is shuttled and 1000 feet if it is not shuttled. M. Clark stated that her concern is not whether he has it or not, but is he always going to have it available when MSHDA leaves in 15 years and he puts in a bunch of offices. Is there some legal requirement that the vacant land be connected with this property as parking for this? J. Ruff stated that particular vacant land - no. He explained some options that Mr. Eyde would have with the land to the Board. M. Clark stated that her concern is that 10 years from now, nobody is going to remember that the piece of property was dedicated to this building. J. Ruff stated that when they review permits, those are the things they look for. They calculate the usable square footage and document it. General discussion ensued regarding permits, flagging the property, etc. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1999 PAGE 15 J. Ruff stated that he and Sam Quon have been setting up a GIS system that enables them to track properties and conditions of those properties more efficiently. It would work for variances, permits, etc. M. Clark asked if neighborhoods would be notified of these things? J. Ruff stated that there would be a volunteer from the neighborhood organization, a volunteer from the Eastside Commercial Club, a representative from MSHDA, a representative of Eyde's Company and the Planning Office that would meet regularly and review that. M. Clark asked if there would be something in writing - documented -to the adjacent neighborhoods that would be most affected? She stated that there needs to be something formal in that process so that notification is sent to someone. J. Ruff stated that it was a good point and could be done. General discussion and explanation ensued regarding notification and other cases such as this. V. Earhart moved to table BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan since the attached letter referred to in the letter from Mr. Eyde was not attached. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to table. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. NONE VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of September 9, 1999 V. Earhart moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by A. Frederick. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Officers V. Earhart moved to have G. Hilts as chair. Seconded by A. Frederick. Carried. B. Burgess volunteered as co-chair. Seconded by V. Earhart. Carried. B. Housing Market Study E. Horne attended the Housing Market Study meeting last night. She thinks that when the Planning Board has their hearing regarding this study that the Board of Zoning Appeals as well as the Historic District Commission should be present. She also requested copies for both the BZA and HDC of the summary sheet of the Housing Market Study. J. Ruff stated that it would be put on the Planning Board meeting for next Tuesday, October 19t" at 7:00 p.m. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 10/05/99 Approved 10/14/99 To Clerk 10/26/99 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 7 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS SEPTEMBER 9, 1999, 7:30 P.M. PTY-GOUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:30 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick R. McCloud V. Earhart Staff: J. Ruff L. Davis D. Witherspoon A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. G. Hilts called on September 9th and requested an excused absence. Motion by E. Horne to accept absence. Seconded by V. Earhart. Carried unanimously to approve. C. B. Burgess had excused absence for this meeting. D. J. Ruff stated, for the Board's information, that last month was Raina Korbakis' last meeting. Because of the number being down to seven (7) seated on the Board, it takes only four(4) favorable votes to approve a variance. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. Earhart asked to add an item in regards to the departure point for the "Basic Planning and Zoning" seminar on 9/15/99. J. Ruff also stated that elections for next month should be added. V. Earhart made motion to approve agenda with additions. Supported by E. Horne. Carried unanimously for approval. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3552.99, 221 McGarry J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Eric Collar to construct an attached 24 ft x 24 ft garage onto the west side of his house at 221 McGarry Drive, 11 ft from the west property line. Section 1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum 30 ft rear yard setback (from the west property line). This is, therefore, a request for a variance of 19 ft from the 30-foot rear yard setback requirement. He stated that this request is to allow for the construction of an attached garage onto the property that is zoned 'A' Residential. The property is a single family dwelling and single family dwellings are around this property. The zoning reflects that. The property is a corner lot- 75' along Knoll Drive and 100' along McGarry Drive. It is rectangular in shape and contains 7500 sq ft in area. The applicant is requesting an attached garage. A detached garage could be built in this setting. It would further take up more of the yard in that case. Thus they have requested the variance to attach the garage. As a corner lot, there is a choice when a house is built as to what is the rear yard and what is the side yard. There are two front yards. In this case, when this house was built, the rear yard was classified as the west yard where the garage would be placed and the side BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 2 yard was classified as the south yard attached at 25'/z feet. J. Ruff referred to revised information given to the board members at the meeting. Staff recommends support of a variance. What they are recommending is that, instead of granting a 19' rear yard variance for this construction and leaving an 11' yard between the garage and the west property line, that they should call that the side yard now and call the south yard the rear yard. That way all it needs is a 5' variance. There is a deck on the back. If there was ever an addition on the backyard, another variance would be necessary. The staff thinks that is appropriate because then it could be evaluated what is left of a yard space for recreational or private space. Eric Collar, Spicerville Hwy., Eaton Rapids, MI, builder, addressed the Board. He stated that he appreciated the suggestions that were given. They sounded very good. The owner of the property is a single widow who works in the emergency room at Sparrow Hospital. She is an EMT who is on call. It would certainly make it easier for her depending on the weather and time of day if she could go right out of her house into her attached garage and get into her car. That would help her situation. V. Earhart asked if E. Collar and the owner agree on the rear yard/side yard changes suggested by the Planning Staff. E. Collar stated that was OK with them both. J. Ruff stated that she had Donna Wynant, Senior Planner go back out to the site and evaluate that option and then contact the builder and the homeowner and make sure that would be appropriate. Donna informed J. Ruff that she did contact them both and received favorable replies. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she is inclined to agree. She likes the recommendation that was made by staff that the Board deny the 19'that was requested and that they change the yard area to the south of the house into the rear yard, switching with the west. Then approving a variance of 4.5 feet to allow for the addition to the house. V. Earhart moved to deny BZA-3552.99, 221 McGarry as filed, but that the designation of the south yard area be changed to the rear yard and that a variance of 4.5 feet be granted to allow for the addition of an attached garage. Supported by E. Horne. On a roll call vote, there were 5 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was denied as follows but approved as recommended by staff unanimously. B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan Ave. Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner, presented the case, a request by SXJE II LLC for a parking variance of 138 parking spaces. The applicant is remodeling the old State Library at 735 East Michigan Avenue for use by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA). The usable floor area is 69,280 sq ft, which requires 346 parking spaces, according to Section 1284.13(d)(2) of the Zoning Code. There are 208 total parking spaces. Therefore, this is a request for a parking variance of 138 spaces. She went through the staff report with the Board. The property is zoned "H-Light Industrial"district. It is approximately 2 acres. The North East Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for industrial warehouse use. The developer's proposal is to remodel the old State Library for the MSHDA. They are planning to move into the facility as their permanent home probably within the next couple of years. Based on the zoning requirement, they are required to have 346 parking spaces. There are a total of 208 parking spaces-66 parking spaces just north of Jon Anthony's and on site the remaining spaces for a total of 208 parking spaces. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 3 The previous uses in the building consisted of a former library which is probably several years ago. After that, it was partial office use. They did not have this much parking requirements for those two uses. The proposed remodeling would change the parking demand and requirement without increasing the building size or available land. By not grant the variance will hamper the renovation by limiting the useful floor area of the 41,700 sq ft which is 38% of the building's gross area. Based on this information, there is a practical difficulty in meeting the parking requirement. Granting the parking variance will not change the character of the area. In terms of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, there will be an increase in both because they are planning to use the entire building. In terms of the impact on the general pattern of future development, there should not be any adverse effects. The building is going through a site plan review process right now. One of the things that Planning wanted to see them do since this is a very visible building is to stick with the East Michigan Avenue study and bring the building to its original brick facade. They have been making an effort to do that. Staff recommends approval of the variance for 138 additional parking spaces. M. Clark asked that if the variance is granted, it goes with the property not with the tenant or owner? D. Witherspoon stated that, yes, it goes with the property. Bill Shroeger, SXJE II, addressed the Board. He stated that Doris did an admirable job of presenting the issues of their appeal. The structure, for the last year, has been basically vacant. They are proposing about a $12 million dollar renovation to the area - parking, landscaping, and the building structure itself. Along with that, they will be bringing about 200 new people to the area as far as users for the existing businesses in that area. The Michigan State Housing Development Authority is their proposed tenant. The parking that is being proposed meets their needs for now and into the future. If the variance wasn't granted and they were forced to take a reduction in the square footage of the building in order to meet the parking criteria, then they wouldn't have enough usable footage for MSHDA to become a tenant of the property. It would set vacant again until they could figure something else to do with it. Obviously, the location is best suited for a class A office building. It will add to the area and the tax base of the city. He asked to introduce Dave Greiner, Director of Administration from MSHDA, who did a detailed survey of the staff. He also stated that MSHDA will own the building in 5 years. They have plans to buy the building in that time frame - its in the lease agreement. David Greiner, MSHDA, 340 VanBuren, Dimondale, addressed the Board. He referred to the packets given to the Board. He stated that he was conservative in the way he made the computations. As examples, he spoke about the lowest rate of annual leave that new employees get when computing how many employees would be out. He assumed that no employees would ever be on sick leave which is a gross fallacy. The second thing was that he used no street parking which is allowed in the general area to come up with the number of needed parking places. He believes that the figures that he has presented are conservative and reasonable and will more than suffice their needs for a long time to come. With regard to the future use of the building, the lease that MSHDA is entering into is a long term lease. It would be for at least 20 years. They are also insisting in the lease that there be an option to purchase and that option to purchase be exercisable no later than 5 years from the onset. They have resided at 401 S. Washington for over 25 years, 24'/2 of which they have been trying to get out of. They don't move often. If they are able to move into this property, it will be for a long time. They would need the entire floor area of the building. So any restriction on what can be developed would lock MSHDA out of having that as their future home. They currently lease over 63,000 feet. Obviously, they need that much or more moving into another building. Another factor that he believes is pertinent is that their staff level is stable at this point in time. In the past year, they have actually reduced the number of staff. They are also restricted being a state agency by the legislature as to how many staff they can have. They don't anticipate any increases in staff and, therefore, to have a requirement BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 4 of a number of parking spaces greatly in excess of what their needs are would be a waste of land area and of their money to try and maintain it. V. Earhart stated that she is unsure of what MSHDA does. Is 12 visitors a day all that they would have in the course of a day? D. Greiner stated that on average, yes. V. Earhart asked what a high day would be? D. Greiner stated that a high day for visitors could be 20-25 people. V. Earhart asked if they had staff meetings where they might bring in people from other offices? D. Greiner stated that everyday they have people coming in from outlying offices and they have people going out to outlying offices. V. Earhart asked if the calculations were based on conservative estimates. Is the visitor parking conservative or did he add more for that? D. Greiner stated that the visitor parking is on average what it actually is. He took sign in sheets for six months and averaged the number of visitors in and out. Some of the other things on there- state owned cars-that would need 18 parking places if all the state owned cars were not being used at a particular time. Handicapped parking places- they never have less than one handicapped employee. They have one full-time handicapped employee. The visitor parking is on average what it is. He has included more state owned cars than will ever be allotted at any given time. They have 18 state cars. They park now in the lot next to the Grand Tower on Grand Ave. He doesn't recall a day when he has counted more than six of their state cars in that lot at a time. V. Earhart asked what the hours of operation were for MSHDA? D. Greiner stated that general hours of operation - open to the public- is 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. V. Earhart asked how much of the staff is found after 5:00 p.m.? D. Greiner stated that the bulk of the staff leaves at 5:00 p.m. He would say that by 5:30 p.m., if 20 people are in the building, that's a lot. A. Frederick stated that according to the report the gross floor space of the building is 110,000 sq ft and MSHDA will apparently use a little over 69,000 sq ft. What is going to happen to the remaining square footage or what is it used for? D. Greiner stated that they will be using the whole building. They will be the sole occupant of the building. It is his understanding that the difference between the 110,000 and the 69,000 is the way its computed and the areas that aren't included. In the 110,000 for example is the HVAC on the roof, loading dock, etc. Common areas that don't have parking required people in them. There is a lot of area in that building that won't have offices and won't have personnel in them -that is basically the difference. A. Frederick stated that since the variance will go with the property, if in the future, the state decided to put more people in there which they have been known to do, he was thinking that they could take that 40,000 sq ft and add more people in it. But what it sounds like to him is that MSHDA will fill the building to capacity with their employees. D. Greiner stated that they would be filling the building with their employees, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 5 conferencing rooms, computer rooms, etc. The building will be occupied by them. The option to buy the building will rest with MSHDA only, not with the State of Michigan. They are going to buy the building as an agency, not as a part of the state. The state would not have the ability to add people in under this lease. Rick Kibbey, Eastside Neighborhood Organization, addressed the Board. He has spoken with the neighborhood organization in whose area this is located, but not with those in the adjacent areas. They are delighted to see the redevelopment of this property and particularly the selection of MSHDA as a tenant. They are the state agency that is responsible for neighborhood revitalization and they would love to have a chance to show them what a revitalized neighborhood looks like. But their long term work has included a vigorous attempt to deal with the impact of parking in residential neighborhoods. They engaged in a long struggle with Sparrow Hospital around this issue and have achieved a real satisfactory solution. Sparrow was overflowing into the neighborhood, heard what they were saying and has made substantial investments in new parking facilities in the area. Sparrow has solved the problem at their expense, not the neighborhood's or the surrounding businesses' expense. While they are pleased to see this development by MSHDA, they would like some firm assurance that they are going to take responsibility for the parking that they generate and that it not be overflowing into surrounding neighborhoods or into the parking lots of their other institutional neighbors. He stated that if there were further meetings on this issue, technical or otherwise, he would be interested in hearing it. He urged a very close look at this issue. MSHDA does have a reputation as a responsible tenant downtown. He hopes that MSHDA does buy that property and expand on it, but make sure that provisions are made for parking to accommodate that expansion. Ira Ginsburg, Sparrow Health System, addressed the Board. He stated that they are a neighbor to this facility. They also rent parking space across the street from this facility. They are very happy to see that MSHDA is willing to move into the area. However, they are concerned with the parking. They have about 550 plus additional parking that they currently rent from the State Library which would be up if the tenants move in. Currently, all their spaces are full by 9:00 a.m. in the morning. They have had conversations with the restaurants in the area. They do not have enough lunch space -the city has not provided enough space for their parking. At lunch time it is very difficult for them to do business because there is no parking in the area. His concern isn't MSHDA moving in there; his concern is the parking. Will they maintain the number of spaces that they say they are? Will they not exceed that in their employees? He would like to be able to guarantee that he won't increase his business either, but he thinks that is a very difficult thing to do especially once you have approved something that can go on indefinitely with the State unless there are some controls over their expansion in the number of cars that they can have. It is a problem when cars start moving into the neighborhoods. Sparrow has been on the other side of the coin on this. They know what it is like-the problems that are created with parking cars in the neighborhoods. It doesn't make for very good neighbors. He thinks that they have worked to solve their problem. He would like to make sure that there are some controls so that the state cannot expand the number of parking spaces. He also stated that he hasn't seen the figures that the applicant has presented to know whether they are accurate or inaccurate. They do have concerns. He stated that he received very late notice on this meeting. He doesn't know if even the restaurants have seen the notices for this meeting. Paul Dionese, addressed the Board. He stated that he has been in the neighborhood for about 50 years and he owns property there. He does not object for MSHDA to come to the State Library. His concern is about more cars to park there. He owns a bar and stores. If MSHDA people park on the street, where are his customers going to park? In regards to the visitors per day, how long are the visitors going to stay there? He doesn't object to the tenant, he is concerned with the parking. Linda Stobers, 812 E. Michigan, addressed the Board. She stated that she owns BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 6 Stober's Spirits of Old. That is the 2nd bar on the block from where Paul Dionese is speaking of. It is located at 812 E. Michigan Avenue across the street and approximately '/2 block down from the Eyde building. Currently, her side of the street, the 800 block, has 4 businesses in it and one parking lot. She owns that one parking lot. Her family has been paying taxes, insurance, snow plowing, lawn care and general upkeep on the lot for 36 years. Every business in that block has benefitted from her parking lot. She alone pays 100% of all costs for the lot. But her customers are probably only 40% of the users. She has stood in the lot for hours, days and nights, rain, sun and snow, trying to police the traffic. She knows the problems associated with a lack of parking. She is being punished because her father had the foresight to recognize the need for parking and he did the right thing. He bought the property to accommodate his customers. There is not a wealth of open parking space in this area. When the Eyde company took this project on, they made a promise to MSHDA to build a building that would suite the needs of the tenants. That promise has been broken. Now, the Eyde company is asking their new neighbors for a special allowance that would let them move in anyway. They are asking for permission to violate someone else's property. How hard have the Eydes tried to find this additional parking? She doesn't think they have tried very hard. It's nicer to save the money. Her property is in close proximity to theirs. She can accommodate up to 45 cars. No one has approached her about contracting space. She is not here looking for a new source of income. She is here seeking fairness. The Eydes will receive all profits from this endeavor. Let them hold up their end of the bargain. Let them pay for the spaces they need. Don't place the burden on her. Bill Schroeger, SXJE II LLC approached the Board to make clarifying comments. V. Earhart stated that she didn't mind hearing clarifying comments. He wanted to clarify how they came to the 40,000 square feet. The basement is 20,000+ square feet which is untenantable which will be used for filing and storage. The addition that they are putting on is for conferencing. It is 10,000 square feet. That is 30,000 square feet of the building that won't have live bodies in it. The balance of the space is basically, restroom cores, elevator cores, loading docks, mechanical rooms,janitor rooms. Things that people don't live in. It is about 15% of the balance of the space. The calculations came from the architects. A. Frederick asked if the Eyde company has explored any other alternatives to resolve the parking issue? B. Schroeger stated that they don't see a parking issue because the parking meets all the needs of the tenant the way it is now. A. Frederick stated that was the intent of the code that required the number of parking spots that were considered to ensure that the needs of all of the occupants and all of the future occupants would be met. He doesn't think it is an issue of whether it meets the needs of the tenants that they intend to put in there for the next 20 years or so. That building could last a long time. The Board has to address the requirements of the Zoning Code and also that the variance that they might grant would last with the building and with the property. So it could be that 30 years from now someone could decide to put another 100 people in that building. He calculated about 327 square feet per employee. That works out to a fair amount of square footage per employee. He thinks that there is some slack room there. That is why he asked the question. B. Schroeger stated that he could give another example of the code. Out in East Lansing, there are projects on Coolidge Rd. and Lake Lansing Rd. where they were required to put in 360 spaces there and 120 set empty every day and the building is full. Instead they had to take down about 1 acre of trees just to put in parking that doesn't get used. There is give and take in a situation. The building out there is completely full of BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 7 people, but the requirements made them put in all the additional spaces that will never be used. There needs to be some kind of give and take. If it becomes a problem later on, then it can be addressed. Right now, it meets their needs. That is the purpose of what the Board is here for- not to create excessive demands and excessive hardships on people just because that's what the code says. The building is an oversized building. What they are proposing is fair and they are spending a lot of money to add to the city. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she has difficulties with the variance requested from three different perspectives: 1) she was a state employee for a number of years visiting various state offices. Her biggest complaint about the travel was when she got to the other state office, she could never find a place to park. It wasn't just a convenient place to park across the way, she just couldn't find anything. She would park in a supermarket, then take a taxi back; 2) she worked in a small rented office on Washington very close to MSHDA's office. She stated that there were approximately 40 parking spaces available with 10 employees in the building. That seems like a lot of extra parking but 5 of them were hearing officers. On any given day, they could have a hearing. Her hearings frequently had 75 people. Not all of them needed to park because they would carpool, but a 40 space lot just wasn't going to work for it; 3) she moved down about 5 blocks from the building she was in and every day that there are people working downtown, she has on a corner lot and both corners are filled with state parkers. It is up and down all the streets that she is familiar with. There are big parking lots available there. Some people, she knows, are trying to save the money and get free parking. But they frequently risk the parking ticket too. She is very uncomfortable with agreeing to a variance that results in parking requirements just one off. The net parking requirements as totaled was 207 and the net available is 208. That is gone in an instant. A. Frederick stated that this parking issue is something that the Planning Board has been discussing now for a long time since they began to see the plans that various developers had to develop downtown into more office buildings and to populate it with primarily state employees. As he recalls, the last time they discussed it they were struggling for a way to predict what would happen to the people that were in the old buildings who were going to move into the new buildings and what kind of space that was going to leave for other people to move in - other state employees or other private business employees to move in. They recognized that there is a problem with parking. One of the things that they discussed is the needs of parking on the outlying parts of downtown that is being developed as well as the core part with the new buildings that are anticipated. He thinks they all recognize the difficulties with parking that has existed for a long time with the dirt lots and the parks that got turned into parking lots and so forth. He thinks that they have been looking for some solution to the situation. It may be that the parking requirements in the Zoning Code are unreasonable with today's business needs and that the parking requirements in the Zoning Code perhaps should be changed if they are unreasonable. That is not their purveyance. They had the parking code and the required number of parking spots that they have to address. If the Zoning Code is unreasonable, then that can be addressed by the City Council. Only they have the authority to change the code. They have been trying to communicate their concerns to the city. He is hoping to hear some suggestions and participation from the private sector, developers and the State of Michigan. He knows that they are having talks with the city about the parking issue, at least with the State, but they haven't heard anything about what the results are. At this point, he is uncomfortable with the request for the variance. He thinks that, at this point, there is enough time for someone to go back and look at the plans again and see if there is some other resolution to increase the number of parking spots available. Maybe the code is unreasonable, but he doesn't know if they have to approve a variance for as many parking spots as they are being asked to approve tonight. V. Earhart stated that the comments that A. Frederick made about what the Planning Board is doing - here, there is an alternative other than putting asphalt down. There is a possibility of going underground with parking, there is a possibility of making a low level parking structure that will fit in these areas. They are probably more practical than acquiring land. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 8 M. Clark stated that there was one communication from Michael Moriarti, Moriarti's Pub, that she read into the record. E. Horne asked M. Clark what her neighborhood organization thought about it. M. Clark stated that they had not had a chance to discuss it. E. Horne stated that, due to the fact that she is totally aware of the problems that have existed on the east side and working with many of the neighborhood groups in previous years, she thinks that maybe there should be another month of study and get all of the reports in -traffic studies, etc. -she knows that once something like this is granted, you can't tell what will happen in the future. She wants to study it more in order to make the right decision because she is concerned with the parking. R. McCloud stated that she agrees with E. Horne. She would prefer to study it more before rendering a decision. A. Frederick also agrees. With more time, there could be more alternatives proposed. A. Frederick moved to table BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan Ave. until the meeting on October 14t" Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X McCloud X Clark X Frederick I X Motion carried by a vote of 4-1, BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan Ave. has been tabled until October 14'" M. Clark clarified that at the next meeting any additional information that can be given to the Board about parking needs or solutions would be appreciated and, in particular, looking in terms of long term usage of the building - not just for this tenant but future usage. E. Horne asked Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner to supply some of the studies of future plans of Michigan Ave. She believes this would be helpful. V. Earhart stated that what would also be helpful is a map that includes the areas not across Michigan, but further to the north of the site so that the Board can see what it is General discussion ensued regarding building in the surrounding area. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch - remains tabled B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol - remains tabled V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. NONE VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 9 A. Minutes of August 12, 1999 E. Horne stated that J. Ruff did an excellent job in taking minutes due to tape machine malfunction. E. Horne moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Parking for Seminar on 9/15/99 V. Earhart stated that E. Horne suggested that we meet in a more central location where they can leave their cars for the seminar on 9/15/99 so that when they get back, there are people there to make sure everyone gets to their cars ok. North Precinct, South Precinct or City Market were suggested. General discussion ensued as to where to meet. It was decided to meet at the South Precinct and leave from there. B. Election of Officers J. Ruff wanted to have the board members thinking about this for next month. It will be put on the agenda for the October meeting. M. Clark asked how many vacancies we have currently? J. Ruff stated that there are 2 vacancies currently. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Adri inistrator Draft to Clerk 10/05/99 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING'' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 1:.,.T �7 Cott C• �:` SEPTEMBER 9, 1999, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR.CLT-,!HAL�L�!-���'` I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:30 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick R. McCloud V. Earhart Staff: J. Ruff L. Davis D. Witherspoon A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. G. Hilts called on September 9th and requested an excused absence. Motion by E. Horne to accept absence. Seconded by V. Earhart. Carried unanimously to approve. C. B. Burgess had excused absence for this meeting. D. J. Ruff stated, for the Board's information, that last month was Raina Korbakis' last meeting. Because of the number being down to seven (7) seated on the Board, it takes only four(4) favorable votes to approve a variance. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. Earhart asked to add an item in regards to the departure point for the "Basic Planning and Zoning" seminar on 9/15/99. J. Ruff also stated that elections for next month should be added. V. Earhart made motion to approve agenda with additions. Supported by E. Horne. Carried unanimously for approval. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3552.99, 221 McGarry J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Eric Collar to construct an attached 24 ft x 24 ft garage onto the west side of his house at 221 McGarry Drive, 11 ft from the west property line. Section 1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum 30 ft rear yard setback (from the west property line). This is, therefore, a request for a variance of 19 ft from the 30-foot rear yard setback requirement. He stated that this request is to allow for the construction of an attached garage onto the property that is zoned 'A' Residential. The property is a single family dwelling and single family dwellings are around this property. The zoning reflects that. The property is a corner lot- 75' along Knoll Drive and 100' along McGarry Drive. It is rectangular in shape and contains 7500 sq ft in area. The applicant is requesting an attached garage. A detached garage could be built in this setting. It would further take up more of the yard in that case. Thus they have requested the variance to attach the garage. As a corner lot, there is a choice when a house is built as to what is the rear yard and what is the side yard. There are two front yards. In this case, when this house was built, the rear yard was classified as the west yard where the garage would be placed and the side Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMtsER 9, 1999 Page 2 yard was classified as the south yard attached at 25'/z feet. J. Ruff referred to revised information given to the board members at the meeting. Staff recommends support of a variance. What they are recommending is that, instead of granting a 19' rear yard variance for this construction and leaving an 11'yard between the garage and the west property line, that they should call that the side yard now and call the south yard the rear yard. That way all it needs is a 5' variance. There is a deck on the back. If there was ever an addition on the backyard, another variance would be necessary. The staff thinks that is appropriate because then it could be evaluated what is left of a yard space for recreational or private space. Eric Collar, Spicerville Hwy., Eaton Rapids, MI, builder, addressed the Board. He stated that he appreciated the suggestions that were given. They sounded very good. The owner of the property is a single widow who works in the emergency room at Sparrow Hospital. She is an EMT who is on call. It would certainly make it easier for her depending on the weather and time of day if she could go right out of her house into her attached garage and get into her car. That would help her situation. V. Earhart asked if E. Collar and the owner agree on the rear yard/side yard changes suggested by the Planning Staff. E. Collar stated that was OK with them both. J. Ruff stated that she had Donna Wynant, Senior Planner go back out to the site and evaluate that option and then contact the builder and the homeowner and make sure that would be appropriate. Donna informed J. Ruff that she did contact them both and received favorable replies. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she is inclined to agree. She likes the recommendation that was made by staff that the Board deny the 19'that was requested and that they change the yard area to the south of the house into the rear yard, switching with the west. Then approving a variance of 4.5 feet to allow for the addition to the house. V. Earhart moved to deny BZA-3552.99, 221 McGarry as filed, but that the designation of the south yard area be changed to the rear yard and that a variance of 4.5 feet be granted to allow for the addition of an attached garage. Supported by E. Horne. On a roll call vote, there were 5 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was denied as follows but approved as recommended by staff unanimously. B. BZA-3553.99 735 E. Michigan Ave. Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner, presented the case, a request by SXJE II LLC for a parking variance of 138 parking spaces. The applicant is remodeling the old State Library at 735 East Michigan Avenue for use by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA). The usable floor area is 69,280 sq ft, which requires 346 parking spaces, according to Section 1284.13(d)(2) of the Zoning Code. There are 208 total parking spaces. Therefore, this is a request for a parking variance of 138 spaces. She went through the staff report with the Board. The property is zoned "H-Light Industrial" district. It is approximately 2 acres. The North East Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area for industrial warehouse use. The developer's proposal is to remodel the old State Library for the MSHDA. They are planning to move into the facility as their permanent home probably within the next couple of years. Based on the zoning requirement, they are required to have 346 parking spaces. There are a total of 208 parking spaces- 66 parking spaces just north of Jon Anthony's and on site the remaining spaces for a total of 208 parking spaces. Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 3 The previous uses in the building consisted of a former library which is probably several years ago. After that, it was partial office use. They did not have this much parking requirements for those two uses. The proposed remodeling would change the parking demand and requirement without increasing the building size or available land. By not grant the variance will hamper the renovation by limiting the useful floor area of the 41,700 sq ft which is 38% of the building's gross area. Based on this information, there is a practical difficulty in meeting the parking requirement. Granting the parking variance will not change the character of the area. In terms of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, there will be an increase in both because they are planning to use the entire building. In terms of the impact on the general pattern of future development, there should not be any adverse effects. The building is going through a site plan review process right now. One of the things that Planning wanted to see them do since this is a very visible building is to stick with the East Michigan Avenue study and bring the building to its original brick facade. They have been making an effort to do that. Staff recommends approval of the variance for 138 additional parking spaces. M. Clark asked that if the variance is granted, it goes with the property not with the tenant or owner? D. Witherspoon stated that, yes, it goes with the property. Bill Shroeger, SXJE II, addressed the Board. He stated that Doris did an admirable job of presenting the issues of their appeal. The structure, for the last year, has been basically vacant. They are proposing about a $12 million dollar renovation to the area - parking, landscaping, and the building structure itself. Along with that, they will be bringing about 200 new people to the area as far as users for the existing businesses in that area. The Michigan State Housing Development Authority is their proposed tenant. The parking that is being proposed meets their needs for now and into the future. If the variance wasn't granted and they were forced to take a reduction in the square footage of the building in order to meet the parking criteria, then they wouldn't have enough usable footage for MSHDA to become a tenant of the property. It would set vacant again until they could figure something else to do with it. Obviously, the location is best suited for a class A office building. It will add to the area and the tax base of the city. He asked to introduce Dave Greiner, Director of Administration from MSHDA, who did a detailed survey of the staff. He also stated that MSHDA will own the building in 5 years. They have plans to buy the building in that time frame - its in the lease agreement. David Greiner, MSHDA, 340 VanBuren, Dimondale, addressed the Board. He referred to the packets given to the Board. He stated that he was conservative in the way he made the computations. As examples, he spoke about the lowest rate of annual leave that new employees get when computing how many employees would be out. He assumed that no employees would ever be on sick leave which is a gross fallacy. The second thing was that he used no street parking which is allowed in the general area to come up with the number of needed parking places. He believes that the figures that he has presented are conservative and reasonable and will more than suffice their needs for a long time to come. With regard to the future use of the building, the lease that MSHDA is entering into is a long term lease. It would be for at least 20 years. They are also insisting in the lease that there be an option to purchase and that option to purchase be exercisable no later than 5 years from the onset. They have resided at 401 S. Washington for over 25 years, 24'/2 of which they have been trying to get out of. They don't move often. If they are able to move into this property, it will be for a long time. They would need the entire floor area of the building. So any restriction on what can be developed would lock MSHDA out of having that as their future home. They currently lease over 63,000 feet. Obviously, they need that much or more moving into another building. Another factor that he believes is pertinent is that their staff level is stable at this point in time. In the past year, they have actually reduced the number of staff. They are also restricted being a state agency by the legislature as to how many staff they can have. They don't anticipate any increases in staff and, therefore, to have a requirement Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 4 of a number of parking spaces greatly in excess of what their needs are would be a waste of land area and of their money to try and maintain it. V. Earhart stated that she is unsure of what MSHDA does. Is 12 visitors a day all that they would have in the course of a day? D. Greiner stated that on average, yes. V. Earhart asked what a high day would be? D. Greiner stated that a high day for visitors could be 20-25 people. V. Earhart asked if they had staff meetings where they might bring in people from other offices? D. Greiner stated that everyday they have people coming in from outlying offices and they have people going out to outlying offices. V. Earhart asked if the calculations were based on conservative estimates. Is the visitor parking conservative or did he add more for that? D. Greiner stated that the visitor parking is on average what it actually is. He took sign in sheets for six months and averaged the number of visitors in and out. Some of the other things on there- state owned cars-that would need 18 parking places if all the state owned cars were not being used at a particular time. Handicapped parking places- they never have less than one handicapped employee. They have one full-time handicapped employee. The visitor parking is on average what it is. He has included more state owned cars than will ever be allotted at any given time. They have 18 state cars. They park now in the lot next to the Grand Tower on Grand Ave. He doesn't recall a day when he has counted more than six of their state cars in that lot at a time. V. Earhart asked what the hours of operation were for MSHDA? D. Greiner stated that general hours of operation - open to the public- is 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 P.M. V. Earhart asked how much of the staff is found after 5:00 p.m.? D. Greiner stated that the bulk of the staff leaves at 5:00 p.m. He would say that by 5:30 p.m., if 20 people are in the building, that's a lot. A. Frederick stated that according to the report the gross floor space of the building is 110,000 sq ft and MSHDA will apparently use a little over 69,000 sq ft. What is going to happen to the remaining square footage or what is it used for? D. Greiner stated that they will be using the whole building. They will be the sole occupant of the building. It is his understanding that the difference between the 110,000 and the 69,000 is the way its computed and the areas that aren't included. In the 110,000 for example is the HVAC on the roof, loading dock, etc. Common areas that don't have parking required people in them. There is a lot of area in that building that won't have offices and won't have personnel in them -that is basically the difference. A. Frederick stated that since the variance will go with the property, if in the future, the state decided to put more people in there which they have been known to do, he was thinking that they could take that 40,000 sq ft and add more people in it. But what it sounds like to him is that MSHDA will fill the building to capacity with their employees. D. Greiner stated that they would be filling the building with their employees, Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 5 conferencing rooms, computer rooms, etc. The building will be occupied by them. The option to buy the building will rest with MSHDA only, not with the State of Michigan. They are going to buy the building as an agency, not as a part of the state. The state would not have the ability to add people in under this lease. Rick Kibbey, Eastside Neighborhood Organization, addressed the Board. He has spoken with the neighborhood organization in whose area this is located, but not with those in the adjacent areas. They are delighted to see the redevelopment of this property and particularly the selection of MSHDA as a tenant. They are the state agency that is responsible for neighborhood revitalization and they would love to have a chance to show them what a revitalized neighborhood looks like. But their long term work has included a vigorous attempt to deal with the impact of parking in residential neighborhoods. They engaged in a long struggle with Sparrow Hospital around this issue and have achieved a real satisfactory solution. Sparrow was overflowing into the neighborhood, heard what they were saying and has made substantial investments in new parking facilities in the area. Sparrow has solved the problem at their expense, not the neighborhood's or the surrounding businesses' expense. While they are pleased to see this development by MSHDA, they would like some firm assurance that they are going to take responsibility for the parking that they generate and that it not be overflowing into surrounding neighborhoods or into the parking lots of their other institutional neighbors. He stated that if there were further meetings on this issue, technical or otherwise, he would be interested in hearing it. He urged a very close look at this issue. MSHDA does have a reputation as a responsible tenant downtown. He hopes that MSHDA does buy that property and expand on it, but make sure that provisions are made for parking to accommodate that expansion. Iraa Ginsburg, Sparrow Health System addressed the Board. He stated that they are a neighbor to this facility. They also rent parking space across the street from this facility. They are very happy to see that MSHDA is willing to move into the area. However, they are concerned with the parking. They have about 550 plus additional parking that they currently rent from the State Library which would be up if the tenants move in. Currently, all their spaces are full by 9:00 a.m. in the morning. They have had conversations with the restaurants in the area. They do not have enough lunch space -the city has not provided enough space for their parking. At lunch time it is very difficult for them to do business because there is no parking in the area. His concern isn't MSHDA moving in there; his concern is the parking. Will they maintain the number of spaces that they say they are? Will they not exceed that in their employees? He would like to be able to guarantee that he won't increase his business either, but he thinks that is a very difficult thing to do especially once you have approved something that can go on indefinitely with the State unless there are some controls over their expansion in the number of cars that they can have. It is a problem when cars start moving into the neighborhoods. Sparrow has been on the other side of the coin on this. They know what it is like-the problems that are created with parking cars in the neighborhoods. It doesn't make for very good neighbors. He thinks that they have worked to solve their problem. He would like to make sure that there are some controls so that the state cannot expand the number of parking spaces. He also stated that he hasn't seen the figures that the applicant has presented to know whether they are accurate or inaccurate. They do have concerns. He stated that he received very late notice on this meeting. He doesn't know if even the restaurants have seen the notices for this meeting. Paul Dionese, addressed the Board. He stated that he has been in the neighborhood for about 50 years and he owns property there. He does not object for MSHDA to come to the State Library. His concern is about more cars to park there. He owns a bar and stores. If MSHDA people park on the street, where are his customers going to park? In regards to the visitors per day, how long are the visitors going to stay there? He doesn't object to the tenant, he is concerned with the parking. Linda Stobers, 812 E. Michigan, addressed the Board. She stated that she owns Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 6 Stober's Spirits of Old. That is the 2nd bar on the block from where Paul Dionese is speaking of. It is located at 812 E. Michigan Avenue across the street and approximately'/z block down from the Eyde building. Currently, her side of the street, the 800 block, has 4 businesses in it and one parking lot. She owns that one parking lot. Her family has been paying taxes, insurance, snow plowing, lawn care and general upkeep on the lot for 36 years. Every business in that block has benefitted from her parking lot. She alone pays 100% of all costs for the lot. But her customers are probably only 40% of the users. She has stood in the lot for hours, days and nights, rain, sun and snow, trying to police the traffic. She knows the problems associated with a lack of parking. She is being punished because her father had the foresight to recognize the need for parking and he did the right thing. He bought the property to accommodate his customers. There is not a wealth of open parking space in this area. When the Eyde company took this project on, they made a promise to MSHDA to build a building that would suite the needs of the tenants. That promise has been broken. Now, the Eyde company is asking their new neighbors for a special allowance that would let them move in anyway. They are asking for permission to violate someone else's property. How hard have the Eydes tried to find this additional parking? She doesn't think they have tried very hard. It's nicer to save the money. Her property is in close proximity to theirs. She can accommodate up to 45 cars. No one has approached her about contracting space. She is not here looking for a new source of income. She is here seeking fairness. The Eydes will receive all profits from this endeavor. Let them hold up their end of the bargain. Let them pay for the spaces they need. Don't place the burden on her. Bill Schroeger, SXJE II LLC approached the Board to make clarifying comments. V. Earhart stated that she didn't mind hearing clarifying comments. He wanted to clarify how they came to the 40,000 square feet. The basement is 20,000+ square feet which is untenantable which will be used for filing and storage. The addition that they are putting on is for conferencing. It is 10,000 square feet. That is 30,000 square feet of the building that won't have live bodies in it. The balance of the space is basically, restroom cores, elevator cores, loading docks, mechanical rooms,janitor rooms. Things that people don't live in. It is about 15% of the balance of the space. The calculations came from the architects. A. Frederick asked if the Eyde company has explored any other alternatives to resolve the parking issue? B. Schroeger stated that they don't see a parking issue because the parking meets all the needs of the tenant the way it is now. A. Frederick stated that was the intent of the code that required the number of parking spots that were considered to ensure that the needs of all of the occupants and all of the future occupants would be met. He doesn't think it is an issue of whether it meets the needs of the tenants that they intend to put in there for the next 20 years or so. That building could last a long time. The Board has to address the requirements of the Zoning Code and also that the variance that they might grant would last with the building and with the property. So it could be that 30 years from now someone could decide to put another 100 people in that building. He calculated about 327 square feet per employee. That works out to a fair amount of square footage per employee. He thinks that there is some slack room there. That is why he asked the question. B. Schroeger stated that he could give another example of the code. Out in East Lansing, there are projects on Coolidge Rd. and Lake Lansing Rd. where they were required to put in 360 spaces there and 120 set empty every day and the building is full. Instead they had to take down about 1 acre of trees just to put in parking that doesn't get used. There is give and take in a situation. The building out there is completely full of Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 7 people, but the requirements made them put in all the additional spaces that will never be used. There needs to be some kind of give and take. If it becomes a problem later on, then it can be addressed. Right now, it meets their needs. That is the purpose of what the Board is here for- not to create excessive demands and excessive hardships on people just because that's what the code says. The building is an oversized building. What they are proposing is fair and they are spending a lot of money to add to the city. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she has difficulties with the variance requested from three different perspectives: 1) she was a state employee for a number of years visiting various state offices. Her biggest complaint about the travel was when she got to the other state office, she could never find a place to park. It wasn't just a convenient place to park across the way, she just couldn't find anything. She would park in a supermarket, then take a taxi back; 2) she worked in a small rented office on Washington very close to MSHDA's office. She stated that there were approximately 40 parking spaces available with 10 employees in the building. That seems like a lot of extra parking but 5 of them were hearing officers. On any given day, they could have a hearing. Her hearings frequently had 75 people. Not all of them needed to park because they would carpool, but a 40 space lot just wasn't going to work for it; 3) she moved down about 5 blocks from the building she was in and every day that there are people working downtown, she has on a corner lot and both corners are filled with state parkers. It is up and down all the streets that she is familiar with. There are big parking lots available there. Some people, she knows, are trying to save the money and get free parking. But they frequently risk the parking ticket too. She is very uncomfortable with agreeing to a variance that results in parking requirements just one off. The net parking requirements as totaled was 207 and the net available is 208. That is gone in an instant. A. Frederick stated that this parking issue is something that the Planning Board has been discussing now for a long time since they began to see the plans that various developers had to develop downtown into more office buildings and to populate it with primarily state employees. As he recalls, the last time they discussed it they were struggling for a way to predict what would happen to the people that were in the old buildings who were going to move into the new buildings and what kind of space that was going to leave for other people to move in - other state employees or other private business employees to move in. They recognized that there is a problem with parking. One of the things that they discussed is the needs of parking on the outlying parts of downtown that is being developed as well as the core part with the new buildings that are anticipated. He thinks they all recognize the difficulties with parking that has existed for a long time with the dirt lots and the parks that got turned into parking lots and so forth. He thinks that they have been looking for some solution to the situation. It may be that the parking requirements in the Zoning Code are unreasonable with today's business needs and that the parking requirements in the Zoning Code perhaps should be changed if they are unreasonable. That is not their purveyance. They had the parking code and the required number of parking spots that they have to address. If the Zoning Code is unreasonable, then that can be addressed by the City Council. Only they have the authority to change the code. They have been trying to communicate their concerns to the city. He is hoping to hear some suggestions and participation from the private sector, developers and the State of Michigan. He knows that they are having talks with the city about the parking issue, at least with the State, but they haven't heard anything about what the results are. At this point, he is uncomfortable with the request for the variance. He thinks that, at this point, there is enough time for someone to go back and look at the plans again and see if there is some other resolution to increase the number of parking spots available. Maybe the code is unreasonable, but he doesn't know if they have to approve a variance for as many parking spots as they are being asked to approve tonight. V. Earhart stated that the comments that A. Frederick made about what the Planning Board is doing - here, there is an alternative other than putting asphalt down. There is a possibility of going underground with parking, there is a possibility of making a low level parking structure that will fit in these areas. They are probably more practical than acquiring land. Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 8 M. Clark stated that there was one communication from Michael Moriarti, Moriarti's Pub, that she read into the record. E. Horne asked M. Clark what her neighborhood organization thought about it. M. Clark stated that they had not had a chance to discuss it. E. Horne stated that, due to the fact that she is totally aware of the problems that have existed on the east side and working with many of the neighborhood groups in previous years, she thinks that maybe there should be another month of study and get all of the reports in -traffic studies, etc. - she knows that once something like this is granted, you can't tell what will happen in the future. She wants to study it more in order to make the right decision because she is concerned with the parking. R. McCloud stated that she agrees with E. Horne. She would prefer to study it more before rendering a decision. A. Frederick also agrees. With more time, there could be more alternatives proposed. A. Frederick moved to table BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan Ave. until the meeting on October 14"' Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X McCloud X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-1, BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan Ave. has been tabled until October 14th M. Clark clarified that at the next meeting any additional information that can be given to the Board about parking needs or solutions would be appreciated and, in particular, looking in terms of long term usage of the building - not just for this tenant but future usage. E. Horne asked Doris Witherspoon, Senior Planner to supply some of the studies of future plans of Michigan Ave. She believes this would be helpful. V. Earhart stated that what would also be helpful is a map that includes the areas not across Michigan, but further to the north of the site so that the Board can see what it is General discussion ensued regarding building in the surrounding area. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch - remains tabled B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol - remains tabled V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. NONE VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 Page 9 A. Minutes of August 12, 1999 E. Horne stated that J. Ruff did an excellent job in taking minutes due to tape machine malfunction. E. Horne moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Parking for Seminar on 9/15/99 V. Earhart stated that E. Horne suggested that we meet in a more central location where they can leave their cars for the seminar on 9/15/99 so that when they get back, there are people there to make sure everyone gets to their cars ok. North Precinct, South Precinct or City Market were suggested. General discussion ensued as to where to meet. It was decided to meet at the South Precinct and leave from there. B. Election of Officers J. Ruff wanted to have the board members thinking about this for next month. It will be put on the agenda for the October meeting. M. Clark asked how many vacancies we have currently? J. Ruff stated that there are 2 vacancies currently. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Draft Draft to Clerk 09/03/99 Approved 09/09/99 To Clerk 09/13/99 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ;V BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AUGUST 12, 1999, 7:30 P.M. L „ti ': = GI I i EA'ItOUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by A. Frederick at 7:30 p.m. A. Frederick read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick R. Korbakis R. McCloud V. Earhart Staff: J. Ruff J. Sturdevant D. Wynant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. M. Clark called on August 10`h and requested an excused absence. Motion by G. Hilts to accept absence. Seconded by E. Horne. Carried unanimously to approve. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3547.99, 2115 Lewton Place J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Mr. David Hannah regarding a variance to extend the garage at 2115 Lewton Place 8 feet toward the street. Currently, the front yard setback at 2115 Lewton Place is 29 feet and the required front yard setback as established according-to Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code is 30 feet. The addition will result in a front yard setback of 21 feet. Therefore, this is a requested variance of 9 feet. The owner wishes to create a side entry garage to eliminate the existing drive with its dramatic slope. Mr. David Hannahs, 2115 Lewton Place, addressed the Board. He stated that there was no way to adjust the slope otherwise. He handed out a sight line drawing for the Board to review. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. E. Horne stated that she made a visual inspection of the site. Her only concern is possibly setting up a precedent with front yard parking. J. Ruff then explained front yard parking. R. Korbakis asked about the lack of uniqueness since there are a number of homes in the area with similar situations. J. Ruff explained that even though there may be similar situations in the area but the particular details could make each situation more unique. R. Korbakis stated that it was still not unique enough of a situation. E. Horne agreed. A. Frederick asked if there is really a problem with a grade? How much? BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AUGUST 12, 1999 PAGE 2 J. Ruff deferred to applicant. D. Hannahs stated that the driveway is humped and short which makes it difficult especially in winter even to walk as it is also the approach to the house. R. Korbakis asked how his property is different from the other properties in the neighborhood. D. Hannahs stated that the primary difference is the hump in the property. A. Frederick stated that he can see where there can be a difficulty. He can see the need for this request. G. Hilts moved to approve BZA-3547.99, 2115 Lewton Place with condition. He sees the unique character with the slope and hump. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Burgess X Hilts X Horne X McCloud X Korbakis X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-2, BZA-3547.99, 2115 Lewton Place has been approved. B. BZA-3548.99, 1208 E. Grand River/1145 Farrand J. Sturdevant presented the case, a request by James LaMacchia, owner, requesting variances from the front and rear yard building setback requirements for two adjacent buildings presently located on the same lot at 1208-10 E. Grand River Avenue and 1145 Farrand Street. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the off-street parking requirement for 1208-10 E. Grand River Avenue. The property is presently zoned "F" Commercial District. The applicant is requesting these variances in order to permit a lot-split to separate two existing buildings and allow separate ownership. The proposed lot split would create two lots: the lot at 1145 Farrand Street would contain one single family residence with a front yard setback of 9.5 feet and a rear yard setback of 10.7 feet; a variance of 10.5 feet from the required 20 foot front yard setback (§1268.06 of the Zoning Code), and a variance of 14.3 feet from the required 25 foot rear yard setback (§1268.08 of the Zoning Code) are requested. For the proposed parcel at 1208-10 E. Grand River Avenue, an existing commercial building and storage shed with front yard setbacks of 1.5 to 0.7 feet and a rear yard setback of approximately 1.6 feet is requested; variances of 18.5 and 19.3 feet for both front yard setbacks (20 feet is required by Section 1268.06 of the Zoning Code), and a variance of 23.4 feet from the required rear yard setback (25 feet is required by Section 1268.08 of the Zoning Code), are requested. In addition, the commercial building at 1208-10 E. Grand River Avenue would have its off-street parking area reduced to one parking space, while the use of this building could require as many as 10 to 25 off-street parking spaces. A variance for up to 24 off-street parking spaces is also requested. J. Sturdevant used maps to explain situation. Also explained land use. Then explained the application, the owner wishing to sell the house for home ownership. The house on BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AUGUST 12, 1999 PAGE 3 the commercial zoned property is also a land use issue for non conformities. Figure 3 shows the building envelope on the existing lot. Figure 4 shows the lot split as proposed by the applicant. Figure 5 shows the building envelope if divided. He went on to explain the variances. When explaining parking issues, he considered worst case scenario to come up with the maximum required spaces of 25. In regards to hardship, the buildings were built from 1916-1937 prior to codes. The market serves the residential neighborhood and relies on walk in traffic. The property is already developed and nothing physically changes, therefore it will remain harmonious to area. In regards to alternatives to bring it closer to conformance; to do nothing encourages demolition, but increases parking for business. It is a sound residential unit and it has been a goal of the Planning Board to preserve housing stock. It is a good example of 4 square architecture. He believes there's a greater benefit to save the house. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board approve the variances for setbacks and 8 parking spaces which accommodates the existing uses. Showed photo of house. E. Horne asked if he had history of property for rezonings. J. Sturdevant stated that there is no previous history. R. Korbakis asked about parking space changes. J. Sturdevant stated no, there will be two for the house and one for the business. Jim LaMacchia II, son of James LaMacchia Sr.,who was also present, addressed the Board. He stated that he agrees with the analysis. He added the point that the application would be contingent upon getting the Class A status and would not need this if not accomplished within a year. Don't know what would be necessary to obtain. J. Ruff stated that rezoning is also an option. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that this is the kind of situation that occurs when a zoning code is enacted for old neighborhoods and not intended to force relocation of house or structures. Economic benefit could be taken away. Lot split is appropriate and variances would be in the book to help future owners. G. Hilts agrees with this. A. Frederick stated that he can't see encouraging a good house to be torn down. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3548.99, 1208 E. Grand River/1145 Farrand in order to provide variances for lot splits with the condition that the property owner make application to the Planning Board for Class A status for the house at 1145 Farrand. Seconded by E. Horne. On a roll call vote there were 7 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was unanimously approved. C. BZA-3549.99, 6540 S. Cedar D. Wynant presented case. This is a request by Douglas E. Kearns of Lincoln Mercury Jeep of Lansing to replace two ground pole signs, retain a third ground pole sign and erect 3 wall signs at 6540 S. Cedar St. The 30' tall ground pole sign, advertising Lincoln Mercury, is proposed at 1110"from the front property line. A second ground pole sign, advertising used cars, is proposed to be 75 square feet in area, 17' tall and 16'from the front property line. Three wall signs (to replace existing signs) are proposed totaling 147.5 square feet. Section 1442.12(h)(5) of the Sign Code restricts the number of ground pole signs to one per parcel, a variance of two signs. Section 1442.13(b) restricts the number of wall signs to two, a variance of one sign. Section 1442.12 stipulates the height, area, and setbacks of ground pole signs. The Lincoln Mercury ground pole sign is required to be setback 30' and the used car ground pole sign is required to be setback BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AUGUST 12, 1999 PAGE 4 21'. This is, therefore, a request for variances 182" and 5' respectively on the setbacks of the ground pole signs. Variances are a result of the renovation that is underway. Significant improvements to number of wall signs from 6-3 and ground signs. D. Wynant introduced applicant's information and summarized the sign changes. D. Wynant also referred to photos in applicant's packet. There is a substantial reduction in the number of signs and the signage is closer in compliance. Letter of support was received from Wolverine Development and read for the record. Mr. Doug Kearns, 6540 S. Cedar, addressed the Board. He stated that they are updating the facility. He passed to the Board the current sign pictures and facility. It is an improved look. They are removing 3 wall and changeable copy signs. They reduced overall height of both brand signs in height to bring them closer to compliance. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. R. Korbakis asked about how these existing signs were allowed? J. Ruff stated under the old sign code, it was drastically over hauled in 1990. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3549.99, 6540 S. Cedar St. as per staff report with the condition that the directional sign as proposed be revised to be no taller than 3 feet tall and no larger than 4 sq. ft. Seconded by R. McCloud. On a roll call vote there were 7 yeas and 0 nays. The variance was unanimously approved with a condition. D. BZA-3550.99, 1700 Dell Rd. D. Wynant presented the case, a request by Dale Woodcock to construct a 4,468 square foot accessory structure with a building height of 22 feet to be used for storage and workshop on 8.6 acres of vacant land. The applicant plans to build a single family home on the east end of the property and the accessory structure on the west end of the property which is located at the west end of Dell Road, and immediately south of the expressway interchange. Section 1248.03(b))2) of the Zoning Code allows a total area of accessory structures of 1,000 square feet. An attached garage to the proposed house is 650 square feet. The accessory structure, at 4,468 square feet (5,118 sq. ft. total area), exceeds the maximum by 4,118 square feet. Section 1248.10 stipulates that detached accessory structures shall not exceed a building height of 15 feet. This is, therefore, a request for a variance of 4,118 square feet from the maximum amount of accessory structure permitted and 7 feet from the maximum height permitted. The request for a 4,118 square foot variance is out of character for a residential property. The code makes allowances for storage needs on a residential property. This large parcel may have additional storage needs to maintain the grounds. However, the storage of the items, as previously mentioned, go beyond the typical storage needs of an average single family home. The proposal is not residential in nature and staff believes it would be more appropriate in a warehouse district. Dale Woodcock, 1975 Adelpha addressed the Board. He stated that the code looks at city lots. This is a very large piece of land - one point of access and odd shape. There is a pole building on Kingdon that is large. R. Korbakis asked about considering warehouse district for his storage. D. Woodcock stated that his storage is presently in various warehouses. There has been damage and vandalism. J. Ruff mentioned alternative to rezone the west end of the property to wholesale and gain access from the west. But access has been difficult to obtain. G. Hilts asked about access from Dell Rd. He preferred that access to the warehouse would not be from Dell. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AUGUST 12, 1999 PAGE 5 A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess stated that this is a unique lot and location and the person is willing to develop in Lansing. Precedent is not a real problem based upon the situation and size. This is an ideal use. Good plan for odd unique lot and situation. Rezoning could take place in future depending on sale. Supports proposal. R. Korbakis stated that this is more unique to the property owner vs. the property. Property owner requires storage for these items vs. the property needing a larger building. B. Burgess stated that uniqueness of property probably precipitated the purpose of the variance and will not adversely affect neighbors. R. McCloud asked about rezoning. J. Ruff stated that this is an alternative. G. Hilts stated that this is a precedent for size and it raises the likelihood of the owner of putting in a body shop. This is a residential neighborhood. The mobile home park is a residential neighborhood. D. Woodcock asked to speak. E. Horne made motion to allow him to address Board. Seconded by G. Hilts. Carried. D. Woodcock stated that it will not be for body work or painting, but storage and only some minor repairs. G. Hilts stated that it is very attractive for this. A. Frederick agreed. V. Earhart stated that this is not a rezoning request, but to do this by variance. G. Hilts moved to deny BZA-3550.99, 1700 Dell Rd. as this is a self imposed hardship per zoning code. Seconded by R. Korbakis. E. Horne stated that this was too great of a variance -4000 sq. ft. is excessive even based upon the size of the property. G. Hilts agreed with E. Horne's comment. On a roll call vote there were 7 yeas and 0 nays. The variance was unanimously denied. E. BZA-3551.99. 1434 E. Jolly Rd. D. Wynant presented the case, a request by Nextel Communications to construct a 150 foot tall monopole communications tower on property known as Lansing Gardens at 1434 E. Jolly Road. Section 1274.09 of the Zoning Code restricts the height of structures to 120 feet in the 'H' Light Industrial District. This is, therefore, a request for a variance of 30 feet from the height restriction. The tower is proposed to be located south and east of the greenhouses near the east property line. D. Wynant also referred to site plan detail. E. Horne asked about specific location. Discussion of aerial photos. R. Korbakis asked about where the code permits this height- only in G-1? J. Ruff answered yes. R. Korbakis then asked regarding summary of towers. E. Horne asked about the conditions for towers already approved. We should be consistent: 1)monopole; 2)co-location; 3)landscaping; 4)hospital frequency protection. These were discussed and J. Ruff said he would find them. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AUGUST 12, 1999 PAGE 6 Ron Gainar, representing Nextel, addressed the Board. He proposes 150' monopole. Good spot for this since there is a Consumers & Board of Water& Light substation nearby. Discussed better coverage that is needed (displayed coverage map). Required by FCC to have better coverage. Co-location of ATT, Spring is possible. Landscaping possible with pines. Hospitals at different frequency- no conflict with police and fire. A. Frederick asked about Biggie Munn - not yet approved. What is signal strength if co- locate? R. Gainar stated that Biggie Munn is too close to one of their existing sites. Sandy Allen, Council member-2nd Ward, addressed the Board. She is pleased at this location. She has the same concerns about location and that future use of the property to not be restricted. This can replace Biggie Munn site. She believes that this is ideal. Mr. Grabowski is excited about the income -excellent location. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. Seven conditions discussed: 1. The tower shall be "monopole"type 2. 20'wide easement to access the tower be in the industrial zone of the property 3. The proposed monopole tower provide for a co-location of antennas 4. The use of the tower may not conflict with the telemetry and telecommunications of the hospitals of Lansing 5. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties 6. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security 7. The owner of the tower cooperate with public entities/services in the use of the tower (applicant agreed). E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3551.99, 1434 E. Jolly Rd. with the 7 conditions listed. Seconded by V. Earhart. On a roll call vote there were 7 yeas and 0 nays. The variance was unanimously approved. "Request for Ms. McCloud to be excused at 9:45 p.m. "Recess from 9:45 - 10:00 p.m. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AUGUST 12, 1999 PAGE 7 C. BZA-3546.99, 6250 S. Cedar Motion by E. Horne to remove BZA-3546.99 from table. Seconded by G. Hilts. Carried unanimously. This is a request by Vlahakis Companies to construct an Applebee's Restaurant within the existing Cedar's Edge Shopping Center parking lot at 6250 S. Cedar Street. Section 1284.13 of the Zoning Code requires a total of 678 parking spaces for the existing shopping center and proposed restaurant. The applicant proposes to provide 518 parking spaces. This is, therefore, a request for a 160 parking space variance from the 678 space requirement. J. Ruff and D. Wynant summarized. Also, a petition was received in support of the variance from the shopping center's tenants. Richard Cooley, representing Vlahakis Companies, addressed the Board. He took the Board through the packet that was mailed to the Board and placed on file. There were large photos, same as report. He also showed new air photos. He showed blue sheet with tenant support; green sheets and reiterated basis for request. Not dimensional or use variance but believes the collective information also satisfies 1244.06. (Went over allotted time) E. Horne & G. Hilts moved that Mr. Cooley be given 2 more minutes in which to address the Board. Carried. Mr. Cooley completed his review of his prepared report. R. Cooley also asked for additional time after to respond to other new information if needed. Robert Haddad, Jr., representing Haddad's Gifts, addressed the Board. He favors variance. Sees vacancy of parking lot and increase of customer traffic to help sales. Great addition and increased sales. Ray Zillgit, Tri-City Foods - Pizza Hut, addressed the Board. He wanted to make a few points besides what he supplied the Board for this meeting. There was an admission by the applicant that he should not have included Pizza Hut. He disagrees with applicant. The Board must consider hardship/practical difficulty. 1)Economic return -they have not met burden; 2)have not met their burden; 3)this is of their own making; 4)unique/peculiar - possibly need code change. Also the traffic engineer consultant did not have time to evaluate. B. Burgess stated that Mr. Zillgit brought up trespassing issue and yet he thinks that there is a greater chance for Pizza Hut patrons to trespass since people don't use the spaces north of Pizza Hut. A. Frederick asked how a customer would know where the property lines are? He didn't know where they were when he acquainted the center. Mr. Zillgit said that practically it's not enforceable, but legally it is enforceable. Sandy Allen, Council member, addressed the Board. She recommends denial. She has interest and concern with the proposed development. Any Cedar St. increase in traffic would add to the danger for those driving. MDOT has not included this intersection in their 5-year improvement plan. The Parking Study was done by the applicant, but there are so many variables that they can be skewed to whatever position desired. It is easier not to create a problem than solve one. Snow gets piled here; and the application does not meet ordinance requirements for variances. G. Hilts stated that he worked for MDOT. The 5-year plan can be changed if the director would be contacted and desired to change it. Mark Latterman, Latterman &Associates, representing Finley's Restaurant, addressed the Board. He stated he would not reiterate the letter he provided the Board for tonight's BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AUGUST 12, 1999 PAGE 8 meeting but would summarize the main points. Points he made included: 1)this issue should be addressed on policy basis by City Council; 2)does not meet legal requirements for a variance; 3)notice of others worthy of talking; 4)public copies; 5)support of tenants is not relevant; 6)MDOT has no plans to study this issue (useful to get MDOT involved with city and it's not happening. He gave an example of a practical difficulty and this request does not meet that criteria. Paul Vlahakis, Vlahakis Companies, addressed the Board. He stated that Mr. Cooley has supplied sufficient information to favorably act on this request. This center is properly set up for out lot development. Cedar St. and Edgewood are the problems being cited. Yes, there is more traffic, but there is more development occurring on Cedar and Edgewood. It is good for business. Snow could be removed if necessary. Jim Hulteen, Finley's Restaurant, addressed the Board. He is the general manager for Finley's Restaurant. He stated that it is self serving to do counts in the summer. Holidays are a lot different. Parking lot has been full. He is not against having Applebee's in South Lansing -just don't add traffic to access or site. He discussed observations of peak times and accidents at intersection. It will hurt guests. They should be on a different lot and take counts in fall and winter. Griffin Wayforth, Applebee's Restaurant, addressed the Board. He stated that Applebees has studied use of Michigan stores. They used high peaks versus low counts. This is an excellent location with visibility and offers choices for customers. B. Burgess asked why there? Brad Rosenberg, Applebee's Restaurant, addressed the Board. He stated that Applebee's representatives looked over the last 30 months. Others are too small or not in price range. Richard Westcot, Pizza Hut, addressed the Board. He stated that they would be looking at 73% increase in variance, 33% with Pizza Hut out and up to 50% based upon other ways of looking at it. They built 12 years ago and built to code. Snow takes up another 1/3 of parking. He is concerned about driving - increase in traffic and customers. Common sense says this is not a good idea based upon the complexities along S. Cedar Street. Mr. Cooley was given an opportunity to speak. He declined. Letter of Chris Haddad in support- owner of Amoco/Dunkin Donuts on Miller and Cedar was read into the record. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess stated that the crux of the matter is 1244.06(c) item 1-4-there is no hardship regardless of the statistics. It's not based on need of satisfying code. E. Horne added to Mr. Burgess' statements. Safety is another issue to look at. Historically, when the ordinance was developed in 1983, it was to ensure ample parking. To adhere to the ordinance is important. It does not meet criteria. V. Earhart stated that the parking squabble is interesting - not the problem. Looks to be room but there is a traffic squabble and access is safety problem. She does not support the variance. A. Frederick asked questions: 1)could more spaces be added to site? JR-yes; 2)could north entrance be removed? JR-possibly; 3)could other drive be narrowed? JR-not likely. Other development is going to occur and traffic will get worse regardless of this variance. MDOT has a problem to address. Lot shape should not be as is, but should have been squared up. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AUGUST 12, 199u PAGE 9 V. Earhart described MDOT process - shape is probably what was bought. A. Frederick stated that the odd shape is a hardship. This area was wrecked economically. G. Hilts stated that parking numbers are off and need to be changed. A. Frederick stated that parking issues are slowing down development and should be addressed by City Council. V. Earhart stated that parking issue should go through revision of the zoning code. B. Burgess suggested it seems the Board make variances until the Board reaches a tolerance. Planning Board and City Council should deal with this. Might as well kick it up to deal with this. What is the system for referring these? A. Frederick stated that the only issue he struggles with is if current business is reasonable, but gave argument to put it in. He could see layout improved. G. Hilts stated that Applebee's will not add an appreciable amount of development. He goes west on Edgewood and never sees it full -a lot of vacant spaces. Regulation creates hardship and variance can be granted. R. Korbakis had questions about Applebee's ability to build on other sites too expensive or too small. Not sure budget or cost of land is a reason to get variance. Also, if other similar requests makes this impeculiar, possibly they should go to City Council to change the ordinance. E. Horne moved to deny BZA-3546.99, 6250 S. Cedar including members reasons. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Korbakis X Earhart X Burgess X Hilts X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-2, BZA-3546.99, 6250 S. Cedar St. has been denied. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Richard Cooley, Vlahakis Companies, 9290 Riverside, addressed the Board. He stated that the request for variance was according to ordinance, not unique. He thought the Board need to state reasons in its motion for denial. E. Horne stated that reasons were stated during Board discussion as we voice our opinion in Committee of the Whole. These reasons included that the request did not meet criteria for variances, its not unique or peculiar, traffic safety and others. R. Cooley asked if this was normal practice of Board to deny based upon discussion of Board members? E. Horne responded that G. Hilts made comments and I added to them and others. R. Cooley stated that he seems to believe that the statute says that the reason should be given in the motion. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AUGUST 12, 1999 PAGE 10 R. Haddad, Haddad's Gifts, addressed the Board. He felt the issue was decided by area available and not things not the responsibility of the owner. A. Frederick responded with the need for public safety and how the conditions around a property can affect a variance, and even though public safety is a concern, consider that - if parking spaces were available these would not be addressed. A. Frederick also stated that, yes, there is a circulation problem. He stated that he did not lay responsibility on Applebee's but other members laid more on them. V. Earhart stated that this is not for BZA and Applebee's to resolve. R. Korbakis alluded to lack of hardship. J. Ruff commented that this time is for public comment, not debate. G. Hilts shared director's name of MDOT. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of July 8, 1999 V. Earhart moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by B. Burgess. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. R. Korbakis resigned from Board of Zoning Appeals -they are moving out of the city and have enjoyed being on the Board. Applauded by all Board members. B. B. Burgess requested excused absence for September 9`h meeting G. Hilts moved to accept excused absence. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 07/23/99 Approved 08/12/99 To Clerk 09/01/99 77 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 0 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS r r nl JULY 8 1999, 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:30 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts M. Clark A. Frederick R. Korbakis R. McCloud V. Earhart Staff: J. Ruff L. Peters A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. Horne made motion to accept agenda as written. Seconded by B. Burgess. Motion carried. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3543.99, 1400 Bilk. Cambridge J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Mr. & Mrs. Andrews, owner of the property at the 1400 block of Cambridge Rd. This is a request for a variance to permit a garage to be constructed -an attached garage 828 square feet in size on a lot that is zoned A- Residential and is 184'x 100' in size. There is residential around it except for the Country Club of Lansing which is to the east of it. The Andrews have a home on a two- acre parcel right near by and have sold that home. They desire to stay in the neighborhood and build a new home. The new home would be approximately 4600 square feet in size. They want to build one accessory structure. The desire is to build one large enough so that they don't have to build a detached accessory structure in the rear yard that would block views of the golf course. They have requested to build an attached garage and desire to keep it looking reasonable for the neighborhood. They have oriented it to a side entry so that the garage doors wouldn't face the street and the narrow part of the garage would face the street. It requires 108 square foot variance from the 720 square foot allowance for garages on lots greater than 5000 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance does not have any other breakdown for garages other than at the 5000 square foot mark. At less than 5000 square feet, there is an allowance for 800 square foot total of accessory structure and 600 square foot garage. On lots greater than 5000 square feet, there is an allowance for 720 square foot garage and 1000 square foot total of accessory structure. It is less than the 1000 square feet total and yet more than the 720 square feet. Based on the purpose of it and the fact of their efforts in having a side entry that requires a different circulation pattern around the garage area, they are having to keep it away further from the house so that you can pull into it without hitting the house. Staff recommends approval of the request. Mr. Vernon Andrews, 1348 Cambridge, Lansing MI, addressed the Board. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to address them in this manner. He stated that they had not planned on selling the old Potter house at the corner of Cambridge and Oxford, but Mr. Dan & Marlee Musser of the Grand Hotel at Mackinaw Island came along and made an offer. Now Mr. Andrews has to build a new house. They would like to stay in the neighborhood because it is a wonderful neighborhood and a wonderful part of Lansing. They want to build a very nice home there that will be complimentary, not only to the neighborhood, but also to the City of Lansing. He feels that the neighborhood deserves it BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 2 and he wants to give his very best efforts. In order to do that, he feels that it is very important to have a three-car garage. He referred to recent articles relating to garages and the fact that people are going to larger garages. It is important, not only for resale factor, but also due to the fact that as you get older you accumulate more things. Rather than build another building to house such things as lawn mowers, yard furniture, etc., he feels that a three-car garage would be so much better for them. Their neighbors near them have indicated that they have no objection to this. Their present home has a three- car garage. That is what they are used to- all the additional space. He feels that it is necessary to have that space. He respectfully asks for favorable consideration on this request for a variance. He assured the Board that they will build a very nice home that the Board will be as proud of as they are. M. Clark stated that there was one communication regarding this appeal. M. Clark read letter of support from Mr. Phillip Venema of Cambridge Rd. in Lansing to the Board. J. Ruff corrected header in report. It shouldn't say 1401 Cambridge, it should say 1400 Block of Cambridge. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she drove by the area. Looking at the information that was provided by the Planning Office and her drive by, it appears that the design and variance is in keeping with the general neighborhood and the variance will enhance the golf course, the property itself, and the property of others in a way that a detached accessory structure would not. She will be voting in favor of this request. A. Frederick stated that he appreciated the article that was included in the report regarding the trend toward larger garages. He believes that this is an example of where the Zoning Code isn't keeping up with desired trends. He believes that with the development, it is going to potentially start out on the east of the city-the Governor's Club. He is sure that the Board will be getting more requests for this type of thing. He thinks that possibly somebody needs to consider re- looking at the Zoning Code in light of these kinds of trends that are going on in the country. He feels that it is a reasonable request and will fit with the neighborhood quite nicely. E. Horne supports A. Frederick's remarks in regards to the city ordinances. She believes that it is time to look at them and update them for current trends. B. Burgess asked if there is someone appropriately that the Board can write to in order to make these recommendations that this is a coming trend in the city and the Board would like them to look at it. A. Frederick stated that the Board would consider those kinds of things also, but the authority for amending the Zoning Code would be in the hands of City Council. He believes that the Planning Board as well as the Planning Staff would also have a big part in that. B. Burgess asked if it would be wise to express the Board's concerns in writing that this is something that is coming to the Board's attention and push for expeditious consideration. A. Frederick stated that it would be an appropriate time now since the 425 Agreement with Meridian Township. J. Ruff stated that two issues of primary concern that he would probably use as research is done is: 1. Size of property, because they end up getting appeals that deal with larger pieces of property more seldom than others and then, 2. Scale of the home vs. scale of the garage-there needs to be a perspective there. He has been speaking with staff regarding these things. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3543.99, 1400 Bilk. Cambridge, a variance request of 108 square feet of additional garage with the condition that no additional accessory structure be built on that site. Seconded by B. Burgess. On a roll call vote there were 8 yeas and 0 nays. The variance BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 3 request was unanimously approved with a condition. B. BZA-3544.99 -VOIDED C. BZA-3545.99, 2300 Grant J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Joellyn Droste at 2300 Grant St. for two variances in order to construct a 24' x 24'attached garage to a single family home located in the B-Residential District. The property is 58'wide x 125' deep. It is on a corner. It is a single family neighborhood zoned accordingly. The request is to construct the 24'x 24' attached garage onto the south side of her home. The garage is proposed to be 4 feet from the rear or the south lot line and 20 feet from the front or east lot line. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Code requires an established front yard setback of 24 feet in this case. There would be a 4 foot variance from the front yard setback. Section 1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 30 feet rear yard setback. Therefore, this request would be also a 26'variance for the rear yard. The property is a corner lot. There is very limited space for a detached or attached garage. Currently, no garage exists on the property. The distance from the house to the rear or south lot lines limits the options for reasonable garage space on the property. Without a variance, the applicant would be restricted in this case to a significantly smaller garage. The corner lot creates a difficult situation in two ways: 1. The larger yard in this case, which is the south yard, has to be considered the rear lot line even though there may be an option to that and 2. The front yard - being on a corner lot, in a lot of the older neighborhoods, the corner houses weren't set back as far as the houses in between the corners. They set out a bit. The established setback is at 24 feet. The request is to be out in front of that by 4 feet. The reason for moving the garage out in front of the house slightly in this case is to accommodate the window in the house. The garage would be located on the south side. There is one clearance that the applicant would have to get in order to construct it 4 feet from the south lot line. That would be a sign off from the public utilities to encroach in the subdivision's easement. There is a 5 foot utility easement that is reserved according to the survey. In subdivisions when they are platting, typically there is a 10' easement in front and 5' easements around the side and back for utilities. The utilities have the right to go through and put their lines in any pattern they wish as the subdivision goes in. Generally, they consolidate where the wires go and they don't need all the easements. Some of them are vacant. There are no wires in certain areas. That will have to be evaluated for utilities to be approved. Otherwise the garage could be reduced slightly by 1 foot. Staff recommended approval of this request finding it to be a reasonable difficulty in the corner lot and hardship in the amount of area that is usable. Obviously a detached garage can be built in this location, but it would then create a small alley between the house and garage that would be quite unusual. Approval has been recommended with the understanding that the utility easement be resolved or the structure be reduced by 1 foot to be outside the easement. A. Frederick asked if the property lines on the staff supplied map were to scale. J. Ruff said that the map comes from two different maps - one overlaid on the other. They came from aerial photographs. They are not totally accurate, but a good representation. A. Frederick referred to the map and questioned spacing of lots, etc. General discussion and reference to maps ensued in regards to lot sizes in that area. Joellyn Droste, 2300 Grant St., Lansing, MI 48910 addressed the Board. She stated that being on a corner lot, there is not a lot of privacy. By moving the garage forward and saving one of the windows on the south side of the home, it creates a little more space in the back area. It makes a great little sitting area with trees lining both sides of it. It is her only private area on her lot. So by moving it forward 4 feet, she is keeping that sitting area and the window. At some point in the future, she wants to rebuild the porch which will tie in nicely with the garage being set forward as well. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 4 M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she has a great deal of sympathy for the applicant. She had the exact same situation in the past. The relief of being able to create an enclosed space for privacy as well as sheltering a car is great. She will be supporting this request. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3545.99, 2300 Grant St., a variance of 4' front and 26' rear yard variances with the condition that the utility easement problem be resolved Seconded by B. Burgess. On a roll call vote there were 8 yeas and 0 nays. The variance was unanimously approved with a condition. D. BZA-3546.99, 6250 S. Cedar M. Clark requested to be recused from voting on this particular case. She also asked to be excused from the rest of the board meeting seeing that this was the final case to be heard. Motion made by A. Frederick to recuse M. Clark. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. M. Clark passed gavel to A. Frederick and left the room. J. Ruff stated that M. Clark contacted him today and stated that she had a conflict of interest in this case and wondered how to go about excusing herself from this case. J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Vlahakis Companies to construct an Applebee's restaurant within the existing Cedar's Edge Shopping Center parking lot at 6250 S. Cedar St. in Lansing. Section 1284.13 of the Zoning Code requires a total of 678 parking spaces for the existing shopping center including the proposed restaurant. The applicant proposes to provide 518 parking spaces. Therefore, this is a request for a variance of 168 parking spaces. The property is located on S. Cedar St. south of Miller Rd. just north of Edgewood Blvd. It is on the west side of the street. It is zoned commercially. It is a funny shaped lot because it is a remnant of the state highway properties in that it was going to be at one time a loop for an entrance ramp onto the expressway. Since they sold it, the property has been developed with the commercial shopping center with a primary bank of stores that was first known as F&M Plaza. Subsequently, it has been renamed to Cedar's Edge Shopping Center. F&M is no longer in business there. MC Sporting Goods is the key mark store within there. There are stores north and south of MC Sporting Goods. There is a Pizza Hut on the north end of the property and a Finley's on the south end of the property that are both detached from the main center. Those are on separate lots. The property is zoned F-Commercial. It is commercial both up and down on Cedar St. and to the west is an apartment complex that is zoned DM-1 Residential. This is located near where there was a case last month regarding a fence for an apartment complex two doors down. The proposal is to construct an Applebee's restaurant into the parking lot. As such, included in the Board Packet, is a report created by the applicant's consultant. When they first came to the Planning Office, J. Ruff stated that they would have to prove their case as far as traffic, etc. to see if the restaurant could fit. The Board has seen in the past a couple of instances where larger shopping centers have received variances - Frandor being one & Sam's -and they supplied proper documentation that showed that in that size of complex the parking numbers are different than what the code would require. Our code looks at shopping center requirements of one parking space for every 110 square feet of usable floor area. For restaurants, there is another section. Another possible problem with the code is that it doesn't differentiate between sizes of shopping centers. A shopping center is anything with 3 or more tenant spaces in it. When you get into larger shopping centers, there is some disparity shown by what is seen. It is not the City's desire to create larger parking lots than are necessary. He sat down and gave the applicant all of this information. Thus, they have provided the report for the Board's consideration. Staff has reviewed that report as well as the desire as to where to locate the Applebee's restaurant. The desired location is BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 5 adjacent to the main drive. From a functional standpoint, the further away you can locate the Applebee's from the two other restaurants, the better off the City is with balancing the parking situation. Because when Finley's is having their peak hours, Applebee's will be having their peak hours. There will be spillover in the parking areas. If it could be moved slightly north to get a bay of parking in 60 feet so that can be one double-sided bay of parking, they believe that would be the minimum distance to locate it on the site. That can be an issue of site plan review. But it will also have an impact on the Board's deliberation. A. Frederick asked if he could get a quick synopsis of how that particular piece of property ended up looking like it looks? J. Ruff stated with the curved rear shape, it was going to be a ramp onto the expressway. He stated that Bill Savage would be able to explain this better. He explained about another remnant of property for a ramp. Richard Cooley, Vlahakis Companies, 9290 Riverside, Lansing, MI addressed the Board. He stated that this request is for the purpose of constructing an Applebee's restaurant on the existing shopping center property. It has been felt that the center has an excess of parking spaces available for patrons of the center. Even with the addition of an Applebee's restaurant, it was their estimation that there would still be adequate parking. The applicant hired Bill Savage, a licensed professional engineer and recognized traffic expert, to do a parking availability study on the shopping center. Mr. Savage elected to, instead of doing a parking study with ITE Standards, theories, etc., he chose to take actual traffic counts at the center on two different days which were day long studies to determine what the peak hours of parking demand were and what those numbers actually were and how many spaces actually were available. He also conducted the same kind of study at the existing Applebee's restaurant on West Saginaw in front of the Lansing Mall as a case study so that the applicant had both the existing shopping center and how it operates regarding parking and a look at an actual Applebee's in operation that would be similar if not exactly the same as the one proposed on this site. Those counts were done. The complete report and study numbers is at the back of the report. Mr. Savage is available in the audience for comment or any questions that the Board may have regarding the study. His study concluded that even with the addition of an Applebee's restaurant in the Cedar's Edge Shopping Center, that there would still be an excess of parking spaces. The translation of excess amounts to in terms of his numbers about 50 car spaces. They thought that this was a desirable way to go for a new restaurant in the south end of Lansing because it would maximize some existing resources instead of requiring new development which there is a lot of on the south end. Also, they have observed over a period of time that, unlike regional shopping centers like Lansing Mall or Meridian Mall or others like it, that there is not an increased level of patron activity and therefore, demand for required parking spaces during the holiday season. To require a number of parking spaces in excess of what is actually being used on a daily basis -the counts were taken in May-they felt that actually portrayed the all year around use of the center. They put the support document together to establish a new basis for what the required parking was. The original site plan required 633 spaces. Because of the "as built" sizes of the buildings and various things that have happened on the site, they created a new basis and found that it was 615 would be required. They qualified that in the report. They also noted that a total of 72 spaces have actually been deferred out of the center due to the creation of a new center aisle. Those could be re- established simply with some stripping. He then went through the report section by section explaining each section. He stated that basically, they feel that the Planning Staff has done a thorough job of evaluating their request as presented. They concur with the staff recommendation to approve the request with the conditions stated. He wanted to note, for the record, that condition which deals with the actual location of an Applebee's restaurant. While they understand that it is a consideration that the Board will make, they also understand that the detailed discussion of that issue and the final resolution of that issue probably will occur through the site plan review process at the Planning Commission level. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 6 A. Frederick stated that he would like to hear from Mr. Savage if he knows a little about the history of the shape of this piece of property, as unusual as it is. Mr. Bill Savage addressed the Board. He stated that he didn't have anything to do with this piece of property. It was designed and built before he worked for the department. V. Earhart stated that in looking at the whole proposal, it seems that the real competitors with Applebee's is not the people in the main shopping center, but the two other restaurants. One thing that she doesn't see summarized or addressed in the report is what about Christmas Holiday luncheons or parties that start after 6:00 in the evening? Finley's and Applebee's will attract large crowds during that time. May 19th and May 26th aren't going to work for a traffic study for holidays. B. Savage stated that noon is the heaviest parking demand. There are still an additional 50 parking spaces available in the parking lot. There are a large number in the lot in front of the main group of stores, particularly in the middle. It hollows out there and there are a lot of extra spots there. There are easily, within easy walking distance to Applebee's in the peak time, an additional 100 parking spots more so than what Applebee's will need on a very busy day. V. Earhart asked about the evening hours. Will the available parking be in the same areas? B. Savage stated that there will be more parking availability in the evening by about at least 30 additional parking spots as the night wears on beyond 6:00. V. Earhart asked if the businesses weren't those that would necessarily extend their business hours because of the season? B. Savage stated that there are about three apparel stores that stay open until about 9:00 p.m. They are generally in the middle or at the north end. R. Korbakis asked if it was typical to do a study like this-to pick two days out of one month and base a survey on that? B. Savage stated that typically everyone is in a hurry for studies like this. You can't wait until Christmas to do one. He stated that they were weekdays that the study was based on at the plaza. He made a Friday study at Applebee's which is considered to be one of the busier in Lansing and a good thing to compare it to. They were concerned that maybe it wouldn't be a good Friday, but according to the cash receipts for Applebee's showed it to be a normal busy Friday. It was taken just before Memorial Day. In taking the parking study at Applebee's, he counted not only the cars that started out in the parking lot, but also the number added to that, one car for each employee inside the restaurant, and then added to that as people came in and subtracted from that when people left. He thinks that the maximum load in there was 78 vehicles. G. Hilts stated that other cases that he could recall that were similar, the parking studies that they did were laid out similarly. R. Korbakis asked if the plaza was fully occupied? B. Savage stated that it was. E. Horne stated that her only concern as a user of this plaza and knowing the traffic flow and how it is all marked, is that when you get by the entrance there is always a bottleneck. How is that going to be cleared up? She disagrees in regards to the Christmas holidays. The plaza is filled. She agrees with the staff that this is not a good site. G. Hilts stated that he would be in favor of moving it down some. He has never seen the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 7 parking lot full. David Homan, Willingham & Cote, representing Finley's and Pizza Hut addressed the Board. He stated that his clients received notice of this meeting only through the postcard that was mailed out. Their preparation time has been very short. He was retained 24 hours ago. They are disappointed that they weren't asked for any input or comment. They are two of the biggest places out there at this center. This will greatly impact their parking. There just hasn't been any conversation or a chance for questions to be asked. He stated that he had many questions regarding the study that was done. They are not just 2 days out of the year and they are not just two days out of May. They are Wednesdays. Wednesdays are lousy restaurant days. Two representatives from each of the companies are present and can speak to that fact. He believes that it is important for the Board to have an accurate picture of what this is going to look like in a practical way. If the idea is to present a peak demand, and there is reference in the report as to what it looks like at its peak, the report would have the Board believe that at its peak there are nearly 200 vacancies. The Friday test for Applebee's was a Friday of a national holiday weekend. More people leave Lansing than come into Lansing on Memorial Day weekend. To say that the cash register registered the same, that is not a traffic question that Mr. Savage can speak to. It just doesn't sound right to him intuitively that the Friday of Memorial Day weekend would be a typical Friday. They say that the retail hours don't overlap with the restaurant use hours. But then he heard said that the heaviest use was at lunchtime, which of course is in the middle of retail use and holiday season shopping is extended so the season is quite long which is the time where most of the retail sales throughout the course of the year are made. They are compressed into that period of time along with restaurant use for parties as identified. He asked why all three properties were being lumped together in the numbers that are being presented. The Pizza Hut property is owned separately. The Finley's property is owned separately. Each of them satisfy their parking requirements independently. The center, overall right now, is non-conforming. The number of spaces that exist is less than the minimum required. What the Board is being asked to do is take a non-conforming use and bring it into greater non-conformity. Another question he had was that a reference was made to the required number of parking spaces for the restaurant of 1 per 60 square feet of usable floor area. Section 1284.13 (c)(6) says that if the restaurant is one that isn't just for consumption on premises, but sells food for consumption on and off premises, then an additional 15 parking spaces are required. Pizza Hut has a lot of its business carried out or not eaten on premises. Finley's has a carry-out business. He is also quite certain, per a phone call today, that Applebee's has a carry-out policy. He thinks that the required number is understated by 45 parking spaces. Those numbers, if erroneous, contaminate or taint the rest of the analysis that is done. He thinks that the total required parking out there is 723 spaces which ends up being 205 spaces short with the Applebee's there. That is if you throw into the calculation the excess capacity that Pizza Hut has and the excess capacity that Finley's has and allow the shopping center parking area to have the benefit of those excesses which he believes to be inappropriate. That is slanting it in its position most favorable to the applicant. He thinks that it is a very incomplete picture of what the situation is out there. He found it interesting to look at the photographs included. He referred to the report and pictures. Applebee's is asking to increase the parking use and parking demand while at the same time decreasing the number available because they will use up 50 spaces to put themselves in. With regard to the criteria of the code, the applicant admits that there is no unnecessary hardship. It refers to a practical difficulty and that it is hard to locate an Applebee's. He doesn't see anything in the report supporting the difficulty of landing an Applebee's restaurant, but he doesn't know that the need for an Applebee's exists to counterbalance the request to allow, what would otherwise be a violation of the Zoning Code by a greater non- conformity of the parking use. There isn't an empty lot here that is asking to be developed and is thwarted because of some dimensional restraint. What we have is a fully developed shopping center that is already all built out. Why the number of spaces exists as they do today was not arbitrary. That was decided upon by previous site plan approval. In those opportunities, there would have been traffic looked at and parking need looked at. If anything, that area has gotten busier over time not less busy. When you have a less liberal parking requirement, it allows for smaller, less intense BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 8 development which means less traffic. If you go the other direction, you have a more liberal parking density that allows for more development, more buildings and that increases traffic and that's going in the direction that raises danger to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It is bad for business for everyone involved. People will say"I don't like to go there, parking is a pain". He believes that if people go and have bad experiences, they won't come back. During holiday season when all the people are out, that is when they are going to get their worst experience and that is when you want your customers to be coming out. This difficulty that they are talking about is really no difficulty. It is the desire to squeeze additional revenue out of a shopping center that is fully developed. The representatives from each company would like a chance to speak as to the practical experience of the traffic flow and the parking experiences out there. He would ask the Board that they reject the request for variance and if the Board has not received enough information to persuade them that it should be rejected, that the matter be deferred until additional material can be provided to you such as how it came to be, have someone who is not hired by the applicant to conduct a traffic study so as to gain a clear picture of what it is like on a really intense day, etc. J. Ruff stated that he would like to try and answer a couple of the questions that were directed toward him. First off, the shopping center is laid out with the parking striping system with the aisle that was placed down from north to south now for one basic reason. As it was originally laid out, that aisle was not there. Since it was constructed, that aisle was placed in there because there was a lot of cross cutting traffic through a relatively open parking lot. People cut across that as a more direct route. So when it was re- striped, they asked if they could put that aisle in knowing that at some point in time if the center developed more heavily or was used more heavily that those parking spaces could be put back in and then you wouldn't get as much cross through traffic because there would be more conflict. But it was potentially an unsafe situation having people cutting across parking spaces. If you are driving up one of those aisles and not thinking about there being a lane there, there is a tendency to be thinking about only your lane. The Planning Office allowed that with the understanding that those spaces could be striped back in place. Secondly, that also answers the question about non-conformity on the parking number. B. Burgess asked that if there were painted back in, would they be in compliance? J. Ruff stated that was correct. They would have all the striped spaces that they would be required to have by code. The other question that came up that was directed toward him was the question about the parking requirement regarding whether it is a restaurant for take-out or sit down. As Zoning Administrator and as a staff, restaurants all vary in style and there are only two code requirements. There is one that says if it is a sit down type restaurant vs. a take-out type restaurant. There is not a third code that says all restaurants will allow you to take food out. There is no requirement like that. The seating contingent is a much heavier parking requirement than the take-out would be. They lumped Pizza Hut in with Finley's as primarily sit down type restaurants. That is how the ordinances were applied in these instances. Paul Vlahakis, Vlahakis Companies, 6910 S. Cedar St., Lansing MI 48910 addressed the Board. He stated that his company owns the shopping center. He is in the real estate business and would consider that center as a slightly depressed center when they purchased it. It was roughly 30% vacant. They were able to bring it to 100% occupancy. The center is doing well. As for the parking lot, his office is next to the Holiday Inn, on the south side. The attorney stated that the pictures were not an accurate portrayal of the parking lot. Mr. Vlahakis stated that it is, indeed, an accurate portrayal. That portion of the parking lot as pictured in the report is an everyday thing, including weekends. His concern is: Are Finley's, Pizza Hut, and the attorney really concerned about the property becoming increasingly non-conforming or are they concerned about a decrease in sales. He believes that is the real issue. Vlahakis Companies has done a lot of construction on the south end of town. The south end of Lansing is certainly on the upswing. There is a lot of new development coming in. For the shopping center, an addition of Applebee's, which would bring a lot of traffic to the center, is going to benefit the tenants in the center. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 9 It will help them dramatically. He believes that the problem is that it will affect the sales of the other two restaurants. We live in a competitive society. We can't deny one restaurant the opportunity to go in just because it might affect negatively the other two that are located on either side. They have a large parcel with a fair amount of parking spaces. The attorney indicated that adding this restaurant would affect the parking of his clients. He is certainly not aware of any agreement that he has to allow parking for Finley's or Pizza Hut on their property. They want to be good neighbors. They provided a report by the recommendation of the Planning Department to have a thorough report to the Board so that you can have an accurate picture of what the impact, if negative or positive, would be on that center. He thinks that they have done their due diligence in providing the Board with as much information as they can. There will be excess parking as the report indicates. They will be more than happy to allow the spillover from Pizza Hut and Finley's to use that parking. They are not going in there and put signs that say they can't park there. What they can do is put signs on their parking spaces not allowing anybody but Finley's or Pizza Hut, so that they don't feel that there is an encroachment on their space which would negatively impact their parking. They are agreeable to help this whole situation out. He feels that the concern is not increasingly non-conforming use of the property. It is a sales issue. As for Applebee's, he was told that their carry-out business is basically non existent. They do 99% business as sit-down business. He has been in the restaurant business himself. Wednesday is a good day for the restaurant business. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are typically your busiest weekdays. He was concerned about the attorney testifying that the parking lot was not typical for the shopping center. If he was just hired yesterday, to drive by today or look at this picture. It is typical. He challenges anyone to go and look at the parking lot and see if the questioned areas are occupied. Vlahakis Companies wants to bring new business to the south end of Lansing. There is a lot of new business that would like to come on the south end. There is just not a lot of area for restaurants like Applebee's, Chili's, etc. There are not a lot of locations that they would consider viable for their business. This area lends itself well to out lot development. Mitch Taft, 206 Windjammer, Lansing, MI 48917, area director of operations for Pizza Hut addressed the Board. He has been in this area for one year and used to run the S. Cedar store for about 6 months. On the center aisle going down through the middle parking lot-to re-stripe that is a problem. To get to Pizza Hut, there is an entrance. But to exit Pizza Hut, there is only one way out-to go around in front of the plaza. That is the only way. There is, on the east side of the plaza, a driveway which seldom gets used. In the wintertime, snow is piled over about 5 spots all along that strip. He referred to the map of the parking lot. He doesn't see Applebee's taking away any business from Pizza Hut. They are not a direct competitor with Pizza Hut. Business brings more business. When the plaza is empty, it hurts Pizza Hut. When it is full, business is good. He stated that the intersection is very bad. It is very tight and congested now. His fear is what will happen to that area if there is more traffic. Regarding Wednesday's business, it is one of the two lowest business days of the week. Friday and Saturday is the peak, Thursday's next, then Sunday. B. Burgess asked about the lot to the north. Why haven't they considered putting an entrance there so that people can use it? M. Taft couldn't answer that question. J. Ruff explained about driveways. There is restricted access on this piece of property. The State Highway owned it. They sold it with the restriction as to where the access could be. The first question that came to them was that the applicant was thinking about relocating the driveway to be more centralized in the center. But the highway department won't allow that because of the characteristics of the other interchange around there. The driveway that runs from Cedar St. to Pennsylvania Ave. so that you can get onto the expressway, that is all part of the highway interchange even though it is well removed from the highway itself. Those are all highway right of ways. When they sold this, they restricted the exiting and entrances of this property to very limited locations. That is why there couldn't be anymore exit or entrance driveways just south of Pizza Hut. That is BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 10 also why the main driveway could not be relocated north. Richard Wescott, 1204 Gould Rd., Lansing, MI , general manager of Pizza Hut at 6200 S. Cedar, addressed the Board. He stated that there is a bottleneck in the parking lot. He sees accidents almost every other day because of the bottlenecks that are created there. He has noticed in the 10 years that he has been with his company, the plowing takes up a good chunk of the parking spaces that are available. Snow plowing is not snow removal. Four restaurants are already in the plaza. It is a constantly moving type of traffic flow there. It is something that creates some hazards. The lunch time being about 25% of their business, but up to 40% of their customer flow is during the first segment of the day-what they call revenue periods. The parking lot area is an unusual setup- delivery drivers have to try and make it in and out of there as well. He has had several of their drivers have accidents in the course of time trying to negotiate the interchange there. Edgewood Blvd. during a big movie opening is very congested. They also have a local car show that happens every Saturday night with modified cars that kids and adults have that cruise up and down in that area. It is a congested area. One of the things that wasn't addressed is of the businesses that do close down early, a lot of them have company owned vehicles that do use those parking spots 24 hours so that they are there when the businesses close. Home Healthcare Supply has at least 5 or 6 vehicles. There are the recruiting stations that have government owned vehicles. He did speak to some of the store owners because they did receive the cards but none of them really acknowledged what they were. For the most part, they were against it. But because they just presented the information to the other businesses today, they weren't available to come and speak either for or against the situation tonight. If they do fill in the aisle with parking spaces, it is a very tight drive in front of the plaza itself. If you have someone who is going to park in front of the bank and ATM machine, it is cut down to one lane. There will be double parking there quite a bit even though there is parking available for ATM users. Business brings business, they are not afraid of that. Competition breeds excellence. The more the merrier. But an area can be over developed. Jim Holteen, Dimondale, from Finley's addressed the Board. He has been with Finley's for approximately 25 years. They moved down to that site approximately 12 years ago. The biggest issue is getting in and out of Edgewood. He challenged the Board to drive down there during lunch or during the evening or even during the week. Try a couple of different ways: come off 96 heading west and see how long it takes to get through that light, get on Edgwood Blvd, heading east. You will sit at that light for numerous light changes. It has gotten to the point now that when they have to leave during peak periods they plan their way in and out because it takes so long. If you come out of the main entranceway on Cedar St. and try to head north, it is impossible. Then you can go right- it's tricky- but you can get out. There have been a lot of accidents in that area. Their concern is that they still want to be accessible for people to come to their restaurant. They have a large senior citizen group that comes and dines with them. This will not help them. Applebee's is competition. Anyone who comes in and supplies a seat, it opens up the arena for more seats and more bodies. He is just saying that they need to find another spot on that end of town, not in their plaza. He knows that it won't help anybody trying to get in and out of that complex. Regarding parking, to come in on a Wednesday vs. a weekend is ludicrous. For them to come in on a Memorial weekend, they probably had the best scenario to get the numbers that they wanted. Normally, on sunny weekends during a holiday, their business has a tendency to drop 20-25% during those weekends vs. a normal weekend. He challenged the Board to come there during a holiday and tell him that it is not full. Whoever is saying that doesn't have any idea what they are talking about. Let Applebee's come in and do their thing,just not in our plaza. Todd Paul, 3543 Raintree Court, Grand Rapids, MI, representing Finley's, addressed the Board. The take out scenario is a rising trend in the industry. Most restaurants are trying to figure out ways to get more take out business. That is a growing part of any restaurant today. Another part is while people that go to the mall do park in their lot, they could put signs up that state it is for Finley's only, but unless they will be enforcing it, it isn't realistic. Parking is an issue. People won't come to Finley's if they have to park far away BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 11 to get to it. He respectfully requested the Board to reject this appeal. Mr. Cooley attempted to speak to the Board again. A. Frederick asked Board if they wished to hear from Mr. Cooley again. Seeing none, A. Frederick communicated to Mr. Cooley that the applicant is given one chance to speak. If Mr. Cooley wished to address the Board again, it would have to be during the Public Comment section of the meeting. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that without comment on the accuracy of the report that was put together on behalf of Applebee's -which she is very appreciative for- she had a question as to whether the opposition to this particular request for a variance has been given an effective amount of time to respond to it. They have raised questions about the accuracy which she, as a board member, have no way of determining whether it is fact or not. There have been an awful lot of questions raised by the opposition. Her reaction is that she would like to hear more, but she would like to hear more facts not more opinions that it was done wrong, or it's their big day, etc. They send out cards by way of the provisions of the code that they operate under. Those are normally enough time to give someone notice that something is being done and to come to the meeting to voice your opinion. But when you are talking about a situation of this magnitude, where you are looking at a variety of businesses who really have to come up with some good underlying facts to be able to persuade the Board one way or another, she thinks that the card system sometimes does not allow them enough time. V. Earhart made motion to table BZA-3546.99, 6250 S. Cedar to allow those who are interested to provide the Board with information that they can review at another board meeting and come to some conclusion on. Seconded by B. Burgess to table until next month's meeting. Unanimous voice vote to table case. A. Frederick stated that the case will be tabled until next month's meeting on August 12, 1999. He believes that will give everyone ample opportunity to take a look at the fairly technical facts that have been presented here and will give everyone an opportunity to comment again as well as being able to comment during the Public Comment section. J. Ruff asked question about Mr. Homan's statement about only occupants receiving the card. He clarified off of the computer printout in the case file of who exactly received postcards. V. Earhart asked if copies of the report that was done by Mr. Cooley would be made available to the individuals who might want to be responding? J. Ruff stated that the office has one copy that people can pay for copies of or they can get them directly from the applicant. J. Ruff stated that there was a letter from Mr. Homan, Willingham & Cote, regarding this request. River City Foods/Tri City Foods are formally requesting that the applicant's request for variance be denied. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Richard Cooley, Vlahakis Companies, 9290 Riverside, addressed the Board. Based on the case that was just tabled, he doesn't want to rebut any of the information given. He did want to correct something that Mr. Homan implied and was inaccurate about. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 12 Mr. Homan interrupted Mr. Cooley asking Board if the case was tabled. A. Frederick explained that it was tabled, but this is the Public Comment portion of the meeting and anybody can comment on any topic of business during Public Comment whether it is on the record or tabled. Mr. Cooley wanted to add information for the benefit of the Board. They are not pleased that this case was tabled as the Board may well understand. Applebee's has a time line that they are trying to follow. Public approval processes often clash. Applebee's is disappointed that it was tabled, but he understands why the Board did that. He is not trying to rebut anything that was said. As far as he is concerned, the study that was done was thorough and accurate. The staff agreed with it and recommended approval. He will let their submitted information stand on its own merits. But he wanted the Board to know that prior to the time they submitted the application and the support document dated June 17, 1999, he attempted to contact the manager at Pizza Hut and Finley's. He happened to stop in during the day on that day at a time when neither of them were on the premises. He did call back later and left a message for both managers of those respected restaurants stating his name and phone number and that he was doing a parking study on the current shopping center for the purpose of determining if there was adequate parking there for the present and for an anticipated new use. For the record, no one from either of those restaurants returned his calls. He was simply asking to be able to verify the information that he had about the size of their restaurants, the amount of usable floor space which would be utilized in calculating required parking, number of employees on a larger shift, etc. To the best of his knowledge, the information that they presented is accurate. For them to suggest that they didn't know anything about what was going on is inaccurate. They knew in the middle of June that Mr. Cooley was studying the center. If the criticism is that the Planning Office's notification process is inadequate, then that is a separate issue that the Planning Department needs to deal with. B. Scott Adams, Vlahakis Companies, 1388 Hatch, Okemos, MI 48864, addressed the Board. He resided in Holt for the previous 8 years before moving to Okemos one year ago. In response to the attorney's defamation of the picture of the property, he wanted to say that he is a representative of the local area. With respect to the attorney and his local knowledge of the shopping center, he didn't think that he accurately portrayed himself as an individual who lived in the area and that did have that experience. With regards to living there and in the enjoyment of the shopping center, he uses the credit union on a regular basis. The traffic up near the credit union is in and out traffic on a regular basis. Parking is not an issue. You can always find a parking space within 10 parking spaces of the door. He does use it on a regular basis. In other aspects due to restaurants, he did want to see as a member of that part of town, the opportunity to use his discretion as to where he wanted to eat. He personally went after Applebee's in response to getting them to that side of town because he didn't have the time on his lunch hour to drive 10 miles over to another location. The issue of parking in that facility with respect to having that location improved, he believes is diminished by the enjoyment of the people in the area that can use that business. He goes to Celebration Cinema because he likes that area, but he can't eat there. He appreciated the Board's time. C. Richard Westcott, 1204 Gould Rd., Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. He did get the message from the gentleman regarding the parking survey. But it was reported to him that it was from the City of Lansing that was doing a survey of their parking facility. At the time he spoke with the Director of Operations, he was told to let them contact him again - which never happened - because if it was someone representing themselves from the City of Lansing, they will have credentials to back it up. If credentials couldn't be presented, then they would not participate in the survey. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of June 10, 1999 R. McCloud requested a correction in her name. In the minutes under"Present", it has McCloud, but in the voting sections it is Danley. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, '1999 PAGE 13 R. Korbakis requested a correction on page 3 - her statement at the top should have been a question, not a statement. B. Burgess moved to approve minutes with corrections. Seconded by G. Hilts. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. R. Korbakis requested excused absence for September 9 1999 meeting. E. Horne moved to accept absence. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to accept absence. B. Zoning Ordinance Revisions: V. Earhart moved to direct the Planning Staff to address a letter to the appropriate people regarding the fact that the Board is getting larger property sizes and that the building footprints and sizes are not necessarily keeping up with that. Also we should begin to look at the scale of the house and the garage so that it looks right -aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with the neighborhood. Seconded by E. Horne. General discussion on supporting motion and general development ensued. B. Burgess asked a procedural question. His personal preference is that if there is some written document that says that the BZA are saying this, not just that it should be done. He thinks that if the Board feels strongly about something, we should take an unusual action being writing a letter to catch people's attention that this is something the Board is concerned about. V. Earhart suggested that maybe there is a need for two motions: A motion that states "We, the Board of Zoning Appeals agree that we are in favor of having these kinds of things reviewed because . . . . .. and then a motion saying "send that on in the form of a letter". B. Burgess wants it stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals thinks that it NEEDS to be done. G. Hilts stated that in 1985 or 1986 when they made garage sizes allowably bigger, they got into a lot of variances over garage size until the code finally got to expand it. He believes that the Board is looking at the same thing here again. General discussion ensued regarding how communication should go, who it should go to, etc. J. Ruff suggested that a letter be directed to the Planning Board. The first step would be for him to do the research and make recommendations. Secondly, he would bring it before the BZA to review for approval. The next step will be to formalize the recommendation and bring it before the Planning Board for a public hearing. After that, finalize the language for City Council. Unanimous voice vote to issue letter based on above motion. C. E. Horne stated that she was concerned that through the years, BZA has fought hard to get sufficient amount of parking for all of the shopping centers and malls, and now they are seeing these developers try to come in and overdevelop some of these areas. She was wondering if the Board needs to sit down and think about it and ask if this is a good way to go. If you realize that this particular shopping center has had many different major anchors of businesses throughout the years. She is concerned that if we are going to allow them to do some of these things, we might be causing some problems in the future. Will this create a precedent? BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 14 J. Ruff stated that first of all, when it comes to garages, that's one thing; when it comes to shopping centers, we don't have a market on shopping centers in Lansing. He thinks the Board has done a good and appropriate job of evaluating each of these on a case by case basis. Yes, there are other developable areas down on the strip of Cedar St., not very many though. General discussion ensued regarding redevelopments, south end of town. VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 07/23/99 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ;� i::,.. �_,, -, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JULY 8 1999, 7:30 P.M. Cf i( CITY`iCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:30 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts M. Clark A. Frederick R. Korbakis R. McCloud V. Earhart Staff: J. Ruff L. Peters A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. Horne made motion to accept agenda as written. Seconded by B. Burgess. Motion carried. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3543.99. 1400 Bilk. Cambridge J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Mr. & Mrs. Andrews, owner of the property at the 1400 block of Cambridge Rd. This is a request for a variance to permit a garage to be constructed -an attached garage 828 square feet in size on a lot that is zoned A- Residential and is 184'x 1 00'in size. There is residential around it except for the Country Club of Lansing which is to the east of it. The Andrews have a home on a two-acre parcel right near by and have sold that home. They desire to stay in the neighborhood and build a new home. The new home would be approximately 4600 square feet in size. They want to build one accessory structure. The desire is to build one large enough so that they don't have to build a detached accessory structure in the rear yard that would block views of the golf course. They have requested to build an attached garage and desire to keep it looking reasonable for the neighborhood. They have oriented it to a side entry so that the garage doors wouldn't face the street and the narrow part of the garage would face the street. It requires 108 square foot variance from the 720 square foot allowance for garages on lots greater than 5000 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance does not have any other breakdown for garages other than at the 5000 square foot mark. At less than 5000 square feet,there is an allowance for 800 square foot total of accessory structure and 600 square foot garage. On lots greater than 5000 square feet,there is an allowance for 720 square foot garage and 1000 square foot total of accessory structure. It is less than the 1000 square feet total and yet more than the 720 square feet. Based on the purpose of it and the fact of their efforts in having a side entry that requires a different circulation pattern around the garage area,they are having to keep it away further from the house so that you can pull into it without hitting the house. Staff recommends approval of the request. Mr.Vernon Andrews, 1348 Cambridge, Lansing MI, addressed the Board. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to address them in this manner. He stated that they had not planned on selling the old Potter house at the corner of Cambridge and Oxford, but Mr. Dan & Marlee Musser of the Grand Hotel at Mackinaw Island came along and made an offer. Now Mr.Andrews has to build a new house. They would like to stay in the neighborhood because it is a wonderful neighborhood and a wonderful part of Lansing. They want to build a very nice home there that will be complimentary, not only to the neighborhood, but also to the City of Lansing. He feels that the neighborhood deserves it DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 2 and he wants to give his very best efforts. In order to do that, he feels that it is very important to have a three-car garage. He referred to recent articles relating to garages and the fact that people are going to larger garages. It is important, not only for resale factor, but also due to the fact that as you get older you accumulate more things. Rather than build another building to house such things as lawn mowers,yard furniture, etc., he feels that a three-car garage would be so much better for them. Their neighbors near them have indicated that they have no objection to this. Their present home has a three- car garage. That is what they are used to-all the additional space. He feels that it is necessary to have that space. He respectfully asks for favorable consideration on this request for a variance. He assured the Board that they will build a very nice home that the Board will be as proud of as they are. M. Clark stated that there was one communication regarding this appeal. M. Clark read letter of support from Mr. Phillip Venema of Cambridge Rd. in Lansing to the Board. J. Ruff corrected header in report. It shouldn't say 1401 Cambridge, it should say 1400 Block of Cambridge. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she drove by the area. Looking at the information that was provided by the Planning Office and her drive by, it appears that the design and variance is in keeping with the general neighborhood and the variance will enhance the golf course,the property itself, and the property of others in a way that a detached accessory structure would not. She will be voting in favor of this request. A. Frederick stated that he appreciated the article that was included in the report regarding the trend toward larger garages. He believes that this is an example of where the Zoning Code isn't keeping up with desired trends. He believes that with the development, it is going to potentially start out on the east of the city-the Governor's Club. He is sure that the Board will be getting more requests for this type of thing. He thinks that possibly somebody needs to consider re-looking at the Zoning Code in light of these kinds of trends that are going on in the country. He feels that it is a reasonable request and will fit with the neighborhood quite nicely. E. Horne supports A. Frederick's remarks in regards to the city ordinances. She believes that it is time to look at them and update them for current trends. B. Burgess asked if there is someone appropriately that the Board can write to in order to make these recommendations that this is a coming trend in the city and the Board would like them to look at it. A. Frederick stated that the Board would consider those kinds of things also, but the authority for amending the Zoning Code would be in the hands of City Council. He believes that the Planning Board as well as the Planning Staff would also have a big part in that. B. Burgess asked if it would be wise to express the Board's concerns in writing that this is something that is coming to the Board's attention and push for expeditious consideration. A. Frederick stated that it would be an appropriate time now since the 425 Agreement with Meridian Township. J. Ruff stated that two issues of primary concern that he would probably use as research is done is: 1. Size of property, because they end up getting appeals that deal with larger pieces of property more seldom than others and then,2. Scale of the home vs. scale of the garage-there needs to be a perspective there. He has been speaking with staff regarding these things. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3543.99, 1400 Blk.Cambridge,a variance request of 108 square DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 3 feet of additional garage with the condition that no additional accessory structure be built on that site. Seconded by B. Burgess. On a roll call vote there were 8 yeas and 0 nays. The variance request was unanimously approved with a condition. B. BZA-3544.99-VOIDED C. BZA-3545.99, 2300 Grant J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Joellyn Droste at 2300 Grant St.for two variances in order to construct a 24'x 24'attached garage to a single family home located in the B- Residential District. The property is 58'wide x 125'deep. It is on a corner. It is a single family neighborhood zoned accordingly. The request is to construct the 24'x 24'attached garage onto the south side of her home. The garage is proposed to be 4 feet from the rear or the south lot line and 20 feet from the front or east lot line. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Code requires an established front yard setback of 24 feet in this case. There would be a 4 foot variance from the front yard setback. Section 1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 30 feet rear yard setback. Therefore,this request would be also a 26'variance for the rear yard. The property is a corner lot. There is very limited space for a detached or attached garage. Currently, no garage exists on the property. The distance from the house to the rear or south lot lines limits the options for reasonable garage space on the property. Without a variance,the applicant would be restricted in this case to a significantly smaller garage. The corner lot creates a difficult situation in two ways: 1. The larger yard in this case,which is the south yard, has to be considered the rear lot line even though there may be an option to that and 2. The front yard - being on a corner lot, in a lot of the older neighborhoods,the corner houses weren't set back as far as the houses in between the corners. They set out a bit. The established setback is at 24 feet. The request is to be out in front of that by 4 feet. The reason for moving the garage out in front of the house slightly in this case is to accommodate the window in the house. The garage would be located on the south side. There is one clearance that the applicant would have to get in order to construct it 4 feet from the south lot line. That would be a sign off from the public utilities to encroach in the subdivision's easement. There is a 5 foot utility easement that is reserved according to the survey. In subdivisions when they are platting,typically there is a 10' easement in front and 5' easements around the side and back for utilities. The utilities have the right to go through and put their lines in any pattern they wish as the subdivision goes in. Generally,they consolidate where the wires go and they don't need all the easements. Some of them are vacant. There are no wires in certain areas. That will have to be evaluated for utilities to be approved. Otherwise the garage could be reduced slightly by 1 foot. Staff recommended approval of this request finding it to be a reasonable difficulty in the corner lot and hardship in the amount of area that is usable. Obviously a detached garage can be built in this location, but it would then create a small alley between the house and garage that would be quite unusual. Approval has been recommended with the understanding that the utility easement be resolved or the structure be reduced by 1 foot to be outside the easement. A. Frederick asked if the property lines on the staff supplied map were to scale. J. Ruff said that the map comes from two different maps-one overlaid on the other. They came from aerial photographs. They are not totally accurate, but a good representation. A. Frederick referred to the map and questioned spacing of lots, etc. General discussion and reference to maps ensued in regards to lot sizes in that area. Joellyn Droste,2300 Grant St., Lansing, MI 48910 addressed the Board. She stated that being on a corner lot,there is not a lot of privacy. By moving the garage forward and saving one of the windows on the south side of the home, it creates a little more space in the back area. It makes a great little sitting area with trees lining both sides of it. It is her only private area on her lot. So by moving it forward 4 feet,she is keeping that sitting area and the window. At some point in the future,she wants to rebuild the porch which will tie in DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 4 nicely with the garage being set forward as well. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she has a great deal of sympathy for the applicant. She had the exact same situation in the past. The relief of being able to create an enclosed space for privacy as well as sheltering a car is great. She will be supporting this request. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3545.99, 2300 Grant St.,a variance of 4'front and 26' rear yard variances with the condition that the utility easement problem be resolved Seconded by B. Burgess. On a roll call vote there were 8 yeas and 0 nays. The variance was unanimously approved with a condition. D. BZA-3546.99, 6250 S. Cedar M. Clark requested to be recused from voting on this particular case. She also asked to be excused from the rest of the board meeting seeing that this was the final case to be heard. Motion made by A. Frederick to recuse M. Clark. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. M. Clark passed gavel to A. Frederick and left the room. J. Ruff stated that M. Clark contacted him today and stated that she had a conflict of interest in this case and wondered how to go about excusing herself from this case. J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Vlahakis Companies to construct an Applebee's restaurant within the existing Cedar's Edge Shopping Center parking lot at 6250 S. Cedar St. in Lansing. Section 1284.13 of the Zoning Code requires a total of 678 parking spaces for the existing shopping center including the proposed restaurant. The applicant proposes to provide 518 parking spaces. Therefore,this is a request for a variance of 168 parking spaces. The property is located on S. Cedar St. south of Miller Rd. just north of Edgewood Blvd. It is on the west side of the street. It is zoned commercially. It is a funny shaped lot because it is a remnant of the state highway properties in that it was going to be at one time a loop for an entrance ramp onto the expressway. Since they sold it,the property has been developed with the commercial shopping center with a primary bank of stores that was first known as F&M Plaza. Subsequently, it has been renamed to Cedar's Edge Shopping Center. F&M is no longer in business there. MC Sporting Goods is the key mark store within there. There are stores north and south of MC Sporting Goods. There is a Pizza Hut on the north end of the property and a Finley's on the south end of the property that are both detached from the main center. Those are on separate lots. The property is zoned F-Commercial. It is commercial both up and down on Cedar St. and to the west is an apartment complex that is zoned DM-1 Residential. This is located near where there was a case last month regarding a fence for an apartment complex two doors down. The proposal is to construct an Applebee's restaurant into the parking lot. As such, included in the Board Packet, is a report created by the applicant's consultant. When they first came to the Planning Office, J. Ruff stated that they would have to prove their case as far as traffic, etc.to see if the restaurant could fit. The Board has seen in the past a couple of instances where larger shopping centers have received variances- Frandor being one & Sam's-and they supplied proper documentation that showed that in that size of complex the parking numbers are different than what the code would require. Our code looks at shopping center requirements of one parking space for every 110 square feet of usable floor area. For restaurants,there is another section. Another possible problem with the code is that it doesn't differentiate between sizes of shopping centers. A shopping center is anything with 3 or more tenant spaces in it. When you get into larger shopping centers, there is some disparity shown by what is seen. It is not the City's desire to create larger DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 5 parking lots than are necessary. He sat down and gave the applicant all of this information. Thus,they have provided the report for the Board's consideration. Staff has reviewed that report as well as the desire as to where to locate the Applebee's restaurant. The desired location is adjacent to the main drive. From a functional standpoint,the further away you can locate the Applebee's from the two other restaurants,the better off the City is with balancing the parking situation. Because when Finley's is having their peak hours,Applebee's will be having their peak hours. There will be spillover in the parking areas. If it could be moved slightly north to get a bay of parking in 60 feet so that can be one double-sided bay of parking,they believe that would be the minimum distance to locate it on the site. That can be an issue of site plan review. But it will also have an impact on the Board's deliberation. A. Frederick asked if he could get a quick synopsis of how that particular piece of property ended up looking like it looks? J. Ruff stated with the curved rear shape, it was going to be a ramp onto the expressway. He stated that Bill Savage would be able to explain this better. He explained about another remnant of property for a ramp. Richard Cooley,Vlahakis Companies, 9290 Riverside, Lansing, MI addressed the Board. He stated that this request is for the purpose of constructing an Applebee's restaurant on the existing shopping center property. It has been felt that the center has an excess of parking spaces available for patrons of the center. Even with the addition of an Applebee's restaurant, it was their estimation that there would still be adequate parking. The applicant hired Bill Savage, a licensed professional engineer and recognized traffic expert,to do a parking availability study on the shopping center. Mr. Savage elected to, instead of doing a parking study with ITE Standards,theories, etc., he chose to take actual traffic counts at the center on two different days which were day long studies to determine what the peak hours of parking demand were and what those numbers actually were and how many spaces actually were available. He also conducted the same kind of study at the existing Applebee's restaurant on West Saginaw in front of the Lansing Mall as a case study so that the applicant had both the existing shopping center and how it operates regarding parking and a look at an actual Applebee's in operation that would be similar if not exactly the same as the one proposed on this site. Those counts were done. The complete report and study numbers is at the back of the report. Mr. Savage is available in the audience for comment or any questions that the Board may have regarding the study. His study concluded that even with the addition of an Applebee's restaurant in the Cedar's Edge Shopping Center,that there would still be an excess of parking spaces. The translation of excess amounts to in terms of his numbers about 50 car spaces. They thought that this was a desirable way to go for a new restaurant in the south end of Lansing because it would maximize some existing resources instead of requiring new development which there is a lot of on the south end. Also,they have observed over a period of time that, unlike regional shopping centers like Lansing Mall or Meridian Mall or others like it,that there is not an increased level of patron activity and therefore, demand for required parking spaces during the holiday season. To require a number of parking spaces in excess of what is actually being used on a daily basis-the counts were taken in May-they felt that actually portrayed the all year around use of the center. They put the support document together to establish a new basis for what the required parking was. The original site plan required 633 spaces. Because of the "as built"sizes of the buildings and various things that have happened on the site,they created a new basis and found that it was 615 would be required. They qualified that in the report. They also noted that a total of 72 spaces have actually been deferred out of the center due to the creation of a new center aisle. Those could be re-established simply with some stripping. He then went through the report section by section explaining each section. He stated that basically,they feel that the Planning Staff has done a thorough job of evaluating their request as presented. They concur with the staff recommendation to approve the request with the conditions stated. He wanted to note, for the record,that condition which deals with the actual location of an Applebee's restaurant. While they understand that it is a consideration that the Board will DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1y99 PAGE 6 make,they also understand that the detailed discussion of that issue and the final resolution of that issue probably will occur through the site plan review process at the Planning Commission level. A. Frederick stated that he would like to hear from Mr. Savage if he knows a little about the history of the shape of this piece of property, as unusual as it is. Mr. Bill Savage addressed the Board. He stated that he didn't have anything to do with this piece of property. It was designed and built before he worked for the department. V. Earhart stated that in looking at the whole proposal, it seems that the real competitors with Applebee's is not the people in the main shopping center, but the two other restaurants. One thing that she doesn't see summarized or addressed in the report is what about Christmas Holiday luncheons or parties that start after 6:00 in the evening? Finley's and Applebee's will attract large crowds during that time. May 19th and May 26th aren't going to work for a traffic study for holidays. B. Savage stated that noon is the heaviest parking demand. There are still an additional 50 parking spaces available in the parking lot. There are a large number in the lot in front of the main group of stores, particularly in the middle. It hollows out there and there are a lot of extra spots there. There are easily,within easy walking distance to Applebee's in the peak time, an additional 100 parking spots more so than what Applebee's will need on a very busy day. V. Earhart asked about the evening hours. Will the available parking be in the same areas? B. Savage stated that there will be more parking availability in the evening by about at least 30 additional parking spots as the night wears on beyond 6:00. V. Earhart asked if the businesses weren't those that would necessarily extend their business hours because of the season? B. Savage stated that there are about three apparel stores that stay open until about 9:00 p.m. They are generally in the middle or at the north end. R. Korbakis asked if it was typical to do a study like this-to pick two days out of one month and base a survey on that? B. Savage stated that typically everyone is in a hurry for studies like this. You can't wait until Christmas to do one. He stated that they were weekdays that the study was based on at the plaza. He made a Friday study at Applebee's which is considered to be one of the busier in Lansing and a good thing to compare it to. They were concerned that maybe it wouldn't be a good Friday, but according to the cash receipts for Applebee's showed it to be a normal busy Friday. It was taken just before Memorial Day. In taking the parking study at Applebee's, he counted not only the cars that started out in the parking lot, but also the number added to that, one car for each employee inside the restaurant, and then added to that as people came in and subtracted from that when people left. He thinks that the maximum load in there was 78 vehicles. G. Hilts stated that other cases that he could recall that were similar,the parking studies that they did were laid out similarly. R. Korbakis asked if the plaza was fully occupied? B. Savage stated that it was. E. Horne stated that her only concern as a user of this plaza and knowing the traffic flow DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 7 and how it is all marked, is that when you get by the entrance there is always a bottleneck. How is that going to be cleared up? She disagrees in regards to the Christmas holidays. The plaza is filled. She agrees with the staff that this is not a good site. G. Hilts stated that he would be in favor of moving it down some. He has never seen the parking lot full. David Homan,Willingham &Cote, representing Finley's and Pizza Hut addressed the Board. He stated that his clients received notice of this meeting only through the postcard that was mailed out. Their preparation time has been very short. He was retained 24 hours ago. They are disappointed that they weren't asked for any input or comment. They are two of the biggest places out there at this center. This will greatly impact their parking. There just hasn't been any conversation or a chance for questions to be asked. He stated that he had many questions regarding the study that was done. They are not just 2 days out of the year and they are not just two days out of May. They are Wednesdays. Wednesdays are lousy restaurant days. Two representatives from each of the companies are present and can speak to that fact. He believes that it is important for the Board to have an accurate picture of what this is going to look like in a practical way. If the idea is to present a peak demand, and there is reference in the report as to what it looks like at its peak,the report would have the Board believe that at its peak there are nearly 200 vacancies. The Friday test for Applebee's was a Friday of a national holiday weekend. More people leave Lansing than come into Lansing on Memorial Day weekend. To say that the cash register registered the same,that is not a traffic question that Mr. Savage can speak to. It just doesn't sound right to him intuitively that the Friday of Memorial Day weekend would be a typical Friday. They say that the retail hours don't overlap with the restaurant use hours. But then he heard said that the heaviest use was at lunchtime,which of course is in the middle of retail use and holiday season shopping is extended so the season is quite long which is the time where most of the retail sales throughout the course of the year are made. They are compressed into that period of time along with restaurant use for parties as identified. He asked why all three properties were being lumped together in the numbers that are being presented. The Pizza Hut property is owned separately. The Finley's property is owned separately. Each of them satisfy their parking requirements independently. The center, overall right now, is non-conforming. The number of spaces that exist is less than the minimum required. What the Board is being asked to do is take a non-conforming use and bring it into greater non-conformity. Another question he had was that a reference was made to the required number of parking spaces for the restaurant of 1 per 60 square feet of usable floor area. Section 1284.13 (c)(6) says that if the restaurant is one that isn't just for consumption on premises, but sells food for consumption on and off premises,then an additional 15 parking spaces are required. Pizza Hut has a lot of its business carried out or not eaten on premises. Finley's has a carry-out business. He is also quite certain, per a phone call today,that Applebee's has a carry-out policy. He thinks that the required number is understated by 45 parking spaces. Those numbers, if erroneous, contaminate or taint the rest of the analysis that is done. He thinks that the total required parking out there is 723 spaces which ends up being 205 spaces short with the Applebee's there. That is if you throw into the calculation the excess capacity that Pizza Hut has and the excess capacity that Finley's has and allow the shopping center parking area to have the benefit of those excesses which he believes to be inappropriate. That is slanting it in its position most favorable to the applicant. He thinks that it is a very incomplete picture of what the situation is out there. He found it interesting to look at the photographs included. He referred to the report and pictures. Applebee's is asking to increase the parking use and parking demand while at the same time decreasing the number available because they will use up 50 spaces to put themselves in. With regard to the criteria of the code,the applicant admits that there is no unnecessary hardship. It refers to a practical difficulty and that it is hard to locate an Applebee's. He doesn't see anything in the report supporting the difficulty of landing an Applebee's restaurant, but he doesn't know that the need for an Applebee's exists to counterbalance the request to allow, what would otherwise be a violation of the Zoning Code by a greater non-conformity of the parking use. There isn't an empty lot here that is asking to be developed and is thwarted DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1a99 PAGE 8 because of some dimensional restraint. What we have is a fully developed shopping center that is already all built out. Why the number of spaces exists as they do today was not arbitrary. That was decided upon by previous site plan approval. In those opportunities,there would have been traffic looked at and parking need looked at. If anything,that area has gotten busier over time not less busy. When you have a less liberal parking requirement, it allows for smaller, less intense development which means less traffic. If you go the other direction,you have a more liberal parking density that allows for more development, more buildings and that increases traffic and that's going in the direction that raises danger to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It is bad for business for everyone involved. People will say"I don't like to go there, parking is a pain". He believes that if people go and have bad experiences,they won't come back. During holiday season when all the people are out,that is when they are going to get their worst experience and that is when you want your customers to be coming out. This difficulty that they are talking about is really no difficulty. It is the desire to squeeze additional revenue out of a shopping center that is fully developed. The representatives from each company would like a chance to speak as to the practical experience of the traffic flow and the parking experiences out there. He would ask the Board that they reject the request for variance and if the Board has not received enough information to persuade them that it should be rejected,that the matter be deferred until additional material can be provided to you such as how it came to be, have someone who is not hired by the applicant to conduct a traffic study so as to gain a clear picture of what it is like on a really intense day, etc. J. Ruff stated that he would like to try and answer a couple of the questions that were directed toward him. First off,the shopping center is laid out with the parking striping system with the aisle that was placed down from north to south now for one basic reason. As it was originally laid out,that aisle was not there. Since it was constructed,that aisle was placed in there because there was a lot of cross cutting traffic through a relatively open parking lot. People cut across that as a more direct route. So when it was re-striped, they asked if they could put that aisle in knowing that at some point in time if the center developed more heavily or was used more heavily that those parking spaces could be put back in and then you wouldn't get as much cross through traffic because there would be more conflict. But it was potentially an unsafe situation having people cutting across parking spaces. If you are driving up one of those aisles and not thinking about there being a lane there,there is a tendency to be thinking about only your lane. The Planning Office allowed that with the understanding that those spaces could be striped back in place. Secondly,that also answers the question about non-conformity on the parking number. B. Burgess asked that if there were painted back in,would they be in compliance? J. Ruff stated that was correct. They would have all the striped spaces that they would be required to have by code. The other question that came up that was directed toward him was the question about the parking requirement regarding whether it is a restaurant for take-out or sit down. As Zoning Administrator and as a staff, restaurants all vary in style and there are only two code requirements. There is one that says if it is a sit down type restaurant vs. a take-out type restaurant. There is not a third code that says all restaurants will allow you to take food out. There is no requirement like that. The seating contingent is a much heavier parking requirement than the take-out would be. They lumped Pizza Hut in with Finley's as primarily sit down type restaurants. That is how the ordinances were applied in these instances. Paul Vlahakis,Vlahakis Companies,6910 S. Cedar St., Lansing MI 48910 addressed the Board. He stated that his company owns the shopping center. He is in the real estate business and would consider that center as a slightly depressed center when they purchased it. It was roughly 30%vacant. They were able to bring it to 100% occupancy. The center is doing well. As for the parking lot, his office is next to the Holiday Inn, on the south side. The attorney stated that the pictures were not an accurate portrayal of the parking lot. Mr.Vlahakis stated that it is, indeed, an accurate portrayal. That portion of the parking lot as pictured in the report is an everyday thing, including weekends. His concern DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 9 is:Are Finley's, Pizza Hut, and the attorney really concerned about the property becoming increasingly non-conforming or are they concerned about a decrease in sales. He believes that is the real issue. Vlahakis Companies has done a lot of construction on the south end of town. The south end of Lansing is certainly on the upswing. There is a lot of new development coming in. For the shopping center, an addition of Applebee's,which would bring a lot of traffic to the center, is going to benefit the tenants in the center. It will help them dramatically. He believes that the problem is that it will affect the sales of the other two restaurants. We live in a competitive society. We can't deny one restaurant the opportunity to go in just because it might affect negatively the other two that are located on either side. They have a large parcel with a fair amount of parking spaces. The attorney indicated that adding this restaurant would affect the parking of his clients. He is certainly not aware of any agreement that he has to allow parking for Finley's or Pizza Hut on their property. They want to be good neighbors. They provided a report by the recommendation of the Planning Department to have a thorough report to the Board so that you can have an accurate picture of what the impact, if negative or positive,would be on that center. He thinks that they have done their due diligence in providing the Board with as much information as they can. There will be excess parking as the report indicates. They will be more than happy to allow the spillover from Pizza Hut and Finley's to use that parking. They are not going in there and put signs that say they can't park there. What they can do is put signs on their parking spaces not allowing anybody but Finley's or Pizza Hut,so that they don't feel that there is an encroachment on their space which would negatively impact their parking. They are agreeable to help this whole situation out. He feels that the concern is not increasingly non-conforming use of the property. It is a sales issue. As for Applebee's, he was told that their carry-out business is basically non existent. They do 99% business as sit-down business. He has been in the restaurant business himself. Wednesday is a good day for the restaurant business. Wednesday,Thursday and Friday are typically your busiest weekdays. He was concerned about the attorney testifying that the parking lot was not typical for the shopping center. If he was just hired yesterday,to drive by today or look at this picture. It is typical. He challenges anyone to go and look at the parking lot and see if the questioned areas are occupied. Vlahakis Companies wants to bring new business to the south end of Lansing. There is a lot of new business that would like to come on the south end. There is just not a lot of area for restaurants like Applebee's, Chili's, etc. There are not a lot of locations that they would consider viable for their business. This area lends itself well to out lot development. Mitch Taft, 206 Windjammer, Lansing, MI 48917, area director of operations for Pizza Hut addressed the Board. He has been in this area for one year and used to run the S. Cedar store for about 6 months. On the center aisle going down through the middle parking lot- to re-stripe that is a problem. To get to Pizza Hut,there is an entrance. But to exit Pizza Hut,there is only one way out-to go around in front of the plaza. That is the only way. There is, on the east side of the plaza, a driveway which seldom gets used. In the wintertime, snow is piled over about 5 spots all along that strip. He referred to the map of the parking lot. He doesn't see Applebee's taking away any business from Pizza Hut. They are not a direct competitor with Pizza Hut. Business brings more business. When the plaza is empty, it hurts Pizza Hut. When it is full, business is good. He stated that the intersection is very bad. It is very tight and congested now. His fear is what will happen to that area if there is more traffic. Regarding Wednesday's business, it is one of the two lowest business days of the week. Friday and Saturday is the peak, Thursday's next,then Sunday. B. Burgess asked about the lot to the north. Why haven't they considered putting an entrance there so that people can use it? M. Taft couldn't answer that question. J. Ruff explained about driveways. There is restricted access on this piece of property. The State Highway owned it. They sold it with the restriction as to where the access could be. The first question that came to them was that the applicant was thinking about DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 10 relocating the driveway to be more centralized in the center. But the highway department won't allow that because of the characteristics of the other interchange around there. The driveway that runs from Cedar St.to Pennsylvania Ave. so that you can get onto the expressway,that is all part of the highway interchange even though it is well removed from the highway itself. Those are all highway right of ways. When they sold this,they restricted the exiting and entrances of this property to very limited locations. That is why there couldn't be anymore exit or entrance driveways just south of Pizza Hut. That is also why the main driveway could not be relocated north. Richard Wescott, 1204 Gould Rd., Lansing, MI ,general manager of Pizza Hut at 6200 S. Cedar, addressed the Board. He stated that there is a bottleneck in the parking lot. He sees accidents almost every other day because of the bottlenecks that are created there. He has noticed in the 10 years that he has been with his company,the plowing takes up a good chunk of the parking spaces that are available. Snow plowing is not snow removal. Four restaurants are already in the plaza. It is a constantly moving type of traffic flow there. It is something that creates some hazards. The lunch time being about 25% of their business, but up to 40% of their customer flow is is during the first segment of the day-what they call revenue periods. The parking lot area is an unusual setup-delivery drivers have to try and make it in and out of there as well. He has had several of their drivers have accidents in the course of time trying to negotiate the interchange there. Edgewood Blvd. during a big movie opening is very congested. They also have a local car show that happens every Saturday night with modified cars that kids and adults have that cruise up and down in that area. It is a congested area. One of the things that wasn't addressed is of the businesses that do close down early, a lot of them have company owned vehicles that do use those parking spots 24 hours so that they are there when the businesses close. Home Healthcare Supply has at least 5 or 6 vehicles. There are the recruiting stations that have government owned vehicles. He did speak to some of the store owners because they did receive the cards but none of them really acknowledged what they were. For the most part,they were against it. But because they just presented the information to the other businesses today,they weren't available to come and speak either for or against the situation tonight. If they do fill in the aisle with parking spaces, it is a very tight drive in front of the plaza itself. If you have someone who is going to park in front of the bank and ATM machine, it is cut down to one lane. There will be double parking there quite a bit even though there is parking available for ATM users. Business brings business,they are not afraid of that. Competition breeds excellence. The more the merrier. But an area can be over developed. Jim Holteen, Dimondale, from Finley's addressed the Board. He has been with Finley's for approximately 25 years. They moved down to that site approximately 12 years ago. The biggest issue is getting in and out of Edgewood. He challenged the Board to drive down there during lunch or during the evening or even during the week. Try a couple of different ways: come off 96 heading west and see how long it takes to get through that light, get on Edgwood Blvd. heading east. You will sit at that light for numerous light changes. It has gotten to the point now that when they have to leave during peak periods they plan their way in and out because it takes so long. If you come out of the main entranceway on Cedar St. and try to head north, it is impossible. Then you can go right-it's tricky- but you can get out. There have been a lot of accidents in that area. Their concern is that they still want to be accessible for people to come to their restaurant. They have a large senior citizen group that comes and dines with them. This will not help them. Applebee's is competition. Anyone who comes in and supplies a seat, it opens up the arena for more seats and more bodies. He is just saying that they need to find another spot on that end of town, not in their plaza. He knows that it won't help anybody trying to get in and out of that complex. Regarding parking,to come in on a Wednesday vs. a weekend is ludicrous. For them to come in on a Memorial weekend,they probably had the best scenario to get the numbers that they wanted. Normally, on sunny weekends during a holiday,their business has a tendency to drop 20-25%during those weekends vs. a normal weekend. He challenged the Board to come there during a holiday and tell him that it is not full. Whoever is saying that doesn't have any idea what they are talking about. Let Applebee's DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 11 come in and do their thing,just not in our plaza. Todd Paul, 3543 Raintree Court, Grand Rapids, MI, representing Finley's, addressed the Board. The take out scenario is a rising trend in the industry. Most restaurants are trying to figure out ways to get more take out business. That is a growing part of any restaurant today. Another part is while people that go to the mall do park in their lot,they could put signs up that state it is for Finley's only, but unless they will be enforcing it, it isn't realistic. Parking is an issue. People won't come to Finley's if they have to park far away to get to it. He respectfully requested the Board to reject this appeal. Mr. Cooley attempted to speak to the Board again. A. Frederick asked Board if they wished to hear from Mr. Cooley again. Seeing none,A. Frederick communicated to Mr. Cooley that the applicant is given one chance to speak. If Mr. Cooley wished to address the Board again, it would have to be during the Public Comment section of the meeting. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that without comment on the accuracy of the report that was put together on behalf of Applebee's-which she is very appreciative for-she had a question as to whether the opposition to this particular request for a variance has been given an effective amount of time to respond to it. They have raised questions about the accuracy which she, as a board member, have no way of determining whether it is fact or not. There have been an awful lot of questions raised by the opposition. Her reaction is that she would like to hear more, but she would like to hear more facts not more opinions that it was done wrong, or it's their big day, etc. They send out cards by way of the provisions of the code that they operate under. Those are normally enough time to give someone notice that something is being done and to come to the meeting to voice your opinion. But when you are talking about a situation of this magnitude,where you are looking at a variety of businesses who really have to come up with some good underlying facts to be able to persuade the Board one way or another, she thinks that the card system sometimes does not allow them enough time. V. Earhart made motion to table BZA-3546.99, 6250 S. Cedar to allow those who are interested to provide the Board with information that they can review at another board meeting and come to some conclusion on. Seconded by B. Burgess to table until next month's meeting. Unanimous voice vote to table case. A. Frederick stated that the case will be tabled until next month's meeting on August 12, 1999. He believes that will give everyone ample opportunity to take a look at the fairly technical facts that have been presented here and will give everyone an opportunity to comment again as well as being able to comment during the Public Comment section. J. Ruff asked question about Mr. Homan's statement about only occupants receiving the card. He clarified off of the computer printout in the case file of who exactly received postcards. V. Earhart asked if copies of the report that was done by Mr. Cooley would be made available to the individuals who might want to be responding? J. Ruff stated that the office has one copy that people can pay for copies of or they can get them directly from the applicant. J. Ruff stated that there was a letter from Mr. Homan, Willingham & Cote, regarding this request. River City Foods/Tri City Foods are formally requesting that the applicant's request for variance be denied. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 12 J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Richard Cooley,Vlahakis Companies, 9290 Riverside, addressed the Board. Based on the case that was just tabled, he doesn't want to rebut any of the information given. He did want to correct something that Mr. Homan implied and was inaccurate about. Mr. Homan interrupted Mr. Cooley asking Board if the case was tabled. A. Frederick explained that it was tabled, but this is the Public Comment portion of the meeting and anybody can comment on any topic of business during Public Comment whether it is on the record or tabled. Mr. Cooley wanted to add information for the benefit of the Board. They are not pleased that this case was tabled as the Board may well understand. Applebee's has a time line that they are trying to follow. Public approval processes often clash. Applebee's is disappointed that it was tabled, but he understands why the Board did that. He is not trying to rebut anything that was said. As far as he is concerned,the study that was done was thorough and accurate. The staff agreed with it and recommended approval. He will let their submitted information stand on its own merits. But he wanted the Board to know that prior to the time they submitted the application and the support document dated June 17, 1999, he attempted to contact the manager at Pizza Hut and Finley's. He happened to stop in during the day on that day at a time when neither of them were on the premises. He did call back later and left a message for both managers of those respected restaurants stating his name and phone number and that he was doing a parking study on the current shopping center for the purpose of determining if there was adequate parking there for the present and for an anticipated new use. For the record, no one from either of those restaurants returned his calls. He was simply asking to be able to verify the information that he had about the size of their restaurants,the amount of usable floor space which would be utilized in calculating required parking, number of employees on a larger shift, etc. To the best of his knowledge,the information that they presented is accurate. For them to suggest that they didn't know anything about what was going on is inaccurate. They knew in the middle of June that Mr. Cooley was studying the center. If the criticism is that the Planning Office's notification process is inadequate,then that is a separate issue that the Planning Department needs to deal with. B. Scott Adams,Vlahakis Companies, 1388 Hatch, Okemos, MI 48864, addressed the Board. He resided in Holt for the previous 8 years before moving to Okemos one year ago. In response to the attorney's defamation of the picture of the property, he wanted to say that he is a representative of the local area. With respect to the attorney and his local knowledge of the shopping center, he didn't think that he accurately portrayed himself as an individual who lived in the area and that did have that experience. With regards to living there and in the enjoyment of the shopping center, he uses the credit union on a regular basis. The traffic up near the credit union is in and out traffic on a regular basis. Parking is not an issue. You can always find a parking space within 10 parking spaces of the door. He does use it on a regular basis. In other aspects due to restaurants, he did want to see as a member of that part of town,the opportunity to use his discretion as to where he wanted to eat. He personally went after Applebee's in response to getting them to that side of town because he didn't have the time on his lunch hour to drive 10 miles over to another location. The issue of parking in that facility with respect to having that location improved, he believes is diminished by the enjoyment of the people in the area that can use that business. He goes to Celebration Cinema because he likes that area, but he can't eat there. He appreciated the Board's time. C. Richard Westcott, 1204 Gould Rd., Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. He did get the DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 13 message from the gentleman regarding the parking survey. But it was reported to him that it was from the City of Lansing that was doing a survey of their parking facility. At the time he spoke with the Director of Operations, he was told to let them contact him again -which never happened -because if it was someone representing themselves from the City of Lansing,they will have credentials to back it up. If credentials couldn't be presented,then they would not participate in the survey. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of June 10, 1999 R. McCloud requested a correction in her name. In the minutes under"Present", it has McCloud, but in the voting sections it is Danley. R. Korbakis requested a correction on page 3- her statement at the top should have been a question, not a statement. B. Burgess moved to approve minutes with corrections. Seconded by G. Hilts. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. R. Korbakis requested excused absence for September 9. 1999 meeting. E. Horne moved to accept absence. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to accept absence. B. Zoning Ordinance Revisions: V. Earhart moved to direct the Planning Staff to address a letter to the appropriate people regarding the fact that the Board is getting larger property sizes and that the building footprints and sizes are not necessarily keeping up with that. Also we should begin to look at the scale of the house and the garage so that it looks right- aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with the neighborhood. Seconded by E. Horne. General discussion on supporting motion and general development ensued. B. Burgess asked a procedural question. His personal preference is that if there is some written document that says that the BZA are saying this, not just that it should be done. He thinks that if the Board feels strongly about something,we should take an unusual action being writing a letter to catch people's attention that this is something the Board is concerned about. V. Earhart suggested that maybe there is a need for two motions: A motion that states "We,the Board of Zoning Appeals agree that we are in favor of having these kinds of things reviewed because . . . . ..and then a motion saying "send that on in the form of a letter". B. Burgess wants it stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals thinks that it NEEDS to be done. G. Hilts stated that in 1985 or 1986 when they made garage sizes allowably bigger,they got into a lot of variances over garage size until the code finally got to expand it. He believes that the Board is looking at the same thing here again. General discussion ensued regarding how communication should go,who it should go to, etc. J. Ruff suggested that a letter be directed to the Planning Board. The first step would be for him to do the research and make recommendations. Secondly, he would bring it DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 1999 PAGE 14 before the BZA to review for approval. The next step will be to formalize the recommendation and bring it before the Planning Board for a public hearing. After that, finalize the language for City Council. Unanimous voice vote to issue letter based on above motion. C. E. Horne stated that she was concerned that through the years, BZA has fought hard to get sufficient amount of parking for all of the shopping centers and malls, and now they are seeing these developers try to come in and overdevelop some of these areas. She was wondering if the Board needs to sit down and think about it and ask if this is a good way to go. If you realize that this particular shopping center has had many different major anchors of businesses throughout the years. She is concerned that if we are going to allow them to do some of these things,we might be causing some problems in the future. Will this create a precedent? J. Ruff stated that first of all,when it comes to garages,that's one thing;when it comes to shopping centers,we don't have a market on shopping centers in Lansing. He thinks the Board has done a good and appropriate job of evaluating each of these on a case by case basis. Yes,there are other developable areas down on the strip of Cedar St., not very many though. General discussion ensued regarding redevelopments, south end of town. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator DRAFT COPY Draft to Clerk 06/30/99 Approved 07/08/99 To Clerk 07/09/99 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 12 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS J U N E 10, 1999, 7:30 P.M. CLt�Y COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by A. Frederick at 7:30 p.m. A. Frederick read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick R. Korbakis R. McCloud J. Ruff stated that V. Earhart phoned the office earlier in the day requesting an excused absence due to illness. Moved by E. Horne to excuse absence. Seconded by G. Hilts. Motion carried. Staff: J. Ruff J. Sturdevant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Approved as written. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3539.99.429-457 E. Edgewood J. Sturdevant presented the case. He referred to the staff report as well as aerial photographs and site plans for the property. It is the Southbrook Villa Apartments on Edgewood Blvd. on the north side approximately% mile west from Cedar St. It is a multiple family residential development zoned DM-1. It is approximately 500 feet wide by 1400 feet deep. It is a 12-acre site. The applicant is essentially requesting to put up a fence around three sides of the property. The current zoning code permits fences up to 6 feet in height in the side and rear yard. In the front yard it would be limited to 4 feet in height for a fence that is at least 75% open space such as a chain link or picket fence. The applicant is requesting a variance of 2 feet in the height of the fence to go up to 8 feet with a chain link fence around the side and rear yards. The front yard extends approximately 50 feet back from the public right of way before the side yard would begin. The applicant has requested this because they have had trouble with trespassing and children going back and forth between various apartment complexes. Vandalism is also an issue. This is a security matter. The applicant has tried to work with the police department to resolve many of these issues. The police have actually suggested a taller fence. Ms. Donna Wynant, who prepared the report, has recommended approval for a 2 foot variance and did not recommend approval of the 4 foot variance in the front yard area. Instead she recommended a variance of 2 feet to allow for a 6 foot fence in the front yard. These recommendations are made with the understanding that landscaping be retained along the perimeter of the site whenever possible. Because the fence is higher than 6 feet, it would require a building permit. R. Korbakis asked about the map and site plan and where exactly the rear yard and front yard separate and where the fence would be. J. Sturdevant stated that according to the code,the front yard can be required to be a maximum of 50 feet back from the front property line. Everything else is considered side or rear yard. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 2 J. Ruff showed areas on the map where the yards are exactly. James Graves, 457 E. Edgewood Blvd., Southbrook Villa, addressed the Board. He stated that the police are trying to clean up a recurring problem of malignant residents. He stated that last summer a resident of an adjacent property drove off of the adjacent property over the line, up a berm and into one of his senior townhouses. He referred to map for location. He doesn't know if a fence has ever been up there. He stated that the police have expressed an interest in having him do something about the fence. He stated that he got MSHDA to go along with the fence. He has had two senior citizens attacked in the parking lot even though there is plenty of light in the parking lots. R. Korbakis asked if the primary purpose in putting up the fence was to prevent trespassing? Where is the bulk of the trespassing? J. Graves answered stating that if you drew a line from Tony's Party Store at Miller& Cedar St.to Washington & Edgewood Blvd. ,the back end of their property is right through a natural flow. It was brought to his attention by the police. He stated that they are planning to put in pine trees to help with noise as well. R. Korbakis asked if the trespassing was coming primarily from the back end? J. Graves stated that was correct based on complaints from neighbors and observations from police. A. Frederick asked about the assaults on the senior citizens. What were the details? J. Graves stated that they both happened at night after hours. It was in the senior parking lot. They have a camera that pans the lot, but it isn't enough to give recognition. He was hoping that it was a regular young criminal that was known to the police and they might recognize him. But it wasn't even good enough for that. A. Frederick asked how long ago these incidents happened? J. Graves stated that they were either both last summer or one was late last summer and one was in the spring, but he doesn't remember the dates. They were both within the last 12 months. J. Ruff read communications in regards to the appeal. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts believes that it is reasonable to put the fence in. He believes that a fence would detour traffic around the complex and resolve many of the problems. A. Frederick stated that the last appeal that was heard in request of a variance for a fence - his decision on that was based on public safety and personal property issues. It appears that same issue exists here. One of the comments that was made at that earlier meeting was that this might be opening up a floodgate of appeals for fences and variances for fences, but he feels that this meets his standard of simply not being a case of blocking people out. There are specific situations of property and personal safety. He will support this as well. G. Hilts agreed. R. Korbakis asked if the trespassing is unique in this situation. Do any other board members have any comments as to the uniqueness of this problem to this particular piece of properly and not to general conditions in the area. G. Hilts stated that it is much easier to cut across than go around because there is nothing BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 1u, 1999 PAGE 3 there to stop anyone. The property is long and wide. J. Ruff stated that he has experienced several types of trespassing issues for various reasons. Many times there is a general lack of respect for property and property value. In some cases, as a staff,they are concerned about segregating individuals from neighbors. They want to try to build community in neighborhoods. With a large property such as this with a number of units,there is already a built in neighborhood. They are not being separated from themselves,they are actually giving themselves some security as a neighborhood group instead of just individual residences. This is one of the reasons that the staff supports this request. E. Horne asked what some of the neighborhood's concerns were? Was it only trespassing or were there more issues? J. Ruff stated that he had heard there were people that were happy about having a fence. E. Horne moved to have the petitioner speak regarding this. Supported by G. Hilts. J. Graves stated that when he sent the package to the Planning Office, he got all of the addresses that abut Southbrook Villa that are single-family on Gardenia. He sent them a letter on what he wanted to do and was seeking a response from them. He received two responses, both favorable. E. Horne stated that if people do not cut through that area,then it is a safety question. Are there sidewalks along Miller Rd. where they would have to walk? Or are the children bused? General discussion regarding easements on the property,the original site plan, master plan, etc. J. Ruff stated that he doesn't believe that an easement was ever set up for this development. He stated that there was a sidewalk along Edgewood, along Cedar and along Miller. E. Horne stated that she doesn't want to create a hazard by taking care of one problem that ultimately creates another problem. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3539.99,429-457 E. Edgewood Blvd.,a 2'variance to allow for an 8'fence in the rear yard. Also recommend that the 4'variance for the fence in the front yard be denied. Also further recommend that a variance of 2' be approved to allow for a 6'fence in the front yard. These recommendations are made with the understanding that: 1. Landscaping be retained along the periphery wherever possible 2. Any necessary building permits be applied for any fence taller than 6' in height Seconded by B. Burgess. J. Ruff stated, for clarification,that the application is not for a fence along Edgewood Blvd. The fence is to go up the two sides and rear. There has not been a request for the front edge along Edgewood. They are talking about the front setback being that first 50' up the sides. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 4 VOTE Yea Na Korbakis X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X McCloud X ,Burgess X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3539.99,429-457 E. Edgewood Blvd. has been approved with conditions for the 8'fence in the side and rear yards and the 6' high fence in the two front yard areas along the east and west edge for the first 50' of the property. B. BZA-3540.99, 2817 Aurora Dr. J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Valarie Milligan of 2817 Aurora Dr., Lansing,the owner of the property,to request a 20' rear yard setback where normally a 30' rear yard setback is required. The property is zoned "CUP" and it falls under the A-Residential zoning district requirements as such. The property is at the end of the cul de sac known as Aurora Dr. It has narrow frontage on Aurora with an odd shape based on its orientation. There are single family residential properties to the north, a park to the south and single family to the east and west and the zoning reflects the land uses. The request here involves the removal of an upper level deck which is 8'in depth. They have requested to replace that with an 18 x 18 four season room on the rear of the house. This would result in the 20' rear yard setback. Section 1248.09 of the code requires 30'setback. Therefore, this is a requested variance of 10 feet. The house itself is 38'from the rear property line. The requested addition at 18'would bring it to 20'from the rear lot line. Because this is at the end of a culdesac and the lots are somewhat odd shaped,they have a tendency to have converging or different rear lot lines- not an even setback along the rear of the structure. Obviously, a long narrow addition could be built to replace more of a square room. But then it doesn't necessarily meet the intent of how the interior is laid out- windows, etc. Staff sees the practical difficulty in trying to improve the property with the addition. The effects on adjoining property should not be significant due to the fact that they are adjacent to a park. Realistically, it will not block any significant views around the property. The addition appears to be reasonable. Staff has recommended approval of the 10' rear yard variance to allow the single story 18'x 18'four season room addition. Valarie Milligan, 2817 Aurora Dr., Lansing addressed the Board. She has made herself available to answer questions by the Board. J. Ruff stated that he would like an explanation for the Board as to the reason for the size of the room and its location. V. Milligan stated that this is an addition. They are adding a four seasons room - 18'x 18'. They intend on using it as part of their living area. It adds to the value of house. Their neighbors are in total support of it. It is that shape due to the lot shape being so irregular- pie shape. She stated that the room itself will not be an odd shape when it is done. It will be squared off. J. Ruff asked why it could not be 8'deep and longer? V. Milligan stated that she doesn't want it that way. She wants a regular size room that she can put furnishings in. She doesn't want it long and narrow. E. Horne asked if applicant had a plan as to what the four seasons room will look like? BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 5 V. Milligan stated that she does have a plan. She stated that it basically will have windows with screens all around. It will be air conditioned and heated. It is going to have a ceiling fan,A-frame roof. It will be landscaped off. E. Horne stated that she drove past the property today and saw that they have such a wonderful view from the outside with all the wooded area. She wondered how aesthetically it would fit in with the house. V. Milligan stated that it will not look out of character. It will fit in with the scheme of the whole neighborhood. R. Korbakis stated that she was trying to understand why the applicant eliminated the other way of doing the room-having it longer as opposed to having a square room. Was there something specific that helped make the decision? V. Milligan stated that the house itself is called a raised ranch. On that side of the house, it you ran the room down long and narrow,you would cover up a bedroom window and a bathroom window. That is where all of her landscaping is, at that end. That would take up too much of the yard going that long distance. By going out 18'x 18', it makes the room more livable. There would be a better area of a room rather than going so long and narrow. Aesthetically, it would have no resale value if you went long and narrow with the room. G. Hilts stated that his mother had a four seasons type room on the front of her house. It went the entire width of the house. He agrees that the applicant's idea is better. Because it is so long, it doesn't give as much use to all that space as it would being more square. A. Fredericks asked if the applicant could have arranged it so that they could shift the room towards the east? V. Milligan stated that no they couldn't because where they would like to put the room is coming off of a family room that already has two large sliding doors. It has a concrete pad there already. It is set up for an addition. Where Mr. Fredericks would want it put would entail tearing into concrete blocks. It would put it more to the corner of the house which wouldn't look good at all. They did think of that, but decided that it would look odd on the opposite side of the house. A. Frederick asked what rooms were on the opposite side of the house? V. Milligan stated that there is a bedroom, bathroom and on the upper level there is another bedroom and bathroom. A. Frederick asked J. Ruff if he could tell by looking at this whether or not it would meet the setback if it was shifted? J. Ruff stated that it probably would not quite meet it. J. Ruff read communications into record for this case. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff stated that from their standpoint, interior layout can create hardships and practical difficulties when you are trying to make improvements to a property. Also, lot shape and size can attribute to that as well. When you have a pie shaped lot such as this, many times you have to push the house back further to get the necessary dimensional setback for the width of a structure or for the building area. When they look at a subdivision for something like this,they try to make sure that there is 60' of width at the building line. Sometimes that building line is at 25' back or possibly further so that you can get at least a reasonable size structure within the setbacks. Sometimes you get a situation where the only thing you can add to something of this nature would BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 6 be a very shallow room which would not accomplish the goals or purpose of the room. Also, because there is a garage in this situation that sits out front, because of the positioning of the lot, you force that structure back further to try to have an enclosed area for vehicles, etc. This is typical for a cul de sac end lot, but don't always have appeals for that. A. Frederick stated that the practical difficulty to him is the shape of the lot. If you look at the lot next door, it is clear to him that if the neighbor wanted to put that same addition on,they wouldn't have any trouble meeting it. It looks like a lot of the other houses in the neighborhood wouldn't have any trouble meeting it either. He can't see any reason to deny it based on this hardship. E. Horne moved that the BZA recommends that the request for a 10'variance in the rear yard be approved to allow a single story 18'x 18'four seasons room addition for BZA-3540.99, 2817 Aurora. Seconded by R. McCloud Danle . VOTE Yea Na Earhart Korbakis X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X McCloud X Burgess X Motion carried by a vote of 6 -0, BZA-3540.99, 2817 Aurora has been approved. C. BZA-3541.99,2212 Grant J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Michael Ezzo to construct an attached carport and 2nd story addition V from the side property line that is yet to be created at 2212 Grant St. They have proposed to add 3' of land to the property from this neighbor at 2220 Grant St.which would make the subject property 50'wide. Section 1248.08(b)(2)(B) of the Zoning Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 10% of the lot width. In this case, it would be required to be 5'for the setback once the additional 3' of land is added, if it is added. This is,therefore, a request of 4'variance from the sideyard setback. There was an omission and one error in the original mailing. It was corrected with a second mailing. The second point is that, in essence, by creating this carport along the side of the house with rooms above it would create 1084 square feet of what would be considered accessory structure. There is a garage structure that was converted to a work room. It was a detached structure that was converted in the rear of the property. With that, all of the structures add up to approximately 1084 square feet of accessory structure which exceeds the maximum of 1000 square feet as allowed in Section 1248.03. There is an 84 square foot variance requested there. The addition is proposed to be 1'from the side property line that would be created, 5 ' is required. There is a 4'variance requested. Please note that the owner has an offer to purchase the additional 3' of land. Obviously, any variance would be contingent upon that purchase as well as approval of a lot split. The property can be divided as such. The property at 2220 Grant St. has enough width to sell off 3' by the subdivision regulations. That would not require anything other than administrative approval of a lot split which this Board does not normally evaluate anyway. The difficulty here is that they have approximately 10'of property adjacent to the house to the property line now. To create a carport or covered structure and to get the posts in, etc.,they require additional room. They anticipate building out further onto the property which would allow them to still gain access through the 10'wide driveway. With the additional land,they would have approximately 13'from the edge of the existing house to the property line. The 12' addition would then leave V to the edge of the property as proposed. The variance there is 4'. Up above the carport would be rooms that would expand the upstairs of the home. There is a floor plan diagram of that. The Board also has a front elevation of how this would look as well as a side view where the addition would be made-south side as shown. The BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 7 applicants have made additions to the property over time in attempting to improve the home. As such,they have very little room to make any type of addition to cover their vehicles. In some respects, based upon what they have done here,there appears to be some self induced hardship as a result of the various improvements. Yet,the property is narrow and difficult to find room for any further house expansion. The addition would be 18' from the neighbor's home to the south. In that respect, staff believes this to be a reasonable request and should be heard by the Board. The property is zoned B- Residential. It is presently a 47'wide lot, 139.3'deep, proposed to be 50'wide. The surrounding land is very similar in size. The house, as stated previously, is on two lots wide enough for a lot division to accomplish this. Staff recommends that the request for the variance with the side yard setback be approved conditionally,with the approval of a lot split and the deeding of the land to the owner. A lot split application must be applied for and approved through the Planning Office and recorded with the Register of Deeds. Also a written agreement, preferably a recorded easement, be obtained from the neighbor at 2220 Grant St.to allow maintenance on the side of the house,which would be 1'from the side property line. The addition,thirdly,would be constructed with the appropriate fire rating of wall per the building code requirements. A building that close to the property line, a neighbor could build to within 6'of the property line as well and in doing so,there is some fire rating requirements that are necessary. B. Burgess stated that in the beginning the report mentioned the 120 square foot variance based on the accessory structures, but there is nothing in the recommendation that states anything about that. J. Ruff stated that it should state 84 square foot variance. Thanks for the comment. General discussion on recommendation ensued. Michael Ezzo, 2212 Grant St., Lansing addressed the Board. He stated that he needs to amend what he is requesting. They are not going to be doing the land split with Mr. Kowalski. What they are requesting now is the addition to be 10'wide, not 12' and to just butt up to the property so it would be a variance of 47, not 4.1'. The 84 square feet would not be needed because they would be cutting back exactly 84 square feet on the property. It will now be exactly 1000 square feet according to the zoning. So, what they are asking for is now 4.7'variance. J. Ruff stated that practically what they would have to do is start over on this because of what they were looking at-a setback as proposed and advertised as a 4'variance. To go up to the property line really should be renoticed and reheard. If that is the desire of the applicant, J. Ruff proposes to accept public comment tonight so that people's time is not wasted and consider this as part of the record for a future case if Mr. Ezzo reapplies. M. Ezzo stated that he would like to submit three more names of endorsements from neighbors. He did take a picture of the valley in the back of the house. He showed it to the Board. Leon Williams, 2119 Ray St., Lansing addressed the Board. He stated that he has known Mr. Ezzo for about 3 years. He has done nothing but bring beauty to the neighborhood. He thinks that anyone who tries to improve his home or neighborhood should be considered for any additions that they want to make. There are many houses in the neighborhood who are trying to improve. He believes that Mr. Ezzo should be given consideration for what he is trying to do for the neighborhood. Ed Kowalski, 2220 Grant St., Lansing addressed the Board. He built his house in 1948. It took him two years to find the lot that he wanted to build on and he doesn't w't want to part with any part of it. He is here to protect his property. J. Ruff read communication from Mr. Kowalski to the Board. He also read other communications regarding this case. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 8 A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated point of order. How does the Board dispense this case? J. Ruff stated that the applicant needs to reapply. The Board does not need to make a decision. He suggested that the Board accept the withdrawal based upon the testimony of the applicant. G. Hilts stated that the applicant will need some way to get access if he is going to build to the lot line. He will have to get an easement before Mr. Hilts is agreeable to granting any type of variance. General discussion on withdrawal ensued. E. Horne moved to accept withdrawal for BZA-3541.99,2212 Grant St. Seconded by G. Hilts. Unanimous voice vote to accept withdrawal. D. BZA-3542.99, 3300 Blk. S. ML King Jr Blvd J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that this property is located near the northeast corner of M.L. King Jr. Blvd. and Holmes Rd. It is an L-shaped property that surrounds on two sides the Shell Gas Station directly on the corner. It has frontage on both Holmes Rd. and M.L. King Jr. Blvd. It is proposed for construction of a new Burger King restaurant. Basically, it is a chunk of property carved out of the parking lot of the EDS Office Building that sets behind the corner further to the north and east. It is approximately .97 of an acre. It is all zoned F commercial as are surrounding properties. There are a couple of properties across the street west of M.L. King Jr. Blvd and south of Holmes Rd. that are zoned E-2 and H-Light Industrial, but it is all commercial zoning in that area. The applicant had previously submitted plans for development of this site to the Planning Department. Subsequently,the Planning Department reviewed them for whether or not they would impact the parking that is needed for the EDS Office Building. We can't approve taking these spaces ces out of use for EDS if it makes EDS below what the code would require. However,they determined that they were excess spaces. Therefore,they can be changed and used for something else. The applicant has purchased it and is in the process of getting construction drawings approved for the Burger King restaurant. It will have frontage both on M.L. King Jr. Blvd. and Holmes Rd. The Zoning Code allows for 2 signs for businesses that are on the corner of major and minor arterial roads-ML King being a major arterial and Holmes Rd. being a minor arterial road. However, because it is not directly on the corner,the interpretation of the Sign Code is that this would only be permitted 1 ground pole sign per the current code. That is why the request is before the Board for a second ground pole sign for this property. Access to the site is-there is one from Holmes Rd. and also one entrance from M.L. King Jr. Blvd. However,the exit from the property would actually be through the adjacent driveway that is part of the EDS Office Complex to the north. That is how you could exit onto M.L. King Jr. Blvd. to go either northbound or southbound. In addition,you could turn right or left onto Holmes Rd. Basically,this site meshes into the EDS circulation of that parking lot. The sign that is proposed is essentially 23'tall, 8'square with a 4x8 reader board underneath. They would typically be permitted one of these on either frontage. They have requested that a second one be allowed at the second frontage. Because the site has a unique circulation pattern and because access to it is from the two different roads, it does have a unique set of circumstances that go along with it. Staff believes that by permitting the second sign,that it will actually make traffic circulation safer. It will make it easier for motorists to find the entrance to the restaurant. Therefore, it would actually improve traffic safety. Staff supports this request. G. Hilts stated that he was afraid of setting precedent with new businesses that may have other points of access. J. Sturdevant stated that, in this case, it is justifiable because of the way the traffic circulation is. He is not concerned with other businesses trying the same thing. G. Hilts stated that he was concerned with other businesses doing the same type of thing. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 9 General discussion ensued regarding entrances/exits. Ms. Jean Ann Styn-DeShano, 3008 Linden Park Dr., Bay City and Erik Fix, 25800 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 750, Southfield, MI acting as agent addressed the Board. J. Styn-DeShano showed site plan and explained to Board. E. Horne stated that those roads around Holmes Rd./Washington/M.L. King Jr. Blvd. are extremely busy most of the time. She does not approve of having entrance and egress on Holmes Rd. She believes that it would be a big mistake due to the traffic patterns in that area. J. Ruff stated that there is a curb cut in that vicinity now. General discussion ensued regarding neighboring businesses, other businesses with the same type of entrance/egress, etc. J. Ruff asked what was going to happen with the existing Burger King site? Through his experience as Zoning Administrator, he has had to deal with various complaints of different things due to the fact that it butts up to a residential area to the west. Extra fencing had to be put up there as well as a guard rail along the fencing to keep cars from hitting the fence. E. Fix stated that store will be demolished when the new one is built. It will replace the existing Burger King. R. Korbakis asked why they decided to move down the street? J. Styn-Deshano stated that it is a better location, newer store, better facilities. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff stated that when he looked at the two sign issue, he reviewed the report. He wondered if it was reasonable to have a smaller sign at one of the locations. He wondered if a cleaner,taller sign was in order in this situation simply because it will better identify the location. He believes that it would make for a better environment. R. Korbakis asked who ultimately determines the size of signs? J. Ruff stated that the size of sign is variable. The closer the sign ign is to the road,the lower and smaller in area the sign is supposed to be. The further away the sign is from the road, it can be taller and bigger. It was designed as a sliding scale. At this height and size, it needs to be 23' back from the property line. These signs won't be right out to the property line. They would be back into a landscaped area. He referred to the site plan. B. Burgess stated that it is probably important to have signage on both. The Board won't have any control on where the restaurant is there or not. So even if the Board doesn't like the traffic patterns, it isn't part of their decision. He stated that there is no tourist traffic, but the people that use it will know that it is there and won't pay much attention to the signage. He will support this request. A. Frederick stated that he is having two difficulties with this. One is the practical difficulty. To him, from the way the site plan looks that the store is really on M.L. King Blvd. If there wasn't an L- shaped part that sticks out to Holmes Rd.,this wouldn't be an issue at all. It just simply wouldn't be allowed. The other problem that he is having is that he is not convinced that if the Board didn't allow the store to have the additional sign that they still wouldn't be able to get value out of their property and be able to conduct their business. He cannot support this variance until he saw a real practical difficulty. G. Hilts agrees with A. Frederick. B. Burgess asked about MDOT's limitations on their ability to exit? BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGEI0 G. Hilts stated that they don't need the sign to get out. General discussion ensued regarding entrance/exit. General discussion ensued regarding having a smaller sign in the area. G. Hilts moved that BZA-3542.99, 3300 Blk. S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. be denied. Seconded by E. Horne. R. Korbakis stated that the shape is somewhat unique but she agrees that the issue is whether there is a practical difficulty. One sign on M.L. King would provide notice of business and not having the sign would not unnecessarily burden the business. E. Horne stated that the Board is not doing anything to deter the use of the property. They will have their own identification from M.L. King Jr. Blvd. which is the primary entrance. VOTE Yea Na Korbakis X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X McCloud X , Burgess X Motion carried by a vote of 6 -0, BZA-3542.99, 3300 Blk. S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. has been denied. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. V. PUBLIC COC COMMENT A. Mrs. Jean Styn-DeShano, 3008 Linden Park Dr., Bay City, MI addressed the Board. Her comment is that this is not a self-imposed situation. The city was nice enough to give them entrance and exit off of M.L. King Jr. Blvd. which MDOT denied. They would like to know if the Board would consider a smaller sign on Holmes Rd. Basically,they are trying to prevent the traffic off of M.L. King Jr. Blvd. which MDOT discussed with them that they do not want. MDOT wants the main traffic off of Holmes Rd. G. Hilts stated that if he is going north, he will not turn onto Holmes and then turn across traffic to get in. He would get in off of M.L. King Jr. Blvd. E. Horne stated that the only problem the applicant will have is the people coming down Holmes Rd. trying to make a turn going east. That is where the bottle neck will be. Turning left at the light would be much better. She also believes that it would be a neighborhood problem. Traffic patterns and history would need to be discussed for that area. J. Ruff stated that the applicant is always welcome to reappeal with a new request, something different or substantially new information as the Board allows. The same appeal will not have to be heard by the Board unless there was new and significant information that developed with regard to the hardship or practical difficulty. One basic premise here is that the request was for a second ground pole sign which you would have BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 1u, 1999 PAGEl1 to see the significance in the difference there. It wasn't a dimensional problem. R. McCloud stated that she is an avid Burger King fan. What she looks for is the big sign, but she is more drawn to the directional signs because they are at eye level. She believes that customers really look at the directional signs more than the big signs. G. Hilts stated that the directional signs are better. Ground pole signs,very often, are not where the driveways are. People look for the directional signs. J. Styn-DeShano stated that she agrees with that, but people coming from Holmes Rd. won't be able to see the big sign because it will be in front of the Burger King. G. Hilts stated that he doesn't see sufficient difficulty to allow for a second sign. He is extremely reluctant to do anything that will set a precedent where there would be many more businesses/people in the middle of a block coming up with something to try to get a second sign. B. Burgess stated that the building can be seen by Holmes Rd. He referred to the site plans regarding any directional signs off of Holmes Rd. General discussion ensued regarding what can be seen from Holmes Rd. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of March 11, 1999 E. Horne moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by B. Burgess. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. B. Minutes of May 13, 1999 E. Horne move to approve minutes as written. Seconded by G. Hilts. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. J. Ruff made comments regarding Governor's Club development. B. Thanks for the ball game. -Board members commented how much they enjoyed the ball game and expressed their thanks. VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 06/30/99 Approved E. To Clerk ? fill _� hr! �. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 12 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS LAMS!=!G CITY CLERK JUNE 10, 1999, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by A. Frederick at 7:30 p.m. A. Frederick read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick R. Korbakis R. McCloud J. Ruff stated that V. Earhart phoned the office earlier in the day requesting an excused absence due to illness. Moved by E. Horne to excuse absence. Seconded by G. Hilts. Motion carried. Staff: J. Ruff J. Sturdevant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Approved as written. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3539.99.429-457 E. Edgewood J. Sturdevant presented the case. He referred to the staff report as well as aerial photographs and site plans for the property. It is the Southbrook Villa Apartments on Edgewood Blvd. on the north side approximately'/< mile west from Cedar St. It is a multiple family residential development zoned DM-1. It is approximately 500 feet wide by 1400 feet deep. It is a 12-acre site. The applicant is essentially requesting to put up a fence around three sides of the property. The current zoning code permits fences up to 6 feet in height in the side and rear yard. In the front yard it would be limited to 4 feet in height for a fence that is at least 75% open space such as a chain link or picket fence. The applicant is requesting a variance of 2 feet in the height of the fence to go up to 8 feet with a chain link fence around the side and rear yards. The front yard extends approximately 50 feet back from the public right of way before the side yard would begin.The applicant has requested this because they have had trouble with trespassing and children going back and forth between various apartment complexes. Vandalism is also an issue. This is a security matter. The applicant has tried to work with the police department to resolve many of these issues. The police have actually suggested a taller fence. Ms. Donna Wynant, who prepared the report, has recommended approval for a 2 foot variance and did not recommend approval of the 4 foot variance in the front yard area. Instead she recommended a variance of 2 feet to allow for a 6 foot fence in the front yard. These recommendations are made with the understanding that landscaping be retained along the perimeter of the site whenever possible. Because the fence is higher than 6 feet, it would require a building permit. R. Korbakis asked about the map and site plan and where exactly the rear yard and front yard separate and where the fence would be. J. Sturdevant stated that according to the code,the front yard can be required to be a maximum of 50 feet back from the front property line. Everything else is considered side or rear yard. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 2 maximum of 50 feet back from the front property line. Everything else is considered side or rear yard. J. Ruff showed areas on the map where the yards are exactly. James Graves, 457 E. Edgewood Blvd., Southbrook Villa, addressed the Board. He stated that the police are trying to clean up a recurring problem of malignant residents. He stated that last summer a resident of an adjacent property drove off of the adjacent property over the line, up a berm and into one of his senior townhouses. He referred to map for location. He doesn't know if a fence has ever been up there. He stated that the police have expressed an interest in having him do something about the fence. He stated that he got MSHDA to go along with the fence. He has had two senior citizens attacked in the parking lot even though there is plenty of light in the parking lots. R. Korbakis asked if the primary purpose in putting up the fence was to prevent trespassing? Where is the bulk of the trespassing? J. Graves answered stating that if you drew a line from Tony's Party Store at Miller& Cedar St.to Washington & Edgewood Blvd. ,the back end of their property is right through a natural flow. It was brought to his attention by the police. He stated that they are planning to put in pine trees to help with noise as well. R. Korbakis asked if the trespassing was coming primarily from the back end? J. Graves stated that was correct based on complaints from neighbors and observations from police. A. Frederick asked about the assaults on the senior citizens. What were the details? J. Graves stated that they both happened at night after hours. It was in the senior parking lot. They have a camera that pans the lot, but it isn't enough to give recognition. He was hoping that it was a regular young criminal that was known to the police and they might recognize him. But it wasn't even good enough for that. A. Frederick asked how long ago these incidents happened? J. Graves stated that they were either both last summer or one was late last summer and one was in the spring, but he doesn't remember the dates. They were both within the last 12 months. J. Ruff read communications in regards to the appeal. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts believes that it is reasonable to put the fence in. He believes that a fence would detour traffic around the complex and resolve many of the problems. A. Frederick stated that the last appeal that was heard in request of a variance for a fence - his decision on that was based on public safety and personal property issues. It appears that same issue exists here. One of the comments that was made at that earlier meeting was that this might be opening up a floodgate of appeals for fences and variances for fences, but he feels that this meets his standard of simply not being a case of blocking people out. There are specific situations of property and personal safety. He will support this as well. G. Hilts agreed. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 3 R. Korbakis stated that the trespassing is unique in this situation. Do any other board members have any comments as to the uniqueness of this problem to this particular piece of property and not to general conditions in the area. G. Hilts stated that it is much easier to cut across than go around because there is nothing there to stop anyone. The property is long and wide. J. Ruff stated that he has experienced several types of trespassing issues for various reasons. Many times there is a general lack of respect for property and property value. In some cases, as a staff,they are concerned about segregating individuals from neighbors. They want to try to build community in neighborhoods. With a large property such as this with a number of units,there is already a built in neighborhood. They are not being separated from themselves,they are actually giving themselves some security as a neighborhood group instead of just individual residences. This is one of the reasons that the staff supports this request. E. Horne asked what some of the neighborhood's concerns were? Was it only trespassing or were there more issues? J. Ruff stated that he had heard there were people that were happy about having a fence. E. Horne moved to have the petitioner speak regarding this. Supported by G. Hilts. J. Graves stated that when he sent the package to the Planning Office, he got all of the addresses that abut Southbrook Villa that are single-family on Gardenia. He sent them a letter on what he wanted to do and was seeking a response from them. He received two responses, both favorable. E. Horne stated that if people do not cut through that area,then it is a safety question. Are there sidewalks along Miller Rd. where they would have to walk? Or are the children bused? General discussion regarding easements on the property,the original site plan, master plan, etc. J. Ruff stated that he doesn't believe that an easement was ever set up for this development. He stated that there was a sidewalk along Edgewood, along Cedar and along Miller. E. Horne stated that she doesn't want to create a hazard by taking care of one problem that ultimately creates another problem. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3539.99,429-457 E. Edgewood Blvd.,a 2'variance to allow for an 8'fence in the rear yard. Also recommend that the 4'variance for the fence in the front yard be denied. Also further recommend that a variance of 2' be approved to allow for a 6'fence in the front yard. These recommendations are made with the understanding that: 1. Landscaping be retained along the periphery wherever possible 2. Any necessary building permits be applied for any fence taller than 6' in height Seconded by B. Burgess. J. Ruff stated, for clarification,that the application is not for a fence along Edgewood Blvd. The fence is to go up the two sides and rear. There has not been a request for the front edge along Edgewood. They are talking about the front setback being that first 50' up the sides. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 4 VOTE Yea Na Korbakis X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3539.99,429-457 E. Edgewood Blvd. has been approved with conditions for the 8'fence in the side and rear yards and the 6' high fence in the two front yard areas along the east and west edge for the first 50' of the property. B. BZA-3540 99 2817 Aurora Dr. J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Valarie Milligan of 2817 Aurora Dr., Lansing,the owner of the property,to request a 20' rear yard setback where normally a 30' rear yard setback is required. The property is zoned "CUP and it falls under the A-Residential zoning district requirements as such. The property is at the end of the cul de sac known as p Aurora Dr. It has narrow frontage on Aurora with an odd shape based on its orientation. There are single family residential properties to the north, a park to the south and single family to the east and west and the zoning reflects the land uses. The request here involves the removal of an upper level deck which is 8'in depth. They have requested to replace that with an 18 x 18 four season room on the rear of the house. This would result in the 20' rear yard setback. Section 1248.09 of the code requires 30'setback. Therefore, this is a requested variance of 10 feet. The house itself is 38'from the rear property line. The requested addition at 18'would bring it to 20'from the rear lot line. Because this is at the end of a culdesac and the lots are somewhat odd shaped,they have a tendency to have converging or different rear lot lines- not an even setback along the rear of the structure. Obviously, a long narrow addition could be built to replace more of a square room. But then it doesn't necessarily meet the intent of how the interior is laid out- windows, etc. Staff sees the practical difficulty in trying to improve the property with the addition. The effects on adjoining property should not be significant due to the fact that they are adjacent to a park. Realistically, it will not block any significant views around the property. The addition appears to be reasonable. Staff has recommended approval of the 10' rear yard variance to allow the single story 18'x 18'four season room addition. Valarie Milligan, 2817 Aurora Dr., Lansing addressed the Board. She has made herself available to answer questions by the Board. J. Ruff stated that he would like an explanation for the Board as to the reason for the size of the room and its location. V. Milligan stated that this is an addition. They are adding a four seasons room- 18'x 18'. They intend on using it as part of their living area. It adds to the value of house. Their neighbors are in total support of it. It is that shape due to the lot shape being so irregular- pie shape. She stated that the room itself will not be an odd shape when it is done. It will be squared off. J. Ruff asked why it could not be 8'deep and longer? V. Milligan stated that she doesn't want it that way. She wants a regular size room that she can put furnishings in. She doesn't want it long and narrow. E. Horne asked if applicant had a plan as to what the four seasons room will look like? DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 5 V. Milligan stated that she does have a plan. She stated that it basically will have windows with screens all around. It will be air conditioned and heated. It is going to have a ceiling fan,A-frame roof. It will be landscaped off. E. Horne stated that she drove past the property today and saw that they have such a wonderful view from the outside with all the wooded area. She wondered how aesthetically it would fit in with the house. V. Milligan stated that it will not look out of character. It will fit in with the scheme of the whole neighborhood. R. Korbakis stated that she was trying to understand why the applicant eliminated the other way of doing the room-having it longer as opposed to having a square room. Was there something specific that helped make the decision? V. Milligan stated that the house itself is called a raised ranch. On that side of the house, it you ran the room down long and narrow,you would cover up a bedroom window and a bathroom window. That is where all of her landscaping is, at that end. That would take up too much of the yard going that long distance. By going out 18'x 18', it makes the room more livable. There would be a better area of a room rather than going so long and narrow. Aesthetically, it would have no resale value if you went long and narrow with the room. G. Hilts stated that his mother had a four seasons type room on the front of her house. It went the entire width of the house. He agrees that the applicant's idea is better. Because it is so long, it doesn't give as much use to all that space as it would being more square. A. Fredericks asked if the applicant could have arranged it so that they could shift the room towards the east? V. Milligan stated that no they couldn't because where they would like to put the room is coming off of a family room that already has two large sliding doors. It has a concrete pad there already. It is set up for an addition. Where Mr. Fredericks would want it put would entail tearing into concrete blocks. It would put it more to the corner of the house which wouldn't look good at all. They did think of that, but decided that it would look odd on the opposite side of the house. A. Frederick asked what rooms were on the opposite side of the house? V. Milligan stated that there is a bedroom, bathroom and on the upper level there is another bedroom and bathroom. A. Frederick asked J. Ruff if he could tell by looking at this whether or not it would meet the setback if it was shifted? J. Ruff stated that it probably would not quite meet it. J. Ruff read communications into record for this case. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff stated that from their standpoint, interior layout can create hardships and practical difficulties when you are trying to make improvements to a property. Also, lot shape and size can attribute to that as well. When you have a pie shaped lot such as this, many times you have to push the house back further to get the necessary dimensional setback for the width of a structure or for the building area. When they look at a subdivision for something like this,they try to make sure that there is 60'of width at the building line. Sometimes that building line is at 25' back or DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 6 possibly further so that you can get at least a reasonable size structure within the setbacks. Sometimes you get a situation where the only thing you can add to something of this nature would be a very shallow room which would not accomplish the goals or purpose of the room. Also, because there is a garage in this situation that sits out front, because of the positioning of the lot, you force that structure back further to try to have an enclosed area for vehicles, etc. This is typical for a cul de sac end lot, but don't always have appeals for that. A. Frederick stated that the practical difficulty to him is the shape of the lot. If you look at the lot next door, it is clear to him that if the neighbor wanted to put that same addition on,they wouldn't have any trouble meeting it. It looks like a lot of the other houses in the neighborhood wouldn't have any trouble meeting it either. He can't see any reason to deny it based on this hardship. E. Horne moved that the BZA recommends that the request for a 10'variance in the rear yard be approved to allow a single story 18'x 18'four seasons room addition for BZA-3540.99, 2817 Aurora. Seconded by R. McCloud Danle . VOTE Yea Na Earhart Korbakis X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley ix Burgess X Motion carried by a vote of 6 -0, BZA-3540.99, 2817 Aurora has been approved. C. BZA-3541.99, 2212 Grant J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Michael Ezzo to construct an attached carport and 2nd story addition V from the side property line that is yet to be created at 2212 Grant St. They have proposed to add 3' of land to the property from this neighbor at 2220 Grant St. which would make the subject property 50'wide. Section 1248.08(b)(2)(B) of the Zoning Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 10% of the lot width. In this case, it would be required to be 5 for the setback once the additional 3' of land is added, if it is added. This is,therefore, a request of 4'variance from the sideyard setback. There was an omission and one error in the original mailing. It was corrected with a second mailing. The second point is that, in essence, by creating this carport along the side of the house with rooms above it would create 1084 square feet of what would be considered accessory structure. There is a garage structure that was converted to a work room. It was a detached structure that was converted in the rear of the property. With that, all of the structures add up to approximately 1084 square feet of accessory structure which exceeds the maximum of 1000 square feet as allowed in Section 1248.03. There is an 84 square foot variance requested there. The addition is proposed to be 1'from the side property line that would be created, 5 'is required. There is a 4'variance requested. Please note that the owner has an offer to purchase the additional 3' of land. Obviously, any variance would be contingent upon that purchase as well as approval of a lot split. The property can be divided as such. The property at 2220 Grant St. has enough width to sell off 3' by the subdivision regulations. That would not require anything other than administrative approval of a lot split which this Board does not normally evaluate anyway. The difficulty here is that they have approximately 10' of property adjacent to the house to the property line now. To create a carport or covered structure and to get the posts in, etc.,they require additional room. They anticipate building out further onto the property which would allow them to still gain access through the 10'wide driveway. With the additional land,they would have approximately 13'from the edge of the existing house to the property line. The 12'addition DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 7 would then leave 1'to the edge of the property as proposed. The variance there is 4'. Up above the carport would be rooms that would expand the upstairs of the home. There is a floor plan diagram of that. The Board also has a front elevation of how this would look as well as a side view where the addition would be made-south side as shown. The applicants have made additions to the property over time in attempting to improve the home. As such,they have very little room to make any type of addition to cover their vehicles. In some respects, based upon what they have done here,there appears to be some self induced hardship as a result of the various improvements. Yet,the property is narrow and difficult to find room for any further house expansion. The addition would be 18'from the neighbor's home to the south. In that respect,staff believes this to be a reasonable request and should be heard by the Board. The property is zoned B- Residential. It is presently a 47'wide lot, 139.3'deep, proposed to be 50'wide. The surrounding land is very similar in size. The house, as stated previously, is on two lots wide enough for a lot division to accomplish this. Staff recommends that the request for the variance with the side yard setback be approved conditionally,with the approval of a lot split and the deeding of the land to the owner. A lot split application must be applied for and approved through the Planning Office and recorded with the Register of Deeds. Also a written agreement, preferably a recorded easement, be obtained from the neighbor at 2220 Grant St.to allow maintenance on the side of the house,which would be 1'from the side property line. The addition,thirdly,would be constructed with the appropriate fire rating of wall per the building code requirements. A building that close to the property line, a neighbor could build to within 6' of the property line as well and in doing so,there is some fire rating requirements that are necessary. B. Burgess stated that in the beginning the report mentioned the 120 square foot variance based on the accessory structures, but there is nothing in the recommendation that states anything about that. J. Ruff stated that it should state 84 square foot variance. Thanks for the comment. General discussion on recommendation ensued. Michael Ezzo,2212 Grant St., Lansing addressed the Board. He stated that he needs to amend what he is requesting. They are not going to be doing the land split with Mr. Kowalski. What they are requesting now is the addition to be 10'wide, not 12' and to just butt up to the property so it would be a variance of 4.7', not 4.1'. The 84 square feet would not be needed because they would be cutting back exactly 84 square feet on the property. It will now be exactly 1000 square feet according to the zoning. So,what they are asking for is now 4.7'variance. J. Ruff stated that practically what they would have to do is start over on this because of what they were looking at-a setback as proposed and advertised as a 4'variance. To go up to the property line really should be renoticed and reheard. If that is the desire of the applicant,J. Ruff proposes to accept public comment tonight so that people's time is not wasted and consider this as part of the record for a future case if Mr. Ezzo reapplies. M. Ezzo stated that he would like to submit three more names of endorsements from neighbors. He did take a picture of the valley in the back of the house. He showed it to the Board. Leon Williams,2119 Ray St., Lansing addressed the Board. He stated that he has known Mr. Ezzo for about 3 years. He has done nothing but bring beauty to the neighborhood. He thinks that anyone who tries to improve his home or neighborhood should be considered for any additions that they want to make. There are many houses in the neighborhood who are trying to improve. He believes that Mr. Ezzo should be given consideration for what he is trying to do for the neighborhood. Ed Kowalski, 2220 Grant St., Lansing addressed the Board. He built his house in 1948. It DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 8 took him two years to find the lot that he wanted to build on and he doesn't want to part with any part of it. He is here to protect his property. J. Ruff read communication from Mr. Kowalski to the Board. He also read other communications regarding this case. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated point of order. How does the Board dispense this case? J. Ruff stated that the applicant needs to reapply. The Board does not need to make a decision. He suggested that the Board accept the withdrawal based upon the testimony of the applicant. G. Hilts stated that the applicant will need some way to get access if he is going to build to the lot line. He will have to get an easement before Mr. Hilts is agreeable to granting any type of variance. General discussion on withdrawal ensued. E. Horne moved to accept withdrawal for BZA-3541.99,2212 Grant St. Seconded by G. Hilts. Unanimous voice vote to accept withdrawal. D. BZA-3542 99 3300 Blk S. ML King Jr. Blvd. J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that this property is located near the northeast corner of M.L. King Jr. Blvd. and Holmes Rd. It is an L-shaped property that surrounds on two sides the Shell Gas Station directly on the corner. It has frontage on both Holmes Rd. and M.L. King Jr. Blvd. It is proposed for construction of a new Burger King restaurant. Basically,it is a chunk of property carved out of the parking lot of the EDS Office Building that sets behind the corner further to the north and east. It is approximately .97 of an acre. It is all zoned F commercial as are surrounding properties. There are a couple of properties across the street west of M.L. King Jr. Blvd and south of Holmes Rd. that are zoned E-2 and H-Light Industrial, but it is all commercial zoning in that area. The applicant had previously submitted plans for development of this site to the Planning Department. Subsequently,the Planning Department reviewed them for whether or not they would impact the parking that is needed for the EDS Office Building. We can't approve taking these spaces out of use for EDS if it makes EDS below what the code would require. However,they determined that they were excess spaces. Therefore,they can be changed and used for something else. The applicant has purchased it and is in the process of getting construction drawings approved for the Burger King restaurant. It will have frontage both on M.L. King Jr. Blvd. and Holmes Rd. The Zoning Code allows for 2 signs for businesses that are on the corner of major and minor arterial roads-ML King being a major arterial and Holmes Rd. being a minor arterial road. However, because it is not directly on the corner,the interpretation of the Sign Code is that this would only be permitted 1 ground pole sign per the current code. That is why the request is before the Board for a second ground pole sign for this property. Access to the site is-there is one from Holmes Rd. and also one entrance from M.L. King Jr. Blvd. However,the exit from the property would actually be through the adjacent driveway that is part of the EDS Office Complex to the north. That is how you could exit onto M.L. King Jr. Blvd. to go either northbound or southbound. In addition,you could turn right or left onto Holmes Rd. Basically,this site meshes into the EDS circulation of that parking lot. The sign that is proposed is essentially 23'tall, 8'square with a 48 reader board underneath. They would typically be permitted one of these on either frontage. They have requested that a second one be allowed at the second frontage. Because the site has a unique circulation pattern and because access to it is from the two different roads, it does have a unique set of circumstances that go along with it. Staff believes that by permitting the second sign,that it will actually make traffic circulation safer. It will make it easier for motorists to find the entrance to the restaurant. Therefore, it would actually improve traffic safety. Staff supports this request. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGE 9 G. Hilts stated that he was afraid of setting precedent with new businesses that may have other points of access. J. Sturdevant stated that, in this case, it is justifiable because of the way the traffic circulation is. He is not concerned with other businesses trying the same thing. G. Hilts stated that he was concerned with other businesses doing the same type of thing. General discussion ensued regarding entrances/exits. Ms.Jean Ann Styn-DeShano, 3008 Linden Park Dr., Bay City and Erik Fix,25800 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 750, Southfield, MI acting as agent addressed the Board. J. Styn-DeShano showed site plan and explained to Board. E. Horne stated that those roads around Holmes Rd./Washington/M.L. King Jr. Blvd. are extremely busy most of the time. She does not approve of having entrance and egress on Holmes Rd. She believes that it would be a big mistake due to the traffic patterns in that area. J. Ruff stated that there is a curb cut in that vicinity now. General discussion ensued regarding neighboring businesses, other businesses with the same type of entrance/egress, etc. J. Ruff asked what was going to happen with the existing Burger King site? Through his experience as Zoning Administrator, he has had to deal with various complaints of different things due to the fact that it butts up to a residential area to the west. Extra fencing had to be put up there as well as a guard rail along the fencing to keep cars from hitting the fence. E. Fix stated that store will be demolished when the new one is built. It will replace the existing Burger King. R. Korbakis asked why they decided to move down the street? J. Styn-Deshano stated that it is a better location, newer store, better facilities. A. Frederick asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff stated that when he looked at the two sign issue, he reviewed the report. He wondered if it was reasonable to have a smaller sign at one of the locations. He wondered if a cleaner,taller sign was in order in this situation simply because it will better identify the location. He believes that it would make for a better environment. R. Korbakis asked who ultimately determines the size of signs? J. Ruff stated that the size of sign is variable. The closer the sign is to the road,the lower and smaller in area the sign is supposed to be. The further away the sign is from the road, it can be taller and bigger. It was designed as a sliding scale. At this height and size, it needs to be 23' back from the property line. These signs won't be right out to the property line. They would be back into a landscaped area. He referred to the site plan. B. Burgess stated that it is probably important to have signage on both. The Board won't have any control on where the restaurant is there or not. So even if the Board doesn't like the traffic patterns, it isn't part of their decision. He stated that there is no tourist traffic, but the people that use it will know that it is there and won't pay much attention to the signage. He will support this request. A. Frederick stated that he is having two difficulties with this. One is the practical difficulty. To him, DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGEI O from the way the site plan looks that the store is really on M.L. King Blvd. If there wasn't an L- shaped part that sticks out to Holmes Rd.,this wouldn't be an issue at all. It just simply wouldn't be allowed. The other problem that he is having is that he is not convinced that if the Board didn't allow the store to have the additional sign that they still wouldn't be able to get value out of their property and be able to conduct their business. He cannot support this variance until he saw a real practical difficulty. G. Hilts agrees with A. Frederick. B. Burgess asked about MDOT's limitations on their ability to exit? G. Hilts stated that they don't need the sign to get out. General discussion ensued regarding entrance/exit. General discussion ensued regarding having a smaller sign in the area. G. Hilts moved that BZA-3542.99, 3300 Bilk. S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. be denied. Seconded by E. Horne. R. Korbakis stated that the shape is somewhat unique but she agrees that the issue is whether there is a practical difficulty. One sign on M.L. King would provide notice of business and not having the sign would not unnecessarily burden the business. E. Horne stated that the Board is not doing anything to deter the use of the property. They will have their own identification from M.L. King Jr. Blvd. which is the primary entrance. VOTE Yea Na Korbakis X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Dan ley X Burgess X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-35A-3542.99,3300 300 Blk. S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. has been denied. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Mrs. Jean Styn-DeShano, 3008 Linden Park Dr., Bay City, MI addressed the Board. Her comment is that this is not a self-imposed situation. The city was nice enough to give them entrance and exit off of M.L. King Jr. Blvd. which MDOT denied. They would like to know if the Board would consider a smaller sign on Holmes Rd. Basically,they are trying to prevent the traffic off of M.L. King Jr. Blvd. which MDOT discussed with them that they do not want. MDOT wants the main traffic off of Holmes Rd. G. Hilts stated that if he is going north, he will not turn onto Holmes and then turn across traffic to get in. He would get in off of M.L. King Jr. Blvd. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 10, 1999 PAGL'11 E. Horne stated that the only problem the applicant will have is the people coming down Holmes Rd. trying to make a turn going east. That is where the bottle neck will be. Turning left at the light would be much better. She also believes that it would be a neighborhood problem. Traffic patterns and history would need to be discussed for that area. J. Ruff stated that the applicant is always welcome to reappeal with a new request, something different or substantially new information as the Board allows. The same appeal will not have to be heard by the Board unless there was new and significant information that developed with regard to the hardship or practical difficulty. One basic premise here is that the request was for a second ground pole sign which you would have to see the significance in the difference there. It wasn't a dimensional problem. R. McCloud stated that she is an avid Burger King fan. What she looks for is the big sign, but she is more drawn to the directional signs because they are at eye level. She believes that customers really look at the directional signs more than the big signs. G. Hilts stated that the directional signs are better. Ground pole signs,very often, are not where the driveways are. People look for the directional signs. J. Styn-DeShano stated that she agrees with that, but people coming from Holmes Rd. won't be able to see the big sign because it will be in front of the Burger King. G. Hilts stated that he doesn't see sufficient difficulty to allow for a second sign. He is extremely reluctant to do anything that will set a precedent where there would be many more businesses/people in the middle of a block coming up with something to try to get a second sign. B. Burgess stated that the building can be seen by Holmes Rd. He referred to the site plans regarding any directional signs off of Holmes Rd. General discussion ensued regarding what can be seen from Holmes Rd. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of March 11 1999 E. Horne moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by B. Burgess. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. B. Minutes of May 13 1999 E. Horne move to approve minutes as written. Seconded by G. Hilts. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS regarding Governor's Club development. A. J. Ruff made comments B. Thanks for the ball game. -Board members commented how much they enjoyed the ball game and expressed their thanks. VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator DRAFT COPY Draft to Clerk 05/19/99 Approved 06/10/99 To Clerk 06/17/99 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ; BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY 13, 1999, 7:30 P.M. CiTy &W'� COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:30 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: V. Earhart E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick M. Clark R. Korbakis R. Danley Staff: J. Ruff L. Peters S. Quon A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA J. Ruff requested that BZA-3536.99, 4590 Seaway be removed from the table at the appropriate time to consider due to appellant being present. E. Horne moved to approve agenda with this change. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to approve agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3537.99. 314 E. Michigan Ave. J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Mark Latterman, Latterman and Associates, representing the owner Lewis D. Johns II for the property at 314 E. Michigan Ave. for a wall sign variance. It is a business that has gone in recently called The Exchange. The property is zoned G-1 Business District. The building has been remodeled. They presently have a wall sign that says"The Exchange". It is flat against the face of the building. It is directly adjacent to Omar's. It is a 22 square foot wall sign right next to the overhang of the Omar's establishment. Based upon its location,the applicant has requested an additional sign to be able to be seen further away from the building. Currently,the present sign can be seen directly in front of the building, but cannot be seen from other angles or from a distance. They are requesting this projecting sign that would be above the 2nd story to advertise the business. The 22 square feet is the actual size of the sign in the perimeter. They intend to install that sign above the 2nd story windows of the building. This is in the Capitol Center Sign District. As such,the Sign Code restricts signage to 40 square feet. The existing sign plus the new sign would add up to 44 square feet,so there is a variance request of 4 square feet. There is also a projecting sign of 22 square feet. Projecting signs are limited to 16 square feet in the Capitol Center Sign District. Therefore,this is a request for 6 additional square feet for a projecting sign. The existing sign is a flat sign saying "The Exchange"which looks very nice. The applicant proposes to erect the martini glass projecting sign above. The variances are relatively minor. The Board can approve variances that would normally be allowed up to what is allowed anywhere else in the city. Here,the building would at least be allowed a 50 square foot area of wall sign. The location for the size of the sign is reasonable. It displays the business name only. Basically,the location of visibility provides a practical difficulty for signage. The location, size and character of the proposed sign seems to be reasonable. It shouldn't affect the general patterns of development for the area. V. Earhart asked about the tree in front of the building. What will happen to the tree if this request is approved? The tree will get larger and will cover the sign more. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MAY 13, 1999 PAGE 2 J. Ruff stated that a program is allowed where they can request a trimming of the tree appropriately which maintains the tree plus provides coverage. Forestry can trim trees based upon various situations without ruining its shape. The trees that have been planted along that strip are primarily of the skyline honeysuckle type. It is a very small leaf tree. V. Earhart asked if there was indeed a program where the city would be responsible for determining what and how much was done? J. Ruff stated that was correct. The business owner can make a request of the Forestry Division of the Parks Department. The Forestry supervisor goes out and makes a determination on how much trimming is required. A. Frederick stated that the big problem that he sees with their request is the huge projecting marquis from Omar's. What is the history on that? J. Ruff stated that there is history to it. It was permitted at one time but he doesn't have the history information. He stated that there were repairs done on it a couple of years ago. He reviewed some of the history then as far as if it was permanent, non-conforming, etc. It was a permitted issue at the time. Mark Latterman, Latterman and Associates addressed the Board. He believes the staff report is extremely thorough and has covered all the appropriate sections of the code. The problem that The Exchange has is that a lot of people are complaining about finding it easily even though there is one sign up there. This request for an additional sign is something the appellant feels needs to be done in order to get people there. The second reason is that they have made a substantial investment and would like to see business grow. They believe that if people could see their location better, it will improve business overall. They sat down and figured out what would be as unobtrusive as possible and yet get the job done. This is their intent. This is the best thing they could come up with. M. Clark asked why they made the choice of 22 square feet? Why couldn't they have done 16 square feet? M. Latterman stated that the sign people told them that was the size that the sign would have to be in order for people to see it due to where it is located. J. Ruff stated that he had asked the same question -could it be made smaller? He stated that part of the difficulty here is that having to be elevated higher makes it even more difficult. Due to the fact that it is up much higher than the marquis of Omar's, it needed to be 22 square feet. They cut the sign down as much as they could. The 22 square feet is the perimeter of the sign which is completely allowable. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3537.99, 314 E. Michigan Ave.,a variance of 4 square feet for the sign area/6 square feet for the projecting sign -business name only. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE Yea Na Earhart X Korbakis X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MAY 13, 1999 PAGE 3 Danley X Burgess X Clark X Motion carried by a vote of 8-0, BZA-3537.99, 314 E. Michigan Ave. has been approved with the condition that the business name be the only wording on the sign. B. BZA-3538.99, 632 American Rd. Sam Quon, Senior Planner, presented the case. Mr. Shaheen of Shaheen Chevrolet is requesting a variance for one additional ground pole sign and four additional wall signs. The wall signs exceed the maximum allowable sign area by 111 square feet. The property is zoned "F" Commercial and the surrounding land use is commercial. Mr. Shaheen is constructing a dealership at 632 American Rd. The dealership is going to be one of six flag ship design stores in the nation. This is part of their Image 2000 program that GM has established. GM also dictates their signage. Basically,they will not allow Shaheen and Chevrolet to be connected together. The two identities have to be as far apart as possible. On a wall sign,they have to be on opposite sides of the wall. On a ground pole sign, Chevrolet has to be on top of Shaheen. Because of this,they cannot combine Chevrolet and Shaheen together to create one wall sign. The signs that are being requested are on the southwest, southeast and northeast side of the building. The Chevrolet sign is 81.6 square feet and the Shaheen sign is 21.96 square feet giving a total signage upon all three walls of 310.68 square feet. The two ground pole signs locations are: one will be located along American Rd. that will be 25 feet high and 64 square feet in size and one being proposed along 1-96 will be 30 feet high and 137 square feet. The two ground pole signs will be removed from the existing Shaheen Chevrolet on S. Martin Luther King and relocated to the new dealership site. This will bring the old site in greater conformance with the Sign Code. A practical difficulty exists because of the size, location and character of the site. The size of the parcel is approximately 7.84 acres. Because of the setbacks on the site, it is difficult to see the signage on the wall. So there needs to be more exposure to the different directions. The setbacks off American Rd. are 185 feet; off of the driveway that goes into the dealership it is 105 feet away and 270 feet from 1-96. Granting a variance will not impact any vehicular or pedestrian circulation in the area. There will be no adverse impact on the general development of the area. Staff recommends approving the variance to erect an additional ground pole sign with understanding that two of the four ground pole signs at the existing Shaheen on MLK will be removed and relocated to the new site on American Rd. Staff, in considering the wall signs, recommends approving the variance request for two of the four additional wall signs requested. The signs on the left elevation or the southwest portion of the building faces 1-96. The only people that will be able to see it are the people at Celebration Cinema or on the dealer's lot. The ground pole sign serves the purpose of advertising to traffic along 1-96 much better than the one on the southwest portion of the wall. Staff believes that the wall signs facing the driveway entrance,which is a front elevation, and American Rd.,the right elevation, are reasonable. If each pair of wall signs could be combined,they would meet the sign code for the number of signs allowed. The total area of the wall signs alone is 207.2 square feet which exceeds the maximum of 200 square feet by only 7.2 square feet. This is reasonable due to the setback of the building. M. Clark asked which of the two signs he was talking about? She referred to the map in the BZA packet. S. Quon stated that signs 1 &2 on the map are the ones that face the southwest. One is the Chevrolet sign and two is the Shaheen sign. J. Ruff added comments. American Rd. is not Edgewood Blvd. or Cedar St. It has served as somewhat of a service drive for a number of years. It is being developed in a nice way. He believes ves that the square footage of signage for the size of the building, approximately 1 acre in size, is very reasonable. He drove by on 1-96 to see what was visible. He believes that the ground pole sign will be located in such a place as to be the main ID from the expressway. He believes that it is a good development and program for BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MAY 13, 1999 PAGE 4 signage. It is not an overabundance of signage. It is just because of the orientation. The front of the building does not face American Rd. or 1-96, it faces their own entrance drive. Mr. Shaheen is going to have it set up as a promenade along the entrance drive. It will be a very effective treatment architecturally as well as from a presentation standpoint. It does lend itself to more identification. There will be some small directional signs that will be added that don't impact this variance. He referred to the map showing where signs will go. He also stated that Shaheen can't keep the GM signs up anymore at the MLK site because it won't be a dealership there anymore. Shaheen will continue his operation for rebuilding police cruisers;the bodyshop for this will be at the MLK site. But he won't have the GM signs there anymore. Shaheen will be using the two smaller signs on the American Rd. site. Mr. Ralph Shaheen, Shaheen Chevrolet, addressed the Board. He showed a drawing of the new building to the Board and explained, per the picture,the Image 2000 Program. He stated that Shaheen is expanding their police business and the body shop. He stated that this will create approximately 30 new jobs at the old site because of the restoration business and the business from the body shop as well. B. Burgess asked what the rationale was for picking that particular site since it seems to be a low visibility area? Mr. Shaheen stated that they needed to be in a prime shopping area with highway exposure per the new 2000 plan. This was a site available to Shaheen in their market area. They have to remain in their market area. They cannot infringe on other auto dealership areas. J. Ruff showed map again. He stated that it is not exactly to scale. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she understands Mr. Shaheen's problems with separating Shaheen and Chevrolet at this point. She also has a difficulty with corporate America dictating to local government what their sign codes are going to be-having to make variations. There was the same problem with Celebration Cinema and K-Mart, as well as Story Oldsmobile. A. Frederick asked how much of a variance was allowed for Celebration Cinema and also,what was the ultimate resolution on the problem at Story Oldsmobile? Story Oldsmobile had the same problem with having to separate signage with General Motors. J. Ruff stated that, in regards to Celebration Cinema,they approved 700 or more square feet of wall signage with the condition that they weren't going to be having a ground pole sign back there. They were having low entrance signs only. They were not going to be putting individual shows on a marquis. Significant variances were granted, but they limited their number of signs a great deal. In regards to Story Oldsmobile,J. Ruff doesn't think that has been resolved entirely. He has had a couple of conversations with the General Manager. He believes what Story Oldsmobile ended up doing was replacing one of their smaller signs with a Suzuki sign as well. He stated that Story wants to keep some of their more historic/older signs that they have had out there. G. Hilts stated that Celebration Cinema had a huge amount more signage in total than what was given as a variance due to the number of shows. A. Frederick stated that he appreciated the size of the parcel and building and the desire to be seen from 1-96. He is not comfortable in approving a variance if it is predicated at all on GM policy that they have to have signs a certain way. If that is the case, he would not support it. But he sees other practical hardships that he could justify a variance on. If he could get assurance that it is not because of GM policy, he will support it. J. Ruff stated that is not what they decided as practical difficulty. They whittled down the ideas on BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MAY 13, 1999 PAGE 5 how to get the best reasonable signs. He wanted to make sure that their recommendation made sense in the fact of- not six signs, but four only. He believes that it will show up well from 1-96. He researched the best possible way for signage visibility and this is the best recommendation. It is not a typical location. B. Burgess wondered about the issue of corporate policy. Can the Board write a letter to City Council stating their concern regarding corporate policy? It seems to him that there is an obligation by the Board to notify City Council that there is a trend out there for this. J. Ruff states that he believes that this Board has been good at finding a reasonable balance in requesting variances. B. Burgess stated that he was concerned about zoning. Should City Council address this issue? This Board is at an inappropriate level to address this. The Board cannot make these changes. Shouldn't the Board notify City Council so that they in turn can notify someone who can make these changes. M. Clark agrees that is an excellent point. There are cities that have taken the position that any corporation will meet their codes. The city will not conform to a corporation policy. J. Ruff stated that one of the problems with that is that every community has different codes. The industry takes advantage of saying that they can't meet every code, so they will do what they want and go from there. He knows that the local managers say something to the corporations about signage. He knows that when they dealt with Rite-Aid, after dealing with the first one it got a lot easier. Rite-Aid said that they would design the signs all the same-which was a pattern that would conform in Lansing. B. Burgess stated that he would not be comfortable in not addressing the issue and forwarding the information on this trend to the appropriate parties. He believes that it is the Board's obligation. General discussion ensued regarding zoning. M. Clark asked where should a letter be sent addressing this issue? J. Ruff stated that it should be sent to administration through Dennis Sykes, Director of Planning & Neighborhood Development due to the fact that they are already working with GM now. B. Burgess made a motion to do a letter through Dennis Sykes regarding this issue. Supported by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3538.99, 632 American Rd. as recommended by staff-1 additional ground pole sign understanding that 2 of the 4 ground pole signs at Shaheen Chevrolet on MLK will be removed and brought to the American Rd. location and that the variance for 2 of the 4 additional wall signs requested be also approved. The signs on the map which are labeled on the left elevation as 1 & 2 are the signs that would not be approved by this motion. Also move to approve square foot variance. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE Yea Na Earhart X Korbakis X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MAY 13, 1999 PAGE 6 Burgess X Clark X Motion carried by a vote of 8-0, BZA-3538.99, 632 American Rd. has been approved. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98. 901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. B. BZA-3528.99, 221-227 N. Capitol J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. C. BZA-3536.99.4590 Seawav V. Earhart moved to remove BZA-3536.99 from table. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to remove from table. S. Quon updated Board on this case. The property is zoned DMA Residential. Arbor Point is located in the southwest section of the city off of Waverly. The area they are concerned with is the corner of Burneway Dr. and Waverly Rd. Arbor Point has experienced crime and would like to erect a 6 foot fence in the front yard. The current code only allows a 4 foot fence in the front yard if 75% open and a 3 foot fence if it is solid. At the BZA meeting in March,the Board requested more information be submitted. The applicant supplied staff with a survey of the site identifying the location of the berm and property line. He referred to the addendum provided to the Board. J. Ruff stated that they added some things to it. All it had on it was where the property line and the berms were and one sidewalk. It didn't have trees located or curb line. S. Quon stated that he went out to the site. Basically,the property line is where the proposed fence would be located. One tree would be in the way of the fence. Staff also noticed that the sidewalk does not exist on the north along Burneway Dr., but a path has developed as a result of pedestrians walking along there. There is also a CATA Bus Stop that is not padded, it is only on grass. He spoke to the applicant regarding the tree that is in the way of the fence. The applicant stated that they would remove the tree. Evaluating the site,the sign is on top of the berm. There is landscaping around that as well. He referred to the site plan in the packet. The fence that they are proposing would be along the property line. Based on the information that was submitted and at the site, staff is recommending that the Board approve Arbor Point's request for a variance to erect a 6 foot fence in the front yard up to a point that is approximately 40 feet south of the northeast corner of the property where the fence shall angle around the berm to the northwest at a height of 4 feet. Staff also recommends that the applicant install a sidewalk that will follow the existing pedestrian path and install a pad for the CATA Bus Stop along Burneway Dr. as well as replace the tree that will be removed as a result of installing the fence. M. Clark asked if the fence would end at the berm? S. Quon referred to the site plan. He also stated that sight visibility will not be hampered when cars are on Burneway. So when cars are turning right,the fence will not be in the way. J. Ruff stated that the fence does need to be lowered at the berm area to keep the sign visible. He believes that the fence will be effective and look nice as well. B. Burgess asked about recommending a pad at the bus stop. Is that something that is the responsibility of the applicant? J. Ruff stated that can be worked out with the city. Generally, when sidewalks are put in, they are put in when a plat is done or when a development occurs. He doesn't know why BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MAY 13, 1999 PAGE 7 the sidewalk stops. One of the purposes of the fence is to control pedestrian traffic. He thinks that the Board has an opportunity to help the applicant control pedestrian traffic and provide the proper place for pedestrian traffic. Not only do you screen off pedestrian traffic from one area, but the Board would be reinforcing the positive aspects of where pedestrian traffic should occur by requiring the sidewalk. The pad for the CATA Bus Stop is a recommendation, not a requirement. He believes that the idea is to have CATA stop there and right now it is in an area with no sidewalk. The manager stated that the CATA Bus Stop shelter that was there was removed due to vandalism. Maybe if there is a sidewalk and a good place for people to stand, CATA might possibly get more service. Then they will want to provide a shelter there again. The apartment complex is doing everything they can to screen their clientele and help to have a safer environment which goes along with it. The applicant can work with CATA on that as well. S. Quon stated that it was also referred to the Transportation Engineer. The Transportation Engineer recommended that if the fence was on the property line,the condition should be that the property owner removes the fence if it becomes a sight visibility problem in the future once Waverly Rd. is widened. The property owner should move the fence at their own expense. Rochelle Hatcher,Arbor Point Town Homes,4590 Seaway, Lansing, MI addressed the Board. She asked about the 400 feet of chain link fence that was proposed at the March BZA Meeting. J. Ruff stated that was not a problem. R. Hatcher also asked about the sidewalk on Burneway. How can they work with the City of Lansing on getting the sidewalk in? Is that area their property? Is it the public Right of Way? The CATA situation is something that they have wanted back because it cuts down on the litter and things that are there. J. Ruff stated that when the City of Lansing puts a sidewalk in,they bill everyone. He stated that they also may have a program that would have to be accessed through tgh the Public Service Department. Sam Quon will provide a contact for R. Hatcher and also make a point of contact for Ms. Hatcher. R. Hatcher asked if the sidewalk issue will hold up putting the fence in? Do they have to have the sidewalk in first? J. Ruff stated that it would be something that the Planning Office would work with her on a time frame of installation. The fence can be put up but they need to work together on a time frame for the sidewalk. General discussion ensued regarding sidewalks. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she appreciates the additional information that has been provided and the maps showing where the fence will be. It makes it very clear and she will be supporting the request. J. Ruff stated that he and S. Quon went out and looked at complex. The complex looks very nice. They have replaced several things including landscaping items that make it look nice now and will look even better when the fence is put in. G. Hilts moved to approve BZA-3536.99,4590 Seaway as provided in staff recommendation which includes subject to fence removal if necessary at property owner's expense due to road widening; add the sidewalk; add the CATA Bus Stop pad; replace the tree that will be removed; and set the fence back to follow the berm around as recommended in the staff report at 4' high. Supported by V. Earhart. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MAY 13, 1999 PAGE 8 VOTE Yea Nay Earhart X Korbakis X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Clark X Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3536.99,4590 Seaway has been approved subject to conditions. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of March 11, 1999 E. Horne stated that page 13 of the minutes was missing. V. Earhart moved to table the issue until the missing page has been added. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Special Gathering at Oldsmobile Park on 5/24/99 J. Ruff stated that he chose a Monday night to go to a baseball game. He will have at least 2 tickets for each Board Member. We will be in the suite for the game. Let Laura Peters know how many tickets you want. B. City Hall Doors J. Ruff stated that he sent a memo two days ago so that the doors would be open. He also included in that memo information about parking cards for the basement of City Hall. Let Laura Peters know if you want a parking card for the basement. Hopefully,the cards will be ready by the next meeting. C. Excused Absence M. Clark asked for an excused absence for next month's meeting on 6/10/99. Motion by A. Frederick to accept. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to accept. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REGULAR MEETING LANSING CITY HALL, TENTH FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1999, 7:30 p.m. I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. HEARINGS/ACTION: IV. OLD BUSINESS: V. PUBLIC COMMENT VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT FOR SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS PLEASE GIVE NOTICE 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING BY CALLING LAURA PETERS AT 483-4087 OR 483-4479 TDD. Posted March 31, 1999 BOARD OF ZONING APPEPI S MEETING MARCH 11, 1990 PAGE Draft to Clerk 03/22/99 Approved 06/10/99 To Clerk 06/17/99 - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS C1 7 MARCH 11, 1999, 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:35 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: V. Earhart E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick M. Clark R. Korbakis R. Danley Staff: J. Ruff L. Peters A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. Earhart requested an addition to agenda in New Business regarding the front doors of City Hall being locked before the BZA meetings. Voice vote of 8-0 to approve agenda with additions. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3534.98. 1401 Cambridge J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Mr. Philip Venema regarding a variance for an existing fence that was recently built in the front yard at 1401 Cambridge Rd. The fence is composed of brick columns with wrought iron intermediate areas in between the columns with exception around the driveways-there is brick fencing in between the columns as well. This was brought before the Board two months ago in order to seek appeal on the existing fence that is there. The applicant withdrew that request and has submitted a modification proposed for that request. Some of the columns go up to 77, in height and those columns would be brought down to the height of the other columns that are there. This is a variance request from the fencing section, in particular the front yard of the properly. As such, Mr.Venema is requesting that variance. The property is in a residential area and the zoning reflects that. The Board has a case history in their packet describing the sequence of events. The restriction here is that a fence or hedge should not exceed 3' within a front yard area. As such,this fence exceeds that height. Also the areas around the driveway are not to exceed 3' in height to help ensure for visibility around the driveway entrance/exit so that either people on the public right of way or on the sidewalk can be seen by those leaving the property or, at least, more visible. Therefore,this is a request of a variance for these two areas of the zoning code. Basically,the Planning Office looked at this in four parts. The first part being the hardship or practical difficulty,then they looked at compatibility with surrounding neighborhood,the impact on circulation, as well as environmental impacts and future development patterns. One of the issues is that Planning does not believe that this has a practical difficulty or hardship. There is no lot condition that requires the fence to be above 3' in height. In this situation,there is not a development pattern for that. In Planning's opinion, it does not qualify as a hardship or practical difficulty. Secondly,the width of the columns are such -approximately Z in width with wrought iron in between the columns in some of the areas-that it makes it almost impossible to see down the sidewalk in order to avoid any pedestrian conflict. Granted, if you drive a taller vehicle,you might see around the column but not all vehicles are the same size. Also,there is the factor of smaller children that would be on the sidewalk that would be BOARD OF ZONING APPE/1'.S MEETING MARCH 11, 19QO PAGE 2 very difficult to see. Staff believes that it is a safety hazard as well. As such,the Planning Office recommends denial on this case. Mr. Philip Venema, 1401 Cambridge Rd., Lansing, MI addressed the Board. He stated that he wasn't aware of any variances in the height of the fence when he built it. He purchased the home approximately one year ago and is tearing out shrubs to try to enhance his home and the surrounding area. He received support from the neighbors in what he was doing. He stated that it is a unique intersection. He described two different addresses that have fences and dividing walls in the front yard. Becoming aware of the height variance, he had the architectural firm do a new proposal to lower the height of the columns to approximately 5'/2' and lowering the wing walls to approximately 3 '/z so that there would be visibility. He is concerned about safety as is the City of Lansing. The driveway is higher as you come out of it. With the new proposal,there would be plenty of visibility to see even a child walking by. He believes that the fence is unique to that intersection-in how it fits the neighborhood. It does enhance the home. He also stated that he brought the hardship or practical difficulty on himself because he wasn't aware of any height ordinance. To remove the fence would devalue the home and the homes around him. All of his neighbors support the fencing. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that because it is a self-imposed hardship, he believes that it would be a poor precedent to approve this request-and the fact that he was almost run over himself walking past that particular driveway. He is very concerned with visibility. He will not support request. A. Frederick stated that he drove over and looked at property. It was clear to him that vision was obscured. He supports G. Hilts views. He also feels that the fence over 3' is an aesthetic consideration. The applicant could get a reasonable use out of his property with a fence that was in compliance with the zoning code. He will not support request. R. Korbakis stated that she agrees that compliance with the code will not reduce use of the property. In regards to a hardship, she doesn't believe that there is one. She will vote against this request. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3534.98, 1401 Cambridge. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE Yea Nay Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3534.98, 1401 Cambridge has been denied. J. Ruff stated that what this vote does is require that the applicant reduce the height of the fence to 3' or lower or remove it completely. B. BZA-3535.98, 3223 Ruth J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Kurt Hargrove to build a new single family home at 3223 Ruth Street, 16'from the front property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires that BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MARCH 11, 199Q PAGE 3 the established front yard setback be 30'for the subject property due to the established setback. There is one home to the north, south of the cross street, Hoyt. That requires the setback be 30'from the front property line. The bulk of Mr. Hargrove's property is in the 100 year flood plain. In order to construct the home, he would like to construct it 16' from the front property line to the front porch,which would possibly be an enclosed front porch,to help avoid that flood plain area. He has also reduced the structure by moving the garage somewhat. He wants to address the house issue first and then, at a later date, address the garage issue by getting the DEQ permit. That way he can utilize part of the flood plain. J. Ruff referred to drawings/maps in packet. There is approximately 65' maximum depth of property to build on out of the flood plain. Mr. Hargrove wants to put the house up in that area. The structure would still be located at least 45'from the north property line giving it a substantial setback to the property directly on the north. In this case,the reason for the setback variance is based upon the quantity of flood plain on the site and the depth of buildable area on the site. There should not be any adverse impacts to either adjacent development or traffic patterns based upon the construction plans for the property. Staff is recommending approval of the 14'front yard setback variance requested. E. Horne asked if the house was going to be built out of cinder blocks? J. Ruff stated that he didn't think so. He believed that it was going to be a frame house. Mr. Kurt Hargrove, 3223 Ruth, Lansing, MI addressed the Board. He answered E. Horne's question stating that it would be a poured wall foundation with wood construction. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. R. Korbakis stated that, unlike the previous application,this indicates more of a hardship that is peculiar to the applicant due to most of his property being in the flood plain. It is more difficult to secure a reasonable return from it. She will support request. A. Frederick stated that this is the third appeal that he has heard that involves building in the flood plain. He appreciates the fact that the applicant is making an attempt to stay out of the flood plain and not cause any additional possibility of property damage or safety of the inhabitants. V. Earhart stated that at looking at some of the maps provided,that some of the structures already on the property are built within the flood plain itself. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3535.98, 3223 Ruth. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE Yea Na Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3535.98, 3223 Ruth has been approved. C. BZA-3536.98.4590 Seaway J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Arbor Point Town Homes for a fence variance in the front yard for the property along Waverly Rd. at Seaway and Burneway. There is an existing 6' chain link fence along the south property line that they would like to replace part of it-about 400' of it- that is nearest Waverly Rd. and then extend fencing along the east BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MARCH 11, 19QO PAGE 4 property line north along the property line to Burneway. They could build a fence that would meet code requirements in this area-3' high fence- but the purpose of the fence in this situation is primarily for security. They have experienced problems there. They have brought police officers to the meeting to testify to that fact. They wish to replace the 6' fence on the south side, put a wrought iron type of fence along the Waverly Rd. side 6'in height. Note that it is a rear yard to most of the apartments there-so it doesn't appear to be a front yard to them. There are some houses across Waverly Rd. that face Waverly Rd. so it does appear to be a front yard to those homes. As such, it needs to adhere to the ordinance. The other part to this is that the property line is setback from the sidewalk 15'so that the fence would be 15'from the sidewalk. Planning doesn't believe that it would present a visibility problem due to the fact that the fence would not be right up next to the sidewalk. One issue that they have discussed with the Traffic Engineer is that potentially Waverly Rd. could be expanded to a 5th lane. He knows that there is enough room to expand a 5th lane through there without purchasing property from the apartments. Yet,the Traffic Engineer was concerned about the potential of a visibility conflict in the future if a 5th lane were added. As staff,they decided that some options would be for the apartments to move the fence back to approximately 27'from the sidewalk which would get them back another 12'from the property line and then, as the Traffic Engineer states, it would never be a visibility problem or the apartments need to understand that potentially in the future there could be a conflict with visibility at the property line. Staff would insist that at the intersection of Burneway and Waverly that it cut the angle of the fencing to help prevent any problems with visibility at the intersection either now or in the future. If they want to keep the fence at the property line,staff believes that it is necessary to cut that angle. Otherwise,staff believes that the fence could be moved back as suggested by the Traffic Engineer. They have always kept a very nicely landscaped yard along Waverly Rd. and they have a berm that has their sign on it. They didn't want to get the fence in that hillside. Staff talked to them about some other options. They have some territorial concerns giving too much room outside the fence versus inside the fence for their residents. There is a well worn path at the corner where it abutts near a party store which is directly south. In this situation, staff believes that there is circumstance that would allow the Board to act upon this and be able to install that fence along that property line. Staff recommends approval with conditions listed in addendum given to Board. M. Clark asked if the apartment complex has two front yards? J. Ruff stated that they do. Discussion as to what determines a front yard - use of maps provided. M. Clark also asked if they are going to build the fence 15'west of the sidewalk which is their property line, is the sidewalk 15'from the street-so the fence would be approximately 30'from the street? J. Ruff stated that it might be more than that. He stated that the report states that the plans and field measurements indicate that the fence would be installed approximately 15' behind the sidewalk, but didn't give the dimensions of where the sidewalk is. There is a grass parkway and then there is a 5'sidewalk-so there is probably at least 10,to 12'from the curb line to the inside edge of the sidewalk and then there would be another 15'to the property line-so at least 25'from the curb line to the property line as it exists today. J. Ruff also stated that the maximum front yard that they can require is 50'from an administrative standpoint. If they were going to be building a new structure on that property,the maximum front yard setback that could be required is 50'. In the fence ordinance, it states"where your structure is",from the structure to the street is the front yard. In this situation, it is all the way from the back of the buildings. Rochelle Hatcher,Arbor Point Town Homes,4590 Seaway, Lansing, MI addressed the Board. She wanted to clarify that she did receive the suggestion about putting the fence 15'in from the sidewalk. But what Arbor Point is requesting is that the fence come in 5' from the sidewalk-which doesn't allow much space between the sidewalk and the fence. It doesn't allow much yardage space for standing or loitering. Loitering is a large problem that the applicant is having at this time. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MARCH 11, 199a PAGE 5 Arbor Point,formerly known as Canterbury Commons, was built back in 1972. It is a 350 unit complex that sets on 43 acres. The property was built as a MSHDA Section 236 Program,which is under HUD Section 8 for low to moderate income families. The rent, up until July 1998,would range from a 1-bedroom at$388 to a 3-bedroom at$533. That includes all the utilities and each one is a town home. Recently, under the new owner- US Housing Partners-the rent for the recently newly remodeled 1-bedroom is now$540 and the 3-bedroom is now$700. The units have been completely remodeled and, up to this date,they have invested $500,000 into the property. Despite the investment,they have been plagued with drugs, crime and vandalism, especially the area at Burneway and Waverly where they are asking for the fence. Out of 17 units, 8 have been broken in to and vandalized in the last 7 months. Out of those units that have been broken in to, rehabilitation has been approximately$6,200 per unit. It has cost the applicant at least$3,800 to go back into those units that have already been rehabilitated and then get them back to a rental status. It is creating a problem in that area because that particular area at Burneway and Waverly is experiencing crime. It is also experiencing heavy gang activity as well. The police are also present to confirm this as well as the fact that it is a heavy drug traffic area. The problem that the applicant is presented with is the fact that they are trying to make the complex a safe, family environment but because of the free gateway that walks from their back door to Waverly, they have nothing protecting them from those particular elements and things that people will do for one reason or another. What the applicant is asking for is to be able to provide safety for their residents because the residents are their responsibility and the applicant owes them that. Also the applicant would like to secure their own property and their investment. They also feel that the south side of Lansing is entitled to have a community where there doesn't need to be such police interventions as mini-stations on their property. They want to work together to have some preventive measures. They feel that this request is a way of preventing some of the possible damage and crime that happen in that area now from happening in the future. She stated that they can work with putting the fence 15' in, but would rather have the 5' in due to the fact that it would lessen the loitering that would take place in that area. Also,they are also looking into cutting the fence off before Burneway due to visibility, but also going down Burneway a little bit if that is a possibility. They are trying to work with the Lansing Police Department in cleaning up that area as much as possible. There is a lot of wooded areas where people can hide in to elude police. That area is a getaway for criminals. This is why they want to put this fence in. J. Ruff stated that he doesn't have in the records that the request was 5'from the sidewalk. That may have been a mental picture, but the request was along the property line. The property line, according to what has been provided, is 15'from the sidewalk. The Board of Zoning Appeals cannot grant a variance for a fence in the right of way. That is something that only the City Council can do. BZA doesn't have the authority to allow the fence to be erected on public property as such. But they can deal with the fence in the front yard. R. Hatcher stated that when she met with Sam Quon, it was explained that they were not certain exactly where the property line started. What the applicant was looking at was the fact that they wanted the fence to be as close to the sidewalk area as they could possibly get it without going into the berms and not creating a visibility problem. The 5' in measurement is merely a measurement that they were looking at to see if it was possible. If they go in 12'to 15'-there is a discrepancy as to where the actual property line is-it would definitely go into the berms. They also have 3 large pine trees that would have to come out in order to do the 15'in from the sidewalk. If they go 27' in -which is 12' into the property line but further back-that also presents a problem. What the applicant is also looking at is that they are totally prepared at any expense in the event that Waverly Rd. expands,that they are certainly capable and understand that it is their responsibility financially to remove the fence and put it in an area that works with the City. M. Clark asked if she understood that the Board of Zoning Appeals could not give them permission to build a fence in the 5' area? R. Hatcher understands that. She also stated that she was told that the property line was BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MARCH 11, 199a PAGE 6 12' in, but she thought they had a little bit more room because of where the trees were. V. Earhart asked if there was a tenant group? R. Hatcher said that at present there was not. There was a resident council, but since they are under new ownership,they have new residents coming in. They are in the process of bringing people back into the community. It is very hard at this time to develop groups. V. Earhart stated that she was wondering if the applicant has had any tenant input into this particular solution? R. Hatcher stated that they have had much input. The residents in that area would love to see a fence put up because it prevents the cut throughs, it stops people from cutting through that are going to the grocery store,to the party store that they don't know that are walking right by their living room windows or walking by residents' patios while they are sitting there. R. Korbakis asked how long the crime trend has been happening? Also, have any other security measures been taken? R. Hatcher stated that they pay for their own private security on the premises, but they are unarmed. This makes their actions very limited in dealing with any serious problems. The applicant still relies very heavily on the Lansing Police Department for the types of crimes and activity that they are talking about. As far as how long it has been going on, she had recently spoken with Robert Mulvaney from the State of Michigan. He informed her that his research has shown that since July 1998 gang activity has increased 82% in the applicant's area. The gang activity has gone from possibly a membership of 6 to a membership of 35. They are all juveniles, all under the age of 16 and they all have various felony assaults, felony with intent, armed robbery, etc. M. Clark asked if any of these people were residents of the applicant's complex? R. Hatcher stated that unfortunately they are not. She says"unfortunately" because if they were residents of the applicant's complex,then they could do something to handle the situation that they are in now. B. Burgess asked if the applicant's intention was to put the fence wherever the property line is or still want to put it closer? R. Hatcher stated that it would be their wish to put the fence closer than where the property line is. B. Burgess stated that it makes it an irrelevant issue since the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot rule in this manner. Should the case be tabled? J. Ruff stated that what probably would be most beneficial is, even if they were able to go out closer to the sidewalk and into the public right of way by council,there may be a couple of sections that would be on private property and still be in what would be considered front yard. If the Board is favorable in granting an appeal at least out to the front property line, they can do that. When the exact location of the property line is located-which Planning believes to be 15'from the sidewalk-if the applicant cannot put it in that location but wishes to go out further and Council approves that,then at least the BZA has allowed the applicant to make the connections that would be from private property out to public property which would be done through the ACT 285 Review Process. M. Clark asked what would come into play if Council acted on this case? Would the Board of Zoning Appeals give up jurisdiction since it is public right of way? J. Ruff stated that Council would be able to allow a reasonable height based on code related issues. If it was strictly a security issue, ordinance does allow administration to make a decision to allow 6' or greater height fences in certain yard areas. He has only BOARD OF ZONING APPED' S MEETING MARCH 11, 1900 PAGE 7 done that in a few occasions where the impact to the public was minimal and there were excessive circumstances. There are topographic reasons that he can approve something like that. There are security issues where staff can approve fences higher than what is allowed by code, but those are spelled out in the code. This particular case, because of the visible nature of it and its significance, is the reason that it was brought before this Board. As far as allowing the fence in the public right of way, Council could allow a fence in the public right of way. He doesn't believe that they would go beyond 6'. He also stated that they still have the area from the building to the property line to deal with. The connections,the fence in the very back toward the south,they would want to be able to connect it 6' high all the way out as far as it could. The Board still has a duty in those areas. If the applicant does a return, as Planning has recommended in their report,that would still be in the front yard area. M. Clark stated that she wanted to make sure she understood what was being said. Council can give permission for a fence to be built in the public right of way, but it would not have to come before the BZA again for a height variance-the applicant could also get permission for a higher or lower fence than would normally be allowed without having any BZA review? J. Ruff stated that was correct. He also stated that if the applicant took this request to the City Council first, it would fall apart at the connections. Anywhere on the property,they still could not have it above Tor 4'depending upon how open the fence is. Council couldn't do that part of it and the BZA can't do anything in the right of way. Through action tonight,the BZA could approve it on the property line and-if the Board desires to make a further recommendation -that would give an idea to Council, but it is not binding at all. A. Frederick stated that if there was an ACT 285 review, it would come to the Planning Board first. If the Board of Zoning Appeals so desired, he would convey their wishes to the Planning Board that the height condition included in approval if that were to be given of no more than 6'. The zoning board would still have some influence, if not authority, over something like this in the public right of way. J. Ruff stated that he has one final concern in moving the fence into the public right of way. He would express this to the Planning Board as well. As the applicant has had problems with trespassing on their property,there are people who jay walk across the street constantly. The party store, Rite Aid, McDonalds, etc. are being reached by crossing the street anywhere as opposed to walking down to the light and crossing. He is aware of this due to frequent traveling down Waverly, approximately 5-6 times a week. By narrowing that visible area down from the fence to the sidewalk too much, he could envision a visibility concern as to how much room there is to see where people are running or crossing the street. He showed areas on the map that would be potential problem areas. He would be concerned with moving the fence too close and not having enough room to see around it. He believes that it would have to be studied closely. B. Burgess asked for the police officers to address the Board. R. Hatcher lastly stated that for their own personal curb appeal and aesthetic view,they would never want to go further than 6'. That is not their intention to look like a prison,so 6' is as high as they would want to go in a fence. Also, seeing the pedestrian traffic that crosses in the area frequently, putting a fence up will curtail cutting across Waverly. Officer George Kelley, Lansing Police Department, Lansing MI, addressed the Board in order to confirm the problems with the high crime area. They have problems with juveniles hanging out at the corner by the apartments and the party store, especially in the summertime. When vehicles pull up,they come out to the sidewalk and do their activities, either while the vehicle is on the street or the vehicle is pulled into the party store lot. He does believe that by having a 6'fence there it is going to make it more difficult to sit back up on the lawn beside the houses and come down to the sidewalk when there is business. They are hoping that by making them stay on the sidewalk the whole time, it will make it easier for them to intervene, maybe to stop them and identify them. He also stated that he knows that most of the subjects hanging out on the corner do not live in the complex. BOARD OF ZONING APPEA' S MEETING MARCH 11, 1990 PAGE 8 When he does get the chance to identify them, he finds out that they don't live in the complex. The ones that do live in that complex, he lets R. Hatcher know. A. Frederick asked Officer Kelley what his opinion was of the height of the fence regarding visibility from traffic entering Waverly from Burneway? Officer Kelley stated that if the fence were cut off and put on a slant going up Burneway that would allow visibility. As far as having a 6'fence versus a 3'fence, he felt that a 3' fence would be very easy for juveniles to get over. He believes that a 6'fence would be more helpful. J. Ruff asked what Officer Kelley's thoughts were on the distance difference between 15' back from the sidewalk and 5'from the sidewalk. Officer Kelley stated that he was not aware of where the property line was established. He stated that the closer the fence was to the sidewalk,the less convenient it would be for them to hang out there and sell drugs, etc. J. Ruff asked what other means would be necessary to prevent this problem? Would additional lighting along that side of the property help as well? Officer Kelley stated that he believes that it would. He said that LPD had a meeting with the applicant and with their security personnel. The applicant has entertained the idea of putting up some cameras, whether they are working cameras or not. The applicant is also working with new lighting. J. Ruff stated that, particularly at night, it is dark in that area. Obviously the applicant would not want to have so much light that it would affect their own residents so much so that the lights would always be shining in their back windows. It is possible to put in pedestrian oriented lighting to light up that area better to provide a better environment which could even be partly or entirely provided. They could work with the Board of Water& Light for different types of lighting, pedestrian lighting, etc. There is some potential there as well. M. Clark asked if the primary problem was there at the corner by the party store? Officer Kelley stated that the primary problem was right at the corner. If you were to go out there,you can see where there is no grass and where the heavy traffic area is. M. Clark stated that she was curious if a 6'fence at that corner and then tapering down to a legal height fence might be more in conformance with the code and yet deal with the problem that seems to be situated there. The Board allowed R. Hatcher to address the Board again. R. Hatcher addressed the question regarding lighting that was earlier stated. The applicant has spent$24,000 on adding lighting to the property. R. Hatcher is also working with David Berlinger of Board of Water& Light to upgrade their street lighting. M. Clark stated the question was addressed specifically to that problem corner. R. Hatcher stated that particular corner has been addressed by putting brighter lights on the building. However,the building sits so far back from Waverly that it doesn't help much to light up that particular corner. M. Clark asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Board. Seeing none,they convened into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that the request is reasonable for better security and practical. He will support request. BOARD OF ZONING APPEP1 S MEETING MARCH 11, 1990 PAGE 9 A. Frederick stated that it certainly was a question of security of the residents of the complex. There is no guarantee that the alleged activity will stay at that corner and out on the sidewalk. It could easily come into the apartment complex. He is discouraged that the Board has to address something of this nature, but he sees that it is a need for general public safety. He is concerned about the site line for people trying to enter on Waverly in or from Burneway. He would like to see something in a motion that would take into account the staff recommendation regarding this area. He supports the suggestion that they plant shrubbery to discourage congregating in that area. Maybe there could be thorny shrubs planted in that area to further dissuade people from crossing through. V. Earhart stated that she is not fond of trying to solve,through the zoning board, a problem that seems to belong to somebody else- mainly the Police Department. But she agrees with A. Frederick in that there doesn't seem to be much else that can be done to protect the public as a whole in that area, particularly in that apartment complex. She will be voting in favor of this request. E. Horne stated that the real question is where is the fence going to be placed exactly. After passing the gavel to A. Frederick, M. Clark stated that she has a concern about citing crime as a hardship or practical difficulty. If the Board does that,then she can see a floodgate of people coming and saying that they want 6'fences around their houses. She is not sure where the line should be drawn in regards to this. In this particular property, it is certainly different than the average homeowner. It is a large property. There are no driveways along Waverly. So they are not dealing with the problem of entrance and egress of people into that property and having the fence pose visibility problems. She agrees with A. Frederick that the corner and the triangle solution is imperative. Fencing is a wonderful solution. She is not sure that 6'fencing is necessary. If a 4'fence is there, people psychologically say that they won't cross there. Much of the pedestrian traffic crossing/jaywalking across Waverly and cutting into the complex would probably be deterred with a shorter fence. Height is a questionable issue with her. The corner at the southeast is obviously a problem area and perhaps a 6'fence there is mandatory simply because of the nature of the problem. Lighting in that corner, if the apartment complex can come up with a solution, would do a lot toward making it an uncomfortable place to do business. She believes that the fence is necessary but wants to make it very clear that the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot give permission to build in the public right of way. Any action that the board is taking is not granting permission to build the fence in the public right of way. She is also far more comfortable with a fence that is set back from Waverly. The Board had tried on many of the thoroughfares in town to create more of an open feeling,so they have required fences, signs, etc.to be set back to give a more open sense as you drive down the street. To start granting permission to build out in the right of way makes her very uncomfortable. V. Earhart had a question. She stated that there is an intersection at Jolly and Waverly and another at Burneway and Waverly. Are both of those to be cut across the corner? J. Ruff stated that the property does not extend down to Jolly Rd. He stated that the map needed to be changed somewhat. J. Ruff added one last note on where might be a logical place if it weren't allowed to be a 6'fence all the way along Waverly Rd. The tendency for the pedestrian cut through movement is primarily between the southern two most buildings. He could see that if somebody were coming from Burneway across the apartment complex and going between the northern two most buildings,that if the fence were lower than 6'from that point north that they could easily hop the fence and hit the sidewalk and it wouldn't be a problem. He would consider that at least the 6'fence extend north behind the northern most building partway so that they would have to go back up to the corner in order to get around the fence. He showed areas on the site map explaining more. They had discussion regarding the possibility of gates also. He can see the need for the 6'fence up to a significant portion of that property, probably 3/4 of it if not further and then turning the corner. He also stated that the Board needed to make it in their motion that if they approve a variance for a fence that it would be a particular type of fence i.e.wrought iron, etc. M. Clark asked that if the variance was for a wrought iron fence,the applicant could not replace any portion of the fence with something else? BOARD OF ZONING APPEPI S MEETING MARCH 11, 1990 PAGE 10 J. Ruff stated that was correct. E. Horne stated that wrought iron is very expensive to construct. She agrees with Dave Berridge's recommendation#5 in the packet. J. Ruff stated that the biggest concern with that is the fence gets into the hills and landscaping that is already there. He can see that as being a problem in constructing a fence and maintaining it. E. Horne asked where they find the happy medium in this situation? M. Clark stated that one of the concerns that was expressed was not only walling off the apartment complex but also not providing an open area for illegal activity to occur. If you put the fence back that far,then you are just creating a park for it to happen. J. Ruff made an additional comment about the fence. It is wrought iron style. It doesn't mean that it has to be made of wrought iron metal, it could be powder coated aluminum or steel or something like that. But it would be the style of thin metal posts so that there is nothing to climb up. V. Earhart asked if it was possible to separate the issue in front of the Board so that they can get a consensus on whether they can have the fence, etc. with the understanding that they bring it back to the Board with their specific plan in that 12'-15' area? The Board is not sure about where it will hit the berm or how much space it will give. She thought that perhaps if the Board could approve the request for a fence with whatever requirements would be on it, reserving only the specific location, it might be easier for the Board to approach. J. Ruff suggested if that were the case,table the request. Also require from the applicant a survey with the exact dimensions, etc. and what it would look like. He believes that it is difficult to do now due to the fact that there is a seasonal affect with all the snow. The south property line has an existing fence and in all appearances that fence stops, at where he believes, is the property line. It is set back from the sidewalk. There is a substantial corner post. It appears to be easily 10'- 15' back from the sidewalk. He believes that is a reasonable distance. He doesn't think that will adversely affect the landscaping to a great degree. He also does not think that it will affect security adversely. He would like to be able to show the Board aerial photos of the area, but there are no current ones available. A. Frederick stated that he would not be against tabling the issue as long as the Board could give the applicant assurance, if that is the case,that they are in favor of the fence. He believes that the applicant is doing a great deal of work to better the appearance and livability of the complex. Due to the money that is being spent by the applicant on this, he doesn't want to delay their plans to the point that it will cost the applicant more. He is interested in knowing where exactly the fence would be. V. Earhart moved to table BZA-3536.98,4590 Seaway. Seconded by E. Horne. Voice vote 8-0 to table BZA-3536.98,4590 Seaway. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. B. BZA-3482.98, 2400 Hall (Gier) J. Ruff stated that the Parks Department has met with the Tower representatives and he has given the Board some graphics related to that. He described the aerial map for this area to the Board. He also stated that they would like to see some definitive advantage for the community center and he is suggesting that the Parks Department help negotiate a T1 line or what would be a fiber optic line that they could make available to the community center so that there could be some computer communication service improvements to the building. V. Earhart moved that Old Business B,C,D& E be removed from the table. Seconded by A. Frederick. Voice vote 8-0 to approve. More discussion and showing maps to Board. BOARD OF ZONING APPEA' S MEETING MARCH 11, 199° PAGE 11 E. Horne asked why the Parks Board has not sent back a referral in regards to this? J. Ruff stated that it has been in front of the Parks Board and he has been working with them on it. They haven't made it a high priority. They have been dealing with Grand River Park and the Boat Club issue, etc. He has been working with Mr. Reickel trying to get a recommendation from the Parks Board before Council has their hearing. Even if a height variance is approved, without a special land use, a tower cannot be built. A. Frederick stated that the Planning Board reviewed these items yesterday and voted them out with recommendations as well and recognized that there needed to be some benefit to the parks. It will come before the full Planning Board on 3/16/99 for recommendation for approval. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3482.98, 2400 Hall(Gier)with the seven conditions listed below except#2. Seconded by G. Hilts: 1. The tower shall be "monopole"type 2. The tower should be placed in lieu of an athletic light standard (existing or new) 3. The proposed monopole tower provide for a co-location of antennas 4. The proposed contract with the City of Lansing include language helping to ensure compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals 5. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base 6. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security 7. The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in locations as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact VOTE Yea Na Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3482.98, 2400 Hall (Gier) has been approved. C. BZA-3484.98, 2516 S. Washington (Washington) J. Ruff again showed Board aerial maps and discussed. The struggle was finding a reasonable location in the southwest/west area of the city due to the fact that it is a heavy residential area. So they have continued looking at Washington Park. In the contracts, he wanted to make sure that the Board realized that they have been successful in getting the Master Agreement. The tower people will be responsible for reviewing the frequencies against hospital frequencies so that they don't interfere with it. If there is going to be a potential problem with interference,they will work with the hospitals. He also stated that the Board's option would be to file an injunction to have it shut off and they are aware of that. The hospital is reviewing the final form of that language. They have worked with both hospitals' attorneys. They are using the same recommendations even with other telecommunication providers that may come to town for various types of things which is happening with the deregulation with things such as phone service. He showed in detail the aerial map to the Board. He believes that this is an adequate location for a tower that would not adversely affect aesthetics or the use of the park. M. Clark asked if the hospital said no at the original public hearing? BOARD OF ZONING APPEP' S MEETING MARCH 11, 1990 PAGE 12 J. Ruff stated that was correct. M. Clark then asked if the hospital has now come to the point of saying yes to this with conditions? J. Ruff stated that was correct. He is trying to get a letter from the hospital. The hospital got the final copy of the contract last week to review and respond to. He has met with the hospital,the city attorney's office and the communications people since that public hearing. The hospitals could not tell him what a safe distance was. They now have a good working relationship in order to address these problems. M. Clark asked about the possibility of Internet access. Who would put that stipulation on? J. Ruff stated that he was recommending that to the Parks Board. They have tried to separate out the financial issues versus the land use issues. He is concerned with improvements to the parks. He wants to make sure that the parks get something out of this. But he also wants to see some valid improvements. One thing could be to have fiber optic access. They have to provide this for the towers anyway, but the key would be to supply an extra line up to the property line so if ever the armory were taken out of service and was made into a public facility,they could make use of it which is positive. G. Hilts asked what specifically was going to be done to stop any interference that there would be with the hospitals? J. Ruff stated that it is a telemetry issue. Heart monitors, etc. are wireless, so they use different frequencies that are not regulated. So the hospitals need to protect those because they spend between $100,000 and $200,000 adjusting them. They are quite far away on the spectrum of radio frequency, but it is known that it can be affected by a spike. So they are doing what is called radio frequency spectrum analysis that will judge both sets of frequencies against one another. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3484.98, 2516 S. Washington (Washington)with the six conditions listed. Seconded by A. Frederick: 1. The tower shall be "monopole"type 2. The proposed monopole tower provide for a co-location of antennas 3. The proposed contract with the City of Lansing include language helping to ensure compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security 6. The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in locations as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact E. Horne stated that she would not be supporting this case. She stated that her organization did not get a chance to respond to this. She feels that her area has become saturated with towers and they still don't know the impact that it will have as far as the neighborhood is concerned as they just approved the one on Cavanaugh. They have one of those towers near Pleasant Grove and Holmes Rd. They also have the towers located at the police building at Holmes and Washington. She feels that they don't need anymore towers in that area. Her one reservation is that she does not like to see towers in parks. VOTE Yea Na Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X BOARD OF ZONING APPEPI S MEETING MARCH 11, 1990 PAGE 13 Horne X Danley X Burgess X rKorbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 7 -1, BZA-3484.98, 2516 S. Washington (Washington) has been approved. D. BZA-3487.98,4801 Aurelius (B. Munn) J. Ruff stated that this one is on the southeast part of town. He referred to the graphics and maps in packet as well as aerial maps he showed to the Board. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3487.98,4801 Aurelius (B. Munn)with the seven conditions listed below. Amended by V. Earhart to approve with seven conditions except#2. Seconded by E. Horne: 1. The tower shall be "monopole"type 2. The tower should be placed in lieu of an athletic light standard (existing or new) 3. The proposed monopole tower provide for a co-location of antennas 4. The proposed contract with the City of Lansing include language helping to ensure compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals 5. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base 6. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security 7. The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in locations as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact VOTE Yea Na Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3487.98,4801 Aurelius (B. Munn) has been approved. E. BZA-3489.98, 5500 S. Pennsylvania (Station 4) J. Ruff is requesting that this case be withdrawn due to concerns about its location, both being too close to residents and being rather small. Also due to the fact that it is being sold. E. Horne moved to accept withdrawal of BZA-3489.98, 5500 S. Pennsylvania. Seconded by V. Earhart. Voice vote 8-0 approval. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Mr. Phillip Venema addressed the Board. He believes that there was a misunderstanding in his presentation. He stated that G. Hilts testified that he apparently walked by there and was almost ran over by a car leaving the driveway. At that time,the fence was at the 7' mark and he is talking about taking off 2 '/2'so that it doesn't happen. G. Hilts stated that anyone still would not be able to see around the pillars in a normal vehicle even if they were lowered. There is a serious concern about visibility. BOARD OF ZONING APPEP' S MEETING MARCH 11, 199° PAGE 14 M. Clark stated that the Board did understand the presentation. She also stated that the consensus of the Board was that it still would be too much of an obstruction which is why they took the action they did. Mr.Venema is confused by the testimony of G. Hilts. He said the fence will be lowered. M. Clark stated that G. Hilts'testimony was a confirmation of the need of the ordinance to address the visibility issues at the sidewalk regardless of what the height is. J. Ruff stated that while some of the fence might be down an average of 3'/',the pillars themselves being around 5' in height and 2'square, provide quite a visual obstacle. He also stated that most people don't stop at sidewalks and it would only take a second for an accident to happen. The reason the height was established at 3'was because not all vehicles would be able to see over an obstacle. He would contend that even if the pillars were lowered to 5' it would still be a visibility problem. G. Hilts stated that the hardship is self imposed and that the code doesn't allow the Board to do that. He thinks that it is a bad idea. A. Frederick stated that the code requires the Board to evaluate whether or not, if the variance is not requested,will the applicant not get reasonable use out of their property. He believes that the applicant could have a fence that would serve the reasonable purpose of a fence and still meet the zoning code. That reason limited him in approving this particular variance request because the Board's authority is limited by the code. Mr.Venema stated that to lower the fence to 3'will make it look terrible. A. Frederick stated that was his point. It is the looks,�not the reasonableness of the fence. The applicant will still be able to use the property without hindrance and without loss if the applicant abides by the code. Mr.Venema stated that the discussion about being run over was a concern of his. J. Ruff stated that this disturbs him. He wrote Mr.Venema a letter stating that he had to close his driveway off for potential problems. After G. Hilts shared his experience with the Board at the last Board meeting, J. Ruff drove out there to applicant's home to check status of driveway. He stated that there was one small orange cone blocking the use of the driveway. He asked Mr.Venema today if that cone had been consistently used and Mr. Venema stated that it hadn't been used every day. J. Ruff believes that this is a self- imposed problem. It disturbs him that it keeps going on because when he first wrote the letter stating that the fence could not be built,the fence kept being built. He understands that it was being done so that the Board could see how it looked when it was done, but even if there is an expense involved in lowering or removing the fence, he believes that the applicant has taken that chance to bear. To him,that is disturbing, it means there is a problem, it means that the law is not for everybody. He stated that it is not because the fence is ugly, but it is not within code. It progressed after the fact that the applicant was notified that the fence didn't meet the code requirements. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of February 11, 1999 B. Burgess moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Locked Door in Front of City Hall V. Earhart asked if the Board could do anything to assist the staff in making sure the doors are not locked for meetings. Can a letter be written? J. Ruff stated that they could write a letter to Management Services Dept., Liza Estlund- BOARD OF ZONING APPEP' S MEETING MARCH 11, 1990 PAGE 15 Olsen, Director. He stated that the Board's meeting is put on the Council agenda. He tries to make sure that BZA meetings are on that list. He stated that he will draft the letter for the Board. M. Clark also wanted to state that this is an issue not only because board members couldn't get in for a meeting, but the fact that it is a public hearing and the public needs to have access to the meeting as well. A. Frederick stated that he wants the letter to reflect that there is no problem with doors being locked at any of the Planning Board meetings. VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff,Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 03/22/99 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MARCH 11, 1999, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL ry i � I. ROLL CALL Li1n,N Ci 1'1' CLERK The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:35 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: V. Earhart E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick M. Clark R. Korbakis R. Danley Staff: J. Ruff L. Peters A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. Earhart requested an addition to agenda in New Business regarding the front doors of City Hall being locked before the BZA meetings. Voice vote of 8-0 to approve agenda with additions. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3534.98. 1401 Cambridge J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Mr. Philip Venema regarding a variance for an existing fence that was recently built in the front yard at 1401 Cambridge Rd. The fence is composed of brick columns with wrought iron intermediate areas in between the columns with exception around the driveways-there is brick fencing in between the columns as well. This was brought before the Board two months ago in order to seek appeal on the existing fence that is there. The applicant withdrew that request and has submitted a modification proposed for that request. Some of the columns go up to 7' in height and those columns would be brought down to the height of the other columns that are there. This is a variance request from the fencing section, in particular the front yard of the property. As such, Mr.Venema is requesting that variance. The property is in a residential area and the zoning reflects that. The Board has a case history in their packet describing the sequence of events. The restriction here is that a fence or hedge should not exceed 3' within a front yard area. As such,this fence exceeds that height. Also the areas around the driveway are not to exceed Tin height to help ensure for visibility around the driveway entrance/exit so that either people on the public right of way or on the sidewalk can be seen by those leaving the property or, at least, more visible. Therefore,this is a request of a variance for these two areas of the zoning code. Basically,the Planning Office looked at this in four parts. The first part being the hardship or practical difficulty,then they looked at compatibility with surrounding neighborhood,the impact on circulation, as well as environmental impacts and future development patterns. One of the issues is that Planning does not believe that this has a practical difficulty or hardship. There is no lot condition that requires the fence to be above 3' in height. In this situation,there is not a development pattern for that. In Planning's opinion, it does not qualify as a hardship or practical difficulty. Secondly,the width of the columns are such -approximately in width with wrought iron in between the columns in some of the areas-that it makes it almost impossible to see down the sidewalk in order to avoid any pedestrian conflict. Granted, if you drive a taller vehicle, you might see around the column but not all vehicles are the same size. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEP' S MEETING MARCH 11, 1999 PAGE 2 Also,there is the factor of smaller children that would be on the sidewalk that would be very difficult to see. Staff believes that it is a safety hazard as well. As such, the Planning Office recommends denial on this case. Mr. Philip Venema, 1401 Cambridge Rd., Lansing, MI addressed the Board. He stated that he wasn't aware of any variances in the height of the fence when he built it. He purchased the home approximately one year ago and is tearing out shrubs to try to enhance his home and the surrounding area. He received support from the neighbors in what he was doing. He stated that it is a unique intersection. He described two different addresses that have fences and dividing walls in the front yard. Becoming aware of the height variance, he had the architectural firm do a new proposal to lower the height of the columns to approximately 5 '/i and lowering the wing walls to approximately 31/'so that there would be visibility. He is concerned about safety as is the City of Lansing. The driveway is higher as you come out of it. With the new proposal,there would be plenty of visibility to see even a child walking by. He believes that the fence is unique to that intersection-in how it fits the neighborhood. It does enhance the home. He also stated that he brought the hardship or practical difficulty on himself because he wasn't aware of any height ordinance. To remove the fence would devalue the home and the homes around him. All of his neighbors support the fencing. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that because it is a self-imposed hardship, he believes that it would be a poor precedent to approve this request-and the fact that he was almost run over himself walking past that particular driveway. He is very concerned with visibility. He will not support request. A. Frederick stated that he drove over and looked at property. It was clear to him that vision was obscured. He supports G. Hilts views. He also feels that the fence over 3'is an aesthetic consideration. The applicant could get a reasonable use out of his property with a fence that was in compliance with the zoning code. He will not support request. R. Korbakis stated that she agrees that compliance with the code will not reduce use of the property. In regards to a hardship,she doesn't believe that there is one. She will vote against this request. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3534.98, 1401 Cambridge. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE Yea Nay Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3534.98, 1401 Cambridge has been denied. J. Ruff stated that what this vote does is require that the applicant reduce the height of the fence to 3' or lower or remove it completely. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEP S MEETING MARCH 11, 1999 PAGE 3 B. BZA-3535.98, 3223 Ruth J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Kurt Hargrove to build a new single family home at 3223 Ruth Street, 16'from the front property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the established front yard setback be 30'for the subject property due to the established setback. There is one home to the north, south of the cross street, Hoyt. That requires the setback be 30'from the front property line. The bulk of Mr. Hargrove's property is in the 100 year flood plain. In order to construct the home, he would like to construct it 16' from the front property line to the front porch,which would possibly be an enclosed front porch,to help avoid that flood plain area. He has also reduced the structure by moving the garage somewhat. He wants to address the house issue first and then, at a later date, address the garage issue by getting the DEQ permit. That way he can utilize part of the flood plain. J. Ruff referred to drawings/maps in packet. There is approximately 65' maximum depth of property to build on out of the flood plain. Mr. Hargrove wants to put the house up in that area. The structure would still be located at least 45'from the north property line giving it a substantial setback to the property directly on the north. In this case,the reason for the setback variance is based upon the quantity of flood plain on the site and the depth of buildable area on the site. There should not be any adverse impacts to either adjacent development or traffic patterns based upon the construction plans for the property. Staff is recommending approval of the 14'front yard setback variance requested. E. Horne asked if the house was going to be built out of cinder blocks? J. Ruff stated that he didn't think so. He believed that it was going to be a frame house. Mr. Kurt Hargrove, 3223 Ruth, Lansing, MI addressed the Board. He answered E. Horne's question stating that it would be a poured wall foundation with wood construction. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. R. Korbakis stated that, unlike the previous application,this indicates more of a hardship that is peculiar to the applicant due to most of his property being in the flood plain. It is more difficult to secure a reasonable return from it. She will support request. A. Frederick stated that this is the third appeal that he has heard that involves building in the flood plain. He appreciates the fact that the applicant is making an attempt to stay out of the flood plain and not cause any additional possibility of property damage or safety of the inhabitants. V. Earhart stated that at looking at some of the maps provided,that some of the structures already on the property are built within the flood plain itself. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3535.98, 3223 Ruth. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE Yea Nay Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8-0, BZA-3535.98, 3223 Ruth has been approved. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPE/" S MEETING MARCH 11, 199Q PAGE 4 C. BZA-3536.98,4590 Seawav J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Arbor Point Town Homes for a fence variance in the front yard for the property along Waverly Rd. at Seaway and Burneway. There is an existing 6' chain link fence along the south property line that they would like to replace part of it-about 400' of it- that is nearest Waverly Rd. and then extend fencing along the east property line north along the property line to Burneway. They could build a fence that would meet code requirements in this area-3' high fence-but the purpose of the fence in this situation is primarily for security. They have experienced problems there. They have brought police officers to the meeting to testify to that fact. They wish to replace the 6' fence on the south side, put a wrought iron type of fence along the Waverly Rd. side 6' in height. Note that it is a rear yard to most of the apartments there-so it doesn't appear to be a front yard to them. There are some houses across Waverly Rd. that face Waverly Rd. so it does appear to be a front yard to those homes. As such, it needs to adhere to the ordinance. The other part to this is that the property line is setback from the sidewalk 15'so that the fence would be 15'from the sidewalk. Planning doesn't believe that it would present a visibility problem due to the fact that the fence would not be right up next to the sidewalk. One issue that they have discussed with the Traffic Engineer is that potentially Waverly Rd. could be expanded to a 5th lane. He knows that there is enough room to expand a 5th lane through there without purchasing property from the apartments. Yet,the Traffic Engineer was concerned about the potential of a visibility conflict in the future if a 5th lane were added. As staff,they decided that some options would be for the apartments to move the fence back to approximately 27' from the sidewalk which would get them back another 12'from the property line and then, as the Traffic Engineer states, it would never be a visibility problem or the apartments need to understand that potentially in the future there could be a conflict with visibility at the property line. Staff would insist that at the intersection of Burneway and Waverly that it cut the angle of the fencing to help prevent any problems with visibility at the intersection either now or in the future. If they want to keep the fence at the property line, staff believes that it is necessary to cut that angle. Otherwise,staff believes that the fence could be moved back as suggested by the Traffic Engineer. They have always kept a very nicely landscaped yard along Waverly Rd. and they have a berm that has their sign on it. They didn't want to get the fence in that hillside. Staff talked to them about some other options. They have some territorial concerns giving too much room outside the fence versus inside the fence for their residents. There is a well worn path at the corner where it abutts near a party store which is directly south. In this situation,staff believes that there is circumstance that would allow the Board to act upon this and be able to install that fence along that property line. Staff recommends approval with conditions listed in addendum given to Board. M. Clark asked if the apartment complex has two front yards? J. Ruff stated that they do. Discussion as to what determines a front yard- use of maps provided. M. Clark also asked if they are going to build the fence 15'west of the sidewalk which is their property line, is the sidewalk 15'from the street-so the fence would be approximately 30'from the street? J. Ruff stated that it might be more than that. He stated that the report states that the plans and field measurements indicate that the fence would be installed approximately 15' behind the sidewalk, but didn't give the dimensions of where the sidewalk is. There is a grass parkway and then there is a 5'sidewalk-so there is probably at least 10,to 12'from the curb line to the inside edge of the sidewalk and then there would be another 15'to the property line-so at least 25'from the curb line to the property line as it exists today. J. Ruff also stated that the maximum front yard that they can require is 50'from an administrative standpoint. If they were going to be building a new structure on that property,the maximum front yard setback that could be required is 50'. In the fence ordinance, it states"where your structure is",from the structure to the street is the front yard. In this situation, it is all the way from the back of the buildings. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPE°' S MEETING MARCH 11, 1990 PAGE 5 Rochelle Hatcher,Arbor Point Town Homes, 4590 Seaway, Lansing, MI addressed the Board. She wanted to clarify that she did receive the suggestion about putting the fence 15' in from the sidewalk. But what Arbor Point is requesting is that the fence come in 5' from the sidewalk-which doesn't allow much space between the sidewalk and the fence. It doesn't allow much yardage space for standing or loitering. Loitering is a large problem that the applicant is having at this time. Arbor Point, formerly known as Canterbury Commons,was built back in 1972. It is a 350 unit complex that sets on 43 acres. The property was built as a MSHDA Section 236 Program,which is under HUD Section 8 for low to moderate income families. The rent, up until July 1998,would range from a 1-bedroom at$388 to a 3-bedroom at$533. That includes all the utilities and each one is a town home. Recently, under the new owner- US Housing Partners-the rent for the recently newly remodeled 1-bedroom is now$540 and the 3-bedroom is now$700. The units have been completely remodeled and, up to this date,they have invested $500,000 into the property. Despite the investment,they have been plagued with drugs, crime and vandalism, especially the area at Burneway and Waverly where they are asking for the fence. Out of 17 units, 8 have been broken in to and vandalized in the last 7 months. Out of those units that have been broken in to, rehabilitation has been approximately$6,200 per unit. It has cost the applicant at least$3,800 to go back into those units that have already been rehabilitated and then get them back to a rental status. It is creating a problem in that area because that particular area at Burneway and Waverly is experiencing crime. It is also experiencing heavy gang activity as well. The police are also present to confirm this as well as the fact that it is a heavy drug traffic area. The problem that the applicant is presented with is the fact that they are trying to make the complex a safe,family environment but because of the free gateway that walks from their back door to Waverly, they have nothing protecting them from those particular elements and things that people will do for one reason or another. What the applicant is asking for is to be able to provide safety for their residents because the residents are their responsibility and the applicant owes them that. Also the applicant would like to secure their own property and their investment. They also feel that the south side of Lansing is entitled to have a community where there doesn't need to be such police interventions as mini-stations on their property. They want to work together to have some preventive measures. They feel that this request is a way of preventing some of the possible damage and crime that happen in that area now from happening in the future. She stated that they can work with putting the fence 15' in, but would rather have the 5' in due to the fact that it would lessen the loitering that would take place in that area. Also,they are also looking into cutting the fence off before Burneway due to visibility, but also going down Burneway a little bit if that is a possibility. They are trying to work with the Lansing Police Department in cleaning up that area as much as possible. There is a lot of wooded areas where people can hide in to elude police. That area is a getaway for criminals. This is why they want to put this fence in. J. Ruff stated that he doesn't have in the records that the request was 5'from the sidewalk. That may have been a mental picture, but the request was along the property line. The property line, according to what has been provided, is 15'from the sidewalk. The Board of Zoning Appeals cannot grant a variance for a fence in the right of way. That is something that only the City Council can do. BZA doesn't have the authority to allow the fence to be erected on public property as such. But they can deal with the fence in the front yard. R. Hatcher stated that when she met with Sam Quon, it was explained that they were not certain exactly where the property line started. What the applicant was looking at was the fact that they wanted the fence to be as close to the sidewalk area as they could possibly get it without going into the berms and not creating a visibility problem. The 5' in measurement is merely a measurement that they were looking at to see if it was possible. If they go in 12'to 15'-there is a discrepancy as to where the actual property line is-it would definitely go into the berms. They also have 3 large pine trees that would have to come out in order to do the 15'in from the sidewalk. If they go 27'in -which is 12'into the property line but further back-that also presents a problem. What the applicant is also DRAFTCOPY BOARD OF ZONING APPE°" S MEETING MARCH 11, 1990 PAGE 6 looking at is that they are totally prepared at any expense in the event that Waverly Rd. expands,that they are certainly capable and understand that it is their responsibility financially to remove the fence and put it in an area that works with the City. M. Clark asked if she understood that the Board of Zoning Appeals could not give them permission to build a fence in the 5' area? R. Hatcher understands that. She also stated that she was told that the property line was 12' in, but she thought they had a little bit more room because of where the trees were. V. Earhart asked if there was a tenant group? R. Hatcher said that at present there was not. There was a resident council, but since they are under new ownership,they have new residents coming in. They are in the process of bringing people back into the community. It is very hard at this time to develop groups. V. Earhart stated that she was wondering if the applicant has had any tenant input into this particular solution? R. Hatcher stated that they have had much input. The residents in that area would love to see a fence put up because it prevents the cut throughs, it stops people from cutting through that are going to the grocery store,to the party store that they don't know that are walking right by their living room windows or walking by residents' patios while they are sitting there. R. Korbakis asked how long the crime trend has been happening? Also, have any other security measures been taken? R. Hatcher stated that they pay for their own private security on the premises, but they are unarmed. This makes their actions very limited in dealing with any serious problems. The applicant still relies very heavily on the Lansing Police Department for the types of crimes and activity that they are talking about. As far as how long it has been going on, she had recently spoken with Robert Mulvaney from the State of Michigan. He informed her that his research has shown that since July 1998 gang activity has increased 82% in the applicant's area. The gang activity has gone from possibly a membership of 6 to a membership of 35. They are all juveniles, all under the age of 16 and they all have various felony assaults, felony with intent, armed robbery, etc. M. Clark asked if any of these people were residents of the applicant's complex? R. Hatcher stated that unfortunately they are not. She says"unfortunately" because if they were residents of the applicant's complex,then they could do something to handle the situation that they are in now. B. Burgess asked if the applicant's intention was to put the fence wherever the property line is or still want to put it closer? R. Hatcher stated that it would be their wish to put the fence closer than where the property line is. B. Burgess stated that it makes it an irrelevant issue since the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot rule in this manner. Should the case be tabled? J. Ruff stated that what probably would be most beneficial is, even if they were able to go out closer to the sidewalk and into the public right of way by council,there may be a couple of sections that would be on private property and still be in what would be considered front yard. If the Board is favorable in granting an appeal at least out to the front property line, they can do that. When the exact location of the property line is located -which Planning believes to be 15'from the sidewalk-if the applicant cannot put it in that location but wishes to go out further and Council approves that,then at least the BZA has allowed the DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPE" S MEETING MARCH 11, 1990 PAGE 7 applicant to make the connections that would be from private property out to public property which would be done through the ACT 285 Review Process. M. Clark asked what would come into play if Council acted on this case? Would the Board of Zoning Appeals give up jurisdiction since it is public right of way? J. Ruff stated that Council would be able to allow a reasonable height based on code related issues. If it was strictly a security issue, ordinance does allow administration to make a decision to allow 6'or greater height fences in certain yard areas. He has only done that in a few occasions where the impact to the public was minimal and there were excessive circumstances. There are topographic reasons that he can approve something like that.There are security issues where staff can approve fences higher than what is allowed by code, but those are spelled out in the code. This particular case, because of the visible nature of it and its significance, is the reason that it was brought before this Board. As far as allowing the fence in the public right of way, Council could allow a fence in the public right of way. He doesn't believe that they would go beyond 6'. He also stated that they still have the area from the building to the property line to deal with. The connections,the fence in the very back toward the south,they would want to be able to connect it 6' high all the way out as far as it could. The Board still has a duty in those areas. If the applicant does a return, as Planning has recommended in their report,that would still be in the front yard area. M. Clark stated that she wanted to make sure she understood what was being said. Council can give permission for a fence to be built in the public right of way, but it would not have to come before the BZA again for a height variance-the applicant could also get permission for a higher or lower fence than would normally be allowed without having any BZA review? J. Ruff stated that was correct. He also stated that if the applicant took this request to the City Council first, it would fall apart at the connections. Anywhere on the property,they still could not have it above Tor 4'depending upon how open the fence is. Council couldn't do that part of it and the BZA can't do anything in the right of way. Through action tonight,the BZA could approve it on the property line and -if the Board desires to make a further recommendation -that would give an idea to Council, but it is not binding at all. A. Frederick stated that if there was an ACT 285 review, it would come to the Planning Board first. If the Board of Zoning Appeals so desired, he would convey their wishes to the Planning Board that the height condition included in approval if that were to be given of no more than 6'. The zoning board would still have some influence, if not authority, over something like this in the public right of way. J. Ruff stated that he has one final concern in moving the fence into the public right of way. He would express this to the Planning Board as well. As the applicant has had problems with trespassing on their property,there are people who jay walk across the street constantly. The party store, Rite Aid, McDonalds, etc. are being reached by crossing the street anywhere as opposed to walking down to the light and crossing. He is aware of this due to frequent traveling down Waverly, approximately 5-6 times a week. By narrowing that visible area down from the fence to the sidewalk too much, he could envision a visibility concern as to how much room there is to see where people are running or crossing the street. He showed areas on the map that would be potential problem areas. He would be concerned with moving the fence too close and not having enough room to see around it. He believes that it would have to be studied closely. B. Burgess asked for the police officers to address the Board. R. Hatcher lastly stated that for their own personal curb appeal and aesthetic view,they would never want to go further than 6'. That is not their intention to look like a prison, so 6' is as high as they would want to go in a fence. Also, seeing the pedestrian traffic that crosses in the area frequently, putting a fence up will curtail cutting across Waverly. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPF— S MEETING MARCH 11, 199' PAGE 8 Officer George Kelley, Lansing Police Department, Lansing MI, addressed the Board in order to confirm the problems with the high crime area. They have problems with juveniles hanging out at the corner by the apartments and the party store, especially in the summertime. When vehicles pull up,they come out to the sidewalk and do their activities, either while the vehicle is on the street or the vehicle is pulled into the party store lot. He does believe that by having a 6'fence there it is going to make it more difficult to sit back up on the lawn beside the houses and come down to the sidewalk when there is business. They are hoping that by making them stay on the sidewalk the whole time, it will make it easier for them to intervene, maybe to stop them and identify them. He also stated that he knows that most of the subjects hanging out on the corner do not live in the complex. When he does get the chance to identify them, he finds out that they don't live in the complex. The ones that do live in that complex, he lets R. Hatcher know. A. Frederick asked Officer Kelley what his opinion was of the height of the fence regarding visibility from traffic entering Waverly from Burneway? Officer Kelley stated that if the fence were cut off and put on a slant going up Burneway that would allow visibility. As far as having a 6'fence versus a 3'fence, he felt that a 3' fence would be very easy for juveniles to get over. He believes that a 6'fence would be more helpful. J. Ruff asked what Officer Kelley's thoughts were on the distance difference between 15' back from the sidewalk and 5'from the sidewalk. Officer Kelley stated that he was not aware of where the property line was established. He stated that the closer the fence was to the sidewalk,the less convenient it would be for them to hang out there and sell drugs, etc. J. Ruff asked what other means would be necessary to prevent this problem? Would additional lighting along that side of the property help as well? Officer Kelley stated that he believes that it would. He said that LPD had a meeting with the applicant and with their security personnel. The applicant has entertained the idea of putting up some cameras,whether they are working cameras or not. The applicant is also working with new lighting. J. Ruff stated that, particularly at night, it is dark in that area. Obviously the applicant would not want to have so much light that it would affect their own residents so much so that the lights would always be shining in their back windows. It is possible to put in pedestrian oriented lighting to light up that area better to provide a better environment which could even be partly or entirely provided. They could work with the Board of Water& Light for different types of lighting, pedestrian lighting, etc. There is some potential there as well. M. Clark asked if the primary problem was there at the corner by the party store? Officer Kelley stated that the primary problem was right at the corner. If you were to go out there,you can see where there is no grass and where the heavy traffic area is. M. Clark stated that she was curious if a 6'fence at that corner and then tapering down to a legal height fence might be more in conformance with the code and yet deal with the problem that seems to be situated there. The Board allowed R. Hatcher to address the Board again. R. Hatcher addressed the question regarding lighting that was earlier stated. The applicant has spent$24,000 on adding lighting to the property. R. Hatcher is also working with David Berlinger of Board of Water& Light to upgrade their street lighting. M. Clark stated the question was addressed specifically to that problem corner. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPE" S MEETING MARCH 11, 19QO PAGE 9 R. Hatcher stated that particular corner has been addressed by putting brighter lights on the building. However,the building sits so far back from Waverly that it doesn't help much to light up that particular corner. M. Clark asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Board. Seeing none,they convened into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that the request is reasonable for better security and practical. He will support request. A. Frederick stated that it certainly was a question of security of the residents of the complex. There is no guarantee that the alleged activity will stay at that corner and out on the sidewalk. It could easily come into the apartment complex. He is discouraged that the Board has to address something of this nature, but he sees that it is a need for general public safety. He is concerned about the site line for people trying to enter on Waverly in or from Burneway. He would like to see something in a motion that would take into account the staff recommendation regarding this area. He supports the suggestion that they plant shrubbery to discourage congregating in that area. Maybe there could be thorny shrubs planted in that area to further dissuade people from crossing through. V. Earhart stated that she is not fond of trying to solve,through the zoning board, a problem that seems to belong to somebody else- mainly the Police Department. But she agrees with A. Frederick in that there doesn't seem to be much else that can be done to protect the public as a whole in that area, particularly in that apartment complex. She will be voting in favor of this request. E. Horne stated that the real question is where is the fence going to be placed exactly. After passing the gavel to A. Frederick, M. Clark stated that she has a concern about citing crime as a hardship or practical difficulty. If the Board does that,then she can see a floodgate of people coming and saying that they want 6'fences around their houses. She is not sure where the line should be drawn in regards to this. In this particular property, it is certainly different than the average homeowner. It is a large property. There are no driveways along Waverly. So they are not dealing with the problem of entrance and egress of people into that property and having the fence pose visibility problems. She agrees with A. Frederick that the corner and the triangle solution is imperative. Fencing is a wonderful solution. She is not sure that 6'fencing is necessary. If a 4'fence is there, people psychologically say that they won't cross there. Much of the pedestrian traffic crossing/jaywalking across Waverly and cutting into the complex would probably be deterred with a shorter fence. Height is a questionable issue with her. The corner at the southeast is obviously a problem area and perhaps a 6'fence there is mandatory simply because of the nature of the problem. Lighting in that corner, if the apartment complex can come up with a solution, would do a lot toward making it an uncomfortable place to do business. She believes that the fence is necessary but wants to make it very clear that the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot give permission to build in the public right of way. Any action that the board is taking is not granting permission to build the fence in the public right of way. She is also far more comfortable with a fence that is set back from Waverly. The Board had tried on many of the thoroughfares in town to create more of an open feeling, so they have required fences,signs, etc.to be set back to give a more open sense as you drive down the street. To start granting permission to build out in the right of way makes her very uncomfortable. V. Earhart had a question. She stated that there is an intersection at Jolly and Waverly and another at Burneway and Waverly. Are both of those to be cut across the corner? J. Ruff stated that the property does not extend down to Jolly Rd. He stated that the map needed to be changed somewhat. J. Ruff added one last note on where might be a logical place if it weren't allowed to be a 6'fence all the way along Waverly Rd. The tendency for the pedestrian cut through movement is primarily between the southern two most buildings. He could see that if somebody were coming from Burneway across the apartment complex and going between the northern two most buildings,that if the fence were lower than 6'from that point north that they could easily hop the fence and hit the DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPE" S MEETING MARCH 11, 199n PAGE 10 sidewalk and it wouldn't be a problem. He would consider that at least the 6'fence extend north behind the northern most building partway so that they would have to go back up to the corner in order to get around the fence. He showed areas on the site map explaining more. They had discussion regarding the possibility of gates also. He can see the need for the 6'fence up to a significant portion of that property, probably 3/4 of it if not further and then turning the corner. He also stated that the Board needed to make it in their motion that if they approve a variance for a fence that it would be a particular type of fence i.e.wrought iron, etc. M. Clark asked that if the variance was for a wrought iron fence,the applicant could not replace any portion of the fence with something else? J. Ruff stated that was correct. E. Horne stated that wrought iron is very expensive to construct. She agrees with Dave Berridge's recommendation#5 in the packet. J. Ruff stated that the biggest concern with that is the fence gets into the hills and landscaping that is already there. He can see that as being a problem in constructing a fence and maintaining it. E. Horne asked where they find the happy medium in this situation? M. Clark stated that one of the concerns that was expressed was not only walling off the apartment complex but also not providing an open area for illegal activity to occur. If you put the fence back that far,then you are just creating a park for it to happen. J. Ruff made an additional comment about the fence. It is wrought iron style. It doesn't mean that it has to be made of wrought iron metal, it could be powder coated aluminum or steel or something like that. But it would be the style of thin metal posts so that there is nothing to climb up. V. Earhart asked if it was possible to separate the issue in front of the Board so that they can get a consensus on whether they can have the fence, etc.with the understanding that they bring it back to the Board with their specific plan in that 12'-15' area? The Board is not sure about where it will hit the berm or how much space it will give. She thought that perhaps if the Board could approve the request for a fence with whatever requirements would be on it, reserving only the specific location, it might be easier for the Board to approach. J. Ruff suggested if that were the case,table the request. Also require from the applicant a survey with the exact dimensions, etc. and what it would look like. He believes that it is difficult to do now due to the fact that there is a seasonal affect with all the snow. The south property line has an existing fence and in all appearances that fence stops, at where he believes, is the property line. It is set back from the sidewalk. There is a substantial corner post. It appears to be easily 10'- 15' back from the sidewalk. He believes that is a reasonable distance. He doesn't think that will adversely affect the landscaping to a great degree. He also does not think that it will affect security adversely. He would like to be able to show the Board aerial photos of the area, but there are no current ones available. A. Frederick stated that he would not be against tabling the issue as long as the Board could give the applicant assurance, if that is the case,that they are in favor of the fence. He believes that the applicant is doing a great deal of work to better the appearance and livability of the complex. Due to the money that is being spent by the applicant on this, he doesn't want to delay their plans to the point that it will cost the applicant more. He is interested in knowing where exactly the fence would be. V. Earhart moved to table BZA-3536.98,4590 Seaway. Seconded by E. Horne. Voice vote 8-0 to table BZA-3536.98,4590 Seaway. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPF - S MEETING MARCH 11, 19^" PAGE 11 B. BZA-3482.98, 2400 Hall (Gier) J. Ruff stated that the Parks Department has met with the Tower representatives and he has given the Board some graphics related to that. He described the aerial map for this area to the Board. He also stated that they would like to see some definitive advantage for the community center and he is suggesting that the Parks Department help negotiate a T1 line or what would be a fiber optic line that they could make available to the community center so that there could be some computer communication service improvements to the building. V. Earhart moved that Old Business B,C,D& E be removed from the table. Seconded by A. Frederick. Voice vote 8-0 to approve. More discussion and showing maps to Board. E. Horne asked why the Parks Board has not sent back a referral in regards to this? J. Ruff stated that it has been in front of the Parks Board and he has been working with them on it. They haven't made it a high priority. They have been dealing with Grand River Park and the Boat Club issue, etc. He has been working with Mr. Reickel trying to get a recommendation from the Parks Board before Council has their hearing. Even if a height variance is approved, without a special land use, a tower cannot be built. A. Frederick stated that the Planning Board reviewed these items yesterday and voted them out with recommendations as well and recognized that there needed to be some benefit to the parks. It will come before the full Planning Board on 3/16/99 for recommendation for approval. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3482.98, 2400 Hall (Gier)with the seven conditions listed below except#2. Seconded by G. Hilts: 1. The tower shall be "monopole"type 2. The tower should be placed in lieu of an athletic light standard (existing or new) 3. The proposed monopole tower provide for a co-location of antennas 4. The proposed contract with the City of Lansing include language helping to ensure compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals 5. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base 6. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security 7. The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in locations as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact VOTE Yea Nay Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3482.98, 2400 Hall (Gier) has been approved. C. BZA-3484.98, 2516 S. Washington (Washington) J. Ruff again showed Board aerial maps and discussed. The struggle was finding a reasonable location in the southwest/west area of the city due to the fact that it is a heavy DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPF-' S MEETING MARCH 11, 190" PAGE 12 residential area. So they have continued looking at Washington Park. In the contracts, he wanted to make sure that the Board realized that they have been successful in getting the Master Agreement. The tower people will be responsible for reviewing the frequencies against hospital frequencies so that they don't interfere with it. If there is going to be a potential problem with interference,they will work with the hospitals. He also stated that the Board's option would be to file an injunction to have it shut off and they are aware of that. The hospital is reviewing the final form of that language. They have worked with both hospitals' attorneys. They are using the same recommendations even with other telecommunication providers that may come to town for various types of things which is happening with the deregulation with things such as phone service. He showed in detail the aerial map to the Board. He believes that this is an adequate location for a tower that would not adversely affect aesthetics or the use of the park. M. Clark asked if the hospital said no at the original public hearing? J. Ruff stated that was correct. M. Clark then asked if the hospital has now come to the point of saying yes to this with conditions? J. Ruff stated that was correct. He is trying to get a letter from the hospital. The hospital got the final copy of the contract last week to review and respond to. He has met with the hospital,the city attorney's office and the communications people since that public hearing. The hospitals could not tell him what a safe distance was. They now have a good working relationship in order to address these problems. M. Clark asked about the possibility of Internet access. Who would put that stipulation on? J. Ruff stated that he was recommending that to the Parks Board. They have tried to separate out the financial issues versus the land use issues. He is concerned with improvements to the parks. He wants to make sure that the parks get something out of this. But he also wants to see some valid improvements. One thing could be to have fiber optic access. They have to provide this for the towers anyway, but the key would be to supply an extra line up to the property line so if ever the armory were taken out of service and was made into a public facility,they could make use of it which is positive. G. Hilts asked what specifically was going to be done to stop any interference that there would be with the hospitals? J. Ruff stated that it is a telemetry issue. Heart monitors, etc. are wireless, so they use different frequencies that are not regulated. So the hospitals need to protect those because they spend between $100,000 and $200,000 adjusting them. They are quite far away on the spectrum of radio frequency, but it is known that it can be affected by a spike. So they are doing what is called radio frequency spectrum analysis that will judge both sets of frequencies against one another. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3484.98, 2516 S. Washington (Washington)with the six conditions listed. Seconded by A. Frederick: 1. The tower shall be "monopole"type 2. The proposed monopole tower provide for a co-location of antennas 3. The proposed contract with the City of Lansing include language helping to ensure compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals 4. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties 5. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security 6. The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in locations as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPF�' S MEETING MARCH 11, 190" PAGE 13 E. Horne stated that she would not be supporting this case. She stated that her organization did not get a chance to respond to this. She feels that her area has become saturated with towers and they still don't know the impact that it will have as far as the neighborhood is concerned as they just approved the one on Cavanaugh. They have one of those towers near Pleasant Grove and Holmes Rd. They also have the towers located at the police building at Holmes and Washington. She feels that they don't need anymore towers in that area. Her one reservation is that she does not like to see towers in parks. VOTE Yea Nay Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 7 -1, BZA-3484.98, 2516 S. Washington (Washington) has been approved. D. BZA-3487.98,4801 Aurelius (B. Munn) J. Ruff stated that this one is on the southeast part of town. He referred to the graphics and maps in packet as well as aerial maps he showed to the Board. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3487.98,4801 Aurelius (B. Munn)with the seven conditions listed below. Amended by V. Earhart to approve with seven conditions except##2. Seconded by E. Horne: 1. The tower shall be "monopole"type 2. The tower should be placed in lieu of an athletic light standard (existing or new) 3. The proposed monopole tower provide for a co-location of antennas 4. The proposed contract with the City of Lansing include language helping to ensure compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals 5. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base 6. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security 7. The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in locations as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact VOTE Yea Nay Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPF ' S MEETING MARCH 11, 194^ PAGE 14 Motion carried by a vote of 8-0, BZA-3487.98,4801 Aurelius (B. Munn) has been approved. E. BZA-3489.98, 5500 S. Pennsylvania (Station 4) J. Ruff is requesting that this case be withdrawn due to concerns about its location, both being too close to residents and being rather small. Also due to the fact that it is being sold. E. Horne moved to accept withdrawal of BZA-3489.98, 5500 S. Pennsylvania. Seconded by V. Earhart. Voice vote 8-0 approval. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Mr. Phillip Venema addressed the Board. He believes that there was a misunderstanding in his presentation. He stated that G. Hilts testified that he apparently walked by there and was almost ran over by a car leaving the driveway. At that time,the fence was at the 7' mark and he is talking about taking off 2 1/'so that it doesn't happen. G. Hilts stated that anyone still would not be able to see around the pillars in a normal vehicle even if they were lowered. There is a serious concern about visibility. M. Clark stated that the Board did understand the presentation. She also stated that the consensus of the Board was that it still would be too much of an obstruction which is why they took the action they did. Mr. Venema is confused by the testimony of G. Hilts. He said the fence will be lowered. M. Clark stated that G. Hilts'testimony was a confirmation of the need of the ordinance to address the visibility issues at the sidewalk regardless of what the height is. J. Ruff stated that while some of the fence might be down an average of 3 '/',the pillars themselves being around 5' in height and 2'square, provide quite a visual obstacle. He also stated that most people don't stop at sidewalks and it would only take a second for an accident to happen. The reason the height was established at T was because not all vehicles would be able to see over an obstacle. He would contend that even if the pillars were lowered to 5' it would still be a visibility problem. G. Hilts stated that the hardship is self imposed and that the code doesn't allow the Board to do that. He thinks that it is a bad idea. A. Frederick stated that the code requires the Board to evaluate whether or not, if the variance is not requested, will the applicant not get reasonable use out of their property. He believes that the applicant could have a fence that would serve the reasonable purpose of a fence and still meet the zoning code. That reason limited him in approving this particular variance request because the Board's authority is limited by the code. Mr.Venema stated that to lower the fence to Twill make it look terrible. A. Frederick stated that was his point. It is the looks, not the reasonableness of the fence. The applicant will still be able to use the property without hindrance and without loss if the applicant abides by the code. Mr.Venema stated that the discussion about being run over was a concern of his. J. Ruff stated that this disturbs him. He wrote Mr.Venema a letter stating that he had to close his driveway off for potential problems. After G. Hilts shared his experience with the Board at the last Board meeting, J. Ruff drove out there to applicant's home to check status of driveway. He stated that there was one small orange cone blocking the use of the driveway. He asked Mr.Venema today if that cone had been consistently used and Mr. Venema stated that it hadn't been used every day. J. Ruff believes that this is a self- imposed problem. It disturbs him that it keeps going on because when he first wrote the letter stating that the fence could not be built,the fence kept being built. He understands DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPF - S MEETING MARCH 11, 191^ PAGE 15 that it was being done so that the Board could see how it looked when it was done, but even if there is an expense involved in lowering or removing the fence, he believes that the applicant has taken that chance to bear. To him,that is disturbing, it means there is a problem, it means that the law is not for everybody. He stated that it is not because the fence is ugly, but it is not within code. It progressed after the fact that the applicant was notified that the fence didn't meet the code requirements. Vl. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of February 11, 1999 B. Burgess moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Locked Door in Front of City Hall V. Earhart asked if the Board could do anything to assist the staff in making sure the doors are not locked for meetings. Can a letter be written? J. Ruff stated that they could write a letter to Management Services Dept., Liza Estlund- Olsen, Director. He stated that the Board's meeting is put on the Council agenda. He tries to make sure that BZA meetings are on that list. He stated that he will draft the letter for the Board. M. Clark also wanted to state that this is an issue not only because board members couldn't get in for a meeting, but the fact that it is a public hearing and the public needs to have access to the meeting as well. A. Frederick stated that he wants the letter to reflect that there is no problem with doors being locked at any of the Planning Board meetings. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator DRAFT COPY Draft to Clerk 02/24/99 Approved 03/11/99 To Clerk 03/12/99 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FEBRUARY 11, 1999, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:30 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: V. Earhart E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick M. Clark R. Korbakis R. Danley Staff: J. Ruff A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. Horne moved to approve agenda. Seconded by V. Earhart. Carried. III. HEARINGS/ACTION —� c� A. BZA-3533.98, 325 S. Walnut J. Ruff presented the case which is a request by SAGA Communications, Inc., ';� Or, applicant/owner to affix permanently a satellite dish in the rear, northeastern corner of the property at 325 S. Walnut Street. The proposed .2.1 meter diameter satellite dish would be setback 1 ft. from the north (side) property line and 3 ft. from the east(rear) property line. Sections 1260.07 and 1260.08 of the Zoning Code require minimum setbacks of 10 ft. from the side and 20 ft. from the rear for the D-1 Professional Office District. Therefore, variances of 9 ft. and 17 ft. are requested respectively. The person who will be representing the applicant is David Anderson,Anderson, Stull and Associates. They are requesting this variance on the property that is at 325 S. Walnut for side and rear yard variances. The property is zoned D-1 Professional Office District. It is a fairly small site-33'x 165'in itself-but it also has an 11, easement for the driveway on the south side of the building. To the north of the property is a funeral home parking lot and parking garage, south is a parking lot for the county, east is an office and to the west is the Lewis Cass Building. Zoning reflects those various uses. The property was renovated a few years back. The owners, at that time, seemed to do a nice job with the building and it seems to be kept up very well. The purpose of the dish has been outlined in the staff report. The hardship with the dish is that it could be placed to meet code requirements but if it does that, it will end up being in the middle of the back of the property which would obstruct circulation and parking area. Their desire is to push it up into the northeast corner of the property near the brick wall of the parking garage of the funeral home, and,thereby, in the dead space of the parking lot and rearrange some of the parking spaces. Presently, there is a trailer with a satellite dish on it in one of the parking spaces-where the dish would be-that is doing the job now. They believe that it could be placed in such a location that it is not going to interfere with adjacent properties or the vehicular pedestrian traffic patterns. It should not adversely affect the land use patterns. There were some questions raised regarding this- how tall would the dish end up being? The estimate is that, in comparison to the garage that is right next to it,the dish would be 2-3' higher than the garage wall to approximately 15' height total. ROARI) OF ZONING APPFALS MFFTING FFRRUARY 11. 1999 PAGF 2 M. Clark asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Mr. David Anderson,Anderson &Stall, 320 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. Mr.Anderson stated that there is one thing that he wanted the Board to appreciate -what the building looked like before the renovation. He showed the Board a picture of the building before renovation. It reflects a mind set and a commitment to the property and to the City of Lansing. The most important thing is why this will not open the flood gates for people who want to put satellite dishes in their backyards and why this is something out of the ordinary. This is not a satellite dish for TV use. It is a satellite dish for an uplink for an Emergency Alert System. The uplink that they have now is south of Ann Arbor, in Milan, in a rented facility. It is simply not dependable. It is currently run through the telephone lines, whereas, if it were onsite, it would be direct wired from the satellite dish to their facility within the building. They wouldn't be subject to the kinds of things that would normally shut them down. They just came from the Lansing Historic District Commission, who did approve it subject to concerns-they didn't like the idea of a white satellite dish -could be gray or beige, something less obtrusive or visible. E. Horne stated that she attended the Ingham County Commissioner's Law& Courts Committee Meeting. They were trying to erect a 911 emergency system which was in correlation with the State Police 80OMHZ system. She asked if the applicant had any communications with them or have any intentions of doing something like that? D. Anderson stated that they have not had anything to do with that system. He believes that she is referring to two different systems entirely. This request is for an antenna instead of a tower. J. Ray stated that they provide statewide news&sports through audio radio signal up to a satellite 23,000 miles in space and then it comes back down. That is what this apparatus is for. Systems are not compatible. Both receive and transmit to satellite. E. Horne asked if it has to be that high? J. Ray stated that it is a receive only antenna. It is not an uplink antenna. It has to be.2-5' up from the asphalt for parking purposes. M. Clark asked about the transmissions that are being done- point to point-going from one point to the satellite-not broadcasting to other stations? J. Ray stated that is incorrect. They are point to multi point. Yes,they are broadcasting. Most of their programming is what is called "canned". They record it and play it back at their convenience. However,they do live programming as well. They are going from their site to the satellite then to the destination. M. Clark stated that the Grady Porter Building is going to be expanded further west per her understanding. Is that going to affect their angles or transmissions? J. Ray stated that it would not at the present time. That doesn't mean to say that it wouldn't in the future. E. Horne asked if this would interfere with any of the hospitals? J. Ray stated that it would not. They have done site searches and the initial reports have cleared everything in the area. It will not interfere any signals in the area. A. Fredericks asked how they became the company that handled the emergency broadcasting? J. Ray stated that they are one of two companies in the state. The other company is WJR Radio. They have an uplink exactly like the one that is being proposed now. They are the only two in the state. The government came to them to assist and to ensure that broadcast signals that don't overlap, don't omit certain segments of the population. The Emergency ROARn OF 70NING APPFAI R MFFTING FFRRIJARY 11 1999 PAGF 3 Alert System has a committee, has a chair in this state and a chief engineer in this state. They work very closely with the Michigan Association of Broadcasters of which he has been very involved with over the years. It is not a revenue generator at all. It is something that they have the ability to do,the government asked, and they spent some money in order to have the same system as the government. A. Frederick asked if he thought that this would be very beneficial to the public of the State of Michigan? J. Ray stated that he believes that to be true. He also stated that is not their primary function. The primary function is daily programming which he personally believes is very important to the State of Michigan. He believes that the citizens are entitled to know what the government is doing on a daily basis and that is their primary function -to disseminate that programming to those radio stations. The fact that they have 85 radio stations and they are market exclusive-they reach one out of four adults in the state with their programming-is very significant and should speak to the importance of it. A. Frederick stated that he thinks that more of a public service is an Emergency Alert System. J. Ray agrees. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess stated that it is a good place to put it. It is unobtrusive next to a garage, parking and a dumpster. A. Frederick stated that he believed that their request for the variance is in response to the practical difficulty due to the narrowness of the lot. He also sees this for the public good. He is in favor of it. V. Earhart stated that the reasons for setback include fire safety. Dish will not affect access to adjoining properties. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3533.98, 325 S. Walnut. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE Yea Na Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 7-1, BZA-3533.98, 325 S. Walnut has been approved. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that there is nothing to report at this time. B. Remaining Towers RnARp QF 70NING APPFAI R MFFTING CCODI IARY 11 1gg9 PAGF A J. Ruff stated that next month he plans on wrapping up at least 3 of the remaining towers. Hopefully dispensing of one or two and requesting input on another one. He will be moving along on those in the next month. No action on them at this time. C. Parking Garage between churches B. Burgess asked what status was on the garage proposal between the churches. J. Ruff stated that was requested to remain on the table. It is his understanding that there was a business meeting of the Baptist church and they were trying to work an agreement out. The church denied their request for that agreement. They are looking at other alternatives. If they come back to the Board for a variance, it is likely,with the revised plan in mind that would have a front setback but request a setback variance in the rear and on the sides and would have to incorporate a vehicle elevator. They are also seeking other alternatives with the State of Michigan that maybe they can avoid building a structure all together and do something different. D. 1401 Cambridge G. Hilts asked what was going with code compliance in this issue? J. Ruff stated that the applicant has filed another BZA. He has had the fence redesigned. It will be back before the Board next month. J. Ruff had a meeting with the applicant today. He gave the applicant 30 days to either bring it into conformance or give him a new plan and new variance application. The applicant turned in a new variance application earlier this week. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None Vl. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of January 14, 1999 V. Earhart moved to approve minutes as written. Seconded by B. Burgess. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. None Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Admi istrator ZONING AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE Special Meeting Tuesday, February 2, 1999, 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tenth Floor, City Hall Post-it"brand tax transmittal memo 7671 a of pages ► AGENDi Te Z-- From Co. Co. --------------- 1. Subdivision Regulation Amendments Dept. Phonep 2. Adjournment Fax ' Pending Items: 1. Z-19-97,N.W. Cor. Cavanaugh &Aurelius,"F"Commercial to"G-2" Wholesale District(fabled October 15, 1997) 2. Z-1-98, 1223 N.Turner St., 'H"Light Industrial District to "G-1" Business District(Tabled February 11, 1998) 3. Z-3-98, 1131 & 1133 Race Street, "H"Light Industrial to"G-1" Business District(fabled April 15, 1998) 4. Z-4-98,201 E. Grand River,"F-1"Commercial &"H" Light Industrial Districts to"G-1"Business District(Tabled June 10, 1998) 5. Z-5-98, 401-407 E. Grand River, "F"Commercial District to"G-1" Business District (fabled June 10, 1998) 6. Z-8-98,208 E.Grand River Avenue,"F-1"Commercial to "G-1" Business (fabled August 12, 1998) 7. SLU-5-98, Gier Community Center,2400 Hall Street(Act-6-98); 8. SLU-7-98,Washington Park,2516 S.Washington Ave. (Act-8-98); 9. SLU-10-98, Biggie Munn Park, 4801 Aurelius Rd. (Act-11-98); 10. SLU-12-98, Fire Station#4, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave. (Act-13-98); 11. SLU-21-98,700-708 E. Oakland,Residential in "I" Heavy Industrial District(Tabled in committee December 9, 1998) 12. SLU-25-98, 3400 Block of Stoneleigh Drive, Proposed Hospice for Eight People (Tabled January 26, 1999) 2oag2299.9pc cn M C�1 rn CD FEB-01-1999 10:37 517 483 6036 99x P.01 Draft to Clerk 01/26/99 Approved 02/11/99 To Clerk 02/12/99 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS r " , JAN UARY 14, 1999, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL LA, JI` *; CITY ULEft:% I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:30 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: V. Earhart E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick M. Clark R. Korbakis Staff: J. Ruff Late Arrival: R. Danley A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA J. Ruff stated that BZA-3529.98, 1401 Cambridge has been withdrawn by the applicant. He showed a letter received by Mr.Venema,the applicant,to the Board. He also indicated that we mailed out a card Monday, 1/11/99, stating that this BZA was withdrawn so the public would not have to come down in this poor weather. J. Ruff also stated that, for the Board's information,the applicants for BZA-3531.98 are present at the meeting. The Board will take testimony but there is a request that this BZA be tabled at the end of testimony time so that they will be able to continue to do some design work and refinement. E. Horne moved to approve agenda with above noted changes. Seconded by B. Burgess. Carried. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3529.98. 1401 Cambridge has been withdrawn. B. BZA-3530.98. 1212 W. Saginaw J. Ruff presented the case which is a request by Jim Bishoff,Valley City Sign Co., on behalf of St. Lawrence Hospital of the Sparrow Health System,to remove two existing wall signs totaling 268 sq. feet in area and install one wall sign, 168 sq. feet in area, on the hospital located at 1212 W. Saginaw Street. Section 1442.17 of the Sign Code allows a maximum wall sign area of 50 sq. feet for institutions. This is,therefore, a requested variance of 118 sq. feet in sign area. He also stated that it should be noted that, as part of the Sign Code, institutions cover everything from small church properties to larger properties. This property is considered a large property. Since the ownership of the hospital has changed hands, Sparrow Health System wishes to make identification of the hospital properly. In doing so,they intend to remove two signs: one on the south side of the building (graphics and photographs shown) where there used to be a cross and script"St. Lawrence Hospital" of about 100 sq. feet, and also removing another sign on the west side where they intend to replace that sign, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING JANUARY 14, 1Q99 PAGE 2 basically,with the proposed 168 sq. feet sign. It is over the 50 sq. foot maximum per institution,yet the staff believes that it is placed appropriately on the building, an appropriate size for proper recognition. The facades are difficult for signage, so the larger facade in the middle of the building is what has been chosen since everything before that, when coming eastbound on Saginaw, is of a lower profile inappropriate for the signage. He pointed out the photographs in the packets that try to illustrate a 50 sq. foot wall sign in the first photograph and in the second,the sign that they are requesting. This is in conformance with what the staff is trying to achieve and what the Board has been trying to achieve in the Sign Code for variances such as this. The purpose being to achieve a reasonable sign size while making improvements to non conforming sign situations. The staff believes that they have achieved that in this instance. Staff recommends approval of this requested variance. Jim Bischoff,Valley City Sign Co., 10743 Countryside Dr., Grand Ledge, MI, addressed the Board. He presented pictures showing signs. He stated that they are trying to make the signs more noticeable. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. **** Regina Danley arrived at BZA meeting (7:40 p.m.). V. Earhart stated that the Board has gone through a fair number of requests from various commercial businesses for big signs to make sure people know where they are. She is in favor of this variance because it will make the hospital location much more visible. E. Horne supports the variance because this is a decrease, going down to one sign as opposed to two signs. Therefore, being a decrease, she supports variance. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3530.98, 1212 W. Saginaw. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE Yea Nay Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3530.98, 1212 W. Saginaw has been approved. C. BZA-3531.98, 221-227 N. Capitol J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Granger Planning & Development, L.L.C., on behalf of Capitol Outlook, L.L.C., and First Baptist Church,to construct a three level parking ramp on the existing parking lot at 221 N. Capitol Avenue and the adjacent driveway of First Baptist Church at 227 N. Capitol Avenue. The proposed structure would extend to the front and rear lot lines and cover 100% of the proposed lot. The property is zoned "E-1"Apartment Shop District and the Zoning Code, in particular: Section 1264.07(a) requires a front yard setback of 20 feet; Section 1264.07(b) prohibits parking in the front yard setback; Section 1264.09 requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet; and Section 1264.11 allows a maximum lot coverage of 75%. Therefore,this is a request for BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING JANUARY 14, 1 Q99 PAGE 3 variances of these sections for: 20 feet in the front yard setback requirement;to allow parking in the front yard, 25 feet in the rear yard setback requirement; and 25% additional lot coverage than allowed respectively. Also,the Transportation Engineer has been asked for the reduction in the required depth of the parking spaces and the width of the drive aisles in accordance with Section 1284.16(e). J. Ruff also stated that they have had several meetings with Mr. Steve Owen and Mr. Emerson Ohl of Granger Planning and Development, Capitol Outlook as well as representatives from First Baptist Church. They have been trying to come up with the best possible and most practical plan,for this proposed development. As such, since Granger is requesting that this be tabled tonight based upon some of the factors filed in our staff report,they are trying to do some more research on how best to incorporate the comments and the concerns that staff has as well as the design concerns and needs that First Baptist has and the property itself as noted in the staff report. J. Ruff handed out a corrected page 2 of the staff report. He also stated that since the hearing was scheduled tonight and the applicant asked that it be tabled for a month while they continue doing some research, people could not be notified not to come. So,the hearing is being held tonight and public input will be heard tonight. He also anticipates that there will be additional public input at a subsequent meeting, hopefully at the next meeting, and have an additional presentation by the applicant. Mr. Steve Owen, Granger Planning, 1716 Clifton, Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. He extended his appreciation to Jim Ruff and the department for the courtesies that they have extended to Granger in this matter. It is a complicated project and the Planning Office has been extraordinarily patient and helpful. Also, as Jim Ruff indicated,they have requested that the Board table consideration of the application in order to allow them to continue to consider alternative designs. Jim presented his report to Granger on Monday and they reviewed it very carefully. They would like to be able to accommodate as many of the concerns expressed in the report as they can. Mr. Owen presented some background on property. Capitol Outlook is the owner of the Board of Water& Light building and the former Davenport building at 200 N. Capitol just across Ottawa St. Granger Planning & Development is the construction manager for the project. The project is the House of Representatives office building. They will house the 110 representatives and their staffs as well as the House Fiscal Agency and other supporting offices. It will be approximately a 300,000 square foot building when completed. It will consist of two parts-although it will look like three parts. One will be what you see in the steel structure just outside the windows of Council Chambers which was the Board of Water& Light. That building has been extended out to Capitol Ave. and up- 14 stories total. The second building will appear to be two parts. It is the bridge and the 200 N. Capitol bldg. The former Davenport building was demolished and in its place now is going up 11 stories of steel. That building will be 11 stories. Part of that building is actually the bridge that will go across Ottawa St. The bridge is actually 7 stories of offices. The bridge will be approximately 41 feet off of the center of Ottawa St.,while 34 feet off of the sidewalks on either side of Ottawa St. and it will connect, what appear to be,the two other buildings, 200 N. Capitol and the former Board of Water& Light building. The bridge -which is a suspended office building across the street-will have traffic travel underneath it on Ottawa St. The west face of the building,the one toward the Capitol, will contain 110 offices from the 5th floor up with 110 legislators which will all have a view of the Capitol. On the lower floors will be the supporting offices, also a public lobby and cafeteria. Along with the purchase of those two buildings, Capitol Outlook also purchased the lot in question here tonight-the one that lies between Central Methodist and First Baptist Church. Based on the material given to the Board,the lot itself is approximately 66'x 165'. It was, until the Board moved out of the building a few weeks ago, parking for the Board of Water& Light. Under the terms of the lease that Capitol Outlook has with the State Legislature,there is an obligation to provide 100 parking spaces. Underneath the Board of Water& Light building,there has always been parking and after their construction is completed in that building,there will be 23 spaces as best as they can count now that will BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING JANUARY 14, 1999 PAGE 4 remain. The balance of the 77 spaces that they hope to provide-that they are requesting the Board approve-is in the form of some parking structure on the lot between the two churches. In order to make that a better structure,they have for some months now, been talking with First Baptist Church about purchasing approximately 13.5 feet x 165 feet which represents now an alley which lies between the Board of Water& Light parking lot and the wall of the church. First Baptist Church now uses that for egress and sometimes stacks cars there for certain events. The area behind First Baptist is a small parking area now and there is an alley that runs north/south from that parking area out to Ionia St. The First Baptist Church is built around the Stebbins house which was referenced in Jim Ruffs report and also in a reply that was received by the Historic District Commission. They wish to talk more about this topic at the meeting in February. The Stebbins house is built onto on two of the four sides-one side completely being the east sid side of the house is the west wall of the church, and on the north side of the Stebbins house approximately'/2 of that wall is also adjoined to the church. They will have more to talk about in reference to the Historic District Commission's concerns about the house, but inside it has been largely changed to accommodate church administrative offices, and the outside as well has been modified. They are very sensitive to the Historic District Commission's concerns. They respect what the Historic District Commission is doing, however, as they will state in February, it is their desire to be able to modify that house. Part of the consideration that the church has proposed to them to purchase their 13.5 foot alley-in order to accommodate a better ramp- is that they would assist them in acquiring new administrative offices for First Baptist Church. First Baptist Church has requested that they demolish the house and that they would build in its place new administrative offices which would afford them more parking in back of their church because their footprint would be smaller than the house is. In light of the concerns that Jim Ruff raised in his report,they have been working with their architects Hobbs& Black and with the engineer and are trying to devise a ramp which will address as best we can the concerns that have been raised. There are 3-4 alternatives that they are considering, although he won't bring them up at this time. They are trying very hard to make the appearance "not a ramp". The facade of the ramp on the Capitol Ave. side is being very carefully designed to actually appear to be very much like the church is on either side. The setback concerns that Mr. Ruff raised in his report are trying to be accommodated as best as they can so that the focal point of that lot remains those two historic structures. That is the desire of Granger. They want to keep the focal point right. They share the concern that that is the character of that side of the block. The facade will be very attractive-brick and some glass. It will have a tower much like the two churches do. They will show the Board an update of that at the February meeting. Mr. Owen made his final comments. They have had many discussions with First Baptist Church over the months and they have begun discussions with Central United Methodist. The parking in that lot, on evenings and weekends, is extremely important to those two churches. They are trying to do everything they can to make the ramp available to the churches when the legislature does not need it. That involves, not only talking with the legislators, but also about what commitments they can make about this space which is leased to them. Granger has had a very good relationship with both churches. They desire to help the churches because they want to see them survive and thrive- parking being a very important part of that. The advantage of the ramp to both churches is that they could have approximately 77-80 spaces available as opposed to presently 35 spaces that exist there now. So it is an extreme advantage to the churches. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board regarding this appeal. William McCracken, Central United Methodist Church,429 Centerlawn, East Lansing, MI, addressed the Board on behalf of the congregation. At this time, Central United Methodist Church is not able to support the request for variance. Their position on this is not because of opposition of the concept, but because they have not received adequate assurance that they will be able to park in the ramp when the legislature does not need it. The church members have used the Board of Water& Light lot for parking on nights and weekends for years. They thought that the Board of Water& Light would be there permanently but obviously they will not. The church is very appreciative to the Board of Water& Light for allowing them to use that lot over the past 30 years. Adequate parking is critical to the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING JANUARY 14, 1g99 PAGE 5 future of their church. Most retail businesses have moved out of downtown Lansing. In fact, his office is in a building that used to be the finest department store in this area-the Knapps Center. Most of that retail business moved out because of lack of parking. Another example is Plymouth Congregational Church which burned down several years ago. They didn't rebuild in downtown Lansing. They rebuilt out where they had more parking. The land that Plymouth Congregational Church was on is now a parking lot. Simply put, Central United Methodist Church cannot survive without parking. That is why this is such a big issue with the church. They believe that downtown churches are very important to the city and,yes,to the legislature. Central's doors are open to those in need every day. The church provides a gathering place for all sorts of groups and they do good things for the city. They have been told that there is no way that the legislature would agree to a permanent agreement for them to use the proposed ramp when the legislature does not need it. The church has asked for a meeting with those that have taken that position to see if it can be softened. Central wants a win-win situation. The legislature gets a new ramp and the church can use it on nights and weekends when the legislature doesn't need it. This is good for everyone because more parking is good for everyone, because more parking is available close to their offices and close to the church. The church doesn't want a lose-lose situation where the ramp isn't built and no new parking is provided for anybody. They don't believe that they are asking for anything unreasonable, but they do believe that they must protect their future and stand up for their parking needs. The church hopes to resolve this issue in the near future so that they can support the construction of the ramp. B. Burgess asked about the opposition of the church. Is the church's opposition based on their use of the ramp and not on the request for variances? W. McCracken stated that was correct. He said that the church has looked at the drawings and other issues. The church is not opposed to a ramp. E. Horne asked, in regards to the construction of this ramp,there might be the possibility of blocking out some of the windows. Has the church studied that question? W. McCracken stated that the way they understand it is that it is designed so that it will actually touch the north end of the church building. However,the portion of it that would be touched is largely brick wall. There are four windows which they don't really use. There are other windows on the north side of the church but there is a small alleyway there and that portion of the church would not be flush up against the parking ramp. The church thinks that is acceptable. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board regarding this appeal. Stephanie Whitbeck, 620 W. Ionia St., Chair of the Lansing Historic District Commission, Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. She wanted to deliver a letter from the Downtown Neighborhood Association to the Board. Ms.Whitbeck stated that the consensus of the DNA is that the association is opposed to the granting of the front yard variance and opposed to the granting of both side yard variances in order to check the site lines and historic character of the block. It is the consensus of the organization that the front of the ramp should be set back to allow for exposure of the stone. The DNA encourages that something be done with the Stebbins house rather than demolish it. This is also generally what the position of the Historic District Commission is. She is curious about the fact that there is not specifically a request for side yard variances when Section 1266.07 states that every lot in that zoning classification has to have a minimum of one side yard of at least 25 feet. It seems that what they are seeing drawings of thus far is obviously fluid. They are proposing a ramp that is shoulder to shoulder with those two historic churches including on the alley of the Baptist church, which is at this point is their side lot, which hasn't been requested for a variance for that as well as seemingly no variance for the lot that is essentially the lot of the parking ramp. They are very pleased with the drawing of the east elevation that they have seen thus far. It certainly shows design sensitivity on the part of Capitol Outlook, of Granger and the State of Michigan recognizing that those two churches are very historic. They are both on the National Register. The churches are in the proposed Capitol Historic District and are already designated by the State of Michigan BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING JANUARY 14, 1Q99 PAGE 6 as a potential historic district. The Historic District Commission does not have a problem, per say, with the parking ramp. They are pleased to hear that more work is occurring. The Historic District Commission looked, along with the State of Michigan Historic Preservation Office, on site at that. Their first concern is the request for the front to go to the sidewalk. They have difficulty with that because, at minimum, it would appear to protrude beyond the noses of the two churches and would not deal appropriately with the importance of those two. Both of the buildings of the churches are stone fronts and that stone laps around end each of theirheir sides and then it begins to run with brick. The appropriate way to set that back when dealing with any historic buildings of this nature would be to set it back to roughly a point where it changes from stone to brick. That would be an important recommendation and they hope that the design that is fluid would accommodate that. Also,the Historic District Commission's understanding of the drawing and of the elevation is that these buildings will be touching completely-that the whole notion of 100% lot coverage is that they will absolutely be built just like the Central Business District where all the buildings are touching. They do have a concern with the fact that there is no setback. Their concern is primarily issues of engineering. Those buildings are very old. This is a proposal for a ramp that is one story underground and two stories above. The excavation that would have to occur with buildings touching would be right where those old foundations are. The concern would be settling, shifting or failing of the foundations of the existing buildings and also if they are built without any kind of setback,there is no ability for making any kind of repairs to the mortar that exists on those buildings once this new building is built in that fashion. They understand the need to squeeze this in. They also understand that if they were to build something that did still allow setbacks on the front and both sides,that that might tighten up the ability to have enough parking bays in there. If that is the case in terms of difficulty,the Historic District Commission would be recommending that a third above ground level be able to be added, but that it not come all the way forward to the front wall. ThatThat it,too,would be set back somewhat so that from the street it would be inconspicuous in its presence, but would allow for the ability to add additional parking that would otherwise be lost based on our recommendations. Ms. Whitbeck also stated that the Historic District Commission encourage that something be done with the Stebbins building if at all possible to maintain it.They do understand how much of it is already obscured and looking at how the roof line currently hangs into the area in which they wish to build,that certainly would be a problem for them. The HDC has researched the prior history of that house and there is an important person there who is important to the history of Lansing and the State of Michigan. Primarily,that is Mr. Cortlin Stebbins who lived from 1812- 1901. He did some very consequential things in the state of Vermont before he came to Michigan. Once he arrived in Michigan, he introduced sugar beets to the state. Under the Oaks in Jackson and the founding of the Republican Party, he is the person responsible for starting the grassroots effort to create Miller Filmore as a candidate and ultimately president of the United States and as a result, Mr. Stebbins was appointed to the Secret Service Branch of the U.S. Treasury. But even more important to Lansing and to the State of Michigan, he served as Michigan Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1858- 1878. He is credited as the father of the state's establishment of the system of kindergartens in 1871. According to Dr. Frank Turner in his volume on Ingham County history, Mr. Stebbins is, more than any other man in Michigan, responsible for the building of Michigan's public school system. His son,Arthur Portland Stebbins, also resided in that home. He was the manager of the Lansing Wheelbarrow Company and was associated with Ransom Olds as an officer along with Edward Sparrow and Eugene Cooley in the Olds Motor Vehicle Company. The Stebbins House,which is also called the Fellowship House these days, was a gift from Ransom Olds to First Baptist Church. The addition on the south side of the building was a gift of Mrs. Gladys Olds Anderson as a memorial to her father and mother. Central Methodist Church is an extraordinarily important building in this city. Probably the only building more important is the capitol itself. The buildings share the same architect, Elijah Meijer, and this is the only known church designed by Mr. Meijer in the state. Similarly the architect on the First Baptist Church is of great consequence. Edwin Bowd is BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING JANUARY 14, 1Q99 PAGE 7 one of the most prominent and prolific of Lansing architects. Born and educated in Lansing, he came to Michigan in the early 1880s. He is associated with Mr.Appleyard who was the construction manager on the construction of the Capitol. Earl Mead is the architect for the interior of the church and Mr. Bowd for the exterior. Mr. Bowd was also involved in other major Lansing buildings including the Carnegie Library,the Administration Building at the Michigan School for the Blind,the Lewis Cass State Building,the Masonic Temple,the Lansing Post Office, J.W. Knapps Department Store, Ottawa Street Power Plant and numerous buildings on Michigan State University's campus. It is with a great deal of concern for the ongoing importance of those two churches that the HDC applauds the owner and the company who is building it to do as much as possible to make that work. The Historic District Commission has no recommendations on the request for the variance on the back lot line. The reason they make no comment on the rear setback is that that property is already owned by the State of Michigan who would be the beneficial user for 25 years and the ultimate owner later on. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board regarding this appeal. M. Clark did mention that there was verbal communication from Msgr. Murphy from St. Mary's Church. He called our office to state that he was not opposed to the variance as long as the interests of the two adjacent churches were protected. Seeing none,the Board went into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated his concern regarding ramps in general. In the Transportation Bldg. when everyone leaves at the same time,the building quivers, feels like jello and is very noticeable. If that structure touches the two older structures and quivers- he has never seen a parking ramp that doesn't tremor-what will that do to those structures? He believes that is a very serious consideration that the Board needs a good answer to. E. Horne questioned the concern that First Baptist might have regarding their windows. J. Ruff stated that there are a couple of notches on the south wall of First Baptist Church that runs next to the driveway. The first section that is nearest Capitol Ave. is as close as that parking deck is proposed. That first section has all stone on it. Then it steps back as you go west another eight inches approximately and then there is another part that steps back and runs towards the Stebbins House. Then when you get to the Stebbins House, it steps back a little bit further into that back parking lot. The concern as to how it would be finished, he would not want to leave 6 inches or a foot or any space if you couldn't leave maintenance space because if you leave a small amount of space, water gets in there,then it freezes. The ramp would have to be well designed to work around the oddities. G. Hilts asked if the other office building that backs up to this project was going to be vacated? J. Ruff answered that that is where the representatives are located presently and that they would be relocated into the new Capitol Outlook building. So,yes the total building would be vacated. Discussion as to what the plans are of the old building. There aren't any known plans. There was also discussion of the space of the old building and the possibility of tearing that down and creating parking in that area. B. Burgess asked what options there are for the Stebbins House as far as structural validity, moving the house, etc.? J. Ruff stated that the plans were originally-and the contractor has been looking at this-is to totally change its shape in a way to increase the area in the back, make it less wide east and west and longer north and south to come out even with the plan. To save it would be to renovate it. V. Earhart made motion to table BZA-3531.98, 221-227 N. Capitol Ave. Seconded by G. Hilts. Motion carried by voice vote. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING JANUARY 14, 1c99 PAGE 8 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98.901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that they are not anticipating any action at this time. B. BZA-3493.98, 102 S. McPherson J. Ruff presented information. He stated that he gave, at this meeting,the missing page from the previous report. The Lansing School District has asked the Board to continue pursuing this permit for a potential tower in this location at the Sexton High School- primarily around the athletic field west of the school. Staff has reviewed this and the Planning Board has recommended its approval. They will be setting a date for a public hearing. They concluded the conditions that were typical for this appeal that they have looked at in the recent past and recommend approval. The tower would be up near the athletic field on the extreme west side of the facility. Potentially,the school district may be looking to utilize the tower for lighting of the baseball field in the future or to supplement lighting for the football field. They feel that it is a good location based on the fact that they are up against industrial uses to the north and railroad to the west. It would be a location where there are already light poles. Staff recommends approval with conditions. It is zoned "A-Residential"so the variance is for 165 feet. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board regarding this appeal. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff stated that he hoped that the reports on the towers that were given to the Board were helpful, especially to the new Board members. He intends to bring more reports to the Board within the first quarter and then they will be looking at alternative sites to some of the original sites that they looked for trying to make sure that they property fill the gaps without excessive number of sites approved. They have worked out with the hospitals the communication issues. J. Ruff will confirm that again before going ahead with any other sites. He has also sought the encouragement of those types of things with any of the communication companies that he has been in contact with. V. Earhart made motion that BZA-3493.98,which is a tower at 102 S. McPherson, Lansing be approved with a variance of 165 feet allowing construction of the 200 foot communication tower. There are 6 conditions that are usually put on this. They are listed on page 4 of the particular material. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE Yea Nay Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3493.98, 102 S. McPherson has been approved with the six following conditions: 1)The tower should be placed in lieu of an athletic light standard (existing or new); 2)The proposed monopole tower provide for a co-location of antennas; 3)The proposed contract with the School District include language helping to ensure compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals; 4) Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5)The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for BOARD OF ZONING APPE/1'.S MEETING JANUARY 14, 11199 PAGE 9 security; and 6)The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in locations as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact. C. BZA-3495.98. 1625 Sunset J. Ruff showed photographs of the area to Board. He stated that they have almost come to terms with the contractor. They have worked out all the legal issues down to the last draw. They have worked these same legal issues out with the school district attorneys as well as with the hospital attorneys. J. Ruff has met with the SBA official who is the potential contractor and they feel that if the Planning Office can do the hill site on the southwest end of town which has already been approved, do the Sunset site here on the west side,that will help with the entire westerly border. They are looking for a central west site. They also evaluated Holmes and Washington. That tower is insufficient to handle anymore antennas due to its type of construction-the foundation size is small. E. Horne asked if landscaping was necessary on that location? J. Ruff stated that it was not necessary. The tower is well hidden. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3495.98, 1625 Sunset,to allow an 80 foot height variance to allow for the construction for a 200 foot communications tower with the 6 conditions as listed in the report. Seconded by R. Korbakis. VOTE Yea Nay Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3495.98, 1625 Sunset has been approved with the following six conditions: 1)The tower shall be a monopole type tower; 2)The proposed tower shall replace the existing tower; 3)The existing communications antennas shall be relocated onto the new tower; 4)The tower shall provide for the co-location of antennas; 5)The contract with the City shall include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals; and 6) The tower shall be appropriately fenced for security. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of December 10, 1998 B. Burgess moved to approve minutes of December 10, 1998. Supported by V. Earhart that we accept minutes as printed. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING JANUARY 14, 1Q99 PAGE 10 VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Preamble B. Burgess stated that he believed it would be a good idea to mention to the public that they need to sign in when they address the Board. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 01/26/99 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JAN UARY 14, 1999, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:30 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: V. Earhart E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick M. Clark R. Korbakis r— Staff: 71 J. Ruff Late Arrival: �ti7 R. Danley A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be tao-01 atthe meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA J. Ruff stated that BZA-3529.98, 1401 Cambridge has been withdrawn by the applicant. He showed a letter received by Mr.Venema,the applicant,to the Board. He also indicated that we mailed out a card Monday, 1/11/99,stating that this BZA was withdrawn so the public would not have to come down in this poor weather. J. Ruff also stated that, for the Board's information,the applicants for BZA-3531.98 are present at the meeting. The Board will take testimony but there is a request that this BZA be tabled at the end of testimony time so that they will be able to continue to do some design work and refinement. E. Horne moved to approve agenda with above noted changes. Seconded by B. Burgess. Carried. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3529.98. 1401 Cambridge has been withdrawn. B. BZA-3530.98. 1212 W. Saginaw J. Ruff presented the case which is a request by Jim Bishoff,Valley City Sign Co., on behalf of St. Lawrence Hospital of the Sparrow Health System,to remove two existing wall signs totaling 268 sq. feet in area and install one wall sign, 168 sq. feet in area, on the hospital located at 1212 W. Saginaw Street. Section 1442.17 of the Sign Code allows a maximum wall sign area of 50 sq. feet for institutions. This is,therefore, a requested variance of 118 sq. feet in sign area. He also stated that it should be noted that, as part of the Sign Code, institutions cover everything from small church properties to larger properties. This property is considered a large property. Since the ownership of the hospital has changed hands, Sparrow Health System wishes to make identification of the hospital properly. In doing so,they intend to remove two signs: one on the south side of the building (graphics and photographs shown) DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEA'.S MEETING JANUARY 14, 1"q9 PAGE 2 where there used to be a cross and script"St. Lawrence Hospital" of about 100 sq. feet, and also removing another sign on the west side where they intend to replace that sign, basically, with the proposed 168 sq. feet sign. It is over the 50 sq. foot maximum per institution,yet the staff believes that it is placed appropriately on the building, an appropriate size for proper recognition. The facades are difficult for signage, so the larger facade in the middle of the building is what has been chosen since everything before that, when coming eastbound on Saginaw, is of a lower profile inappropriate for the signage. He pointed out the photographs in the packets that try to illustrate a 50 sq. foot wall sign in the first photograph and in the second,the sign that they are requesting. This is in conformance with what the staff is trying to achieve and what the Board has been trying to achieve in the Sign Code for variances such as this. The purpose being to achieve a reasonable sign size while making improvements to non conforming sign situations. The staff believes that they have achieved that in this instance. Staff recommends approval of this requested variance. Jim Bischoff,Valley City Sign Co., 10743 Countryside Dr., Grand Ledge, MI, addressed the Board. He presented pictures showing signs. He stated that they are trying to make the signs more noticeable. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. "** Regina Danley arrived at BZA meeting (7:40 p.m.). V. Earhart stated that the Board has gone through a fair number of requests from various commercial businesses for big signs to make sure people know where they are. She is in favor of this variance because it will make the hospital location much more visible. E. Horne supports the variance because this is a decrease,going down to one sign as opposed to two signs. Therefore, being a decrease,she supports variance. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3530.98, 1212 W. Saginaw. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE Yea Na Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3530.98, 1212 W. Saginaw has been approved. C. BZA-3531.98, 221-227 N. Capitol J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Granger Planning & Development, L.L.C., on behalf of Capitol Outlook, L.L.C., and First Baptist Church,to construct a three level parking ramp on the existing parking lot at 221 N. Capitol Avenue and the adjacent driveway of First Baptist Church at 227 N. Capitol Avenue. The proposed structure would extend to the front and rear lot lines and cover 100% of the proposed lot. The property is DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING JANUARY 14, 1099 PAGE 3 zoned "E-1"Apartment Shop District and the Zoning Code, in particular: Section 1264.07(a) requires a front yard setback of 20 feet; Section 1264.07(b) prohibits parking in the front yard setback; Section 1264.09 requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet; and Section 1264.11 allows a maximum lot coverage of 75%. Therefore,this is a request for variances of these sections for:20 feet in the front yard setback requirement;to allow parking in the front yard, 25 feet in the rear yard setback requirement; and 25% additional lot coverage than allowed respectively. Also,the Transportation Engineer has been asked for the reduction in the required depth of the parking spaces and the width of the drive aisles in accordance with Section 1284.16(e). J. Ruff also stated that they have had several meetings with Mr. Steve Owen and Mr. Emerson Ohl of Granger Planning and Development, Capitol Outlook as well as representatives from First Baptist Church. They have been trying to come up with the best possible and most practical plan, for this proposed development. As such, since Granger is requesting that this be tabled tonight based upon some of the factors filed in our staff report,they are trying to do some more research on how best to incorporate the comments and the concerns that staff has as well as the design concerns and needs that First Baptist has and the property itself as noted in the staff report. J. Ruff handed out a corrected page 2 of the staff report. He also stated that since the hearing was scheduled tonight and the applicant asked that it be tabled for a month while they continue doing some research, people could not be notified not to come. So,the hearing is being held tonight and public input will be heard tonight. He also anticipates that there will be additional public input at a subsequent meeting, hopefully at the next meeting, and have an additional presentation by the applicant. Mr. Steve Owen, Granger Planning, 1716 Clifton, Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. He extended his appreciation to Jim Ruff and the department for the courtesies that they have extended to Granger in this matter. It is a complicated project and the Planning Office has been extraordinarily patient and helpful. Also, as Jim Ruff indicated,they have requested that the Board table consideration of the application in order to allow them to continue to consider alternative designs. Jim presented his report to Granger on Monday and they reviewed it very carefully. They would like to be able to accommodate as many of the concerns expressed in the report as they can. Mr. Owen presented some background on property. Capitol Outlook is the owner of the Board of Water& Light building and the former Davenport building at 200 N. Capitol just across Ottawa St. Granger Planning & Development is the construction manager for the project. The project is the House of Representatives office building. They will house the 110 representatives and their staffs as well as the House Fiscal Agency and other supporting offices. It will be approximately a 300,000 square foot building when completed. It will consist of two parts-although it will look like three parts. One will be what you see in the steel structure just outside the windows of Council Chambers which was the Board of Water& Light. That building has been extended out to Capitol Ave. and up- 14 stories total. The second building will appear to be two parts. It is the bridge and the 200 N. Capitol bldg. The former Davenport building was demolished and in its place now is going up 11 stories of steel. That building will be 11 stories. Part of that building is actually the bridge that will go across Ottawa St. The bridge is actually 7 stories of offices. The bridge will be approximately 41 feet off of the center of Ottawa St.,while 34 feet off of the sidewalks on either side of Ottawa St. and it will connect, what appear to be,the two other buildings,200 N. Capitol and the former Board of Water& Light building. The bridge -which is a suspended office building across the street-will have traffic travel underneath it on Ottawa St. The west face of the building,the one toward the Capitol,will contain 110 offices from the 5th floor up with 110 legislators which will all have a view of the Capitol. On the lower floors will be the supporting offices, also a public lobby and cafeteria. Along with the purchase of those two buildings, Capitol Outlook also purchased the lot in question here tonight-the one that lies between Central Methodist and First Baptist Church. Based on the material given to the Board,the lot itself is approximately 66'x 165'. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING JANUARY 14, 1°99 PAGE 4 It was, until the Board moved out of the building a few weeks ago, parking for the Board of Water& Light. Under the terms of the lease that Capitol Outlook has with the State Legislature,there is an obligation to provide 100 parking spaces. Underneath the Board of Water& Light building,there has always been parking and after their construction is completed in that building,there will be 23 spaces as best as they can count now that will remain. The balance of the 77 spaces that they hope to provide-that they are requesting the Board approve-is in the form of some parking structure on the lot between the two churches. In order to make that a better structure,they have for some months now, been talking with First Baptist Church about purchasing approximately 13.5 feet x 165 feet which represents now an alley which lies between the Board of Water& Light parking lot and the wall of the church. First Baptist Church now uses that for egress and sometimes stacks cars there for certain events. The area behind First Baptist is a small parking area now and there is an alley that runs north/south from that parking area out to Ionia St. The First Baptist Church is built around the Stebbins house which was referenced in Jim Ruffs report and also in a reply that was received by the Historic District Commission. They wish to talk more about this topic at the meeting in February. The Stebbins house is built onto on two of the four sides-one side completely being the east side of the house is the west wall of the church, and on the north side of the Stebbins house approximately'/z of that wall is also adjoined to the church. They will have more to talk about in reference to the Historic District Commission's concerns about the house, but inside it has been largely changed to accommodate church administrative offices, and the outside as well has been modified. They are very sensitive to the Historic District Commission's concerns. They respect what the Historic District Commission is doing, however, as they will state in February, it is their desire to be able to modify that house. Part of the consideration that the church has proposed to them to purchase their 13.5 foot alley-in order to accommodate a better ramp-is that they would assist them in acquiring new administrative offices for First Baptist Church. First Baptist Church has requested that they demolish the house and that they would build in its place new administrative offices which would afford them more parking in back of their church because their footprint would be smaller than the house is. In light of the concerns that Jim Ruff raised in his report,they have been working with their architects Hobbs& Black and with the engineer and are trying to devise a ramp which will address as best we can the concerns that have been raised. There are 3-4 alternatives that they are considering, although he won't bring them up at this time. They are trying very hard to make the appearance"not a ramp". The facade of the ramp on the Capitol Ave. side is being very carefully designed to actually appear to be very much like the church is on either side. The setback concerns that Mr. Ruff raised in his report are trying to be accommodated as best as they can so that the focal point of that lot remains those two historic structures. That is the desire of Granger. They want to keep the focal point right. They share the concern that that is the character of that side of the block. The facade will be very attractive- brick and some glass. It will have a tower much like the two churches do. They will show the Board an update of that at the February meeting. Mr. Owen made his final comments. They have had many discussions with First Baptist Church over the months and they have begun discussions with Central United Methodist. The parking in that lot, on evenings and weekends, is extremely important to those two churches. They are trying to do everything they can to make the ramp available to the churches when the legislature does not need it. That involves, not only talking with the legislators, but also about what commitments they can make about this space which is leased to them. Granger has had a very good relationship with both churches. They desire to help the churches because they want to see them survive and thrive- parking being a very important part of that. The advantage of the ramp to both churches is that they could have approximately 77-80 spaces available as opposed to presently 35 spaces that exist there now. So it is an extreme advantage to the churches. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board regarding this appeal. William McCrackin, Central United Methodist Church, 429 Centerlawn, East Lansing, MI, addressed the Board on behalf of the congregation. At this time, Central United Methodist Church is not able to support the request for variance. Their position on this is not because DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEPI S MEETING JANUARY 14, 1G49 PAGE 5 of opposition of the concept, but because they have not received adequate assurance that they will be able to park in the ramp when the legislature does not need it. The church members have used the Board of Water& Light lot for parking on nights and weekends for years. They thought that the Board of Water&Light would be there permanently but obviously they will not. The church is very appreciative to the Board of Water& Light for allowing them to use that lot over the past 30 years. Adequate parking is critical to the future of their church. Most retail businesses have moved out of downtown Lansing. In fact, his office is in a building that used to be the finest department store in this area-the Knapps Center. Most of that retail business moved out because of lack of parking. Another example is Plymouth Congregational Church which burned down several years ago. They didn't rebuild in downtown Lansing. They rebuilt out where they had more parking. The land that Plymouth Congregational Church was on is now a parking lot. Simply put, Central United Methodist Church cannot survive without parking. That is why this is such a big issue with the church. They believe that downtown churches are very important to the city and,yes,to the legislature. Central's doors are open to those in need every day. The church provides a gathering place for all sorts of groups and they do good things for the city. They have been told that there is no way that the legislature would agree to a permanent agreement for them to use the proposed ramp when the legislature does not need it. The church has asked for a meeting with those that have taken that position to see if it can be softened. Central wants a win-win situation. The legislature gets a new ramp and the church can use it on nights and weekends when the legislature doesn't need it. This is good for everyone because more parking is good for everyone, because more parking is available close to their offices and close to the church. The church doesn't want a lose-lose situation where the ramp isn't built and no new parking is provided for anybody. They don't believe that they are asking for anything unreasonable, but they do believe that they must protect their future and stand up for their parking needs. The church hopes to resolve this issue in the near future so that they can support the construction of the ramp. B. Burgess asked about the opposition of the church. Is the church's opposition based on their use of the ramp and not on the request for variances? W. McCracken stated that was correct. He said that the church has looked at the drawings and other issues. The church is not opposed to a ramp. E. Horne asked, in regards to the construction of this ramp,there might be the possibility of blocking out some of the windows. Has the church studied that question? W. McCracken stated that the way they understand it is that it is designed so that it will actually touch the north end of the church building. However,the portion of it that would be touched is largely brick wall. There are four windows which they don't really use. There are other windows on the north side of the church but there is a small alleyway there and that portion of the church would not be flush up against the parking ramp. The church thinks that is acceptable. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board regarding this appeal. Stephanie Whitbeck,620 W. Ionia St., Chair of the Lansing Historic District Commission, Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. She wanted to deliver a letter from the Downtown Neighborhood Association to the Board. Ms.Whitbeck stated that the consensus of the DNA is that the association is opposed to the granting of the front yard variance and opposed to the granting of both side yard variances in order to check the site lines and historic character of the block. It is the consensus of the organization that the front of the ramp should be set back to allow for exposure of the stone. The DNA encourages that something be done with the Stebbins house rather than demolish it. This is also generally what the position of the Historic District Commission is. She is curious about the fact that there is not specifically a request for side yard variances when Section 1266.07 states that every lot in that zoning classification has to have a minimum of one side yard of at least 25 feet. It seems that what they are seeing drawings of thus far is obviously fluid. They are proposing a ramp that is shoulder to shoulder with those two historic churches including on DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPE"' S MEETING JANUARY 14, "q9 PAGE 6 the alley of the Baptist church,which is at this point is their side lot,which hasn't been requested for a variance for that as well as seemingly no variance for the lot that is essentially the lot of the parking ramp. They are very pleased with the drawing of the east elevation that they have seen thus far. It certainly shows design sensitivity on the part of Capitol Outlook, of Granger and the State of Michigan recognizing that those two churches are very historic. They are both on the National Register. The churches are in the proposed Capitol Historic District and are already designated by the State of Michigan as a potential historic district. The Historic District Commission does not have a problem, per say,with the parking ramp. They are pleased to hear that more work is occurring. The Historic District Commission looked, along with the State of Michigan Historic Preservation Office, on site at that. Their first concern is the request for the front to go to the sidewalk. They have difficulty with that because, at minimum, it would appear to protrude beyond the noses of the two churches and would not deal appropriately with the importance of those two. Both of the buildings of the churches are stone fronts and that stone laps around each of their sides and then it begins to run with brick. The appropriate way to set that back when dealing with any historic buildings of this nature would be to set it back to roughly a point where it changes from stone to brick. That would be an important recommendation and they hope that the design that is fluid would accommodate that. Also,the Historic District Commission's understanding of the drawing and of the elevation is that these buildings will be touching completely-that the whole notion of 100% lot coverage is that they will absolutely be built just like the Central Business District where all the buildings are touching. They do have a concern with the fact that there is no setback. Their concern is primarily issues of engineering. Those buildings are very old. This is ais a that would have to occur with buildings touching would be right where those old foundations are. The concern would be settling, shifting or failing of the foundations of the existing buildings and also if they are built without any kind of setback,there is no ability for making any kind of repairs to the mortar that exists on those buildings once this new building is built in that fashion. They understand the need to squeeze this in. They also understand that if they were to build something that did still allow setbacks on the front and both sides,that that might tighten up the ability to have enough parking bays in there. If that is the case in terms of difficulty,the Historic District Commission would be recommending that a third above ground level be able to be added, but that it not come all the way forward to the front wall. That it,too,would be set back somewhat so that from the street it would be inconspicuous in its presence, but would allow for the ability to add additional parking that would otherwise be lost based on our recommendations. Ms. Whitbeck also stated that the Historic District Commission encourage that something be done with the Stebbins building if at all possible to maintain it.They do understand how much of it is already obscured and looking at how the roof line currently hangs into the area in which they wish to build,that certainly would be a problem for them. The HDC has researched the prior history of that house and there is an important person there who is important to the history of Lansing and the State of Michigan. Primarily,that is Mr. Cortlin Stebbins who lived from 1812- 1901. He did some very consequential things in the state of Vermont before he came to Michigan. Once he arrived in Michigan, he introduced sugar beets to the state. Under the Oaks in Jackson and the founding of the Republican Party, he is the person responsible for starting the grassroots effort to create Miller Filmore as a candidate and ultimately president of the United States and as a result, Mr. Stebbins was appointed to the Secret Service Branch of the U.S. Treasury. But even more important to Lansing and to the State of Michigan, he served as Michigan Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1858- 1878. He is credited as the father of the state's establishment of the system of kindergartens in 1871. According to Dr. Frank Turner in his volume on Ingham County history, Mr. Stebbins is, more than any other man in Michigan, responsible for the building of Michigan's public school system. His son,Arthur Portland Stebbins, also resided in that home. He was the manager of the Lansing Wheelbarrow Company and was associated with Ransom Olds as an officer along with Edward Sparrow and Eugene Cooley in the Olds Motor Vehicle Company. The Stebbins House,which is DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEA' S MEETING JANUARY 14, 1"Q9 PAGE 7 also called the Fellowship House these days,was a gift from Ransom Olds to First Baptist Church. The addition on the south side of the building was a gift of Mrs. Gladys Olds Anderson as a memorial to her father and mother. Central Methodist Church is an extraordinarily important building in this city. Probably the only building more important is the capitol itself. The buildings share the same architect, Elijah Meijer, and this is the only known church designed by Mr. Meijer in the state. Similarly the architect on the First Baptist Church is of great consequence. Edwin Bowd is one of the most prominent and prolific of Lansing architects. Born and educated in Lansing, he came to Michigan in the early 1880s. He is associated with Mr.Appleyard who was the construction manager on the construction of the Capitol. Earl Mead is the architect for the interior of the church and Mr. Bowd for the exterior. Mr. Bowd was also involved in other major Lansing buildings including the Carnegie Library,the Administration Building at the Michigan School for the Blind,the Lewis Cass State Building,the Masoniconic Temple,the Lansing Post Office, J.W. Knapps Department Store, Ottawa Street Power Plant and numerous buildings on Michigan State University's campus. It is with a great deal of concern for the ongoing importance of those two churches that the HDC applauds the owner and the company who is building it to do as much as possible to make that work. The Historic District Commission has no recommendations on the request for the variance on the back lot line. The reason they make no comment on the rear setback is that that property is already owned by the State of Michigan who would be the beneficial user for 25 years and the ultimate owner later on. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board regarding this appeal. M. Clark did mention that there was verbal communication from Msgr. Murphy from St. Mary's Church. He called our office to state that he was not opposed to the variance as long as the interests of the two adjacent churches were protected. Seeing none,the Board went into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated his concern regarding ramps in general. In the Transportation Bldg. when everyone leaves at the same time,the building quivers, feels like jello and is very noticeable. If that structure touches the two older structures and quivers- he has never seen a parking ramp that doesn't tremor-what will that do to those structures? He believes that is a very serious consideration that the Board needs a good answer to. E. Horne questioned the concern that First Baptist might have regarding their windows. J. Ruff stated that there are a couple of notches on the south wall of First Baptist Church that runs next to the driveway. The first section that is nearest Capitol Ave. is as close as that parking deck is proposed. That first section has all stone on it. Then it steps back as you go west another eight inches approximately and then there is another part that steps back and runs towards the Stebbins House. Then when you get to the Stebbins House, it steps back a little bit further into that back parking lot. The concern as to how it would be finished, he would not want to leave 6 inches or a foot or any space if you couldn't leave maintenance space because if you leave a small amount of space,water gets in there,then it freezes. The ramp would have to be well designed to work around the oddities. G. Hilts asked if the other office building that backs up to this project was going to be vacated? J. Ruff answered that that is where the representatives are located presently and that they would be relocated into the new Capitol Outlook building. So,yes the total building would be vacated. Discussion as to what the plans are of the old building. There aren't any known plans. There was also discussion of the space of the old building and the possibility of tearing that down and creating parking in that area.B. Burgess asked what options there are for the Stebbins House as far as structural validity, DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPEA' S MEETING JANUARY 14, 1"Q9 PAGE 8 moving the house, etc.? J. Ruff stated that the plans were originally-and the contractor has been looking at this-is to totally change its shape in a way to increase the area in the back, make it less wide east and west and longer north and south to come out even with the plan. To save it would be to renovate it. V. Earhart made motion to table BZA-3531.98, 221-227 N. Capitol Ave. Seconded by G. Hilts. Motion carried by voice vote. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98,901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that they are not anticipating any action at this time. B. BZA-3493.98, 102 S. McPherson J. Ruff presented information. He stated that he gave, at this meeting,the missing page from the previous report. The Lansing School District has asked the Board to continue pursuing this permit for a potential tower in this location at the Sexton High School- primarily around the athletic field west of the school. Staff has reviewed this and the Planning Board has recommended its approval. They will be setting a date for a public hearing. They concluded the conditions that were typical for this appeal that they have looked at in the recent past and recommend approval. The tower would be up near the athletic field on the extreme west side of the facility. Potentially,the school district may be looking to utilize the tower for lighting of the baseball field in the future or to supplement lighting for the football field. They feel that it is a good location based on the fact that they are up against industrial uses to the north and railroad to the west. It would be a location where there are already light poles. Staff recommends approval with conditions. It is zoned "A- Residential"so the variance is for 165 feet. M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board regarding this appeal. Seeing none,they moved into the Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff stated that he hoped that the reports on the towers that were given to the Board were helpful, especially to the new Board members. He intends to bring more reports to the Board within the first quarter and then they will be looking at alternative sites to some of the original sites that they looked for trying to make sure that they property fill the gaps without excessive number of sites approved. They have worked out with the hospitals the communication issues. J. Ruff will confirm that again before going ahead with any other sites. He has also sought the encouragement of those types of things with any of the communication companies that he has been in contact with. V. Earhart made motion that BZA-3493.98,which is a tower at 102 S. McPherson, Lansing be approved with a variance of 165 feet allowing construction of the 200 foot communication tower. There are 6 conditions that are usually put on this. They are listed on page 4 of the particular material. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE Yea Na Earhart X Clark X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPE," S MEETING JANUARY 14, 1"q9 PAGE 9 Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3493.98, 102 S. McPherson has been approved with the six following conditions: 1)The tower should be placed in lieu of an athletic light standard (existing or new); 2)The proposed monopole tower provide for a co-location of antennas; 3)The proposed contract with the School District include language helping to ensure compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals; 4) Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding properties; 5)The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security; and 6)The tower and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in locations as far away from surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact. C. BZA-3495.98. 1625 Sunset J. Ruff showed photographs of the area to Board. He stated that they have almost come to terms with the contractor. They have worked out all the legal issues down to the last draw. They have worked these same legal issues out with the school district attorneys as well as with the hospital attorneys. J. Ruff has met with the SBA official who is the potential contractor and they feel that if the Planning Office can do the hill site on the southwest end of town which has already been approved,do the Sunset site here on the west side,that will help with the entire westerly border. They are looking for a central west site. They also evaluated Holmes and Washington. That tower is insufficient to handle anymore antennas due to its type of construction-the foundation size is small. E. Horne asked if landscaping was necessary on that location? J. Ruff stated that it was not necessary. The tower is well hidden. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3495.98, 1625 Sunset,to allow an 80 foot height variance to allow for the construction for a 200 foot communications tower with the 6 conditions as listed in the report. Seconded by R. Korbakis. VOTE Yea Na Earhart X fil�rk X Frederick X Hilts X Horne X Danley X Burgess X Korbakis X Motion carried by a vote of 8-0, BZA-3495.98, 1625 Sunset has been approved with the following six conditions: 1)The tower shall be a monopole type tower; 2)The proposed tower shall replace the existing tower; 3)The existing communications antenntennas shall be relocated onto the new tower; 4)The tower shall provide for the co-location of antennas; 5)The contract with the City shall include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with the hospitals; and 6) The tower shall be appropriately fenced for security. DRAFT COPY BOARD OF ZONING APPE" S MEETING JANUARY 14, 1^a9 PAGE 10 V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of December 10, 1998 B. Burgess moved to approve minutes of December 10, 1998. Supported by V. Earhart that we accept minutes as printed. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Vll. NEW BUSINESS A. Preamble B. Burgess stated that he believed it would be a good idea to mention to the public that they need to sign in when they address the Board. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator DRAFT COPY