HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 1998 Minutes Draft to Clerk 12/23/98
Approved 01/14/99
To Clerk 01/19/99
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
r,� �.-DECEMBER 10, 1998, 7:30 P.M.
16TY C6LYNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
CLERK
I. 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 L. Peters
Excused Absences:
Regina 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 he wants to include BZA-3493.98 (old business) which has updated
information on communication towers. He wanted to discuss it at meeting, but action could be
taken in January.
G. Hilts moved to approve agenda with above noted changes. Seconded by V. Earhart.
Carried.
III. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. BZA-3523.98. 3630 S. Cedar St
J. Ruff presented the case, which was a request by Beacon Sign Company for a variance
to erect a new Michigan National Bank ATM sign on the L&L Food Center building at 3630
S. Cedar St. He stated that the building has three existing signs on it and they wish to
add a fourth sign. The fourth sign is a small sign, only 10 square feet in size. With the
addition of this sign,they are not exceeding the total square footage that is allowed by
code in this area. But they are exceeding the number of signs allowed. Staff is not
concerned with the size of the sign, but with the fact in the number of signs as well as the
idea of placing an additional sign for an ATM on the building.
J. Ruff also stated that ATMs are found in many retail facilities now and this could
establish a precedent for anywhere ATMs may be found as an accessory to a facility. Staff
recommends denial of this request.
John DiNunzio, Fairmont Sign Company, 3750 E. Outer Dr., Detroit, MI addressed the
Board. He stated that there were two existing signs according to the drawings that they
have and according to the letter they received from the Planning Department.
J. Ruff stated that the drawings that were supplied to the Planning Department,there
were only two signs shown. When he drove by the property, he saw three signs. One
sign was above another-that was two separate signs, not one plus another sign on the
building which equaled three signs. He also stated that when the Planning Department
received the drawings that the third sign was not included in the square footage.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 2
J. DiNunzio then stated that the sign that is being proposed is merely a public service
offering ATM service, not a sign that identifies a business as such. The bank is offering
ATM service within the grocery store. They only wish to identify that there is an ATM in
that building, nothing more.
B. Burgess asked why the alternatives were not acceptable?
J. DiNunzio answered that they would have to reconstruct the signs completely. The
Spartan sign on the side has a molded pan face. They have no idea where the mold for
that sign would be. So, in order to redo the sign,they have to make a new mold. The main
sign on the north end of the building would also have to be reconstructed completely.
B. Burgess asked what the problem would be to put the sign on the changeable board
outside or hanging something in the window?
J. DiNunzio answered that that could be a possibility, but he is not representing the
business, but the sign company.
V. Earhart asked what the copy on the ATM sign was?
J. DiNunzio answered that it was"Michigan National ATM".
Linda Kelly, Michigan National Bank, 4300 W. Saginaw addressed the Board. She
stated that the problem with incorporating that sign into another sign is that in the event
that Michigan National should leave that premise and some other bank should come in,
then that sign would have to be removed which would mean that L& L Food Centers
would have to remove their sign and make another sign. That is why they prefer to have
it separate.
B. Burgess asked again -Why can't they put a sign which they can hang on their board
outside or a sign that they can hang in their window which would be very easily removed
be acceptable?
L. Kelly answered that on all of the other L&L Food Centers that they have,they have
put up the same kind of sign that they are requesting now. They prefer not to put things
in their windows and we try to accommodate. They don't require an ATM sign, but would
really appreciate having one out there.
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 Board has fought forever against unnecessary sign proliferation and he
could not support adding to the problem. He does not see any reason to approve this request.
V. Earhart agrees with G. Hilts.
B. Burgess stated that this type of ATM in a grocery store is most likely to be used by regular
customers of the grocery store versus somebody driving around looking for an ATM. There are
Michigan National drive up ATMs north of that area. He does not see a necessity for having an
ATM sign put up.
V. Earhart moved that BZA-3523.98, 3630 S. Cedar St., request for a sign variance for an ATM
sign for the Michigan National Bank be denied as suggested by staff. Seconded by G. Hilts.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALP DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 3
VOTE Yea Na
Earhart X
Clark X
Frederick X
Hilts X
Horne X
Burgess X
Korbakis X
Motion carried by a vote of 7-0, BZA-3523.98,3630 S. Cedar St. has been denied.
B. BZA-3524.98, 1615 W. Mt Hope Ave has been withdrawn.
M. Clark read letter from applicant(Linda Kelly) requesting to withdraw her request.
J. Ruff stated that the letter to withdraw the request was not made by the applicant which
was Michigan National Bank, but was requested by Beacon Sign Company. But if there
were people present that would like to address the Board regarding this,they would hear it.
John DuNunzio acknowledged the fact that they were withdrawing the request. He stated
that he phoned the Planning Department and they asked him to contact the bank for the
bank to write the letter to the Planning Department.
V. Earhart moved to accept withdrawal of BZA-3524.98, 1615 W. Mt. Hope Ave. Seconded by
G. Hilts.
Voice vote unanimous to accept withdrawal.
C. BZA-3525.98, 528 E. Mt Hope Ave
J. Ruff presented the case, a request from Patrick Dunham to build a 14'x 22'addition
onto the rear of the house and to create a parking space in front at 528 E. Mt. Hope
Avenue. Section 1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum rear yard setback of 30
feet. They wish to take off an existing porch and replace it with a larger addition. As part of
that,the house is one that is built and pushed back on the lot-out of the ordinary. The
interior of the house is such that it does not provide adequate dining space. The
proposal is for a variance of 22'10"from Section 1248.09 and a variance from Section
1286.02 which prohibits parking in the front yard. Adjacent to the property in the rear is
a parking lot and a funeral home. Staff does not believe that this would cause an adverse
impact to neighboring properties. Staff recommends approval of this request.
The second part of the variance is the request for widening the parking space in the front
of the house. Being located on Mt. Hope Ave. near Cedar St.,they desire to widen the
parking space in front of the home now in order to accommodate a second vehicle to
allow them to not have to back out onto Mt. Hope Ave. when they have to move
vehicles around for someone to get out. Staff sees no other alternative to this. Staff
recommends approval of this request.
Patrick Dunham, 528 E. Mt. Hope Ave., Lansing, MI addressed the Board. He is
requesting this addition due to the fact that he has a new family,2 babies less than 2
years old. This is a new house for them, moving from previously living in apartments
and condos. He didn't want to spend so much money on accommodations anymore. So
they bought a house cheap enough for them to live in. It was determined after buying
the house that there wasn't enough space in the house-they have no dining room, no
area to eat. They presently eat on the couch in the living room. They would like to have
enough space for a dining room to have a place to put the children during meal times.
He stated that he looked at the surrounding area around his house and didn't see any
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 4
problem with building an addition. It would make their living space much more
convenient and it would allow them to get the best quality out of their home to use it
properly.
P. Dunham also addressed the issue of the parking space in the front of the house.
There is no additional parking available to them. He stated that he is a landscaper so he
is planning on landscaping the house and surrounding area. He is putting stone around
the house to allow for low maintenance because there isn't much space. On one side of
the house, a neighbor has approximately 3 feet of his lot-he does not mind this- but it
cuts down the space that he has to work with. He is also planning on fixing up the back
yard, putting a new fence in and landscaping the entire area. He will also be fixing the
outside of the house.
E. Horne asked petitioner when house was built? P. Dunham stated that it was built in
1921.
E. Horne asked if the driveway was a shared driveway? P. Dunham stated that it isn't a
shared driveway, although his neighbor has approximately 3 feet of his property.
M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board regarding this appeal.
Seeing none,the Board went into the Committee of the Whole.
V. Earhart stated that she and her husband drove past the house at 10:00 a.m.that morning and
were almost rearended. She can't imagine getting in and out of that driveway without the
proposed addition to the parking space. She also stated that part of the reason for the back
variance was for fire control. With a parking lot back there, anyone could get out in the event of
an emergency. She sees nothing against this request.
B. Burgess stated that he never noticed the house before because it is set so far back. So even
if it is front yard parking, it would not be noticeable at all.
A. Fredericks stated that it is a parking issue and he agrees with this request as well.
E. Horne stated that this is a good idea. It is an enhancement to the area. She supports the
request as well.
V. Earhart moved to approve the requested variances for BZA-3525.98, 528 E. Mt. Hope Ave.
contingent to recommendations of staff regarding the separate unit not being a duplex,that the
parking space be hard surfaced and that the properly be landscaped to screen or soften the
appearance of that parking section. Seconded by E. Horne.
VOTE Yea Na
Earhart X
Clark X
Frederick X
Hilts X
Horne X
Burgess X
Korbakis X
Motion carried by a vote of 7-0, BZA-3525.98,528 E. Mt. Hope Ave. has been approved.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALP DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 5
D. BZA-3526.98,VOIDED
E. BZA-3527.98, 6438 Rosedale
J. Ruff presented the case, which was a modification request to BZA-3521.98 which was
brought before the Board two months ago. The original request was for a variance to
build a 5' extension onto the existing 4'X 16'front porch to result in a 9'X 16' covered
front porch at 6438 Rosedale. This request was for a porch extension only and not for a
complete enclosure. Since this time,the porch has begun to be enclosed by the
applicant. The applicant is now requesting to enclose the porch and add a handicap
ramp onto the front of the structure.
J. Ruff explained that the reason for requesting this variance in the first place was to
help get the owner out of the weather to be able to get into the house. His only real
concern regarding this request is that the front door will be outside again and not be
covered. If the applicant becomes wheelchair bound,then she will be in the weather again
trying to get into the house. He suggested at least a recessed door to get into the house.
Erma Cortez,6438 Rosedale, addressed the Board. She stated that the enclosure will
make it easier for her to get to and from her car and will also protect her from the snow.
V. Earhart asked Erma Cortez to address J. Ruffs concerns regarding this property.
Ms. Cortez stated that where the doorway will be put on the side of the house, it will be
easier and closer for her to get into the covered part of the house and then be able to
go in the front door from there.
M. Clark asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Board regarding this
appeal. Seeing none,the Board went into the Committee of the Whole.
V. Earhart stated that enclosing the porch doesn't bother her at all. It does service the
individual.
M. Clark read letter from Larkins, 600 Rosedale,stating her disapproval of enclosing the porch.
A. Fredericks moved to approve BZA-3527.98, 6438 Rosedale, a request to enclose the porch.
Seconded by V. Earhart.
VOTE Yea Na
Earhart X
Clark X
Frederick X
Hilts X
Horne X
Burgess X
Korbakis X
Motion carried by a vote of 6-1, BZA-3527.98, 6438 Rosedale has been approved.
F. BZA-3528.98, 500 S. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Clark Construction Company on behalf of Union
Missionary Baptist Church to construct a sanctuary that will exceed the height allowance on
the property at 500 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. The property is a triangle-shaped
property located north of St. Joseph St. in between north and southbound Martin Luther
King Jr. Blvd. that the State of Michigan sold to the church. The property is primarily
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALP DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 6
zoned B. Based upon Sections 1248.10(a) and 1250.10(a) of the Zoning Code allow a
maximum of 35 ft. in the A,A-1, B or C Districts. Therefore,this is a requested variance of
18.5 feet.
J. Ruff explained that this request has no adverse effect to surrounding properties and
since the auditorium is so wide,the variance is essential for the height of the roof. Staff
recommends approval of this variance.
General discussion as to size of property, location, etc.
V. Earhart stated that she goes through that area regularly. She sees that this piece of
property should be developed and thinks that this plan for a church is an excellent idea.
Gerald Boerner, Clark Construction Company, 3225 W. St.Joseph, addressed the
Board. He stated that Union Missionary Baptist Church has been waiting a long time for
this change. They have worked hard to be able to finance this project. Clark
Construction Company designed the church approximately two years ago. They paid an
architect to design it-the plans are complete and designed. Clark Construction started
the permit phase at that point. But the church realized, at that time in the preliminary
budget,they couldn't afford it at the time,so Clark Construction shelved the project.
Clark is now to the point of being able to build it when this issue of variance arose. To
go back and redesign at this point would be a tremendous cost to the church-
approximately$100,000 to $150,000. They have already paid in terms of$350,000 to
$400,000 to design it at this point. It would not only be at tremendous cost, but also
tremendous scheduling impact because Clark is ready to start work on that site now and
Clark would be delayed 3-4 months if this is not approved. He also stated that the
church is a multi-purpose facility. The sanctuary is two-level which contributes to the
height of the church. It is a place for worship, a place for drama events and a family life
center as well. It is a very nice facility and to lower it would completely change the
design concept that they are trying to achieve.
Henry Green, Union Baptist Missionary Church, 1020 W. Hillsdale, addressed the
Board. He is chairman of the construction committee for this project. This has been a
long project for the church. The project, in its infancy, was designed as a sanctuary
building. As the church has grown,there are now activities going on seven days a week.
The facility is now too small for the number of ministries that the church has. Pastor
Jones has initiated a number of programs that are community based. These programs
are expanding beyond the walls of the church. He stated that the church now needs a
facility that is multi-purpose.
H. Green also stated that the sanctuary will fit their congregation. The church is now
holding four services every Sunday to meet the needs of their membership. The new
facility will allow the church to run less than four services and extend the life of the
pastor as well! He expressed that this new facility is one that will bring in a number of
community activities, it will provide for recreational facilities for the community,the
church will have room for classrooms in order to hold the many number of classes that
they have all week long, it will allow the church to bring in other programs that they have
been doing off-site such as the basketball program -there will be a gym on site. This
has been a long-time project. It has been one that the church has embraced as a
community-based organization. They believe that the church can make an impact on
the City of Lansing. He also stated that the church believes that this project will anchor
the 7-block area. They want to get started on this project as soon as possible in order to
have an effect on the 7-block area. The pastor has been very involved in this area and
in the development of this area. H. Green then showed a picture of the new designed
church and described the location and its borders.
H. Green explained some history on this church and its locations. This is the third
facility within 4 lots in the area since 1950. The new church will fit in with the surrounding
community. There will be a great deal of landscaping around the area to enhance it
even more.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALP DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 7
H. Green stated that in order to accommodate the size of facility that they are looking at
building,they had talked about, roughly ten years ago, initially staying at their current
location and adding on to that. Their sanctuary currently seats 325 people. They hold
four services every Sunday. They need a facility in the range of 1,000 people. In order
to do that,they need to build northorth of their current location. They wanted to stay within
the inner city area, within a position that they have been in for the past 40 years because
people know where Union Missionary Baptist Church is. From that perspective,they
want to stay in that area. He explained the history of getting the property.
G. Hilts stated that they have been talking about putting a church in there for quite a
while. He supports it.
J. Ruff stated that he has looked at the site plans. With all the landscaping proposed,
he believes that this will be a very functional and good looking property.
M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,the Board
moved into the Committee of the Whole.
V. Earhart stated that in 1990,she went to work in a division with the Department of
Transportation. That was when she first heard about this proposal. She thought that it was a
wonderful idea then and would endorse it now.
E. Horne stated that this proposal was always a part of the 7 block plan. She believes that it
would be an excellent anchor for the community.
E. Horne moved to approve the requested height variance for BZA-3528.98, 500 S. Martin
Luther King Jr. Blvd. Seconded by V. Earhart.
A. Fredericks brought up the fact that there is considerable feeling on the Planning Board
regarding buildings that block the view of the Capitol.
V. Earhart stated that she feels that is a bit bogus of an argument at this point. Several apartment
properties and other properties block the view, but are approved.
VOTE Yea Na
Earhart X
Clark X
1?
derick X
Hil X
Horne X
Burgess X
Korbakis X
Motion carried by a vote of 7 -0, BZA-3528.98, 500 S. Martin Luther King Jr. has been approved.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch
J. Ruff suggested that issue remain tabled at this time. Our office will work with the
applicant to meet with the neighbors and help the applicant get a readable drawing.
B. BZA-3493.98. 102 S McPherson,Sexton (Communication Towers)
J. Ruff provided a summary on the towers. The public hearing was in April 1998.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALc DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 8
J. Ruff explained report on Sexton in order to review it.
Board decided to review the information and take action on it in January.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -
A. Minutes of November 12, 1998
A. Fredericks moved to approve minutes of November 12, 1998. Supported by E.
Horne that we accept minutes as printed.
Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of 1999 Board Meeting
B. Burgess moved to approve the 1999 Board Meeting dates. Seconded by E. Horne.
Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Vill. JIM RUFF'S COMMENTS
J. Ruff expressed to the Board his thankfulness and appreciativeness for all their work and their
camaraderie in the 1998 year. He wishes them all well during the holidays.
IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 8.45 p.m.
X. ETHICS TRAINING
A. Ethics Training ensued in the conference room for approximately a'/z hour.
Presentation made by Personnel Office employee.
Respectfully submitted,
J
Jim Ruff, Zoning/Administrator
Draft toClerk 12/23/98Approved
To Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DECEMBER 10k 1998' 7:30 P.M. - — -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
- -- PA | 5 4
L��r(�~ "I i"I' C L E RK k The meeting was called ho order byM Clark et7:3Opm M. Clark readth B2y\introduction.
Roll call was taken.
V. Earhart E. Horne G. Hilts
A. Frederick M. Clark
Excused Absences:
Regina Danley
fft:.Action to be taken at the
APPROVAL OF AGENDA ....
which has updated
information on communication to ...
He wat�bd to djs��i�-dak meeting, but action could be
taken in January.
G. Hilts moved to approve.cigenda with:Obove nqf�� changes. Seconded by V. Earhart.
J ::ftff--00�jited thd:� �".Which was a request by Beacon Sign Company for a variance
�.f&:&-iiO:�:�IO.W.MijDhigah-:t4ationaI Bank ATM sign on the L&L Food Center building at 3630
S. Ceda'..... -'�':�'totted that the building has three existing signs on it and they wish to
ithl�i4�:�:�The fourth sign is a small sign, only 10 square feet in size. With the
add a four
-fth,they are not exceeding the total square footage that is allowed by
addition of Wk
code in thi�,:dre6. But they are exceeding the number of signs allowed. Staff is not
concernq4"" th the size of the sign, but with the fact in the number of signs as well as the
idea ofpo,6ing an additional sign for an ATM on the building.
also stated that ATMs are found in many retail facilities now and this could
-6blish a precedent for anywhere ATMs may be found as an accessory to a facility. Staff
John CUNundo. Fairmont Sign Company, 3750E. Outer Or.. Detroit, K8/ addressed the
Board. He stated that there were two existing signs according to the drawings that they
have and according to the letter they received from the Planning Department.
J. Ruff stated that the drawings that were supplied to the Planning Department,there
were only two signs shown. When ha drove by the property, he saw three signs. One
sign was above another-that was two separate signs, not one plus another sign on the
building which equaled three signs. He also stated that when the Planning Department
received the drawings that the third sign was not included in the square footage.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALP DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 2
J. DiNunzio then stated that the sign that is being proposed is merely a public service
offering ATM service, not a sign that identifies a business as such. The bank is offering
ATM service within the grocery store. They only wish to identify that there is an ATM in
that building, nothing more.
B. Burgess asked why the alternatives were not acceptable?
J. DiNunzio answered that they would have to reconstruct the signs completely. The
Spartan sign on the side has a molded pan face. They have no idea where the mold for
that sign would be. So, in order to redo the sign,they have to make a new M.'Od. The main
sign on the north end of the building would also have to be reconstructed.:Gcimpletely.
B. Burgess asked what the problem would be to p�t.the sign .th'�.' i'angeable board
outside or hanging something in the window?
J. DiNunzio answered that that could be a pqs;lbility, but hs:is riofr pries ritinq the
business, but the sign company.
V. Earhart asked what the copy on the ATM
J. DiNunzio answered that it was"Michigan NaWf{'�i:l.... ;.•
... ......W.,
Linda Kelly, Michigan National Bank, 4300 V11. Saginaw; al O'" the Board. She
stated that the problem with incorporatir 'ftt.sign into ari�"tf}�t::gigt •is that in the event
that Michigan National should Ieave.th*' -pM MO—and some'ot.i ,bank should come in,
then that sign would have to be rgr:t�ved'W*h:vy Wd mean.•th2t L& L Food Centers
would have to remove their sigjr"'r 8 makpi:�hbitti$i:: ,..TfYat is why they prefer to have
it separate.
B. Burgess asked again:lMhy can't:they put a sir h which they can hang on their board
outside or a sign that.th.i:oan hanOn their win.O*which would be very easily removed
be acceptable?
L. Kelly ansyir r. d.##tat on all o >ti : t)ZoKLA L Food Centers that they have,they have
up the.s�h*,:ki ai of sign that i y;are requesting now. They prefer not to put things
kheir wind'c�v�►; .i�t3i.*,-.try to accdrrimodate. They don't require an ATM sign, but would
.apprecieh :J* :p,ne out there.
C:li A:� sked if ariyt�i�:�B b`wished to address the Board. Seeing none,they moved
s[ttp;th ;Cti tar ittee of'ttil�Whole.
:::'(-lilts stated tti'a;:M;i :3*d has fought forever against unnecessary sign proliferation and he
::::Could not support;�f. �:ffie problem. He does not see any reason to approve this request.
V. Earhart agrees:tvith G. Hilts.
B. Burgess staW that this type of ATM in a grocery store is most likely to be used by regular
:::::::::::::::::,customers offfie grocery store versus somebody driving around looking for an ATM. There are
hQjgt.j#qI tonal drive up ATMs north of that area. He does not see a necessity for having an
:.: `put up.
V. Earhart moved that BZA-3523.98, 3630 S. Cedar St., request for a sign variance for an ATM
sign for the Michigan National Bank be denied as suggested by staff. Seconded by G. Hilts.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL" D
VOTE Yea Nay
Clark x
Frederick x
Hilts x
Horne x
Burgess x
B. BZA-3524.98, 1615 W. Mt. Hope Ave, has b��n-.withdilawn.
M. Clark read letter from applicant(Linda .........
�ting to withdraw W:f-&4a&st.
J. Ruff stated that the letter to withdraw the req�W-*�:h'Ot-,made by the applicant which
was Michigan National Bank, but was reque.!a b
Y AWrY:ftJ1 Company. But if there
were people present that would like to addre'ss the Bo'9'iM:i.6§Wf:hq.this,they would hear it.
John DuNunzio acknowledged the fW':QJ*:tWVwere withdir'6�6'ijitthe request. He stated
.16��:�sked him, 0 contact the bank for the
G. Hilts, Mt. Hope Ave. Seconded by
Voice vote unanimous to 4�,;O�pt vvithdk4Wal.
Ruff prwj��'(Qj
case, a �6U;O�t:-'frbrn Patrick Dunham to build a 14'x 22'addition
'to the red6�-&�6�se and to create a parking space in front at 528 E. Mt. Hope
�:,of the Zoning Code requires a minimum rear yard setback of 30
wish porch and replace it with a larger addition. As part of
VfW�:.1h�.'h6we is and pushed back on the lot-out of the ordinary. The
z: use is nWthat it does not provide adequate dining space. The
pro
ariance"'of 22'10"from Section 1248.09 and a variance from Section
Whli� :Pr,.— jbits parking in the front yard. Adjacent to the property in the rear is
neral home. Staff does not believe that this would cause an adverse
hbbring properties. Staff recommends approval of this request.
impact to
The secp6d part of the variance is the request for widening the parking space in the front
ofthe
NObse. Being located on Mt. Hope Ave. near Cedar St.,they desire to widen the
g space in front of the home now in order to accommodate a second vehicle to
them to not have to back out onto Mt. Hope Ave. when they have to move
-:-:-:-:-:.: 6hicIes around for someone to get out. Staff sees no other alternative to this. Staff
...... recommends approval of this request.
Patrick Dunham, 528E. Mt. Hope Ave, Lansing, NU addressed the Board. He is
requesting this addition due to the fact that he has a new family, 2 babies less than 2
years old. This ian new house for them, moving from previously living inapartments
and condos. He didn't want to spend ao much money on accommodations enynnnre 8o
they bought o house cheap enough for thennto live in. |t was deternninodafter buyin'
thehouoethotthorewmon'tonoughopaoeinthohouoe-theyhavenodin/ngroonn 'y
area toeoL They preoendyeat on the couch in the |i�ngroom. They would like tn' '~
anoughopaoeformdiningronnntohaveop|onetoputtheohi/dnynduringnnea(�nn~~.
'~^~
He stated that he looked at the surrounding area around his house a
nd didn't see any
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALP DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 4
problem with building an addition. It would make their living space much more
convenient and it would allow them to get the best quality out of their home to use it
properly.
P. Dunham also addressed the issue of the parking space in the front of the house.
There is no additional parking available to them. He stated that he is a landscaper so he
is planning on landscaping the house and surrounding area. He is putting stone around
the house to allow for low maintenance because there isn't much space. On one side of
the house, a neighbor has approximately 3 feet of his lot-he does not mind this-but it
cuts down the space that he has to work with. He is also planning on fixing•cep the back
yard, putting a new fence in and landscaping the entire area. HP.will also::Eie fixing the
outside of the house.
E. Horne asked petitioner when house was it was built in
1921.
E. Horne asked if the driveway was a sharecl::driveway? .P':;'•-Dunham•,,#
shared driveway, although his neighbor has approximatW3 feet of his p"rgpc::::::::
M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to addre$g:tii :#3pard regarding this appeal.
Seeing none,the Board went into the Committeo%,Ot i.�:1? kle.
V. Earhart stated that she and her husband drove past the hoii4A14.';60.a.m.that morning and
were almost rearended. She can't imagine getting.:ifj::a�nd out of thg :hrvjidy without the
proposed addition to the parking space. She•.�#gis.4{ ::that part of`th*�:fea son for the back
variance was for fire control. With a parkin g::lot balk t i frr;:�nyone cp'did get out in the event of
an emergency. She sees nothing agains.14his rega
B. Burgess stated that he never notified the house before;:(PC'use it is set so far back. So even
if it is front yard parking, it would::kf:be noticeiib'le at all. ::::
A. Fredericks stated that it is g::parking is.l and he agrees with this request as well.
E. Herne stated that t#1i :ia...good idea;:.:.....I....... ancement to the area. She supports the
regp3E:gs well.
V. t prk:ixtAved to apprtifiFs3 M ':requested variances for BZA-3525.98, 528 E. Mt. Hope Ave.
contirig . ;tq:fp sammendatst....; ji......
t fF regarding the separate unit not being a duplex,that the
parking spa.......bi rd surfac : fjat the property be landscaped to screen or soften the
appeajotry��•.'� :p�fking seo!6t';:`Seconded by E. Horne.
VOTE Yea
Nay
fart X
lark X
:fitpr#prsCk ............ X
X
Horne X
Burgess IL X
Korbakis Ix
Motion carried by a vote of 7-0, BZA-3525.98, 528 E. Mt. Hope Ave. has been approved.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL" DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 5
D. BZA-3526.98,VOIDED
E. BZA-3527.98. 6438 Rosedale
J. Ruff presented the case,which was a modification request to BZA-3521.98 which was
brought before the Board two months ago. The original request was for a variance to
build a 5'extension onto the existing 4'X 16'front porch to result in a 9'X 16'covered
front porch at 6438 Rosedale. This request was for a porch extension only and not for a
complete enclosure. Since this time,the porch has begun to be enclosed by the
applicant. The applicant is now requesting to enclose the porch and add a handicap
ramp onto the front of the structure.
J. Ruff explained that the reason for requesting this variance in::t}1�.first:p(ace was to
help get the owner out of the weather to be able to:get into th:6:1t ij�-'?'His only real
concern regarding this request is that the front do0r.:Y ill be o .and not be
covered. If the applicant becomes wheelchair ki i iid,then she:'M"Il::W:ji:Ae weather agO
trying to get into the house. He suggested at I.k�st a recesse4:doot-.16:00t;j6to.the hour
Erma Cortez, 6438 Rosedale, addressed the::p6�rd. Why tated that the'�r� iti4ihiill
make it easier for her to get to and from her ca : sid:lrijf also protect her frot;ti::tliL�•snow.
V. Earhart asked Erma Cortez to address J. F,tkfl :..li1 ils regarding this property.
Ms. Cortez stated that where the doorway will be put oKNi:W.j :;tg the house, it will be
easier and closer for her to get into the c.Qv* d part of tli,6:[j6...�:.j.d then be able to
go in the front door from there.
M. Clark asked if there was arljlrsiie else yrchp:;tvjtyl}6�:to•add?ess the Board regarding this
appeal. Seeing none,the Bo�vdd went ir96:the•Qbhs �lh�*&the Whole.
V. Earhart stated that enclosing::th .`porch d sn't bothee:3ier at all. It does service the
individual.
M. Clark read letter from Lkkins, 600 ksQciale, t;� g her disapproval of enclosing the porch.
A...-F3 .. . moved tip: qpr ve BZA- 27 ;' 438 Rosedale, a request to enclose the porch.
VOA::::: Yea Na
Earhart X
Clark::"" X
FF�derick X
Ijfts: X
:l ........ . X
X
Korbakis X
Motion carried by a vote of 6 -1, BZA-3527.98,6438 Rosedale has been approved.
F. BZA-3528.98 500 S. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Clark Construction Company on behalf of Union
Missionary Baptist Church to construct a sanctuary that will exceed the height allowance on
the property at 500 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. The property is a triangle-shaped
property located north of St. Joseph St. in between north and southbound Martin Luther
King Jr. Blvd. that the State of Michigan sold to the church. The properly is primarily
BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL" DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 6
zoned B. Based upon Sections 1248.10(a) and 1250.10(a) of the Zoning Code allow a
maximum of 35 ft. in the A,A-1, B or C Districts. Therefore,this is a requested variance of
18.5 feet.
J. Ruff explained that this request has no adverse effect to surrounding properties and
since the auditorium is so wide,the variance is essential for the height of the roof. Staff
recommends approval of this variance.
General discussion as to size of property, location, etc.
V. Earhart stated that she goes through that area regularly. She.sees thafthis piece of
property should be developed and thinks that this plan for a chu:r�f�.is ar'i�excellent idea.
Gerald Boerner, Clark Construction Company, 32 f11. St.'JFt p....q0ressecl the
Board. He stated that Union Missionary Baptist.rhurch has beq'6:iW11"� .Jong time for
this change. They have worked hard to be aW ,.:[' finance
Construction Company designed the church pproximately.Wiro years' t, p;;: '} a jr; ,ai { n
architect to design it-the plans are complete:'rfW,:desi9n'&d'. Clark Con* tbfj:, ti Aed
the permit phase at that point. But the churcft4;6e11i ;'at that time in the pi61bliiary
budget,they couldn't afford it at the time,so CI$rk::CW�'lMruction shelved the project.
Clark is now to the point of being able to build it:tvtii :tf �S: sue of variance arose. To
go back and redesign at this point would be�:#rem,i}c�ptj..... .to the church -
approximately$100,000 to$150,000. They"tiave alread9":.....{:)> :lerms of$350,000 to
$400,000 to design it at this point. It wouJd:np1.only be af'tto �tdlr s cost, but also
tremendous scheduling impact beck l :�:t r3t:i5:{eady to sf6ftWOk on that site now and
Clark would be delayed 3-4 monthg::if'tlils:i$:WOproved. N,e:also stated that the
church is a multi-purpose facility::: the sanctti�ij'-'Oi fo-leve :which contributes to the
height of the church. It is a place for worship,'a: I :f.4i:dfama events and a family life
center as well. It is a very rtiOe facility,�06 to lowef: t;Y�00ld completely change the
design concept that they:: j trying tq:�bhieve. :
Henry Green, Union::B ptist Misslbi&y Churgh':I 020 W. Hillsdale, addressed the
Board. He is chairrii n of the c�Wrtjctionxffimittee for this project. This has been a
::, long project fq011e:4urch. Tf;e: r ;;fi7:t{s infancy,was designed as a sanctuary
:::::::building. AS:Et s ;ct Ok ch has grb!W:11$06 are now activities going on seven days a week.
is:1�it'N:W4:�mall for th6'dumber of ministries that the church has. Pastor
:::.....i...... S initia te....iii er of programs that are community based. These programs
1.
,:::,::� flding bejrq t : f ;v tls of the church. He stated that the church now needs a
fatuityth OF? multi-P,flro i;:;:::
G`(6�h':Alidt::Iated that the sanctuary will fit their congregation. The church is now
holding fdUr:3� .every Sunday to meet the needs of their membership. The new
facility will #titi�ktts£'church to run less than four services and extend the life of the
Pastor as ktiPr111::}le expressed that this new facility is one that will bring in a number of
community:activities, it will provide for recreational facilities for the community,the
church Wg:have room for classrooms in order to hold the many number of classes that
they ha* all week long, it will allow the church to bring in other programs that they have
beert'4bing off-site such as the basketball program-there will be a gym on site. This
a long-time project. It has been one that the church has embraced as a
:::::edmmunity-based organization. They believe that the church can make an impact on
the City of Lansing. He also stated that the church believes that this project will anchor
the 7-block area. They want to get started on this project as soon as possible in order to
have an effect on the 7-block area. The pastor has been very involved in this area and
in the development of this area. H. Green then showed a picture of the new designed
church and described the location and its borders.
H. Green explained some history on this church and its locations. This is the third
facility within 4 lots in the area since 1950. The new church will fit in with the surrounding
community. There will be a great deal of landscaping around the area to enhance it
even more.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALP DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 7
H. Green stated that in order to accommodate the size of facility that they are looking at
building,they had talked about, roughly ten years ago, initially staying at their current
location and adding on to that. Their sanctuary currently seats 325 people. They hold
four services every Sunday. They need a facility in the range of 1,000 people. In order
to do that,they need to build north of their current location. They wanted to stay within
the inner city area,within a position that they have been in for the past 40 years because
people know where Union Missionary Baptist Church is. From that perspective,they
want to stay in that area. He explained the history of getting the property.
G. Hilts stated that they have been talking about putting a church in there foF quite a
while. He supports it.
J. Ruff stated that he has looked at the site plans..NVith all thy::f f£dS 'aping proposed,
he believes that this will be a very functional and•.O,pgi:.lookiriprty;:::,
M. Clark asked if anyone else wished to addrs'the Board ::Seeirig'fiiri ;;-the.Board
moved into the Committee of the Whole.
V. Earhart stated that in 1990, she went to work in a tliWtiArt:iNlfh the Department
Transportation. That was when she first heard about tft'0rt}pQ"l. She thought that it was a
wonderful idea then and would endorse it now.
E. Horne stated that this proposal was always a padb'f the 7 bft Cl{:}il rt;.:: he believes that it
would be an excellent anchor for the community,::::...'.,*,.....
E. Horne moved to approve the requeste igh.......060 Jor BZA-3S26.98, 500 S. Martin
Luther King Jr. Blvd. Seconded by V. E�ifiart.
A. Fredericks brought up the fact tho"f there is. nsiderabl��f
�4 li►ig on the Planning Board
regarding buildings that block th&:view of the..da"pitol.
V. Earhart stated that she fetKS:ihat is a 116b'ogus of aA:argument at this point. Several apartment
properties and other pro.perk+6 block th :l i lw, but; approved.
::::::ilOTE:•. Yea Na
Earhart
Clark X:::::::::::::..
Frederick::''' ::: .X
Hilts.""' ::'' X
H61ifi-e X
:$mess X
X
Motftiit'c 'ried by a vote of 7 -0, BZA-3528.98, 500 S. Martin Luther King Jr. has been approved.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. BZA-3511.98. 901 N. Larch
J. Ruff suggested that issue remain tabled at this time. Our office will work with the
applicant to meet with the neighbors and help the applicant get a readable drawing.
B. BZA-3493.98. 102 S. McPherson,Sexton (Communication Towers)
J. Ruff provided a summary on the towers. The public hearing was in April 1998.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL' DECEMBER 10, 1998 PAGE 8
J. Ruff explained report on Sexton in order to review it.
Board decided to review the information and take action on it in January.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of November 12, 1998
A. Fredericks moved to approve minutes of Nove,M`% r 12, 19$$ ::$ rted by E.
Horne that we accept minutes as printed.
Motion carried unanimously by voice vote;;::::.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of 1999 Board Meeting
B. Burgess moved to approve the 1999 Board Meeting:d" ;:::$.;PConded by E. Horne.
Motion carried unanimously by vQit; :¢t ;
Vlll. JIM RUFF'S COMMENTS
J. Ruff expressed to the Board des:lliankfulne*s and app......veness for all their work and their
camaraderie in the 1998 year.:;::H:a:-tiiwishes th1 m all well,#bring the holidays.
IX. ADJOIJ,RNMENT AT 8?4i
X. ETFibS:7 , NING
A. Et tiCS::Ti° t3ing ensiretf.it3:t�i4:'onference room for approximately a'/ hour.
:Pi S rtt t ?fi::Riade by'N?�bnnel Office employee.
I psp&Ofully submitted':`
Jim Ruff,Zoning Administrator
t1,fZ i w
uApproved 12/10/98
To Clerk 12/15/98
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
NOVEMBER 12, 1998, 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
I. The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:30 p.m. M. Clark read the BZA introclugc" l- CITY, t
Roll call was taken. ' CLERK
Present:
V. Earhart E. Horne R. Danley G. Hilts
A. Frederick M. Clark R. Korbakis B. Burgess
Staff:
L. Peters S. Quon J. Sturdevant
Excused Absences- None
A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the
meeting.
II. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS
A. M. Clark introduced the three new board members: Bud Burgess, Regina Danley&
Raina Korbakis welcoming them to the board.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
E. Horne requested that the Ethics Workshop be added to New Business.
Unanimous voice vote to approve minutes with above noted changes.
IV. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. BZA-3522.98, 817 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
S. Quon presented case. Advent House Ministries is requesting to construct a new
covered front porch on the structure at 817 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,which will
have a front yard setback of 8 ft. 6 inches. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Code requires a
20 ft. Minimum setback;therefore,this is a requested variance of 11 ft. 6 inches.
The existing and surrounding land use is residential. Zoning is in the B Residential
District. The lot size is 40 x 138 feet, rectangular in shape. The property was donated to
Advent House Ministries to provide transitional housing for homeless families. The
house was built in 1916. This request for variance is in order to provide a porch to give
the guests some protection during inclement weather.
In evaluating a variance,there are 3 criteria:that there is a hardship or practical difficulty;
consideration regarding the location,size and character of the site; and vehicular and
pedestrian circulation. Since the houses along this section of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
were developed in the early 1900s,the zoning ordinance did not apply at that time.
Therefore,trying to apply the current zoning to those homes creates a practical difficulty.
Homes within 180 ft. of this site have a front yard setback of approximately 7 ft. '/4 in.
In regards to location,size and character,the area zoned B residential consists of single
family homes. Several houses around the immediate site all have porches. This porch
would be in character for the neighborhood and would also help beautify the area as
well.
LJvlll\V VI LV14111dV nr r Lf'1LV nV I1WI`4V INV VLIvlL"jx IL, IJJV I L. L
With regaru-to vehicular and pedestrian circulation,the ;roachment into the setback
does not pose any possible problems in regard to visibility,to traffic or to people walking
by.
Therefore, staff would recommend approval of this request.
E. Horne asked how many parking spaces are available? S. Quon stated that there is
parking available in the rear of the house. Currently,there is a shared driveway in the
backyard. Code requires 2 parking spaces and there is enough space in the rear of the
property. There is no garage.
E. Horne also asked how many people will be housed? S. Quon explained that this
home is for a family of blood relation. Advent Housing Ministries provides homeless
families a place to live to make the transition to go into a place where they can rent or
purchase. This is something that is temporary.
R. Korbakis asked if other homes in the area have variances as well. S. Quon stated
that the homes in that area are existing and have existing porches.
J. Sturdevant explained that most of those houses were built in a line. Since the road
has been widened by two lanes, it has encroached on the houses more than the houses
encroached on the road.
A. Frederick asked if the porch platform has been there all along? S. Quon stated that
the base has always been there-looked at photo-the plan is to create a porch on that
base.
M. Clark stated that,since there is no one in the audience to give questions,they
moved into the Committee of the Whole.
V. Earhart stated that she believes that this is a reasonable request given the location and the
use to which the building is going to be put.
V. Earhart moved that BZA-3522.98, 817 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. for the variance
requested of 11 ft. 6 inches from the front property line be approved as requested. Supported by
E. Horne. V. Earhart stated that due to the practical difficulty,the Board has to grant a variance
for anything to be done in that area. She also believes it to be in character for this area.
VOTE Yea Na
Earhart X
Clark X
Frederick X
Hilts X
Horne X
Burgess X
Danley X
Korbakis X
Motion carried by a vote of 8-0, BZA-3522.98, 817 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. has been
approved.
D%J/1RU Vf LVIVIIVV Mrr Cr%L.0 Y1li I MVO INV VGYIDCR IL, 1.7.70 r/1L7L J
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch
E. Horne asked what status is on this case? Has petitioner met with neighborhood
group on N. Larch St.? S. Quon responded that he had contacted petitioner two weeks
ago and was told that he doesn't have revised plans and doesn't know when the revised
plans will be done.
B. TOWERS
V. Earhart suggested that support staff make available all pertinent information on the
tower cases to the three new board members in order to familiarize them with each case.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. V. Earhart moves to approve minutes of October 8, 1998. Supported by E. Horne that
we accept minutes as printed. E. Horne made request to lighten the "draft"word across
minutes to make it easier to read. L. Peters will correct.
Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. M. Clark stated that E. Horne had received a letter from the Personnel Director indicating
that a training program has been developed by the Ethics Board for those subject to the
new Ethics requirements. The training consists of a short 12 minute training video that
explains the manual and the new Ethics provisions. The training takes approximately 15
minutes and is simple to complete. Each participant is required to sign an
acknowledgement receipt for the manual. The members can keep the manuals to use
during the training. They also want to schedule training during an upcoming BZA meeting.
Discussion regarding whether the Board is subject to this training ensued. It was decided
that the Board is subject to this training. Manuals were then passed out to Board.
M. Clark asked how many appeals there are for next month to determine whether there
would be a BZA meeting so that scheduling the training could take place. It was decided
that training would be scheduled in December.
B. V. Earhart brought up BZA training for new board members. The Board was informed
that training had already been scheduled for the new board members as well as for S.
Quon and S. Cantlon.
IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/Z
Jim Ruff, Zoning Admi istrator
Draft to Clerk 11/23/98
Approved
To Clerk_
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
NOVEMBER 12, 1998, 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALE" `4 P'
��;; c� Ic CLLIU\
I. The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7:30 p.m. M. Clark read the b2 in ro u ion.
Roll call was taken.
Present:
V. Earhart E. Horne R. Danley G. Hilts
A. Frederick M. Clark R. Korbakis B. Burgess
Staff:
L. Peters S. Quon J. Sturdevant
Excused Absences- None
A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the
meeting.
II. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS
A. M. Clark introduced the three new board members: Bud Burgess, Regina Danley&
Raina Korbakis welcoming them to the board.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
E. Horne requested that the Ethics Workshop be added to New Business.
Unanimous voice vote to approve minutes with above noted changes.
IV. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. BZA-3522.98, 817 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
S. Quon presented case. Advent House Ministries is requesting to construct a new
covered front porch on the structure at 817 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,which will
have a front yard setback of 8 ft. 6 inches. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Code requires a
20 ft. Minimum setback;therefore,this is a requested variance of 11 ft. 6 inches.
The existing and surrounding land use is residential. Zoning is in the B Residential
District. The lot size is 40 x 138 feet, rectangular in shape. The property was donated to
Advent House Ministries to provide transitional housing for homeless families. The
house was built in 1916. This request for variance is in order to provide a porch to give
the guests some protection during inclement weather.
In evaluating a variance,there are 3 criteria:that there is a hardship or practical difficulty;
consideration regarding the location, size and character of the site; and vehicular and
pedestrian circulation. Since the houses along this section of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
were developed in the early 1900s,the zoning ordinance did not apply at that time.
Therefore,trying to apply the current zoning to those homes creates a practical difficulty.
Homes within 180 ft. of this site have a front yard setback of approximately 7 ft. '/ in.
In regards to location, size and character,the area zoned B residential consists of single
family homes. Several houses around the immediate site all have porches. This porch
would be in character for the neighborhood and would also help beautify the area as
well.
DRAFT COPY
BOARD OF ZONING APPF-' S ACTIONS NOVEMBER 12 1998 PAGE 2
With regards to vehicular and pedestrian circulation,the encroachment into the setback
does not pose any possible problems in regard to visibility,to traffic or to people walking
by.
Therefore,staff would recommend approval of this request.
E. Horne asked how many parking spaces are available? S. Quon stated that there is
parking available in the rear of the house. Currently,there is a shared driveway in the
backyard. Code requires 2 parking spaces and there is enough space in the rear of the
property. There is no garage.
E. Horne also asked how many people will be housed? S. Quon explained that this
home is for a family of blood relation. Advent Housing Ministries provides homeless
families a place to live to make the transition to go into a place where they can rent or
purchase. This is something that is temporary.
R. Korbakis asked if other homes in the area have variances as well. S. Quon stated
that the homes in that area are existing and have existing porches.
J. Sturdevant explained that most of those houses were built in a line. Since the road
has been widened by two lanes, it has encroached on the houses more than the houses
encroached on the road.
A. Frederick asked if the porch platform has been there all along? S. Quon stated that
the base has always been there- looked at photo-the plan is to create a porch on that
base.
M. Clark stated that,since there is no one in the audience to give questions,they
moved into the Committee of the Whole.
V. Earhart stated that she believes that this is a reasonable request given the location and the
use to which the building is going to be put.
V. Earhart moved that BZA-3522.98, 817 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. for the variance
requested of 11 ft. 6 inches from the front property line be approved as requested. Supported by
E. Horne. V. Earhart stated that due to the practical difficulty,the Board has to grant a variance
for anything to be done in that area. She also believes it to be in character for this area.
VOTE Yea Na
Earhart X
Clark X
Frederick X
Hilts X
Horne X
Burgess X
Danley X
Korbakis X
Motion carried by a vote of 8 -0, BZA-3522.98,817 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. has been
approved.
DRAFT COPY
BOARD OF ZONING APPF S ACTIONS NOVEMBER 12 1998 PAGE 3
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch
E. Horne asked what status is on this case? Has petitioner met with neighborhood
group on N. Larch St.? S. Quon responded that he had contacted petitioner two weeks
ago and was told that he doesn't have revised plans and doesn't know when the revised
plans will be done.
B. TOWERS
V. Earhart suggested that support staff make available all pertinent information on the
tower cases to the three new board members in order to familiarize them with each case.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. V. Earhart moves to approve minutes of October 8, 1998. Supported by E. Horne that
we accept minutes as printed. E. Horne made request to lighten the "draft"word across
minutes to make it easier to read. L. Peters will correct.
Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. M. Clark stated that E. Horne had received a letter from the Personnel Director indicating
that a training program has been developed by the Ethics Board for those subject to the
new Ethics requirements. The training consists of a short 12 minute training video that
explains the manual and the new Ethics provisions. The training takes approximately 15
minutes and is simple to complete. Each participant is required to sign an
acknowledgement receipt for the manual. The members can keep the manuals to use
during the training. They also want to schedule training during an upcoming BZA meeting.
Discussion regarding whether the Board is subject to this training ensued. It was decided
that the Board is subject to this training. Manuals were then passed out to Board.
M. Clark asked how many appeals there are for next month to determine whether there
would be a BZA meeting so that scheduling the training could take place. It was decided
that training would be scheduled in December.
B. V. Earhart brought up BZA training for new board members. The Board was informed
that training had already been scheduled for the new board members as well as for S.
Quon and S. Cantlon.
IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
DRAFT COPY
Draft to Clerk 9/30/98
Approved 10/8/98
To Clerk 10/9/98
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 7:30 p.m.
I. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson E. Horne, at 7:30 p.m. E. Horne
read the BZA Introduction. Roll call was taken.
Present
r—
G. Hilts A. Frederick V. Earhart c�E. Horne M. Clark
II. Excused Absences c�
r co
co
A. Spink 1-1
A. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to take
place.
B. Introduction of Staff
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
J. Ruff noted that the Board packet included materials regarding towers, but the only
matters we anticipate taking action on tonight are BZA-3517.98, 700 Parkway, and
BZA3501.98, 5400 S. Cedar; BZA- 3507.98, 5622 Picardy; and Election of Officers
under Old Business.
The minutes of August 13, 1998 are not prepared yet.
E. Horne stated if the deletions and suggestions regarding the agenda made by Mr.
Ruff meet with the Board's approval, the agenda will stand as noted. On a voice
vote, motion carried unanimously.
IV. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. BZA-3517.98 700 Parkway
J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Lawrence Holland to replace the
existing garage at 700 Parkway Drive with a new detached 24' x 20' garage
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 2
32' from the front property line along Southgate Avenue. The existing garage
will be removed. Chapter 1248.03(b)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that
detached garages be set back at least 60' from the front property line. This is,
therefore, a request for a variance of 28' from the front property line.
J. Ruff stated this case has unusual circumstances. At the time the existing
garage was constructed over the property line, the two lots were owned by
one person. The owner of the garage no longer owns the adjoining property.
As part of the contract of sale they must remove the existing garage and put
up a new detached garage in the west yard, utilizing the same entrance area.
Accessory structures are required to have a 60' setback from a front property
line. In this case the front property line is determined as the Parkway Drive
side. This lacks a setback of about 19', that's what the requested variance
would be. It's also listed here 28' from the property line along Southgate.
J. Ruff further noted that it's debatable what is really the front yard. There are
three street frontages, two of them are potentially the front yard. Generally
when we look at a corner lot for a detached structure, it's from one of the
sides. The closest one is the 32', so that's the one that was advertised in this
case. The other side would have to meet the minimum setback behind the
structure. The hardship or practical difficulty which is the threshold criteria is
difficult to establish from a standpoint that the owner sold part of the property
which was a separate lot. However, for any new structure, we would still run
into the difficulty of not being able to put a detached structure of any
significant size on the site and meet the 60' front yard setback. Also, if they
tried to do an attached structure, they couldn't meet the 30' rear yard setback
either.
J. Ruff stated that in trying to maintain a reasonable side yard of 7' between
the two lots, the location should not create any hardship for the adjoining
property. Staff recommends approval of the variance.
G. Hilts asked if the vacant lot gets built on, are they likely to need a variance
for a garage also?
J. Ruff stated it's a possibility. It would depend on the layout. It's a very
small corner lot to try and meet the required setbacks. A small home and a
garage would be difficult.
Mr. Holland then addressed the Board. He restated his case. Mr. Holland
noted that the agreement of removing the garage was made without his
knowing that a variance would be needed to build a new garage.
E. Horne asked if any members of the audience wished to address the Board.
Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole.
A. Fredericks stated he sees the practical difficulty. The house was built in 1929,
clearly the applicant had nothing to do with it's location.
M. Clark, agreeing with J. Ruff's remarks, stated the practical difficulty isn't that he
has to move the garage. The practical difficulty is the configuration of the lot. The
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 3
placement of the house and location of trees makes this propsal a reasonable
request.
M. Clark moved to approve the variance of 28' from the Southgate property line as
requested for BZA3517.98, seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia Hilts X
Horne X S ink
Motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0, BZA3517.98, 700 Parkway has been approved.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. BZA-3501.98, 5400 S. Cedar
J. Ruff noted that at the last meeting the Board reviewed a petition by the
applicant in order to reduce the size of the sign variance request that was
being made. At that time the case was tabled so that staff could provide a
summary of the case. The summary was part of the Board packet.
V. Earhart motioned that BZA3501.98, K-mart at 5400 S Cedar be removed
from the table, seconded by G. Hilts. On a voice vote motion carried
unanimously.
J. Ruff noted the memorandum of September 2, 1998 summarizing the
applicant's proposals thus far, and the gradual improvement of the requests.
He also noted the problem of measuring for signs, the staff had different
figures than the applicant when measuring for the signs. Basically, the
reduction in the proposal was 83ft2, approximately 20% of the request. The
total sign area in the revised proposal is 459ft2 for a total 259ft2 variance.
J. Ruff then passed out color pictures of the proposed signs in use at other K-
mart stores.
J. Ruff stated that staff had not altered it's opinion of the request. He noted
that this is a large building on a significantly large site and is well set back
from the road. Yet the road doesn't seem to be a factor. There is a ground
pole sign near the road that has been given a size variance in the past. There
are no competing interests along the frontage of the building.
J. Ruff suggested that the applicant may want to consider putting all the focus
on the Big-K sign and removing all the other signs such as Pharmacy and
Garden Center. That may be a way to allow some flexibility on the Big-K by
reducing the number of signs.
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 4
A. Frederick made a motion to allow the K-Mart representative to speak,
seconded by M. Clark. On a voice vote motion carried.
Jamie Higgins, with Adams Outdoor, stated that J. Ruff summarized the case
correctly. He pointed out the detailed drawings showing the size differences
in the original and revised requests. J. Higgins mentioned that the City of
Lansing Sign Ordinance is one of the most fair and reasonable ordinances
he's run into. He listed the surrounding cities where the new Big-K signs have
been installed without the need for a variance.
A. Fredericks asked the size of the banner that is on the building now.
J. Higgins responded that the temporary banner is 4'x16'.
J. Ruff clarified the actual sign will be four times the area of the banner.
J. Higgins noted that the way the sign is measured adds several square feet
to the size, but it's not actually signage.
William Matt, 4906 Lowcroft, I am the operations manager at K-mart. In the
absence of the store manager, I'm here to represent K-mart. Mr. Higgins did
an adequate job explaining the technical aspects of our request. I would like
to go on record in saying that as a long time resident of Lansing, I think K-
mart does a lot of good things for the community. A lot of our employees and
the majority of our shoppers live in Lansing. I don't see anything wrong with
trying to liven up the City of Lansing and the economic boom that we are
experiencing. We put a lot of time and effort in making the store nicer and
cleaner and more friendly. It was disappointing when we told our employees
that the new signs were denied. I would like to see this sign as a reward for
our customers and employees.
M. Clark restated the possibility of eliminating the smaller signs on the building
and putting all the square footage into the one logo.
More discussion between A. Fredericks and W. Matt as to the need for the
larger signs at the other local K-marts.
J. Higgins announced that if it would mean a positive decision regarding the
Big-K sign, they would agree to remove the Garden Center and Pharmacy
signs altogether.
The Board then moved into the Committee of the Whole.
M. Clark clarified that if the Garden Center and Pharmacy signs are removed, that is
saving 144f?, so the variance would then be for 115fF total. The current signs total
329ft2. So this is a slight reduction from 329ft2 to 315ft2.
A. Frederick stated he would approve the variance if there was a condition of
landscaping.
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 5
Discussion followed regarding the impact landscaping would have on the size of the
sign.
J. Ruff noted that the applicant could be given a choice in the variance, given an
"optional" variance which would approve the revised request with landscaping of the
parking lot. If they choose not to significantly landscape the parking lot, they would
be only allowed 315ft2 and have to remove Garden and Pharmacy.
A. Frederick clarifies that a reduction in total signage would be needed, as well as
removing the Garden and Pharmacy sign, in addition to requiring landscaping.
Discussion followed regarding the Board's goals in the south end to improve the
aesthetics along Cedar St.
M. Clark moved that BZA-3501.98, 5400 S. Cedar be approved to allow a total of
315ft2 of signage on the building (removing 144ft2 of signage which includes the
Garden Center and Pharmacy signs) and the development and implementation of
landscaping and visual improvement of the site to be worked out with the Planning
Dept., within one year, supported by A. Frederick.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia Hilts X
Horne X S ink
Motion carried by a vote of 4 - 1, BZA3501.98, 5400 S Cedar has been denied
due to lack of 5 yea votes.
V. Earhart noted that she is uncomfortable imposing a landscaping provision on such
a large property without seeing a landscaping plan first.
A. Fredericks moved to table BZA3501.98 pending K-mart's acceptance of the
landscaping provision and the presentation of an acceptable landscaping plan,
seconded by M. Clark. On a voice vote, motion carried unanimously.
BZA3501.98, 5400 S. Cedar, has been tabled.
B. BZA3507.98, 5622 Picardy. J. Ruff noted that last month the Board did not
take action on this case because the applicant was not present. He also
noted the memo from Sam Quon in the board packet regarding the availability
of CDBG funds.
V. Earhart motioned to remove BZA3507.98 from the table, seconded by A.
Frederick. On a voice vote, motion carried.
J. Ruff summarized the case, noting that staff had investigated whether any
CDBG funds were available to assist the applicant. It was found that there is
no program for this type of necessary improvement, which is to move the
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 6
house. This is a situation that occurred when the curbline was used to
measure for the location of the house, instead of the property line. The lack
of hardship created by meeting the code was brought up at a previous
meeting. There was also recognition by board members that at this particular
location there was a reasonable approach to having the house remain as
located.
A. Frederick noted that it looked like a reasonable attempt had been made to
correct the error. We don't have to hold an unprofessional builder to quite the
same standards as a professional. Since it was my vote that precipitated the
tabling of the appeal, I'd like to say that I am now comfortable in supporting
approval of the variance.
V. Earhart moved that BZA3507.98, 5622 Picardy requesting setback
variances of 11.5' from the front property line along Pollard and 13' from the
property line along Picardy be approved, second by A. Frederick.
E. Horne mentioned the neighborhood petition supporting the variance, and
the location of the property near a dead end street are all indications that we
based our approval on. This is an exception to our general rules.
V. Earhart stated it will be incumbent on the family to maintain a backyard that
is conforming to the neighborhood.
J. Ruff noted the implication of setting a pattern of development to the block
phase. It does somewhat reduce the established setback to the other
houses. Also, if approved the way it stands, fencing could be a problem in the
future. The guiding force of fencing is the front line of the house. You may
want to condition your approval.
V. Earhart amended her motion to include a fencing restriction, keeping the
established 25' setback along Picardy in effect for any future fencing. A.
Frederick agreed.
E. Horne noted that members of the audience should be allowed to speak on
this matter, since this was allowed for the previous case.
A. Frederick moved to allow audience members to speak, seconded by V.
Earhart. On a voice vote, motion carried.
Anna Savias, 2507 Newark. I pass by the house every day. I don't see any
danger coming from either street. I wanted to comment that there continues
to be vandalism to the house. It's more dangerous to leave it unoccupied
than it would be to leave it where it is and let the family finish it and live in it.
Veronica Gallegos, 2412 Pollard. I have additional signatures to the
supporting petition. I also wanted to say that if he decides to put up a fence, it
should start at the back of the house, not the front of the house.
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 7
J. Ruff noted that the petition included 44 signatures.
J. Ruff restated the fence condition.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia Hilts X
Horne X Sink
Motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0, BZA3507.98, 5622 Picardy has been approved
with the fencing restriction.
V. Earhart mentioned the likelihood of a recurrence of this problem, with the setback
being measured from the curbline rather than the property line.
J. Ruff explained that this case has been widely discussed among city staff from
several departments, and efforts have been made to clarify the planning and
inspection processes.
Discussion followed regarding non-English speaking residents being able to
communicate with staff.
A. Frederick mentioned a translation service that is available for Vietnamese
speaking residents.
C. BZA3511.98, 901 N. Larch.
J. Ruff noted that the applicant has requested that this case remain tabled at
this time.
D. Election of Officers.
V. Earhart moved to nominate M. Clark as Chairperson of the Board of Zoning
Appeals, supported by A. Frederick. On a voice vote, motion carried
unanimously.
E. Horne moved to nominate A. Frederick as Vice Chairperson of the Board of
Zoning Appeals, second by V. Earhart. On a voice vote, motion carried
unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 8
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. The minutes of August 13, 1998 were not available.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS - none
IX. ADJOURNMENT at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
Draft to Clerk 9/30198
[ ;� Approved
To Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
CITY CLERK MINUTES
OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 7:30 p.m.
;x
I. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson E€> vi`r`e at 7:3i``` xli<`>E»Horne read
the BZA Introduction. Roll call was taken.
Present
G. Hilts A. Frederick V. ' rll; ::;.
.........................
.........................
E. Horne M. Clark
II. Excused Absences
A. Sp ink
A. A quorum of five membl"s vina Ing action to take
place.
B. Introduction of Staff.::>:.::< ``
>><
Jim Ruff, Zoning ffi-inistratc
O :III. OVAL _:A
: P:R Ft3�:�1
the only
'��ted that��.���`����`�'.��'�����'.:����:.. acket included materi
als regarding towers but h
i`f`i # ganticipat #1i #ion on tonight are BZA-3517.98, 700 Parkway, and
BZA3 # f'<i $I ? .0 S. Cei`€ ZA- 3507.98 5622 Picard and Election of Officers
t::.:: Y,
it l `8r ,:
The minutest€€ st`f3, 1998 are not prepared yet.
E. Horne stat `'if foie deletions and suggestions regarding the agenda made by Mr.
Ruff meet wi 'Ahe Board's approval, the agenda will stand as noted. On a voice vote,
motion card unanimously.
WIN WACT N
A BZA-3517.98 700 Parkway
J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Lawrence Holland to replace the
existing garage at 700 Parkway Drive with a new detached 24' x 20' garage 32'
from the front property line along Southgate Avenue. The existing garage will
be removed. Chapter 1248.03(b)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that
detached garages be set back at least 60' from the front property line. This is,
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 2
therefore, a request for a variance of 28' from the front property line.
J. Ruff stated this case has unusual circumstances. At the time the existing
garage was constructed over the property line,,the two lots were owned by one
person. The owner of the garage no longer owns the adjoining property. As
part of the contract of sale they must remove the existing garage and put up a
new detached garage in the west yard, utilizing the same entrance 4.fe
Accessory structures are required to have a 60' setback frt"� a frp roperty
line. In this case the front property line is determined as:#)'iF?atviay Drive
side. This lacks a setback of about 19', that',s< What the` i i variance
would be. It's also listed here 28' from the, t t arty line ( lxgate. NX
J. Ruff further noted that its debatable whMt'is real) tt ronf yard<I I`' .e are
...
three street frontages, two of them are pt entially tt front yard. '
when we look at a corner lot for a detac ' t uc. re, it's from one : i ...
The closest one is the 32', so that's the : : as advertised in thine.
The other side would have to meet the mi`him.-O back behind the structure.
The hardship or practical difficulty which:i; :trld criteria is difficult to
establish from a standpoint that the owrlit sold;;.............. : ::property which was a
separate lot. However, for any new structure, we vilttl:';run into the
difficulty of not being able to put a, ia% d structure€ ifgnificant size on
the site and meet the 60' front.t [ ti.....Also, if tFfe ed to do an attached
structure, they couldn't meet: ::, , '"', tback fifer.
J. Ruff stated that in try ir' "to maintain a rei [ I`side yard of 7' between the
:.:.i'3
two lots, the location.sbould not crate any ll;Wi iip for the adjoining property.
Staff recommends..:: j `oval of f variance >
G. Hilts asked i0 vacant l E:gets built:: i7; are they likely to need a variance
for a garage.,all.0.95
oss brl > ould depend on the lay
out. It's a very small
'� >::: J. Ruff� a�<�I �:a � .......�I� Y ry
c garage
and�e uired setba
cks. A small home n`��>'�`-:'�� ��<��'�i��#:..meet the r
� <:�orner I t:�q::� ::::.::;;:.;:>:<.. q 9 9
E'�fi' nd then'"'"d � `Od the Board. He restated his cas
e. Mr. Holland
e agret%ent of removing the garage was made without his
knovrttE:'e;variance would be needed to build a new garage.
E. Horr" 'if any members of the audience wished to address the Board.
Seeing.-"'J" Board moved into the Committee of the Whole.
Al
A. Frederic) Mated he sees the practical difficulty. The house was built in 1929,
clearly the: plicant had nothing to do with it's location.
a reein with J. Ruffs remarks stated the difficult isn t that he has
practical i
........................
9 9
's the configuration of the lo
t. The
li�>t0ve the garage. The practical difficult i h g
9 9 p Y
° rlacement of the house and location of trees makes this propsal a reasonable request.
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 3
M. Clark moved to approve the variance of28 from the Southgate property line as
requested for BZA3517.98, seconded bv{S. Hilts.
VOTE Yea Nay Yea Ns
Hilts
Garcia
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. BZA-3501.98, 5400 S. Cedar
J. Ruff noted that at the last meeting...1-he,%.5oard revii"..- J. tition by the
t hat was being
gn
applicant in order to reduce the '4bft I %Wes t
Wi
made. At that time the case wo"' W. -W
rt
mmary
of the case. The su pa
from the table, secpp by G. H10-6. on a .40-66'vote motion carried
radual improvement of the requests.
g for signs, the staff had different figures
ro le
He
9.
the reduction in the
than
hen the signs. Basically
-`-'��!�i:approximately 20% of the request. The total sign area in
tures of the propose
d signs in use at other K-
J kildi -ft at staff h ad not altered it's opinion of the request. He noted that
Ming on a significantly large site and is well set back from the
road. ad doesn't seem to be a factor. There is a ground pole sign
near th" rodd that has been given a size variance in the past. There are no
comp 'ng interests along the frontage of the building.
J,,;:R suggested that the applicant may want to consider putting all the focus
`the Big-K sign and removing all the other signs such as Pharmacy and
Center. That may be a way to allow some flexibility on the Big
ducing the number of signs.
A. Frederick made o motion to allow the K-Mart representative to apaok.
seconded bvK8. Clark. Ono voice vote motion carried.
Jamie Higgins, with /\donls [)utdoor, stated that J. Ruff summarized the case
correctly. He pointed out the detailed drawings showing the size differences in
the original and revised requests. J. Higgins mentioned that the City ofLansing
Sign Ordinance im one of the most fair and reasonable ordinances he's run into.
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 4
He listed the surrounding cities where the new Big-K signs have been installed
without the need for a variance.
A. Fredericks asked the size of the banner that is on the building now.
J. Higgins responded that the temporary banner is 4'x16'.
J. Ruff clarified the actual sign will be four times the area of-:the badm. r.
J. Higgins noted that the way the sign is mea..sfed adct& er. lsquare feet to
the size but n Y 9 9
t it's of actually si n a e.
ons mares' r at` i
William Matt, 4906 Lowcroft, I am the ope3ti .,:.,_� .....;;; ,,.;;:.;.,„,:.,,.
absence of the store manager, I'm here tj `represen mart. Mr:<HfgO#f lfd ifi
adequate job explaining the technical as # .. f ur request. I W66I I lirl `°go
on record in saying that as a long time re I t f: ansing, I think K- ft.'tdoes a
lot of good things for the community. A lob itployees and the majority of
our shoppers live in Lansing. I don't see:9t'Jy with trying to liven up
the City of Lansing and the economic b tha+< + '` i# eriencing. We put a
tlim
lot of time and effort in making the store..nicer anc Ie2C i'" . more friendly. It
was disappointing when we told ou t ayees that i i i;pigns were denied.
I would like to see this sign r€' ur custorrf ><; id employees.
M. Clark restated the posllty of eltC `siljer signs on the building
and putting all the squarfootage i # the` IX
e > >'
More discussion bn A. Fredericks andW. Matt as to the need for the
larger signs at ther local arts.
J. Higgins anaraced that; .ulcl::: an a positive decision regarding the
Bi -K si .` yvould a ref 'E`fve the Garden Center and Pharmacy signs
>». alto et:-
to the Commi
ttee of th
The. Board' ne Whole.
M. CfC' -fifid.that if j# Cden Center and Pharmacy signs are removed, that is
sautg ' € ttte variar>v3 would then be for 115ftz total. The current signs total
2�ftz. So`:-it b ht reduction from 329ft2 to 315ft2.
A. Frederick sfit> rrvould approve the variance if there was a condition of
landscaping.
Discussion fQObwed regarding the impact landscaping would have on the size of the
sign.
a a lance given n
' tevr
>`�o t the applicant could be given a cho
ice m h
: : :fr ted that PP 9 , 9
: ..„:::>::<>: :>< :> ca of the
nal variance which would approve the revised request with landscaping g
Xx
... '�i-parking lot. If they choose not to significantly landscape the parking lot, they would be
only allowed 315ft2 and have to remove Garden and Pharmacy.
A. Frederick clarifies that a reduction in total signage would be needed, as well as
removing the Garden and Pharmacy sign, in addition to requiring landscaping.
Discussion followed regarding the Board's goals in the south end to improve the
aesthetics along Cedar St.
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 5
M. Clark moved that BZA-3501.98, 5400 S. Cedar be approved to allow a total of 315ft2
of signage on the building (removing 144ft2 of signage which includes the Garden
Center and Pharmacy signs) and the development and implementation of landscaping
and visual improvement of the site to be worked out with the Planning Dept., within one
year, supported by A. Frederick.
VOTE: Yea Nay Y%a y
Bicy Clark
Fre
d Earhart X � � «:.,
Garcia
Hil
ts
Horne Si X rig <.
Motion carried by a vote of 4 - 1, BZA3501.98 '' edar has been derr�ed due
to lack of 5 yea votes.
V. Earhart noted that she is uncomfortable imposing a Tai ,:provision on such a
large property without seeing a landscapingpJan first.
A. Fredericks moved to table BZA350; `%"i' :"""" -:mart's ac j ance of the
landscaping provision and the preaei i%..Ion is €; c j table:Landscaping plan,
seconded by M. Clark. On a voic*#vote, matt0n-:M,` 1 mously.
BZA3501.98, 5400 S. Cedar, ha;s been tabled.
B. BZA3507.98, 5622�?) rdy. J,.=:) bff noted )Nit last month the Board did not take
action on this ca� _because:te applicantas not present. He also noted the
memo from Sari>' uon in tlard pat regarding the availability of CDBG
funds.
.�.�� 3507.98 fro
m the table sec
onded b A.
V. Earl�� �'la#ia� ed to rem�tvl�B�A
, Y
e 'c'` e vote motion carried.
e an r f had investigated whether that staff i summary __ ::. se noting
:>........
1ip,ds were<> ble to assist the applicant. It was found that there is no
° rr >fr«::#his t e'of necessaryimprovement, which is to move the house.
This ii :n that occurred when the curbline was used to measure for the
locatidrt` <� use, instead of the property line. The lack of hardship created
by met < l'► code was brought up at a previous meeting. There was also
recogrti#on''6y board members that at this particular location there was a
reaso. ble approach to having the house remain as located.
A 9derick noted that it looked like a reasonable attempt had been made to
;::«:> rrect the error. We don't have to hold an unprofessional builder to quite the
ame standards
as a professional.
Since it
t was my vot
e that
preci
pit
ated the
beins u ortin
tablin of the appeal, I d like to say that I am now comforts I
9 RR Y RR 9
........ approval of the variance.
V. Earhart moved that BZA3507.98, 5622 Picardy requesting setback variances
of 11.5' from the front property line along Pollard and 13' from the property line
along Picardy be approved, second by A. Frederick.
E. Horne mentioned the neighborhood petition supporting the variance, and the
location of the property near a dead end street are all indications that we based
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 6
our approval on. This is an exception to our general rules.
V. Earhart stated it will be incumbent on the family to maintain a backyard that
is conforming to the neighborhood.
J. Ruff noted the implication of setting a pattern of development to the block
phase. It does somewhat reduce the established setback to the othQ#touses.
Also, if approved the way it stands, fencing could be a pralem in., future.
The guiding force of fencing is the front line of the house.::? ts► y want to
condition your approval.
V. Earhart amended her motion to include` < encin resi '? " ► the
established 25' setback along Picardy infect for anr€ ture
Frederick agreed.
E. Horne noted that members of the aucfi hj". Id be allowed to Spec"on
this matter, since this was allowed for the} d ase.
A. Frederick moved to allow audience *fnber5� k aeconded by V.
Earhart. On a voice vote, motion carried.
Anna Savias 2507 Newark. I.::::` .`::H use eve -*-..d" `-1 don't see any
danger coming from either SEE ':' 1"u i f zomment:ifiat there continues to
be vandalism to the house.`I`if's more� 3tt`t? kq:,:leve it unoccupied than it
would be to leave it whe' `'it is and.;€ f therlri it and live in it.
Veronica Gallegos,:,:......:::.::,.,.:::. Pollard`<`'I have adt itional signatures to the supporting
petition. I also w f"idlo say>ttbat if he de files to put up a fence, it should start
at the back of th>�'if Ouse, not l e front a> the' house.
J. Ruff not t the etitQ `i '44 signatures.
p g
condition.
"" tl'te:.fence n>�.. Ruff reted.. . .
V 1MMay Yea Nay
Clark X
Earhart `<€ G::::. Frederick X
Garcia Hilts X
Horne X S ink
Motion cai tied by a vote of 5 -0, BZA3507.98, 5622 Picardy has been approved
with thencing restriction.
e ce o thisprobl
em, with the
setback
II�II€'I <Ea�hart mentioned the likelihood of a recur` n f
eing measured from the curbline rather than the property line.
J. Ruff explained that this case has been widely discussed among city staff from
several departments, and efforts have been made to clarify the planning and inspection
processes.
Discussion followed regarding non-English speaking residents being able to
communicate with staff.
Board of Zoning Appeals, September 10, 1998 Page 7
A. Frederick mentioned a translation service that is available for Vietnamese speaking
residents.
C. BZA3511.98, 901 N. Larch.
J. Ruff noted that the applicant has requested that this case remain tabled at
this time.
D. Election of Officers.
V. Earhart moved to nominate M. Clark as: iperson1o < t? i'cJ of Zoning
Appeals, su ooed b A. Frederick. Ontittice vote, glTt#? ;<.:>.
PP PP Y
unani
mously.
I
Y.
E. Horne moved to nominate A. Frederic #€X-Vic.: hairperson of ff ° :
..yy:: .:
Zoning Appeals, second by V. Earhart. `# te vote, motion carries'
unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. No
ne e
VII. APPROVAL OF MINU
TES
A. The minutes of Au "" 199:B were not av ilable.
Jr
VIII. NEW BUSINESS -;port .
Ix. RN
MENT <$
Respectfully ectfY
ull Su
bmitted,ted
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
Draft to Clerk 10/9/98
Approved 8/13/98
To Clerk 10/12/98
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JULY 9, 1998, 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
I. The meeting was called to order by E. Horn at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken.
A. Present
V. Earhardt E. Horne
A. Frederick E. Spink
G. Hilts `
cj�
�)
r— -
rl
B. Excused Absences
C. M. Clark (called and requested an excused absence).
D. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at
the meeting.
E. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. Approval of Agenda
J. Ruff noted that BZA 3501.98 had accidentally been left off the printed agenda as an Old Business
item. With that as an amendment, the agenda was approved.
III. HEARINGS
A. BZA-3507.98, 5622 Picardy St.
A request by Mr. Antonio Perez for a variance for a single family home at 5622
Picardy Street. The house was recently built 8.5 feet from the front (south)property line along Pollard
Road and 12 feet from the front (east) property line along Picardy Street. Section 1248.07 of the
Zoning Code requires a minimum 20' front yard setback from the property line along Pollard Rd. And
a minimum 25' front yard setback from the property line along Picardy Street. This is therefore a
request for setback variance of 11.5' from the front property line along Pollard Rd. And 13' from the
front property line along Picardy Street.
J. Ruff presented the case.
Mr. Perez received a building permit for building a single family home for himself in June of 97. The
Building Inspector stopped the construction after the house had been started and framed in. It was
discovered that the house did not meet setback requirements. The house is a raised ranch type
structure with half basement below grade and half above grade and a floor above that similar to
some of the homes in the area.
Board of Zoning Apper' July 9, 1998 Page 2
Mr. Ruff stated that the difficulty is the established setback along Picardy is 25'. All the other homes
are in this line on Picardy. This one is out in front of that considerably. Also, it is closer to Pollard
St. than allowed since it's on the corner lot. We the staff, when we look at permits talk with the
applicants about what is the established setback. And that the house is required to be in line with
that setback. And, to help get that figured out on paper, make sure that the dimensions meet
setback. Especially this property because it has three sides going along 3 streets. There was some
work done by a surveyor for Mr. Perez to put those lines down and they staked the corners of the
lot.
So a stop work order was placed on the property and Mr. Perez was encouraged to investigate how
or what his other options were as far as moving the house back to meet setback requirements. At
that time he told them the hardship as reported in their case was not due to the ordinance. It was
sort of a self inflicted wound, and as such it doesn't qualify to a great extent as a hardship or
practical difficulty. They've investigated the cost of that and so Mr. Perez has opted to apply for the
variance in order to seek approval.
The house does set on the extreme south end of the site away from the other homes north of it. The
other neighbors in the area have a signed a petition which you have in your packet in favor of leaving
the house in its location and allowing the variance. Then, we also received one phone call and I'm
not sure if it was from someone who has also signed this. "Yes, yes it was". So that was an
additional item there. You have some digital photos in your packet that illustrate the location of the
house in comparison to the other homes. You can see the difference.
Board Members Questions:
Question was asked whether the house being out too far and interfered with the vision of drivers.
Jim Ruffs Response: No not really, it doesn't adversely affect that the way we see it here. There
is adequate site distance surrounding the intersection. Pollard does extend slightly into a cul-de-
sac or dead end. When they extended and made improvements to Pleasant Grove Rd. through
there they cut Pollard from the connection. They created this cul-de-sac. There is maybe room for
one home there. It really doesn't cause any visual interference for circulation or a hazard for
pedestrians. Sidewalks have not been installed yet and neither have a driveway so those items
would still need to be put in. There would be some concern as to location of driveway. But beyond
that it can be worked out if variance is approved to make sure it meets setback requirements. Even
if the driveway were directly abutting the house to the north there is sufficient distance to meet code
requirements for site distance.
Mr. Frederick asked about the survey in packet site plan and what was drawn by staff versus the
surveyor.
J. Ruff clarified the report graphic.
Mr. Frederick asked: And this is what Mr. Perez had in his possession when he applied for the
permit.
J. Ruff: Well it might have been subsequent to that but it was prior to when the permit was approved.
The most confusion comes when people are trying to decipher between property lines and street
lines. And I believe that was the difficulty here for Mr. Perez. We try to relay the information so that
everybody understands it but sometimes it doesn't necessarily happen. As Mr Perez and I have
talked about it he was thinking that it was from the curb line back. Because a lot of times that is
where the measurements can only be taken from to establish the setback because you can't just see
the property lines out there. So if we have info that the says the curb is so many feet from the
property line, we ask them when they go out in the field to measure back from the curb line and then
we deduct that distance from the curb line. The actual set back to the building line here would have
Board of Zoning Appe ' July 9, 1998 Page 3
been another 12 ft approximately. So 37 ft back. The whole idea is to help make sure that is doesn't
adversely stick out in front of other homes.
Mr. Frederick: In your initial presentation you said the lot was staked out. Do you know who staked
it.
J. Ruff: In my inspection it appeared that there were wood survey stakes located in the corners on
the south. They were still there. So, it would have shown the south. The stakes that I saw as I
recall were the two south ones along Pollard Rd. There was dirt piled up the first time I went out.
It hadn't been totally backfilled or smoothed out. There were still stakes here, I think there was dirt
along Pollard that was still piled.
Mr. Frederick: When you saw it had the hole had been dug?
J. Ruff: When I saw it the hole had been dug the basement put in and the framing and siding up on
the house. That is the first time I saw it. It was inspected by the building inspector for the footings.
The location and depth of footing. There is some difficulty with those inspections especially when
you have something down the hole. You have a hole that is over-dug to begin with. Because you
have to work in there. And then there are dirt piles around. That makes some difference.
No more questions from Board Members.
Mr Perez is asked to address the Board.
Mr. Perez: owner of 5622 Picardy St. This is my wife Hope Perez. Exactly what the man is saying
here. Whatever Mr. Ruff said is true. That is what happened. Maybe there is a mistake here either
my part or the zoning part. Which Donna Wynant who explained to me from day one as soon as got
the Zoning Permit. Shortly after I got the Zoning Permit. About an hour after. I started digging my
basement. Which she had said from back of curb. I did my measurements. I did everything how
she commanded. I followed the whole routine. About a month later I had everything built about 3
weeks about finished in time to finish my house. I received a letter you know having a meeting
concerning my house and I went there personally and found out that I built my house too close to
the street. It was kind of shocking and it hurts my feelings. Someone made a mistake here and
maybe it's my fault but according to you it is my fault. I can be guilty of that. Maybe I misunderstood.
Maybe I heard wrong, who knows. We are human beings we will all make mistakes. But, also I think
the inspector of the footings could have made a big difference from day one. They could have told
me that I dug my hole wrong. That is what they get paid for. We are a family of 4. We have lived
in 3 houses so far this past year. It hurts my feelings. My son has been to 3 different schools
already. And he's asking me where he is going to go to school next year. And it hurts my feelings.
Me and wife makes about 17, 000 a year. We work so hard for our money. If I could leave the
house where it is at I would appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. Also, I helped build my father
3 houses. In fact where he is living at it is 2412 Pollard Rd. He's lived there about 6 years and has
no problem. We have built 2 other houses on Piper St. We always followed the instructions as
commanded. Everything has been perfect. We have completed the job, etc. Also, on Pollard about
2 houses away from my Father going north is an address 2400 Pollard. That house was built closer,
the same problem as I have. I guess my neighbor told me that them guys had paid a waiver. If I
could do the same thing. I would just to for us to live in that home, our dream home. Now, with my
house located as this man has been saying there is no... you can see around the house. There has
been no accidents there. The house has been there a year and you can see around it. I think that
is it. Oh, I have letter of my neighbors saying that the house is fine. All they do is ask questions,
when are you going to finish it.
Anna Viaz of 2507 Newark St. Lansing.
I'm for the house. About a week or two ago we went to the house to look at it. It had broken
windows, kids vandalizing it, and you know that the more that my brother is waiting here with my
nephews you know, the house is getting destroyed were going to have to put even more money into
it. Like you said he's built 4 houses. This is the first one they have made a mistake on.. It' was just
human error.
Board of Zoning Apper' July 9, 1998 Page 4
Seeing no one else wishing to speak Chairperson Horne noted that Teresa Randalman called and
supported the appeal for the house.
Move to the Committee of the Whole.
Mrs. Earhardt: Clearly, not where it should be on the lot but the situation doesn't warrant moving the
house. She will support the variance.
Mr. Hilts: Only concern was visibility of drivers. If that isn't a problem I agree with the variance.
Chairperson Horne: I also did visual. Since it is a dead end, an isolated area. It didn't look much
out of line. I will be in support of variance.
Mr. Frederick. Wanted to ask Mr. Perez Questions:
Chair asked if everyone was in favor, Motion carried.
Mr. Frederick: Who actually dug hole? Perez: I, did sir. Frederick: When did you notice that the
house was out of line with rest of houses. Perez: After the basement was dug. The blocks were in
but I was taking dirt out of basement and noticed it was off. I asked friend who was helping me and
said the houses don't match. Friend said what are you worried about you've got a permit. So it was
about a week after permit when I found out by visually seeing it.
Mr. Frederick: What do you do for a living?
Mr. Perez: I work for my father, as a construction laborer. I work in Detroit, Pontiac. All over the
State of Michigan.
Mr. Frederick: Is building houses one of the things you do?
Mr. Perez: No sir, he owns a concrete company. Roads, Curbs and Gutters, They have done City
jobs. He is just a laborer.
Frederick: Has difficulty regarding consistency of codes and variances. If the variance was allowed
they could accept an argument of anyone who has something like this intentionally or unintentionally.
And I don't think Mr. Perez at all did this intentionally whatsoever, I think he proceeded in good faith
and attempted to comply with the spirit of the code. Discussion ensued re: keeping with Codes and
not. And rarely making exceptions. No other solutions can be sought that would be a solutions other
than allowing a variance or telling Mr. Perez to move the house. Frederick referred to case laws of
other situations similar. He is voting against it.
Discussion ensued regarding the location of the property and the moving of the house. Differences
between contractors and situation presented.
Ruff: Needs five to pass. Only five present and at least one is against. Offers possibility of
waiting a month to decide.
Mr. Hilts made a motion, supported by Mr. Spinks to table BZA 3507.98 so that staff could find out
if any city programs exist that could assist the applicant in moving the house.
On a voice vote, BZA 3507.98 was tabled until August Meeting.
Mr Ruff explained to Perez family that 5 members are present that could make a decision tonight.
Not all in agreement it's better that it be tabled for 30 days. Gives more time for Perez family to
investigate funds available from the City, or more members may be present to vote.
Chair person also explained reasons for tabling to Perez family.
B. BZA 3509.98 200 E Edgewood Blvd.
It's a request by Jackson Entertainment Lansing LLC to erect three 8 sq. ft. ground pole signs at
each of three entrances into the new theater complex at 200 E Edgewood Blvd. Also, proposed is
Board of Zoning Appe ' July 9, 1998 Page 5
87 sq. ft. wall sign on the front of the building and a 766% sq. ft. wall sign on rear of bldg facing 1-96.
The sign code chapter 1442.12(H)( 5) limits the amount of ground pole signs to one. This is
therefore request for a variance to allow 3 ground pole signs. Section 1442.13 allows 2 wall signs
per building but restricts the max amount of wall signage to 200 square feet. Since the total wall
signage is 853%z sq feet the applicant is requesting a variance of 653% sq ft. The staff in looking
at this prepared report, can see the object of the ground pole signs and see these as a reasonable
alternative to one single very large ground pole sign. They would be somewhat of a cross between
just a simple directional I.D. sign to help people into a site, but they do have identification on them.
They don't just say entrance/exit. It's a little more than directional but not a whole lot more. As we
look at the wall sign at the rear of the building we could, as a staff, recommend supporting 200 sq.
ft. on the back to maximize exposure. With the size of the building and the number of theaters
inside(eighteen theaters inside) the name would be reasonable on the back. Therefore it would only
be 87 sq. ft. variance in total. As such, applicant has requested a tabling in the matter in order to
convince us and/or look at his options. The variance has been requested to be tabled. If there is
a dramatic change it may require a new application and new hearing. Also City is excited about the
development. It's a real positive development for the South Side of Lansing. It's strictly
identification for the building but I don't have enough information to further support any larger than
200 sq feet at this time at the back. I'm not a sign engineer in traffic speeds etc. I couldn't tell you.
Appellant asked to come forward.
Roger Lubes-VP of Operations of Construction for Jackson Entertainment and Jack Lokes Theaters
After talking about recommendations that the staff had made, there were a couple of interesting
recommendations as to some of our options in there. We wanted to explore those with them further
as well as sit down with them and talk about what we know about our industry and signage and were
trying to find out something about what Jim mentioned traveling by the side of the building at 70 mph.
What would it take for size of sign not to distract driver so they could tell that is our bldg. That is
what our request is for and why we would like to table it. We are working under a time line. We
have a meeting set up for next week to move along as quickly as possible and see you again next
month.
Mr Lubes communication reads as: Please table our variance request to the next Board of Zoning
Appeals Mtg. on Thursday August 13, 1998. We would like to meet with you and your staff to
explore our sign options as mentioned in your recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. We
would also like the opportunity to discuss our ideas and why our proposed sign is essential to the
establishment of Lansings only first run movie Mega Plex.
Board moves to committee of the whole.
Mr. Hilts mad a motion, supported by Mr. Frederick to table BZA 3509.98 until August.
On a voice vote the Board Tabled BZA 3509.98 until the August Meeting.
IV. Old Business: Tabled Items
A. BZA-3482.98, - BZA 3495.98 Towers
J. Ruff brought the board up to date on the progress with the tower plan.
Board Members asked questions regarding private sites being sought. Mr Ruff discussed
reason for company using private sites and where sites are located. More discussion regarding
tower height.
Board asked questions regarding hospitals.
B. BZA-3501.98, - KMART 5400 S. Cedar
Board of Zoning Appe,' July 9, 1998 Page 6
J. Ruff stated no action will be taken tonight, still some work being done on that.
VI. Public Comment - Audience empty
VII. Mrs. Earhardt made a motion to approve the Minutes of June 11, 1998, as printed. Supported by
Mr. Frederick. Motion carried.
VIII. New Business - Motion to include election of officers be held at August Meeting.
IX. Ms Earhardt Excused for August mtg. (Motion by Mr. Hilts, supported by Mr. Frederick, carried.)
Dr. Spink Excused for September mtg. (Motion by Mrs. Earhardt, supported by Mr. Hilts, carried.)
X. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Draft to Clerk 1 WIN
Approved
To Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JULY 9, 1998, 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
I. The meeting was called to order by E. Horn at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. f
A. Present
n _
V. Earhardt E. Horne --�
A. Frederick E. Spiri.k.
G. Hil
ts
B. Excused Absences
C. M. Clark called and re uested; iX € Esence . .;:>
D. A quorum of five memb.ees was pppi. ent=' llt� i� voting action to be taken at
the meeting.
E. Introduction of Staff
s: n'inistratoni. : AJ. Ruf , Z
II. Approval": t ..
J. Ruff noted tfia `=V. 98 hai c ei7tall been left off the printed agenda as
Business
item. With tht; r ' etdment, tf agenda was approved.
III. HEA: NGS
A: BZA-3507.98, 502 Picardy St.
A re.0 t by Mr. Antonio Perez for a variance for a single family home at 5622
P .,t€ et : T douse was recently built 8.5 feet from the front(south)property line along Pollard
R f21.
# from the front (east) property line along Picardy Street. Section 1248.07 of the
.............. .. ..........
Zo i i t --requires a minimum 20' front yard setback from the property line along Pollard Rd. And
a minimum 25' front yard setback from the property line along Picardy Street. This is therefore a
request for setback variance of 11.5' from the front property line along Pollard Rd. And 13' from the
front property line along Picardy Street.
J. Ruff presented the case.
Mr. Perez received a building permit for building a single family home for himself in June of 97. The
Building Inspector stopped the construction after the house had been started and framed in. It was
discovered that the house did not meet setback requirements. The house is a raised ranch type
structure with half basement below grade and half above grade and a floor above that similar to
some of the homes in the area.
Board of Zoning Appe ' July 9, 1998 Page 2
Mr. Ruff stated that the difficulty is the established setback along Picardy is 25'. All the other homes
are in this line on Picardy. This one is out in front of that considerably. Also, it is closer to Pollard
St. than allowed since it's on the corner lot. We the staff, when we look at permits talk with the
applicants about what is the established setback. And that the house is required to be in line with
that setback. And, to help get that figured out on paper, make sure that the dimensions meet
setback. Especially this property because it has three sides going along 3 streets. There was some
work done by a surveyor for Mr. Perez to put those lines down and they staked the corners of the
lot.
So a stop work order was placed on the property and Mr. Perez was encouraged to investigate how
or what his other options were as far as moving the house back to meet setback requirements. At
that time he told them the hardship as reported in their case was not due to the ordinance. It was
sort of a self inflicted wound, and as such it doesn't qualify to a great extent as a hardship or
practical difficulty. They've investigated the cost of that and so Mr. Perez has opted to apply for the
variance in order to seek approval.
The house does set on the extreme south end of the site away from the other homes north of it. The
other neighbors in the area have a signed a petition which you have in your packet in favor of leaving
the house in its location and allowing the variance. Then, we also received one phone call and I'm
not sure if it was from someone who has also signed this. "Yes, yes it was". So that was an
additional item there. You have some digital photos in your packet that illustrate the location of the
house in comparison to the other homes. You can see the difference.
Board Members Questions:
Question was asked whether the house being out too far and interfered with the vision of drivers.
Jim Ruffs Response: No not really, it doesn't adversely affect that the way we see it here. There
is adequate site distance surrounding the intersection. Pollard does extend slightly into a cul-de-
sac or dead end. When they extended and made improvements to Pleasant Grove Rd. through
there they cut Pollard from the connection. They created this cul-de-sac. There is maybe room for
one home there. It really doesn't cause any visual interference for circulation or a hazard for
pedestrians. Sidewalks have not been installed yet and neither have a driveway so those items
would still need to be put in. There would be some concern as to location of driveway. But beyond
that it can be worked out if variance is approved to make sure it meets setback requirements. Even
if the driveway were directly abutting the house to the north there is sufficient distance to meet code
requirements for site distance.
Mr. Frederick asked about the survey in packet site plan and what was drawn by staff versus the
surveyor.
J. Ruff clarified the report graphic.
Mr. Frederick asked: And this is what Mr. Perez had in his possession when he applied for the
permit.
J. Ruff: Well it might have been subsequent to that but it was prior to when the permit was approved.
The most confusion comes when people are trying to decipher between property lines and street
lines. And I believe that was the difficulty here for Mr. Perez. We try to relay the information so that
everybody understands it but sometimes it doesn't necessarily happen. As Mr Perez and I have
talked about it he was thinking that it was from the curb line back. Because a lot of times that is
where the measurements can only be taken from to establish the setback because you can't just see
the property lines out there. So if we have info that the says the curb is so many feet from the
property line, we ask them when they go out in the field to measure back from the curb line and then
we deduct that distance from the curb line. The actual set back to the building line here would have
Board of Zoning Appe ' July 9, 1998 Page 3
been another 12 ft approximately. So 37 ft back. The whole idea is to help make sure that is doesn't
adversely stick out in front of other homes.
Mr. Frederick: In your initial presentation you said the lot was staked out. Do you know who staked
it.
J. Ruff: In my inspection it appeared that there were wood survey stakes located in the corners on
the south. They were still there. So, it would have shown the south. The stakes that I saw as I
recall were the two south ones along Pollard Rd. There was dirt piled up the first time I went out.
It hadn't been totally backfilled or smoothed out. There were still stakes here, I think there was dirt
along Pollard that was still piled.
Mr. Frederick: When you saw it had the hole had been dug?
J. Ruff: When I saw it the hole had been dug the basement put in and the framing and siding up on
the house. That is the first time I saw it. It was inspected by the building inspector for the footings.
The location and depth of footing. There is some difficulty with those inspections especially when
you have something down the hole. You have a hole that is over-dug to begin with. Because you
have to work in there. And then there are dirt piles around. That makes some difference.
No more questions from Board Members.
Mr Perez is asked to address the Board.
Mr. Perez: owner of 5622 Picardy St. This is my wife Hope Perez. Exactly what the man is saying
here. Whatever Mr. Ruff said is true. That is what happened. Maybe there is a mistake here either
my part or the zoning part. Which Donna Wynant who explained to me from day one as soon as got
the Zoning Permit. Shortly after I got the Zoning Permit. About an hour after. I started digging my
basement. Which she had said from back of curb. I did my measurements. I did everything how
she commanded. I followed the whole routine. About a month later I had everything built about 3
weeks about finished in time to finish my house. I received a letter you know having a meeting
concerning my house and I went there personally and found out that I built my house too close to
the street. It was kind of shocking and it hurts my feelings. Someone made a mistake here and
maybe it's my fault but according to you it is my fault. I can be guilty of that. Maybe I misunderstood.
Maybe I heard wrong, who knows. We are human beings we will all make mistakes. But, also I think
the inspector of the footings could have made a big difference from day one. They could have told
me that I dug my hole wrong. That is what they get paid for. We are a family of 4. We have lived
in 3 houses so far this past year. It hurts my feelings. My son has been to 3 different schools
already. And he's asking me where he is going to go to school next year. And it hurts my feelings.
Me and wife makes about 17, 000 a year. We work so hard for our money. If I could leave the
house where it is at I would appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. Also, I helped build my father
3 houses. In fact where he is living at it is 2412 Pollard Rd. He's lived there about 6 years and has
no problem. We have built 2 other houses on Piper St. We always followed the instructions as
commanded. Everything has been perfect. We have completed the job, etc. Also, on Pollard about
2 houses away from my Father going north is an address 2400 Pollard. That house was built closer,
the same problem as I have. I guess my neighbor told me that them guys had paid a waiver. If I
could do the same thing. I would just to for us to live in that home, our dream home. Now, with my
house located as this man has been saying there is no... you can see around the house. There has
been no accidents there. The house has been there a year and you can see around it. I think that
is it. Oh, I have letter of my neighbors saying that the house is fine. All they do is ask questions,
when are you going to finish it.
Anna Viaz of 2507 Newark St. Lansing.
I'm for the house. About a week or two ago we went to the house to look at it. It had broken
windows, kids vandalizing it, and you know that the more that my brother is waiting here with my
nephews you know, the house is getting destroyed were going to have to put even more money into
it. Like you said he's built 4 houses. This is the first one they have made a mistake on.. It' was just
human error.
Board of Zoning Appe ' July 9, 1998 Page 4
Seeing no one else wishing to speak Chairperson Horne noted that Teresa Randalman called and
supported the appeal for the house.
Move to the Committee of the Whole.
Mrs. Earhardt: Clearly, not where it should be on the lot but the situation doesn't warrant moving the
house. She will support the variance.
Mr. Hilts: Only concern was visibility of drivers. If that isn't a problem I agree with the variance.
Chairperson Horne: I also did visual. Since it is a dead end, an isolated area. It didn't look much
out of line. I will be in support of variance.
Mr. Frederick. Wanted to ask Mr. Perez Questions:
Chair asked if everyone was in favor, Motion carried.
Mr. Frederick: Who actually dug hole? Perez: I, did sir. Frederick: When did you notice that the
house was out of line with rest of houses. Perez: After the basement was dug. The blocks were in
but I was taking dirt out of basement and noticed it was off. I asked friend who was helping me and
said the houses don't match. Friend said what are you worried about you've got a permit. So it was
about a week after permit when I found out by visually seeing it.
Mr. Frederick: What do you do for a living?
Mr. Perez: I work for my father, as a construction laborer. I work in Detroit, Pontiac. All over the
State of Michigan.
Mr. Frederick: Is building houses one of the things you do?
Mr. Perez: No sir, he owns a concrete company. Roads, Curbs and Gutters, They have done City
jobs. He is just a laborer.
Frederick: Has difficulty regarding consistency of codes and variances. If the variance was allowed
they could accept an argument of anyone who has something like this intentionally or unintentionally.
And I don't think Mr. Perez at all did this intentionally whatsoever, I think he proceeded in good faith
and attempted to comply with the spirit of the code. Discussion ensued re: keeping with Codes and
not. And rarely making exceptions. No other solutions can be sought that would be a solutions other
than allowing a variance or telling Mr. Perez to move the house. Frederick referred to case laws of
other situations similar. He is voting against it.
Discussion ensued regarding the location of the property and the moving of the house. Differences
between contractors and situation presented.
Ruff: Needs five to pass. Only five present and at least one is against. Offers possibility of
waiting a month to decide.
Mr. Hilts made a motion, supported by Mr. Spinks to table BZA 3507.98 so that staff could find out
if any city programs exist that could assist the applicant in moving the house.
On a voice vote, BZA 3507.98 was tabled until August Meeting.
Mr Ruff explained to Perez family that 5 members are present that could make a decision tonight.
Not all in agreement it's better that it be tabled for 30 days. Gives more time for Perez family to
investigate funds available from the City, or more members may be present to vote.
Chair person also explained reasons for tabling to Perez family.
B. BZA 3509.98 200 E Edgewood Blvd.
It's a request by Jackson Entertainment Lansing LLC to erect three 8 sq. ft. ground pole signs at
each of three entrances into the new theater complex at 200 E Edgewood Blvd. Also, proposed is
Board of Zoning Appe ' July 9, 1998 Page 5
87 sq. ft. wall sign on the front of the building and a 766'/z sq. ft. wall sign on rear of bldg facing 1-96.
The sign code chapter 1442.12(H)( 5) limits the amount of ground pole signs to one. This is
therefore request for a variance to allow 3 ground pole signs. Section 1442.13 allows 2 wall signs
per building but restricts the max amount of wall signage to 200 square feet. Since the total wall
signage is 853Y2 sq feet the applicant is requesting a variance of 653% sq ft. The staff in looking
at this prepared report, can see the object of the ground pole signs and see these as a reasonable
alternative to one single very large ground pole sign. They would be somewhat of a cross between
just a simple directional I.D. sign to help people into a site, but they do have identification on them.
They don't just say entrance/exit. It's a little more than directional but not a whole lot more. As we
look at the wall sign at the rear of the building we could, as a staff, recommend supporting 200 sq.
ft. on the back to maximize exposure. With the size of the building and the number of theaters
inside(eighteen theaters inside) the name would be reasonable on the back. Therefore it would only
be 87 sq. ft. variance in total. As such, applicant has requested a tabling in the matter in order to
convince us and/or look at his options. The variance has been requested to be tabled. If there is
a dramatic change it may require a new application and new hearing. Also City is excited about the
development. It's a real positive development for the South Side of Lansing. It's strictly
identification for the building but I don't have enough information to further support any larger than
200 sq feet at this time at the back. I'm not a sign engineer in traffic speeds etc. I couldn't tell you.
Appellant asked to come forward.
Roger Lubes-VP of Operations of Construction for Jackson Entertainment and Jack Lokes Theaters
After talking about recommendations that the staff had made, there were a couple of interesting
recommendations as to some of our options in there. We wanted to explore those with them further
as well as sit down with them and talk about what we know about our industry and signage and were
trying to find out something about what Jim mentioned traveling by the side of the building at 70 mph.
What would it take for size of sign not to distract driver so they could tell that is our bldg. That is
what our request is for and why we would like to table it. We are working under a time line. We
have a meeting set up for next week to move along as quickly as possible and see you again next
month.
Mr Lubes communication reads as: Please table our variance request to the next Board of Zoning
Appeals Mtg. on Thursday August 13, 1998. We would like to meet with you and your staff to
explore our sign options as mentioned in your recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. We
would also like the opportunity to discuss our ideas and why our proposed sign is essential to the
establishment of Lansings only first run movie Mega Plex.
Board moves to committee of the whole.
Mr. Hilts mad a motion, supported by Mr. Frederick to table BZA 3509.98 until August.
On a voice vote the Board Tabled BZA 3509.98 until the August Meeting.
IV. Old Business: Tabled Items
A. BZA-3482.98, - BZA 3495.98 Towers
J. Ruff brought the board up to date on the progress with the tower plan.
Board Members asked questions regarding private sites being sought. Mr Ruff discussed
reason for company using private sites and where sites are located. More discussion regarinq
tower height.
Board asked questions regarding hospitals.
B. BZA-3501.98, - KMART 5400 S. Cedar
Board of Zoning Appe ' July 9, 1998 Page 6
J. Ruff stated no action will be taken tonight, still some work being done on that.
VI. Public Comment -Audience empty
VII. Mrs. Earhardt made a motion to approve the Minutes of June 11, 1998, as printed. Supported by
Mr. Frederick. Motion carried.
VIII. New Business - Motion to include election of officers be held at August Meeting.
IX. Ms Earhardt Excused for August mtg. (Motion by Mr. Hilts, supported by Mr. Frederick, carried.)
Dr. Spink Excused for September mtg. (Motion by Mrs. Earhardt, supported by Mr. Hilts, carried.)
X. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Draft to Clerk 7/02/98
Approved 7/9/98
To Clerk 9/8/98
23
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
THU IRS DAY, J U N E 11, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
I. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairperson J. Garcia, at 7:30 p.m. and the
BZA Introduction was read. Roll call was taken.
Present
G. Hilts J. Garcia A. Frederick
V. Earhart M. Clark E. Spink
Absent
C. Bicy
II. Excused Absences
E. Horne
A. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to take
place.
B. Introduction of Staff
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA -The agenda was approved as printed.
IV. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. BZA-3501.98 5400 S. Cedar
J. Ruff presented the case, a request by Jamie Higgins of Adams Outdoor
Advertising (applicant) for K-Mart Corporation (owner) to resign the wall signage
of the building at 5400 S. Cedar St. K-mart is going through some corporate
name changes and they are renaming their stores Big K Mart. Basically they
want to leave the existing logo up, but add Big and a "swoop". They are also
making some other changes in the facade signage, reducing some signage on
the building. The K-mart store here is really considered a shopping center
under the Sign Code because there are two or more establishments in the
same facility; there is K-mart, Penske Auto Center, and also the Valueland
establishment. We count the K-mart as a separate entity within a shopping
center. The store presently contains two building signs totaling 329 ft2. One
sign is proposed to be increased to 398 ft2 in size and the second sign is
proposed to be reduced to 144 ft2 in size for a total of two signs with a
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 2
combined size of 542 ft2. In this zoning district with this length of building, there
is an allowance for one sign in a mall. If the second sign is around a corner,
facing another direction, we allow two wall signs. These two signs are on the
same side of the building that faces Cedar St. Also, the maximum size allowed
would be 200 ft2. So this would be a variance of 342 ft2 in size, and a variance
in the number of signs allowed by having the second sign on the front of the
building.
There is predominantly commerical land use around the property. It is located
just south of Jolly Rd. along the Cedar St. commercial strip. The property has
had a variance to approve a ground pole sign back in 1992 for height and area.
It was approved because it replaced a larger sign and therefore, brought the
signage more into conformance with the Sign Code, which is the same that
exists today. We don't necessarily see the hardship established for using the
same size K and just increasing the sign. Generally, in a sign variance we try
to acheive something that is closer to meeting the code. In this case, you do
have a building that sets well off the road. It sits approximately 600' back from
Cedar St. The major parts that would be seen would be the K for the sign and
the word "Big". The little "mart" that is inside the K is probably a little less
visible, but is part of the identity logo. Also, the size of the building is extremely
large. If we didn't have limits set up in the sign code at each level, you could
have 800 ft2 of signage based on 15% of the building facade, or thereabouts.
Those are the principle parts to this. You'll see a graphic in your packet that
explains some of the changes. They are taking the word "K-mart" off the
garden shop/pharmacy area and retaining that part. They are moving the K
with the "mart" in it over the facade and moving it over in order to place the
word "Big" with the swoop in it. This is a corporate change that is being made
throughout the United States.
Hearing no questions from the Board, J. Garcia asks if the appelant would like to speak.
Stephen Berg, Manager of S. Cedar K-mart then spoke. I just want to reiterate the fact that
the program that is being presented to you is a national program. By the end of this year, 1200
of the 2200 K-marts in the nation will be changed over to Big K's. We are in the process of
expansion. Most of our stores are from 25-30 years old. We are trying to make them very
attractive and shoppable. We are averaging 60-100% increases. I think it would be very
favorable program, especially for the S. Cedar area, and our customers on the south side. Do
you have any questions for me?
Jamie Higgins from Adams Outdoor then spoke. As J. Ruff mentioned, according to the sign
ordinance commercial districts such as this K-mart are allowed to have a total of 10% of the
wall in signs, up to a limit of 200 ft2. If it were not for the 200 ft2 limit the size of this building
could accomodate 854 ft2. The additional sign we are requesting to display the official name
change is going to be approximately 6% of the surface area of this building. It is not going to
be anything out of proportion to the size of the structure itself. The word "Big" itself, those
three letters are six feet tall and seven feet long. By the time you box all of that in along with
the tail of the "swoosh", it all adds up to more than 200 ft2. They currently have over 200 ft2 of
signs. I'm not aware of the details of the variance that they went through in the early 1990's.
just feel that this sign is necessary for them to establish their logo, their new identity. It would
not be anything out of proportion to the neighborhood or this structure.
A Board member states "I just want to be sure that I understand that there is no request at this
time to increase the size of the pole sign".
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 3
J. Higgins replies that is correct. We'd just be replacing the faces in that pole sign, but not
altering it all.
J. Garcia asks what is the relationship of the height of the word "Big" on the pole sign in
relation to the "Big" on the building?
J. Higgins replies the overall logo is exactly proportioned. On the wall, the "K' is ten feet, and
the "Big" is 6 feet. I don't know exactly what the dimensions are on the pylon sign itself, but it
is in proportion to ten and six.
G. Hilts mentions I don't see any hardship or practical difficulty demonstrated as the code
requires us to see.
J. Higgins states they are changing their name, they are no longer going to be a K-mart. It is
going to be a Big-K.
G. Hilts says a self-created hardship doesn't count.
J. Higgins notes it is a nation wide chain. If Meijer were to change their name to Feldpausch,
they would obviously have a larger name to display their signage.
G. Hilts repeats they are creating their own hardship, and that isn't the way that the code
defines this.
J. Higgins states I would say the hardship would be that they would not be able to display the
name of their business on the building.
J. Ruff asks were there alternatives discussed for this as far as replacing the X' with a
different sized "K", and obviously proportionately changing the size of the "Big"?
J. Higgins replies there are two standard sizes of the "K". The ten feet is the smaller version,
they also have a fourteen feet "K'. The mass produced signs are available across the country.
This is the smaller of the two sets of letters that are available. Anything smaller would have to
be custom made but could be done at a much larger expense.
J. Garcia asks is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of this appeal? Is
there anyone who would like to speak against this appeal?
J. Garcia states we will move into the Committee of the Whole.
J. Garcia asks does anybody wish to make a comment?
M. Clark states my comment would be that while I appreciate that this building is set back
quite a ways from Cedar St., and that it is a large building, I agree with G. Hilts that the
hardship is created because K-mart wants to use a readily available sign. A sign could be
created that would fit the sign code and still use this new logo. I guess because of the nature
of the site, I would be willing to look at some variance, but I'm not willing to support the extent
that we are being asked to vary the code at this point. I will not be supporting this appeal as it
is written.
G. Hilts states when we gave them the variance in 1992 it was because they were making
their signage better and closer to compliance with the code. I also know that this is not the
only community with a sign code where they are going to be running into problems. I don't
really buy any of the arguments.
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 4
V. Earhart notes it appears to me that the practical difficulty in this case is that the law says
200 ft2. It's difficult to build something of 542 ft2 in that amount of space. I don't think that is a
problem that should be brought to this Board. It is a problem that ought to be addressed to the
legislative body of our city. If there is going to be an exception made, ask for the sign code to
be changed so that certain kinds of buildings get more signage. If their legislative body isn't
willing to adopt such a change, I can't in good faith approve a request that more than doubles
the amount allowed. The other thing is, there was a comment about standard sized signs.
This is the second time that a sign company has come in and said "we started with this size,
and then we blew it up, or took it down in proportion, and we need six more feet because when
we did it, it came out to this amount". I doubt if Lansing is the only town or county that has
adopted a sign code similar to this that those standard signs you talked about are not going to
fit in. There has got to be some movement within industry to meet the requirements of the
laws of the cities and counties where you are going to put signs.
A. Frederick asks in looking at the photographs that we were supplied of the store, can you
tell me what is defined as the sign?
J. Ruff points things out on the photographs and replies there is a background of the sign,
which is the facade of the building. The sign is not as well defined here, it's on a raceway.
The ground pole sign has a frame with a background, the extremities of the ground pole sign
frame is the sides of the sign. According to code, when you have letters or other things just
placed on a building facade that is without a frame, such as that, and the frame doesn't have
to be a regular shape necessarily, if it doesn't have a defined shape you have to put a box
around it's extremities and give it an area. That's what this is, it is based upon the extremities
of 11.1' high by approximately 35.5' wide.
A. Frederick clarifies so in the photograph, this is considered the sign?
J. Ruff replies no, that's part of the facade of the building. The sign is the height of the "K"
and the swoop with the "Big", and it is the width of the entire logo or sign. So from tip of
swoop to tip of swoop.
A. Frederick states the reason I asked that question is because I am confused about what is
the sign. To me, it looks like this whole thing is not a facade, it's a sign. It's not on the front of
the building, it's attached to the roof. And it looks to me like this sign, defined that way, has
been out of compliance even from the variance that was granted. I'm not sure I agree that just
the W' should have been counted in the square footage. It ended up, in my opinion, giving
them more square feet then they should have had to begin with. I can see where the difficulty
would be now, asking them to fit the "Big", and the swoop, and the "K" inside this area. I don't
know if that would be visible well enough.
J. Ruff notes when you look at it, K-mart is the main store in that center. There is a ground
pole sign at the street which is the north-south indicator. I don't know that the wall sign is the
sign for Cedar St. It is such a distance away anyway, that if you're traveling, I hope you're
looking at the road when you're driving along. Maybe your passengers look someplace else,
but the driver should be focused in this area. That is why ground pole signs are allowed to be
out near the street to help direct people into the property. Other signs would be able to allow
them to find their location within the property.
A. Frederick states I might be willing to consider a variance if, in my opinion, the size of the
sign was reduced. This looks to me just like that sign that we had for the self storage area
over on MI-King by the railroad tracks.
J. Ruff says it appears to be a roof sign, no doubt about it.
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 5
A. Frederick continues I might be inclined to agree that a variance would be needed if
something ended up considerably smaller.
E. Spink asks would it be appropriate to ask the appelant if they would be interested in having
the Board table this request for them to re-study and come back with an alternate proposal?
J. Garcia states the question would be would you like us to table this matter, or would you like
us to vote on it tonight?
J. Higgins answers I'm willing to have it tabled so that I can take a further look at it.
E. Spink moves that the BZA-3501.98 be tabled, second by G. Hilts. On a voice vote,
there were 6 yeas; 1 nay. Motion carried BZA-3501.98 is tabled.
J. Ruff notes a table doesn't require any other information. We can put a limit on it, 30 days,
or 60 days, but that is not necessary.
J. Garcia mentions on a lighter note our Chair, Ms. Horne, hasn't missed a meeting in forever.
I came in tonight to find a gavel in front of me. Please bear with me.
J. Ruff notes C. Bicy is now present.
B. BZA-3503.98, 2308 Turner
J. Ruff presented the case, a request by David Washburn to build a 14' x 18'
addition onto the house at 2308 Turner Street 2' from the side (south) property
line. Section 1248.08(b)(2)(B) of the Zoning Ordinance requires the addition be
4.2' from the side property line. Therefore, a variance of 2.2' is requested. The
existing home is currently 2' from the south side lot line and the addition is
proposed to line up with the south wall of the house. The property is zoned "A"
Residential. The lot is narrow and deep, 42' wide x 150'/z' deep. There is
single family around it, and the zoning reflects that. The existing house, even
though it doesn't meet current setback requirements, is not non-conforming the
way the code is written; it places the idea of single family homes that have been
erected on properties that are zoned single family as conforming. It has a
specific clause for that. The existing setback, even though it is non-conforming,
does present some problems to any additions that may be desired for the
house. It is a 22' x 26' house which is a reasonably small home, to try to
provide an addition on this site with the other existing improvements including a
driveway and garage on the other side, makes it a little more difficult. One of
the concerns when you run into a variance request such as this is the issue of
building construction codes. The current building construction residential codes
do not allow for openings, windows or doors, on that side when it is less than a
three feet setback. It also would require a fire rated wall on that side. In typical
frame construction, on the outside of your 2x4 framing you'd have to put
something like 5/8ths water resistant fire rated drywall and on the inside 5/8ths
fire rated drywall that would help compose that one-hour fire wall, and not have
openings in that side. That's part of your report. It really would not adversely
effect the adjoining properties. The neighbors most directly abutting this, even
though neighbors change from time to time, they've written a letter stating they
would not be opposed to the addition as proposed. We don't see that it will
adversely effect the surrounding properties but we do want to raise the issue of
the building code requirements for this type of addition.
J. Garcia asks does the Board have any questions for J. Ruff?
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 6
Hearing none, J. Garcia notes the appelant is here and would like to speak.
David Washburn, 2308 Turner, states the only thing I would like to add to that is because the
kitchen is very small, it's only 8' x 8', with about two feet of counterspace. The majority of this
addition is going to be kitchen and a small dining area. Included in the proposal is an upstairs
addition of a larger bedroom, I wanted to make sure that that was understood. The house is
very small, being 22' x 26' and 550 ft2 on each floor. It is currently a two story structure. We
would like to put an addition on a bedroom on the second story, above this kitchen addition. I
would be glad to answer any questions.
V. Earhart states I looked at the bid from Buck Construction. The windows that you have
listed here, the Anderson sliding door, one steel door with window, and two picture windows
with two double hung windows, don't seem to add up with the drawing of the addition.
D. Washburn replies actually when he drew that, he drew it in reverse because it's going to be
the other way around. The smaller slide by window we haven't decided on the size of it, will be
over the kitchen sink that will be on the back of the house. On the driveway side of the
structure is where we will put the entry door and another decent sized picture window.
V. Earhart asks you are aware of the fire wall requirement?
D. Washburn answers on that particular side there is nothing to look at anyway, we had no
intentions of putting a window of any kind there. I wasn't aware of the requirment, I assumed
the builder was aware of that. I just told the builder what I wanted. I assumed that he would
build according to code.
M. Clark states the drawing that we have here is a single story. Now you're saying that you
are making it a two story.
D. Washburn states somebody suggested it to me, that I would regret it later if I didn't have a
two story addition.
M. Clark asks about windows on the second story? Will there be windows on that side?
D. Washburn replies there will be pretty much nothing on that side.
M. Clark asks J. Ruff if the fire wall requirement extends to the second floor? Will it have to
be fire wall all the way up?
J. Ruff replies it sure does. One question I have is when the neighbors said they have no
objections, did they realize it's going to be a two story? We didn't advertise it as a two story.
That kind of changes light and air type issues that we look at when we deal with variance
requests.
D. Washburn states there wouldn't be any window looking out at their house. I can't see
where it would be any kind of issue at all.
M. Clark clarifies what you're proposing is a two story addition that is going to be 2'/z from the
property line. My question is, how are you going to be able to maintain that, particularly a two
story which would require ladders and so on?
D. Washburn states the lady that had owned the house previously had set her fences back
two feet. Even though the property line is 2%2', the addition won't have windows on it to be
maintained.
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 7
M. Clark mentions that eventually houses normally need painting, siding, etc. And mowing in
2Y2' is difficult.
D. Washburn replies this was the first house built in this area. They chose to build that house
just as close to the property line also. It's a mutual cooperation that we have. As far as the
maintenance, it would definitely be an issue if came right down to push come to shove. It
doesn't seem to be an issue yet.
M. Clark points out that unfortunately properties change hands, and sometimes it becomes an
issue.
E. Spink asks what are the plans for the present kitchen?
D. Washburn replies that because it is such a small area, and there is no main level
bathroom, we were going to divide the room and from one entry way make it a laundry room,
and from the existing entryway from the dining room into the kitchen now, put in a half bath.
C. Bicy asks I assume since you want to make a change to put a bedroom on the second floor
of this addition, that you would just have a bedroom only? Would it have a bathroom too?
D. Washburn states it will have a bathroom, all within the same 14' x 18'.
C. Bicy asks how many bedrooms are in the house now?
D. Washburn says currently there are three bedrooms. But the access to the new bedroom
would basically be through another very small 8' x 8' bedroom that we were going to make into
a storage area and hallway for the new bedroom.
C. Bicy asks are all three of the bedrooms upstairs?
D. Washburn replies yes.
C. Bicy asks about the slope of the roof, have you discussed that with the builder or architect?
D. Washburn says currently the slope of the roof is just barely walkable. It's a pretty steep
roof. I would want to have the same roof line.
C. Bicy clarifies it's my understanding you would not have any windows up there?
D. Washburn states there will be windows on the second floor.
C. Bicy asks which direction would they be facing?
D. Washburn replies to the east and to the north.
C. Bicy asks would that be looking into the neighbor's house next door?
D. Washburn replies no.
C. Bicy asks what was the original plan if you did not have the second story?
D. Washburn replies to put a cathedral ceiling in the downstairs section and not have an
additional bedroom upstairs.
C. Bicy asks when did you come up with the second story idea?
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 8
D. Washburn answers probably two weeks ago when I was talking to someone about it. We
haven't received a bid back from the construction company as far as the additional cost.
C. Bicy states I have to ask J. Ruff, by adding to this proposal that was already presented,
would you have any objections to this, and if so what would they be? I wouldn't be comfortable
voting on this affirmatively without having Mr. Ruff being able to give us a sense of direction.
J. Ruff states the question I would have is in evaluating it, we didn't advertise it as a single or
two story, so I don't think we have a problem with that. Keep in mind that if a variance was
approved, and we just normally did business and said for a 14' x 18' addition two feet from the
property line, we probably wouldn't specify whether it was a single or a two story. Once the
variance was granted he could build a two story, now or sometime in the future. I guess the
real essence of the question of it's location would be is there any reason that you couldn't be at
least three or four feet from the property line? I know it's important to keep in line with the
existing house, but thinking about now going to a two story, would there be any way to offset it
slightly so you could get a little more space to help maintain that area, since neighbors do
change with time.
D. Washburn states I wish I had brought pictures of the back of the house so that you would
understand. Currently there is a four foot window in the back of the house. It's about three
feet from the corner. It was where that window is right now, we were going to have that
window removed and that would be the archway going into the new kitchen. By offsetting it,
that would put the cupboards into the archway. If we moved the whole addition over by two
feet, we wouldn't be able to have the same layout, which is not to say we couldn't have some
sort of layout, but we wouldn't be able to have the same layout without some major structural
changes dealing with new headers and things.
J. Ruff asks the request is 2' from the line, what would another 1' do, in order to get the 3'
distance? Generally what the zoning code requires for detached accessory structures is at
least 3'. It would put the cabinets closer to that opening, I don't know what it does to the
interior layout. We don't have an interior layout plan.
D. Washburn replies that cabinets come in different sizes and depths. If for some reason the
setback has to be three feet, then it has to be three feet and we can certainly deal with
whatever comes up.
J. Ruff notes the other thing that does is push the addition slightly into the driveway. As far as
what I see from the site plan.
D. Washburn states yes it does. I didn't want to go too far over to the other side because it
would be a tight squeeze to get the second car into the garage. We are only like 25' behind
the house now, is where the garage is. I didn't measure it, I'm guessing. But it would be a
pretty tight squeeze for a larger vehicle.
J. Ruff notes it's a 22' wide garage, with two 9' doors. So there's the extra hassle of the
center pole.
A. Frederick states I understand why you'd want the addition to line up. I was thinking it might
make the aesthetics of the house, at least on that wall, look a little odd if the addition were
shifted one foot over.
A. Frederick asks what is the usual width of a lot?
J. Ruff answers 60' is what we split now. Those lots were platted at 42' or less. That did
bring up another question. The addition in it's present state would be four feet off the north
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 9
line. So if it were moved a foot, then you'd have a three foot offset, and a one foot offset, it
wouldn't be centered and it wouldn't follow that outside wall line. I just wanted to clarify that.
Discussion ensued regarding narrow lots, and the need for setbacks.
A. Frederick notes that with maintenance, the existing neighboring home is probably going to
need something a lot sooner than the new addition.
M. Clark states we as a Board need to be concerned about creating situations that are going
to negatively impact on other people's property. I'm not even saying that I'm opposed to this.
But I think that we as a Board need to be very concerned about recognizing that when we
allow things to be built that close to property lines, what we are doing, in effect, is giving that
property owner the right to use his neighbor's property for maintenance.
J. Garcia asks are there any other questions for Mr. Washburn?
C. Bicy asks what is the minimum that you would like to see as far as the property line?
D. Washburn replies I don't have a real good answer for that. It would be back to the drawing
board all the way, as far as the kitchen layout. I could deal with a one foot offset and not get
too far into redesigning cupboards and things. This says that my house is located 2' off the
property line. When I purchased the home about a year ago, and according to the survey that
I received at the mortgage closing, the house is 2.5' from the property line.
J. Ruff is that the one that was submitted to us, by Brian Land Surveys?
D. Washburn answers yes.
J. Ruff states ours says two feet plus or minus, that's all it says.
D. Washburn says I'm sorry, I misread that. I thought is was 2.5.
J. Garcia asks if there is anyone else that would like to speak regarding this appeal?
J. Garcia states we will now go into the Committee of the Whole.
C. Bicy asks for my own clarification, Mr. Ruff, you don't have any problems with this upstairs
addition? If you have problems, then I can't vote for this. If you don't have a problem, then I
can look at it a little bit differently.
J. Ruff states there are questions either way. You have an existing wall line that's two feet
plus or minus from the property line. That wall line is only 26' long now. You put another 14'
on it, and now it's 40' long. When it was a one story proposal, it was just that lower level that
you had to deal with and if you try to put a ladder, or you do something there, you can deal with
it a little easier because you only have a nine or ten feet wall to deal with. When you put a two
story wall up, now you're dealing with 40' of two story wall and potentially the neighbor could
put a fence up tomorrow, and the petitioner would be shocked, and it would make it even more
difficult to maintain that side of the structure. In general concept, I don't know that it would be
a significant land use issue. When we talk about in the realm of things, it's not a real
significant land use issue to allow them to extend what they already have. But it's problematic
and requires some thought. Without having windows on that side, and having a fire wall on
that side, you have a little less maintenance to deal with. I think an extra foot would be real
beneficial, to have a three foot setback. Then at least you can go up with some kind of
scaffolding, whereas with two feet, you don't have any base support for future maintenance.
Those are practical concerns that will be year in and year out that somebody will have to deal
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 10
with in a maintenance fashion. By approving a variance for this, you'd be establising that.
C. Bicy asks if we left it at 22".
J. Ruff states the variance is a request for 22, if you leave the structure at 2' from the
setback, it makes what you have in 26', 40'.
D. Washburn notes that the entryway itself is a 4' opening, I could make that 3.5'.
J. Ruff says I prefer to see a 3' setback, and then he won't have to fire rate the walls.
C. Bicy states my main question is, do you have any problems with the second floor?
J. Ruff says yeah, I'm trying to define those.
C. Bicy says thank you, you have explained that. We, as a board, try to comply with the things
that your board comes up with, and not exceed that.
J. Ruff notes these types of things are just more practical, personable types of things. Mr.
Washburn, living in the house with his family, and trying to make some improvements to the
structure which the City of Lansing is all in favor of house improvements.
C. Bicy states my concern is that if your feeling is that he needs to come back and give you
more information about the second floor, I'm willing to table it. That's where I'm coming from.
Or, regarding the three feet, if you approve, fine; if you don't then I want to know why.
E. Spink says I agree, however, Mr. Ruff did say we really only approve a footprint. So that an
applicant can come in with a nice one story plan and build as high as the code allows, because
we're only approving a footprint. It's best to establish the need for the footprint with an
accurate description of your need. I agree with everything Mr. Ruff has said regarding the one
foot. I'm usually a stickler on not much of a variance on side yards. I know we are not
supposed to be considering it necessarily, but the aesthetics of a one foot over when you've
got three feet over on the other side almost makes to look more like a stuck on then a part of
the structure. He's already got all those problems with two feet that he has, so we're only
giving him more of what he has already.
E. Spink moves that BZA-3503.98 at 2308 Turner St. be approved for a variance of 27'
as requested with the understanding that all construction meet the current building
codes and that the structure remain a single family unit, supported by G. Hilts.
J. Ruff notes for clarification, that's 22, and would be in line with the existing structure.
E. Spink states the intent of the motion is to have the addition in line with the existing house.
C. Bicy says I assume this means the second floor too?
E. Spink replies that is correct. Technically, we are only doing footprints. But we do
understand it's a two story.
M. Clark comments I won't be supporting this appeal as stated simply because while I
understand the aesthetics of the setback, to exacerbate an already difficult situation and
perpetuate it forever, just does not seem reasonable to me. I think there are options that will
allow for maintenance in the long run without restricting his ability to do an addition that would
be useable on the inside.
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 11
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Hilts X S ink X
Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 6- 1 BZA3503.98 has been approved with conditions.
C. BZA-3504.98, 1109 S. Genesee
J. Ruff presented the case, a request by John Greene, to erect a 238 ft2
addition for kitchen expansion and a 880 ft2 attached garage to the house at
1109 S. Genesee, located on a corner lot at Martin Luther King and Genesee.
You may recall we addressed a fence variance, the initial improvement that Mr.
Greene was looking at was trying to provide for a little more quiet yard space. I
don't know what caused this new set of circumstances, but looking at
constructing an attached garage and an attached kitchen addition. Due to the
orientation of the lot, he is severely restricted on rear yard setback. He is
requesting a 7'2" variance from the required 30' rear yard setback. Also, the
Zoning Code allows a maximum of 720 ft2 for a private garage. Therefore, this
is a requested variance of 160 ft2. A maximum of 1,000 ft2 of accessory
structure is allowed. They propose retaining the existing garage and converting
into a storage building and with that they would have approximately 1,058.5 ft2,
this is a requested variance of 58.5 ft2 for total accessory structure. The
property is at the intersection on the south side of Genesee St., at Martin Luther
King. The large yard that would be considered the front yard is toward MI-King.
The lot is 77' x 120'. Residential surrounds the property and the zoning reflects
that. This lot includes two platted lots, part of Lot 51 and all of Lot 50. The
house was originally laid out on Lot 51, the rear yard went back into what would
be considered a pie wedge back there. Current codes require 30' rear yard.
Because of the re-orientation of the lot and the combination of the lot, it keeps
the rear year to the south, but there's a definite restriction since the depth of the
lot is now only 77' deep. To meet setback requirements with most additions
makes it difficult. First you have to meet the established front yard setback,
then you have to meet the 30' rear yard setback. It severely limits an addition
that would be significant on the home. I had a discussion with Mr. Greene, they
want to keep the garage setback from the front line of the existing house. They
believe the architecture is important for the area. They feel they've moved it as
far forward as they can to provide for a private rear yard space that is the intent
of the ordinance, providing some activity area that is somewhat private. They
have two spaces that would be used. The area directly behind the house,
which is west of the existing garage; and the new space they would be creating
behind the new addition and new garage. We feel it is reasonable for the
setback, but we are concerned with the fact that we don't believe there's a real
hardship for exceeding the 720 ft2 or the 1058.5 ft2 for the addition. We are in
support of the setback variance, but we are not in support of exceeding the
area requirements for the garage.
J. Garcia asks are there any questions from the Board for Mr. Ruff?
C. Bicy asks will it be necessary to widen the curb cut if this is approved?
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 12
J. Ruff replies at first the design was worked around the street tree. Since the design was
begun, my understanding of the situation is the street tree becamed diseased and had to be
taken out anyway. You could require the driveway to be consolidated and go straight into the
garage. On the other hand, in this neighborhood it might be beneficial to keep the
arrangement that is drawn where you have the approach coming in from two smaller driveways
and allowing some landscaping through the larger facade of the parking area, depending upon
what the Board does with the area of the garage. Instead of having the driveway directly going
into the garage in this situation, I feel it is reasonable that that area could be landscaped and
they have that dual entrance so that you're not directly approaching the face of a garage door.
Ronald Greene, the appelants's brother, then spoke. I would like to use your easel please.
This is the proposed site plan, which is the same thing that you have, I don't know if all of you
will be able to see it clearly. As Mr. Ruff has indicated, the proposed plan showed about
840 ft2 of new accessory area which is indicated here in the garage structure. The new plan
as presented to you, shows 750 ft2 in conformance with the request by Mr. Ruff that it be
reduced to conform to the present zoning code. The 750 ft2 is what we are asking for on the
garage at this time.
J. Ruff asks is that 750 ft2 or 720 ft2?
R. Greene replies 750 ft2. The conflict with present zoning ordinance is this area behind the
garage is proposed to be 20'10" where the zoning ordinance requires 30'. We ask relief for
7'8" from the required 30'. The other issue Mr. Ruff brought up today, that I hadn't been aware
of, is the maximum total of 1000 ft2 in accessory structure area. I think that with the reduction
of the garage to 750 ft2 with the existing accessory structure, I think we fall within that range at
this time.
R. Greene continues, the next board shows the elevation from Genesee, which is the north
elevation of the house. This is the existing structure, the proposed modifications to the front
entry, and also the new construction proposed, the three car garage with a breezeway
including kitchen expansion in this area. This would be the expansion elevation from MI-King.
The third board shows, based upon a survey of the area by my office, other residences in the
area with similar sited garages and accessory structures. This is Dr. Greene's residence and
the dark area is the proposed addition. The residence immediately across the street has an
offset of probably six inches from the rear of it's garage. The residence immediately adjacent
to it has about 7' from the rear property line. There is another on the corner of Shiawasee and
Bartlett St. which has about 7' from the rear, if Bartlett is considered the front; or it has about
16' from the rear if Shiawasee is considered the front. The other relevant structure in the area
is this one, which has no offset from the rear property line if MI-King is considered the front.
There is a clear pattern of development in the area where structures are located less than 30'
from the rear yard. The other thing that Mr. Ruff brought up was the dual access from
Genesee St. We propose keeping the existing entry into the structure, and we've added
another here. There could be one entry for the garage put somewhere in the middle.
However, we think it would be safer, since the proximity of the garage is this close to the
corner. If cars coming out of the driveway could actually come out forward, they could see the
traffic better. The aesthetic benefit is, the strip of land indicated here, could be landscaped.
The other issue brought up was the prior zoning appeal, where my brother had come and
asked for the location of fences. There is no request to change that at this time. All we are
asking for is the dual driveway here. Another reason we are asking for the dual driveway, you
may be able to see it better on the map in front of you, there is an existing light pole which is
right here. The location of the driveway is such so that that structure remains where is it.
M. Clark asks am I correct in thinking that they are limited to 720 ft2 rather than 750 ft2.
J. Ruff states 720 ft2 is the ordinance requirement.
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 13
M. Clark asks was there some reason for going for the 750 ft2? 1 don't see a hardship that
would permit me to vote for that unless you can point one out to me.
R. Greene replies it's not a hardship for the 720 ft2, that's not a problem, I was thinking it was
750 ft2. Either way it goes is not a problem.
M. Clark asks because the driveway is so close to Logan, is there any problem with whoever
looks at that, traffic or something?
J. Ruff replies we could have them look at it, I don't see that there would be a problem. I think
we're talking a reasonable distance, especially for somebody coming out that way. It's not
necessarily required that the person would not back out there.
M. Clark notes for the homeowner, aesthetically and for convenience, this is wonderful. I
didn't know if there would be some concerns in terms of safety.
J. Ruff states I could have Traffic look at it, but we have a local street here, and it's not a
commercial street or a principal arterial, other than King. It is a divided street, so you're only
having to deal with one portion of traffic on Genesee. You can only go toward King in that
situation. We could review that with Traffic, but I don't believe it would be a problem.
C. Bicy asks how large is your current kitchen?
R. Greene replies the current kitchen is about 8' x 8'.
C. Bicy asks by putting the new addition, is that going to be more kitchen space?
R. Greene answers definitely.
C. Bicy asks that will increase it by how much?
R. Greene answers it will increase the kitchen space by about 60%, slightly more than 100 ft2.
C. Bicy asks the new garage will be for three cars?
R. Greene replies correct.
C. Bicy asks and the width of that is?
R. Greene replies as we have it right now, it's 33'. We can modify it to bring it into compliance
with the 720 ft2, we have no problem with that.
C. Bicy asks what is the average for a three car garage?
J. Ruff replies you can have a three car garage with 720 ft2, you are dealing with your width
and depth ratio that makes the difference. I couldn't tell you average size.
C. Bicy says I shouldn't say average size. What is the normal size for a three car garage?
J. Ruff replies, to be honest with you, not many are designed in Lansing, I couldn't answer
that. I know when the establishment was made for 720 ft2 in the code difference, they looked
that a three car garage could reasonably fit within 720 ft2. Here, you have an instance of a
double overhead door and one single overhead door, so you've got 16' plus the 9'. You could
have an 18' wide double door, it makes it easier to move in and out of. I appreciate the
_—I---i.__ _L L-...1L:- 1:L :-A- 4L - -:-L.L-L-A
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 14
J. Garcia asks are there any other questions for Mr. Greene?
J. Garcia asks is there anyone else who would like to speak on this appeal?
Seeing none, we will now go into the Committee of the Whole.
M. Clark motions to approve BZA3504.98 at 1109 S. Genesee, for the 7'2" variance to
erect an addition for kitchen expansion and attached garage, the garage not to exceed
720 ft2, and the dual drive approach to be approved as presented unless there are
problems with the Traffic Department which would preclude that. Second by A.
Frederick.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Hilts X S ink X
Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 7-0, BZA3504.98 has been approved as modified.
D. BZA-3505.98, 607 W. Barnes
A request by Harold W. Dunckle Jr. and Pamela Dunckle (owners) to construct
a 16' x 20' rear two story addition to the house at 607 W. Barnes Ave. The
addition would result in a 2.5' side yard setback. Based upon Section 1248.07
of the Zoning Code a minimum side yard setback of 4.4' is required. In this
situation we have a 44' wide lot requiring 10% of the lot width in sideyard
setback. Therefore, a 1.9' setback variance is requested. The existing home is
about 1.5' off the property line. As seen in the picture, the addition is a barn
style roof. The proposal is to put a two story addition on and center it within the
roof line. To make a two story addition reasonably on this type of a roof line,
you really need to keep it centered or else you run into more head room
problems and roof line problems or straight expanded back. They are
requesting that it be offset in another foot on each side so that then you take
care of the eave situation and all that type of thing. The proposed addition is
16'x20' and would be in line with the existing rear porch that will be removed.
You have a site plan in your packet that illustrates the 1.5' setback of the
existing home, and then the proposed 2.5' setback for the addition. We have
some similar types of issues here but, most importantly, for hardship sake is the
house exists 1.5' from the property line which limits how they can add on to a
structure of this nature. They are not necessarily totally restricted from going to
the opposite side of the yard except for where the house sets. Presently the
request is for a 2.5' sideyard setback. In this situation it is also important to
know that the adjacent property, that's the side yard that would have a
driveway. It's not really an improved situation at this point in time, but that's
where the driveway would be. There is a garage that sits back there, and a
curb cut up front, but not much use into that garage. The situation exists that
there is a little more space in here as well between the homes.
J. Garcia asks if the appelant would like to comment.
Harold Dunckle, 607 W. Barnes, states we have lived in this home for about fifteen years. I
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 15
can sympathize with this gentlemen as far as being close to the lot line. As you can see, the
existing is just 1.5' off the lot line. There are three windows there. Fortunately, the
neighborhood is an older neighborhood, everybody seems to know everybody quite well and
we all get along. I did have the house roofed, the only way for the roofer to do it was to be in
the neighbor's driveway. We talked with two or three different contractor's and we looked at
options. Really, that was the only practical option to make it look right. Especially, if you go to
the east, towards the driveway, there's not much room. Not only that, with the roof line, it
would be very difficult to line up roof lines and make it look right. The house right now has
three bedrooms upstairs. One of the bedrooms is quite small, it's less than 7' wide, and it's
about 10.5' deep with two closet doors. That was fine when it was a nursery, but now we'd
appreciate a little more bedroom. Quite frankly, that's what we want to put the addition on for.
J. Garcia asks are there any questions?
J. Garcia asks is there anyone else that would like to speak on this appeal?
Seeing none we move into the Committee of the Whole.
C. Bicy moves to approve 3505.98, 607 W. Barnes, to allow a 1.9' sideyard variance for a
two story rear porch addition, with the condition that the addition meets the building
code requirements for side openings and fire wall ratings one hour, unless applicants
wish to meet the minimum 3' setback for building code compliance, second-by V.
Earhart.
M. Clark comments that she will be supporting this appeal, and the only reason she feels
differently because you're going to run into the same sideyard problems, is because this house
is built in such a way that to put an addition on in any other way just doesn't make sense. We
would be telling you you couldn't have an addition at all. While I'm reluctant to give a variance
which will create a side yard of less than 3', in this case, I think it's the only option.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Hilts X Sink X
Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 7-0, BZA3505.98, 607 W. Barnes, has been approved with
conditions.
E. BZA-3506.98, 6131 S. Pennsylvania
A request for wall sign variances for the Snethkamp property at the southeast
corner of Miller and Pennsylvania Ave. The property has been going under
some renovations and they've been taking some signs down, trying to get
things in order and proposing some new signage. We were right at the
deadline for the cutoffs for this, so I did the report on this. In summary, there
are some existing signs on the structure that are being removed. They are
proposing to keep some of the signs, plus modifiy others, to end up with eight
total wall signs containing 467 ft2 in area. The Code allows for two wall signs in
200 ft2 in area. This is a corner lot, but Miller is not considered a principal or
minor arterial, so it's restricted from having four wall signs totaling 200 ftz. So
the number of signs is one of the issues, as well as the area. The proposed
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 16
signage of 467 ft2 replaces a situation where there are eight signs totaling in
excess of 800 ft2. So there is some improvement being made here. In your
packet is a before and after summary of the signs. The one that says west
elevation two signs that are 161 ft2 +. There was another sign that said
"service" on it that had to be taken down when the addition was made. I didn't
have the area of that sign, but I counted it in the number of signs. Three of the
proposed signs are really considered more directional type signs in that they
identify particular entrances such as sales, rental and leasing, and service.
They are relatively small signs that really are directory to the interior of the lot.
They just don't meet our current directory sign section. Directory signs are
supposed to be 4 ft2 or less. They are trying to keep the same size of lettering
that is readable and makes sense, so they have three signs of varying sizes
showing that. These need to be counted toward the wall sign allowances.
There are also two signs that are Dodge Truck panels or graphic panels, they
are like small bulletin boards that they can change like a billboard paper or
something that would have a picture. Right now those two are on the south
side of the building. They propose moving one to the north side of the building.
The main identification sign on the west elevation of 167 ft2. There is a body
shop sign on the south elevation of 100 ft2, and the Saab product sign on the
south elevation of 51 ft2. This Board did grant a variance to modify the ground
pole signage in 1996. That was here just considering the ground signs.
Handling the Saab product line and also with the idea that they would be doing
some improvements to other signange. They have made some of those
improvements. As you recall, the initial variance back in 1996 was kind of a
stage of improvements for the ground pole signs. They have not completed all
of those improvements, and they are not scheduled to complete those until the
end of this year approximately. The improvements are still moving forward.
This is a requested variance for 226 ft2 and the additional signs. I don't see a
problem with the directory signs necessarily. I think they are a reasonable size
for their purpose and they really do appear as directory type signs, as opposed
to "body shop" on the south side of the building. Realistically, with the size of
the building as you have a graphic in your proposal of the elevations, you can
see how the signs would be separated out. There is an improvement to the
signage that is proposed. In an effort to control the sign proliferation and
acheive a situation where there is an improvement toward the area and the
number of wall signs, staff believes that the combination with the already
approved ground pole sign plan, the two Dodge Truck graphic signs really are
excessive. Their removal would result in the reduction of the total number of
signs as well, and an additional 110 ft2 in sign area. This will result in a total of
six wall signs, three of which are directional, totalling 357 ft2. There are other
things involved here that you may wish to discuss and deal with.
J. Garcia asks are there any questions for Mr. Ruff?
Marty DuBois of Central Advertising Co. then spoke. First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Ruff for all
the help that he and his staff has provided in helping us research this request, and all the
information that he provided for us. I just want to say that I know that in talking with the
owners at Bill Snethkamp's, and the management, that they will conform with all the
requirments of the previous variance that was granted. I would like to make one correction in
paragraph four of my request. On the second page of my application, the last sentence reads
"increase signage from 161 ft2 to 176 ft2 on the west elevation". It should read "reduce signage
from 191 ft2 to 176 ft2 on the west elevation". As the dealership has made improvements in
the exterior of the building, many old signs have already been removed. There was a Saab
sign that was 30 ft2. I'm going to be talking for just a couple of minutes. I know the time is
getting late, and I noticed as the meeting went on the applicant's did a much better job in
—,...,...a,.a:,... 6.,. —....,. &I-- ...,...a:,..... ...-4 I,...,+ —9 ..a.....,.,.-I I'll +.,.+.. — nor+ of+hie
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 17
presentation.
J. Ruff asks what is the square footage reduction?
M. DuBois repeats the reduction is from 191 ft2 to 176 ft2 on the west elevation.
M. Clark asks is that three signs to two?
M. DuBois replies the number of signs remains the same. In the beginning it was going from
seven signs to eight.
M. Clark states I thought on the west elevation there had been an additional Dodge sign or
something that was already gone.
M. DuBois states there was a Saab sign that is included in all of our information that we are
talking about.
M. Clark asks so it is two signs that were 191 ft2?
M. DuBois replies it was three signs on the west elevation.
M. DuBois comments in the over all count, we did not originally count the Saab sign. In our
request we only counted the one sign and square footage, that 171 ft2. That sign on the front
of the building was 161 ft2, that was the only sign that I originally counted, I forgot about the
Saab sign that had been removed.
M. DuBois states I will be talking about a lot of square footage. As you did already, interrupt
me if there are any questions about any figures that I throw out so we can deal with them right
at that time.
M. DuBois continues the old wall signage totalled 836 ft2. The proposed signage totals 467 ft2,
this is reduction of 369 ft2 or approximately 44% less than what was originally there. The new
signs will cover only about 5% of the useable wall space. The quantity of signs remains the
same, at eight. However, the old signs, seven out of the eight were advertising, and one is
what I would consider a sign used to help direct customers. With the proposed signs, four out
of the eight signs help direct customers movements, and for the most part are not very
noticeable from the street. They have no real advertising value, their purpose is to help get
the customer to the right department and to help make their visit a pleasant one. We've
reduced the number of advertising signs from seven to four. The four remaining advertising
signs will advertise the name of the dealership, and the vehicle lines they carry. They have
different lines, it's important that they get their names out. They carry Dodge trucks, Dodge
vehicles, Saabs, and what they are going to do is use the two 55 ft2 signs to advertise the
trucks on both sides of the building. One of the problems with this building is you've actually
got several businesses going on all at once. Not just the car dealership and selling cars, but
they repair cars, they do body work, they lease and rent cars. There are several businesses in
this establishment. If you actually had separate businesses, they would be allowed more
square footage than is being requested. In talking with the owner and management of this
company, I know they are committed to making their company a positive part of this
community. They have spent tens of thousands of dollars on improvements to their building.
In starting their work before they received a variance, they have really put themselves at great
risk, even from a financial standpoint. Without their signs, they are not going to make as much
money. We are asking for your help tonight. We feel this request is reasonable and in the
best interest of the public. We respectfully ask that you approve our variance request. Thank
you.
RA 4k-4 -4-94: ;_ 4L-;; 4hn+ +hcir me enmo Mnrlric 4ri it-le
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 18
signs that might possibly be removed. Do you have a position on that?
M. DuBois replies that I would sincerely ask that you not remove those signs. They are 55 ft"
on a building this size, they are dots, as you can see in the plans. One of the signs will be
needed for the Dodge dealership. Dealerships change. In the future there may be another line
added. I would ask that you allow them to use that in case of that coming up in the future.
And also that it is only 55 ft2 and it's a reasonable amount for this size building.
M. Clark clarifies that is two signs at 55 ft2, so a total of 110 ft2?
M. DuBois answers yes. We are trying to make the signs more balanced. Right now both of
those signs are on one side of the building. We are taking one down and moving it to the
other side of the building so that there will be more of a balance. You are actually on three
streets here. There is a little access road that goes on the south side of the building, Ramada
Dr.; you've got Pennsylvania on the west side; and Miller on the north side.
M. DuBois then held up a picture to explain to the Board the extent of the modifications,
pointing out the signs that will be removed.
V. Earhart asks what are you going to have on your ground poles?
M. DuBois answers, to be honest, that is something that was dealt with before, I didn't handle
that variance so I'm not prepared to answer questions about that.
J. Ruff states the owner dealt with that variance himself. The General Manager, Gary Sturk,
dealt with that matter himself. We did a lot of working out of trying to satisfy their signage
needs with trying to get more compliance there. We did a very good job. I've drawn those in
on the site plan, just to show you what their ground pole signs were approved for. An
identification sign near the intersection of Miller and Pennsylvania that would be three sided
that would service Miller and Pennsylvania. That's more of their used car sign, but it would
also advertise Bill Snethkamp. The major identification sign is right in front of the building that
has Dodge Snethkamp/Dodge Trucks, I believe. The issue was with the odd dealer product,
the Saab, they moved it. Saab has a new design logo, they wanted to put it on the existing
sign which is right out at the street line now. The Board approved the new logo, but moving
the sign back by the building. Where it's at now is near the corner in the front, moving it back
near the building so the Saab sign and the new logo would be back near the new building. So
that's what has been approved for ground pole signs. They would be taking out some other
nonconforming situations. There was also a little directory type sign on the corner that is being
relocated to be on the property instead of being in the right of way.
A. Frederick asks J. Ruff who decides what streets are going to be minor or major arterials?
J. Ruff replies that is defined in the master plan, and it's done through the planning process.
There is traffic criteria, and then there is some public perception criteria. There's the
engineers prospective of what a road is. Miller Road had for a long time been considered a
thoroughfare, but it's heavily residential, especially west of Cedar St. So from a master plan
standpoint, it was designated as a collector street so that we wouldn't gear improvements to
make it a major arterial. That's why Edgewood Blvd. was put in further south near the
highway, away from the residential properties, so that there would be a non-expressway
through street on the south end. Miller is definitely considered a non major or minor arterial,
it's considered a collector by the master plan. In this section, you don't have residential on it
right at this intersection. It's a three lane cross section.
A. Frederick states that from attending some of the traffic calming meetings that have been
held, Mr. Berridge, the Traffic Engineer, always had much to say about Miller Rd. and how it
,..�o r,oc,ri„a+or+ NA inrtirtatPrt that was primarily because it goes by a school a few blocks
Pa a 19
Board of Zonin Appeal June 11 1998
t. Miller was certainly the topic it ppmuch ln
about the
west as you cross Cedar S designation.
amount of use that it does get. It does get more use than it appears from it's
Discussion ensued about remaining residential on Miller from Pennsylvania to Aurelius, and a
speed trap.
M. Clark comments that even if Miller were considered a major road, they still would be
allowed only four signs. It allows them two more signs.
G. Hilts mentions that the signage proposed is an situation.improvement from what they have currently.
Also, this is a unique property due to the street
C. Bicy notes mainly Miller and Pennsylvania get used.
M. Clark wants to compliment them on how much effort they've put in to improving Would be
at the site across the board. But even if we considered it three major streets, they
understanding
allowed six signs. l to havelll have those. of you problem with
it would be adge realseasy approval.
why you feel the need
M. DuBois asks how many would I be allowed if there were actually two arterials?
J. Ruff replies four signs.
M. DuBois states I'm not trying to suggest that Ramada is a busy street. For the dealerships
is a business entrance on
case, there that side for the body shop. Technically, the signs that
are directionals, of which there are ur, shore Itns a pae of in ed wall sigem is going n and it'so be uoutof date.
eventually, which is the one over theY P
Eventually that sign will be made smaller. I cant tell comoe p in the next yeagor somThere awhen, but knowin the re
they are making, that is something that is going to
only four signs that advertise the busowed in thehe other four ordinance, belcausens ryoulrneed them bigger
They are a little larger tional oriented.
han what's allowed i
with such a large lot. People have to see those
they are driving in off of Miller. They have o be larsign firstwhen they s
9
e enough where they can be legible and
ic
safely move traffic off of Pennsylvania or
r\°thin thff of lller e I mitshontthoseldirectional ng any rftype signs.s If you
That's why we haven't been able to ydoubt
eliminate those four signs, and you gavehe tus th hose fit of ourfour signs that wlou d Miller keepuIs within his the
arterial and Pennsylvania, then we would av
limits.
ound sin at
V. Earhart comments, following along with
thstates that there are Dodge truckshat you ere saying, if the 9 avagable the
this
corner of Miller and Pennsylvania actually
property, then I too, agree that the signs are not necessary on the building itself.
the
ns
M. DuBois states you have to know whereentrance Ithink thathat's te purpose actually advertises the h oel ors
the building. The directory sign out a the street
something.
J. Ruff clarifies, you're talking about two different signs. We are talking Miller and
Pennsylvania, the sign isn't erected yet. But future replacement of signs that they have along
the street frontage.
M. DuBois states the biggest problem we have
that we have to count toward the signage. Because tthenY are larger than what's allowedumber of signs are these tiolnals
hope I've explained it well enough.
o„ff 0+n+Al- WA MUld have approached it two ways. We could have said a variance in
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 20
directional signs, and said these are larger. But generally, I just try to keep it simple. I do note
a couple of good points as the idea of the number of advertising signs being reduced.
M. DuBois comments another thing is the signs that are being put up are much nicer looking
than what they had there before. They are putting up neon signs, channel letters, they are not
the ugly box signs. It's really a big improvement to the area.
J. Ruff says I had asked Mr. DuBois about the loss of those signs before. He said he would
talk to them about it before he came back with his variance proposal. That was a concern of
mine originally as well. That's why, I think, they also came up with the suggestion of moving
one to the north side for more of a balance.
C. Bicy adds I agree with M. Clark in these Dodge truck signs. But what's the pleasure, are we
saying now one sign or no signs, or what? According to the recommendation that has been
presented to Mr. DuBois here is that we remove both Dodge truck signs. Isn't that right Mr.
Ruff?
J. Ruff replies yes, that's our recommendation. In itself, the amount of square footage on the
building is relatively minor. But again, we are looking at trying to see an overall reduction in
the number of signs as an improvement. There are many ways to accomplish that. Not only
dealing with the area, the improvement to the quality of the signs that's being put up, but when
you look at the number of signs and trying to see an advancement there. That was the goal.
C. Bicy asks are we talking about four signs or six?
J. Ruff states there is a total of eight signs. Three to four of them are directory depending on if
you think the body shop is a directory sign. I think if we went back to 1996 when we dealt with
the other signs, I think we would see probably even more area of wall signs than what Mr.
DuBois has even calculated. That whole front showroom was wrapped with signage. I don't
know if that was all counted or not. There was a lot of signage and there is definitely a
significant improvement in the area of signage, no doubt about it. We really applaud that
effort. Again, the directory signs are not a problem, if there was a way to make an
at
so see the
act
improvement to
have indirectly,
becausletw'nk henrI look a would he old f appropriate.be ile I can see there were f that
a lot
they probably Y
more signs before.
C. Bicy asks M. Clark what was your idea on these signs? I want to hear it again.
M. Clark answers what I was saying is even if we consider this to be a building that is fronted
by three streets and we are willing to allow two signs per street, that is still only a total of six
signs, and they are proposing eight. Now what he is saying, when he added the additional
square footage when he was talking about what is there now, they really had nine signs.
M. DuBois states when I had counted what I had remembered, I thought there was originally
seven. And then in talking to Mr. Ruff, we remembered that there was the Saab wall sign. I
went back through my information that I had in my file and I found the dimensions of that sign.
M. Clark states that that was an additional sign, so the total would have been nine instead of
eight.
M. DuBois says no, it's still eight.
J. Ruff says he counted it in the eight, he just didn't know how big it was.
M. Clark continues, there were eight signs, he's proposing eight signs, he's just cutting
nn thin cni fare footaae of them. So what we have to decide is if that improvement
Page 21
Board of Zonin A eats June 11 1998
is enough for us to grant the variance or whether
we are concernea abouumonth with signs on theihb Id ngeand Wens
on the building. K-mart is coming back to next
need to be careful that we have some consistency.
C. Bicy adds, with that, you are also saying the removal of the two Dodge signs, aren't you?
M. Clark answers if they remove the two Dodge signs, they would be down to six signs instead
of eight.
M. DuBois comments that four of those signs are just directional. They have three lines of
vehicles that they sell right now.
ying
M. Clark asks what if you left just one Dodge try each of the lines would beidentified?the end of
the building where they sell those, and that way
p.
From a
b a DuBois answers hone m sure that our mercy becld be ause we'vettaklen e to down s gnsk onimprove the
business perspective we re at yhey have a need,
building without coming to you first. I would
hhat many lines of plead
t wtork, that four signs to
this
large of a business, on this large of a lot, with
advertise their lines of business in that size of a building is really a very reasonable request.
M. Clark states now what you have proposed here is a Dodge truck sign on the north and on
the south? How does that work, you were and the south fad
the Dodge these on truckre o identify the
locations. They come in from both the north
M. DuBois answers the directory signs
are there to they sell there p provide that. Those sign are
advertising signs. Just telling you
V. Earhart states let's go back to the pole signs.
You and v eon over here isn that says Saab?going to
have Snethkamp and Dodge in some combing
M. DuBois repeats he cannot answer those questions because he wasn't involved in those
signs.
at you're
is
V. Earhart continues if we knew that it Im ghDoeve trucks, that's what this problem. if you doing
you are going to see. So
advertising the location of someone se g 9
you don't have to have the smaller logos on the building.
M. DuBois states what Snethkamp's is doing there
car deale�shipseand you't mor Isee a sea of signs.
e than most other
car dealerships in this town. You look at other
What they are requesting is very reasonable compared to other dealerships.
J. Ruff states I can answer what was thought be deabout ling with more the
Iof some changeable copy
gn, because that was part
of this whole process. They are also going to 9 ble copy
si n that
or to advertise their specials on that
sign.
Right
g to behget ng rid of that aThey haves ome
extends out into the right of way. They are g
banners that they change from time to time that they will be eliminating, so they were going to
include some changeable copy on the new ground pole sign up near the intersection so they
could deal with those changing types of merchandising. Besides just identifying the property
near the intersection, that was part of the idea
basically, igwould be to e on that the samelmes Other
on an
that, it was supposed to be 70 ft2 per side,
each side, and be approximately 7'xl0' or thereabouts.
A. Fredericks asks in comparing this request with the K-mart request, this request is bringing
us the same number of signs with a whole lot less
footage�tl ghink that compares favorably
---.n ► i imher of signs with a whole lot more square
Pa a 22
Board of Zonin A eals June 11 1998
with what the request is. I also note in the K-s that they al that in the didn'twhileures they d
to us, there's probably an illegal sign there al Y didn't choose
they were here.
M. Clark notes that I would prefer to eliminate
on
e o
their building, you're going to have on the side,tDodge the gruck; on thenorth de ofe truck signs, but in lth ng at
e
building the only vehicles being advertised are the Dodge trucks. Is that because it's mostly
trucks on that end of the building?
M. DuBois answers we moved that sign over there just to help balance the signage, to make it
more palletable to you folks.
M. Clark continues that I agree with what Mr. Frederick was saying, that this company has
they've
worked very hard in improving
lly. I t nnkthat what eir gthey are dprolng the square pos proposing may not beage as in keeping keep ng with the
reduced it substantially. I thin
code as we would like, but it is such a positive step forward, and we want to encourage
businesses to work with us in that way.
M. Clark moves that BZA3506.98, 6131 S. Pennsylvania, be approved as requested for a
total of eight signs with a total of 467 W, second by A. Frederick.
VOTE:
Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bic
X Clark X
Earhart
X Frederick X
Hilts
X S ink X
Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 7-0, BZA3506.98 has been approved unanimously.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Excused Absence - E. Horne dinner d requested an excused absence so that she
of someone she worked with for many
may attend the retirementyears.
C. Bicy moved to approve, second by V. Earhart. On a voice vote, motion
carried unanimously.
B BZA3482.98-BZA3495.98 - Towers
J. Ruff reports I have met with tower companies, I've met with hospitals, we are
trying to work something out with the hospitals and their comments about
towers. I've met with Sparrow and Ingham Regional Medical Center together
with their technical people, Hewlett Packard, and Vid-Com. We are trying to
deal with this issue of communication equipment near hospitals. We will be
spending more time doing that. We are seeing an interest in about seven sites
by one provider, that's Omnipoint. It would be primarily co-location sites. Two
of the sites are not part of our list because they are either existing towers that
they would be attaching to, one is at Washington & Holmes where the 300' city
tower is; the other is at the elevator shaft in City Hall. For your information they
did a study of the Wolverine tower that we see on River St. that you see coming
up Cedar St., it's basically maxed out structurally, not because of the basic
structure but because of the angle of the guides. If the guides were out farther,
Pa a 23
Board of Zonin A peals. June 11 1998
they
it would handle a lot more. But because 5t000 studying the structurees are at a certain s The
have reachee g
d their limit. They spent $
owner of that structure is going to be trying to reevaluate how he can deal with
that. They are looking at parcel B which is down off 96 north of Red Cedar doll Course,y, i
was a vacant city owned parcel. They are looking rol. They are looking at
they are looking at Statio n#at the(Landfill off Aureliuseasant Grove & Rd. That one would just
Harry Hill. They are looking
just wanted to bring that to
be the height variance, the others require Special Land Uses as well as e
height variances. We are kind of looking at thoseand if you have particular
your attention to say we are making p g to look at prior to bringing it back
concerns about these that you want me to try
maybe,
that this
to you, I would like to hear from you. That way when I request,
board take action on it, at least we've . The David St. site where there out those things as is an
s
possible. Feel free to get ahold of msite because it's
wer on the nor
existing to side of Grosbeck is not a primary
too far away from 127. They also want t. The ok at
Board win n' bl ntkin' and
facilities such as wmkin blinkin and nod. p to figure a low
system nod are six hundred and some odd feet, and they
around a trying certain height. To just
elevation. They are trying to develop a
get above the Board of Water & Light e there's problem or concern aboung there is three hundred feet. e
are making some progress. I know to work
Washington Park and the health effect with the
a first hospitset of s sites and leaving
through that process. We may b be looking at a first set of sites within a
the remainder on the table. We may
month to six weeks to look at action on.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1996 minutes be
A. Minutes of May 14, 1998. C. Bicy moved that the May 14,
a roved as printed, seconded by E. Spink. On a voice vote, motion carried
PP
unanimously.
Vill. NEW BUSINESS pointed to the Board,
V. Earhart mentions that someone presented my name to be reap
but I'd gotten news the day before that I had already been reappointed.
J. Ruff says probably what happened is the Mayor's office reappointed you. But
Council has to approve of it.
V. Earhart asks has everyone been reappointed?
J. Ruff answered right now they have dealt with you y come along.oe for I do have aasetlof night's
agenda. They are dealing with more as they you
can edge
applications in front of me that I just got on Monday inkas kind of saying y those for the
pp potential fill-ins. M p
ninth position as well as any p
me out soon, so we are working toward that. edged out as well. Not
J. Garcia states I am moving toward trying to find a way to be
that I don't enjoy this group, but I see that my employment is moving towards a
page 24
Board of ZoningA eals June 11 1991
ha�vea
yth
ct being
direction thatand someone somewhere down the line could unication projects. 1 fnlormally
on this board out in theFlint area. Butnow I'm ge with new t opportunities to work
covered a territory e that I would remove myself were I to feel it were
closer to home. And I certainly hop
appropriate. I just don't want that ever to be an issue.
J. Ruff notes that recusal on a certain issue would be all that was necessary• ourself
you were a sign company person, and you were recu i gr ally bad,
V. Earhart states if ythen I'd say maybe that's not worth it, but unless it g
ets every other hearing,
I feel you should serve.
Ix. ADJOURNMENT at 10:00 P-m-
Respect lly Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
` Draft to Clerk 9/30198
Approved_10/08/98_
To Clerk_10/21/98_
.i.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
",��, � �� ,�, �, �f�f August 13, 1998,7:30 P.M.
L A
�ITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
I. The meeting was called to order by E. Horne at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken.
Present
Bicy Hilts
Clark Horne
Earhart Spink
Frederick
II. Excused Absences
Garcia requested excused absence. Motion to excuse Mr Garcia moved by Dr Spink and
supported by Mr. Frederick to excuse Mr. Garcia. No Discussion. Motion carried
unanimously.
A. A quorum of seven members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the
meeting.
B. Introduction of Staff
J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator
J. Sturdevant
III. Approval of Agenda
A. No additions or deletions. Agenda will be followed as prepared.
III. HEARINGS
A. BZA-3510.98, 1900 New York
Mr. Jim Sturdevant presented case:
A variance for an unattached garage at 1900 New York St. This is a single family home on property
with a garage behind the house and the garage caught on fire. Applicant wants to replace the
garage on the slab that is there from the fire damaged garage. The slab only has a setback of 1 ft
from the side lot line. The current zoning code requires a 3 foot set back. Applicant is requesting
a variance of 2 ft from the side yard setback. The hardship is that in order to meet the sideyard
setback of 3 ft., the applicant would have to move the garage over 2 ft. it would be too difficult to
get a vehicle into the garage because it would move it too far behind the house. There is only about
8-10 ft between the house and the garage. If he moved it back and over he would have to extend
the driveway and pour a new foundation and slab. Applicant says they only have so much in the
insurance settlement to replace the structure with. The Building Department has said that the 1 ft
setback is not a problem as long as a 1 hr. rated fire wall is built on that side of the garage/structure.
With that, and the hardship that the applicant has I have recommended approval.
Board of Zoning Appeals, -ugust 13, 1998 Pale 2
E. Horne asks for questions:
Mr. Bicy asked if the garage was approved through city when it was originally built. Mr. Sturdevant
said he researched records and found that is was constructed before the City of Lansing adopted
a Zoning code.
Mrs. Clark asks question regarding shared driveway easement. Would he be building in the
easement. Mr. Sturdevant stated the neighbor was sent notification and that the gentleman who
claimed to be the neighbor was present at time of Building permit review. Neighbor supported
building garage on original foundation and location.
Mr. Yang, owner of 1900 New York was asked to address the Board.
Mr. Yang: On February 22, 1998, my garage was fire damaged. I want to rebuild it again. My
insurance will not cover that much money. My insurance only covers $7,000 for my garage. The
estimate is about$17,000/$12,000/$9,000/$10,000. My insurance only covers $7,000 dollars. I can't
pay my own money to fix garage so I decided to build my own and I'm using the insurance money
of$7,000 to build my garage back to normal. But, I came to get permit and they won't let me build
it the same way. The wanted me to move it back 3 ft., 3 ft out. It is too difficult for me to build it like
that. I bought the house and garage like that. Everything has been normal. I want to rebuild my
garage back to same as it was. I don't have any problems. I just want to rebuild back to normal.
The city won't give me a permit that is why I am coming to meeting tonight. That is all.
E. Horne asks if board members have any questions.:
No questions from board members.
No other speakers.
Board moves to Committee of the whole:
E. Spink - States he will support but doesn't like structures close to the lot line. With the narrow
size of the lot he will support.
Mrs. Clark states she will support but it is contrary to her usual stance. Reasons being that the
garage already existed there and is being replaced. It is an unusual situation in that there was a fire.
Expresses concerns of garage being built in existing easement. Parking would be affected.
Mr. Yang says there is room for cars to park side by side in shared driveway.
C. Bicy moved to approve 2 ft. side yard setback variance to replace existing garage. Seconded
by V. Earhart. 3510.98 1900 New York Ave.
No Discussion
On a Roll call vote the motion carried unanimously 7 yeas - 0 nays. BZA 3510.98, 1900 New York
has been approved.
B. BZA-3511.98 901 N. Larch
James Ruff presented case:
This a request by James Stajos from American Eagle Fireworks regarding a variance for a new
building at 901 N. Larch. Applicant proposes, in 2 stages, to remove existing buildings and build a
Board of Zoning Appeals Iujust 13, 1998
Page 3
new commercial building that faces and fronts at would be helpfund l to you. Also,addendum
little more history
to the packet. It was missing some graphics
has been provided for you.
This is request for a variance of 8 fteand Ashe You yard
can oalong
nly haveSwo fro
This
nt yards by code
has
ode
street frontages. One each on Larch, Oakland
with one side and one rear. The 20 ft setback on this side is basically equivalent to a front yard as
well. The property is zoned H-Light Industrial District. That whole block from Larch to Cedar St. is
zoned H-Light Industrial, south of Ash. North of Ash is zoned C Residential with residential uses to
the north of the property. Non-Residential uses primarily around that. There are several structures
currently being used for this property, and this board entertained a variance earlier for a setback that
would encroach into that yard space by 15 ft. and that was denied at that time. That only involved
the comer of the property. This basically would result in the re-development of everything between
the remainder of the block face there. That is what is proposed. There are a lot of things that make
sense here and we are positive about some of those things that make sense. Whereas you face the
building toward Oakland having all your parking primarily on Oakland and Larch side and providing
a buffer on the back side. We are not totally convinced that there is a hardship or practical difficulty
in the size of the building that is proposed for the size of the lot. Everything is tightly fit on the lot
balancing parking and building. One of the concerns is that the only way to get to the loading dock
is to go on Ash St. by putting the loading dock on the extreme west side of the building. It kind of
disrupts what you're accomplishing with the buffer of the building against the Ash St. side. Not
everything is negative though. There are many positive points to this. The building would have a
setback of 12 ft. as proposed. That would provide for a reasonable landscape area behind the
building, especially with no curb cuts being on that side primarily, with exception of the loading dock.
The building could be properly buffered. Plus there is additional footage before you get to the
sidewalk and parkway. Mr. Raffhenrefers
bui d east building graphic.
ng where the current gas st tion art of uslding first.
Then remove main building an
i .
Questions from board members:
Mrs. Clark requests clarification on variance request of rear yard setback only. Wants to know if
parking and everything else is satisfied. Mr. Ruff states that site plan has not been totally reviewed
on this matter. There are some parking spaces that are kind
f There
spaces a cir ula ton
issues that have to be addressed. They have approximately three p
is
required. There is a little give and take there. The variance is strictly for the yard that faces Ash St.
James Stajos, 2517 Tulane Dr. Lansing:
Before I start and address the board I brought some photographs with me this evening that I think
would be helpful in representing what we are working with now and how we're utilizing the space.
(Mr. Stajos explains pictures) Mr. Stajos states that they are currently working out of semi trailers,
multiple facilities, it's pretty tight and compact the way it is. More than that it is an eyesore to the
community. It does not properly represent the area or what the City of Lansing is trying to do right
now with the redevelopment of the Principal Shopping District, Old Town, and Downtown Lansing,
which we are a part of all three there. With what we are proposing to do it would clean up the area
completely. It will remove all the trailers and buildings. All in all it will be a benefit for everyone I
believe. For us and the City of Lansing, and the residents behind us. In fact there are a few
residents here this evening that will also support that.
Questions from Board:
Mrs. Clark asks questions regarding delivery procedures. He states that the shipping is done out
of the warehouse. Mrs. Clark asks how he gets the stuff from the warehouse to the store. Mr.
Stajos states with the trucks that 16ou see 24 feetn the Mrspicture.
Clark is concerned abo t�oomfor lare tload nrg dock
Stajos responds anywhere from
Board of Zoning Ap eals, ugust 13, 1998
Page 4
area. Mr. Stajos states that plans allow for up to 24 ft truck to loading dock. Mr. Ruff then explains
plans to Mrs. Clark regarding the loading and unloading area.
Dr. Spink asks Mr. Ruff question regarding loading dock on side, and where asphalt will be going.
Mr. Ruff explains plans to Mr. Spink. Asphalt belongs to Ralleys.
Mr. Bicy asks Mr. Stajos if he has considered reducing
to their the
el 3748 8storet. to meet in FrandorheMet6 ck. He
Bicy asks
says he has reduced as far as he cancomparison
question regarding use of trailers on site.
Earhart asks question regarding landscaping,
having trucks pulling n behind a solid wall and plans back ng
Keystone Design has come up with. Either ha
up so actually the neighbors on north side of Ash St. would not have to see the trucks anymore.
Mrs. Clark asks questions regarding curb cuts. He explains that he currently has 8 curb cuts and
will be going down to 4 curb cuts.
Mrs. Clark asks Mr. Ruff question regarding curb cuts. He is letting traffic engineer address these
issues.
Audience is invited to speak.
Roseanne Pitchford, 515 Ash St.
Asks if they can get copy of diagram of building. And if trucks will be going down Ash. And
expressed concerns about rodents in the old houses they will be tearing down. She has no problems
with them but wants to understand what plan is. She asked about 12 ft setback and where that is
compared to the sidewalk . Mr. Ruffthe explained where 12 ft. is in Board will try accolation to propmmodate he eregrty luest for morfe
offers to make copies of some of plans
information.
Rodney Sickles, 513 Ash:
Also wants more information on proposed plan. He states most neighbors are in agreement with
development but would like more information.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment the Board moves into Committee of the Whole:
E. Spink: States he's confused and a little frustrated. Says it's a positive concept. Say's
neighborhood needs to be fully antsf ardefinitive plan amed. Will s to specifics of voting support b c tonight sand parking lot having without
neighborhood fully informed, and
le to
M. Clark: Agrees with much butthas conr. Spink
cems tlegard regardingespecially
a with
2 ft.Igse neighbors
being
nd tuck traffic.
comments. She likes concepts
Would like that worked on with neighbors. Would support table.
V. Earhart: Agrees with tabling this issue. Would like company to assist neighbors in determining
in how they wish us to vote. dOr whether
they
support or not
tes tsupport table. the program. Develop
back plans as to buffering an 9 of loading area
Earhart moves to table BZA 3511.98, motion seconded by C. Bicy.
On a voice vote the motion was carried unanimously 7 yeas-0 nays. BZA 3511.98 has been tabled.
Comments:
A. Fredericks has problem with practical difficulty of this plan. Needs more definition of a practical
difficulty.
pncre 5
Board of Zonin i Ap eals. . ust 13, 1998
Dr. Spink: Mr. Stajos had 3 reasons in packet if variance is not granted. Code does not cause these
hardships.
C. BZA 3512.98, 4621 Wildwood
A request for Marianne K. Munson of side was is theildwood ts uro surrounding and single family homes are
comer lot at that addresst a front yard setback variance for a
. It s zoned A-residential on the property 14 ft
typical of the area. The request is to construct a 6' x Ocovered set on a corner. The code states in a
from the front property line along Wildwood. Theproperty
residential district when you have a comer lot in this
the Wildwood side They a Robert St.
only housetthat
of Wildwood they could have a sideyard setbackh into
faces Wildwood, out of the four houses that you b rt Ike the othon the er 3 houses c. They intt o build a pore they
this yard which if there house again faced Rcn't. The
would be allowed to do that. But, because theirus de of the houseyse faces that or twoaseek a var optio
fo�
them were two. One, put the front door on the Robert
the structure. There is basically a 20' setbac apd sent Thel 6 or the house. The house is ft addition on then would requireghe setback.
ht up to the
setback line that would be required for front y
The interior layout of the home is such that the bed oom layout, etc.onversion to doing the They have putting haverequest df thins
tos situation and them s
door on Robert side is impractical due
variance to make this improvement to this hous difficultye. The n this situer lot in ation because it s h being
one
unique one of the corner makes up the practicalY
his over and
facing that way. They have a practical difficulty, hardship
c situation due Ito the reduced setback cally and we've looked ton that side.
found that there won't be any impacts to traffic
Staff has recommended approval. Also, with affect he fact that of the house is wdjoining houses.tsituated adjacent or
directly close to another house. It doesn't
Questions of Board to Mr. Ruff:
None.
Marianne Munson, 4621 Wildwood, Lansing: support from
Doesn't have a lot to add. Deck part is on but not attached. She presented letters of
neighbors.
Questions from Board Members:
C. Bicy-Asked if she will be building with aluminum siding on the side of it. She replies that it will
be wood, and not an enclosed porch with aluminum soffits. stat
Paul Munson speaks regarding construction: Only 17" more than existing awn
ing• Merin tit Bowed
a deck not taller than 30 inches Mas lived in house She stateses 31re a years. A ed if she built it.
member asks how long Ms. Munson h
Answer- No, bought existing house, awning was already there.
Karen Reynolds 557 Robert:
She lives across street. House has been kept up and is ofora it".
Porch looks like it has been
there all their life. Everyone in the neighborhood says g
No other speakers.
as 31 years ago. Mr. Ruff states code previous to 1983 had
Bicy asks Mr. Ruff what zoning code w
many changes.
Motion to move to the Committee of Whole.
C. Bicy made a Motion to recommend approval of BZA 3512.98 4621 Wildwood. Seconded by E.
Spink.
Board of ZoninY Appeals, .0 ust 131 1998
Page 6
Discussion: Mr. Spink states clearly a hardship o�a have beenederick sttes since they did any of thear doing whatsoever.ot build
house there was no way that this hardship co
On a Roll Call vote, the motion carried unanimously, 7 yeas - 0 nays. BZA 3512.98 4621
Wildwood, has been approved.
D. BZA 3513.98, 918 S. Pennsylvania Ave.
J. Ruff presented.
A request by Johnson Sign Co., representing the owners of the gas station that exists there.
Ther Betty
a
Goodrich to receive a variance
for
of Main St and Pennsylvani deling of the sign that eXThe property sists on the pjust south of the
ground pole sign at the intersectionis 496 Expressway to the south and east
a e changing ng this and west of property
ndseof this gasoline Istation.s It's going to
long existing gas station. Basically they bought so
an Amoco station. Although I did see shmovin at Amoco
there wil was l be
some change to wondering
we'll let
applicants were going to keep this pros 9he change in the brand.
you guys talk about that. There is some o o Pr The s gtn lo the be ng'eductedtsomewhat in height and
What they're going from is Sunoco to Am
eal with a sign vriance ad also
sq. ft. area. Those are good criteria asdwide, (from 6 ft a down ton 0 ft.).
the setback is slightly greater by 3 ft. because the head is not
You have 3 sketches of the sign.(Mr. Ruff explains
est of the sign codeaffl believ would e1 tha�one foot could be
see sign reduced
from 31 ft to 30 ft. tall so it meets one aspect
achieved in this case but I want to bring that
That includes both the po your attention. it rice sign and the Amoco hea result in a total of 76.2 d
4 ft. from the North and East property lines.
I don't know if B.P. buying them out makes a difference or not.
Questions from Board members to staff:
C. Bicy requests clarity on sign size.
Charles Goodrich - son of Betty Goodrich (property owner) and Thomas Nelson, Johnson Sign
Company:
Made mistake on sq. footage. New prints submitted with sq. footage at bottom. You can see by the
existing sign right now which is 31 ft in height, the total existing sign with all the signs on it is 248 sq
ft. The one we are proposing to put up is the one on the right which is really 99.64 sq. Ft. The
height is probably 3 ft shorter so it will be less than 30 ft. Mr. Ruff asks about how the Amoco sign
was figured. Mr. Nelson: "Square". Mr Ruff. Explains: Don't figure it square. When you have a
sign, in the Lansing Sign Code, and its in a frame or box you figure it actual size. Mr. Ruff goes on
to explain sign code and size computations.
Mr.
visibility of the p pcesS With llocation o actually
f overpass
They want to leave it on the existing pole for the
they felt moving sign back would cause visual problems. By reducing size by almost 150 sq. ft. we
were conforming more to the ordinance than it was. Mr. Ruff makes comment that we knew the size
of the price sign was 5'6"x 6'.6". That size was added to what we were told was the size of the
Amoco sign and that is where we came up with the number that was advertised. Mr. Ruff states that
if the actual number is larger than this they're going to have to file for a new variance. Mr. Nelson
states that if that is the actual size if your taking the oval like. Mr. Ruff: The concern I have is if we
approve this then your stuck with this square footage. If it's not actually that size when you re-figure
it, your out of luck you'll have to refile anyway. Mr. Nelson: I gave you the exact dimensions of the
oval sign that's exactly what it is if that is how you figure the oval. More discussion ensued
regarding the size of the sign with board members, Mr. Ruff, and Mr. Nelson.
Mrs. Claris wanted verification of setback requirement of variance. This size sign would be required
to be back so many feet. Our understanding was this new sign was going to be 31 ft. tall. The code
only allows for 30 ft signs. So that is where the one foot comes in. The setback comes in from the
Board of Zoning Appeal .ugust 13, 1998 Page 7
standpoint that a 30 ft tall sign is required to be 30 feet back. This one sets back 4 feet
approximately. Because of the setback of this sign there are two ways to approach it. The cleanest
way to approach this is to say that this sign should be back 30 feet at least. They want it where it
exists and it would have a 4 ft. setback . They need the variance for the difference. Mrs. Clark asks
if setback is relative to the type of sign not the size of sign. The variance might change if the sign
was larger. More discussion ensued regarding sign code and size of sign.
Mr. Bicy says that he has no problem approving what was originally submitted. However he would
not feel comfortable if the figures are different. Then they would have to re-submit. He doesn't feel
comfortable not knowing if figures are correct.
Mr. Nelson states he is comfortable with the figure of 39 sq ft.
Mr. Bicy asks if he has had this problem before.
Mr. Nelson doesn't recall any problems with ovals before.
Mrs. Earhart - Clarifies sign size again.
Mr. Nelson has no problem making sure sign is under 30 ft. tall.
No other speakers. Move to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Bicy has no problem approving what has been presented. If figures have been changed he is
not comfortable with it.
Mr. Spink has problem with granting a variance that is not needed with a height of 1 foot because
that because the kind of thing whether used or not it becomes a record that the city likes taller signs,
and possibly code could be changed as a result.
Mrs. Clark understands that it is advertised as a 72.6 sign. She would grant a variance of no larger
than a 72.6 sq. ft. sign, and no greater than 30' tall on the existing pole.
Ms. Earhart : Notes that 3 existing signs will be removed.
Mrs. Clark makes motion to approve the appeal 3513.98 at 918 S. Pennsylvania for a construction
of 72.6 sq. ft. ground pole sign, 30' tall, on the existing pole and include the price signs, with
amendment that it have a 4 ft setback as proposed, it was seconded by Victoria Earhart.
On a roll call vote the Motion carried unanimously, 7 yeas - 0 nays. BZA 3513.98, 918 S.
Pennsylvania Ave. has been approved.
E. BZA 3514.98, 1034 N. Cedar St.
Presented by Jim Sturdevant:
Mr. Sturdevant explains Staff Report and Graphics (area map, site plan, building plan) to Board.
This is a request of Sandy Cantwell at 1034 N. Cedar St. (Also address of property in question).
She is requesting permission from the Board to install a single chair Beauty Salon which would
include a beauty chair, sink, and dryer as a home occupation. The property is zoned C-Residential
District. The A, B, C districts do allow a home occupation as an accessory use if it meets seven
conditions. The seventh condition is that if there is any equipment used not for purely domestic or
household purposes it must have this Board's approval. Ms. Cantwell has a full size lot. Her house
was built on a half of a lot and she acquired the vacant lot next door when that house was
Board of Zoning Appeal-, tugust 13, 1998 Page 8
demolished. The lot is 57.75 feet wide by 165 feet deep. It's on N. Cedar St. Cedar St. being one
way south bound in that location. Her home is there now and she has driveway onto Cedar St. that
leads up beside the house. She is proposing to construct an addition to the house which includes
a family room, bathroom, laundry room, closet space, deck, and in one corner about 12' x 12 ' on the
outside dimensions would be the corner she would like to put her Beauty Salon. The other
conditions that are necessary for home occupation are.
• No person other than a member of the family residing in the dwelling engages in the home
occupation. That would be the applicant herself.
• The use of dwelling as a home occupation is clearly incidental and subordinate to it's use for
residential purposes. Having a 12'x 12 ' room is just a small percentage of the entire house.
• Not more the 20% of the gross floor area of the dwelling is used in any way for the home
occupation. Again, a 12' x 12 ' room is a very small percentage.
• Not more than 1 sign exists. I'm not sure if she intends to have any sign at all . She can
address that later.
• The sale of goods does not occur in the dwelling or on the lot.
• The special equipment which requires this boards approval.
As for parking this lot has sufficient parking area out of the front yard.
Questions from Board Members to Mr. Sturdevant:
Mr. Bicy: Shared driveway? It was formerly a shared drive. She purchased the lot it was shared
with. Now it is strictly one ownership.
Mr. Bicy: How many cars can be parked there? At present time, there is room for three cars.
A single family home itself requires room for two.
Mr. Bicy: Is there a garage? No.
Sandy Cantwell, 1034 N. Cedar:
I would like to say I need to get another person where I'm at now paying rent. That is a hardship on
me. I do feel I've met the requirements of the Board. I will be the only person working at my house.
It will be a small part of the back of house. It was originally going to be a family room. Building
Safety has already issued a permit for a family room. She will limit clients to 1 per hour.
Questions from Board to applicant.
Ms. Earhart - You opened by saying you needed to get a second person. You're talking about
another building.? Yes, that was my hardship, that in order to afford rent I needed another person.
If I can have it in my home that will not be necessary.
Ms. Earhart- Do you intend to stock and sell hair products? I don't stock and sell products now.
Pretty much the people that I do are people I have been doing for years. How do you advertise?
I've sent out fliers, I have a small glass sign that is a pair of scissors. As far as advertising here it's
going to be mainly word of mouth. I know the requirements of the board. It's a low profile business
right now and that is not going to change. I currently work 3 days in the beauty shop I have now.
I'm also a residential builder and am trying to get that going. I'm mainly doing the friends I've made
through the years and still be able to maintain my business there.
So you understand the sign code. I will have scissors sign only.
Mr. Bicy: Wanted clarification on number of people working in shop. Asked how many heads a week
and hours of operation. She does her own booking and in understanding parking situation she would
schedule accordingly. Plenty of parking.
Mr. Ruff explains that hardship or practical difficulty is not a necessary component of this type of
variance. The size of parking spaces were discussed and are not a problem. Dealing with aspect
of home occupation only.
No more questions from board.
Board of Zoning Appeal .ugust 13, 1998 Page 9
No comments from audience. Move to Committee of the Whole
Mr. Bicy makes motion to approve BZA 3514.98 1034 N. Cedar for allowing home occupation and
equipment necessary beauty chair, sink, and dryer per the code as outlined for home occupation in
zoning code. Motion supported by Mrs. Clark.
Discussion: none
On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously 7 yeas -0 nays, BZA 3514.98, 1034 N. Cedar
has been approved.
F. BZA 3516.98 635 Filley
This is a current request by OmniPoint and Unisite. Unisite is a tower building company . Omni
Point is the communications company. OminPoint has requested a height variance to build a 195
ft. communications tower on the property at 635 Filley St. which is zoned I Heavy Industrial. It's just
adjacent to the rail road tracks on the south end of the property. It's presently Spadafore Distributing
Company. It's industrially zoned in each direction except for across Filley St. to the North. That is
near the edge of the industrial zoning. There are some residences across the way. The applicant
is proposing to build this tower as a 180 ft. tall monopole tower plus a 15' high lightning rod for 195'
total. The tower is designed for co-location of communication antennas. From my understanding
up to 5 communication antennas could be placed on this tower. The practical difficulty in this is
somewhat of a conflict of what were trying to do City wide to keep the number of towers down. To
keep the quantity of towers down and place as many antennas on a reasonable height tower as
possible. This board and the Planning Board used to get more requests from communication
companies themselves to build their own structures. It's becoming more and more expedient for
communication companies to sign on with tower builders to build a tower that is for the purpose of
co-location and then with the contract the tower builder has the right to lease out other parts of that
tower from more communication services. That is what is being proposed tonight. If variance is not
approved they could build 120 ft. tower including their lighting rod and would be limited to at most
1 provider, and not as expedient a location on a tower. The height also has a component when it
comes to the spread. The shorter the towers the more of them you need. There is a balance to that
situation as well. What has been proposed tonight is what the applicant believes to be the optimum
180 ft. tower to meet the conditions of siting five antennas at the most on this tower and on an
industrial site in the north portion of the City of Lansing. As far as staff is concerned this fits well with
the plan that the City is proposing. The staff has looked at where the tower will be located in
comparison to views and such. We don't believe it will be a conflict with any views of roadways and
it will be in the back of the property. We've recommended approval with four basic conditions.
These are conditions that have to deal with the concerns I have been developing with the hospitals
in the city. We believe this is a positive step with the towers in Lansing and the hospitals and
establishment of conditions. More discussion regarding hospitals and towers. Together we've come
up with criteria with the hospitals that will help them do business appropriately. We recommend
approval with these conditions for a 75 ft. variance.
Questions from Board Members:
Mrs. Clark: Does the tower present a problem to people in their homes with pacemakers etc.
Mr. Ruff: Not typically that we are at all aware of. We haven't experienced any of that in the City of
Lansing with what has been done thus far. The power that is generated is like a flashlight from 50
feet. Discussion ensued regarding pacemakers and interference issues. Power is very minimal.
Mr. Frederick: Have the hospitals presented you with any evidence that these frequencies that the
towers will be using actually do interfere with their equipment? Mr. Ruff: They haven't presented
information on the proposed frequencies which are licensed frequencies. They presented
information that was a result of where they pinpointed a problem being from a new antenna that
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 Fage I U
went on the River St. tower that they experienced some problems in that instance. They had a lot
of difficulty proving it but they found that point and corrected their system. What they are telling me
because hospitals are not really licensed specifically for these frequencies and they are kind of at
the mercy of the licensed companies. Another instance was somebody using an amateur radio
nearby. They had to fine tune some of that stuff out.
Mr. Frederick: Asks questions regarding the way the conditions are worded. That they seem to imply
that the hospital will start fine tuning their equipment after the tower is up and ready to begin
functioning. Rather than some type of preliminary testing to give tower companies a chance to deal
with it. Was there any discussion of doing testing ahead of time. Mr. Ruff states that is what the
Frequency Spectrum Analysis is all about. Mr. Ruff goes on to explain study.
Mrs. Earhart: May get more input for EMT services if concerns happen earlier.
Petitioner was invited to speak:
Christopher Driscoll - representative from OmniPoint and Unisite:
Proposes that co-location of towers is an advantage for the City. Submitted site plans showing
differences of tower heights and tower coverage.
No comments from board members for petitioner.
No questions from audience. The board moves to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Frederick moves for approval of BZA 3516.98 635 Filley St. for a 75 ft. height variance to allow
construction of a 195 ft. tall communications monopole tower with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the installation and operation of an antenna attached to the tower the
telecommunication company shall run a frequency spectrum analysis to identify any conflicts
with the telemetry frequencies used by the hospitals in Lansing.
2. Notify the hospitals of the date and time of the initial operation of the antenna.
3. If conflicts arise between the use of the tower and the hospital telemetry system the use of
the tower shall cease for a specified time as jointly agreed to by the two parties which would
allow the hospitals opportunity to refine their systems.
4. The tower shall be available for the co-location of telecommunications providers as
proposed.
Mr. Bicy seconded motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Spink: Is there any screening or buffering required?. Mr. Ruff: Not in this situation. When this
building was built we required some screening and buffering for residents across the street. This
tower will be directly behind the building all the way back to the rail road tracks. The base of tower
will not be visible from residents.
Mr. Frederick discussed fact that the Zoning Code could not have anticipated and minimized the
number of towers that we will see in the City. That is why I support it.
On a roll call vote the Motion carried unanimously 7 yeas - 0 nays. BZA 3516.98, 635 Filley
Street, has been approved with conditions.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Tabled Items:
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1996 gage i i
A. BZA 3501.98 5400 S. Cedar St.
K Mart variance request. Mr. Sturdevant updated case. The applicants are here. Manager of Kmart
and Jamie Higgins. Applicants are submitting a new proposal.
Jim Sturdevant presented case:
At the previous meeting when this case was heard the Board tabled this item. There were questions
raised about the parapet wall. The building permit files for that building show that parapet wall is
an originally approved part of the building. That was not an issue that was added on later it was part
of the original building permits for the structure. Applicant has resubmitted a revised plan showing
somewhat smaller signage. I've reviewed that and I'd like the applicant to be able to present that
tonight.
Motion from Mr. Bicy to remove item from table, supported by Mr. Frederick.
Motion carried by voice vote
Board request the petitioner to speak:
Jamie Higgins with Adams Outdoor Advertising:
Due to the nationwide name change Kmart does not exist. They are changing their name to either
Big Kmart or Super Kmart throughout the entire country. Based on the motion to table the decision
2 months ago we now have a revised alternative with a proposed wall sign for this KMART on S.
Cedar. There are currently 2 wall signs at the site. A 10 ft by 12.6 ft. K which is 125 Sq Ft. , and
additional 9' 2"x 24' sign that reads KMART Garden Shop Pharmacy which is 220 sq ft. Seems to
be a mystery of how this company could exceed size limitation in 1992 without a variance. He know
has to absorb the problem.
New Proposal:
152 sq. ft. proposed
10' x 36'8" = 367 sq. ft.
9' x 33" = 297 sq. ft.
Total = 519 sq. ft.
(70 ft less than requested)
56" letters reading BIG would have their maximum impact readability at 660 ft away. The Kmart
bldg is set back 600 ft from Cedar St. ROW. This seems to be an adequate compromise to reduce
the size of the sign and it can still be read from Cedar St.
Questions from Board Members
Ms. Earhart: Requests to see an illustration of signage.
Mrs. Clark : Clarifies the reduction is of what was originally asked for, but is an increase over what
is currently on building.
Mr. Hilts: The current sign now is bigger than the current sign code and you're asking to increase
that. Mr. Higgins: Correct. The same ordinance allows 10% of a wall to have signs on it, with a
maximum limit of 200 sq. ft. When you have a large building. Kmart has over 8,000 sq.ft. of a wall.
The proposed sign would be 5%Z % of the wall. Mr. Hilts does not want to approve sign.
Mr. Bicy asks for sign code clarification from Mr. Ruff. Mr. Ruff explains code and size limits. Also,
discusses visibility issues vs. wall sign and ground pole sign.
Mr. Frederick asks question of Mr. Ruff: Compared to other cities is Lansing's sign code more strict
than other cities because all the Kmarts he has seen has the same size signs.
Board of Zoning Appeals_ August 13, 1998 page 1 2-
Mr. Ruff states he didn't work on the current sign code. The Sign Code was developed in
cooperation with sign companies and business groups as well. Developed in late 1980's and early
1990's. Code was adopted in 1991.
Question re: Ground pole sign had variance when it was erected? Yes.
Mr. Hilts: Brought up fact that the variance before was granted because they got much closer to the
code. That is why they got the variance. Mr. Hilts will not support this because they are not getting
closer to the code, they are getting farther away.
No more questions from Board
Steve Byrd manager of S. Cedar Big Kmart:
The signing and the concept of Big Kmart was the concept that the customers were demanding a
cleaner, neater store, wider isles, and a bigger concept as far as shopping and what we had to offer.
The signing we are requesting is bigger than allowed but it is the smallest so far of the other stores
there is. He is the only store of 40 stores opening tomorrow that does not have sign.
Board moves to Committee of the Whole:
Mr. Spink asks question regarding current signage size (125 sq. ft.).
Mr. Bicy wanted clarification of new proposal sq ft (297 sq ft.).
Ms. Earhart states there is much confusion over this signage and sizes. She suggests staff to
prepare information and better clarification as to what is being proposed now.
Mr. Bicy asks for Jim Sturdevant's recommendation on total square footage. Mr. Sturdevant states
that he has not made a recommendation. And his comment to the applicant was that this request
has not changed that much compared to the previous request. Jim Sturdevant and Jim Ruff give
clarification of request of 449 sq. ft. total area. They are for 104 sq. ft. more than what is now
on the building.
Mr. Ruff states his opinion that they are using the existing K and building the rest of the sign around
existing K. Instead of making a new K. Mr. Ruff thinks they should change entire sign and make it
proportional and fit with what they currently have for square footage. Current square footage is 345
sq. ft.
Mr. Frederick has problem finding any practical difficulty created by the code.
Mr. Spink discusses percentages in relationship to building size. He feels code can't speak to all
businesses especially large buildings. States that the Garden Shop, etc. on building may be more
directional.
Mr. Frederick discusses Best Buy in Meridian Twp., and how small their sign is but still readable.
Mr. Bicy wants sign up, but with proper square footage. Mr. Bicy needs clarification on square
footage.
E. Home suggests staff prepare revised report for review so that the Board can make an intelligent
decision next month.
Mr. Bicy makes motion to table BZA 3501.98 5400 S. Cedar St. until next month. G. Hilts
supports.
Motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 7-0.
B. BZA 3509.98, 200 E. Edgewood Jackson entertainment
Moved by Ms. Earhart and supported by Mr. Hilts that we remove from the table 3509.98, 200 E.
Edgewood.
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 t age 10
Motion carried unanimously 7-0.
Mr. Ruff presented case:
The revised report has been prepared. The applicant has given you further information that they
have gathered. We believe that there is adequate uniqueness to the location, size of property, and
type of construction that has taken place to accept their proposal for signage. They have made
accommodations in the ground pole signs to keep them small and at the entrance, basically
directional entrances, and to promote just their identity on the building toward the majority of the
traffic which is on the expressway. The ground pole signs are not visible. You have a unique
building of 18 compartments that is not just a big box, but a big box with multiple boxes inside the
building. Therefore, there is a uniqueness to the building. The site/property is also unique. See
packet. The staff believes it a reasonable request and the information would help support that
recommendation.
The petitioner is asked to address the Board:
John Loeks, President of Jackson Entertainment:
This is a very important issue to our company. I wanted to present if only to underline that fact. I'm
here with Roger Lubes the Vice President of our company who has many of the details and has
prepared the packets of information that has been submitted to you previously. I would like to take
a few minutes to briefly describe to you the "Big Picture".
We operate in an industry in which relatively speaking very few motion picture theaters are being
built these days. Our company goes back over 50 years to the days of single screen theaters in the
centers of cities. It has changed substantially since that time. The reason very few theaters are
being built these days is because they are very risky ventures. They are risky ventures because we
are building theaters basically to accommodate all of the product coming out of Hollywood
essentially which is substantially more product than has ever been the case before. We are
servicing an audience that is wider and is demanding from us more show times, and more service.
The result is that the industry is now across the country where theaters are being built, they are
building these large theaters of 16, 18, 20, even 40 screens in certain cities. This is the largest
investment our company will make, or has made since it's beginning in a single location. It is fraught
with danger. The nature of the building is such that it has many demising walls, those walls that
divide one auditorium from another. That makes it unsuitable for any exit strategy in case of failure.
We now have a building which is suitable essentially for a motion picture theater. Secondly, we add
to our grief in a way by responding to what is now overwhelmingly demanded in the country. That
is a concept called stadium tiered seating. You may have experienced it in some other cities. There
is a new theater in Southfield MI., Benton Harbor. Basically almost every row of the theater is 14"
above the row in front of it. This of course is additional concrete and steel within the building which
makes it unusable for any purpose other than a Theater. I would venture that in the last 40-50 years
there has probably been no new motion picture theaters built in the City of Lansing, and probably not
in these counties in the nearby vicinity. The likelihood that another one will be built in the future is
another 40-50 years. There is another reason for that which is because of the nature of the product,
the release patterns of the Hollywood distributors that you all know...Warner Bros., Disney, Fox etc.
They are only willing to put a certain number of what they call prints of a film in a community. The
result is that there only can be a few places in any given community where theaters can be built
economically and out of opportunity for success. We have chosen to place our bets on Lansing.
We did so because the theaters that are presently existing in the general Lansing market place,
including the suburbs to the East and to the West are theaters which are about 3-4 generations old.
We will be bringing something to Lansing which is literally terrific and exciting. It's going to be the
best presentation of film that can be found in the United States of America. The best view, sound
and everything.
What we are in is the business of creating excitement, generating a sense of awe and wonder before
people even walk in the theater building. To that end we have distributed to you a packet that shows
what theaters look like in the US today with exception to the last picture in that packet which
happens to be an older theater not too far away. All of the other theaters in that packet have been
built in the past 2-4 years. These are new theater buildings being approved in major sophisticated
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1 996 rage i-r
metropolitan areas and this is what these cities recognized as necessary to create the ambiance,
the excitement, the joy of walking into a movie theater and saying "Oh, this is where I want to be this
evening, this is where I'm having fun", and so there are a couple of things we are trying to do with
our neon signage that is going beyond the strict purposes of signage. We are trying to create an
ambiance, a sense of color, a sense of motion, a sense of excitement. The proposals we are putting
before you already contain our inherent compromises that we have already accepted but we have
not explained them to you.
You'll notice that in many of the pictures, in addition to the very large theater signs that identify the
name of the theater and place a lot of neon around it. Many of them also contain significantly large
signs that identify the names and titles of the movies that are being played in those theaters. This
has been a traditional part of our movie industry since the very beginning over 100 years ago. Of
course our product changes every week. We have always felt that we have to get those titles out
there. Since we can't put the names and times of all the movies playing on the side the building we
will focus on the name of our theater. We are in a place that is unique too. In as much as it is an
expressway location. We are a business that wants to appeal to a very wide area around the
Lansing marketplace. We want people to know where this theater is. If it had no highly visible,
highly identifiable sign we would just be another gray box along the highway. We are trying to
communicate with people who are driving 70 mph down the expressway. The sign we are proposing
is one that is really not even visible to any of our neighbors. It is only visible to those people driving
down the expressway. To do this effectively we need to have people know at a glance, and within
about 4 seconds time that this in fact is where the theater is . People that are not in the theater
business do not know what a theater looks like or how to distinguish it unless a sign is present. We
need to build confidence in expressway traffic as to where the theater is. The sign is unique in that
it is entirely oriented to the expressway and trying to identify it in a way that is quick and safe and
uncluttered.
We have essentially created 18 separate businesses which change product every few weeks. If we
were a retail center that large (80, 000 sq. ft.) with 18 5-6,000 sq. ft. retail stores in them we would
be permitted signage far in excess of what we are asking for. It would be cluttered. We are a single
thrust in our business and we are trying to get one message across. Celebration Cinema, this is a
place to have fun, this is a place to enjoy and it's here along the expressway. If you exit down at
Cedar you'll eventually come to this theater after you've made all the loops, and turns, and come to
Edgewood Blvd. and this location.
This is a unique business. This may be the only new motion picture theater like this to be built in
Lansing during our lifetime. To be a success for Lansing we need to generate this kind of
ambiance. Included are technical arguments in packet.
No questions from Board Members
Roger Lubes, Vice President:
Mr. Lubes explains the picture of site plan and where the signage will be on the building. Also, made
comparison of what code would allow if they were 18 separate retail stores. They are trying to keep
in spirit of code, to keep things cleaner and more simple.
No questions from board members. Board moves to Committee of Whole
Mr. Ruff adds that he asked Celebration Cinema to provide Board with reasons for uniqueness of
project. They are strictly trying to identify the name of the facility and not all the product lines they
are carrying etc. We believe it is a reasonable approach to properly identify the improvements that
are being made to this property. As a board you can compare other requests using this type of
criteria.
Ms. Earhart- It is refreshing to have such a coached and well organized presentation as our last one
of the evening. I appreciate the work you have done in laying out what we required, what you have,
what you want. That shows very well the choices we have to make this evening.
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 Page 1 D
Ms. Clark- Are signs lit or neon. Answer: They are multi-colored neon signs.
Mr. Bicy - Are you requesting burst to be included? Answer. Yes. Wants clarification of amount
of sq.ft. variance is requested.
Mr. Spink - Asks if applicant received copy of letter from Donna Wynant to Board. Answer. No.
But discussed it over the phone.
Mrs. Earhart makes motion to approve a variance to erect three 8 sq. ft. ground pole signs to be
located 5 ft. from the front property lines for BZA 3509.98. Supported by Ms. Clark.
On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously 7 yeas -0 nays.
V. Earhart makes motion to approve request for variance of 653.5 sq. ft. from Chapter 1442.13 to
allow 2 wall signs totaling 853.5 sq. ft. One of which is to be applied at the back of the theater and
the other of 87 sq. ft. to be in the front of the building. Seconded by E. Spink.
No discussion.
On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously 7 yeas - 0 nays. BZA 3509.98 200 E.
Edgewood Blvd. has been approved as requested.
V. Earhart moves that old business A and C which are tabled items remain on the table until next
meeting. Supported by Board Member.
Mr. Ruff request the Board deal with the Tower issues. Motion withdrawn.
The Board concurs to take up the five tower cases.
C. BZA 3483.98 1716 David St.
Mr. Ruff notes that any of these other towers are predicated on the fact that there will have to be
Special Land Use approval by City Council. The Planning Board is trying to take action this month
to send it up to Council and I'm also trying to send a message not only to the School Board but also,
to the Tower/Communications people that there may be sites available and if you turn a site down
at least it's knowledge. If you approve sites that's knowledge. Too long of a tabling will give them
too many questions and they are starting to pick sites based on knowledge and that is where this
other site came tonight on Filley St. with predication that potentially there are these other sites
coming along. I want you to realize that if we lose too many sites then it really hurts the overall
development of a Tower Plan. Mr. Frederick could address what the Planning Board is doing.
Mr. Frederick speaks:
The Zoning and Ordinance committee of the Planning Board yesterday dealt with these Special Land
Uses. They are recommending that the Planning Board Committee of the Whole address these at
the next meeting which is next week. We did recommend that all of them be approved.
Mr. Ruff gives quick summary of five that are here.
Trying to incorporate existing facilities and as few new towers as possible to accommodate this chart
that you saw from OmniPoint. OmniPoint is pushing at least four of these sites and there is another
company that would like to be on them. We are trying to enter into an agreement with a tower
building company to help control these. David St. is replacement of an existing approximate 155 foot
tower. That would be in the same location adjacent to Groesbeck Golf Course, on the north side
where the service area is in the golf course. It is adjacent to residential. We haven't gotten any
complaints from the residents. We didn't get any negative comments toward the proposal from the
area.
V. Earhart wants a chart of existing and new towers that are being built. She doesn't want too
much congestion in any one area.
1716 Davis St. E. Horne asks for desire of the Board.
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 page 10
Mr. Ruff states that they have recommended approval with 6 conditions. Mr. Ruff explains the
conditions.
Mr. Bicy makes motion to approve BZA 3483.98, 1716 David St. maximum height of 200 ft. with the
6 following conditions.
1. The proposed monopole tower replace the existing tower.
2. The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower.
3. The tower provide for co-location of antennas.
4. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this
tower with hospitals.
5. Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base form
surrounding properties.
6. The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security.
Supported by Mr. Frederick .
On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously 7 yeas -0 nays. BZA 3483.98, 1716 David
St., has been approved with the following conditions: 1)The proposed monopole tower replace
the existing tower; 2) The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower;
3) The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 4) The contract with the City include
language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 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 fenced for security.
D. BZA 3485.98, 125 S. Clippert St.
Presented by Mr. Ruff:
This is a 60 acre parcel. It is zoned A-Residential. It is near the expressway of US 127, south of
Frandor. Staff would like to place tower near the starter's house which then could be used for
lighting. It would be away from the Michigan Ave. vista. It would be near lights and other clutter
around the baseball field. We think as a public facility this property that we think it would fit
reasonably and not affect adjacent properties.
V. Earhart- If it fell would it be near anything? No. With the City of Lansing controlling it part of the
contract would be regular engineering reports, testing, etc. It's a very comprehensive plan.
V. Earhart wants hospital info added.
Mr. Frederick: The Zoning and Ordinance Committee determined that this was probably the best
placement to avoid any visible clutter from the apartment building that Dr. Johnson owns. That is
one reason they recommended approval.
Mr. Ruff discusses site plan of area to the Board.
C. Bicy made motion to approve BZA 3485.98 be approved with conditions and hospital language.
Mr. Frederick supported the motion.
No discussion
On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously 7 yeas - 0 nays. BZA 3485.98, 125 S.
Clippert, approved with the following conditions: 1) The tower be a monopole type; 2) The
tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3) The contract with the City include language
helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with 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 a location as far away from
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 vage 1 i
surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact; and 7) Permits be obtained
from Michigan DNR/DEQ for development in the 100 year flood plain as appropriate.
BZA 3486.98, # 6 Fire House, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd.
We received a subjective letter from the condominiums adjacent that supported it. No other
comments regarding it. Mr. Ruff discussed the subject of reselling the fire house. Tower may make
it more viable for sales purposes. Property would continue to serve a public purpose. We've
recommended approval with the six conditions.
Mr. Bicy made a motion that BZA 3486.98 Station 6, 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd. be approved as
recommended to allow replacement of existing tower with 6 conditions. Mr. Frederick supported the
motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Hom will be voting no because there are too many in the same location. Also, it is close to the
apartment buildings.
Ms. Earhart will be voting no because there are other locations that it could be. This Fire Station
may be relocated in the near future perhaps the new location could be assessed a potential tower
location.
Mr. Ruff discusses effects of towers near homes.
Mr. Bicy discusses fact that there is already a tower there. It will be a replacement.
Roll Call:
Garcia Yea
Earhart Nay
Clark Yea
Spink Yea
Frederick Yea
Bicy Yea
Horne Nay
On a roll call vote the motion carried 5 yeas - 2 nays, BZA 3486.98, Station 6, 3708 Pleasant
Grove Rd. approved with the following conditions: 1) The proposed monopole tower replace
the existing tower; 2) The existing communication antennas be relocated onto the new tower;
3) The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 4) The contract with the City include
language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals; 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 fenced for security.
E. BZA 3488.98 Vacant Property East end of Dadson St.
Mr. Ruff presented case:
The City has some vacant property south of 1-96 that there has been expressed interest in. This is
one of the locations we had originally chosen. The criteria was being near an expressway. Also,
trying to limit the impact of a structure of this sort, staff has recommended approval of location here
on the property. We would like to put it on one of these properties. Possibly the one near the
expressway. We may have some easement difficulties crossing. As you notice there is a little block
of land in between the two pieces. It's about a 30' wide strip of land which is a "no man's land". It
may hurt us in getting easement across it from Dadson to access it. We probably are looking at
having it on the south piece and down near the middle of that piece, trying to put it as far away from
the residents as possible. We believe it to be a good site. People in the area have been notified.
We have received no response from them. The size should be adequate to handle it.
Board discusses conditions:
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 Page 16
To be monopole style, and hospital conditions.
Mr. Bicy makes a motion to approve BZA 3488.98 Dadson St. Vacant property on Triangular property
with the following 6 conditions as written. Motion supported by Ms. Earhart.
Frederick asks question regarding shape of property and easement restriction.
Mr. Sturdevant states that condition one clarifies the triangular location.
On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously 7 yeas-0 nays, BZA 3488.98 approved with
the following conditions: 1) The tower be a monopole type; 2) Locate the tower structure on
the large site if possible to minimize its impact on the existing residential neighborhood, the
future development of adjacent property, and its visibility on the horizon to traffic on the
interstate highway. A location that potentially meets these objectives is on the triangular
shaped parcel approximately 250 feet east of the existing residential neighborhood; 3) The
tower provide for co-location of antennas; 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 fenced for security; 6) The contract with the City include language helping
ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with hospitals.
F. BZA 3490.98, 5815 Wise Rd.
Last three towers involves the Lansing School District. Two of them are to accept withdrawal of
Eastern and Everett. One of them would be to approve a height variance for the Hill Vocational
Technical Site. We would like to get tower fairly near the Power Plant area which is near the
Greenhouse area in the middle of the site. In the rear of the school when you're facing Wise Rd.
The school district is still going forward with this.
Dr. Spink makes motion to approve BZA 3490.98 5815 Wise Rd. for 200 ft. tower with 6 conditions.
Supported by Mr. Frederick.
On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously 7 yeas - 0 nays. BZA 3490.98, 5815 Wise
Rd. has been approved with the following conditions: 1) The tower be a monopole type; 2)
Locate the tower structure on the site to minimize its impact on the existing residential
neighborhood; 3) The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 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 fenced for security; 6) The contract with the Lansing School
District include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with
hospitals.
G. BZA 3491.98, 220 N. Pennsylvania, Eastern High School, & BZA 3492.98, 3900 Stabler,
Everett High School
Mr. Frederick moves that they reluctantly accept the withdrawals from the Lansing Public School
System. Seconded by Mr. Bicy.
On a roll call vote the motion carried 6 yeas - 1 nay. Dr. Spink opposed.
H. BZA 3507.98 5622 Picardy St.
No action, tabled.
V.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
Board of Zoning Appeals_ August 13, 1998 Page 19
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Dr. Spink moves to approve minutes of July 9, 1998. Supported by Mr. Frederick that we accept the
minutes as printed.
No Discussion
Motion carried unanimously by voice vote 7-0.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of officers.
Move to table by Ms. Earhart. Seconded by Mr. Hilts Motion Carried unanimously by voice vote 7-0.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Draft to Clerk 9/30/98
Approved
To Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
ERK BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
C August 13, 1998, 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
I. The meeting was called to order by E. Horne at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken.
Present
Bic
y Hilts
Clark Horng.::
Spi.
Earhart
Frederick
Excused Absences
Garcia requested excused absence. Motio&�fb:,tr Mr by Dr Spink and
supported by Mr. Frederick to exc ...... 0A 1.0 No DiMUssion. Motion carried
unanimously.
A. A quorum of seven members.w"As pres0:,::M..- , allo""W"""...V".'bing action to be taken at the
meeting.
B. Introduction of Staff
iX
for
J. .Zoning
. .. ..... .
III. Approval 0
A. No ado W d"'Mi will be followed as prepared.
------- .........
HEAR,,;NGS
A BZA-3510.98, 1$.00 New York
'"tented case:
devant p0a
..-n Stur
h This is a single family home on property
nattac ed garage at 1900 New York St.
wie hind the house and the garage caught on fire. Applicant wants to replace the
garageslab that is there from the fire damaged garage. The slab only has a setback of 1 ft
from the side lot line. The current zoning code requires a 3 foot set back. Applicant is requesting
a variance of 2 ft from the side yard setback. The hardship is that in order to meet the sideyard
setback of 3 ft., the applicant would have to move the garage over 2 ft. It would be too difficult to
get a vehicle into the garage because it would move it too far behind the house. There is only about
8-10 ft between the house and the garage. If he moved it back and over he would have to extend
the driveway and pour a new foundation and slab. Applicant says they only have so much in the
insurance settlement to replace the structure with. The Building Department has said that the 1 ft
setback is not a problem as long a 1 hr. rated fire wall is built on that side of the garage/structure.
IA/;fk +k-4 �nrl fkc knrAek;r% fhnf fhm nr%r%1;f-nn# hoe I houga mrnmmionrlari nnnrnvql
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 Page 2
E. Horne asks for questions:
Mr. Bicy asked if garage was approved through city when it was originally built. Mr. Sturdevant said
he researched records and found that is was constructed before the City of Lansing adopted a
Zoning code.
Mrs. Clark asks question regarding shared driveway easement. Would he be building in the
easement. Mr. Sturdevant stated the neighbor was sent notification and that the g. tleman who
claimed to be the neighbor was present at time of Building permit review. Ne-ighbor supported
building garage on original foundation and location.
1 Mr. Yang, owner of 900 New York was asked to address-4 Board:"`<1><>_<
e was fire ``'a'a ed. I::.`':grit t <`'"1 � 111t;;a ain;::<:tVl
Mr. Yang: On February 22, 1998, my garage dim g
insurance will not cover that much money. My insurancdibnly covers'$7,000 ft�ra � The
estimate is about $17, 000/$12, 000/$9,000/$10,000. I l i ura a only covers dbIlars. I
can't pay my own money to fix garage so I decided to E i „t`t wn and I'm using'IK 'insurance
money of$7,000 to build my garage back to normal. But, I drr; # permit and they won't let me
build it the same way. The wanted me to move it back 3 f..t;>x>` Els too difficult for me to build
it like that. I bought the house and garage like that. Ev+ thing } $ ' normal. 1 want to rebuild
my garage back to same as it was. I don't have any pro Werns. I jus ' t€ `build back to normal.
;..
The city wont give me a permit that is why I am:: 1t11 ''t _peeting t t t ' That is all.
E. Horne asks if board members have any„... . .,:::......:;,,,,,,,,,,,;;,,,,;;;<:<"
No questions from board members.
No other speakers.
Board moves to Committee s�:f.tl1#::whole: :>
E. Spin :f he wi1tijij€ '°'"`rl b.ut doesn<#f#Ie'*structures close to the lot line. With the narrow
size of tFt+' et i�.Wili suP
P
being that the
stanc
e. Reas
ons b i
Mrs. Clarks 4a€ ir:r�>*ill sup``�r�: i�ii#<is contra to her usualg
garage already:excittefe and is bialgteplaced. It is an unusual situation in that there was a fire.
Expresses....... i'rt 'i a bein '-built in existing easement. Parking would be affected.
Mr. Yan"'-says there is re c at> ars to park side by side in shared driveway.
C.. sry moved to appro '2 ft. side yard setback variance to replace existing garage. Seconded
bt1r<' Earhart. 3510.9 ':"1900 New York Ave.
bs�ussion
BZA 3510.98 1900 New York
Or'C?it'tI1Ilefe the motion carried unanimously 7 yeas 0 nays. ,
.............:.........:....
..........................
has....b K`i pproved.
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 Page 3
B. BZA-3511.98 901 N. Larch
James Ruff presented case:
This a request by James Stajos from American Eagle Fireworks regarding a variance for a new
building at 901 N Larch. Applicant proposes to in 2 stages remove existing buildings and build a new
commercial building that faces and fronts onto Oakland Ave. An addendum has..0jeen added to
packet. It was missing some graphics that would be helpful to you. Alsa;;.a little.;# &e history has
been provided for you.
This is request for a variance of 8 ft to the required rear a long As ii< t < 'h s property has:3:
q q X.;_
street frontages. One on Larch, Oakland, and Ash. Yon only ha >+ yards by cods:
One side and one rear and the 20 ft setback on this side basicallyuivafont yal 'as
well. The property is zoned H-light industrial district. Tea*.'whole ka �ck from La € t i t. is
zoned H-Light industrial, south of Ash, and North of Ash 1# of ec > Residential. e iWinf aI uses
to the north of the property. Non-Residential uses rj j'...`:: round that. Thee#-,are several
structures currently being used for this property, and this tip l` Ina stained a variance earlier for a
setback that would encroach into that yard space by 15E 'art $s denied at that time. That
only involved the corner of the property. This basically woufit #( :;the re-development of
everything between the remainder of the block face there,. That is` ` # } l' posed. There are a
lot of things that make sense here and we are postilptsome of ttssings that make sense.
Whereas you face the building toward Oaklai' itiIaur parkinprimarily on Oakland and
Cedar side and providing a buffer on the bad side.: iloflo tpt by convinced that there is a
hardship or practical difficulty in the size €f the b #fing` } posed for the size of the lot.
Everything is tightly fit on the lot balancinq: erking and buildinie of the concerns is that the only
lay out is to put in a loading dock is tr3gv off the:lsh St. side:and put loading dock on the extreme
west side of the building. It kind of. l ipts whit>your acca tiplishing with the buffer of the building
against the Ash St. side. Not everkf rig is ne (?ve tho4a#1 There are many positive points to this.
The building:would have a setba"" of 12 ; :;:pro ed. That would provide for a reasonable
landscape ar :_,behind the:# clii , especiljr 'fe curb cuts being on that side primarily, with
exce tio. ;i<y <€t ::..loadin ;:;dam::>`i '# a buildiA�`47:be properly buffered. Plus there is additional
P g... J P P
footageet to tl;eiind parkway. Mr. Ruff refers to graphic. They want to build
west part oft €[tt s1. Then''�jo -min building and then build east building where the current
gas station is. - «` « ><..
Questions;f 3rdk `tS:
Mrs. 'rk requests claffat4 'on variance request of rear yard setback only. Wants to know if
pa 'and everything el ?: s' tisfied. Mr. Ruff states that site plan has not been totally reviewed
0
nI3s matter. There al~ >some parking spaces that are kind of tight. There are some circulation
isgW that have to b addressed. They have approximately three more spaces than what is
e d. There is a;:i tfe give and take there. Variance is strictly for the yard that faces Ash St.
Ja# t ".2*517 Tulane Dr. Lansing:
Before I start and address the board I brought some photographs with me this evening that I think
would be helpful in representing what we are working with now and how we're utilizing the space.
(Mr. Stajos explains pictures) Mr. Stajos states that they are currently working out of semi trailers,
multiple facilities, it's pretty tight and compact the way it is. More than that it is an eyesore to the
community. It does not properly represent the area or what the City of Lansing is trying to do right
now with the redevelopment of the Principal Shopping District, Old Town, and Downtown Lansing,
which we are a part of all three there. With what we are proposing to do it would clean up the area
completely. It will remove all the trailers and buildings. All in all it will be a benefit for everyone I
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 Page 4
believe. For us and the City of Lansing, and the residents behind us. In fact there are a few
residents here this evening that will also support that.
Questions from Board:
Mrs. Clark asks questions regarding delivery procedures. He states that the shipping is done out
of the warehouse. Mrs. Clark asks how he gets the stuff from the warehouse to the store. Mr.
Stajos states with the trucks that you see in the picture. Mrs. Clark asks how largethey are. Mr.
Stajos responds anywhere from 16-24 feet. Mrs. Clark is concerned ab(Nt room 0",loading dock
area. Mr. Stajos states that plans allow for up to 24 ft truck to loading dofMrtaff then explains
plans to Mrs. Clark regarding the loading and unloading area;:.;.
din dock "`'ride and wlt . t #.will be oin,
Dr. Spink asks Mr. Ruff question regarding loading U.',! .:;t . 9 ....
s halt belongs to. bile s.
explains plans to Mr. Spink. A ..
..
Mr. Ruff x Y
P P P P 9
s considered reducing tf#.274861 >§ . ft. to mee4' k. He
Mr. Bicy asks Mr. Stajos if he has g q
says he has reduced as far as he can in comparison to thif'iti _:store in Frandor. "`1Vf ' Bicy asks
question regarding use of trailers on site.
Earhart asks question regarding landscaping, and what`. prop 'tt . He explains plans that
Keystone Design has come up with. Either having truck-;.,pulling iri:'f It i "s.olid wall and backing
up so actually the neighbors on north side of Ask1SvI�l,,not have'ttss `the trucks anymore.
Mrs. Clark asks questions regarding curb 'ts He epltta#,..he; rrently has 8 curb cuts and
will be going down to 4 curb cuts.
9 9
Mrs. Claris asks Mr. Ruff question regi�r ng curb uts. He ���letting traffic engineer address these
issues.
Audience is invited to speak
....... .... .. .
. <`
Roseann.etrd, :
' be going do
wn Ash. An
d
' tucks wi
ll o•>.' `:"`::.f building. And
if r
Asks if they Gopy f i C l ... 9 9 9
expressed coric ` i #.rodents ; :>houses they will be tearing down. She has no problems
with them but vuatttrstanct' t>plan is. She asked about 12 ft setback and where that is
compared ttl#rr rl t €1€' > I l ...Ruff&Olained where 12 ft. is in relation to property line. Mr. Ruff
offers to;:t igke copies` i �?f..the plans. Board will try accommodate her request for more
informson.
Ro.d6by Sickles, 513 ASK`
At' U. !ants more information on proposed plan. He states most neighbors are in agreement with
clment but Id like more information.
S >islse wishing to comment the Board mov
es into Committee of the Whole:
E. Spink: States he's confused and a little frustrated. Says it's a positive concept. Say's
neighborhood needs to be fully informed. Will not support voting tonight without having
neighborhood fully informed, and wants a definitive plan as to specifics of curb cuts and parking lots.
M. Clark: Agrees with much of what Mr. Spink said especially with neighbors being able to make
comments. She likes concepts but has concerns regarding the 12 ft. set back and truck traffic.
Would like that worked on with neighbors. Would support table.
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 Page 5
V. Earhart: Agrees with tabling this issue. Would like company to assist neighbors in determining
in how they wish us to vote. Or whether they would support or not support the program. Develop
back plans as to buffering and screening of loading area. Moves to table.
Earhart moves to table BZA 3511.98, motion seconded by C.
On a voice vote the motion was carried unanimously 7 yeas-0 nays. BZA 3511.98 has been tabled.
Comments:
A. Fredericks has problem with practical difficulty of this plan-,,.....Needs M.0€1'd # iition of a practical
diffic
ulty..
Y
t granted,.:::..
# e
Dr. Spink: Mr. Stajos had 3 reasons in packet if variance isA0 g :< .: ti ......
...........:.:.
hardships.s.
C. BZA 3512.98, 4621 Wildwood
A request for Marianne K. Munson of 4621 Wildwoodlb get" ft? t1 + fds
e,. etback variance for a
comer lot at that address. It's zoned A-residential as is..-t surround s` ..i gle family homes are
typical of the area. The request is to construct a::fi' ";;hovered frotrcfi on the property 14 ft
from the front property line along Wildwood. T! t on a crifer. The code states in a
residential district when you have a comer lot;46"Ihis situ fi f ,ha se faced Robert St. instead
of Wildwood they could have a sideyard sett ck on the ill c i "They are the only house that
faces Wildwood, out of the four houses th 'you see> f the greie".'They want to build a porch into
this yard which if there house again fa ed Robert like the.61ber 3 houses in the intersection they
would be allowed to do that. But,; eiuse thr house faiihs that way they can't. The options to
them were two. One, put the front: �on thebert sid> f th
t0t e house, or two, seek a variance for
the structure. There is basically as< b"' setbac i r sent it the house. The house is right up to the
setback line1h4t would be r.eqQ1 mgq.jor front r f "5 ft addition then would require the setback.
; ...
The intert ':":sat of thet €; `;; uch that;wdi? ersion to doing the alternative of putting the front
..::.
door or '' t lti(:e is irrt i €I pe to the bedroom layout, etc. They have requested this
variance to`rct ; frproverr # :_house. The comer lot in this situation and them being the
unique one of ff i pakes i t)7 pr ctical difficulty in this situation because it's the only one
q
facing that way., .a. pracfl �+ fficulty, hardship basically and we've looked this over and
found thatr v�torl`j ktmpacts~#o traffic situation due to the reduced setback on that side.
Staff hascommendetl, Also, with the fact that the house is not situated adjacent or
directly:>irTose to another' t >'lt doesn't affect the view of adjoining houses.
Qyefions of Board to 'Ruff:
11 !' t?it'%t "i""4621 Wildwood, Lansing:
Doe srtV stave a lot to add. Deck part is on but not attached. She presented letters of support from
neighbors.
Questions from Board Members:
C. Bicy-Asked if she will be building with aluminum siding on the side of it. She replies that it will
be wood, and not an enclosed porch with aluminum soffits.
Paul Munson speaks regarding construction: Only 17 " more than existing awning. Mr. Ruff states
a deck not taller than 30 inches or attached to house does not require Building Permit. Board
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 Page 6
member asks how long Ms. Munson has lived in house. She states 31 years. Asked if she built it.
Answer- No, bought existing house, awning was already there.
Karen Reynolds 557 Robert:
She lives across street. House has been kept up and is immaculate. Porch looks like it has been
there all their life. Everyone in the neighborhood says "go for it".
No other speakers.
Bicy asks Mr. Ruff what zoning code was 31 years ago. Mr. Ruff states Gib pr.. reus to 1983 had
many changes.
'
Moti
on to mo
ve
e to the Comm
ittee of Wh
ole.
C. Bicy made a Motion to recommend approval of BZA "j2.98 46fi'1Nildw Y
E.
S ink.
Discussion: Mr. Spink states clearly a hardship of code. Mr.' frtstates since they did not build
house there was no way that this hardship could have be � any.: t -r.doing whatsoever.
Call vote the motion carried unanimously, 7 yeas'`� `f ::. BZA 3512.98 4621
On a Roll C
W ildw 00 d ha
s been
approved.ved.
Ar ....
Pennsylvania
D. BZA 3513.98 918 S. Penns y
J. Ruff presented.
A request by Lansing Sign Co., reprsenting_tte ownersi3f the gas station that exists there. Betty
Goodrich to receive a variat7�e remoddh €t n that exists on the property. There is a
round olg:: at the inter; ti of Main ttfinsylvania. The property is just south of the
9 p :.:.:. .::: . ..:... .....
496 Expre it ...It the 5f tit # :fast and t€"t f this property is residential land use. This is a
,.;:;.
Ion existaSion. rtley are changing brands of this gasoline station. It's going to
9
a Standard vij:> Ii+3a I did s `tl1tj►aoco was being bought so I'm wondering if the applicants
were going to k+irocess i `tCCti' if there will be some change to it but we'll let you guys
talk about that; :. ts< e impr �hts to the sign with the change in the brand. What they're
oin from;: '3t noca<t '<` r'E��co. The':sign is being reduced somewhat in height and sq. ft. area.
9 9 ...... :;.:.
Those wood criteria' ir�f when trying to deal with a sign variance and also the setback
is sligtfy greater by 3 ft` a €>e the head is not as wide, (from 16 ft. down to 10 ft.). You have
3 ske> hes of the sign.(MrRu# "explains sketches). Staff would like to see sign reduced from 31 ft
to 0.ft. tall so it meets c be aspect of the sign code. I believe that one foot could be achieved in
tliwase but I want to btfttg that to your attention. It would result in a total of 76.2 sq.ft. , 4 ft. from
tsrth and East pperty lines. That includes both the price sign and the Amoco Head. I don't
kfib f B..P. buyingtl em out makes a difference or not.
Qatf € fi l3oard members to staff:
C. Bicy- Clarity on sign size.
Charles Goodrich - son of Betty Goodrich (property owner) and Thomas Nelson, Johnson Sign
Company
Made mistake on sq footage. New prints submitted with sq footage at bottom.
You can see by the existing sign right now which is 31 ft in height, the total existing sign with all the
cinnc nn it is 248 so ft. The one we are proposing to put up is the one on the right which is really
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 Page 7
99.64 sq. Ft. The height is probably 3 ft shorter so it will be less than 30 ft. Mr. Ruff asks about
AMOCO sign figured. Mr. Nelson: "Square". Mr Ruff. Explains: Don't figure it square. When you
have a sign, in the Lansing Sign Code, and its in a frame or box you figure it actual size. Mr. Ruff
goes on to explain sign code and size computations. Mr. Nelson then explains that it is actually
smaller. They want to leave it on the existing pole for the visibility of the prices. With location of
overpass they felt moving sign back would cause visual problems. By reducing size by almost 150
sq. ft. we were conforming more to the ordinance than it was. Mr. Ruff makes comment that we
knew the size of the price sign was 5'6"x 6'.6"". That size was added to what we were.:.,told was the
size of the Amoco sign and that is where we came up with the number that was advoifted. Mr. Ruff
states that if the actual number is larger than this their going to have to fifer Rw variance. Mr
Nelson states that if that is the actual size if your taking the oval.like. Ilt4 ` he concern I have
is if we approve this then our stuck with this square footage°< flk s no f's 1 E tt3at size when you,
PP Y
re-figure it, your out of luck you'll have to refile anyway. Mr. �{ l5on: I gave; i ff�e„;act dimension
9
of the oval si n that's exactly what it is if that is how you;irf bre the ov
9 Mr:'" f i idn't;fi iare
itwas given to us. Mr. Nelson: B who? Mr. Ruff: I don't 4W, whoe r was parE€t >Y p fion.
g Y :.:; ....... ..
Somebody worked with Donna Wynant and the numbersiere:;detrmined. I didn* ;fjgl€t `it: More
discussion ensued regarding the size of the sign with basr €tibers, Mr. Ruff, aticl'1VCr. Nelson.
anted verification of setback requirement of vetinc ' € 'S€size sign would be required
Mrs. Clark w q
to be back so many feet. Our understanding was this new4sign walk ti<irt _be 31 ft. tall. The code
only allows for 30 ft signs. So that is where the one fos.t:;:c omes '"I <ee ck comes in from the
standpoint that a 30 ft tall sign is required tQ;:l `` >?fet back. ''`<'€€'?'tne sets back 4 feet
P
approximately. Because of the setback of this si h::: Ms ro ways tcs< pproach it. The cleanest
PP
wayto approach this is to say that this sign KId b iuk` i; eet:agf bast. They want it where it
PP
exists and it would have a 4 ft. setback .:;::`e'y need' he`' si far the difference. Mrs. Clarks
asks if setback is relative to the type of sii' not the)'s"fize of sit >'f~l:ie variance might change if the
sign was larger. More discussion ens.€ d regard g sign cc #e and size of sign.
Mr. Bicy says that he has no problem approvi€- what w rin inally submitted. However he would
not feel comfortable if the figures differenl `` n # Would have to re-submit. He doesn't feel
comfortable tl t knowing if OAF m;are corrQ1, " `....
figure o f 39 s ft.
is corfs� �il�liwith the f q
Mr. Nelst3t�s��ta�e 9
';"'ltad this '` tti#�ii� 100fore.
Mr. Bicy asks fa P,;.:;:<;;::.::.;;::.
Mr. Nelson.: 1 `f'i` (i f# ° .;roblerW§with ovals before.
Mrs. , .f fart - Clarifies signitizeligain.
P.
Mr..> Olson has no probl 'eh making sure sign is under 30 ft. tall.
N `` er speakers
Itlti (f # 'of the Whole.
Mr. ii✓ =has no problem approving what has been presented. If figures have been changed he is
not comfortable with it.
Mr. Spink has problem with granting a variance that is not needed with a height of 1 foot because
that because the kind of thing whether used or not it becomes a record that the city likes taller signs,
and possibly code could be changed as a result.
Mrs. Clark understands that it is advertised as a 72.6 sign. She would grant a variance of no larger
than a 72.6 sq. ft. sign, and no greater than 30' tall on the existing pole.
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 Page 8
Mrs. Clark makes motion to approve the appeal 3513.98 at 918 S. Pennsylvania for a construction
of 72.6 sq ft ground pole sign on the existing pole and include the price signs, with amendment that
it have a 4 ft setback as proposed, it was seconded by Victoria Earhart.
On a roll call vote the Motion carried unanimously, 7 yeas - 0 nays. BZA 3513.98, 918 S.
Pennsylvania Ave. has been approved.
E. BZA 3514.98, 1034 N. Cedar St.
Presented by Jim Sturdevant:
Mr. Sturdevant explains Staff Report and Graphics (area: P, site to Board:`-.'.-.'.`
This is a request of Sandy Cantwell at 1034 N. Cedar. t<.(Also ai tress of propp )
She is requesting permission from the Board to install tlt le i air Beauty S610"f'il i would
include a beauty chair, sink, and dryer as a home ccupaf# d i ;;property is zoned -R
o esidential
District. The A, B, C districts do allow a home occupatio: d loessory use if it meets seven
conditions. The seventh condition is that if there is any.:suipMf` {::not for purely domestic or
household purposes it must have this Board's approval. `M's. Canty It<d ;;full size lot. Her house
was built on a half of a lot and she acquired th.e: vacant lot n E< Q hen that house was
demolished. The lot is 57.75 feet wide by 165 fee ; t< ,on N. C t" Cedar St. being one
way south bound in that location. Her home is.' 'i'tiv �he has deway onto Cedar St. that
leads up beside the house. She is proposin ll consl E i6ditip6l'' the house which includes
a family room, bathroom, laundry room, closet space, ck,'`a d """""n:corner about 12' x 12 ' on the
outside dimensions would be the corn r she would like`t':"13 her Beauty Salon. The other
conditions that are necessary for ho ccupali 'i are.
• No person other than a mel3 ber of th F mily resi ing in the dwelling engages in the home
occupation. That wgid 'the applrrC#'
0
TII€isi��f dwelli "� ���'�ui'ne occu ����fi�►s�'clearl m cident al and
subo
rdinate
to to it
's s use for
reidpl�arposesfs€ t 12 x 12 ' room is just a small percentage of the entire house.
:.o
e dwelling is used in an way for the home
Not mo� IfifI�;:,/o of the'��� � i�:or area of the g y Y
occupatc > €rExa:12' x € tilroom is a very small percentage.
• f d�;lore than `< i' € ts. I'm not sure if she intends to have any sign at all . She can
> icidress that later<'« < >'
• The sale of good does not occur in the dwelling or on the lot.
The special er;tpment which.requires this boards approval.
R t rtg>tl s`�of has sufficient parking area out of the front yard.
Questinri-s firom Board Members to Mr. Sturdevant:
Mr. Bicy: Shared driveway? It was formerly a shared drive. She purchased the lot it was shared
with. Now it is strictly one ownership.
Mr. Bicy: How many cars can be parked there? At present time, there is room for three cars.
A single family home itself requires room for two.
Mr. Bicy: Is there a garage? No.
Board of Zoning Appeals, August 13, 1998 Page 9
Sandy Cantwell, 1034 N. Cedar
I would like to say I need to get another person where I'm at now paying rent. That is a hardship on
me. I do feel I've met the requirements of the Board. I will be the only person working at my house.
It will be a small part of the back of house. It was originally going to be a family room. Building
Safety has already issued a permit for a family room. She will limit clients to 1 per hour.
Questions from Board to applicant.
Ms. Earhart - You opened by saying you needed to get a second pert .. Ye talking about
another building.? Yes, that was my hardship, that in order to.;aj'ford refit :lr #ed another person.
If I can have it in my ry.
home that will not be necessa .
Ms. Earhart- Do you intend to stock and sell hair prod don't stscs :s1 ;,roducts navy:
Y P ::P.
Pretty much the people that I do are people I have bee in for y. rs. HQr :? u.adve. e?
I've sent out fliers, I have a small glass sign that is a pair tt:scissors<i' ;s far as' #t #3ire it's
going to be mainly word of mouth. I know the requi ire ment `t€:the:j`3oard. It's a low €f<eisiness
right now and that is not going to change. I currently w8gigi l +a in the beauty shop'f`iiave now.
I'm also a residential builder and am trying to get that going <VM--`:: rlly doing the friends I've made
through the years and still be able to maintain my busings"""fii
So you understand the sign code. I will have scissors sr jn only `«;::
Mr. Bic : Wanted clarification on number of eo le.vi€ hop. Assn <'E#tw many heads a week
Y p P ::::.:.>:.:.:::::::�:.;;>:.:;:.
and hours of operation. She does her own bookie tanding marking situation she would
schedule accordingly. Plenty of parking.
Mr. Ruff explains that hardship or practaal difficu 'is not'd: pessary component of this type of
variance. The size of parking spaces;;: re discuss ed and we not a problem. Dealing with aspect
of home occupation only.
No more questions from board. :::::€:'
audi ."` ... <<<
No comm�tEifr�am ear. .>
Move to Co !` It4#the
Mr. Bicy makes.►:�:€�#� tl�s€s �. rove'I4i 14.98 1034 N. Cedar for allowing home occupation and
equipment Rg,t s yk iir d_air, sihk,' and dryer per the code as outlined for home occupation in
zoning Qo.d Motion s 1 #>s y Mrs. Clark.
Discussion: none
Qii oll call vote the n€totion carried unanimously 7 yeas -0 nays, BZA 3514.98, 1034 N. Cedar
Ieen approved;:;;:<
F. Bt1: i ' €$35 Filley
This is a current request by OmniPoint and Unisite. Unisite is a tower building company . Omni
Point is the communications company. OminPoint has requested a height variance to build a 195
ft. Communications Tower at the property at 635 Filley St. which is zoned I Heavy Industrial. It's just
adjacent to the rail road tracks on the south end of the property. It's presently Spadafore Distributing
Company. It's industrially zoned in each direction except for across Filley St. to the North. That is
near the edge of the industrial zoning. There are some residences across the way. The applicant
is proposing to build this tower as a 180 ft. tall monopole tower plus a 15' high lightning rod for 195'
total. The tower is designed for co-location of communication antennas. From my understanding
up to 5 communication antennas could be placed on this tower. The practical difficulty in this is
Board of Zoning Appe-' . August 13, 1998 Page 10
somewhat of a conflict of what were trying to do City wide to keep the number of towers down. The
quantity of towers and as many antennas on a reasonable height tower as possible. This board
and the Planning Board used to get more requests from communication companies themselves to
build their own structures. It's becoming more and more expedient for communication companies
to sign on with tower builders to build a tower that is for the purpose of co-locations and then with
the contract the tower builder has the right to lease out other parts of that tower from more
communication services. That is what is being proposed tonight. If variance is not approved they
could build 120 ft. tower including their lighting rod and would be limited to at most 1 provider, and
not as expedient a location on a tower. The height also has a component when it:;comes to the
spread. The shorter the towers the more of them you need. There is a balance to t situation as
well. What has been proposed tonight is what the applicant believes xbe ptimum 180 ft.
tower to meet the conditions of siting five antennas at the most on this s c:;:ah on an industrial
site in the north portion of the City of Lansing. As far as staff i;� cernet�fly ft well with the plan
that the City is proposing. The staff has looked at where th wer will b i"'*a..comparison,>to-
views and such. We don't believe it will be a conflict with of `views of r l iv y C 1 will be ir1€ e
back of the We've recommended approval ."ith four:;:# sic con`i lti ' Thesii '"'are
property.
conditions that have to deal with the concerns I have beef: .Yeloplt g with the ha . e city.
We believe this is a positive steps with the towers in Lartl........l!l the hospitals arii lishment
of conditions. More discussion regarding hospitals ancffE` < :;Together we've come up with
criteria with the hospitals that will help them do business.. We We recommend approval
with these conditions for approval of a 75 ft. variance. <:'
Que
stions from Bo
ard Members:
Mrs. Clark: Does the tower resent a roblet t tb`pegp....` p hom ``with pacemakers etc.
P P :... p :.;:.;;;;:.;::;..;:.:::;<.;...
Mr. Ruff: Not typically that we are at all away'of. We: 3vt :: rced any of that in the City of
Lansing with what has been done thus fa#'+>''The pouter thatit #1ted is like a flashlight from 50
feet. Discussion ensued regarding pap Af makers d interf7ft issues. Power is very minimal.
Mr. Frederick: Have the hospitals. t` 3,ented y 'with any. ."idence that these frequencies that the
towers will be using actually do Wrfere wig:€ ►eir eqq� rtient? Mr. Ruff: They haven't presented
information :an the proposes. f quencies € €fit-V licensed frequencies. They presented
informatio t ;.was a resi l : -Abere the 'l';C " € led a problem being from a new antenna that
went ort:t :: i..6t. to if f:ft .r,:„experi'tYeed some problems in that instance. They had a lot
of difficultjr'j ` tt :ut they` C#�( ll:..,point and corrected their system. What they are telling me
because hosplfifi i ?:not really:.1 t specifically for these frequencies and they are kind of at
the mercy of ttie ( E tl::..comparf �<`�� ther instance was somebody using an amatuer radio
nearby. Theyl #iKkte somfhat stuff out.
Mr. Fr e : ck: Asks quesirding the way the conditions are worded. That they seem to imply
TV
that fit ° hospital will Mai rk ' :tuning their equipment after the tower is up and ready to begin
funcf li ning. Rather than ne=fype of preliminary testing to give tower companies a chance to deal
wi€f Was there any discussion of doing testing ahead of time. Mr. Ruff states that is what the
Ft ency Spectrum.A...blysis is all about. Mr. Ruff goes onto explain study.
If r# art:,let more input for EMT services if concerns happen earlier.
Pef l't S Invited to speak:
Christopher Driscoll - representative from OmniPoint and Unisite
Proposes that Co-location of towers is an advantage for the City. Submitted site plans showing
differences of tower heights and tower coverage.
No comments from board members for petitioner.
No questions from audience.
Board of Zoning Appe - August 13, 1998 Page 11
The board moves to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Frederick moves for approval of BZA 3516.98 635 Filley St. to allow a 75 ft. height variance to
allow construction of a 195 ft. tall communications monopole tower with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the installation and operation of an antenna attached to the tower the
telecommunication company shall run a frequency spectrum analysis to identify any conflicts
with the telemetry frequencies used by the hospitals in Lansing.
2. Notify the hospitals of the date and time of the initial operation of the antennaMd if conflicts
arise between the use of the tower and the hospital telemetry system th... re of the tower
shall cease for a specified time as jointly agreed to by the two pa ;�-.K.4-C i would allow the
hospitals opportunity to refine their systems.
eoll
or the co-locati '1"of teleco:: r`iatii`t «:: roviders::>as
3. The tower shall be available f . .tit :, ..,p
proposed.
osed.
P
o Mr. Bic seconded motio
n.
Y
Discussion:
Mr. Spink: Is there any screening or buffering required?.". Mr. Ruff> C #' i#;:;his situation. When this
building was built we required some screening ar d 3tiE€ C p for re i toss the street. This
tower will be directly behind the building all the vu 1 `!he rail roi dViEks. The base of tower
will not be visible
from residents.
JV
Mr. Frederick discussed fact that the Zon' g Code;i ould `i fi t ::anticipated and minimized the
number of towers that we will see in t `City. Tha#is why Rapport it.
On a roll call vote the Motion carried unanfliviously 'yeas - 0 nays. BZA 3516.98 has been
i »»:.
approved With condit on s
IV. OLD
1>»> ;> >€Tabled Item '
A. Bpi;'3501.9$ :;Cedar St.
K-Ma variance request. `1-St rdevant updated case. The applicants are here. Manager of Kmart
and::€ mie Higgins. AppIants are submitting a new proposal.
I i turdevant present d case:
tiii ? a; ting when this case was heard the Board tabled this item. There were questions
raataptli parapet wall. The building permit files for that building show that parapet wall is
an org (�r'approved part of the building. That was not an issue that was added on later it was part
of the original building permits for the structure. Applicant has resubmitted a revised plan showing
somewhat smaller signage. I've reviewed that and I'd like the applicant to be able to present that
tonight.
Motion from Mr. Bicy to remove item from table, supported by Mr. Frederick.
Motion carried by voice vote
Board request the petitioner to speak:
Board of Zoning Appe - August 13, 1998 Page 12
Due to the nationwide name change Kmart does not exist. They are changing their name to either
Big Kmart or Super Kmart throughout the entire country. Based on the motion to table the decision
2 months ago we now have a revised alternative with a proposed wall sign for this KMART on S.
Cedar. There are currently 2 wall signs at the site. A 10 ft by 12.6 ft. K which is 125 Sq Ft. , and
additional 9'2 x 24' sign that reads KMART Garden Shop Pharmacy which is 220 sq ft. Seems to
be a mystery of how this Company could exceed size limitation in 1992 without a variance. He know
has to absorb the problem.
New Proposal:
152 sq. ft. proposed
10' x 368"" = 367 sq. ft. X.
9' x 33" = 297 .s ft.
q
ft.Total 519 q s .
less trequested)70 ft I an h
" ou d ave their maximum im act re"'` bili ats �0 ft away. TF € � Eslild` is set
5 6 letters reading BIG would h p ad......;. ty y g
back 600 ft from Cedar St. ROW. This seems to an adequate'Cpf3 kf p> Se to reduce the so'.. 3e'sign and
it can still be read from Cedar St.
Questions from Board Members
Ms. Earhart: e.Requests to see an illustration of Si na
q 9 9
Mrs. Clark:Clarifies the reduction is of what was on l#1 1 �`I �f ,but is an tt ease over what is currently
...
on building.
g
Mr. Hilts: The current sign now is bigger that#`�the curret#'sign c :d t' 11 iou're asking to increase that. Mr.
Higgins: Correct. The same ordinance elldl 10% otd?wall to h4�t signs on it,with a maximum limit of 200
sq. ft. When you have a large building ' 7art has.q�fer 8,000 sd tt. of a wall. The proposed sign would be
5'/�% of the wall. Mr. Hilts does not:if#t to apprtrxt sign.
Mr. Bic asks.for sign code clarif€b"Wiq from Mr..fti#[ +< E' F #ff
Y explains code and size limits. Also,discusses
visibility issuA§:" ,. wall si n...gh::-M. and pole sid
other cities is Lansin s sign Mr.Frederir; l `���lt�slion ofNlr«IFt#it am- pared to g n code more strict than othe
r
g
cities becauselfefarts he ItIs.406Cs,.the same size signs.
Mr.Ruff states het d.I.-Wo'l :,on curra#'t , e. Sign code developed in cooperation with sign companies
and business grcttjiKl# #r?evelopedi# fate 1980's and early 1990's. Code was adopted in 1991.
Question,MA"Ground poles # t t t ariance when it was erected? Yes.
Mr. H&...%brought up fact thats�I�e's �tiance before was granted because they got much closer to the code. That
is v +:they got the variance.:.-Mr. Hilts will not support this because they are not getting closer to they code they
areggetting farther away.:;.:;::;'
tic*?tri to questions frtfwl-Board
Stir#: 3er of S. Cedar Big Kmart:
Tfie<° #I :st'ii the concept of Big Kmart was the concept that the customers were demanding a cleaner,
neater store,wider isles, and a bigger concept as far as shopping and what we had to offer. The signing we
are requesting is bigger than allowed but it is the smallest so far the other store there is. He is the only store
of 40 stores opening tomorrow that does not have sign.
Board moves to Committee of the Whole:
Mr. Spink asks question regarding current signage size (125 sq. ft.)
Mr. Bicy wanted clarification of new proposal sq ft(297 sq ft.).
Ms. Earhart states there is much confusion over this signage and sizes. She suggests staff to prepare
Board of Zoning Appe August 13, 1998 Page 13
Mr. Bicy asks for Jim Sturdevant's recommendation on total square footage. Mr. Stu revant states that he has
not made a recommendation. And his comment to the applicant was that this request has not changed that
much compared to the previous request. Jim Sturdevant and Jim Ruff give clarification of request of 449 sq.
ft. total area. They are for 104 sq. ft. more than what is now on the building.
Mr.Ruff states his opinion that they are using the existing K and building the rest of the sign around existing K.
Instead of making a new K. Mr. Ruff thinks they should change entire sign and make it proportional and fit with
what they currently have for square footage. Current square footage is 345 sq. ft.
Mr. Frederick has problem finding any practical difficulty created by the code.
Mr.Spink discusses percentages in relationship to building size. He feels code can't speaKA:'all businesses
especially large buildings. States that the Garden Shop, etc. on building may bdCl#pre`cctional.
Mr. Frederick discusses Best Buy in Meridian Twp., and how smalkf sign iI€# dable.
wants sign u but with proper square footage. Mr. Bi °':reeds clarili lfon< #'"`# ..footage.,,,:,:,
Mr. Bicy an 9 P, P P q 9 ;` : t.;;:.;:«<::>:::::.:. . >::.
E. Horne suggests staff prepare revised report for review sot #t the Bo. .-d can make a��A :::::1~r 6cision
99 P P P
next month.
Mr. Bicy makes motion to table BZA 3501.98 5400 S. Cedar.S4t month. G. Hilts supports.
Motion carried unanimously by voice vote 7-0.
B. BZA 3509.98 200 E. Edgewoodrscrainmf
Moved b Ms. Earhart and supported b Mr. H1 s that we;�p�inove~f#t1l ble 3509.98 200 E. Edgewood.
Y PP Y
Motion carried unanimously 7-0.
Mr. Ruff presented case:
The revised report has been prepared 'fhe applicdll� t; .s_gnteryou further information that they have gathered.
We believe thatthere is adequ..._ igdeness to tk#esl :I;size of property, and type of construction that has
taken place<€i . t their pfp ( G:;signage. sT#1ave made accommodations in the ground pole signs
P # .
to keep titr# t ;tl.and at t}tBCejt ; basically directional entrances, and to promote just their identity on
the building`tcf t; C f0iMajority of€l""b f '::::'Which is on the expressway. The ground pole signs are not visible.
You have a uiu t3l1iiog of 18'c�t#j #f�i�ints that is not just a big box, but a big box with multiple boxes
inside the building fa .4-0bre,there':g #tl lggbeness to the building. The site/property is also unique. See
packet. The.:>::s € left a reascriable request and the information would help support that
recommen.ddw.
The:,6fitioner is asked to addrd's''the Board:
Jt# #``Loeks, President ofJdckson Entertainment:
f ly!iWi very important Aue to our company. I wanted to present if only to underline that fact. I'm here with
F (# lw# iis:;:t#td President of our company who has many of the details and has prepared the packets
ofit#itld>t7ij #s as been submitted to you previously. I would like to take a few minutes to briefly describe
:..:.....:..........:.....:....
to AP-th"8f Picture".
We operate in an industry in which relatively speaking very few motion picture theaters are being built these
days. Our company goes back over 50 years to the days of single screen theaters in the centers of cities. It
has changed substantially since that time. The reason very few theaters are being built these days is because
they are very risky ventures. They are risky ventures because we are building theaters basically to
accommodate all of the product coming out of Hollywood essentially which is substantially more product than
has ever been the case before. We are servicing an audience that is wider and is demanding from us more
show times, and more service. The result is that the industry is now across the country where theaters are
being built, they are building these large theaters of 16, 18, 20, even 40 screens in certain cities. This is the
largest investment our comnanv will make. or has made since it's beainnina in a single location. It is frauqht
Board of Zoning Appe - August 13, 1998 Page 14
with danger. The nature of the building is such that it has many demising walls,those walls that divide one
auditorium from another. That makes it unsuitable for any exit strategy in case of failure. We now have a
building which is suitable essentially for a motion picture theater. Secondly, we add to our grief in a way by
responding to what is now overwhelmingly demanded in the country. That is a concept called stadium tiered
seating. You may have experienced it in some other cities. There is a new theater in Southfield MI., Benton
Harbor. Basically almost every row of the theater is 14" above the row in front of it. This of course is additional
concrete and steel within the building which makes it unusable for any purpose other than a Theater. I would
venture that in the last 40-50 years there has probably been no new motion picture theaters built in the City of
Lansing,and probably not in these counties in the nearby vicinity. The likelihood that another one will be built
in the future is another 40-50 years. There is another reason for that which is because of t#.p.nature of the
product, the release patterns of the Hollywood distributors that you all know...Warner BroSDsney, Fox etc.
They are only willing to put a certain number of what they call prints of a film in a cp€ t€ un ''The result is that
there only can be a few places in any given community where theaters can bat€ Ctsriomically and out of
opportunity for success. We have chosen to place our bets on Lant We diieuse the theaters that
are presently existing in the general Lansing market place, includ "N' suburb `:.l t a And to the Wei
are theaters which are about 3-4 generations old. We will be bringnething to#;ensin ( 3literally teific
and exciting. It's going to be the best presentation of film that::: n be four r ; r the Uriit + # :f.A '#"*rica.
The best view, sound and
everything.n9.
�
What we are in is the business of creating excitement,generatreee[ e:;of awe and wonder before people
even walk in the theater building. To that end we have distributed tat that shows what theaters look
like in the US today with exception to the last picture in that packet vviJisns to be an older theater not
too far away. All of the other theaters in that packet have li"n built to 5f .-4 years. These are new
theater buildings being approved in major sophisticate e#fppolitan arei i i An is is what these cities
recognized as necessary to create the ambiance,the a Cl the joy of v elie Ig into a movie theater and
saying"Oh,this is where I want to be this evening,the `�t1e'` iatng fun", )i so there a couple of things
we are trying to do with our neon signage that is 9.010g beyor}t' t +urp4ars of signage. We are trying to
create an ambiance,a sense of color,a sense of<Crotion, a:Sese'' 1ite#ti »t. The proposals we are putting
before you already contain our inherent compro tiises that:�Ye have a t r aecepted but we have not explained
them to you.
You'll notice that in many of pictures'j�i>'*ddition tt�t{ie very lar. theater signs that identify the name of the
theater and place a lot of neon arou t. Many.p tem al$r': ontain significantly large signs that identify the
names and titles.of the movies thl' being plqy # l ..46aters. This has been a traditional part of our
movie indus1r.Qw the very.k i i,�` 100' t Of course our product changes every week. We
have alwa1 #I1 .;we have> ets #pse titles out ttrere. Since we can't put the names and times of all the
movies pla"j3.tltil :side the': irire will focus on the name of our theater. We are in a place that is
unique too. In< is ;~#r ..as it is apt.% y location. We are a business that wants to appeal to a very
wide area around iji t :markefj i Van
t people to know where this theater is. If it had no highly
visible, highly iGi s *0 iO> b<we wo€(i fist be another gray box along the highway. We are trying to
communicate pep �fe�rnring mph down the expressway. The sign we are proposing is one that
is really nc3liven visible to a ?tcleighbors. It is only visible to those people driving down the expressway.
To do thik`effectively we need<to 1r >people know at a glance, and within about 4 second time that this in fact
is why the theater is. Peo::��fj are not in the theater business do not know what a theater looks like or how
E?T..
to dinguish it unless a sigh'is present. We need to build confidence in expressway traffic as to where the
t4eOW is. The sign is unign that it is entirely oriented to the expressway and trying to identify it in a way that
ietk and safe and ulittered.
C # #eaelkt if( ..created 18 separate businesses which change product every few weeks. If we were a
reirC >~r. ta'rge (80, 000 sq. ft.) with 18 5-6,000 sq. ft. retail stores in them we would be permitted
sigr�tiX. €? ietcess of what we are asking for. It would be cluttered. We are a single thrust in our business
and we are trying to get one message across. Celebration Cinema,this is a place to have fun,this is a place
to enjoy and it's here along the expressway. If you exit down at Cedar you'll eventually come to this theater after
you've made all the loops, and turns, and come to Edgewood Blvd. and this location.
This is a unique business. This may be the only new motion picture theater like this to be built in Lansing during
our lifetime. To be a success for Lansing we need to generate this kind of ambiance. Included are technical
arguments in packet.
No questions from Board Members
Board of Zoning Appe August 13, 1998 Page 15
Mr. Lubes explains the picture of site plan and where the signage will be on the building. Also, made
comparison of what code would allow if they were 18 separate retail stores. They are trying to keep in spirit of
code,to keep things cleaner and more simple.
No questions from board members.
Board moves to Committee of Whole
Mr. Ruff adds that he asked Celebration Cinema to provide Board with reasons for uniqueness of project. They
are strictly trying to identify the name of the facility and not all the product lines they are g4r..r g etc. We
believe it is a reasonable approach to properly identify the improvements that are being mao this property.
As a board you can compare other requests using this type of criteria.
Ms. Earhart- It is refreshing to have such a coached and well or €#[ ed prest # i ;our last one of the
evening. I appreciate the work you have done in laying out what:v i equired,wt i t t t i!" what you w4p
That shows very well the choices we have to make this evenin <::t..i>
of re neo ;'<ns.
Ms. Clark-Are signs lit or neon. Answer: The are multi-col ... rt.
9 Y 8t9
Mr. Bicy - Are you requesting burst to be included? Answer.::�: 'ints clarification of amount of sq.ft.
variance is requested.
Mr.Spink -Asks if applicant received copy of letter from Donna` ynant0i. wer. No. But discussed
it over the phone.
Mrs. Earhart makes motion to approve a variance : d"tF ' . . ft. rQti ole signs to be located 5
PP ::.....:..: ....q g ;.:.. P
ft. from the front property lines for BZA 3509.9$; iipport ' lrk::::; {
V. Earhart makes motion to approve request fq variance: ':-653.5 sc m Chapter 1442.13 to allow 2 wall
signs totaling 853.5 sq. ft. One of which j$:$p"be app.li at the ba;"k of the theater and the other of 87 sq. ft.
to be in the front of the building. SecotftiEpy E. Skink.
No discussion.
e ood Blv
d.
��'�'i�nanimo�''�`'`� "`���~0 na s. BZA 3509.98 200 E. Ed w
On a roll ca� �te,the motict�� !d . q�t� '� s y 9
has beet# ::'.`; tt ..as sp+ f >iw<» ':>>::..
..:,
d items remain on the table until ne
xt mee
ting.
.
V. Earhart mov �at` business" �;i�# fif�which are table 9
Supported by BQ,.a#'# ( #' D'.",
No Discq "On
Mr. Fp request the Board; aifh the Tower issues:
G > BZA 3483.98. 716 David St.
Totes that anq `these other towers are predicated on the fact that there will have to be Special Land
3 ': 3€1+ 1t (# ' ouncil. The Planning Board is trying to take action this month to send it up to Council
aTW
to send a message not only to the School Board but also,to the Tower/Communications
peop `t€ €Sere may be sites available and if you turn a site down at least it's knowledge. If you approve sites
that's knowledge. Too long of a tabling will give them too many questions and they are starting to pick sites
based on knowledge and that is where this other site came tonight on Filley St.with predication that potentially
there are these other sites coming along. I want you to realize that if we lose too many sites than it really hurts
the overall development of a Tower Plan. Mr. Frederick could address what the Planning Board is doing.
Mr. Frederick speaks:
The Zoning and Ordinance committee of the Planning Board yesterday dealt with these Special Land Use.
They are recommending that the Planning Board Committee of the Whole address these at the next meeting
which is next week. We did recommend that all of them be approved.
Board of Zoning Appe,-- August 13, 1998 Page 16
Mr. Ruff gives quick summary of five that are here.
Trying to incorporate existing facilities and as few new towers as possible to accommodate this chart that you
saw from OmniPoint. OmniPoint is pushing at least four of these sites and there is another company that would
like to be on them. We are trying to enter into an agreement with a tower building company to help control
these. David St.is replacement of an existing approximate 155 foot tower. That would be in the same location
adjacent to Groesbeck golf course the north side where the service area is in the golf course. It is adjacent to
residential. We haven't gotten any complaints from the residents. We didn't get any negative comments toward
the proposal from the area.
V. Earhart wants a chart of existing and new towers that are being built. Sbe doesp't'viant too much
congestion in any one area.
1716 Davis St. V. Earhart asks for de
sire of the Board.
oval with 6 c°bditions. Mr.:.. a 'j j i editions.
Mr. Ruff states that they have recommended appr gip. ... ;
with
makes motion to approve BZA 3483.98 1716S St. taximum hei ght>; ? at#<)
M. Bicy m pp
ons of the 6 foll
owing conditions.
recommendations ...9
1. The existing communication antennas be relocated ontQ':'tEaruer.
2. The tower provide for co-location of antennas.
3. The contract with the City include language helping ensure the comp #...the use of this tower with
hospitals.
4. Landscaping
Landsca in be added around the base of th. :#pv ;#r )uffer the veofre base form surrounding
properties.ert ies.
5. The tower be appropriatley accessible sfenced;: sr[€ <:;;::: ''
Supported by Mr. Frederick .
On a roll call vote the motion carried 664nimougj.. 7 yeas-:¢;days. BZA 3483.98 has been approved
with the following conditions: 1) J€#$ropos, onopol .tower replace the existing tower; 2) The
existing communication antennas 17elocatecl;s"..the ne1Aower; 3)The tower provide for co-location
of antennas;.4.:.:;The contract v t�tj `'City incudd '{i.R_Vu a helping ensure the compatibility of the use
of this tow hospitals ! scaping f�� a `'around the base of the tower to buffer the view
of the bed'#!ip>i �I.rrouri# p34Yties; 6)Tiiie' ower be appropriately fenced for security.
D. BZA`340," iijd Ceda ' it _e
Presented by
This is a Q.Q.—bre p arcel. It i 4> d` esidential. It is near the expressway of US 127,south of Frandor. Staff
would l►k 'fo place tower nea€ fers house which then could be used for lighting. It would be away from
the Ivgan Ave. vista. It would:; near lights and other clutter around the baseball field. We think as a public
fac r'this property that we€'.ink`it would fit reasonably and not affect adjacent properties.
hart- If it fell wouk : 'be near anything? No. With the City of Lansing controlling it part of the contract
vyo# le regular engiiering reports,testing, etc. It's a very comprehensive plan.
j :waniapital info added.
Mr`Ftd 'TFe zoning and ordinance committee determined that this was probably the best placement to
avoid ariy visible clutter from the apartment building that Dr. Johnson owns. That is one reason the
recommended approval.
Mr. Ruff discusses site plan of area to the Board.
C. Bicy made motion to approve BZA 3485.98 be approved with conditions and hospital language. Mr.
Frederick supported the motion.
Request to approve BZA 3485.98 Red Cedar Golf Course request subject to the conditions as stated in the
staff report.
Board of Zoning Appe " August 13, 1998 Page 17
No discussion
On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously 7 yeas -0 nays. BZA 3485.98 Red Cedar golf course
approved with the following conditions: 1) The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 2) The
contract with the City include language helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with
hospitals; 3) Landscaping be added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from
surrounding properties;4)The tower be appropriately accessible and fenced for security; 5)The tower
and any mechanical equipment shed be consolidated and placed in a location as far away from
surrounding residential units so as to minimize the visual impact; and 6) Permits be obtained from
Michigan DNR/DEQ for development in the 100 year flood plain as appropriate.
BZA 3486.98#6 Fire House 3708 Pleasant Grove Rd.
We received a subjective letter from the condominiums adjaceaf...t supp other comments
regarding it. Mr. Ruff discussed the subject of reselling the fireibb"u-se. Tower;#j t lt3 #.more viable.fi r
sales purposes. Property would continue to serve a public purp§Q C�1. We've re nm €ft t# p royal witk '�#i�e
six conditions.
Mr. Bicy made a motion that BZA 3486.98 Station 6, 3708 Pleasp#tk Rd. be approved as`pofirimended
to allow replacement of existing tower with 6 conditions. Mr. Fr00, the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Horn will be voting no because there are too many in the saffi' e locat►it< > j$pFji:is close to the apartment
buildings.
Ms. Earhart will be voting no because there are oth.e€ € :::#hat it coi(iXpe <This Fire Station may be
relocated in the near future perhaps the new locatipi'i «<i3 1< Ssed a po g ial tower location.
Mr. Ruffdiscusses effec
ts of towers ne
ar ho
me�
Mr. Bicy discusses fact that there is already g$ower the it will f i lacement.
Roll Call:
Garcia Yea
Ea rhart X. Nay
Clark
a
Spink
Frederick :......... .......
Bicy : :
Horn
0 nays, BZA 3486.98 approved with the following
On a roll chi))>'vote't>li ,carriecf 6 yeas y , pp g
condition."00 The propot.. # pgpI tower replace the existing tower;2)The existing communication
antenn s'be relocated 0.::pew tower; 3)The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 4) The
contc�t with the City incldenguage helping ensure the compatibility of the use of this tower with
hosOy als; 5) Landscaping die added around the base of the tower to buffer the view of the base from
srunding properties; The tower be appropriately fenced for security.
3488.9$uacant Property East end of Dadson St.
Ivjr case:
.................................
The City has some vacant properly south of 1-96 that there has been expressed interest in. This is one of the
locations we had originally chosen. The criteria was being near an expressway. Also,trying to limit the impact
of a structure of this sort,staff has recommended approval of location here on the property. We would like to
put it on one of these properties. Possibly the one near the expressway. We may have some easement
difficulties crossing. As you notice there is a little block of land in between the two pieces. It's about a 30'wide
strip of land which is a "no man's land". It may hurt us in getting easement across it from Dadson to access
it. We probably are looking at having it on the south piece and down near the middle of that piece,trying to put
it as far away from the residents as possible. We believe it to be a good site. People in the area have been
notified. We have received no response from them. The size should be adequate to handle it.
Board of Zoning Appe,-' August 13, 1998 Page 18
To be monopole style, and hospital conditions.
Mr.Bicy makes a motion to approve BZA 3488.98 Dadson St.Vacant property on Triangular property with the
following 6 conditions as written. Motion supported by Ms. Earhart.
Frederick asks question regarding shape of property and easement restriction.
Mr. Sturdevant states that condition one clarifies the triangular location.
On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously 7 yeas - 0 nays, BZA 3488.98 app[4ved with the
following conditions: 1) Locate the tower structure on the large site if possible to mj.O.nize its impact
on the existing residential neighborhood,the future development of adjacent:= Qpet and its visibility
on the horizon to traffic on the interstate highway. A location that potentfa#�Fi s these objectives
is on the triangular shaped parcel approximately 250 feet east o ; <existiiti if i aI neighborhood;
2 The tower provide for co-location of antennas; 3) Land00
i'iig be adtf <.>khe base of tie
tower to buffer the view of the base from surrounding grope., 4)The t9 r ti i t ately fet ed
for security; 5)The contract with the City include language f( fping en�t,tita the corii ) flfF9.t 'use
of this tower with hospitals.
it als.
F. BZA 3490.98,5815 Wise Rd.
involves the Lansing School District. Two otlem'`�f' pt withdrawal of Eastern and
Last three towers 9 :...::
Everett. One of them would be to approve a height variance fat`the HilliRl Technical Site. We would
like to get tower fairly near the Power Plant area which is.negrAhe the middle of the site.
In the rear of the School when your facing Wise Rd.,; # f'tt'1 .Greenho'u 1 In the middle of the site.
still going
tiss I district The scho
ol di
9 9 forwar
d with this.
s. Supported
<." 15 Wis s` d._>,>:.cs <fj#`[ 'V+er with 6 condition pp
Dr.Spink makes motion to approve BZA 3490.9..€; $ a: #
by Mr. Frederick.
On a roll call vote the motion carrie:di100 nimou.oy 7 yeas -` `mays. BZA 3490.98, 5815 Wise Rd. has
been approved with the following c9pidit ons: 1jU'bate the yiier structure on the large site if possible
to minimize its impact on the exiiig reside#()jm
i:;nei�hlhood,the future development of adjacent
property,and-As visibility on t #lgit#zon to tra#i f € itterstate highway. A location that potentially
meets these 'actives is: #)E angular sf jtiteircel approximately 250 feet east of the existing
..:.
residenti ° :::.;;., hood; :' ►providd�...r'co-location of antennas; 3) Landscaping be added
around thet i' t ;towert6j,A eview of the base from surrounding properties; 4)The tower
be appropriated ;for secuF 'E°#? ontract with the City include language helping ensure the
tcompatibility tov ) # pitals.o
G. BZA Evet#'Wgii' sA Eastern High School
. Fr ��Frick moves tha� .."�':" luctantly accept the withdrawals from the Lansing Public School
M r e�
Systp
Omit"€'ll call vote the motic `carried 6 yeas-0 nays. Dr.Spink opposed.
BZA 3507.98 5 Picardy St.
in,tabled.
V.
None
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Dr.Spink moves to approve minutes of July 9, 1998. Supported by Mr. Frederick that we accept the minutes
as printed.
No Discussion
Page 19
Board of Zoning Appeo. Au ust 13, 1998
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of officers. voice vote 7-0.
Move to table by Ms. Earhart. Seconded by Mr. Hilts Motion Carried unanimously by
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Draft to Clerk 7/02/98
Approved
7 f 77
To Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
LA I iNhu C ITY CLERK BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
I. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairperson J. Garcia, at 7:30 p.m. and the
BZA Introduction was read. Roll call was taken.
Present
.............. .....Y,
G. Hilts J. Garcia A. Frederick,;
...........
V. Earhart M. Clark E. Spink
..............
.......................................
Absent
...............
............. ............
.X ...............
111.111...............
C. Bicy
1.1.111.111.111..............
Ill. Excused Absences
...... ..... .........
..... ........
E. Horne ........
.... ..........
A. A quorum of five members was:`.01... %pllowind::..�. action to take
..............
................... ....1.
place.
...................... ...........
..... .... ..........
B. Introduction of Staff .. ...........
Jim Ruff, Zoning Ad.M.'ihi'.""Strator...'..,""'
.............
.............
...... ....1.
Ill. APPROVAL OF AQ19NOX -The
.... pproved as printed.
............. .X".
.............
..................... .........
.. ................. ..........
............................... .........
......... ..............
.......... ......
. .. .. .
IV. H ANN0,91ACTIOR:......................... ...
....
..............
......... .........
.......
A. RZAMQJ;�98 5400'.:3....X..X.'.,:.Cedar
..................
.....................
..................
J. Ruff.p ft ,jod the case, a request by Jamie Higgins of Adams Outdoor
...... . ,"�
.
Advertisffl 0.............;:'Eant) for K-Mart Corporation (owner) to resign the wall signage
dih `. 5400... of the bull.................At S. Cedar St. K-mart is going through some corporate
name cl�&gds and they are renaming their stores Big K Mart. Basically they
want to,*ave the existing logo up, but add Big and a "swoop". They are also
.
makiDO'Xs,"' rn oe other changes in the facade signage, reducing some signage on
................................
......I............................
t h,ex.,:6. ilding. The K-mart store here is really considered a shopping center
'dbr the Sign Code because there are two or more establishments in the
........... same..................
.............1.
...........R:
.......... me facility; there is K-mart, Penske Auto Center, and also the Valueland
............... establishment. We count the K-mart as a separate entity within a shopping
center. The store presently contains two building signs totaling 329 ft2. One
sign is proposed to be increased to 398 ft2 in size and the second sign is
proposed to be reduced to 144 ft2 in size for a total of two signs with a
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 2
combined size of 542 ft2. In this zoning district with this length of building, there
is an allowance for one sign in a mall. If the second sign is around a corner,
facing another direction, we allow two wall signs. These two signs are on the
same side of the building that faces Cedar St. Also, the maximum size allowed
would be 200 ft2. So this would be a variance of 342 ft2 in size, and a variance
in the number of signs allowed by having the second sign on the front of the
building.
There is predominantly commerical land use around the property. It is located
just south of Jolly Rd. along the Cedar St. commercial strip. The property has
had a variance to approve a ground pole sign back in 1992 for height and area.
It was approved because it replaced a larger sign and therefore, brought the
signage more into conformance with the Sign Code, which is the same that
exists today. We don't necessarily see the hardship established for using the
same size K and just increasing the sign. Generally, in a sign variance we try
to acheive something that is closer to meeting the code. In this case, you do
have a building that sets well off the road. It sits approximately 600' back from
Cedar St. The major parts that would be seen would be the K for the sign and
the word "Big". The little "mart" that is inside the K is probably a little less
visible, but is part of the identity logo. Also, the size of the building is extremely
large. If we didn't have limits set up in the sign code at each level, you could
have 800 ft2 of signage based on 15% of the building facade, or thereabouts.
Those are the principle parts to this. You'll see a graphic in your packet that
explains some of the changes. They are taking the word "K-mart" off the
garden shop/pharmacy area and retaining that part. They are moving the K
with the "mart" in it over the facade and moving it over in order to place the
word "Big"with the swoop in it. This is a corporate change that is being made
throughout the United States.
Hearing no questions from the Board, J. Garcia asks if the appelant would like to speak.
Stephen Berg, Manager of S. Cedar K-mart then spoke. I just want to reiterate the fact that
the program that is being presented to you is a national program. By the end of this year, 1200
of the 2200 K-marts in the nation will be changed over to Big K's. We are in the process of
expansion. Most of our stores are from 25-30 years old. We are trying to make them very
attractive and shoppable. We are averaging 60-100% increases. I think it would be very
favorable program, especially for the S. Cedar area, and our customers on the south side. Do
you have any questions for me?
Jamie Higgins from Adams Outdoor then spoke. As J. Ruff mentioned, according to the sign
ordinance commercial districts such as this K-mart are allowed to have a total of 10% of the
wall in signs, up to a limit of 200 ft2. if it were not for the 200 ft2 limit the size of this building
could accomodate 854 ft2. The additional sign we are requesting to display the official name
change is going to be approximately 6% of the surface area of this building. It is not going to
be anything out of proportion to the size of the structure itself. The word "Big" itself, those
three letters are six feet tall and seven feet long. By the time you box all of that in along with
the tail of the "swoosh", it all adds up to more than 200 ft2. They currently have over 200 ft2 of
signs. I'm not aware of the details of the variance that they went through in the early 1990's. I
just feel that this sign is necessary for them to establish their logo, their new identity. It would
not be anything out of proportion to the neighborhood or this structure.
A Board member states "I just want to be sure that I understand that there is no request at this
time to increase the size of the pole sign".
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 3
J. Higgins replies that is correct. We'd just be replacing the faces in that pole sign, but not
altering it all.
J. Garcia asks what is the relationship of the height of the word "Big" on the pole sign in
relation to the "Big" on the building?
J. Higgins replies the overall logo is exactly proportioned. On the wall, the 'V is ten feet, and
the "Big" is 6 feet. I don't know exactly what the dimensions are on the pylon sign itself, but it
is in proportion to ten and six.
G. Hilts mentions I don't see any hardship or practical difficulty demonstrated as the code
requires us to see.
J. Higgins states they are changing their name, they are no longer going to be a K-mart. It is
going to be a Big-K.
G. Hilts says a self-created hardship doesn't count.
J. Higgins notes it is a nation wide chain. If Meijer were to change their name to Feldpausch,
they would obviously have a larger name to display their signage.
G. Hilts repeats they are creating their own hardship, and that isn't the way that the code
defines this.
J. Higgins states I would say the hardship would be that they would not be able to display the
name of their business on the building.
J. Ruff asks were there alternatives discussed for this as far as replacing the "K" with a
different sized "K", and obviously proportionately changing the size of the "Big"?
J. Higgins replies there are two standard sizes of the "K". The ten feet is the smaller version,
they also have a fourteen feet "K". The mass produced signs are available across the country.
This is the smaller of the two sets of letters that are available. Anything smaller would have to
be custom made but could be done at a much larger expense.
J. Garcia asks is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of this appeal? Is
there anyone who would like to speak against this appeal?
J. Garcia states we will move into the Committee of the Whole.
J. Garcia asks does anybody wish to make a comment?
M. Clark states my comment would be that while I appreciate that this building is set back
quite a ways from Cedar St., and that it is a large building, I agree with G. Hilts that the
hardship is created because K-mart wants to use a readily available sign. A sign could be
created that would fit the sign code and still use this new logo. I guess because of the nature
of the site, I would be willing to look at some variance, but I'm not willing to support the extent
that we are being asked to vary the code at this point. I will not be supporting this appeal as it
is written.
G. Hilts states when we gave them the variance in 1992 it was because they were making
their signage better and closer to compliance with the code. I also know that this is not the
only community with a sign code where they are going to be running into problems. I don't
really buy any of the arguments.
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 4
V. Earhart notes it appears to me that the practical difficulty in this case is that the law says
200 ft2. It's difficult to build something of 542 ft2 in that amount of space. I don't think that is a
problem that should be brought to this Board. It is a problem that ought to be addressed to the
legislative body of our city. If there is going to be an exception made, ask for the sign code to
be changed so that certain kinds of buildings get more signage. If their legislative body isn't
willing to adopt such a change, I can't in good faith approve a request that more than doubles
the amount allowed. The other thing is, there was a comment about standard sized signs.
This is the second time that a sign company has come in and said "we started with this size,
and then we blew it up, or took it down in proportion, and we need six more feet because when
we did it, it came out to this amount". I doubt if Lansing is the only town or county that has
adopted a sign code similar to this that those standard signs you talked about are not going to
fit in. There has got to be some movement within industry to meet the requirements of the
laws of the cities and counties where you are going to put signs.
A. Frederick asks in looking at the photographs that we were supplied of the store, can you
tell me what is defined as the sign?
J. Ruff points things out on the photographs and replies there is a background of the sign,
which is the facade of the building. The sign is not as well defined here, it's on a raceway.
The ground pole sign has a frame with a background, the extremities of the ground pole sign
frame is the sides of the sign. According to code, when you have letters or other things just
placed on a building facade that is without a frame, such as that, and the frame doesn't have
to be a regular shape necessarily, if it doesn't have a defined shape you have to put a box
around it's extremities and give it an area. That's what this is, it is based upon the extremities
of 11.1' high by approximately 35.5' wide.
A. Frederick clarifies so in the photograph, this is considered the sign?
J. Ruff replies no, that's part of the facade of the building. The sign is the height of the "K"
and the swoop with the "Big", and it is the width of the entire logo or sign. So from tip of
swoop to tip of swoop.
A. Frederick states the reason I asked that question is because I am confused about what is
the sign. To me, it looks like this whole thing is not a facade, it's a sign. It's not on the front of
the building, it's attached to the roof. And it looks to me like this sign, defined that way, has
been out of compliance even from the variance that was granted. I'm not sure I agree that just
the "K" should have been counted in the square footage. It ended up, in my opinion, giving
them more square feet then they should have had to begin with. I can see where the difficulty
would be now, asking them to fit the "Big", and the swoop, and the "K" inside this area. I don't
know if that would be visible well enough.
J. Ruff notes when you look at it, K-mart is the main store in that center. There is a ground
pole sign at the street which is the north-south indicator. I don't know that the wall sign is the
sign for Cedar St. It is such a distance away anyway, that if you're traveling, I hope you're
looking at the road when you're driving along. Maybe your passengers look someplace else,
but the driver should be focused in this area. That is why ground pole signs are allowed to be
out near the street to help direct people into the property. Other signs would be able to allow
them to find their location within the property.
A. Frederick states I might be willing to consider a variance if, in my opinion, the size of the
sign was reduced. This looks to me just like that sign that we had for the self storage area
over on MI-King by the railroad tracks.
J. Ruff says it appears to be a roof sign, no doubt about it.
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 5
A. Frederick continues I might be inclined to agree that a variance would be needed if
something ended up considerably smaller.
E. Spink asks would it be appropriate to ask the appelant if they would be interested in having
the Board table this request for them to re-study and come back with an alternate proposal?
J. Garcia states the question would be would you like us to table this matter, or would you like
us to vote on it tonight?
J. Higgins answers I'm willing to have it tabled so that I can take a further look at it.
E. Spink moves that the BZA-3501.98 be tabled, second by G. Hilts. On a voice vote,
there were 6 yeas; 1 nay. Motion carried BZA-3501.98 is tabled.
J. Ruff notes a table doesn't require any other information. We can put a limit on it, 30 days,
or 60 days, but that is not necessary.
J. Garcia mentions on a lighter note our Chair, Ms. Horne, hasn't missed a meeting in forever.
I came in tonight to find a gavel in front of me. Please bear with me.
J. Ruff notes C. Bicy is now present.
B. BZA-3503.98, 2308 Turner
J. Ruff presented the case, a request by David Washburn to build a 14' x 18'
addition onto the house at 2308 Turner Street 2' from the side (south) property
line. Section 1248.08(b)(2)(B) of the Zoning Ordinance requires the addition be
4.2' from the side property line. Therefore, a variance of 2.2' is requested. The
existing home is currently 2' from the south side lot line and the addition is
proposed to line up with the south wall of the house. The property is zoned "A"
Residential. The lot is narrow and deep, 42' wide x 150% deep. There is
single family around it, and the zoning reflects that. The existing house, even
though it doesn't meet current setback requirements, is not non-conforming the
way the code is written; it places the idea of single family homes that have been
erected on properties that are zoned single family as conforming. It has a
specific clause for that. The existing setback, even though it is non-conforming,
does present some problems to any additions that may be desired for the
house. It is a 22' x 26' house which is a reasonably small home, to try to
provide an addition on this site with the other existing improvements including a
driveway and garage on the other side, makes it a little more difficult. One of
the concerns when you run into a variance request such as this is the issue of
building construction codes. The current building construction residential codes
do not allow for openings, windows or doors, on that side when it is less than a
three feet setback. It also would require a fire rated wall on that side. In typical
frame construction, on the outside of your 2x4 framing you'd have to put
something like 5/8ths water resistant fire rated drywall and on the inside 5/8ths
fire rated drywall that would help compose that one-hour fire wall, and not have
openings in that side. That's part of your report. It really would not adversely
effect the adjoining properties. The neighbors most directly abutting this, even
though neighbors change from time to time, they've written a letter stating they
would not be opposed to the addition as proposed. We don't see that it will
adversely effect the surrounding properties but we do want to raise the issue of
the building code requirements for this type of addition.
J. Garcia asks does the Board have any questions for J. Ruff?
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 6
Hearing none, J. Garcia notes the appelant is here and would like to speak.
David Washburn, 2308 Turner, states the only thing I would like to add to that is because the
kitchen is very small, it's only 8' x 8% with about two feet of counterspace. The majority of this
addition is going to be kitchen and a small dining area. Included in the proposal is an upstairs
addition of a larger bedroom, I wanted to make sure that that was understood. The house is
very small, being 22' x 26' and 550 ft2 on each floor. It is currently a two story structure. We
would like to put an addition on a bedroom on the second story, above this kitchen addition. I
would be glad to answer any questions.
V. Earhart states I looked at the bid from Buck Construction. The windows that you have
listed here, the Anderson sliding door, one steel door with window, and two picture windows
with two double hung windows, don't seem to add up with the drawing of the addition.
D. Washburn replies actually when he drew that, he drew it in reverse because it's going to be
the other way around. The smaller slide by window we haven't decided on the size of it, will be
over the kitchen sink that will be on the back of the house. On the driveway side of the
structure is where we will put the entry door and another decent sized picture window.
V. Earhart asks you are aware of the fire wall requirement?
D. Washburn answers on that particular side there is nothing to look at anyway, we had no
intentions of putting a window of any kind there. I wasn't aware of the requirment, I assumed
the builder was aware of that. I just told the builder what I wanted. I assumed that he would
build according to code.
M. Clark states the drawing that we have here is a single story. Now you're saying that you
are making it a two story.
D. Washburn states somebody suggested it to me, that I would regret it later if I didn't have a
two story addition.
M. Clark asks about windows on the second story? Will there be windows on that side?
D. Washburn replies there will be pretty much nothing on that side.
M. Clark asks J. Ruff if the fire wall requirement extends to the second floor? Will it have to
be fire wall all the way up?
J. Ruff replies it sure does. One question I have is when the neighbors said they have no
objections, did they realize it's going to be a two story? We didn't advertise it as a two story.
That kind of changes light and air type issues that we look at when we deal with variance
requests.
D. Washburn states there wouldn't be any window looking out at their house. I can't see
where it would be any kind of issue at all.
M. Clark clarifies what you're proposing is a two story addition that is going to be 2'h' from the
property line. My question is, how are you going to be able to maintain that, particularly a two
story which would require ladders and so on?
D. Washburn states the lady that had owned the house previously had set her fences back
two feet. Even though the property line is 2'/z', the addition won't have windows on it to be
maintained.
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 7
M. Clark mentions that eventually houses normally need painting, siding, etc. And mowing in
2'h' is difficult.
D. Washburn replies this was the first house built in this area. They chose to build that house
just as close to the property line also. It's a mutual cooperation that we have. As far as the
maintenance, it would definitely be an issue if came right down to push come to shove. It
doesn't seem to be an issue yet.
M. Clark points out that unfortunately properties change hands, and sometimes it becomes an
issue.
E. Spink asks what are the plans for the present kitchen?
D. Washburn replies that because it is such a small area, and there is no main level
bathroom, we were going to divide the room and from one entry way make it a laundry room,
and from the existing entryway from the dining room into the kitchen now, put in a half bath.
C. Bicy asks I assume since you want to make a change to put a bedroom on the second floor
of this addition, that you would just have a bedroom only? Would it have a bathroom too?
D. Washburn states it will have a bathroom, all within the same 14' x 18'.
C. Bicy asks how many bedrooms are in the house now?
D. Washburn says currently there are three bedrooms. But the access to the new bedroom
would basically be through another very small 8' x 8' bedroom that we were going to make into
a storage area and hallway for the new bedroom.
C. Bicy asks are all three of the bedrooms upstairs?
D. Washburn replies yes.
C. Bicy asks about the slope of the roof, have you discussed that with the builder or architect?
D. Washburn says currently the slope of the roof is just barely walkable. It's a pretty steep
roof. I would want to have the same roof line.
C. Bicy clarifies it's my understanding you would not have any windows up there?
D. Washburn states there will be windows on the second floor.
C. Bicy asks which direction would they be facing?
D. Washburn replies to the east and to the north.
C. Bicy asks would that be looking into the neighbor's house next door?
D. Washburn replies no.
C. Bicy asks what was the original plan if you did not have the second story?
D. Washburn replies to put a cathedral ceiling in the downstairs section and not have an
additional bedroom upstairs.
C. Bicy asks when did you come up with the second story idea?
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 8
D. Washburn answers probably two weeks ago when I was talking to someone about it. We
haven't received a bid back from the construction company as far as the additional cost.
C. Bicy states I have to ask J. Ruff, by adding to this proposal that was already presented,
would you have any objections to this, and if so what would they be? I wouldn't be comfortable
voting on this affirmatively without having Mr. Ruff being able to give us a sense of direction.
J. Ruff states the question I would have is in evaluating it, we didn't advertise it as a single or
two story, so I don't think we have a problem with that. Keep in mind that if a variance was
approved, and we just normally did business and said for a 14' x 18' addition two feet from the
property line, we probably wouldn't specify whether it was a single or a two story. Once the
variance was granted he could build a two story, now or sometime in the future. I guess the
real essence of the question of it's location would be is there any reason that you couldn't be at
least three or four feet from the property line? I know it's important to keep in line with the
existing house, but thinking about now going to a two story, would there be any way to offset it
slightly so you could get a little more space to help maintain that area, since neighbors do
change with time.
D. Washburn states I wish I had brought pictures of the back of the house so that you would
understand. Currently there is a four foot window in the back of the house. It's about three
feet from the corner. It was where that window is right now, we were going to have that
window removed and that would be the archway going into the new kitchen. By offsetting it,
that would put the cupboards into the archway. If we moved the whole addition over by two
feet, we wouldn't be able to have the same layout, which is not to say we couldn't have some
sort of layout, but we wouldn't be able to have the same layout without some major structural
changes dealing with new headers and things.
J. Ruff asks the request is 2' from the line, what would another 1' do, in order to get the 3'
distance? Generally what the zoning code requires for detached accessory structures is at
least 3'. It would put the cabinets closer to that opening, I don't know what it does to the
interior layout. We don't have an interior layout plan.
D. Washburn replies that cabinets come in different sizes and depths. If for some reason the
setback has to be three feet, then it has to be three feet and we can certainly deal with
whatever comes up.
J. Ruff notes the other thing that does is push the addition slightly into the driveway. As far as
what I see from the site plan.
D. Washburn states yes it does. I didn't want to go too far over to the other side because it
would be a tight squeeze to get the second car into the garage. We are only like 25' behind
the house now, is where the garage is. I didn't measure it, I'm guessing. But it would be a
pretty tight squeeze for a larger vehicle.
J. Ruff notes it's a 22' wide garage, with two 9' doors. So there's the extra hassle of the
center pole.
A. Frederick states I understand why you'd want the addition to line up. I was thinking it might
make the aesthetics of the house, at least on that wall, look a little odd if the addition were
shifted one foot over.
A. Frederick asks what is the usual width of a lot?
J. Ruff answers 60' is what we split now. Those lots were platted at 42' or less. That did
bring up another question. The addition in it's present state would be four feet off the north
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 9
line. So if it were moved a foot, then you'd have a three foot offset, and a one foot offset, it
wouldn't be centered and it wouldn't follow that outside wall line. I just wanted to clarify that.
Discussion ensued regarding narrow lots, and the need for setbacks.
A. Frederick notes that with maintenance, the existing neighboring home is probably going to
need something a lot sooner than the new addition.
M. Clark states we as a Board need to be concerned about creating situations that are going
to negatively impact on other people's property. I'm not even saying that I'm opposed to this.
But I think that we as a Board need to be very concerned about recognizing that when we
allow things to be built that close to property lines, what we are doing, in effect, is giving that
property owner the right to use his neighbor's property for maintenance.
J. Garcia asks are there any other questions for Mr. Washburn?
C. Bicy asks what is the minimum that you would like to see as far as the property line?
D. Washburn replies I don't have a real good answer for that. It would be back to the drawing
board all the way, as far as the kitchen layout. I could deal with a one foot offset and not get
too far into redesigning cupboards and things. This says that my house is located 2' off the
property line. When I purchased the home about a year ago, and according to the survey that
I received at the mortgage closing, the house is 2.5' from the property line.
J. Ruff is that the one that was submitted to us, by Brian Land Surveys?
D. Washburn answers yes.
J. Ruff states ours says two feet plus or minus, that's all it says.
D. Washburn says I'm sorry, I misread that. I thought is was 2.5.
J. Garcia asks if there is anyone else that would like to speak regarding this appeal?
J. Garcia states we will now go into the Committee of the Whole.
C. Bicy asks for my own clarification, Mr. Ruff, you don't have any problems with this upstairs
addition? If you have problems, then I can't vote for this. If you don't have a problem, then I
can look at it a little bit differently.
J. Ruff states there are questions either way. You have an existing wall line that's two feet
plus or minus from the property line. That wall line is only 26' long now. You put another 14'
on it, and now it's 40' long. When it was a one story proposal, it was just that lower level that
you had to deal with and if you try to put a ladder, or you do something there, you can deal with
it a little easier because you only have a nine or ten feet wall to deal with. When you put a two
story wall up, now you're dealing with 40' of two story wall and potentially the neighbor could
put a fence up tomorrow, and the petitioner would be shocked, and it would make it even more
difficult to maintain that side of the structure. In general concept, I don't know that it would be
a significant land use issue. When we talk about in the realm of things, it's not a real
significant land use issue to allow them to extend what they already have. But it's problematic
and requires some thought. Without having windows on that side, and having a fire wall on
that side, you have a little less maintenance to deal with. I think an extra foot would be real
beneficial, to have a three foot setback. Then at least you can go up with some kind of
scaffolding, whereas with two feet, you don't have any base support for future maintenance.
Those are practical concerns that will be year in and year out that somebody will have to deal
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 10
with in a maintenance fashion. By approving a variance for this, you'd be establising that.
C. Bicy asks if we left it at 22".
J. Ruff states the variance is a request for 2.2', if you leave the structure at 2' from the
setback, it makes what you have in 26', 40'.
D. Washburn notes that the entryway itself is a 4' opening, I could make that 35.
J. Ruff says I prefer to see a 3' setback, and then he won't have to fire rate the walls.
C. Bicy states my main question is, do you have any problems with the second floor?
J. Ruff says yeah, I'm trying to define those.
C. Bicy says thank you, you have explained that. We, as a board, try to comply with the things
that your board comes up with, and not exceed that.
J. Ruff notes these types of things are just more practical, personable types of things. Mr.
Washburn, living in the house with his family, and trying to make some improvements to the
structure which the City of Lansing is all in favor of house improvements.
C. Bicy states my concern is that if your feeling is that he needs to come back and give you
more information about the second floor, I'm willing to table it. That's where I'm coming from.
Or, regarding the three feet, if you approve, fine; if you don't then I want to know why.
E. Spink says I agree, however, Mr. Ruff did say we really only approve a footprint. So that an
applicant can come in with a nice one story plan and build as high as the code allows, because
we're only approving a footprint. It's best to establish the need for the footprint with an
accurate description of your need. I agree with everything Mr. Ruff has said regarding the one
foot. I'm usually a stickler on not much of a variance on side yards. I know we are not
supposed to be considering it necessarily, but the aesthetics of a one foot over when you've
got three feet over on the other side almost makes to look more like a stuck on then a part of
the structure. He's already got all those problems with two feet that he has, so we're only
giving him more of what he has already.
E. Spink moves that BZA-3503.98 at 2308 Turner St. be approved for a variance of 27'
as requested with the understanding that all construction meet the current building
codes and that the structure remain a single family unit, supported by G. Hilts.
J. Ruff notes for clarification, that's 2.2', and would be in line with the existing structure.
E. Spink states the intent of the motion is to have the addition in line with the existing house.
C. Bicy says I assume this means the second floor too?
E. Spink replies that is correct. Technically, we are only doing footprints. But we do
understand it's a two story.
M. Clark comments I won't be supporting this appeal as stated simply because while I
understand the aesthetics of the setback, to exacerbate an already difficult situation and
perpetuate it forever, just does not seem reasonable to me. I think there are options that will
allow for maintenance in the long run without restricting his ability to do an addition that would
be useable on the inside.
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 11
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Na
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Hilts X S ink X
Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 6- 1 BZA3503.98 has been approved with conditions.
C. BZA-3504.98, 1109 S. Genesee
J. Ruff presented the case, a request by John Greene, to erect a 238 ftz
addition for kitchen expansion and a 880 ftz attached garage to the house at
1109 S. Genesee, located on a corner lot at Martin Luther King and Genesee.
You may recall we addressed a fence variance, the initial improvement that Mr.
Greene was looking at was trying to provide for a little more quiet yard space. I
don't know what caused this new set of circumstances, but looking at
constructing an attached garage and an attached kitchen addition. Due to the
orientation of the lot, he is severely restricted on rear yard setback. He is
requesting a 7'2" variance from the required 30' rear yard setback. Also, the
Zoning Code allows a maximum of 720 ftz for a private garage. Therefore, this
is a requested variance of 160 ftz. A maximum of 1,000 ftz of accessory
structure is allowed. They propose retaining the existing garage and converting
into a storage building and with that they would have approximately 1,058.5 ftz,
this is a requested variance of 58.5 ftz for total accessory structure. The
property is at the intersection on the south side of Genesee St., at Martin Luther
King. The large yard that would be considered the front yard is toward MI-King.
The lot is 77' x 120'. Residential surrounds the property and the zoning reflects
that. This lot includes two platted lots, part of Lot 51 and all of Lot 50. The
house was originally laid out on Lot 51, the rear yard went back into what would
be considered a pie wedge back there. Current codes require 30' rear yard.
Because of the re-orientation of the lot and the combination of the lot, it keeps
the rear year to the south, but there's a definite restriction since the depth of the
lot is now only 77' deep. To meet setback requirements with most additions
makes it difficult. First you have to meet the established front yard setback,
then you have to meet the 30' rear yard setback. It severely limits an addition
that would be significant on the home. I had a discussion with Mr. Greene, they
want to keep the garage setback from the front line of the existing house. They
believe the architecture is important for the area. They feel they've moved it as
far forward as they can to provide for a private rear yard space that is the intent
of the ordinance, providing some activity area that is somewhat private. They
have two spaces that would be used. The area directly behind the house,
which is west of the existing garage; and the new space they would be creating
behind the new addition and new garage. We feel it is reasonable for the
setback, but we are concerned with the fact that we don't believe there's a real
hardship for exceeding the 720 ftz or the 1058.5 ftz for the addition. We are in
support of the setback variance, but we are not in support of exceeding the
area requirements for the garage.
J. Garcia asks are there any questions from the Board for Mr. Ruff?
C. Bicy asks will it be necessary to widen the curb cut if this is approved?
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 12
J. Ruff replies at first the design was worked around the street tree. Since the design was
begun, my understanding of the situation is the street tree becamed diseased and had to be
taken out anyway. You could require the driveway to be consolidated and go straight into the
garage. On the other hand, in this neighborhood it might be beneficial to keep the
arrangement that is drawn where you have the approach coming in from two smaller driveways
and allowing some landscaping through the larger facade of the parking area, depending upon
what the Board does with the area of the garage. Instead of having the driveway directly going
into the garage in this situation, I feel it is reasonable that that area could be landscaped and
they have that dual entrance so that you're not directly approaching the face of a garage door.
Ronald Greene, the appelants's brother, then spoke. I would like to use your easel please.
This is the proposed site plan, which is the same thing that you have, I don't know if all of you
will be able to see it clearly. As Mr. Ruff has indicated, the proposed plan showed about
840 ft2 of new accessory area which is indicated here in the garage structure. The new plan
as presented to you, shows 750 ft2 in conformance with the request by Mr. Ruff that it be
reduced to conform to the present zoning code. The 750 ft2 is what we are asking for on the
garage at this time.
J. Ruff asks is that 750 ft2 or 720 ft2?
R. Greene replies 750 ftz. The conflict with present zoning ordinance is this area behind the
garage is proposed to be 20'10" where the zoning ordinance requires 30'. We ask relief for
7'8" from the required 30'. The other issue Mr. Ruff brought up today, that I hadn't been aware
of, is the maximum total of 1000 ft2 in accessory structure area. I think that with the reduction
of the garage to 750 ft2 with the existing accessory structure, I think we fall within that range at
this time.
R. Greene continues, the next board shows the elevation from Genesee, which is the north
elevation of the house. This is the existing structure, the proposed modifications to the front
entry, and also the new construction proposed, the three car garage with a breezeway
including kitchen expansion in this area. This would be the expansion elevation from MI-King.
The third board shows, based upon a survey of the area by my office, other residences in the
area with similar sited garages and accessory structures. This is Dr. Greene's residence and
the dark area is the proposed addition. The residence immediately across the street has an
offset of probably six inches from the rear of it's garage. The residence immediately adjacent
to it has about 7' from the rear property line. There is another on the corner of Shiawasee and
Bartlett St. which has about 7' from the rear, if Bartlett is considered the front; or it has about
16' from the rear if Shiawasee is considered the front. The other relevant structure in the area
is this one, which has no offset from the rear property line if MI-King is considered the front.
There is a clear pattern of development in the area where structures are located less than 30'
from the rear yard. The other thing that Mr. Ruff brought up was the dual access from
Genesee St. We propose keeping the existing entry into the structure, and we've added
another here. There could be one entry for the garage put somewhere in the middle.
However, we think it would be safer, since the proximity of the garage is this close to the
corner. If cars coming out of the driveway could actually come out forward, they could see the
traffic better. The aesthetic benefit is, the strip of land indicated here, could be landscaped.
The other issue brought up was the prior zoning appeal, where my brother had come and
asked for the location of fences. There is no request to change that at this time. All we are
asking for is the dual driveway here. Another reason we are asking for the dual driveway, you
may be able to see it better on the map in front of you, there is an existing light pole which is
right here. The location of the driveway is such so that that structure remains where is it.
M. Clark asks am I correct in thinking that they are limited to 720 ftz rather than 750 ft2.
J. Ruff states 720 ft2 is the ordinance requirement.
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11 1998
Pa a 13
M. Clark asks was there some reason for going for the 750 ft2? I don't see a hardship that
would permit me to vote for that unless you can point one out to me.
R. Greene replies it's not a hardship for the 720 ft2, that's not a problem, I was thinking it was
750 ft2. Either way it goes is not a problem.
M. Clark asks because the driveway is so close to Logan, is there any problem with whoever
looks at that, traffic or something?
J. Ruff replies we could have them look at it, I don't see that there would be a problem. I think
we're talking a reasonable distance, especially for somebody coming out that way. It's not
necessarily required that the person would not back out there.
M. Clark notes for the homeowner, aesthetically and for convenience, this is wonderful. I
didn't know if there'would be some concerns in terms of safety.
J. Ruff states I could have Traffic look at it, but we have a local street here, and it's not a
commercial street or a principal arterial, other than King. It is a divided street, so you're only
having to deal with one portion of traffic on Genesee. You can only go toward King in that
situation. We could review that with Traffic, but I don't believe it would be a problem.
C. Bicy asks how large is your current kitchen?
R. Greene replies the current kitchen is about 8' x 8'.
C. Bicy asks by putting the new addition, is that going to be more kitchen space?
R. Greene answers definitely.
C. Bicy asks that will increase it by how much?
R. Greene answers it will increase the kitchen space by about 60%, slightly more than 100 ft2.
C. Bicy asks the new garage will be for three cars?
R. Greene replies correct.
C. Bicy asks and the width of that is?
R. Greene replies as we have it right now, it's 33'. We can modify it to bring it into compliance
with the 720 ft2, we have no problem with that.
C. Bicy asks what is the average for a three car garage?
J. Ruff replies you can have a three car garage with 720 ft2 you are dealing with your width
and depth ratio that makes the difference. I couldn't tell you average size.
C. Bicy says I shouldn't say average size. What is the normal size for a three car garage?
J. Ruff replies, to be honest with you, not many are designed in Lansing, I couldn't answer
that. I know when the establishment was made for 720 ft2 in the code difference, they looked
that a three car garage could reasonably fit within 720 ft2. Here you have an instance of a
double overhead door and one single overhead door, so you've got 1 plus the 9'. You could
have an 18' wide double door, it makes it easier to move in and out of. I appreciate the
architectural explanation of how this would fit into the neighborhood.
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 14
J. Garcia asks are there any other questions for Mr. Greene?
J. Garcia asks is there anyone else who would like to speak on this appeal?
Seeing none, we will now go into the Committee of the Whole.
M. Clark motions to approve BZA3504.98 at 1109 S. Genesee, for the 77' variance to
erect an addition for kitchen expansion and attached garage, the garage not to exceed
720 W, and the dual drive approach to be approved as presented unless there are
problems with the Traffic Department which would preclude that. Second by A.
Frederick.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Hilts X S ink X
Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 7-0, BZA3504.98 has been approved as modified.
D. BZA-3505.98, 607 W. Barnes
A request by Harold W. Dunckle Jr. and Pamela Dunckle (owners) to construct
a 16' x 20' rear two story addition to the house at 607 W. Barnes Ave. The
addition would result in a 2.5' side yard setback. Based upon Section 1248.07
of the Zoning Code a minimum side yard setback of 4.4' is required. In this
situation we have a 44' wide lot requiring 10% of the lot width in sideyard
setback. Therefore, a 1.9' setback variance is requested. The existing home is
about 1.5' off the property line. As seen in the picture, the addition is a barn
style roof. The proposal is to put a two story addition on and center it within the
roof line. To make a two story addition reasonably on this type of a roof line,
you really need to keep it centered or else you run into more head room
problems and roof line problems or straight expanded back. They are
requesting that it be offset in another foot on each side so that then you take
care of the eave situation and all that type of thing. The proposed addition is
16'x20' and would be in line with the existing rear porch that will be removed.
You have a site plan in your packet that illustrates the 1.5' setback of the
existing home, and then the proposed 2.5' setback for the addition. We have
some similar types of issues here but, most importantly, for hardship sake is the
house exists 1.5' from the property line which limits how they can add on to a
structure of this nature. They are not necessarily totally restricted from going to
the opposite side of the yard except for where the house sets. Presently the
request is for a 2.5' sideyard setback. In this situation it is also important to
know that the adjacent property, that's the side yard that would have a
driveway. It's not really an improved situation at this point in time, but that's
where the driveway would be. There is a garage that sits back there, and a
curb cut up front, but not much use into that garage. The situation exists that
there is a little more space in here as well between the homes.
J. Garcia asks if the appelant would like to comment.
Harold Dunckle, 607 W. Barnes, states we have lived in this home for about fifteen years. I
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 15
can sympathize with this gentlemen as far as being close to the lot line. As you can see, the
existing is just 1.5' off the lot line. There are three windows there. Fortunately, the
neighborhood is an older neighborhood, everybody seems to know everybody quite well and
we all get along. I did have the house roofed, the only way for the roofer to do it was to be in
the neighbor's driveway. We talked with two or three different contractor's and we looked at
options. Really, that was the only practical option to make it look right. Especially, if you go to
the east, towards the driveway, there's not much room. Not only that, with the roof line, it
would be very difficult to line up roof lines and make it look right. The house right now has
three bedrooms upstairs. One of the bedrooms is quite small, it's less than 7' wide, and it's
about 10.5' deep with two closet doors. That was fine when it was a nursery, but now we'd
appreciate a little more bedroom. Quite frankly, that's what we want to put the addition on for.
J. Garcia asks are there any questions?
J. Garcia asks is there anyone else that would like to speak on this appeal?
Seeing none we move into the Committee of the Whole.
C. Bicy moves to approve 3505.98, 607 W. Barnes, to allow a 1.9' sideyard variance for a
two story rear porch addition, with the condition that the addition meets the building
code requirements for side openings and fire wall ratings one hour, unless applicants
wish to meet the minimum 3' setback for building code compliance, second by V.
Earhart.
M. Clark comments that she will be supporting this appeal, and the only reason she feels
differently because you're going to run into the same sideyard problems, is because this house
is built in such a way that to put an addition on in any other way just doesn't make sense. We
would be telling you you couldn't have an addition at all. While I'm reluctant to give a variance
which will create a side yard of less than 3', in this case, I think it's the only option.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Hilts X S ink X
Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 7-0, BZA3505.98, 607 W. Barnes, has been approved with
conditions.
E. BZA-3506.98, 6131 S. Pennsylvania
A request for wall sign variances for the Snethkamp property at the southeast
corner of Miller and Pennsylvania Ave. The property has been going under
some renovations and they've been taking some signs down, trying to get
things in order and proposing some new signage. We were right at the
deadline for the cutoffs for this, so I did the report on this. In summary, there
are some existing signs on the structure that are being removed. They are
proposing to keep some of the signs, plus modifiy others, to end up with eight
total wall signs containing 467 ft2 in area. The Code allows for two wall signs in
200 ft2 in area. This is a corner lot, but Miller is not considered a principal or
minor arterial, so it's restricted from having four wall signs totaling 200 ft2. So
the number of signs is one of the issues, as well as the area. The proposed
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 16
signage of 467 ft2 replaces a situation where there are eight signs totaling in
excess of 800 ft2. So there is some improvement being made here. In your
packet is a before and after summary of the signs. The one that says west
elevation two signs that are 161 ft2 +. There was another sign that said
service on it that had to be taken down when the addition was made. I didn't
have the area of that sign, but I counted it in the number of signs. Three of the
proposed signs are really considered more directional type signs in that they
identify particular entrances such as sales, rental and leasing, and service.
They are relatively small signs that really are directory to the interior of the lot.
They just don't meet our current directory sign section. Directory signs are
supposed to be 4 ft2 or less. They are trying to keep the same size of lettering
that is readable and makes sense, so they have three signs of varying sizes
showing that. These need to be counted toward the wall sign allowances.
There are also two signs that are Dodge Truck panels or graphic panels, they
are like small bulletin boards that they can change like a billboard paper or
something that would have a picture. Right now those two are on the south
side of the building. They propose moving one to the north side of the building.
The main identification sign on the west elevation of 167 ft2. There is a body
shop sign on the south elevation of 100 ft2, and the Saab product sign on the
south elevation of 51 ft2. This Board did grant a variance to modify the ground
pole signage in 1996. That was here just considering the ground signs.
Handling the Saab product line and also with the idea that they would be doing
some improvements to other signange. They have made some of those
improvements. As you recall, the initial variance back in 1996 was kind of a
stage of improvements for the ground pole signs. They have not completed all
of those improvements, and they are not scheduled to complete those until the
end of this year approximately. The improvements are still moving forward.
This is a requested variance for 226 ft2 and the additional signs. I don't see a
problem with the directory signs necessarily. I think they are a reasonable size
for their purpose and they really do appear as directory type signs, as opposed
to body shop on the south side of the building. Realistically, with the size of
the building as you have a graphic in your proposal of the elevations, you can
see how the signs would be separated out. There is an improvement to the
signage that is proposed. In an effort to control the sign proliferation and
acheive a situation where there is an improvement toward the area and the
number of wall signs, staff believes that the combination with the already
approved ground pole sign plan, the two Dodge Truck graphic signs really are
excessive. Their removal would result in the reduction of the total number of
signs as well, and an additional 110 ft2 in sign area. This will result in a total of
six wall signs, three of which are directional, totalling 357 ft2. There are other
things involved here that you may wish to discuss and deal with.
J. Garcia asks are there any questions for Mr. Ruff?
Marty DuBois of Central Advertising Co. then spoke. First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Ruff for all
the help that he and his staff has provided in helping us research this request, and all the
information that he provided for us. I just want to say that I know that in talking with the
owners at Bill Snethkamp's, and the management, that they will conform with all the
requirments of the previous variance that was granted. I would like to make one correction in
paragraph four of my request. On the second page of my application, the last sentence reads
"increase signage from 161 ft2 to 176 ft2 on the west elevation". It should read "reduce signage
from 191 ft2 to 176 ft2 on the west elevation". As the dealership has made improvements in
the exterior of the building, many old signs have already been removed. There was a Saab
sign that was 30 ft2. I'm going to be talking for just a couple of minutes. I know the time is
getting late, and I noticed as the meeting went on the applicant's did a much better job in
presentation, because the questions just kind of stopped. I'll try to expedite my part of this
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 17
presentation.
J. Ruff asks what is the square footage reduction?
M. DuBois repeats the reduction is from 191 ft2 to 176 ft2 on the west elevation.
M. Clark asks is that three signs to two?
M. DuBois replies the number of signs remains the same. In the beginning it was going from
seven signs to eight.
M. Clark states I thought on the west elevation there had been an additional Dodge sign or
something that was already gone.
M. DuBois states there was a Saab sign that is included in all of our information that we are
talking about.
M. Clark asks so it is two signs that were 191 ft2?
M. DuBois replies it was three signs on the west elevation.
M. DuBois comments in the over all count, we did not originally count the Saab sign. In our
request we only counted the one sign and square footage, that 171 ft2. That sign on the front
of the building was 161 ft2, that was the only sign that I originally counted, I forgot about the
Saab sign that had been removed.
M. DuBois states I will be talking about a lot of square footage. As you did already, interrupt
me if there are any questions about any figures that I throw out so we can deal with them right
at that time.
M. DuBois continues the old wall signage totalled 836 ft2. The proposed signage totals 467 ft2,
this is reduction of 369 ft2 or approximately 44% less than what was originally there. The new
signs will cover only about 5% of the useable wall space. The quantity of signs remains the
same, at eight. However, the old signs, seven out of the eight were advertising, and one is
what I would consider a sign used to help direct customers. With the proposed signs, four out
of the eight signs help direct customers movements, and for the most part are not very
noticeable from the street. They have no real advertising value, their purpose is to help get
the customer to the right department and to help make their visit a pleasant one. We've
reduced the number of advertising signs from seven to four. The four remaining advertising
signs will advertise the name of the dealership, and the vehicle lines they carry. They have
different lines, it's important that they get their names out. They carry Dodge trucks, Dodge
vehicles, Saabs, and what they are going to do is use the two 55 ft2 signs to advertise the
trucks on both sides of the building. One of the problems with this building is you've actually
got several businesses going on all at once. Not just the car dealership and selling cars, but
they repair cars, they do body work, they lease and rent cars. There are several businesses in
this establishment. If you actually had separate businesses, they would be allowed more
square footage than is being requested. In talking with the owner and management of this
company, I know they are committed to making their company a positive part of this
community. They have spent tens of thousands of dollars on improvements to their building.
In starting their work before they received a variance, they have really put themselves at great
risk, even from a financial standpoint. Without their signs, they are not going to make as much
money. We are asking for your help tonight. We feel this request is reasonable and in the
best interest of the public. We respectfully ask that you approve our variance request. Thank
you.
M. Clark states that staff, in their recommendation, indicates that their are some Dodge truck
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 18
signs that might possibly be removed. Do you have a position on that?
M. DuBois replies that I would sincerely ask that you not remove those signs. They are 55 ft2,
on a building this size, they are dots, as you can see in the plans. One of the signs will be
needed for the Dodge dealership. Dealerships change. In the future there may be another line
added. I would ask that you allow them to use that in case of that coming up in the future.
And also that it is only 55 ftz and it's a reasonable amount for this size building.
M. Clark clarifies that is two signs at 55 ft2, so a total of 110 ftZ?
M. DuBois answers yes. We are trying to make the signs more balanced. Right now both of
those signs are on one side of the building. We are taking one down and moving it to the
other side of the building so that there will be more of a balance. You are actually on three
streets here. There is a little access road that goes on the south side of the building, Ramada
Dr.; you've got Pennsylvania on the west side; and Miller on the north side.
M. DuBois then held up a picture to explain to the Board the extent of the modifications,
pointing out the signs that will be removed.
V. Earhart asks what are you going to have on your ground poles?
M. DuBois answers, to be honest, that is something that was dealt with before, I didn't handle
that variance so I'm not prepared to answer questions about that.
J. Ruff states the owner dealt with that variance himself. The General Manager, Gary Sturk,
dealt with that matter himself. We did a lot of working out of trying to satisfy their signage
needs with trying to get more compliance there. We did a very good job. I've drawn those in
on the site plan, just to show you what their ground pole signs were approved for. An
identification sign near the intersection of Miller and Pennsylvania that would be three sided
that would service Miller and Pennsylvania. That's more of their used car sign, but it would
also advertise Bill Snethkamp. The major identification sign is right in front of the building that
has Dodge Snethkamp/Dodge Trucks, I believe. The issue was with the odd dealer product,
the Saab, they moved it. Saab has a new design logo, they wanted to put it on the existing
sign which is right out at the street line now. The Board approved the new logo, but moving
the sign back by the building. Where it's at now is near the corner in the front, moving it back
near the building so the Saab sign and the new logo would be back near the new building. So
that's what has been approved for ground pole signs. They would be taking out some other
nonconforming situations. There was also a little directory type sign on the corner that is being
relocated to be on the property instead of being in the right of way.
A. Frederick asks J. Ruff who decides what streets are going to be minor or major arterials?
J. Ruff replies that is defined in the master plan, and it's done through the planning process.
There is traffic criteria, and then there is some public perception criteria. There's the
engineers prospective of what a road is. Miller Road had for a long time been considered a
thoroughfare, but it's heavily residential, especially west of Cedar St. So from a master plan
standpoint, it was designated as a collector street so that we wouldn't gear improvements to
make it a major arterial. That's why Edgewood Blvd. was put in further south near the
highway, away from the residential properties, so that there would be a non-expressway
through street on the south end. Miller is definitely considered a non major or minor arterial,
it's considered a collector by the master plan. In this section, you don't have residential on it
right at this intersection. It's a three lane cross section.
A. Frederick states that from attending some of the traffic calming meetings that have been
held, Mr. Berridge, the Traffic Engineer, always had much to say about Miller Rd. and how it
was designated. He indicated that was primarily because it goes by a school a few blocks
Board of Zoninq Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 19
west as you cross Cedar St. Miller was certainly the topic of much discussion about the
amount of use that it does get. It does get more use than it appears from it's designation.
Discussion ensued about remaining residential on Miller from Pennsylvania to Aurelius, and a
speed trap.
M. Clark comments that even if Miller were considered a major road, they still would be
allowed only four signs. It allows them two more signs.
G. Hilts mentions that the signage proposed is an improvement from what they have currently.
Also, this is a unique property due to the street situation.
C. Bicy notes mainly Miller and Pennsylvania get used.
M. Clark wants to compliment them on how much effort they've put in to improving the signage
at the site across the board. But even if we considered it three major streets, they would be
allowed six signs. I guess I still have a problem with the two Dodge signs, and understanding
why you feel the need to have those. If you didn't, it would be a real easy approval.
M. DuBois asks how many would I be allowed if there were actually two arterials?
J. Ruff replies four signs.
M. DuBois states I'm not trying to suggest that Ramada is a busy street. For the dealerships
case, there is a business entrance on that side for the body shop. Technically, the signs that
are directionals, of which there are four, I'm sure one of them is going to be reduced
eventually, which is the one over the body shop. It's a painted wall sign and it's out of date.
Eventually that sign will be made smaller. I can't tell you when, but knowing the improvements
they are making, that is something that is going to come up in the next year or so. There are
only four signs that advertise the businesses. The other four signs are directional oriented.
They are a little larger than what's allowed in the ordinance, because you need them bigger
with such a large lot. People have to see those signs when they first drive on the lot, or when
they are driving in off of Miller. They have to be large enough where they can be legible and
safely move traffic off of Pennsylvania or off of Miller without causing any traffic problems.
That's why we haven't been able to stay within the limits on those directional type signs. If you
eliminate those four signs, and you gave us the benefit of the doubt with Miller being a major
arterial and Pennsylvania, then we would have those four signs that would keep us within the
limits.
V. Earhart comments, following along with what you were saying, if the ground sign at the
corner of Miller and Pennsylvania actually states that there are Dodge trucks available on this
property, then I too, agree that the signs are not necessary on the building itself.
M. DuBois states you have to know where the entrance is, that's the purpose of the signs on
the building. The directory sign out at the street, I think that actually advertises the hotel or
something.
J. Ruff clarifies, you're talking about two different signs. We are talking Miller and
Pennsylvania, the sign isn't erected yet. But future replacement of signs that they have along
the street frontage.
M. DuBois states the biggest problem we have with the number of signs are these directionals
that we have to count toward the signage. Because they are larger than what's allowed. I
hope I've explained it well enough.
J. Ruff states we could have approached it two ways. We could have said a variance in
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 20
directional signs, and said these are larger. But generally, I just try to keep it simple. I do note
a couple of good points as the idea of the number of advertising signs being reduced.
M. DuBois comments another thing is the signs that are being put up are much nicer looking
than what they had there before. They are putting up neon signs, channel letters, they are not
the ugly box signs. It's really a big improvement to the area.
J. Ruff says I had asked Mr. DuBois about the loss of those signs before. He said he would
talk to them about it before he came back with his variance proposal. That was a concern of
mine originally as well. That's why, I think, they also came up with the suggestion of moving
one to the north side for more of a balance.
C. Bicy adds I agree with M. Clark in these Dodge truck signs. But what's the pleasure, are we
saying now one sign or no signs, or what? According to the recommendation that has been
presented to Mr. DuBois here is that we remove both Dodge truck signs. Isn't that right Mr.
Ruff?
J. Ruff replies yes, that's our recommendation. In itself, the amount of square footage on the
building is relatively minor. But again, we are looking at trying to see an overall reduction in
the number of signs as an improvement. There are many ways to accomplish that. Not only
dealing with the area, the improvement to the quality of the signs that's being put up, but when
you look at the number of signs and trying to see an advancement there. That was the goal.
C. Bicy asks are we talking about four signs or six?
J. Ruff states there is a total of eight signs. Three to four of them are directory depending on if
you think the body shop is a directory sign. I think if we went back to 1996 when we dealt with
the other signs, I think we would see probably even more area of wall signs than what Mr.
DuBois has even calculated. That whole front showroom was wrapped with signage. I don't
know if that was all counted or not. There was a lot of signage and there is definitely a
significant improvement in the area of signage, no doubt about it. We really applaud that
effort. Again, the directory signs are not a problem, if there was a way to make an
improvement to the number of signs, I think that would be appropriate. I also see the fact that
they probably have, indirectly, because when I look at the old file I can see there were a lot
more signs before.
C. Bicy asks M. Clark what was your idea on these signs? I want to hear it again.
M. Clark answers what I was saying is even if we consider this to be a building that is fronted
by three streets and we are willing to allow two signs per street, that is still only a total of six
signs, and they are proposing eight. Now what he is saying, when he added the additional
square footage when he was talking about what is there now, they really had nine signs.
M. DuBois states when I had counted what I had remembered, I thought there was originally
seven. And then in talking to Mr. Ruff, we remembered that there was the Saab wall sign. I
went back through my information that I had in my file and I found the dimensions of that sign.
M. Clark states that that was an additional sign, so the total would have been nine instead of
eight.
M. DuBois says no, it's still eight.
J. Ruff says he counted it in the eight, he just didn't know how big it was.
M. Clark continues, there were eight signs, he's proposing eight signs, he's just cutting
substantially on the square footage of them. So what we have to decide is if that improvement
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 21
is enough for us to grant the variance or whether we are concerned aboutt he number of signs
on the building. K-mart is coming back to us next month with signs on their building, and we
need to be careful that we have some consistency.
C. Bicy adds, with that, you are also saying the removal of the two Dodge signs, aren't you?
M. Clark answers if they remove the two Dodge signs, they would be down to six signs instead
of eight.
M. DuBois comments that four of those signs are just directional. They have three lines of
vehicles that they sell right now.
M. Clark asks what if you left just one Dodge truck sign, so that you were identifying the end of
the building where they sell those, and that way each of the lines would be identified?
M. DuBois answers honestly, I'm sure that would be acceptable to Mr. Snethkamp. From a
business perspective we are at your mercy because we've taken down signs to improve the
building without coming to you first. I would plead with you to say they have a need, with this
large of a business, on this large of a lot, with that many lines of work, that four signs to
advertise their lines of business in that size of a building is really a very reasonable request.
M. Clark states now what you have proposed here is a Dodge truck sign on the north and on
the south? How does that work, you were saying that you had these on there to identify the
locations. They come in from both the north and the south for the Dodge truck?
M. DuBois answers the directory signs are there to help provide that. Those sign are
advertising signs. Just telling you what they sell there.
V. Earhart states let's go back to the pole signs. You have one that isn't up yet, that's going to
have Snethkamp and Dodge in some combination, and one over here that says Saab?
M. DuBois repeats he cannot answer those questions because he wasn't involved in those
signs.
V. Earhart continues if we knew that it might solve this problem. If what you're doing is
advertising the location of someone selling Dodge trucks, that's what you are going to see. So
you don't have to have the smaller logos on the building.
M. DuBois states what Snethkamp's is doing there is a lot more reasonable than most other
car dealerships in this town. You look at other car dealerships, and you'll see a sea of signs.
What they are requesting is very reasonable compared to other dealerships.
J. Ruff states I can answer what was thought about for the corner sign, because that was part
of this whole process. They are also going to be dealing with more of some changeable copy
or to advertise their specials on that sign. Right now they have a changeable copy sign that
extends out into the right of way. They are going to be getting rid of that. They have some
banners that they change from time to time that they will be eliminating, so they were going to
include some changeable copy on the new ground pole sign up near the intersection so they
could deal with those changing types of merchandising. Besides just identifying the property
near the intersection, that was part of the idea of what's going to be on that sign. Other than
that, it was supposed to be 70 ft2 per side, so basically, it would be the same message on
each side, and be approximately 7'x10' or thereabouts.
A. Fredericks asks in comparing this request with the K-mart request, this request is bringing
us the same number of signs with a whole lot less square footage. K-mart is bringing us the
same number of signs with a whole lot more square footage. I think that compares favorably
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 22
with what the request is. I also note in the K-mart proposal that in the pictures they presented
to us, there's probably an illegal sign there also that they didn't choose to acknowledge while
they were here.
M. Clark notes that I would prefer to eliminate one of the Dodge truck signs, but in looking at
their building, you're going to have on the south side, Dodge truck; on the north side of the
building the only vehicles being advertised are the Dodge trucks. Is that because it's mostly
trucks on that end of the building?
M. DuBois answers we moved that sign over there just to help balance the signage, to make it
more palletable to you folks.
M. Clark continues that I agree with what Mr. Frederick was saying, that this company has
worked very hard in improving their signage, in reducing the square footage of signage, they've
reduced it substantially. I think that what they are proposing may not be as in keeping with the
code as we would like, but it is such a positive step forward, and we want to encourage
businesses to work with us in that way.
M. Clark moves that BZA3506.98, 6131 S. Pennsylvania, be approved as requested for a
total of eight signs with a total of 467 ft2, second by A. Frederick.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Na
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Hilts X S ink X
Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 7-0, BZA3506.98 has been approved unanimously.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Excused Absence - E. Horne had requested an excused absence so that she
may attend the retirement dinner of someone she worked with for many years.
C. Bicy moved to approve, second by V. Earhart. On a voice vote, motion
carried unanimously.
B BZA3482.98-BZA3495.98 - Towers
J. Ruff reports I have met with tower companies, I've met with hospitals, we are
trying to work something out with the hospitals and their comments about
towers. I've met with Sparrow and Ingham Regional Medical Center together
with their technical people, Hewlett Packard, and Vid-Com. We are trying to
deal with this issue of communication equipment near hospitals. We will be
spending more time doing that. We are seeing an interest in about seven sites
by one provider, that's Omnipoint. It would be primarily co-location sites. Two
of the sites are not part of our list because they are either existing towers that
they would be attaching to, one is at Washington & Holmes where the 300' city
tower is; the other is at the elevator shaft in City Hall. For your information they
did a study of the Wolverine tower that we see on River St. that you see coming
up Cedar St., it's basically maxed out structurally, not because of the basic
structure but because of the angle of the guides. If the guides were out farther,
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 23
it would handle a lot more. But because the guides are at a certain angle, they
have reached their limit. They spent $15,000 studying the structure. The
owner of that structure is going to be trying to reevaluate how he can deal with
that. They are looking at parcel B which is down off 96 north of Willoughby, it
was a vacant city owned parcel. They are looking at Red Cedar Golf Course,
they are looking at Station #6, at Pleasant Grove & Ferrol. They are looking at
Harry Hill. They are looking at the Landfill off Aurelius Rd. That one would just
be the height variance, the others require Special Land Uses as well as the
height variances. We are kind of looking at those, I just wanted to bring that to
your attention to say we are making progress and if you have particular
concerns about these that you want me to try to look at prior to bringing it back
to you, I would like to hear from you. That way when I request, maybe, that this
board take action on it, at least we've thought about those things as much as
possible. Feel free to get ahold of me. The David St. site where there is an
existing tower on the north side of Grosbeck is not a primary site because it's
too far away from 127. They also want to look at some Board of Water& Light
facilities such as winkin' blinkin' and nod. The problem is winkin' blinkin' and
nod are six hundred and some odd feet, and they are trying to figure a low
elevation. They are trying to develop a system around a certain height. To just
get above the Board of Water& Light building there is three hundred feet. We
are making some progress. I know there's a problem or concern about
Washington Park and the health effect with the hospitals. We are trying to work
through that process. We may be dealing with a first set of sites and leaving
the remainder on the table. We may be looking at a first set of sites within a
month to six weeks to look at action on.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of May 14, 1998. C. Bicy moved that the May 14, 1998 minutes be
approved as printed, seconded by E. Spink. On a voice vote, motion carried
unanimously.
Vill. NEW BUSINESS
V. Earhart mentions that someone presented my name to be reappointed to the Board,
but I'd gotten news the day before that I had already been reappointed.
J. Ruff says probably what happened is the Mayor's office reappointed you. But
Council has to approve of it.
V. Earhart asks has everyone been reappointed?
J. Ruff answered right now they have dealt with you and Joe for Monday night's
agenda. They are dealing with more as they come along. I do have a set of
applications in front of me that I just got on Monday. I have to evaluate those for the
ninth position as well as any potential fill-ins. Mr. Spink is kind of saying you can edge
me out soon, so we are working toward that.
J. Garcia states I am moving toward trying to find a way to be edged out as well. Not
that I don't enjoy this group, but I see that my employment is moving towards a
Board of Zoning Appeals, June 11, 1998 Page 24
direction that someone somewhere down the line could say that I have a conflict being
on this board and working with new business and communication projects. I normally
covered a territory out in the Flint area. But now I'm getting opportunities to work
closer to home. And I certainly hope that I would remove myself were I to feel it were
appropriate. I just don't want that ever to be an issue.
J. Ruff notes that recusal on a certain issue would be all that was necessary.
V. Earhart states if you were a sign company person, and you were recusing yourself
every other hearing, then I'd say maybe that's not worth it, but unless it gets really bad,
I feel you should serve.
IX. ADJOURNMENT at 10:00 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
CLERK- POST
ATTENTION
THE LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, MAY 283 1998
AT 7:30 P.M. IN TENTH FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS
HAS BEEN CANCELED
Draft to Clerk 06/05/98
Approved 06/11/98
To Clerk 09/08/98
, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
�11 CLERK BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
I. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson E. Horne, at 7:30 p.m. E. Horne read
the BZA Introduction. Roll call was taken.
Present
G. Hilts J. Garcia A. Frederick V. Earhart
E. Horne M. Clark E. Spink
II. Excused Absences
None
A. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to take
place.
B. Introduction of Staff
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. One addition, under New Business: B. Update on Towers
IV. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. BZA-3497.98 300 Frandor
A request by Imperial Sign Fabricators to retain a nonconforming 256 ft2 ground
pole sign at Krogers store and erect three (3) Frandor multi-tenant ground pole
signs, one at each entrance: Michigan Avenue, Saginaw, and Clippert Streets,
28'8" tall, 30' required setback, 176 ft2 each in the Frandor Shopping Center.
This goes along with the refurbishing of the shopping center that we've looked
in the past. This appeal deals with the ground pole signs. There may be a
future appeal dealing with wall signs. According to Section 1442.26(d) of the
Sign Code, a shopping center located on the corner of a major or minor arterial
is allowed one ground pole sign on each street frontage. Since Saginaw and
Michigan Avenue are considered principal and minor arterials respectively, a
ground pole sign on each street is allowed. However, Clippert Street is
considered a collector street. Therefore a variance to erect one (1) sign on a
collector street is requested. Also, according to Section 1442.12(5)(B) of the
Sign Code, the maximum size of a ground pole sign is 170 W. Therefore, a
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 2
variance of 6 ft2 for each sign is also requested. These signs would replace the
existing Frandor signs.
J. Ruff states I've had numerous discussions with Frandorson Properties as well as Imperial
Sign Fabricators, who are represented here tonight, trying to make sure that what was brought
to the Board for appeal was something that was within the intent of the ordinance as much as
possible. They intend to remove the existing signs. The Michigan Historical Musuem is going
to have one of the signs refurbished and installed inside the museum. The other two will be
saved, they are the old porcelain on steel, another museum has expressed interest in the
signs.
Let the record show that C. Bicy is now present.
J. Ruff continues. The major difference in the new signs and the existing signs is that the
current signs only say Frandor. I'm sure you're familiar with them. The new signs would also
say Frandor, but also add major tenant space below that. It is my understanding that it is a
requirement in bringing in these tenants, to have some identification sign other than straight
wall signs. Kroger is requesting to retain their existing sign as well, which is a taller sign along
the Clippert St. side. That would be keeping the fourth sign. There are four ground pole signs
on the site presently.
The appellant, Joe Russell from Imperial Sign Fabricators, then spoke; the signage that we
originally proposed for this location was a typical shopping center signage packet which
included a 70' tall pylon along with some other tenant identification pylons that were around 30'
tall. In speaking with Mr. Ruff, we reduced the size and went back with him to see whether or
not that would conform to what the City requires; then we did another revision and finally came
up with this design that you see.
V. Earhart asks what would happen if you took the extra 6 ft2 per sign out? We've got a
picture here, I'm assuming this is the proposed sign. Where would that 6 ft2 come from?
Mr. Russell answered that the tenant identification right now is as small as you want for
visibility of the tenants. If anything was done to it, it would have to come out of the Frandorson
portion. I think I've reduced it as much as I possibly can, and still keep the same design.
We're trying to keep away from just a box looking sign, give it some depth and character.
V. Earhart notes that the bottom tier with nothing in it, and asks do you intend to put
something in it eventually for a tenant?
Mr. Russell answers yes.
V. Earhart clarifies, we can't simply just take that off?
Mr. Russell replied, no, they need that space for their tenants. Actually, I've worked with
Kroger, they usually dominant the sign on their center and require double the size of the other
tenants. This was a negotiation just to be able to reduce the size of the panel, to give them an
equal one.
C. Bicy asks are you going to have this sign put in concrete, and what type of landscaping will
be around it, if any?
Mr. Russell replies its according to code. If you require that, I don't see Frandorson having any
problems with that.
Pat Cookingham, Frandorson Corporation, responds. Actually, on Michigan Ave., we'll be
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 3
taking out the sign that is already there, and placing the new sign in the existing base with
shrubs around it.
C. Bicy continues, that's why I'm asking. This plan does not show any such description. I was
just curious if there were such plans.
Mr. Russell says its a little different looking, because these poles aren't actually round, they
have a square covering around them. They have some architectural design to them.
Ms. Cookingham continues, what normally happens is the sign company will do the installation
of the sign, and then we would contract masonary people or someone to do a base. We have
been working on locations. For instance, because we are moving an entrance on Clippert St.,
to straighten up with Sellers St., we are still determining the location, and that right now will
probably be in an island location where there will be shrubbery or something around it. On
Saginaw St. we are taking out the main island that is there. It probably won't be relocated
exactly there but it hasn't been determined yet. If it is required that we put some shrubbery, or
build it up around it with landscaping, we would do that.
C. Bicy asks if the sign will be lighted?
Mr. Russell replies the sign is illuminated.
C. Bicy asks if the colors will be the same as on the drawing?
Mr. Russell replies the colors will be close, but not exact to the drawing.
Ms. Cookingham notes that Frandor will keep a blue color, like they've used all along.
C. Bicy says he assumes the businesses or proprietors will be illuminated? Along with
Frandor, which will also be illuminated?
Mr. Russell replies correct.
M. Clark says I'm sure you're aware that the staff recommendation is that the Kroger sign
disappear. You haven't addressed that at all. What is the position on that?
J. Ruff notes that Mr. Russell may not be totally aware of the recommendation. As the reports
go, I had a meeting just before the reports were finalized and sent out. In looking at this from
a staff standpoint, with the Kroger sign and the three other ground pole signs, whether or not
the Kroger sign is necessary.
P. Cookingham says from the standpoint of Kroger, we've been working with them on our
redevelopment and that is a sign pole that exists for them now, that they have counted on and
used for all these years. We're not developing into that area where that sign is. So we've not
in detail discussed this with Kroger. They want the sign to remain. It would take quite a bit of
negotiations and probably redoing the sign if it had to go. At this point, it has not been
discussed.
M. Clark notes that her concern is we don't normally grant this kind of variance on new
construction. What you are doing, rather than improving the signage that is there, in terms of
reducing the square footage and making it more in keeping with the current code, you're
actually increasing it substantially. I would have great difficulty voting for a variance as it is
being proposed right now.
Mr. Russell responds the existing identification of the shopping center is being reduced. If it
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 4
stayed the same as it exists, there is 300 ft2 of signage that says Frandor. With this package,
there is only 213 ft2.
M. Clark asks how is that figured, if you have three signs at 176 ft2 plus the Kroger sign at
256 ft2?
Mr. Russell replies that would be identification of this Frandor only.
M. Clark notes I'm talking total signage. And Mr. Ruff indicated that you may be coming back
to us again for variances on wall signs. We have several times in the last few months sent
people back to work on a total sign package, where they have numerous signs that they feel
that they need for identification for various products or whatever. I have concerns about
granting a variance for pole signs tonight, and having you come back in a month or two and
looking at a different variance.
Mr. Russell states I think we are pretty sure that the only variance that we would ask for would
be close to the sign code, and only for major tenants.
M. Clark says, which again is kind of unprecedented. We don't normally do that.
G. Hilts asks can you define how many major tenants we are talking about?
P. Cookingham answers six.
V. Earhart asks are those the same six listed on your proposed poles?
P. Cookingham replies no, not in names, this would be the six that would be listed on the
poles. What we are looking for is signs on the front of the buildings of many of the anchors
that will be facing east. Also, signs on the rear facing Clippert St., because you now are going
to have a strip of buildings that will be parallel to Clippert St. We wanted to work on
identification of the back of the two to improve the look of the building and to identify the
tenants on that street.
G. Hilts asks do you have a comprehensive sign idea? I agree with Ms. Clark that coming to
us piece-meal is going to be counter productive. I think you ought to come to us once. It
would be much more to your benefit. It might be to your benefit to table this and come back
with a comprehensive something.
C. Bicy asks is it difficult for you at this time to give us a proposal on all the signs that
Frandorson is going to need or would like to have?
Mr. Russell replies the only concern in the center is the major tenants having adequate
identification. I think your sign code is liberal for store front signage. But when they come in
from different areas of the center, they want to be able to be seen. The major tenants are the
ones that we are concerned with.
C. Bicy states that we are aware of that, of the major tenants. We are assuming six, if we
were to grant approval on this sign, and you come back to us in two or three months and want
additional signage for whomever. It would be better to bring a total comprehensive plan of all
the signage that you are requesting than for us to vote on this now, and something else later.
G. Hilts adds that in the past when we've given people variances, its because their total
package has gotten better.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 5
Mr. Russell notes that originally they wanted freeway identification.
C. Bicy asks have they given you the total package, or have they given you just this package?
Mr. Russell replies that right now we're just concentrating on this package. In meetings with
Mr. Ruff we've discussed briefly what to do with the major tenants.
Mr. Russell clarifies that there are no details yet. I'm not even sure if final leases have been
signed.
P. Cookingham says that we have several of the leases done, but we are still finalizing some
of them. The rest of the sign package still needs to be finished because of not having two of
the leases completed. One of the other things that will be occurring, is that through the
beginning stages of the redevelopment and the reconstruction, the existing signs will be
coming down. We wanted to try and start working on getting the identification and locations as
Saginaw and Clippert St. Clippert St. is down already. Saginaw is going to be coming down.
We wanted to get this started so we could get this approved, to get the signs ordered and
installed and as tenants come in, which most of the anchor tenants will not be opening until
next year, we can start working on their identification. We're probably a couple of months at
the most away from the full sign package. We talked with Mr. Ruff and decided to come in
with this to start with.
C. Bicy asks who are your major tenants?
P. Cookingham replies the tenants currently signed are Kroger, Comp USA, Cost Plus, Linens
& Things. That's four, the other two I can't identify right now, because we are still negotiating.
We've got three tenants for two spots that we are negotiating with.
E. Spink asks in looking at a total package, could you identify and could we work with a figure
of not to exceed in terms of square footage? I suspect that in working with major tenants you
have some general idea of what its going to be. To help things move along, if we could work
with a not to exceed figure as a total package. I'm asking is that a possibility, or is that too
theoretical?
J. Ruff replies from our standpoint they haven't applied for the wall signage yet. Originally
when I talked with Frandorson, I encouraged them for a total sign package. I think it even
came up at our meeting dealing with variances for flood plain issues and so on. Because they
are currently under construction, and the timing that it takes to get the sign built while they are
negotiating contracts, then we have to have our applications in to get the public hearing, they
haven't been ready for the wall sign package. We did have a discussion regarding wall
signage so that we can at least look at a reasonable conformance on all visible wall signage.
They may have a tenant or two that will want their own sign, and that tenant will have to come
and present their case separately. Its such a large facility, thinking about the four ground pole
signs and then thinking about all the wall signs. There are a number of tenants that will not be
there any longer, that have older signs that will be removed. All the signs are going to be of
the same character. It is my understanding, all the remaining tenants will have either
conforming signs or existing signs that are conforming with the potential exception of some of
the larger tenants who already have non-conforming signs. An inventory of all the wall signage
that is there hasn't even been done. A lot of the signage is changing because of the major
changes of the center itself. There is a lot of calculation to go on, and refurbishing of signs.
They are getting it in stages because they have tenants there now, and they are trying to keep
tenants, move tenants, and deal with signage at the same time. So some of the questions are
still coming up from their standpoint as to the signage code for them. We've gone through the
requirements for the wall signs and so on. They weren't ready to bring the wall signage, but
they wanted to bring this. The only way to deal with both would be to table this and move on.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 6
Mr. Russell states that the new code that reads for the center is for channel letters mounted on
a raceway. A lot of the signs that are there right now are like square cabinets with the copy on
the inside. Channel letters get rid of all that space and makes the sign look smaller. When
you have a big cabinet with the copy in the middle of it, with an area on each side, you have a
larger sign.
J. Garcia comments that he hasn't seen anyone come in with a proposed design on the sign
that was to code to say this is why it can't work, and this is why I need the additional space.
With that, I pose the question, have you tried to meet the requirements?
Mr. Russell responds the original sign I designed for them was 230 ft2. 1 just reduced the
entire design, and this is the square footage I came up with. If I would reduce the sign three
inches lower, and an inch on the sides, that would be 170 ft2.
G. Hilts says when you get to where you have something to consider in wall signs, I probably
would not be willing to support anything that wasn't better in terms of numbers and square
footage. Like this, I think in the past, when we've taken some properties that were unique
because of location and size, and done some things with variances, its always been because
they've gotten better. They might still be exceeding the code, but they've always made it
better. I think Frandorson should keep that in mind and yourself if you're going to work on the
wall signs.
E. Spink notes at the same time, that we worked so hard to stay close to the code, I think we
have been understanding. Where you have an island of buildings from both sides, that truly is
unique and I think there are some examples pretty close to you where we've been rather
generous.
P. Cookingham notes that the area will house five of the anchor tenants. The area that I'm
talking about with the two sides will have five of the six anchor tenants.
E. Spink says I certainly want to support the sign on the collector street. It may be a collector
street but for as long as Frandor has been around I've thought that was the main entrance to
Frandor.
E. Spink continues that at this time I would support the removal of the Kroger sign.
E. Horne suggests that it be discussed in the Committee of the Whole.
E. Horne asks if there is anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board in regards
to the signs located at 300 Frandor.
Seeing none E. Horne moves that the Board move into the Committee of the Whole, second
by M. Clark.
E. Spink repeats that he will be supporting the sign on Clippert St., even though it's a collector
street, it is generally considered a main entrance and has for a long time. I think the size
variance in this case with the size of the mall and being on three major streets where the traffic
is fast is probably reasonable. At this time I would be supportive of the removal of the Kroger
sign. I think that is also consistent with general mall signage that tenants don't have pole
signs within malls. I may be incorrect, but that's a general impression that I have. I do think
that since this is a remodel, they are in a bind with relocating the three major signs before they
have a total package, but I think since they don't have a total package, I would look much more
carefully at any future variances. While it's not the preview of this Board, I'm certainly
delighted to hear that the signs are going to be preserved. Frandor is unique, in terms of age
and being able to exist as a mall for as long as it has. It's a credit to them and the community
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 7
that they are able to refurbish now. It's definitely positive.
C. Bicy adds I would be agreeing with Dr. Spinks. I would like to see the removal of the
Kroger sign as they have indicated. I do agree with the new sign at Clippert, the sign at
Saginaw, and also Michigan Ave. However, I would like to preface it by saying that I would like
to see that the sign would be bricked at the bottom with some type of shrubbery enclosed. It
could be used as a means of a "bumper guard". But I'm probably going to be hesitant in the
future signs of these six major businesses to be presented later on. C. Bicy then listed the
major stores he remembered from 1961. He continues I will be supporting these three signs
with the removal of the Kroger sign.
M. Clark states that I, too, am delighted with the improvements happening at Frandor, I think
it's a real asset to the City. When the original variance request came we were really excited
about the fact that it was being redeveloped, I see that as all positive. I have some real
concerns about this particular request. First of all, the hardship is not the code. The fact that
the code requires a sign of 170 ft2 is not a hardship. That is the rule, and you have to explain
what your hardship is that makes it impossible for you to conform to the rule. I think that the
argument can be made that because of the size of this property and because of the traffic on
Clippert, that the three signs are reasonable. But since three new signs and being con-
structed, I'm not sure that they could not be constructed to meet the code of 170 ft2. We're not
talking about a great deal of square footage. I guess I'm willing to support that 176 ft2 saying
okay, if this is what you really want. But, when you come back and want something else, I
probably am not going to be willing to support it. We are giving an additional sign, which is an
additional 176 ft2 already, and then the other two signs with an additional 6 ft2 each, this is all
adding up. For them to come back later and say okay now we want to exceed the code limi-
tations for our wall signs, I'm going to have real reservations. I, too, believe that to make me
willing to support these at this point, in terms of the three signs, the Kroger sign needs to go.
V. Earhart says I generally agree with what everyone is saying. I think that Frandorson loses
out on the ability to get what they need all the way around by presenting to us just the pole
signs. I agree that if we approve the pole signs, then the wall signs are going to have to hit the
mark. If you've got a major company, an anchor for your property who has a requirement for
how big their signs are, and it's a little over our requirements, then there is no room for
negotiation at that point. I am inclined to suggest that we table this matter and ask the party to
prepare as much as they can at this point, where the buildings are going to be, where they
think the signs are going to be, what size signs they think are going to be there, and combine
them with this package so that we really get a feel of the signage that is going to go into
Frandor.
G. Hilts adds that it might not be true, and it might not be fair, but I get the impression that
there's a camel and a tent and somebody is trying to get him piecemeal inside. And nobody is
going to make me believe that they don't have complete architectural plans of what they are
going to build and therefore can't come up with some ideas of what sort of signage. I might go
on three pole signs once, but that's going to be it.
E. Spink adds that I think you've just said what I implied earlier, and yet not so definitively. If
understood the presentation, it's probably that island where they are really going to have two
fronts to their building, as opposed to a big front. Maybe in a tentative proposal, like at least
say in this bunch of buildings along this strip, we see that there is the potential for a need for
signs on each side, and that's where we would be coming back with the variance. I also got
the impression that the front requirement for the code, and I heard the word liberal, that for the
most part they are going to be able to meet, if it only had one front. I guess partly that I see
their need to get something up for those three signs, and not be left with nothing. I would be
reluctant to table unless the request for the tabling came from the applicant. But I certainly
think the applicant has gotten the flavor of the Board.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 8
A. Frederick states I heard the applicant say also that Frandorson wants these signs up as
quickly as possible. I can understand why they would come to us early on and request these
Frandor signs be put up before they have much of an idea of what else they are going to do for
any other stores that may go in, and wall signs and such. I didn't take that as them wanting to
come back piecemeal. I took it to mean that they may very well not have too much idea what
they are going to continue to do, but that they would like to get that identification back up there
so it really looks like that place is operating. Which it kind of doesn't right now because of the
construction, and being torn up. That was the impression that I got, I could probably support
approval of these.
V. Earhart says its my disinclination for signs, but I didn't forget where Frandor is just because
they took a sign down.
A. Frederick responds that I'm not thinking of the people who already know where it is, I'm
thinking of the people who don't know where it is. The most important thing to a business
these days is their unique identification. That really comes very often with their signs. They
are doing their best to stay in business. I know it's still open, but when I go over there I can
easily see where somebody could get the impression that the place used to be there, but it's
gone now.
C. Bicy adds Frandor is competing against Lansing Mall and Meridian Mall, and other small
malls in the city. To not have a sign out there, there are some people who don't know where it
is. I definitely don't want to table it. If I were the owner, I think if any of us were the owner, I
think we could see that we would want some kind of identification. We do not know at this
point in time what type of language, what type of variance if there will be any, on these
additional signs that they will be bringing to us. We can only imagine what may happen. We
can't really vote on something that we really don't know. I would like to see us move and
approve it, but remove the Kroger sign.
A. Garcia adds that I also see the Clippert St. entrance as the main entrance. I would really
like to see them meet the signage requirement. I think they could shave off the extra 6 ft2. It
may be insignificant, but we are supposed to help guide to keep in line. It would be a nice
gesture that they are showing the intent to stay within the requirements. It means nothing to
me to say what they were really thinking was three times as big. The only way that I will be
saying yes today is if you shave the 6 ft2 off of each sign and go along with the removal of the
Kroger sign. But you might have enough room without me.
M. Clark states I would agree with what Mr. Garcia just said. I also understand what Mr.
Spink was saying that we can't vote on something when it hasn't been presented to us. There
has been no appeal on the wall signs. I just feel that it's important for you to understand where
we are coming from as a board, so that when you start looking at the wall signage, you have a
sense that we are not going to just grant what the tenants want because regularly we have
appelants coming to us who say "our company says we have to have a sign this big", or to be
in your facility we have to have a certain kind of signage. The fact is the City has a written
code with certain sign limitations and if we are granting a variance this evening for the four
signs, I personally am going to be very reluctant to look at much of a variance for any of the
walls signs. You as appelants have to weigh what you want. As we said earlier, you can ask
to have it tabled, you can shave the extra 6 ft2, that is your choice. I think the goal of the
Board in general is to try to make the signage request for the new signs being built more in
keeping with the code because we tend to believe that the code is there for a reason. While
everyone would like as much signage as possible, when you start looking at what the code
says, then you have to try to work your proposals around that code.
E. Horne adds I feel the codes are here for a purpose. I need to see a total package. Even if
it's just a tentative package, so that I can do the figuring and so that we would have a good
idea of the signage, and it's something that would stand out and say here is one business, one
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 9
mall that has complied with the signage. Therefore, unless we go to a total package in looking
at this, I cannot support this. I think we need to do good planning. I think that this will give us
an opportunity. We have asked other people within that area along E. Michigan Ave. to study
their total package need. I think this is within our perogative to ask them. This is the way I feel
we need to look at this as far as how it will relate to our code, and how to meet the needs of
their tenants.
C. Bicy says I understand what you're saying, and I partially agree. But when you look at it,
Frandor is basically advertising the entire mall. They come back with other information, they're
going to be talking about that specific building. Now we're getting into specifics. Kroger,
Comp USA, Office Depot, that's specific. When you say Frandor signs, you're talking about
the entire mall. To me, that makes a difference.
E. Spink moves that BZA3497.98 be approved to allow a ground pole sign on Clippert St., a
collector street, and the 6 ft2 variance for each of the three at the entrances on Saginaw,
Michigan, and Clippert St., contingent upon the removal of the 256 ft2 Kroger ground pole sign.
Seconded by G. Hilts.
E. Spink adds I agree that a nice base is part of the sign, but I think that we generally have not
dealt with that. However, in many cases when we've been presented with an illustration of the
sign, that has been included. I think at this point, other than they know that this board feels an
attractive base is appropriate. I think it's to their advantage to have some kind of a base to
protect the sign. I see it as a suggestion at this point. I suspect, in the future as we deal with
certain things, the screening and buffering may come up. That's a different issue.
V. Earhart says I agree with the ground pole sign on Clippert. I also agree upon the removal
of the Kroger ground pole sign. But without knowing what is going to happen in terms of the
wall signs, I cannot agree and therefore I will not be voting for this motion with regard to the
6 ft2 variation for each of the three signs.
E. Spink notes I have a lot of feeling for your position. But at the same time, they are without
tenants who may or may not have needs depending on space. As opposed to the majority of
the people we've sent back who have been fully occupied or a single large business, I think it's
just a hair different to ask them what they'll need for something that isn't there.
G. Hilts notes we could change the motion, make it two votes, one for size and one for the
Clippert St. sign.
C. Bicy says leave it like you have it, don't change it.
A. Garcia adds that he would probably support it if it didn't include the variance of 6 ft2 for
each sign.
E. Horne notes we can go through with it because there is a motion on the floor. If it fails we
can make another motion.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 10
At this point J. Ruff re-read the motion: E. Spink moved to approve the ground pole sign on
Clippert St., and the additional 6 ft2 on each of the three ground pole signs upon the condition
that the 256 ft2 Kroger sign be removed. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia X Hilts X
Horne X S ink X
Motion did not pass (4 yeas -4 nays).
G. Hilts moved to approve the ground pole sign on Clippert St., upon the condition that the
256 ft2 Kroger sign be removed. The three ground pole signs by this motion will be limited to
170 ft2. Seconded by V. Earhart.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia X Hilts X
Horne X S ink X
Motion carries by a vote of 6 - 2, BZA3497.98 is approved with condition.
J. Ruff explains, BZA3497.98 has been partially approved. Just as a note, when they have
their wall signage together, and if they desire a variance, they may also request variance for
another ground pole sign or something to that effect. Just so you know, and so that they
know.
B. BZA-3498.98, 426 W. Kilborn
A request by Daniel Hendy to erect a 576 ft2 attached garage to the structure at
426 W. Kilborn. Since this is a corner lot, there are two front yards, Kilborn &
Chestnut Street. Section 1250.07 of the Zoning Code requires a 20' front yard
setback for both streets. The proposed structure would be 15' from the west
property line. Therefore, a 5' variance is requested. Also, Section 1250.09 of
the Zoning Code requires a 30' rear yard setback. Since the proposed structure
would be 20' from the rear lot line, a 10' variance is requested. The property
had a detached garage in the rear yard. Another detached garage could be
constructed in the rear yard. The size would be limited based on certain
factors. The appli-cant has proposed to remove a porch on the side of the
house to help incorpor-ate the garage into the building, and have the 15' front
yard setback. There is also additional land between the property line and the
sidewalk of approximately 5' so there would be at least the 20' from the front of
the garage to the sidewalk which would help make sure that cars could park in
front of the garage. The proposed garage would not extend beyond the line of
the house adjacent to it at 1010 Chestnut which has a 9'6" setback from the
property line. It would be kind of a step back approach to this. In looking at
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 11
this, based upon the corner site, understand the requirement for a 20' setback
on a lot that is 55' wide and only 99'. Understand too that there's a need to
have a rear yard. Whereas, if a de-tached garage were built in the rear yard in
this situation, the entire rear yard would be taken up by that. In this setting,
they are able to hook up part of the house with comparable architecture and I've
had discussion with them about the driveway and so on with the idea that if the
driveway is then removed then that entire 20' area would become rear yard. I
think that is a desirable feature of this request. Also, with the length of the
house along Chestnut, it would be a reasonable architectural element to the
development. Staff is recommending approval for the request.
C. Bicy asks is the garage attached or detached?
J. Ruff replies it would be attached. It would be taking off a porch that runs along their
laundry/kitchen area in the back of the house, and putting the garage in its place.
J. Ruff then showed a drawing supplied by the appellant, and explained the layout of the
garage in relation to the neighbor's house. There is a handicap involved, that's part of the
reason for the size of the garage. He then passed the drawing around.
Shirley Hendy of 426 W. Kilborn then spoke. Yes, my husband is handicapped. We want the
attached garage so we don't have to go outside in the winter weather. It would make a much
nicer appearance to the house. We are no way obstructing the view. We are back away from
the neighbor's porch. We need the size because we have a full sized van and a car, and
need storage for lawn mowers and such.
C. Bicy inquires as to the materials for the structure.
Mrs. Hendy replies lumber, at this point. And I believe aluminum siding, the house has
aluminum siding.
E. Horne asks is there is anyone here this evening wishing to speak in support or opposition
of this appeal?
Seeing none, E. Horne moves that we move into the Committee of the Whole for discussion.
V. Earhart says this seems like an entirely reasonable request. The size of the garage and
making it attached also seems reasonable. I will be voting in favor of this variance.
G. Hilts says ditto.
E. Spink moves that BZA3498.98 be approved for a 5' front yard variance off the west
property line, and a 10' rear yard variance request to erect a 576 ftz attached garage at 426 W.
Kilborn with the condition that the old driveway and the apron be removed and replaced with
lawn, and that the new driveway be south of the street tree so as not to endanger the tree.
Seconded by C. Bicy.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 12
E. Spink says it was summarized as a totally reasonable request and aesthetically pleasing.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia X Hilts X
Horne X S ink X
Motion carries by a vote of 8 - 0, BZA3498.98 has been approved with conditions.
C. BZA-3499.98, 6600 Blk. S. Washington
A request by Melissa S. Randt of Adams Outdoor Advertising to erect a
billboard with two 14'x48' sign faces in a back-to-back configuration with
illumination, built perpendicular to 1-96 and accessed from the 6600 block of S.
Washington Ave. The property is zoned "F" Commercial, it is undeveloped at
this time, and is adjacent to a Board of Water and Light well site that has "A"
Residential zoning. Section 1442.22(E) stipulates that no billboard will be
allowed to be erected or constructed within 200' of any parcel with residential
zoning. This is a condition in the current billboard ordinance. Previously it was
a 75' distance. The proposed location of the billboard is 100' from a residential
zoning district. This is, therefore, a request for a 100' variance from Section
1442.22(E). Section 1442.22(H) stipulates a minimum distance of 1000' to any
other billboard which may be viewed from the same road. The proposed
location will be within 1000' of a billboard on the south side of 1-96. This is,
therefore, a request for a variance from Section 1442.22(H).
For a little history, this lot was divided off of a larger"F" Commercial site prior to
the ordinance amendment that was done is December of 1997. Both properties
are undeveloped at this time. The applicant has an option to purchase this
property for the development of this sign. It is adjacent to 1-96. Under previous
interpretation of the old ordinance the billboard was not allowed to be erected
on the site because Washington is not a major or minor arterial. 1-96 is an
expressway and, according to the attorney's office, was not considered part of
the major or minor arterial definition. So that request for a billboard was denied.
At that time they applied for a variance from that information as far as the
setbacks. It was in the opinion of the office that these were threshold criteria,
that these were not dimensional criteria, and the Board did not have jurisdiction
over some of those questions. So now a newer billboard section of the sign
ordinance has been passed, with these conditions. One of them includes
expressways in the list of roads that billboards could be listed on, major arterial,
minor arterial, and expressway. One of the other conditions that allow for the
construction of a billboard under the current sign code is that two non-
conforming billboards be removed. That condition has been met since the first
of the year. I could look up those addresses if needed. They have met the
threshold requirement to allow erection of another billboard sign, but the
location that is proposed here doesn't meet the code requirements for two sign
code sections noted above. Staff is concerned that this would set a precedent
with respect to the newer code, and find the situation that it can't support the
request based upon that. Not only would the billboard be visible from 1-96,
obviously if its two-faced; but also the idea that it is going to be above the grade
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 13
of the expressway by approximately 25'. Even coming north or south on
Washington, the likelihood of seeing both signs on Washington would be very
high. Again, I think a precedent would be made that would diminish the present
ordinance.
V. Earhart notes this is on 1-96 and is above the grade of the expressway. She asks are they
required to get some kind of permit or license from the Department of Transportation?
J. Ruff replies, yes, and they have that.
C. Bicy notes there is a sign on Cedar St. that advertises Holiday Inn, its made in a triangle,
and it sets up above the highway next to Denny's. How does that sign have approval?
E. Horne responded that it was in 1972 or 1973. 1 remember the controversy that was around
that sign. I can't remember the votes of the Planning Board, but I remember that Council gave
the final approval on that. That was long before we had the sign code.
Melissa Randt, of Adams Outdoor Advertising, 3801 Capitol City Blvd. then spoke. Concerning
the Holiday Inn sign, that is considered an off premises sign, so it falls under the category of a
billboard. I think that is part of how that was able to be built. It may not have needed any
variances at the time if it met the sign code. What I'd like to do is give you a little bit of a
background. Mr. Ruff touched on it briefly. There was a sign ordinance change in the middle
of our application to get this sign permit. The original application was submitted September
30, 1997. The lot split was done by the property owner, the Walter Neller Co. That was
submitted on October 10, 1997. The lot split was to be done to split out the portion of the
property that lies to the south of the Board of Water and Light well, and to the north of 1-96.
Due to certain restrictions Walter Neller had been unable to fully market or development that
property. That piece was split out, and the application was applied for October 10th, and it
was approved on October 18, 1997. However, Mr. Ruff would not review our sign application
until the lot split was completed. Then, on November 18, 1997 our permit application was
denied. There is a little bit of history that goes in along with the opinion that was actually
issued in 1991 from Al Knott, the City Attorney, regarding the classification of an interstate not
falling into a major arterial.
V. Earhart interrupts that the dates being given are confusing. You started out with
September of 1997, and now you're quoting from a letter from 1991?
M. Randt confirms. This is the letter from 1991. It's important because this is what J. Ruff
referred to in his summary a few moments ago on the determination that the interstate was not
considered a major arterial road, and that is why he denied our application. It was from this
opinion from 1991. Otherwise the sign, as far as the setbacks, the size, spacing, and
everything else was in compliance with the ordinance. The dates are important because the
sign ordinance was changed in December, and our concern is that the staff report says that
the undo hardship was self inflicted. We are saying that it was not because of the series of
events and the determination of the Planning Department. The big stumbling block was
whether or not the signs were viewed from Washington or 1-96. Washington is not considered
a major or minor arterial so a billboard is not allowed along Washington at all. The intent is for
the billboard to be viewed from 1-96. It's given additional height, which the sign ordinance
allows, above the overpass on 1-96 so it can be viewed. It would be very difficult to view any of
the signs, this one proposed, or the existing sign on the south side of 1-96 from Washington
That is why the date of 1991 is important. Because we had two sign permits issued, I have
copies of those with me tonight, in 1995 along 1-496. Again, we have an interstate, again we
were issued permits that Mr. Ruff did approve. We're saying here that there is some selective
enforcement in interpretation of the ordinance because here's this opinion from 1991, and I
have two permits that were issued to Adams Outdoor Advertising for signage along an
interstate. We are talking the same type of sign that we are proposing here tonight, and that's
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 14
a 14'x48'. I do have the communication that was sent to me as well as the two permits that
were issued. I'm trying to establish here that the hardship was not caused by Adams Outdoor
Advertising, or the Walter Neller Co. We were simply trying to comply with the ordinance the
way it had been enforced in the past. We were completely taken aback by the fact that they
were not going to approve the sign because they felt that there were no grounds for it to exist
because of this major arterial definition. We were set to be on the agenda in December, prior
to the new ordinance being approved. We received a letter, which we did not get until after
the meeting, saying why we were not allowed to be on the Board of Zoning Appeals agenda.
We tried to accomplish getting the sign permit approved prior to the ordinance change. Since
the ordinance change, we are faced with the problem of the spacing and then the setback from
residential. We are saying it was not Adams Outdoor Advertising and Walter Neller, it was an
interpretation or the staff and the Planning Department. The permit should have been
approved back in November. We do have documentation where the Planning Department
had, indeed, issued permits along an interstate, that came even after this opinion in 1991 from
Al Knott. If you would like to take a look at these documents, I do have copies for you. I felt
they were important after reading the staff report, and their concern with the hardship was the
result of Adams Outdoor Advertising or the lot split. The lot split was just a logical piece of the
property that was still all zoned "F" Commercial, which is allowed for a billboard sign. The
adjoining property to the west is Professional zoning. We cannot erect a billboard on
professional zoning, so we cannot move the sign any further to the west to comply with the
200' setback from the Board of Water and Light property. The Board of Water and Light
property just happens to sit in the middle of this piece of property of Walter Neller due to the
relocation of Edgewood Blvd., which actually split off the Neller property and then created this
piece of Board of Water and Light property to be in the middle of what is the Walter Neller
property. Before, when Edgewood Blvd. was further to the south, the Board of Water and
Light property was actually on the corner of Edgewood and Washington. There is a drain
easement that runs through there, so you're not able to be building or covering up that drain so
that the City has the ability to access the drain. We are saying this should have all been taken
care of back in November, prior to the sign ordinance being changed. The lot split was done,
we certainly intended to have a vested interest in this property. Walter Neller certainly does,
they want to develop and get the best use of the property. The billboard will have a concrete
foundation, we don't have to pave over any of the property, we won't be interfering with the
well or the access to the drain easement. That's the importance of the dates. I would be
happy to share this information with you as far as the previous permits that were issued, as
well as the opinion from May of 1991.
E. Horne asks are there any questions of the appellant?
C. Bicy states one of the things you have to look at is the fact that the signs that were
approved, why were they approved. Compared to this sign, which is not approved. Then look
at why this sign is not approved based upon the 200' of property zoned residential. Of the
signs that were approved, was it within the 200'? Prior to that time, it was 75'. Were you
within the 75' at that time? Secondly, since it has changed, now it's 200', which means it's
further away. So if there has been a change in that or if there has been a change in the split of
the property, then there is a reason why those signs were approved, versus this sign being
denied.
M. Randt states it was denied, not based upon the residential setback. It was denied because
of the spacing, or being able to build along an interstate. We complied with the residential
setback at that time because it was only 75' and we were 100'. The conflict is the selective
enforcement by the Planning Department. The conflict we had was the interpretation of the
interstate as a major or minor arterial road.
E. Horne suggests that the Zoning Administrator speak.
J. Ruff reports, with regard to another reason why it was denied on S. Washington, is
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 15
because it is also within 400' of the other billboard south of 1-96, which is the old ordinance,
the billboard right of way of the expressway is 300'. This billboard would be about 20' north of
that right of way. The billboard on the south side is right up next to the right of way, within
400'. It's along the same roadway, which is Washington. That's one reason they were going
to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. The other issue about the other
two signs, I'll be more than happy to look into it. At that time I wasn't aware of that decision of
the City Attorney's office. Other staff, and Eleanor Love bringing that to my attention with
regard to that variance, and the City Attorney bringing that to my attention brought about that
action late last year. That gives you a little bit of timing from an office standpoint.
C. Bicy asks what about this lot split mentioned earlier? Ms. Randt said nothing was done
until after the lot split.
J. Ruff replies, the location of the billboard was based upon the lot. If we are looking at a
billboard on a proposed lot, it wasn't a billboard on the full lot, and then the lot being split off.
So they went through the process of creating that lot through a lot split.
C. Bicy asks that had to be done prior to making the decision?
J. Ruff replies, the application was for a billboard on a particular lot that did not exist.
E. Horne asks if there are any other questions of the appelant.
M. Randt mentions that the other issue, as far as the spacing, the 400' across the highway,
Michigan Department of Transportation does issue us permits. They also have a spacing
requirement. The spacing requirement is 500' between billboards on the same side of the
road. It's not the intention of the sign to be viewed from Washington. A billboard sign couldn't
be built on Washington. We felt it was ludicrous to even consider the spacing between the
two signs as they sat along Washington with the interstate separating them. The intent was
for the signs to be built and viewed from 1-96 so therefore, to look overhead and say two signs
have to be 400' apart when they're supposed to be viewed from 1-96 instead of Washington did
not make a lot of sense to us. That was part of the variance request. Not necessarily a
variance, but an interpretation as to the spacing, should it be determined from Washington or
1-96. That also brought up the dilemma on the major arterial road. We didn't have an
opportunity to come before you. The new ordinance was passed, now we're faced with the
200' setback from the residential. Initially when we applied for the sign permit, as well as
going through a lot split to purchase the property, we did not see that there was a problem with
getting the permits. We get permits all over the city. We've worked with J. Ruff several
times. We certainly aren't going to waste his, Walter Neller, or our time and money to buy
property if we can't build a sign. We tried to get those matters taken care of before we
compounded with now another need for a variance with the residential.
C. Bicy asks how long have you been trying to get the sign up?
M. Randt replies since September.
E. Horne states the Board will move into the Committee of the Whole.
V. Earhart notes that the speaker dealt with the different standards between the MDOT and
the City of Lansing. I think I can speak with some authority that the Department of
Transportation operates in this area under a law that specifically permits and may even
encourage local governments to set sign standards for themselves. There's nothing within the
law that requires that those sign standards be the same as those of the Department of
Transportation. Except that I don't think that they can be less than what the Department of
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 16
Transportation sets. The fact that they have a permit from Transportation and that allows for
400' instead of 1000' is of no consequence to this Board as representative of the City of
Lansing.
E. Spink asks J. Ruff to clarify the matter. Aside from the background information leading up
to tonight, the real question we have tonight is a variance from a residential zoning distance,
right?
J. Ruff replies yes.
E. Spink continues, and also a variance from the 1000'.
J. Ruff replies correct.
E. Spink continues, aside from those issues, and with the precedence set by this Board in
staying close to the sign codes, and some members of this Board encouraging, prodding,
etcetera, the City to strengthen it's codes, and the billboard in particular; I'm extremely
reluctant to give any variance on either of those issues because they become precedents;
because the next one will not give a hoot about the prior information. I think that to
immediately set a new standard from a new code is extremely dangerous. I'm speaking this
aside from the background information.
E. Horne comments that we do have an interoffice communication from Chad A. Gamble,
Stormwater Engineer. It was in the new packet that you received this evening.
E. Spink comments that I am pleased to hear that the requirment for the removal of two
billboards have been met already. That is definitely commendable. If there is no further
discussion, I'm prepared to make a motion.
C. Bicy asks which two billboards are you talking about?
E. Spink answers that J. Ruff said one requirement of the new code to erect a billboard, the
company must remove two. Two have been removed.
E. Spink moves that BZA3499.98 to erect a billboard on this site as proposed be denied since
it does not meet the minimum requirements of the sign code. Second by C. Bicy.
E. Horne asks for discussion.
E. Spink restates that it would set a bad precedent to allow any variance on either of these
two issues.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia X Hilts X
Horne X Spink X
Motion carries by a vote of 8-0, BZA3499.98 has been denied..
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 17
D. BZA-3500.98, 1100 Parkdale
A request by Tim Cane (applicant) for Susan Holcombe (owner) for a variance
in the front yard setback to construct a two car detached garage on a corner lot
at 1100 Parkdale St. The property is actually 39'/z' wide by 127%2' long. As
such, they have removed a previous garage that was approximately 6' from the
property line adjacent to the east. In doing that, they wish to erect a new two
car garage and driveway. They are proposing to locate the garage in
conformance, 4' from the east lot line, and the garage would be 21' deep
garage by 22' wide, and have a new driveway. It's right at the edge of the 100
year flood plain as well. They have to get a DEQ permit. It will be elevated
above the 100 year flood elevation, to make sure that it conforms with all of
those codes. This structure would be an unattached garage, it's adjacent to an
existing deck which is attached to the house. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning
Code requires an established front yard setback of 20 ft. The proposed front
yard setback is 14Y2 ft. Therefore, a variance of 5%z ft. is requested. They
would meet all other code requirements. Again, with the lot, the maximum size
garage that could be built by code would be 16Y2. I know cars are getting
smaller these days, but the minimum garage that is being built is 20' with new
houses. A 21' depth seems reasonable. They are going to be increasing the
setback from the existing garage by a couple of feet and maintaining a distance
that will allow parking in the driveway without overhanging the sidewalk. They
looked at the option of putting the garage on the south end of the site, which
would be "up" on the drawing. In doing that, it puts the garage right up next to
the neighbors house. It also takes up the entire rear yard with the building and
driveway.
A. Frederick asks is there also the requirement for flood insurance for this property? I think in
the past when we've addressed issues on flood plains there was some mention about the
increase in flood insurance or regular insurance not being available, does that also come into
play here?
J. Ruff replies not necessarily, because they will be elevating this structure. The Federal
government requires flood insurance by mortgage companies on structures.
E. Horne asks if the appellant is present.
Tim Cane, a Lansing builder, introduced himself and Susan Holcombe, passed around a
couple pieces of information; he then spoke. Very simply, this project, and this variance will
allow us to build this garage and it will only increase the setback by 2', it eliminates a non-
conforming structure that was, if not in the flood plain, was becoming, due to drainage,
functionally obsolete. In the winter, snow would melt, water would drain into the garage,
refreeze, and break up part of the foundation. We eliminated that garage. This increases the
off road parking in this neighborhood, which is pretty important if you know the area. It
increases the property value, because we've tried to keep the garage looking of the same
design as the house. There are other questions that have been brought up because of Plan B,
the second proposed site. We thought we could alleviate a lot of the other problems we were
having, increase the off road parking by sliding the garage all the way to the back side of the
lot. This wasn't a good trade. The next door neighbors had a problem with that, and I don't
blame them. One of their main windows would look directly at the garage.
S. Holcombe notes that the reason I wanted the garage in the original spot next to the deck
and closer for the house is for safety reasons. I'm an emergency veterinarian, and I come and
go late at night. To have to walk across the yard wasn't going to be quite as safe as to have
the garage where it had been. We've tried to comply to move the garage out of the flood plain
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 18
because it will be elevated. It's going to provide parking, but the one problem we have is the
5'h' because of the size of the lot.
C. Bicy asks about the deck, is it open, enclosed, screened?
S. Holcombe answered that the deck has a wooden privacy fence around it, with gates and
steps.
C. Bicy asks about raising the floor elevation. How many inches are we talking about?
T. Cane replied we are going to raise it so we have '/4" per foot fall. That's approximately 12".
E. Horne asks if anyone in the audience would like to comment on this petition.
Seeing none, E. Horne moves that the Board move into the Committee of the Whole.
E. Horne points out that page two in the packet is a letter from Julie Thomas-Beckett in
support of Plan A.
C. Bicy moves to approve BZA3500.98, site plan A, with the conditions that the applicant be
required to raise the floor elevation of the garage above the level of the flood plain, and that
the proper permit be obtained by the State of Michigan. Second by E. Spink.
V. Earhart comments that I drove around and saw this house yesterday. I could not "see" the
garage they want to put up. Now that I see this illustration it really does work.
E. Spink comments that I am very familiar with the property, and the design of the garage and
the location is excellent, it is definitely an improvement. I also wanted to mention that this kind
of summary sheet was extremely helpful to keep us on target for our discussion.
E. Horne repeats that the motion was before us that we recommend the approval of plan A, a
variance of 5Y2' to construct an unattached garage, and that the applicant be required to raise
the floor elevation of the garage above the level of the flood plain, and that proper permits for
this be obtained from the State of Michigan.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia X Hilts X
Horne X Spink X
Motion carries by a vote of 8-0, BZA3500.98 has been approved with conditions.
C. Bicy asks what permit do they have to get from the State of Michigan?
J. Ruff responds its because they are filling part of the flood plain, they need to get a permit.
Otherwise, they could get a permit from DEQ for keeping the garage below the flood plain, and
because it's a garage, it's not habitable space. They would have to put ventilation through that
would allow water to come in and go out on its own.
S. Holcombe says she talked to John Grace, and he told me that because the garage is not
attached to the house, it's considered an outbuilding, and that we don't need a permit. But I
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 19
asked him to send me all the papers anyway, just is case we have to.
V. Earhart responds the condition, as I understand it, is if you go to the State of Michigan and
find that you don't need a permit, you don't have to get one just to satisfy us.
E. BZA-3502.98, Holmes St., Habitat for Humanity
Request by Habitat for Humanity and Hunter Park West Neighborhood
(applicants) to construct a new house, replacing a fire damaged house, at the
NW corner of Holmes and Lamed Streets. In order to retain 7 mature oak
trees, and site the house consistent with how it was sited in the past, and what
is similar to the neighborhood, new house siting would result in a 10' front yard
setback along Holmes St. You have a old air photo in your packet that shows
the old home being located at the extreme north end of the site off of the alley.
Then you have a site plan that shows an inset that shows a siting of 28' x 42'
house and it's location that would fit in this area, and how it's similar to the
houses that are to the north along Holmes St. with a 28' setback from the
curbline for the proposed home as well as the homes to the north. Based upon
it being a corner lot, the situation of dual front yards is required, and there are
locational problems with the mature oak trees. In a situation like this in an
existing neighborhood, staff likes to see structures mirror the neighborhood to
it's improvement. Based on the situation, we feel there is sufficient hardship to
warrant the variance request, and recommend it's approval.
E. Horne asks if there are any questions of J. Ruff regarding this request.
MargaBeth Cibulka, President of the Board of Directors for Habitat of Lansing, then read the
letter from the Executive Director, Jennifer Grau (see attached). The letter summarizes our
point of view, and what we feel.
E. Horne asks if there are any questions in regards to this petition.
E. Horne states for the record, that we did receive a letter from the Steproe family that live at
1231 Larned St., they were in full support of this request.
E. Horne asks does anyone wish to address the Board in regard to this appeal?
Glen Fink, Board Member of the Hunter Park West Neighborhood Assoc., then spoke. I don't
have a lot to add to Jenny's letter. I'll just give a little history of how we got involved with the
lot. It was abandoned, so we started taking care of the lot ourselves. We mowed and raked it.
Some of the neighbors here have all helped do that. When we found out the lot was for sale,
we said let's buy it and donate it to Habitat. We raised the funds by having a neighborhood
yard sale, we raised enough to purchase the lot from DNR. Working on securing the lot, the
continued maintenance of this property, and working with Habitat, has been a very positive
thing for our neighborhood, in terms of building a community amongst the neighbors. So often
a neighborhood bands together over negative issues. It's nice that this was a positive way of
bringing the neighborhood together.
V. Earhart asks has a family been chosen yet?
G. Fink replies no.
E. Horne states we commend what this neighborhood is doing, and taking a positive step.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 20
A. Frederick comments that on the Planning Commission we often find the public opposes
developments on specific pieces of property because they want the trees and the rustic nature
of the land to remain but they are never willing to put their money where their mouths are.
This group certainly has, and we appreciate that very much.
E. Horne adds that as Jenny's letter stated, the trees do add character. I think if you remove
those trees, it would just make the whole neighborhood blah.
Hearing no other comments from the audience, E. Horne moves that the Board go into the
Committee of the Whole.
C. Bicy notes he will be voting for this. It will definitely be a plus for the neighborhood. It will
also be good for a family to have something that meets the Michigan building codes.
C. Bicy moves to approve BZA3502.98, a request to allow a 10' variance for the construction
of a new house on parcel #3301-15-381-101 on S. Holmes St., so that the seven mature oak
trees can be spared. I would like to add that a driveway would be provided to provide two
vehicles approximately 40' west of the east property. Second by G. Hilts.
J. Ruff noted for the record the number of people in attendance in the audience regarding this
matter as nine.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia X Hilts X
Horne X S ink X
Motion carries by a vote of 8-0, BZA3502.98 has been approved unanimously.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Excused Absences.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of March 12, 1998. Correction on Page 2, the motion to send draft
rules of procedure for review was seconded by A. Frederick. V. Earhart
moved that the March 12, 1998 be approved with correction, seconded by A.
Frederick. On a voice vote, motion carried unanimously.
B. Minutes of April 14, 1998. G. Hilts moved to approve the April 14, 1998 special
meeting minutes as printed, seconded by C. Bicy. On a voice vote, motion
carried unanimously.
C. Minutes of April 16, 1998. C. Bicy moved to approve the April 16, 1998
minutes as printed, seconded by G. Hilts. On a voice vote, motion carried
unanimously.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 21
Vill. NEW BUSINESS
A. BZA-3463.97, Clara's Restaurant, 637 E. Michigan.
J. Ruff presented the update. After the variance was denied the owner had a
meeting with us to discuss his options. His concern with relocating was the
cost, the confusion that the sign man had with staff was the problem he was
concerned about. He was also concerned that he didn't have control over the
railroad equipment. If you want to supply new information for reconsideration
since staff said we thought it would be better if the sign were located over there
because of better visibility, and it could meet setback requirements there. He
inquired of the railroad, which is a lengthy process. He actually got a reply
from them. I wanted to get your opinion if you thought it was sufficient
information for reconsideration. I don't want to waste his time or his money.
V. Earhart mentions they gave us a really nice site map the last time. If we could look at that,
it would help with an identification of how the railroad is or is not going to impinge on this view.
J. Ruff says we had one at the last meeting, and the only place we would be able to put it that
would make better sense was adjacent to the railroad equipment. We had put in the packet
that we thought that would be a better location. They provided this map as well. J. Ruff then
pointed to various locations on the map, noting the equipment and the proposed location for
the sign.
V. Earhart clarifies that what we would be asked to do is go back and consider the first
requested placement with new information.
J. Ruff replies correct.
At 9:55 G. Hilts asked to be excused.
A. Frederick asks for clarification. Are they asking for a reconsideration of their original
request for a variance based on this new information?
J. Ruff states that they would reappeal, but it would be based on new information.
C. Bicy states J. Ruff is saying do we want to waste this guy's time, or is there enough
information for us to reconsider and hear what he has to say.
J. Ruff says we're not used to having to do this type of thing. In our opening statements we
say you can re-apply if you have new and significant information. My first question to you
tonight is I believe this is significant, I ask if you agree with me. Otherwise, if you don't feel it is
significant, I wouldn't want to waste the time of the applicant in having him re-apply.
A. Frederick asks what did happen the first time? What was the request?
E. Horne replies they wanted to change the sign.
J. Ruff states there was confusion where they brought in a sign builder from outside the city
who was not familiar with the code. They had asked if we just replace the face of the sign, do
we have to get a permit? They didn't. They not only replaced the face, they replaced the
whole frame of the sign. In doing that, they increased the height. So they asked for the
variance, leaving the sign in its original location. There was some initial confusion between
the sign person and staff. The variance was denied, mainly because there was a legitimate
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 22
location on site that we thought could meet code, and not hide the sign. Whereas, the
argument was because the building is in the 600 block, west of Pere Marquette, or right up at
the front property line, if they move it back, then the sign will be blocked on that side. We said
what about moving it all the way across the site, and conforming with the code requirements
there? What the Board did was granted them the area of the sign, but denied the setback of
the sign and the height of the sign, based upon the fact that it could be relocated and be
visible, and meet most of the sign code requirements. They provided new information, and I
wanted to bring that to you for your consideration. I didn't receive the information in a timely
manner to be able to bring it to you for the April meeting.
A. Frederick clarifies, if I understand what they are saying by sending us this letter, the new
information that they have that should be significant enough to have us reconsider this is that
the railroad might do something in the future that railroads do. That, to me, isn't significant
because that railroad was there before Clara's Restaurant was there. I think the fact that
railroad might come along and do something there is something that they should have
expected.
V. Earhart says in the scheme of things, you don't make an application, appeal, and then bring
more information to make a second appeal. If you get turned down, once the first appeal is
done, you go back and make a new application. So you put it back in their lap, "is this, to you,
sufficient to put in a new application?". Depending on what the group does, it either comes up
to us, or it doesn't.
M. Clark believes the way the process works, is they come to us and say this is the new
information we have, do you consider this sufficient to grant us a new appeal?
V. Earhart understands that, but they still have to make a new appeal.
M. Clark agrees. But they're asking if we would allow them to. I'm perfectly willing to allow
them to, but I don't necessarily know that I would be willing to support the variance.
C. Bicy agrees. I guess I'm hearing that the applicant wants to know if they'll get approval,
before they spend their money and apply for it. And we can't answer that.
J. Ruff explains, that's more my question than the applicant's. There's enough vagueness in
this information that was sent to me. I wanted to make sure, before I say file your new appeal,
that I thought that the Board would recognize whether this was significant information, or if
they had to look for other information that they didn't present the first time. I always feel you
ought to put your best foot forward.
E. Horne says what we should do is make a motion whether we feel the new information
warrants a new appeal, and if it doesn't it's just passed on as what we feel.
C. Bicy states that more than likely, as a Board we probably won't approve what they have
presented. What I'd like to suggest is have J. Ruff talk to the applicant and see if they can go
back and see if there is other information that they can come up with, and then come back to
us and ask us. Based on what I'm hearing, I'm feeling that I'm probably not going to vote for
approval. There's no sense in the applicant spending more money when we already have a
preconceived notion of denial.
A. Frederick says that in the main paragraph of Mr. Frederick's letter, he says "if' technology
were to change, and "if' they were to modify the railroad crossing, it "might" block view of their
sign. That doesn't seem very significant.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 23
B. Update on Towers
J. Ruff states we did get the RFP's back. It was disappointing based on the work we
put into it. We got two back, I can't reveal who sent them back, but they were both
tower builders, they were not service providers. They said they would build a tower on
any site we wanted them to, if there was a provider that wanted to go there. Well, that
didn't answer the question of the RFP. We've scheduled a special meeting for May 28,
1 was going to get a packet sent out to you. But I'm trying to get concurrance with
administration just to keep them at bay right now. And not do anything with them
presently, unless we have a little bit more information as to interest and site. What I
want to do is cancel the special meeting. I'm going to get approval on that with
administration first. I don't want any decisions made, without a little more information.
Also, I'm working with the hospital staff and the hospital supplier, and the meeting will
probably be in June to define parameters for what is "reasonably safe" around a
hospital. I think that will help us in potentially future policy making as well. I ask your
patience in this. The towers were tabled, no action was to be taken at the meeting. All
I have to do is post that the meeting is canceled.
V. Earhart states she read in the minutes, since she was unable to be at the meeting, about
the questions on hospitals. I was involved with leasing, permiting, selling, Department of
Transportation sites to the Department of State Police when they put their state wide program
together. Would you like me to contact one or more individuals in State Police on this
question, to see if they've answered it?
J. Ruff replies that would be fine.
V. Earhart asks do you want the information or do you want me to haul it back to you?
J. Ruff says you can just put them in touch with me.
E. Horne states the more information we have, the better we can make decisions, and that we
take everything into consideration.
V. Earhart mentions that the State Police cover the Detroit area as well as the thumb and the
U.P., so they would have run into almost anything that we are going to run into.
M. Clark asks for an excused absence for June and July.
A. Frederick made a motion, and V. Earhart seconded to approve the excused absence for
M. Clark for June and July. On a voice vote motion carries unanimously.
IX. ADJOURNMENT at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfu ly Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
Draft to Clerk 06105/98
Approved
To Clerk
N INUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
L 1.i V rY CLEFm BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
r'%Wi . 1'r
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
I. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson E. Horne, at 7:30 p.m. E. Horne read
the BZA Introduction. Roll call was taken.
Present
G. Hilts J. Garcia A. Frederick.:;.
E. Horne M. Clark E.
Ill. Excused Absences ............
...................
%512:: ....... ..
None
A. A quorum of five members was action to take
-X . ........
place.
Introduction of Staff
B.
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administ ".t"o,"i ... ........
0
APPROVAL OF A
A. One addition, un New BIat ess Jpdate on Towers
IV. K.E .....
A. 497.98 10p: ft2
requqsf�ij,y��J,M ri ign Fabricators to retain a nonconforming 256 ground
pe at:::
pole slgers store and erect three (3) Franclor multi-tenant ground pole
signs entrance: Michigan Avenue, Saginaw, and Clippert Streets,
quire ft2
.."....... * d setback, 176 each in the Franclor Shopping Center.
lix tall:13 ""p,281811
This goqg: Icing with the refurbishing of the shopping center that we've looked
.. :'
in the po""t. This appeal deals with the ground pole signs. There may be a
...........
future:;'
p:J-0peal dealing with wall signs. According to Section 1442.26(d) of the
SigeCode, a shopping center located on the corner of a major or minor arterial
owed one ground pole sign on each street frontage. Since Saginaw and
.... ......
......................
.......... .....
........... .........
..............
.......... ....11,
................
.....................I.
......................
.....................
Avenue are considered principal and minor arterials respectively, a
.....................
..................................... ................................. ground pole sign on each street is allowed. However, Clippert Street is
considered a collector street. Therefore a variance to erect one (1) sign on a
collector street is requested. Also, according to Section 1442.12(5)(B) of the
Sign Code, the maximum size of a ground pole sign is 170 ft2. Therefore, a
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 2
variance of 6 ft2 for each sign is also requested. These signs would replace the
existing Frandor signs.
J. Ruff states I've had numerous discussions with Frandorson Properties as well as Imperial
Sign Fabricators, who are represented here tonight, trying to make sure that what was brought
to the Board for appeal was something that was within the intent of the ordinance as much as
possible. They intend to remove the existing signs. The Michigan Historical Musuem is going
to have one of the signs refurbished and installed inside the museum. The other two will be
saved, they are the old porcelain on steel, another museum has expressed interest in the
signs.
Let the record show that C. Bicy is now present.
J. Ruff continues. The major difference in the new signs and the existing signs is that the
current signs only say Frandor. I'm sure you're familiar with them. The new signs would also
say Frandor, but also add major tenant space below that. It is my understanding that it is a
requirement in bringing in these tenants, to have some identification sign other than straight
wall signs. Kroger is requesting to retain their existing sign as well, which is a taller sign along
the Clippert St. side. That would be keeping the fourth sign. There are four ground pole signs
on the site presently.
The appellant, Joe Russell from Imperial Sign Fabricators, then spoke; the signage that we
originally proposed for this location was a typical shopping center signage packet which
included a 70' tall pylon along with some other tenant identification pylons that were around 30'
tall. In speaking with Mr. Ruff, we reduced the size and went back with him to see whether or
not that would conform to what the City requires; then we did another revision and finally came
up with this design that you see.
V. Earhart asks what would happen if you took the extra 6 ft2 per sign out? We've got a
picture here, I'm assuming this is the proposed sign. Where would that 6 ft2 come from?
Mr. Russell answered that the tenant identification right now is as small as you want for
visibility of the tenants. If anything was done to it, it would have to come out of the Frandorson
portion. I think I've reduced it as much as I possibly can, and still keep the same design.
We're trying to keep away from just a box looking sign, give it some depth and character.
V. Earhart notes that the bottom tier with nothing in it, and asks do you intend to put
something in it eventually for a tenant?
Mr. Russell answers yes.
V. Earhart clarifies, we can't simply just take that off?
Mr. Russell replied, no, they need that space for their tenants. Actually, I've worked with
Kroger, they usually dominant the sign on their center and require double the size of the other
tenants. This was a negotiation just to be able to reduce the size of the panel, to give them an
equal one.
C. Bicy asks are you going to have this sign put in concrete, and what type of landscaping will
be around it, if any?
Mr. Russell replies its according to code. If you require that, I don't see Frandorson having any
problems with that.
Pat Cookingham, Frandorson Corporation, responds. Actually, on Michigan Ave., we'll be
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 3
taking out the sign that is already there, and placing the new sign in the existing base with
shrubs around it.
C. Bicy continues, that's why I'm asking. This plan does not show any such description. I was
just curious if there were such plans.
Mr. Russell says its a little different looking, because these poles aren't actually round, they
have a square covering around them. They have some architectural design to them.
Ms. Cookingham continues, what normally happens is the sign company will do the installation
of the sign, and then we would contract masonary people or someone to do a base. We have
been working on locations. For instance, because we are moving an entrance on Clippert St.,
to straighten up with Sellers St., we are still determining the location, and that right now will
probably be in an island location where there will be shrubbery or something around it. On
Saginaw St. we are taking out the main island that is there. It probably won't be relocated
exactly there but it hasn't been determined yet. If it is required that we put some shrubbery, or
build it up around it with landscaping, we would do that.
C. Bicy asks if the sign will be lighted?
Mr. Russell replies the sign is illuminated.
C. Bicy asks if the colors will be the same as on the drawing?
Mr. Russell replies the colors will be close, but not exact to the drawing.
Ms. Cookingham notes that Frandor will keep a blue color, like they've used all along.
C. Bicy says he assumes the businesses or proprietors will be illuminated? Along with
Frandor, which will also be illuminated?
Mr. Russell replies correct.
M. Clark says I'm sure you're aware that the staff recommendation is that the Kroger sign
disappear. You haven't addressed that at all. What is the position on that?
J. Ruff notes that Mr. Russell may not be totally aware of the recommendation. As the reports
go, I had a meeting just before the reports were finalized and sent out. In looking at this from
a staff standpoint, with the Kroger sign and the three other ground pole signs, whether or not
the Kroger sign is necessary.
P. Cookingham says from the standpoint of Kroger, we've been working with them on our
redevelopment and that is a sign pole that exists for them now, that they have counted on and
used for all these years. We're not developing into that area where that sign is. So we've not
in detail discussed this with Kroger. They want the sign to remain. It would take quite a bit of
negotiations and probably redoing the sign if it had to go. At this point, it has not been
discussed.
M. Clark notes that her concern is we don't normally grant this kind of variance on new
construction. What you are doing, rather than improving the signage that is there, in terms of
reducing the square footage and making it more in keeping with the current code, you're
actually increasing it substantially. I would have great difficulty voting for a variance as it is
being proposed right now.
Mr. Russell responds the existing identification of the shopping center is being reduced. If it
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 4
stayed the same as it exists, there is 300 ft2 of signage that says Frandor. With this package,
there is only 213 ft2.
M. Clark asks how is that figured, if you have three signs at 176 ft2 plus the Kroger sign at
256 ft2?
Mr. Russell replies that would be identification of this Frandor only.
M. Clark notes I'm talking total signage. And Mr. Ruff indicated that you may be coming back
to us again for variances on wall signs. We have several times in the last few months sent
people back to work on a total sign package, where they have numerous signs that they feel
that they need for identification for various products or whatever. I have concerns about
granting a variance for pole signs tonight, and having you come back in a month or two and
looking at a different variance.
Mr. Russell states I think we are pretty sure that the only variance that we would ask for would
be close to the sign code, and only for major tenants.
M. Clark says, which again is kind of unprecedented. We don't normally do that.
G. Hilts asks can you define how many major tenants we are talking about?
P. Cookingham answers six.
V. Earhart asks are those the same six listed on your proposed poles?
P. Cookingham replies no, not in names, this would be the six that would be listed on the
poles. What we are looking for is signs on the front of the buildings of many of the anchors
that will be facing east. Also, signs on the rear facing Clippert St., because you now are going
to have a strip of buildings that will be parallel to Clippert St. We wanted to work on
identification of the back of the two to improve the look of the building and to identify the
tenants on that street.
G. Hilts asks do you have a comprehensive sign idea? I agree with Ms. Clark that coming to
us piece-meal is going to be counter productive. I think you ought to come to us once. It
would be much more to your benefit. It might be to your benefit to table this and come back
with a comprehensive something.
C. Bicy asks is it difficult for you at this time to give us a proposal on all the signs that
Frandorson is going to need or would like to have?
Mr. Russell replies the only concern in the center is the major tenants having adequate
identification. I think your sign code is liberal for store front signage. But when they come in
from different areas of the center, they want to be able to be seen. The major tenants are the
ones that we are concerned with.
C. Bicy states that we are aware of that, of the major tenants. We are assuming six, if we
were to grant approval on this sign, and you come back to us in two or three months and want
additional signage for whomever. It would be better to bring a total comprehensive plan of all
the signage that you are requesting than for us to vote on this now, and something else later.
G. Hilts adds that in the past when we've given people variances, its because their total
package has gotten better.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 5
Mr. Russell notes that originally they wanted freeway identification.
C. Bicy asks have they given you the total package, or have they given you just this package?
Mr. Russell replies that right now we're just concentrating on this package. In meetings with
Mr. Ruff we've discussed briefly what to do with the major tenants.
Mr. Russell clarifies that there are no details yet. I'm not even sure if final leases have been
signed.
P. Cookingham says that we have several of the leases done, but we are still finalizing some
of them. The rest of the sign package still needs to be finished because of not having two of
the leases completed. One of the other things that will be occurring, is that through the
beginning stages of the redevelopment and the reconstruction, the existing signs will be
coming down. We wanted to try and start working on getting the identification and locations as
Saginaw and Clippert St. Clippert St. is down already. Saginaw is going to be coming down.
We wanted to get this started so we could get this approved, to get the signs ordered and
installed and as tenants come in, which most of the anchor tenants will not be opening until
next year, we can start working on their identification. We're probably a couple of months at
the most away from the full sign package. We talked with Mr. Ruff and decided to come in
with this to start with.
C. Bicy asks who are your major tenants?
P. Cookingham replies the tenants currently signed are Kroger, Comp USA, Cost Plus, Linens
& Things. That's four, the other two I can't identify right now, because we are still negotiating.
We've got three tenants for two spots that we are negotiating with.
E. Spink asks in looking at a total package, could you identify and could we work with a figure
of not to exceed in terms of square footage? I suspect that in working with major tenants you
have some general idea of what its going to be. To help things move along, if we could work
with a not to exceed figure as a total package. I'm asking is that a possibility, or is that too
theoretical?
J. Ruff replies from our standpoint they haven't applied for the wall signage yet. Originally
when I talked with Frandorson, I encouraged them for a total sign package. I think it even
came up at our meeting dealing with variances for flood plain issues and so on. Because they
are currently under construction, and the timing that it takes to get the sign built while they are
negotiating contracts, then we have to have our applications in to get the public hearing, they
haven't been ready for the wall sign package. We did have a discussion regarding wall
signage so that we can at least look at a reasonable conformance on all visible wall signage.
They may have a tenant or two that will want their own sign, and that tenant will have to come
and present their case separately. Its such a large facility, thinking about the four ground pole
signs and then thinking about all the wall signs. There are a number of tenants that will not be
there any longer, that have older signs that will be removed. All the signs are going to be of
the same character. It is my understanding, all the remaining tenants will have either
conforming signs or existing signs that are conforming with the potential exception of some of
the larger tenants who already have non-conforming signs. An inventory of all the wall signage
that is there hasn't even been done. A lot of the signage is changing because of the major
changes of the center itself. There is a lot of calculation to go on, and refurbishing of signs.
They are getting it in stages because they have tenants there now, and they are trying to keep
tenants, move tenants, and deal with signage at the same time. So some of the questions are
still coming up from their standpoint as to the signage code for them. We've gone through the
requirements for the wall signs and so on. They weren't ready to bring the wall signage, but
they wanted to bring this. The only way to deal with both would be to table this and move on.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 6
Mr. Russell states that the new code that reads for the center is for channel letters mounted on
a raceway. A lot of the signs that are there right now are like square cabinets with the copy on
the inside. Channel letters get rid of all that space and makes the sign look smaller. When
you have a big cabinet with the copy in the middle of it, with an area on each side, you have a
larger sign.
J. Garcia comments that he hasn't seen anyone come in with a proposed design on the sign
that was to code to say this is why it can't work, and this is why I need the additional space.
With that, I pose the question, have you tried to meet the requirements?
Mr. Russell responds the original sign I designed for them was 230 ft2. 1 just reduced the
entire design, and this is the square footage I came up with. If I would reduce the sign three
inches lower, and an inch on the sides, that would be 170 ft2.
G. Hilts says when you get to where you have something to consider in wall signs, I probably
would not be willing to support anything that wasn't better in terms of numbers and square
footage. Like this, I think in the past, when we've taken some properties that were unique
because of location and size, and done some things with variances, its always been because
they've gotten better. They might still be exceeding the code, but they've always made it
better. I think Frandorson should keep that in mind and yourself if you're going to work on the
wall signs.
E. Spink notes at the same time, that we worked so hard to stay close to the code, I think we
have been understanding. Where you have an island of buildings from both sides, that truly is
unique and I think there are some examples pretty close to you where we've been rather
generous.
P. Cookingham notes that the area will house five of the anchor tenants. The area that I'm
talking about with the two sides will have five of the six anchor tenants.
E. Spink says I certainly want to support the sign on the collector street. It may be a collector
street but for as long as Frandor has been around I've thought that was the main entrance to
Frandor.
E. Spink continues that at this time I would support the removal of the Kroger sign.
E. Horne suggests that it be discussed in the Committee of the Whole.
E. Horne asks if there is anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board in regards
to the signs located at 300 Frandor.
Seeing none E. Horne moves that the Board move into the Committee of the Whole, second
by M. Clark.
E. Spink repeats that he will be supporting the sign on Clippert St., even though it's a collector
street, it is generally considered a main entrance and has for a long time. I think the size
variance in this case with the size of the mall and being on three major streets where the traffic
is fast is probably reasonable. At this time I would be supportive of the removal of the Kroger
sign. I think that is also consistent with general mall signage that tenants don't have pole
signs within malls. I may be incorrect, but that's a general impression that I have. I do think
that since this is a remodel, they are in a bind with relocating the three major signs before they
have a total package, but I think since they don't have a total package, I would look much more
carefully at any future variances. While it's not the preview of this Board, I'm certainly
delighted to hear that the signs are going to be preserved. Frandor is unique, in terms of age
and being able to exist as a mall for as long as it has. It's a credit to them and the community
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 7
that they are able to refurbish now. It's definitely positive.
C. Bicy adds I would be agreeing with Dr. Spinks. I would like to see the removal of the
Kroger sign as they have indicated. I do agree with the new sign at Clippert, the sign at
Saginaw, and also Michigan Ave. However, I would like to preface it by saying that I would like
to see that the sign would be bricked at the bottom with some type of shrubbery enclosed. It
could be used as a means of a "bumper guard". But I'm probably going to be hesitant in the
future signs of these six major businesses to be presented later on. C. Bicy then listed the
major stores he remembered from 1961. He continues I will be supporting these three signs
with the removal of the Kroger sign.
M. Clark states that I, too, am delighted with the improvements happening at Frandor, I think
it's a real asset to the City. When the original variance request came we were really excited
about the fact that it was being redeveloped, I see that as all positive. I have some real
concerns about this particular request. First of all, the hardship is not the code. The fact that
the code requires a sign of 170 ft2 is not a hardship. That is the rule, and you have to explain
what your hardship is that makes it impossible for you to conform to the rule. I think that the
argument can be made that because of the size of this property and because of the traffic on
Clippert, that the three signs are reasonable. But since three new signs and being con-
structed, I'm not sure that they could not be constructed to meet the code of 170 W. We're not
talking about a great deal of square footage. I guess I'm willing to support that 176 ft2 saying
okay, if this is what you really want. But, when you come back and want something else, I
probably am not going to be willing to support it. We are giving an additional sign, which is an
additional 176 ft2 already, and then the other two signs with an additional 6 ft2 each, this is all
adding up. For them to come back later and say okay now we want to exceed the code limi-
tations for our wall signs, I'm going to have real reservations. 1, too, believe that to make me
willing to support these at this point, in terms of the three signs, the Kroger sign needs to go.
V. Earhart says I generally agree with what everyone is saying. I think that Frandorson loses
out on the ability to get what they need all the way around by presenting to us just the pole
signs. I agree that if we approve the pole signs, then the wall signs are going to have to hit the
mark. If you've got a major company, an anchor for your property who has a requirement for
how big their signs are, and it's a little over our requirements, then there is no room for
negotiation at that point. I am inclined to suggest that we table this matter and ask the party to
prepare as much as they can at this point, where the buildings are going to be, where they
think the signs are going to be, what size signs they think are going to be there, and combine
them with this package so that we really get a feel of the signage that is going to go into
Frandor.
G. Hilts adds that it might not be true, and it might not be fair, but I get the impression that
there's a camel and a tent and somebody is trying to get him piecemeal inside. And nobody is
going to make me believe that they don't have complete architectural plans of what they are
going to build and therefore can't come up with some ideas of what sort of signage. I might go
on three pole signs once, but that's going to be it.
E. Spink adds that I think you've just said what I implied earlier, and yet not so definitively. If I
understood the presentation, it's probably that island where they are really going to have two
fronts to their building, as opposed to a big front. Maybe in a tentative proposal, like at least
say in this bunch of buildings along this strip, we see that there is the potential for a need for
signs on each side, and that's where we would be coming back with the variance. I also got
the impression that the front requirement for the code, and I heard the word liberal, that for the
most part they are going to be able to meet, if it only had one front. I guess partly that I see
their need to get something up for those three signs, and not be left with nothing. I would be
reluctant to table unless the request for the tabling came from the applicant. But I certainly
think the applicant has gotten the flavor of the Board.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 8
A. Frederick states I heard the applicant say also that Frandorson wants these signs up as
quickly as possible. I can understand why they would come to us early on and request these
Frandor signs be put up before they have much of an idea of what else they are going to do for
any other stores that may go in, and wall signs and such. I didn't take that as them wanting to
come back piecemeal. I took it to mean that they may very well not have too much idea what
they are going to continue to do, but that they would like to get that identification back up there
so it really looks like that place is operating. Which it kind of doesn't right now because of the
construction, and being torn up. That was the impression that I got, I could probably support
approval of these.
V. Earhart says its my disinclination for signs, but I didn't forget where Frandor is just because
they took a sign down.
A. Frederick responds that I'm not thinking of the people who already know where it is, I'm
thinking of the people who don't know where it is. The most important thing to a business
these days is their unique identification. That really comes very often with their signs. They
are doing their best to stay in business. I know it's still open, but when I go over there I can
easily see where somebody could get the impression that the place used to be there, but it's
gone now.
C. Bicy adds Frandor is competing against Lansing Mall and Meridian Mall, and other small
malls in the city. To not have a sign out there, there are some people who don't know where it
is. I definitely don't want to table it. If I were the owner, I think if any of us were the owner, I
think we could see that we would want some kind of identification. We do not know at this
point in time what type of language, what type of variance if there will be any, on these
additional signs that they will be bringing to us. We can only imagine what may happen. We
can't really vote on something that we really don't know. I would like to see us move and
approve it, but remove the Kroger sign.
A. Garcia adds that I also see the Clippert St. entrance as the main entrance. I would really
like to see them meet the signage requirement. I think they could shave off the extra 6 ft2. It
may be insignificant, but we are supposed to help guide to keep in line. It would be a nice
gesture that they are showing the intent to stay within the requirements. It means nothing to
me to say what they were really thinking was three times as big. The only way that I will be
saying yes today is if you shave the 6 ft2 off of each sign and go along with the removal of the
Kroger sign. But you might have enough room without me.
M. Clark states I would agree with what Mr. Garcia just said. I also understand what Mr.
Spink was saying that we can't vote on something when it hasn't been presented to us. There
has been no appeal on the wall signs. I just feel that it's important for you to understand where
we are coming from as a board, so that when you start looking at the wall signage, you have a
sense that we are not going to just grant what the tenants want because regularly we have
appelants coming to us who say "our company says we have to have a sign this big", or to be
in your facility we have to have a certain kind of signage. The fact is the City has a written
code with certain sign limitations and if we are granting a variance this evening for the four
signs, I personally am going to be very reluctant to look at much of a variance for any of the
walls signs. You as appelants have to weigh what you want. As we said earlier, you can ask
to have it tabled, you can shave the extra 6 ft2, that is your choice. I think the goal of the
Board in general is to try to make the signage request for the new signs being built more in
keeping with the code because we tend to believe that the code is there for a reason. While
everyone would like as much signage as possible, when you start looking at what the code
says, then you have to try to work your proposals around that code.
E. Horne adds I feel the codes are here for a purpose. I need to see a total package. Even if
it's just a tentative package, so that I can do the figuring and so that we would have a good
idea of the signage, and it's something that would stand out and say here is one business, one
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 9
mall that has complied with the signage. Therefore, unless we go to a total package in looking
at this, I cannot support this. I think we need to do good planning. I think that this will give us
an opportunity. We have asked other people within that area along E. Michigan Ave. to study
their total package need. I think this is within our perogative to ask them. This is the way I feel
we need to look at this as far as how it will relate to our code, and how to meet the needs of
their tenants.
C. Bicy says I understand what you're saying, and I partially agree. But when you look at it,
Frandor is basically advertising the entire mall. They come back with other information, they're
going to be talking about that specific building. Now we're getting into specifics. Kroger,
Comp USA, Office Depot, that's specific. When you say Frandor signs, you're talking about
the entire mall. To me, that makes a difference.
E. Spink moves that BZA3497.98 be approved to allow a ground pole sign on Clippert St., a
collector street, and the 6 ft2 variance for each of the three at the entrances on Saginaw,
Michigan, and Clippert St., contingent upon the removal of the 256 ft2 Kroger ground pole sign.
Seconded by G. Hilts.
E. Spink adds I agree that a nice base is part of the sign, but I think that we generally have not
dealt with that. However, in many cases when we've been presented with an illustration of the
sign, that has been included. I think at this point, other than they know that this board feels an
attractive base is appropriate. I think it's to their advantage to have some kind of a base to
protect the sign. I see it as a suggestion at this point. I suspect, in the future as we deal with
certain things, the screening and buffering may come up. That's a different issue.
V. Earhart says I agree with the ground pole sign on Clippert. I also agree upon the removal
of the Kroger ground pole sign. But without knowing what is going to happen in terms of the
wall signs, I cannot agree and therefore I will not be voting for this motion with regard to the
6 ft2 variation for each of the three signs.
E. Spink notes I have a lot of feeling for your position. But at the same time, they are without
tenants who may or may not have needs depending on space. As opposed to the majority of
the people we've sent back who have been fully occupied or a single large business, I think it's
just a hair different to ask them what they'll need for something that isn't there.
G. Hilts notes we could change the motion, make it two votes, one for size and one for the
Clippert St. sign.
C. Bicy says leave it like you have it, don't change it.
A. Garcia adds that he would probably support it if it didn't include the variance of 6 ft2 for
each sign.
E. Horne notes we can go through with it because there is a motion on the floor. If it fails we
can make another motion.
Board of Zoning Appeals, Mav 14, 1998 Page 10
At this point J. Ruff re-read the motion: E. Spink moved to approve the ground pole sign on
Clippert St., and the additional 6 ft2 on each of the three ground pole signs upon the condition
that the 256 ft2 Kroger sign be removed. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia X Hilts X
Horne X S ink X
Motion did not pass (4 yeas -4 nays).
G. Hilts moved to approve the ground pole sign on Clippert St., upon the condition that the
256 ft2 Kroger sign be removed. The three ground pole signs by this motion will be limited to
170 ft2. Seconded by V. Earhart.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia X Hilts X
Horne L X S ink X
Motion carries by a vote of 6 - 2, BZA3497.98 is approved with condition.
J. Ruff explains, BZA3497.98 has been partially approved. Just as a note, when they have
their wall signage together, and if they desire a variance, they may also request variance for
another ground pole sign or something to that effect. Just so you know, and so that they
know.
B. BZA-3498.98, 426 W. Kilborn
A request by Daniel Hendy to erect a 576 ft2 attached garage to the structure at
426 W. Kilborn. Since this is a corner lot, there are two front yards, Kilborn &
Chestnut Street. Section 1250.07 of the Zoning Code requires a 20' front yard
setback for both streets. The proposed structure would be 15' from the west
property line. Therefore, a 5' variance is requested. Also, Section 1250.09 of
the Zoning Code requires a 30' rear yard setback. Since the proposed structure
would be 20' from the rear lot line, a 10' variance is requested. The property
had a detached garage in the rear yard. Another detached garage could be
constructed in the rear yard. The size would be limited based on certain
factors. The appli-cant has proposed to remove a porch on the side of the
house to help incorpor-ate the garage into the building, and have the 15' front
yard setback. There is also additional land between the property line and the
sidewalk of approximately 5' so there would be at least the 20' from the front of
the garage to the sidewalk which would help make sure that cars could park in
front of the garage. The proposed garage would not extend beyond the line of
the house adjacent to it at 1010 Chestnut which has a 9'6" setback from the
property line. It would be kind of a step back approach to this. In looking at
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 11
this, based upon the corner site, understand the requirement for a 20' setback
on a lot that is 55' wide and only 99'. Understand too that there's a need to
have a rear yard. Whereas, if a de-tached garage were built in the rear yard in
this situation, the entire rear yard would be taken up by that. In this setting,
they are able to hook up part of the house with comparable architecture and I've
had discussion with them about the driveway and so on with the idea that if the
driveway is then removed then that entire 20' area would become rear yard. I
think that is a desirable feature of this request. Also, with the length of the
house along Chestnut, it would be a reasonable architectural element to the
development. Staff is recommending approval for the request.
C. Bicy asks is the garage attached or detached?
J. Ruff replies it would be attached. It would be taking off a porch that runs along their
laundry/kitchen area in the back of the house, and putting the garage in its place.
J. Ruff then showed a drawing supplied by the appellant, and explained the layout of the
garage in relation to the neighbor's house. There is a handicap involved, that's part of the
reason for the size of the garage. He then passed the drawing around.
Shirley Hendy of 426 W. Kilborn then spoke. Yes, my husband is handicapped. We want the
_. attached garage so we don't have to go outside in the winter weather. It would make a much
nicer appearance to the house. We are no way obstructing the view. We are back away from
the neighbor's porch. We need the size because we have a full sized van and a car, and
need storage for lawn mowers and such.
C. Bicy inquires as to the materials for the structure.
Mrs. Hendy replies lumber, at this point. And I believe aluminum siding, the house has
aluminum siding.
E. Horne asks is there is anyone here this evening wishing to speak in support or opposition
of this appeal?
Seeing none, E. Horne moves that we move into the Committee of the Whole for discussion.
V. Earhart says this seems like an entirely reasonable request. The size of the garage and
making it attached also seems reasonable. I will be voting in favor of this variance.
G. Hilts says ditto.
E. Spink moves that BZA3498.98 be approved for a 5' front yard variance off the west
property line, and a 10' rear yard variance request to erect a 576 ft2 attached garage at 426 W.
Kilborn with the condition that the old driveway and the apron be removed and replaced with
lawn, and that the new driveway be south of the street tree so as not to endanger the tree.
Seconded by C. Bicy.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 12
E. Spink says it was summarized as a totally reasonable request and aesthetically pleasing.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia X Hilts X
Horne X S ink X
Motion carries by a vote of 8 - 0, BZA3498.98 has been approved with conditions.
C. BZA-3499.98, 6600 Blk. S. Washington
A request by Melissa S. Randt of Adams Outdoor Advertising to erect a
billboard with two 14'x48' sign faces in a back-to-back configuration with
illumination, built perpendicular to 1-96 and accessed from the 6600 block of S.
Washington Ave. The property is zoned "F" Commercial, it is undeveloped at
this time, and is adjacent to a Board of Water and Light well site that has "A"
Residential zoning. Section 1442.22(E) stipulates that no billboard will be
allowed to be erected or constructed within 200' of any parcel with residential
zoning. This is a condition in the current billboard ordinance. Previously it was
a 75' distance. The proposed location of the billboard is 100' from a residential
zoning district. This is, therefore, a request for a 100' variance from Section
1442.22(E). Section 1442.22(H) stipulates a minimum distance of 1000' to any
other billboard which may be viewed from the same road. The proposed
location will be within 1000' of a billboard on the south side of 1-96. This is,
therefore, a request for a variance from Section 1442.22(H).
For a little history, this lot was divided off of a larger"F" Commercial site prior to
the ordinance amendment that was done is December of 1997. Both properties
are undeveloped at this time. The applicant has an option to purchase this
property for the development of this sign. It is adjacent to 1-96. Under previous
interpretation of the old ordinance the billboard was not allowed to be erected
on the site because Washington is not a major or minor arterial. 1-96 is an
expressway and, according to the attorney's office, was not considered part of
the major or minor arterial definition. So that request for a billboard was denied.
At that time they applied for a variance from that information as far as the
setbacks. It was in the opinion of the office that these were threshold criteria,
that these were not dimensional criteria, and the Board did not have jurisdiction
over some of those questions. So now a newer billboard section of the sign
ordinance has been passed, with these conditions. One of them includes
expressways in the list of roads that billboards could be listed on, major arterial,
minor arterial, and expressway. One of the other conditions that allow for the
construction of a billboard under the current sign code is that two non-
conforming billboards be removed. That condition has been met since the first
of the year. I could look up those addresses if needed. They have met the
threshold requirement to allow erection of another billboard sign, but the
location that is proposed here doesn't meet the code requirements for two sign
code sections noted above. Staff is concerned that this would set a precedent
with respect to the newer code, and find the situation that it can't support the
request based upon that. Not only would the billboard be visible from 1-96,
obviously if its two-faced; but also the idea that it is going to be above the grade
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 13
of the expressway by approximately 25'. Even coming north or south on
Washington, the likelihood of seeing both signs on Washington would be very
high. Again, I think a precedent would be made that would diminish the present
ordinance.
V. Earhart notes this is on 1-96 and is above the grade of the expressway. She asks are they
required to get some kind of permit or license from the Department of Transportation?
J. Ruff replies, yes, and they have that.
C. Bicy notes there is a sign on Cedar St. that advertises Holiday Inn, its made in a triangle,
and it sets up above the highway next to Denny's. How does that sign have approval?
E. Horne responded that it was in 1972 or 1973. 1 remember the controversy that was around
that sign. I can't remember the votes of the Planning Board, but I remember that Council gave
the final approval on that. That was long before we had the sign code.
Melissa Randt, of Adams Outdoor Advertising, 3801 Capitol City Blvd. then spoke. Concerning
the Holiday Inn sign, that is considered an off premises sign, so it falls under the category of a
billboard. I think that is part of how that was able to be built. it may not have needed any
variances at the time if it met the sign code. What I'd like to do is give you a little bit of a
background. Mr. Ruff touched on it briefly. There was a sign ordinance change in the middle
of our application to get this sign permit. The original application was submitted September
30, 1997. The lot split was done by the property owner, the Walter Neller Co. That was
submitted on October 10, 1997. The lot split was to be done to split out the portion of the
property that lies to the south of the Board of Water and Light well, and to the north of 1-96.
Due to certain restrictions Walter Neller had been unable to fully market or development that
property. That piece was split out, and the application was applied for October 10th, and it
was approved on October 18, 1997. However, Mr. Ruff would not review our sign application
until the lot split was completed. Then, on November 18, 1997 our permit application was
denied. There is a little bit of history that goes in along with the opinion that was actually
issued in 1991 from Al Knott, the City Attorney, regarding the classification of an interstate not
falling into a major arterial.
V. Earhart interrupts that the dates being given are confusing. You started out with
September of 1997, and now you're quoting from a letter from 1991?
M. Randt confirms. This is the letter from 1991. It's important because this is what J. Ruff
referred to in his summary a few moments ago on the determination that the interstate was not
considered a major arterial road, and that is why he denied our application. It was from this
opinion from 1991. Otherwise the sign, as far as the setbacks, the size, spacing, and
everything else was in compliance with the ordinance. The dates are important because the
sign ordinance was changed in December, and our concern is that the staff report says that
the undo hardship was self inflicted. We are saying that it was not because of the series of
events and the determination of the Planning Department. The big stumbling block was
whether or not the signs were viewed from Washington or 1-96. Washington is not considered
a major or minor arterial so a billboard is not allowed along Washington at all. The intent is for
the billboard to be viewed from 1-96. It's given additional height, which the sign ordinance
allows, above the overpass on 1-96 so it can be viewed. It would be very difficult to view any of
the signs, this one proposed, or the existing sign on the south side of 1-96 from Washington
That is why the date of 1991 is important. Because we had two sign permits issued, I have
copies of those with me tonight, in 1995 along 1-496. Again, we have an interstate, again we
were issued permits that Mr. Ruff did approve. We're saying here that there is some selective
enforcement in interpretation of the ordinance because here's this opinion from 1991, and I
have two permits that were issued to Adams Outdoor Advertising for signage along an
interstate. We are talking the same type of sign that we are proposing here tonight, and that's
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 14
a 14'x48'. I do have the communication that was sent to me as well as the two permits that
were issued. I'm trying to establish here that the hardship was not caused by Adams Outdoor
Advertising, or the Walter Neller Co. We were simply trying to comply with the ordinance the
way it had been enforced in the past. We were completely taken aback by the fact that they
were not going to approve the sign because they felt that there were no grounds for it to exist
because of this major arterial definition. We were set to be on the agenda in December, prior
to the new ordinance being approved. We received a letter, which we did not get until after
the meeting, saying why we were not allowed to be on the Board of Zoning Appeals agenda.
We tried to accomplish getting the sign permit approved prior to the ordinance change. Since
the ordinance change, we are faced with the problem of the spacing and then the setback from
residential. We are saying it was not Adams Outdoor Advertising and Walter Neller, it was an
interpretation or the staff and the Planning Department. The permit should have been
approved back in November. We do have documentation where the Planning Department
had, indeed, issued permits along an interstate, that came even after this opinion in 1991 from
Al Knott. If you would like to take a look at these documents, I do have copies for you. I felt
they were important after reading the staff report, and their concern with the hardship was the
result of Adams Outdoor Advertising or the lot split. The lot split was just a logical piece of the
property that was still all zoned "F" Commercial, which is allowed for a billboard sign. The
adjoining property to the west is Professional zoning. We cannot erect a billboard on
professional zoning, so we cannot move the sign any further to the west to comply with the
200' setback from the Board of Water and Light property. The Board of Water and Light
property just happens to sit in the middle of this piece of property of Walter Neller due to the
relocation of Edgewood Blvd., which actually split off the Neller property and then created this
piece of Board of Water and Light property to be in the middle of what is the Walter Neller
property. Before, when Edgewood Blvd. was further to the south, the Board of Water and
Light property was actually on the corner of Edgewood and Washington. There is a drain
easement that runs through there, so you're not able to be building or covering up that drain so
that the City has the ability to access the drain. We are saying this should have all been taken
care of back in November, prior to the sign ordinance being changed. The lot split was done,
we certainly intended to have a vested interest in this property. Walter Neller certainly does,
they want to develop and get the best use of the property. The billboard will have a concrete
foundation, we don't have to pave over any of the property, we won't be interfering with the
well or the access to the drain easement. That's the importance of the dates. I would be
happy to share this information with you as far as the previous permits that were issued, as
well as the opinion from May of 1991.
E. Horne asks are there any questions of the appellant?
C. Bicy states one of the things you have to look at is the fact that the signs that were
approved, why were they approved. Compared to this sign, which is not approved. Then look
at why this sign is not approved based upon the 200' of property zoned residential. Of the
signs that were approved, was it within the 200'? Prior to that time, it was 75'. Were you
within the 75' at that time? Secondly, since it has changed, now it's 200', which means it's
further away. So if there has been a change in that or if there has been a change in the split of
the property, then there is a reason why those signs were approved, versus this sign being
denied.
M. Randt states it was denied, not based upon the residential setback. It was denied because
of the spacing, or being able to build along an interstate. We complied with the residential
setback at that time because it was only 75' and we were 100'. The conflict is the selective
enforcement by the Planning Department. The conflict we had was the interpretation of the
interstate as a major or minor arterial road.
E. Horne suggests that the Zoning Administrator speak.
J. Ruff reports, with regard to another reason why it was denied on S. Washington, is
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 15
because it is also within 400' of the other billboard south of 1-96, which is the old ordinance,
the billboard right of way of the expressway is 300'. This billboard would be about 20' north of
that right of way. The billboard on the south side is right up next to the right of way, within
400'. It's along the same roadway, which is Washington. That's one reason they were going
to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. The other issue about the other
two signs, I'll be more than happy to look into it. At that time I wasn't aware of that decision of
the City Attorney's office. Other staff, and Eleanor Love bringing that to my attention with
regard to that variance, and the City Attorney bringing that to my attention brought about that
action late last year. That gives you a little bit of timing from an office standpoint.
C. Bicy asks what about this lot split mentioned earlier? Ms. Randt said nothing was done
until after the lot split.
J. Ruff replies, the location of the billboard was based upon the lot. If we are looking at a
billboard on a proposed lot, it wasn't a billboard on the full lot, and then the lot being split off.
So they went through the process of creating that lot through a lot split.
C. Bicy asks that had to be done prior to making the decision?
J. Ruff replies, the application was for a billboard on a particular lot that did not exist.
E. Horne asks if there are any other questions of the appelant.
M. Randt mentions that the other issue, as far as the spacing, the 400' across the highway,
Michigan Department of Transportation does issue us permits. They also have a spacing
requirement. The spacing requirement is 500' between billboards on the same side of the
road. It's not the intention of the sign to be viewed from Washington. A billboard sign couldn't
be built on Washington. We felt it was ludicrous to even consider the spacing between the
two signs as they sat along Washington with the interstate separating them. The intent was
for the signs to be built and viewed from 1-96 so therefore, to look overhead and say two signs
have to be 400' apart when they're supposed to be viewed from 1-96 instead of Washington did
not make a lot of sense to us. That was part of the variance request. Not necessarily a
variance, but an interpretation as to the spacing, should it be determined from Washington or
1-96. That also brought up the dilemma on the major arterial road. We didn't have an
opportunity to come before you. The new ordinance was passed, now we're faced with the
200' setback from the residential. Initially when we applied for the sign permit, as well as
going through a lot split to purchase the property, we did not see that there was a problem with
getting the permits. We get permits all over the city. We've worked with J. Ruff several
times. We certainly aren't going to waste his, Walter Neller, or our time and money to buy
property if we can't build a sign. We tried to get those matters taken care of before we
compounded with now another need for a variance with the residential.
C. Bicy asks how long have you been trying to get the sign up?
M. Randt replies since September.
E. Horne states the Board will move into the Committee of the Whole.
V. Earhart notes that the speaker dealt with the different standards between the MDOT and
the City of Lansing. I think I can speak with some authority that the Department of
Transportation operates in this area under a law that specifically permits and may even
encourage local governments to set sign standards for themselves. There's nothing within the
law that requires that those sign standards be the same as those of the Department of
Transportation. Except that I don't think that they can be less than what the Department of
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 _ Page 16
Transportation sets. The fact that they have a permit from Transportation and that allows for
400' instead of 1000' is of no consequence to this Board as representative of the City of
Lansing.
E. Spink asks J. Ruff to clarify the matter. Aside from the background information leading up
to tonight, the real question we have tonight is a variance from a residential zoning distance,
right?
J. Ruff replies yes.
E. Spink continues, and also a variance from the 1000'.
J. Ruff replies correct.
E. Spink continues, aside from those issues, and with the precedence set by this Board in
staying close to the sign codes, and some members of this Board encouraging, prodding,
etcetera, the City to strengthen it's codes, and the billboard in particular; I'm extremely
reluctant to give any variance on either of those issues because they become precedents;
because the next one will not give a hoot about the prior information. I think that to
immediately set a new standard from a new code is extremely dangerous. I'm speaking this
aside from the background information.
E. Horne comments that we do have an interoffice communication from Chad A. Gamble,
Stormwater Engineer. It was in the new packet that you received this evening.
E. Spink comments that I am pleased to hear that the requirment for the removal of two
billboards have been met already. That is definitely commendable. If there is no further
discussion, I'm prepared to make a motion.
C. Bicy asks which two billboards are you talking about?
E. Spink answers that J. Ruff said one requirement of the new code to erect a billboard, the
company must remove two. Two have been removed.
E. Spink moves that BZA3499.98 to erect a billboard on this site as proposed be denied since
it does not meet the minimum requirements of the sign code. Second by C. Bicy.
E. Horne asks for discussion.
E. Spink restates that it would set a bad precedent to allow any variance on either of these
two issues.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia X Hilts X
Horne X Spink X
Motion carries by a vote of 8-0, BZA3499.98 has been denied..
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 17
D. BZA-3500.98, 1100 Parkdale
A request by Tim Cane (applicant) for Susan Holcombe (owner) for a variance
in the front yard setback to construct a two car detached garage on a corner lot
at 1100 Parkdale St. The property is actually 39'/z' wide by 127% long. As
such, they have removed a previous garage that was approximately 6' from the
property line adjacent to the east. In doing that, they wish to erect a new two
car garage and driveway. They are proposing to locate the garage in
conformance, 4' from the east lot line, and the garage would be 21' deep
garage by 22' wide, and have a new driveway. It's right at the edge of the 100
year flood plain as well. They have to get a DEQ permit. It will be elevated
above the 100 year flood elevation, to make sure that it conforms with all of
those codes. This structure would be an unattached garage, it's adjacent to an
existing deck which is attached to the house. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning
Code requires an established front yard setback of 20 ft. The proposed front
yard setback is 14% ft. Therefore, a variance of 5'h ft. is requested. They
would meet all other code requirements. Again, with the lot, the maximum size
garage that could be built by code would be 16%2'. I know cars are getting
smaller these days, but the minimum garage that is being built is 20' with new
houses. A 21' depth seems reasonable. They are going to be increasing the
setback from the existing garage by a couple of feet and maintaining a distance
that will allow parking in the driveway without overhanging the sidewalk. They
looked at the option of putting the garage on the south end of the site, which
would be "up" on the drawing. In doing that, it puts the garage right up next to
the neighbors house. It also takes up the entire rear yard with the building and
driveway.
A. Frederick asks is there also the requirement for flood insurance for this property? I think in
the past when we've addressed issues on flood plains there was some mention about the
increase in flood insurance or regular insurance not being available, does that also come into
play here?
J. Ruff replies not necessarily, because they will be elevating this structure. The Federal
government requires flood insurance by mortgage companies on structures.
E. Horne asks if the appellant is present.
Tim Cane, a Lansing builder, introduced himself and Susan Holcombe, passed around a
couple pieces of information; he then spoke. Very simply, this project, and this variance will
allow us to build this garage and it will only increase the setback by 2', it eliminates a non-
conforming structure that was, if not in the flood plain, was becoming, due to drainage,
functionally obsolete. In the winter, snow would melt, water would drain into the garage,
refreeze, and break up part of the foundation. We eliminated that garage. This increases the
off road parking in this neighborhood, which is pretty important if you know the area. It
increases the property value, because we've tried to keep the garage looking of the same
design as the house. There are other questions that have been brought up because of Plan B,
the second proposed site. We thought we could alleviate a lot of the other problems we were
having, increase the off road parking by sliding the garage all the way to the back side of the
lot. This wasn't a good trade. The next door neighbors had a problem with that, and I don't
blame them. One of their main windows would look directly at the garage.
S. Holcombe notes that the reason I wanted the garage in the original spot next to the deck
and closer for the house is for safety reasons. I'm an emergency veterinarian, and I come and
go late at night. To have to walk across the yard wasn't going to be quite as safe as to have
the garage where it had been. We've tried to comply to move the garage out of the flood plain
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 18
because it will be elevated. It's going to provide parking, but the one problem we have is the
5Y2' because of the size of the lot.
C. Bicy asks about the deck, is it open, enclosed, screened?
S. Holcombe answered that the deck has a wooden privacy fence around it, with gates and
steps.
C. Bicy asks about raising the floor elevation. How many inches are we talking about?
T. Cane replied we are going to raise it so we have '/4" per foot fall. That's approximately 12".
E. Horne asks if anyone in the audience would like to comment on this petition.
Seeing none, E. Horne moves that the Board move into the Committee of the Whole.
E. Horne points out that page two in the packet is a letter from Julie Thomas-Beckett in
support of Plan A.
C. Bicy moves to approve BZA3500.98, site plan A, with the conditions that the applicant be
required to raise the floor elevation of the garage above the level of the flood plain, and that
the proper permit be obtained by the State of Michigan. Second by E. Spink.
V. Earhart comments that I drove around and saw this house yesterday. I could not "see" the
garage they want to put up. Now that I see this illustration it really does work.
E. Spink comments that I am very familiar with the property, and the design of the garage and
the location is excellent, it is definitely an improvement. I also wanted to mention that this kind
of summary sheet was extremely helpful to keep us on target for our discussion.
E. Horne repeats that the motion was before us that we recommend the approval of plan A, a
variance of 5Y2' to construct an unattached garage, and that the applicant be required to raise
the floor elevation of the garage above the level of the flood plain, and that proper permits for
this be obtained from the State of Michigan.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia X Hilts X
Horne X Sink X
Motion carries by a vote of 8-0, BZA3500.98 has been approved with conditions.
C. Bicy asks what permit do they have to get from the State of Michigan?
J. Ruff responds its because they are filling part of the flood plain, they need to get a permit.
Otherwise, they could get a permit from DEQ for keeping the garage below the flood plain, and
because it's a garage, it's not habitable space. They would have to put ventilation through that
would allow water to come in and go out on its own.
S. Holcombe says she talked to John Grace, and he told me that because the garage is not
attached to the house, it's considered an outbuilding, and that we don't need a permit. But I
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 19
asked him to send me all the papers anyway, just is case we have to.
V. Earhart responds the condition, as I understand it, is if you go to the State of Michigan and
find that you don't need a permit, you don't have to get one just to satisfy us.
E. BZA-3502.98, Holmes St., Habitat for Humanity
Request by Habitat for Humanity and Hunter Park West Neighborhood
(applicants) to construct a new house, replacing a fire damaged house, at the
NW corner of Holmes and Larned Streets. In order to retain 7 mature oak
trees, and site the house consistent with how it was sited in the past, and what
is similar to the neighborhood, new house siting would result in a 10' front yard
setback along Holmes St. You have a old air photo in your packet that shows
the old home being located at the extreme north end of the site off of the alley.
Then you have a site plan that shows an inset that shows a siting of 28' x 42'
house and it's location that would fit in this area, and how it's similar to the
houses that are to the north along Holmes St. with a 28' setback from the
curbline for the proposed home as well as the homes to the north. Based upon
it being a corner lot, the situation of dual front yards is required, and there are
locational problems with the mature oak trees. In a situation like this in an
existing neighborhood, staff likes to see structures mirror the neighborhood to
it's improvement. Based on the situation, we feel there is sufficient hardship to
warrant the variance request, and recommend it's approval.
E. Horne asks if there are any questions of J. Ruff regarding this request.
MargaBeth Cibulka, President of the Board of Directors for Habitat of Lansing, then read the
letter from the Executive Director, Jennifer Grau (see attached). The letter summarizes our
point of view, and what we feel.
E. Horne asks if there are any questions in regards to this petition.
E. Horne states for the record, that we did receive a letter from the Steproe family that live at
1231 Larned St., they were in full support of this request.
E. Horne asks does anyone wish to address the Board in regard to this appeal?
Glen Fink, Board Member of the Hunter Park West Neighborhood Assoc., then spoke. I don't
have a lot to add to Jenny's letter. I'll just give a little history of how we got involved with the
lot. It was abandoned, so we started taking care of the lot ourselves. We mowed and raked it.
Some of the neighbors here have all helped do that. When we found out the lot was for sale,
we said let's buy it and donate it to Habitat. We raised the funds by having a neighborhood
yard sale, we raised enough to purchase the lot from DNR. Working on securing the lot, the
continued maintenance of this property, and working with Habitat, has been a very positive
thing for our neighborhood, in terms of building a community amongst the neighbors. So often
a neighborhood bands together over negative issues. It's nice that this was a positive way of
bringing the neighborhood together.
V. Earhart asks has a family been chosen yet?
G. Fink replies no.
E. Horne states we commend what this neighborhood is doing, and taking a positive step.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 20
A. Frederick comments that on the Planning Commission we often find the public opposes
developments on specific pieces of property because they want the trees and the rustic nature
of the land to remain but they are never willing to put their money where their mouths are.
This group certainly has, and we appreciate that very much.
E. Horne adds that as Jenny's letter stated, the trees do add character. I think if you remove
those trees, it would just make the whole neighborhood blah.
Hearing no other comments from the audience, E. Horne moves that the Board go into the
Committee of the Whole.
C. Bicy notes he will be voting for this. It will definitely be a plus for the neighborhood. It will
also be good for a family to have something that meets the Michigan building codes.
C. Bicy moves to approve BZA3502.98, a request to allow a 10' variance for the construction
of a new house on parcel #3301-15-381-101 on S. Holmes St., so that the seven mature oak
trees can be spared. I would like to add that a driveway would be provided to provide two
vehicles approximately 40' west of the east property. Second by G. Hilts.
J. Ruff noted for the record the number of people in attendance in the audience regarding this
matter as nine.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Earhart X Frederick X
Garcia X Hilts X
Horne X S ink X
Motion carries by a vote of 8-0, BZA3502.98 has been approved unanimously.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Excused Absences.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of March 12, 1998. Correction on Page 2, the motion to send draft
rules of procedure for review was seconded by A. Frederick. V. Earhart
moved that the March 12, 1998 be approved with correction, seconded by A.
Frederick. On a voice vote, motion carried unanimously.
B. Minutes of April 14, 1998. G. Hilts moved to approve the April 14, 1998 special
meeting minutes as printed, seconded by C. Bicy. On a voice vote, motion
carried unanimously.
C. Minutes of April 16, 1998. C. Bicy moved to approve the April 16, 1998
minutes as printed, seconded by G. Hilts. On a voice vote, motion carried
unanimously.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 21
Vill. NEW BUSINESS
A. BZA-3463.97, Clara's Restaurant, 637 E. Michigan.
J. Ruff presented the update. After the variance was denied the owner had a
meeting with us to discuss his options. His concern with relocating was the
cost, the confusion that the sign man had with staff was the problem he was
concerned about. He was also concerned that he didn't have control over the
railroad equipment. If you want to supply new information for reconsideration
since staff said we thought it would be better if the sign were located over there
because of better visibility, and it could meet setback requirements there. He
inquired of the railroad, which is a lengthy process. He actually got a reply
from them. I wanted to get your opinion if you thought it was sufficient
information for reconsideration. I don't want to waste his time or his money.
V. Earhart mentions they gave us a really nice site map the last time. If we could look at that,
it would help with an identification of how the railroad is or is not going to impinge on this view.
J. Ruff says we had one at the last meeting, and the only place we would be able to put it that
would make better sense was adjacent to the railroad equipment. We had put in the packet
that we thought that would be a better location. They provided this map as well. J. Ruff then
pointed to various locations on the map, noting the equipment and the proposed location for
the sign.
V. Earhart clarifies that what we would be asked to do is go back and consider the first
requested placement with new information.
J. Ruff replies correct.
At 9:55 G. Hilts asked to be excused.
A. Frederick asks for clarification. Are they asking for a reconsideration of their original
request for a variance based on this new information?
J. Ruff states that they would reappeal, but it would be based on new information.
C. Bicy states J. Ruff is saying do we want to waste this guy's time, or is there enough
information for us to reconsider and hear what he has to say.
J. Ruff says we're not used to having to do this type of thing. In our opening statements we
say you can re-apply if you have new and significant information. My first question to you
tonight is I believe this is significant, I ask if you agree with me. Otherwise, if you don't feel it is
significant, I wouldn't want to waste the time of the applicant in having him re-apply.
A. Frederick asks what did happen the first time? What was the request?
E. Horne replies they wanted to change the sign.
J. Ruff states there was confusion where they brought in a sign builder from outside the city
who was not familiar with the code. They had asked if we just replace the face of the sign, do
we have to get a permit? They didn't. They not only replaced the face, they replaced the
whole frame of the sign. In doing that, they increased the height. So they asked for the
variance, leaving the sign in its original location. There was some initial confusion between
the sign person and staff. The variance was denied, mainly because there was a legitimate
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 22
location on site that we thought could meet code, and not hide the sign. Whereas, the
argument was because the building is in the 600 block, west of Pere Marquette, or right up at
the front property line, if they move it back, then the sign will be blocked on that side. We said
what about moving it all the way across the site, and conforming with the code requirements
there? What the Board did was granted them the area of the sign, but denied the setback of
the sign and the height of the sign, based upon the fact that it could be relocated and be
visible, and meet most of the sign code requirements. They provided new information, and I
wanted to bring that to you for your consideration. I didn't receive the information in a timely
manner to be able to bring it to you for the April meeting.
A. Frederick clarifies, if I understand what they are saying by sending us this letter, the new
information that they have that should be significant enough to have us reconsider this is that
the railroad might do something in the future that railroads do. That, to me, isn't significant
because that railroad was there before Clara's Restaurant was there. I think the fact that
railroad might come along and do something there is something that they should have
expected.
V. Earhart says in the scheme of things, you don't make an application, appeal, and then bring
more information to make a second appeal. If you get turned down, once the first appeal is
done, you go back and make a new application. So you put it back in their lap, "is this, to you,
sufficient to put in a new application?". Depending on what the group does, it either comes up
to us, or it doesn't.
M. Clark believes the way the process works, is they come to us and say this is the new
information we have, do you consider this sufficient to grant us a new appeal?
V. Earhart understands that, but they still have to make a new appeal.
M. Clark agrees. But they're asking if we would allow them to. I'm perfectly willing to allow
them to, but I don't necessarily know that I would be willing to support the variance.
C. Bicy agrees. I guess I'm hearing that the applicant wants to know if they'll get approval,
before they spend their money and apply for it. And we can't answer that.
J. Ruff explains, that's more my question than the applicant's. There's enough vagueness in
this information that was sent to me. I wanted to make sure, before I say file your new appeal,
that I thought that the Board would recognize whether this was significant information, or if
they had to look for other information that they didn't present the first time. I always feel you
ought to put your best foot forward.
E. Horne says what we should do is make a motion whether we feel the new information
warrants a new appeal, and if it doesn't it's just passed on as what we feel.
C. Bicy states that more than likely, as a Board we probably won't approve what they have
presented. What I'd like to suggest is have J. Ruff talk to the applicant and see if they can go
back and see if there is other information that they can come up with, and then come back to
us and ask us. Based on what I'm hearing, I'm feeling that I'm probably not going to vote for
approval. There's no sense in the applicant spending more money when we already have a
preconceived notion of denial.
A. Frederick says that in the main paragraph of Mr. Frederick's letter, he says "if' technology
were to change, and "it" they were to modify the railroad crossing, it "might" block view of their
sign. That doesn't seem very significant.
Board of Zoning Appeals, May 14, 1998 Page 23
B. Update on Towers
J. Ruff states we did get the RFP's back. It was disappointing based on the work we
put into it. We got two back, I can't reveal who sent them back, but they were both
tower builders, they were not service providers. They said they would build a tower on
any site we wanted them to, if there was a provider that wanted to go there. Well, that
didn't answer the question of the RFP. We've scheduled a special meeting for May 28,
1 was going to get a packet sent out to you. But I'm trying to get concurrance with
administration just to keep them at bay right now. And not do anything with them
presently, unless we have a little bit more information as to interest and site. What I
want to do is cancel the special meeting. I'm going to get approval on that with
administration first. I don't want any decisions made, without a little more information.
Also, I'm working with the hospital staff and the hospital supplier, and the meeting will
probably be in June to define parameters for what is "reasonably safe" around a
hospital. I think that will help us in potentially future policy making as well. I ask your
patience in this. The towers were tabled, no action was to be taken at the meeting. All
I have to do is post that the meeting is canceled.
V. Earhart states she read in the minutes, since she was unable to be at the meeting, about
the questions on hospitals. I was involved with leasing, permiting, selling, Department of
Transportation sites to the Department of State Police when they put their state wide program
together. Would you like me to contact one or more individuals in State Police on this
question, to see if they've answered it?
J. Ruff replies that would be fine.
V. Earhart asks do you want the information or do you want me to haul it back to you?
J. Ruff says you can just put them in touch with me.
E. Horne states the more information we have, the better we can make decisions, and that we
take everything into consideration.
V. Earhart mentions that the State Police cover the Detroit area as well as the thumb and the
U.P., so they would have run into almost anything that we are going to run into.
M. Clark asks for an excused absence for June and July.
A. Frederick made a motion, and V. Earhart seconded to approve the excused absence for
M. Clark for June and July. On a voice vote motion carries unanimously.
IX. ADJOURNMENT at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
To: BZA Members
From: Jenniftr M.Grau,Executive Director
Subject: Zoning Variance for the lot at the comer of Lamed and Holmes
Date: May 13, 1999
Habitat for Humanity Lansing(HFIL)and the Hunter Park West Neighborhood Organization
are jointly requesting a variance in the set back for the single family home to be built at the north
west corner of Lamed and Holmes Streets.
We are asking for this variance for several reasons:
1 same situ Thisoplacement stand on this
historically correct.and will maintain the rhythm and feel of
the street scape.
use with a
es
reet
2, At the request of the place the the hhouse n theborhood,we.are,
ot at there e is a similar distance etbetween
address.We want to p
this house and the other houses on Holmes Street.
a) Both RFH\L,and the Neighborhood believe this placement will facilitate
the family,s socialization and integration into the community.
b) The house plans were specifically modified to create a front porch so the
owners could socialize with passing neighbors.
c) The south west corner of Larned and Holmes is a highway, Conforming
with current zoning ordinances would place the house closer to the
highway and further isolate it from the existing community.
3. If we were required to site the house according to current building code,we would have
to remove seven sizeable mature oak trees_
a) These trees define a main entry point to the Hunter Park West
Neighborhood. The Holmes Street approach to the neighborhood would
be radically altered if these trees were removed.
b) T$e tree§tidd value id:ar character to the lot
c) The trees grew up around the prior house and are perfectly sited to allow a
house to be built at the proposed location.
This construction project is much more than bricks and mortar. For years this trash filled
abandoned lot had been a problem for the people of Hunter park West- The community banded
They waited two
together to purchasedihe clearot from ed the titlethe Don the
The family living adjacent e to this rs and lot on Daaid the rned Street
property while HF
attended the ground breaking ceremony for this project to express their excitement and support.
The family that will own this home will spend the next three months involved in every aspect of
construction from foundation to roof When this house is complete it will be much more than a
sttumre. it will be a home,lovingly created by volunteers,neighbors and family members. it
will be a tangible symbol that together we can improve our communities and our lives.
11 would be a shame if the community gained a new neighbor but lost the trees which mark the
gateway to their neighborhood. We thank you for considering this request.
Draft to Clerk 514/98
Approved 5/14/98
To Clerk 6/02198
MINUTES)b'F T BRE014IcAR MEETING
13d P1QF,Z-0LNjNG APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 116fH FLOOR CITY HALL
THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
I. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson E. Horne, at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was
taken.
Present
C. Bicy J. Garcia A. Frederick
G. Hilts E. Horne M. Clark
II. Excused Absences
E. Spink V. Earhart
C. Bicy made a motion to excuse V. Earhart from tonights meeting, as she had called
in and requested an excused absence due to illness. G. Hilts seconded the motion,
which was approved unanimously on a voice vote.
A. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to take
place.
B. Introduction of Staff
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. One addition, under Old Business: B. Excused Absences
IV. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. BZA-3496.98, 6736 S. Cedar
This is a request by Inland Seas Engineering, represented tonight by David
Rowe and Geoffrey Smith of Marathon Ashland Petroleum, requesting
variances of ground pole and wall signage. They are anticipating removing an
existing service station and an existing billboard on the corner of Long Blvd.
and S. Cedar Street; constructing a new gas station / convenience store under
the Speedway name of Marathon.
J. Ruff presented the case. The property is zoned "E-2" Local Shopping
District. Its 140' x 112' in size. It has primarily office and commercial uses
around it and is zoned appropriately for those uses. Basically the width of the
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 Page 2
building provides for a maximum of 126 sq.ft. of wall signage. Based upon the
fact that S. Cedar St. is the major arterial and Long Blvd. is not a major or minor
arterial, they are allowed a maximum of two wall signs to total the 126 sq.ft.
They are requesting five wall signs. Also, they are requesting a ground pole
sign of 160.4 sq.ft. in size to be located 4 3/4' from the S. Cedar St. right of
way, and 7' from the Long Blvd. right of way. Variances of 29'/4' and 22' are
requested. Signs of this size need to have thirty feet of setback, so they are
requesting variances from that standpoint. Wall signage as proposed would
total 190Y2 sq.ft. Besides the three additional wall signs, they are requesting an
additional 64% sq.ft. of wall signage. Finally, based upon the size of the lot and
the amenities they want to put on the property, they wish to construct a storage
building adjacent to their double deep trash area, within 25' of the north
property line. That would require a setback of 25'. The storage building would
set 17'4" from the north property line, requiring a variance of T8". Basically, its
a corner lot and one of the yards has to be called a rear yard, either the north or
the west. The previous building had been constructed near this west lot line
already, we didn't have record of variances for that, so in looking at this we
looked at the north side being the rear yard. The trash receptacle doesn't
require a variance because there is no roof over it, its part of the buffering. The
storage building is for pop bottles and such, it has a roof over it. It is totally
enclosed as a structure and it is required to meet setback requirements. In an
effort to utilize the site to its greatest extent without hampering circulation, they
are requesting a variance on that. Looking at the wall signage on the drawing,
this is the building, the storage shed, and this is the canopy that extends around
to provide cover for people pumping gas. The canopy is odd shaped, its
elongated to the south. The wall signage would be a 5' x 8' leader board for
showing specials; along the canopy there would be a Speedway sign, and what
is called a moving "S" on this end of the front of the canopy; plus two other
Speedway signs, one facing south, and one facing west. Presently the ground
pole sign extends close to the property line, its about 64 sq.ft. They wish to do
a goal post sign here off the corner, getting rid of the billboard sign, getting rid
of this cross hatch area which is about 620 sq.ft.
C. Bicy asked if the wall signs could be pointed out again.
J. Ruff pointed them out.
They would be removing the ground pole sign; improving the frontage
landscaping; removing the billboard; keeping the building back about where it
was located previously, there's an existing masonry wall that goes around the
back of the property, and landscaping behind that.
Staff appreciates the fact that they are improving the site, they are improving
landscaping, taking down a billboard. Under the new billboard ordinance, it will
count as one of the billboards removed, if Adams removes two billboards, they
are allowed to put one up. Staff believes, though, that the number of wall signs
is excessive, especially when you consider a ground pole sign being placed on
the site, to then wrap a canopy with signage. The sign that shows specials has
changeable copy on it. We don't believe five wall signs are necessary. The
removal of the billboard is a definite plus, the billboard is nonconforming and
another billboard cannot be put up on this site. Some of the improvement is
going to be removing the existing sidewalk and replacing sidewalk. They are
going to be removing a curb, an access point here, and modifying this one on
the north end, and modifying the one on the south end.
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 Page 3
The appellant, Dave Rowe, then spoke. He states he is a consulting engineer
with Inland Seas Engineering. We are employed by Marathon/Speedway to
generate these site plans. With me tonight is Cindy Frederick, from Admiral;
and Jeff Smith, from Admiral & Speedway. The staff has given a thorough
evaluation of the site, it is a small site. It is tucked in amongst mostly
commercial and professional office buildings. There are some apartments out
on the end of Long Blvd., but there are no single family residentials in this area.
The masonry wall is a fairly attractive brick wall, about 5' high that screens the
back of the property from the office buildings nearby. There is a row of fairly
mature cedar trees there as well. The area is very well screened. The building
setback requirements will not be of any real consequence to the people on the
other side of the wall. One of the major obstacles we have in trying to come up
with a plot plan is how to get the tanker into the property to discharge his load
and get back out in a safe manner. That somewhat restricts our placement of
the various elements on the site. This explains why the "goal post" sign can't
be moved back. The four signs on the canopy are small. The billboard that will
come down is about 780 sq.ft. There is an existing reader board on the front of
the building that is 30 sq.ft. There are two Speedway signs on the canopy now
and a center post mount price sign. All of those with the billboard total 966
sq.ft., and will be removed. We are proposing a reader board on the building,
three of the Speedway signs on the canopy, and one moving "S", the new goal
post sign would have Speedway across the top, price panels, the pay at the
pump gimmick, and a reader board. That totals 160 sq.ft. We are asking for
about 351 sq.ft. And we're taking down 966 sq.ft. I would like the board to
keep that in mind in your delibarations. We concede that one or two of the wall
signs may not be absolutely necessary. Probably the one we'd give up is the
reader board on the building. The site is very cramped, and the reader board
wouldn't be readable from the street anyway. He then explained again about
the trash building. We do have to put a roof on the storage building. He
compared the layout of the building to a Starvin Marvin. It has a complete
restroom facility, a walk-in cooler on one end, a coffee/donut counter on the
back wall. The whole station is designed so the cashier can see all the pumps.
That's another reason we can't move things around too much in the layout, we
are required by the Fire Marshall to have all the pumps visible from the
cashier's counter stand. I'll be glad to answer any questions the board may
have.
The Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark asked for verification from J.
Ruff that the Code allows them to put up two wall signs at a total of 126 sq.ft. based on the
width of the building.
C. Bicy asks J. Ruff which signs he thought should be permitted vs. those that exceed the
range of variance.
J. Ruff responded there is a lot to consider in a situation like this, with the canopy. Canopies
are allowed closer to the road then a building is. When I look at it, with canopy signs
combined with ground pole signs, I wonder the purpose of both uses. Obviously they have to
display name and price, but right now that is being accomplished on a 63 sq.ft. center post
mount price sign. It seems to me the north and south exposure closer to the road should
eliminate some of the need to have the canopy signage, or vice versa. Maybe it should all be
on the canopy, and none on a ground pole sign. Generally ground pole signs are expected on
something like this. I do like the idea of the changeable information on the ground pole sign.
As far as the message board on the front of the building, available temporary signage seems
to be a good thing for commercial businesses. I see a redundancy between the ground pole
sign facing north and south and the canopy signs facing north and south.
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 Page 4
Discussion ensued regarding who owns the billboard, Adams or Speedway.
Geoffrey Smith, project engineer with Marathon Ashland Petroleum, Ohio. Its my
understanding that we own the billboard sign, and we are leasing it to Adams for advertising.
Speedway, our subsidiary, is giving up quite a bit of signage. We ask for your leniency for
these variances.
M. Clark states that in terms of the variance, I appreciate the fact that there will be
improvements at the site. My initial reaction when reading the report was no way. But, since
they will be giving up a significant amount of signage, which is a significant improvement, I will
be supporting the variance for the north end of the property, the variance for the pole sign, but
I will not support the variance for the additional signage on the canopy.
A. Frederick states I see the reason why the company wants the Speedway sign facing west
on the canopy to cover traffic coming in from Long Blvd. I'm not sure that the moving "S" sign
facing north will make much difference, because the traffic will be concentrating on the light.
Discussion took place as to which sign a person driving down Cedar Street would notice first,
the goal post sign or the canopy signs.
M. Clark states that the signage on Cedar Street is much more significant. Also, keep in mind
that they are allowed two signs on the canopy by Code. So they can put substantial signage
on the canopy without requiring a variance from us. I feel they could meet their signage needs
without exceeding the allowances of the code as far as the wall signs are concerned.
J. Ruff mentions that they can combine the Speedway with the moving "S" and count that area
as one sign. If you have 11 sq.ft. of sign plus 46.5 sq.ft., you could instead have a 58 sq.ft.
sign and still have another 60 sq.ft. to use anywhere else on the building or the canopy as one
sign.
M. Clark made a motion to approve the variance request for a rear yard setback of 25', which
is a request of a 7'8" variance, to allow the placement of a storage structure 17'4" from the
rear, north property line. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Frederick X Hilts X
Horne X Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 6 -0.
M. Clark made a motion to approve the variance request to place a ground pole sign of 160.4
sq.ft. The request requires a 25.25' variance from Cedar and 22' variance from Long Blvd.
The motion was seconded by C. Bicy.
M. Clark states that the reason for approving this variance is that this is an improvement over
the current billboard which has promised to be removed, and it meets the identification and
informational requirements of this site.
Therefore, the motion is for approval of the following variances to allow a 160.4 sq.ft., 24.75'
tall ground pole sign as proposed as 25.25' variance from Cedar Street and 22' variance from
Long Blvd.
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 Page 5
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Frederick X Hilts X
Horne X I Garcia I X
Motion carries by a vote of 6 - 0.
M. Clark continues: The third variance is a request to allow three additional wall signs and
64.5 additional sq. ft. I move that this variance be denied, because I believe that the signage
necessary for identification and information can be met within the limitations of the Code.
Motion made by M. Clark, seconded by C. Bicy.
E. Horne summarized that the appellant has requested five signs, and we are allowing for two
signs. That's up to 126 sq.ft.
C. Bicy questions the 64.5 sq.ft., where does that figure come from?
J. Ruff replies that the total of the wall signs add up to 190.5 sq.ft. That includes the 40 sq.ft.
reader board on the building, the three Speedway signs on the canopy, and the one moving
"S" sign on the canopy. The Code allows 126 sq.ft.
E. Horne comments that this is within our policy in cleaning up S. Cedar Street, that we adhere
to the Code, and not make too many variances in regards to the Code. This decision is in
keeping with our goals.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Frederick X Hilts X
Horne X Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 6 - 0.
J. Ruff notes that that settles the three issues of the variance request.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Rules of Procedure Update. There is no update at this time.
B. Excused Abscences.
J. Garcia explains his bout with gallbladder pain that kept him from the last
meeting, he would like it to be excused.
Motion made by G. Hilts, seconded by A. Frederick to excuse J. Garcia's abscense from the
March meeting. On a voice vote, motion carried.
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 Page 6
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of March 12, 1998 were not included in the packets. The approval will
be taken up at the May meeting.
At 8:30 pm G. Hilts had to leave the meeting.
Vill. NEW BUSINESS
A. Special Meeting concerning Communications Towers.
E. Horne hopes that everyone still has their packet so they may go back and
read about this. We need to take into consideration the comments that were
made by Ingham Regional, and that further research should be done on that
part.
J. Ruff mentions asking Ingham Regional if they had a distance in mind that
would be safe for the tower location near the hospital; and they had no answer.
We did ask Sparrow, and they replied that a tower would not be a problem.
The question of the effect on telemetry devices is a good one, and we will get
more information on the subject.
M. Clark remembers someone at the meeting saying we can't turn the towers
down based on health hazards. Am I correct in thinking that this is not a health
hazard, that this is a hazard involving interference with electronic equipment?
J. Ruff replies that's true, but the other thing is, the FCC requires that they not
interfere with basically anyone electronics, no matter where they are located. I
want to try to define that issue a little better.
A. Frederick thinks the regulations say general hazards can't be reason for
denial. If this proves to be true, a specific health hazard that can be alleviated
by moving the tower location, I'm not 100% convinced that these towers are
powerful enough to interfere with Ingham's equipment. But I would like to hear
what J. Ruff finds out on the subject. If it does, I think we are well within our
authority to protect any ill public that might happen to be in the hospital from
any demonstrated danger. The FCC and the telecommunications act refers
generally to health hazards.
M. Clark adds that the public testimony usually heard is about glowing children
and cancer risks. That isn't what Ingham Regional was talking about. They
were talking about the waves causing interference.
E. Horne states I looked through the University of Wisconsin report. The only
thing they addressed was in regards to pacemakers. When I looked through
the FCC report, it did not address the issue, but indicated that some of these
things have not been completely studied, so there is an open end. Therefore, I
think we are within our rights to investigate.
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 Page 7
C. Bicy asks do we have to come up the specifics on where the towers are
going to be located? I wonder if 25' or 50' would make that much difference.
Also, the maximum of 200' in height. I wonder if 200' towers would not really
interfere hardly at all, compared to one that is 300' tall.
J. Ruff replies, I don't know the dynamics. One is a visual thing. The other one
is the electronics part of it, the radio frequency part that I don't personally
understand fully.
C. Bicy asks what have we been approving for Century Cellunet?
J. Ruff replied 155'.
J. Garcia mentions that a lot of that has to do with what actual signals It will be
carrying. Are they predator type signals where there is a lot of high frequency,
or not? I don't know enough about what band.
J. Ruff replies its digital PCS, primarily. That's the coming wave of licenses that
have been issued by the Federal Government. There is a chart in the packet
that E. Horne has from Dr. Moulder. I will see that each of you get a copy. Dr.
Moulder goes into details talking about public health vs. private health. He
talks about the tower and the rate of frequency that it uses, ionized radio
frequency vs. non-ionized radio frequency.
E. Horne states it important that we have knowledge, if we do have to create a
zone, we could create a zone so that it doesn't interfere.
M. Clark points out that each appellant that comes and asks to locate whatever
on the tower, I'm assuming comes to you and identifies the type of transmission
they want to use, so at that point you could look at it and approve or deny
based on the type of transmission.
C. Bicy asks that because of fourteen different tower sites, will the meeting in
May be exclusively on the towers?
J. Ruff replied that there will be a couple of BZA's to be heard. They would be
taken care of first, before the towers. I don't know how far we'll get on the
towers. By the end of the month we'll have the RFP's back, to know what kind
of interest there is in which tower. That will help a lot of the issue. For
instance, say we get interest from three companies, on five of the sixteen total
sites. Then we would be able to focus on those five and see how reasonable
they are, and what potential problems they might have. It's relative to what we
get back in response. We put out enough sites so that people would respond
to a pattern. Each company that comes to us has looked at a different pattern.
So we've combined the sites with the idea that we are proposing more possible
sites than what people will be interested in.
A. Fredericks says that as I understand the requirements of these transmittor
receivers, the actual part that sends out the signal, each one has to be 30'
away from the other?
J. Ruff answers no.
A. Fredericks asks could they cluster a whole bunch of them together?
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 Page 8
J. Ruff replies no, generally they put three panels on so that the signal comes in
one, and is sent out another, until it reaches its destination. Then there is
vertical separation. They need to have somewhere between 15' to 20' on
center.
A. Fredericks asks how many companies do we have that are interested, do we
know? Are we going to be able to accomodate all the companies that are
potentially there on one tower? NO. Then we will have to approve more than
one tower?
J. Ruff replies that's what we'll have to look at when we get back the
responses. We need to look down the road too.
M. Clark asks are we talking about limiting the site to one tower, or might there
be multiple towers on a site?
J. Ruff said we talked about if there was a need, but it looks like the need is not
as progressive as we originally thought. We talked about, like at the football
stadiums, potentially two lightpoles could be replaced with towers. In that case,
you may only get three structures on a pole, two providers and one light
standard. My discussion with the various companies have been different. One
says you need to have so many feet of separation, and another says the lowest
they would want to be on the tower is 135'. So with all these variables, we had
to pick a number on elevation. I didn't want to scare people beyond 200'.
E. Horne states that when we talk about fourteen sites, we're not necessarily
talking about fourteen towers. Also we're not saying that fourteen is the
maximum or the minimum.
IX. ADJOURNMENT at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
Draft to Clerk 5/4/98
Approved
To Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
I. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson E. Horne, at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was
taken.
Present r`
C. Bicy J. Garcia A. Frederick
G. Hilts E. Horne M. Clark
II. Excused Absences m �_
�c W
E. Spink V. Earhart
C. Bicy made a motion to excuse V. Earhart from tonights meeting, as she had called
in and requested an excused absence due to illness. G. Hilts seconded the motion,
which was approved unanimously on a voice vote.
A. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to take
place.
B. Introduction of Staff
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. One addition, under Old Business: B. Excused Absences
IV. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. BZA-3496.98, 6736 S. Cedar
This is a request by Inland Seas Engineering, represented tonight by David
Rowe and Geoffrey Smith of Marathon Ashland Petroleum, requesting
variances of ground pole and wall signage. They are anticipating removing an
existing service station and an existing billboard on the corner of Long Blvd.
and S. Cedar Street; constructing a new gas station / convenience store under
the Speedway name of Marathon.
J. Ruff presented the case. The property is zoned."E-2" Local Shopping
District. Its 140' x 112' in size. It has primarily office and commercial uses
around it and is zoned appropriately for those uses. Basically the width of the
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 Page 2
building provides for a maximum of 126 sq.ft. of wall signage. Based upon the
fact that S. Cedar St. is the major arterial and Long Blvd. is not a major or minor
arterial, they are allowed a maximum of two wall signs to total the 126 sq.ft.
They are requesting five wall signs. Also, they are requesting a ground pole
sign of 160.4 sq.ft. in size to be located 4 3/4' from the S. Cedar St. right of
way, and 7' from the Long Blvd. right of way. Variances of 29'/4' and 22' are
requested. Signs of this size need to have thirty feet of setback, so they are
requesting variances from that standpoint. Wall signage as proposed would
total 190Y2 sq.ft. Besides the three additional wall signs, they are requesting an
additional 64% sq.ft. of wall signage. Finally, based upon the size of the lot and
the amenities they want to put on the property, they wish to construct a storage
building adjacent to their double deep trash area, within 25' of the north
property line. That would require a setback of 25'. The storage building would
set 17'4" from the north property line, requiring a variance of 7'8". Basically, its
a corner lot and one of the yards has to be called a rear yard, either the north or
the west. The previous building had been constructed near this west lot line
already, we didn't have record of variances for that, so in looking at this we
looked at the north side being the rear yard. The trash receptacle doesn't
require a variance because there is no roof over it, its part of the buffering. The
storage building is for pop bottles and such, it has a roof over it. It is totally
enclosed as a structure and it is required to meet setback requirements. In an
effort to utilize the site to its greatest extent without hampering circulation, they
are requesting a variance on that. Looking at the wall signage on the drawing,
this is the building, the storage shed, and this is the canopy that extends around
to provide cover for people pumping gas. The canopy is odd shaped, its
elongated to the south. The wall signage would be a 5' x 8' leader board for
showing specials; along the canopy there would be a Speedway sign, and what
is called a moving "S" on this end of the front of the canopy; plus two other
Speedway signs, one facing south, and one facing west. Presently the ground
pole sign extends close to the property line, its about 64 sq.ft. They wish to do
a goal post sign here off the corner, getting rid of the billboard sign, getting rid
of this cross hatch area which is about 620 sq.ft.
C. Bicy asked if the wall signs could be pointed out again.
J. Ruff pointed them out.
They would be removing the ground pole sign; improving the frontage
landscaping; removing the billboard; keeping the building back about where it
was located previously, there's an existing masonry wall that goes around the
back of the property, and landscaping behind that.
Staff appreciates the fact that they are improving the site, they are improving
landscaping, taking down a billboard. Under the new billboard ordinance, it will
count as one of the billboards removed, if Adams removes two billboards, they
are allowed to put one up. Staff believes, though, that the number of wall signs
is excessive, especially when you consider a ground pole sign being placed on
the site, to then wrap a canopy with signage. The sign that shows specials has
changeable copy on it. We don't believe five wall signs are necessary. The
removal of the billboard is a definite plus, the billboard is nonconforming and
another billboard cannot be put up on this site. Some of the improvement is
going to be removing the existing sidewalk and replacing sidewalk. They are
going to be removing a curb, an access point here, and modifying this one on
the north end, and modifying the one on the south end.
J
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16 1998 Page 3
The appellant, Dave Rowe, then spoke. He states he is a consulting engineer
with Inland Seas Engineering. We are employed by Marathon/Speedway to
generate these site plans. With me tonight is Cindy Frederick, from Admiral;
and Jeff Smith, from Admiral & Speedway. The staff has given a thorough
evaluation of the site, it is a small site. It is tucked in amongst mostly
commercial and professional office buildings. There are some apartments out
on the end of Long Blvd., but there are no single family residentials in this area.
The masonry wall is a fairly attractive brick wall, about 5' high that screens the
back of the property from the office buildings nearby. There is a row of fairly
mature cedar trees there as well. The area is very well screened. The building
setback requirements will not be of any real consequence to the people on the
other side of the wall. One of the major obstacles we have in trying to come up
with a plot plan is how to get the tanker into the property to discharge his load
and get back out in a safe manner. That somewhat restricts our placement of
the various elements on the site. This explains why the "goal post" sign can't
be moved back. The four signs on the canopy are small. The billboard that will
come down is about 780 sq.ft. There is an existing reader board on the front of
the building that is 30 sq.ft. There are two Speedway signs on the canopy now
and a center post mount price sign. All of those with the billboard total 966
sq.ft., and will be removed. We are proposing a reader board on the building,
three of the Speedway signs on the canopy, and one moving "S", the new goal
post sign would have Speedway across the top, price panels, the pay at the
pump gimmick, and a reader board. That totals 160 sq.ft. We are asking for
about 351 sq.ft. And we're taking down 966 sq.ft. I would like the board to
keep that in mind in your delibarations. We concede that one or two of the wall
signs may not be absolutely necessary. Probably the one we'd give up is the
reader board on the building. The site is very cramped, and the reader board
wouldn't be readable from the street anyway. He then explained again about
the trash building. We do have to put a roof on the storage building. He
compared the layout of the building to a Starvin Marvin. It has a complete
restroom facility, a walk-in cooler on one end, a coffee/donut counter on the
back wall. The whole station is designed so the cashier can see all the pumps.
That's another reason we can't move things around too much in the layout, we
are required by the Fire Marshall to have all the pumps visible from the
cashier's counter stand. I'll be glad to answer any questions the board may
have.
The Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark asked for verification from J.
Ruff that the Code allows them to put up two wall signs at a total of 126 sq.ft. based on the
width of the building.
C. Bicy asks J. Ruff which signs he thought should be permitted vs. those that exceed the
range of variance.
J. Ruff responded there is a lot to consider in a situation like this, with the canopy. Canopies
are allowed closer to the road then a building is. When I look at it, with canopy signs
combined with ground pole signs, I wonder the purpose of both uses. Obviously they have to
display name and price, but right now that is being accomplished on a 63 sq.ft. center post
mount price sign. It seems to me the north and south exposure closer to the road should
eliminate some of the need to have the canopy signage, or vice versa. Maybe it should all be
on the canopy, and none on a ground pole sign. Generally ground pole signs are expected on
something like this. I do like the idea of the changeable information on the ground pole sign.
As far as the message board on the front of the building, available temporary signage seems
to be a good thing for commercial businesses. I see a redundancy between the ground pole
sign facing north and south and the canopy signs facing north and south.
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 Page 4
Discussion ensued regarding who owns the billboard, Adams or Speedway.
Geoffrey Smith, project engineer with Marathon Ashland Petroleum, Ohio. Its my
understanding that we own the billboard sign, and we are leasing it to Adams for advertising.
Speedway, our subsidiary, is giving up quite a bit of signage. We ask for your leniency for
these variances.
M. Clark states that in terms of the variance, I appreciate the fact that there will be
improvements at the site. My initial reaction when reading the report was no way. But, since
they will be giving up a significant amount of signage, which is a significant improvement, I will
be supporting the variance for the north end of the property, the variance for the pole sign, but
I will not support the variance for the additional signage on the canopy.
A. Frederick states I see the reason why the company wants the Speedway sign facing west
on the canopy to cover traffic coming in from Long Blvd. I'm not sure that the moving "S" sign
facing north will make much difference, because the traffic will be concentrating on the light.
Discussion took place as to which sign a person driving down Cedar Street would notice first,
the goal post sign or the canopy signs.
M. Clark states that the signage on Cedar Street is much more significant. Also, keep in mind
that they are allowed two signs on the canopy by Code. So they can put substantial signage
on the canopy without requiring a variance from us. I feel they could meet their signage needs
without exceeding the allowances of the code as far as the wall signs are concerned.
J. Ruff mentions that they can combine the Speedway with the moving "S" and count that area
as one sign. If you have 11 sq.ft. of sign plus 46.5 sq.ft., you could instead have a 58 sq.ft.
sign and still have another 60 sq.ft. to use anywhere else on the building or the canopy as one
sign.
M. Clark made a motion to approve the variance request for a rear yard setback of 25', which
is a request of a 7'8" variance, to allow the placement of a storage structure 17'4" from the
rear, north property line. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Frederick X Hilts X
Horne X Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 6 - 0.
M. Clark made a motion to approve the variance request to place a ground pole sign of 160.4
sq.ft. The request requires a 25.25' variance from Cedar and 22' variance from Long Blvd.
The motion was seconded by C. Bicy.
M. Clark states that the reason for approving this variance is that this is an improvement over
the current billboard which has promised to be removed, and it meets the identification and
informational requirements of this site.
Therefore, the motion is for approval of the following variances to allow a 160.4 sq.ft., 24.75'
tall ground pole sign as proposed as 25.25' variance from Cedar Street and 22' variance from
Long Blvd.
f I k
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 Page 5
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Frederick X Hilts X
Horne X Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 6 - 0.
M. Clark continues: The third variance is a request to allow three additional wall signs and
64.5 additional sq. ft. I move that this variance be denied, because I believe that the signage
necessary for identification and information can be met within the limitations of the Code.
Motion made by M. Clark, seconded by C. Bicy.
E. Horne summarized that the appellant has requested five signs, and we are allowing for two
signs. That's up to 126 sq.ft.
C. Bicy questions the 64.5 sq.ft., where does that figure come from?
J. Ruff replies that the total of the wall signs add up to 190.5 sq.ft. That includes the 40 sq.ft.
reader board on the building, the three Speedway signs on the canopy, and the one moving
"S" sign on the canopy. The Code allows 126 sq.ft.
E. Horne comments that this is within our policy in cleaning up S. Cedar Street, that we adhere
to the Code, and not make too many variances in regards to the Code. This decision is in
keeping with our goals.
VOTE: Yea Nay Yea Nay
Bicy X Clark X
Frederick X Hilts X
Horne X Garcia X
Motion carries by a vote of 6 - 0.
J. Ruff notes that that settles the three issues of the variance request.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Rules of Procedure Update. There is no update at this time.
B. Excused Abscences.
J. Garcia explains his bout with gallbladder pain that kept him from the last
meeting, he would like it to be excused.
Motion made by G. Hilts, seconded by A. Frederick to excuse J. Garcia's abscense from the
March meeting. On a voice vote, motion carried.
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 '} Page 6
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of March 12, 1998 were not included in the packets. The approval will
be taken up at the May meeting.
At 8:30 pm G. Hilts had to leave the meeting.
Vill. NEW BUSINESS
A. Special Meeting concerning Communications Towers.
E. Horne hopes that everyone still has their packet so they may go back and
read about this. We need to take into consideration the comments that were
made by Ingham Regional, and that further research should be done on that
part.
J. Ruff mentions asking Ingham Regional if they had a distance in mind that
would be safe for the tower location near the hospital; and they had no answer.
We did ask Sparrow, and they replied that a tower would not be a problem.
The question of the effect on telemetry devices is a good one, and we will get
more information on the subject.
M. Clark remembers someone at the meeting saying we can't turn the towers
down based on health hazards. Am I correct in thinking that this is not a health
hazard, that this is a hazard involving interference with electronic equipment?
J. Ruff replies that's true, but the other thing is, the FCC requires that they not
interfere with basically anyone electronics, no matter where they are located. I
want to try to define that issue a little better.
A. Frederick thinks the regulations say general hazards can't be reason for
denial. If this proves to be true, a specific health hazard that can be alleviated
by moving the tower location, I'm not 100% convinced that these towers are
powerful enough to interfere with Ingham's equipment. But I would like to hear
what J. Ruff finds out on the subject. If it does, I think we are well within our
authority to protect any ill public that might happen to be in the hospital from
any demonstrated danger. The FCC and the telecommunications act refers
generally to health hazards.
M. Clark adds that the public testimony usually heard is about glowing children
and cancer risks. That isn't what Ingham Regional was talking about. They
were talking about the waves causing interference.
E. Horne states I looked through the University of Wisconsin report. The only
thing they addressed was in regards to pacemakers. When I looked through
the FCC report, it did not address the issue, but indicated that some of these
things have not been completely studied, so there is an open end. Therefore, I
think we are within our rights to investigate.
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 Page 7
C. Bicy asks do we have to come up the specifics on where the towers are
going to be located? I wonder if 25' or 50' would make that much difference.
Also, the maximum of 200' in height. I wonder if 200' towers would not really
interfere hardly at all, compared to one that is 300' tall.
J. Ruff replies, I don't know the dynamics. One is a visual thing. The other one
is the electronics part of it, the radio frequency part that I don't personally
understand fully.
C. Bicy asks what have we been approving for Century Cellunet?
J. Ruff replied 155'.
J. Garcia mentions that a lot of that has to do with what actual signals It will be
carrying. Are they predator type signals where there is a lot of high frequency,
or not? I don't know enough about what band.
J. Ruff replies its digital PCS, primarily. That's the coming wave of licenses that
have been issued by the Federal Government. There is a chart in the packet
that E. Horne has from Dr. Moulder. I will see that each of you get a copy. Dr.
Moulder goes into details talking about public health vs. private health. He
talks about the tower and the rate of frequency that it uses, ionized radio
frequency vs. non-ionized radio frequency.
E. Horne states it important that we have knowledge, if we do have to create a
zone, we could create a zone so that it doesn't interfere.
M. Clark points out that each appellant that comes and asks to locate whatever
on the tower, I'm assuming comes to you and identifies the type of transmission
they want to use, so at that point you could look at it and approve or deny
based on the type of transmission.
C. Bicy asks that because of fourteen different tower sites, will the meeting in
May be exclusively on the towers?
J. Ruff replied that there will be a couple of BZA's to be heard. They would be
taken care of first, before the towers. I don't know how far we'll get on the
towers. By the end of the month we'll have the RFP's back, to know what kind
of interest there is in which tower. That will help a lot of the issue. For
instance, say we get interest from three companies, on five of the sixteen total
sites. Then we would be able to focus on those five and see how reasonable
they are, and what potential problems they might have. It's relative to what we
get back in response. We put out enough sites so that people would respond
to a pattern. Each company that comes to us has looked at a different pattern.
So we've combined the sites with the idea that we are proposing more possible
sites than what people will be interested in.
A. Fredericks says that as I understand the requirements of these transmittor
receivers, the actual part that sends out the signal, each one has to be 30'
away from the other?
J. Ruff answers no.
A. Fredericks asks could they cluster a whole bunch of them together?
�yJ ry
Board of Zoning Appeals, April 16, 1998 Page 8
J. Ruff replies no, generally they put three panels on so that the signal comes in
one, and is sent out another, until it reaches its destination. Then there is
vertical separation. They need to have somewhere between 15' to 20' on
center.
A. Fredericks asks how many companies do we have that are interested, do we
know? Are we going to be able to accomodate all the companies that are
potentially there on one tower? NO. Then we will have to approve more than
one tower?
J. Ruff replies that's what we'll have to look at when we get back the
responses. We need to look down the road too.
M. Clark asks are we talking about limiting the site to one tower, or might there
be multiple towers on a site?
J. Ruff said we talked about if there was a need, but it looks like the need is not
as progressive as we originally thought. We talked about, like at the football
stadiums, potentially two lightpoles could be replaced with towers. In that case,
you may only get three structures on a pole, two providers and one light
standard. My discussion with the various companies have been different. One
says you need to have so many feet of separation, and another says the lowest
they would want to be on the tower is 135'. So with all these variables, we had
to pick a number on elevation. I didn't want to scare people beyond 200'.
E. Horne states that when we talk about fourteen sites, we're not necessarily
talking about fourteen towers. Also we're not saying that fourteen is the
maximum or the minimum.
IX. ADJOURNMENT at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
�J
SPECIAL MEETING
LANSING PLANNING BOARD AND
LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DWIGHT RICH MIDDLE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM, 2600 HAMPDEN DR. LANSING MI 48911
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1998, 7:00 p.m.
I. ROLL CALL
r "0
A co
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ;�+-►
n N
III. INTRODUCTION - PROCESS Fri
m a d
� N
N
IV. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. SLU-05-98, 2400 Hall St., Gier Community Center (BZA-3482.98)
B. SLU-06-98, 1716 David St. (BZA-3483.98)
C. SLU-07-98, 2516 S. Washington, Washington Park(BZA-3484.98)
D. SLU-08-98, 125 S. Clippert St., Red Cedar Golf Course (BZA-3485.98)
E. SLU-09-98, 3708 Pleasant Grove, Fire Station #6 (BZA-3486.98)
F. SLU-10-98, 4801 Aurelius Rd., Biggie Munn Park (BZA-3487.98)
G. SLU-11-98, City Parcel "B",Vac.Prop.east end of Dadson, (BZA-3488.98)
H. SLU-12-98, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave., Fire Station #4 (BZA-3489.98)
I. SLU-14-981 5815 Wise Rd., Hill Center (BZA-3490.98)
J. SLU-15-98, 220 N. Pennsylvania, Eastern High School (BZA-3491.98)
K. SLU-16-98, 3900 Stabler St., Everett High School (BZA-3492.98)
L. SLU-17-98, 102 S. McPherson Ave., Sexton High School (BZA-3493.98)
M. BZA-3494.98, Aurelius Road Landfill
N. BZA-3495.98, 1625 Sunset
V. OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT
VI. ADJOURNMENT
FOR SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS PLEASE GIVE NOTICE 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING BY
CALLING AMY LYNCH AT 483-4087 OR 483-4479 TDD.
Posted April 2, 1998
- t I 1 Draft 4/28198
�-t'1 1 ` '"` Approved 051498
e t• 3 I To Clerk 060298
Minutes of the Special MeetiSf +G C1 Y CLERK
LANSING PLANNING BOARD'
LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Dwight Rich Middle School Auditorium
2600 Hampden Dr.
124 West Michigan Avenue
Tuesday, April 14, 1998, 7:00 p.m.
I. OPENING SESSION Planning Board Chairman Ruge, at the concurrence of Board of
Appeals Chairman Horne, called the meeting to order at 7:07
p.M.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as printed.
III. INTRODUCTION - PROCESS
A. Mr. Ruge introduced the Planning Board present: Mr. Frederick, Mr. Goolsby, Mr.
Greiner, Ms. Keene, Mr. Miller, Mr. Nischan, and Mr. Smith.
B. Ms. Horne introduced the Board of Zoning Appeals members present: Mr. Bicy,
Mr. Hilts, Mr. Frederick, Ms. Clark. Absent: Mr. Garcia, Mr. Spink. Excused
Absence: Ms. Earhart.
C. Mr. Ruge introduced the Planning staff present: Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator;
Jim Sturdevant, Senior Planner; Amy Lynch, Clerk.
D. Mr. Ruge noted that Eleanor Love was in attendance in the audience, as well as
three School Board members. ( Denise Chrysler, Patrick Murray, Kathy
Langschwager)
IV. HEARINGS:
Mr. Ruge states: tonight is a special meeting with the Board of Zoning Appeals, Chaired
by Mrs. Emly Horne, to take public comment on the necessary land use applications to
allow the construction of a telecommunications tower plan for the City of Lansing. The
City of Lansing and the Lansing School Board are considering a comprehensive
telecommunications tower plan in order to promote co-location of antennas in the City
of Lansing for telecommunication providers that have been licensed to service the
Lansing region by the Federal Communications Commission. Co-location of service
providers will help reduce the potential for excessive visual clutter of the City of Lansing
skyline that could otherwise occur. Therefore, the City of Lansing and the Lansing
PLANNING BOARD & BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 2
School District is considering the use of City and School District properties for the
location of telecommunications towers.
The Planning Board will be evaluating the Special Land Use applications for the sites
which are designated by the SLU number.
The Board of Zoning Appeals will be considering the Height Variances for sites which
are designated by the BZA number.
No decisions will be made tonight. This is strictly a forum to receive public comment.
The Planning Board will be considering the public comments and staff reports for action
at the regular meeting of the Planning Board on May 5, 1998, at 124 W. Michigan Ave,
10th floor of Lansing City Hall, Council Chambers, at 7:00 pm.
The Board of Zoning Appeals will be considering the public comments and staff reports
for action at their regular meeting May 14, 1998, at 124 W. Michigan Ave, 10th floor of
Lansing City Hall, Council Chambers, at 7:30 pm.
At this time I would like to thank the Lansing School District for making this auditorium
and equipment available and their staff for their help.
Mr. Ruff explains the procedure for tonight's meeting will be: first, the Planning staff will
give a summary of each site; second the Board members can ask questions of staff;
third, we will take comments from the audience on each site one at a time as shown on
the agenda; finally, general comments on the plan as a whole will be taken.
Mr. Ruff gave a summary of each site stating the zoning and the necessary applications.
SLU-05-98, 2400 Hall St., Gier Community Center (BZA-3482.98)
SLU-06-98, 1716 David St. (BZA-3483.98)
SLU-07-98, 2516 S. Washington, Washington Park (BZA-3484.98)
SLU-08-98, 125 S. Clippert St., Red Cedar Golf Course (BZA-3485.98)
SLU-09-98, 3708 Pleasant Grove, Fire Station #6 (BZA-3486.98)
SLU-10-98, 4801 Aurelius Rd., Biggie Munn Park (BZA-3487.98)
SLU-11-98, City Parcel "B", Vac. Prop. east end of Dadson, (BZA-3488.98)
SLU-12-98, 5550 S. Pennsylvania Ave., Fire Station #4 (BZA-3489.98)
SLU-14-98, 5815 Wise Rd., Hill Center (BZA-3490.98)
SLU-15-98, 220 N. Pennsylvania, Eastern High School (BZA-3491.98)
SLU-16-98, 3900 Stabler St., Everett High School (BZA-3492.98)
SLU-17-98, 102 S. McPherson Ave., Sexton High School (BZA-3493.98)
PLANNING BOARD & BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 3
BZA-3494.98, Aurelius Road Landfill
BZA-3495.98, 1625 Sunset
V. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (5 minutes each):
Rick McCloy, 10860 W. Jolly, Public Relations Manager of Ingham Regional
Medical Center. We oppose putting a communication tower at Washington Park. Such
a tower would pose a significant threat to the care of patients. The transmission of radio
signals would interfere with the hospital's electronic monitoring and diagnostic
equipment, which monitors a patient's heart rate and sends that information to the
nurse's station. The hospital doesn't even allow the use of cellular phones for that same
reason. (The statement read by Mr. McCloy at the meeting is attached)
Merry Kerekes, 506 S. East, President of Greater Lansing PTA Council. Strongly
opposes the use of radio towers in general, but specifically near children. She points
out that lead paint and asbestos were thought to be harmless once, and feels that not
enough research has been done. She says cellular towers are big and ugly, no one
wants one in their backyard, therefore, it would reduce property values in the
surrounding area. She states that she has a copy of the Michigan PTA position on the
towers which advocates a distance of 600 meters between a tower and human beings.
She asks for a moratorium of in-depth study and formation of long range plans, and to
consider alternative technologies. (Her testimony and historical information is attached)
Kathy Langschwager, 1328 Prospect, Lansing School Board. States she didn't
receive notice about this public hearing until late today. She feels school grounds are
sacred. The health of the children should be above all else. The money the schools
would receive from this arrangement is about the equivalent of a good candy sale. She
doesn't want to be part of The Great Lansing Experiment.
James Ellis, 3700 Weger Place. Most of the potential sites are close to hordes of
people. Why isn't there someone to answer questions about health issues? My concern
is why did you pick such populated areas?
Connie Kemmer, 3620 Pleasant Grove, Vice-President of Lansing PTA. She
understands reason for picking sites is to decrease the number of towers, but feels that
children, elderly, and disabled need to be taken into consideration.
Phil Maguire. (Did not sign in, gave no address) Asks is this setting going to be the
only public hearing? There are only thirty people here --wasn't anybody notified?! How
can a decision be made by this nucleus of citizens?
PLANNING BOARD & BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 4
Glenn Kirk, 3930 Camperdown. I served on the Mayor's blue ribbon panel of
education. We are looking for a partnership of towers and schools. There have been
a lot of good comments here tonight. I have attended nine different public forums, and
spent an evening on health issues at City Hall with experts. Radio waves are not a
health issue. Insofar as the hospital is concerned, we have no desire to hurt people.
That matter will have to be looked into further. This is an issue of security for future
generations; an issue of leadership. Step up and make a brave decision in favor of the
citizens of Lansing.
Denise Chrysler, 416 Everett, Board of Education. She asked that staff summarize
the notification for the meeting and asked if there will be other forums?
Mr. Ruff responded that an ad was placed in the newspaper regarding the public
hearing. Also a letter was mailed to property owners within 300' of each proposed site -
which turned out to be approximately 2,000 letters and cards. We are surprised at the
lack of people here. The reason the meeting is in this auditorium rather than Council
Chambers is because we were expecting a much larger turnout. Also, the Special Land
Use issue will be addressed by the Planning Board at their May 5, 1998 meeting at
which time.public comment will be received. The Board's recommendations will then go
to the City Council for public hearings prior to final action. Also, the Board of Zoning
Appeals will address the height variances at their meeting scheduled for May 14, 1998
at 7:30 pm in City Hall. The Board of Zoning Appeals actions are final.
Cheryl Miller, 3825 Bayview. I am interested in new technology in the schools. It
would be,nice if the Lansing School District could collect part of the money generated
by the towers.
Merry Kerekes, 506 S. East. Wanted to let it be known that this is the first Tuesday
of the month, and there are PTA meetings all over the city. That's where all the people
are tonight.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, the public hearing is now closed.
VI. ADJOURNMENT - was at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eleanor K. Love, Secretary
Planning Board
APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY MAY 5, 1998. Draft 4128198
Approved 050598
To Clerk 051298
Minutes of the Special Meeting
LANSING PLANNING BOARD
& r.
LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS -
Dwight Rich Middle School Auditorium
2600 Hampden Dr. ^,
124 West Michigan Avenue -� m
Tuesday, April 14, 1998, 7:00 p.m. c�
M
� N
I. OPENING SESSION Planning Board Chairman Ruge, at the concurrence of Board of
Appeals Chairman Horne, called the meeting to order at 7:07
p.M.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as printed.
III. INTRODUCTION - PROCESS
A. Mr. Ruge introduced the Planning Board present: Mr. Frederick, Mr. Goolsby, Mr.
Greiner, Ms. Keene, Mr. Miller, Mr. Nischan, and Mr. Smith.
B. Ms. Horne introduced the Board of Zoning Appeals members present: Mr. Bicy,
Mr. Hilts, Mr. Frederick, Ms. Clark. Absent: Mr. Garcia, Mr. Spink. Excused
Absence: Ms. Earhart.
C. Mr. Ruge introduced the Planning staff present: Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator;
Jim Sturdevant, Senior Planner; Amy Lynch, Clerk.
D. Mr. Ruge noted that Eleanor Love was in attendance in the audience, as well as
three School Board members. ( Denise Chrysler, Patrick Murray, Kathy
Langschwager)
IV. HEARINGS:
Mr. Ruge states: tonight is a special meeting with the Board of Zoning Appeals, Chaired
by Mrs. Emly Horne, to take public comment on the necessary land use applications to
allow the construction of a telecommunications tower plan for the City of Lansing. The
City of Lansing and the Lansing School Board are considering a comprehensive
telecommunications tower plan in order to promote co-location of antennas in the City
of Lansing for telecommunication providers that have been licensed to service the
Lansing region by the Federal Communications Commission. Co-location of service
providers will help reduce the potential for excessive visual clutter of the City of Lansing
skyline that could otherwise occur. Therefore, the City of Lansing and the Lansing
APPROVED 5/14/98. CORRECTION P2. deel by V. Es haft.THE MOTION WAS Draft to Clerk 03/17/98
SECONDED BY A. FREDERICK. Approved 05/14/98
I e'ik7O6/02/98
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITYFiL''�'
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
I. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson E.Horne, at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was
taken.
A. Present
M. Clark V. Earhart A. Frederick
G. Hilts E. Horne
B. Absences
C. Bicy (excused) J. Garcia E. Spink (excused)
G. Hilts made a motion to excuse C. Bicy from tonights meeting, as he had called in and
requested an excused absence. V. Earhart seconded the motion, which was approved
unanimously on a voice vote.
C. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to take
place.
D. Introduction of Staff
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Agenda approved as printed.
III. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. BZA-3481.98, 2626 Forest Road
This is a request by Scott A. Leavitt, son of the property owner at 2626 Forest
Road, to construct a 960 square foot building while retaining an attached
garage (600 sq. ft. ) and a barn (920 sq. ft.) for a total of 2480 sq. ft. of
accessory structure. Section 1248.03 of the Zoning Code allows for a
maximum of 1000 sq. ft. of accessory structure; therefore, this is a requested
variance of 1480 sq. ft. The applicant is intending to remove two older
buildings and the interior second floor of the barn totaling 1524 sq.ft.
J. Ruff presented the case. He said that Mr. Leavitt has volunteered, as a part
of his application, through his own initiative, to file a deed restriction on the
property precluding commercial use of the property. The use of the property
would be in conformance with the "A" Residential Zoning District. That is
different from the Board making it a condition of approval. We can accept this
as part of the application. This is one of the larger properties in the area, which
Board of Zoning Appeals, March 12, 1998 Page 2
is mixed use, single family and multi family residential.
M. Clark wonders about the practical implication of the deed restriction. Mr.
Ruff said that this deed restriction would go along with the property, regardless
of whether the future buyer checks with the city concerning use, or not. She
also asked about the location of the proposed barn, for clarity's sake. Mr. Ruff
explained.
Bruce Leavitt, owner of the property, father of the applicant, addressed the
Board. He spoke about the deed restriction, mentioned that there would be a
door on the side to cover some of the concern that the board has had that the
garage would be used as a machine shop. Scott is a collector of Jeeps, and he
wants a place that he can work on them, where he lives. He is trying to make it
comply with the concerns of the board and yet be something that he can utilize.
When the barn was built in the '40's, the upper floor was used as a hay mow.
Currently, it is used as storage. Mr. Leavitt said that he and his wife are looking
at moving this spring, and so Scott wants to get this all straightened out.
M. Clark asked if he would be doing any painting of vehicles. Mr. Leavitt said
that he doubts it, because he doesn't have time to do all that. He does minor
work, and the other stuff he hires out.
The Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark said that she is much more
comfortable with this proposal than the previous one, in that there is a decrease in number of
buildings, and in square footage. The stipulations that he has agreed to are satisfactory. G.
Hilts said that he thinks he can go for this proposal, because it is an improvement over the last
proposal.
M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3481.98 at 2626 Forest Road, with the stipulations
as applied for, and seeing this is a reduction in the number of total square footage of
accessory structures and will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood. The motion was
seconded by V. Earhart.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Hilts X
Horne X
BZA-3481.98, 2626 Forest Road approved by a vote of 5 - 0.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Rules of Procedure Update
The Board moved into Committee of the Whole to discuss the Rules of
Procedure. Discussion ensued.
V. Earhart made a motion to send draft rules of procedure for review. The motion was
seeonded by V. . The motion was seconded by A. Frederick. The motion was carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
Board of Zoning Appeals, March 12, 1998 Page 3
V. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of February 12, 1998
V. Earhart made a motion to approve the minutes of February 12, 1998, as corrected. The
motion was seconded by A. Frederick, and carried unanimously on a voice vote.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
E. Horne asked about next months meeting, which is scheduled for April 9,
1998. She proposed that they move the meeting to the next Thursday, which
would be April 16, 1998.
A motion was made by G. Hilts, seconded by A. Frederick, and approved unanimously on a
voice vote, to move the April meeting from April 9 to April 16.
Vill. ADJOURNMENT at 9:07 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
Draft to Clerk 03/05/98
Approved 03/12/98
A - - - To Clerk 03/13/98
16 An U: 4RIINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
Lt BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CiTL 41%L UNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
I. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson E.Horne, at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was
taken.
A. Present
M. Clark V. Earhart A. Frederick
J. Garcia E. Horne
B. Absences
C. Bicy G. Hilts E. Spink (excused)
C. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to take
place.
D. Introduction of Staff
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Agenda approved as printed, with the addition of two new items under New
Business.
III. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. BZA-3475.97, 509-513 E. Grand River
This is a request by Bernadine Young for a variance from the required number
of parking spaces. Section 1284.13 of the Zoning Code requires a total of 24
parking spaces for the structure with 2600 square feet of usable floor area and
three apartment units. The applicant has space available to provide 14 parking
spaces; a variance of 10 parking spaces is therefore being requested.
J. Ruff presented the case.
Bernadine Young, applicant, stated that she was here to answer any questions
the Board might have.
Kenneth E. Fry, 318 W. Pearl St, Potterville, who works at Lou's Barber Shop
at 521 E. Grand River, generally on Wednesdays and Saturdays, addressed
the Board. He stated that street and barbershop talk all say that if Mayor
Hollister and/or bureaucrats had kept their politics out of this, all of this property
on the north side of Grand River between Cedar and Larch Street would have
been under site plan review for new construction with adequate off street
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 2
parking. The hold-out property that queered the deal is now asking for a
parking variance, at the expense of surrounding properties, some of which had
to meet parking requirements for their construction purposes. Mr. Tallarico had
to go through all the hoops. Before Mayor Hollister and Lansing start pumping
grant money, leases, special deals, and other funding into North Lansing, or
any other area for that matter, there should be a development of a parking plan
and the acquirement of sites for parking. It is ludicrous to continue to ignore the
need for parking until after the fact. Fortunately, in this case, there is and
should still be, in most every case, sites available for purchase for the private
parking needed without encroachment into the public parking areas. Public
parking is just that, parking for the public, not for the use of business owners, or
for tenants who want to park all day and night at any hour, and demand it. This
is the reason that we have parking requirements and zoning laws, to eliminate
these problems coming up. He made several other points concerning parking.
He said that this variance is not in the best interest of the general health,
welfare and safety of the public.
V. Earhart asked Mr. Fry to show them where the barber shop is located on a
map, which he did.
Mr. Fry also brought up the fact that Bernadine Young has the option to not only
lease parking, but to buy parking in the area.
Lou Tallarico, 521 E. Grand River, North Lansing, addressed the Board. He
said his father bought the barber shop, which opened for business in October of
1937. He still maintains it today. When he was a small child his family lived
over the building. He knows Grand River Avenue and the back of those
buildings like the palm of his hand. There is a parking problem. By granting
this variance, the problem will be compounded more. He said that if anyone
would come down to the Barber shop and sit for a few hours, they will see what
he means. Mr. Tallarico then told about getting a right-of-way from the Board of
Water and Light, and Harold Moore, who was the council person at the time.
M. Clark asked what type of parking problem there is with the on-street parking
along there. Mr. Tallarico said that the problem is that people come in and park
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. He can see that Ms. Young is trying to do some work in
there, but it's going very slow. The lot could have been graded, a light could be
installed, she could purchase the building next door, which is for sale. But by
putting three apartments upstairs, and having the offices downstairs, it is over-
crowding the building.
Steve Spinrad, Old Town Diner, spoke. He mentioned that there should be a
letter in the file from he and his wife, in opposition to the variance. He said that
his complaint is similar to Lou's. He said that they rent a lot next door to them.
He spoke to one of Ms. Young's renters and asked why they park in front. She
said that they are afraid to park in back, and Mr. Spinrad says that he doesn't
blame them, as the cops are there all the time, and it gets pretty rough in that
alley. The bums hang around, and it's a mess. There is a semi parked up the
street, and he has called the police time after time about it. He estimates at
least 30 police cars at this address per year. There is a serious parking
problem there, and he can't believe that people are going to park in the back of
the building. They appreciate Ms. Young as a neighbor, and her efforts to fix up
the building. She is a good neighbor. There is a vacant house next door that
someone could buy and level, and use the lot for parking. The house was
tagged, but someone ripped the tags off. There are now broken windows and
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 3
the windows look like they are going to fall out.
Kenneth Fry spoke again, stating that every property except for Hot and Now
has been up for sale.
Steve Spinrad spoke again. He said that his property was approached for sale
by Rite Aid, but the deal didn't go through because Ms. Young wouldn't sell.
The Board Chairperson read two communications into the record that were
received concerning this issue.
1) From Board of Water and Light - Electrical has no objections and Water
has no objections.
2) Letter sent in by the Oldtown Diner was read into the record, they have
concerns for parking in the area. Letter from Loretta and Steve Spinrad.
There were no other comments or communications.
The Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff said that the back parking area is
very undeveloped at this time, there have been no improvements made, it has some
encroachment on it from adjoining slopes next to adjoining buildings. Improvements would
have to be made if, through the process of permitting, she is granted either a variance or if she
needs another permit for the structure, the parking lot would have to be improved, and the
need for improvement is quite evident. He believes that if it is improved appropriately, it would
be a much better looking parking lot, it would be much more functional, and would be more
readily used. Now, it's not improved, and there are barriers between properties. There is
going to be some difficulty in improvement, because some of the properties are at a higher
grade than others. V. Earhart said that she looked at the parking lot the day before, and it
was like a mud hole. She can't imagine anyone wanting to park there, but if 14 improved
spaces are put in back, she thinks that they will be used. She also saw that two offices are
rented to attorney's, so the number of cars parking at any one time should be low. E. Horne
asked about the master plan for the area. J. Ruff replied that work is under way, and the draft
is to be delivered for review in April. Further discussion ensued parking lot improvements.
V. Earhart made a motion to hear Mr. Fry again, if he was presenting new information. Motion
seconded by J. Garcia, approved unanimously on a voice vote.
Kenneth E. Fry, Potterville, addressed the Board. He stated that he didn't know that the
easement was 40 foot wide, and it is 6 foot additional width, which is adequate for angle
parking with a 16 foot traffic lane. By working with the Board of Water and Light, it could be
developed into an access road, paved, with angle parking.
Lou Tallarico addressed the board again. He said that the drive used to be blacktopped, and
they used to maintain it in the '50's and '60's. They had put a drain in, and years ago, that
whole alley parking lot was smooth, graded, beautiful. That parking lot has to be maintained.
The only reason it is in the shape it is, is because of lack of maintenance.
A. Frederick made a motion to approve BZA-3475.97 at 509-513 E. Grand River with
conditions that improvements be made and long term parking by tenants of the building use it.
The motion was seconded by M. Clark.
A. Frederick said that he made this motion because there is a parking problem on East Grand
River, and currently, this property is not useful for anything. The owner is willing to improve it,
and add 14 parking spaces, which is 14 more than there are now. Also, it would allow for
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 4
some water control to keep water from flowing to other areas.
M. Clark stated that she will not be supporting this, because they are developing this property
requiring more parking spaces than are available. She would be very uncomfortable granting
this variance without looking at the whole picture, and she is not comfortable with this variance
at this time.
V. Earhart said that she too is uncomfortable with this variance at this time. She would feel
better if they were to say 14 spaces in this particular area would be ok, because that is what
the Planning Board had put together for parking in this area, but without the guidance there,
we are just "punting", and she wouldn't want to do it. She feels the Board of Zoning Appeals
needs more guidance. This could set precedence for the area, and that potential could be
problematic.
J. Garcia agrees with the last two comments, feeling this would be "one step forward, two
steps back". He will not be supporting this variance.
A. Frederick said that, since there is so little support, he would like to withdraw his motion,
and table the case until they see the Master Plan.
V. Earhart added that she would be much more comfortable with a table, than a denial.
M. Clark asked the applicant what her desire is on this. Ms. Young replied that she would
rather have a denial, so she can move on, than a table, which may be extended.
The Board Chair stated that they will precede with the original motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3475.97, 509-513 E. Grand River, not approved due to lack of a favorable vote.
The Board took a short recess.
B. BZA-3476.97, 1004 E. Michigan Avenue
This is a request by Sign Art, Inc., representing Rite Aid Corporation, at 1004 E.
Michigan Avenue, to construct six wall signs for this building on a corner lot and
one ground/pole sign erected 20'4" high, measuring 87 square feet and with a
setback of 7' from the property line. Section 1442.13(b) of the City of Lansing
Zoning Code establishes that four wall signs are allowed in this instance; this is
therefore a variance of two (2) signs. Section 1442.12(h)(5) requires a
ground/pole sign measuring 87 square feet in size and 20'4" in height to be set
back 22' from the property line; therefore a 15' setback variance is being
requested.
J. Ruff presented the case.
A. Frederick asked how this is different from the Rite Aid on Cedar Street at
Greenlawn. Mr. Ruff replied that the one on Cedar has undergone design
changes; it is different from this one.
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 5
Ms. Jenny Cook, SignArt Company, representing Rite Aid, spoke. She stated
that this is a new style building, different from the one at Cedar and Greenlawn.
They are asking for an additional sign, for the drive through pharmacy. These
signs have no advertising, no logo, they are simply informational to guide
people through the drive through. She also brought a drawing of an alternative
sign style for the pylon sign. She then asked if they can consider the Wall Sign
separately from the Ground Pole Sign. J. Ruff replied that they had both been
advertised at the same time, but it was up to the Board, that they could
separate them for the vote. E. Horne asked about the brickwork on the Rite
Aid in Holt that is going up. Ms. Cook replied that it would probably be brick or
split faced block.
V. Earhart asked about the pylon sign, and how it differs from what they have
seen before. Ms. Cook replied that it is still a non-conforming sign, smaller,
with changeable copy.
Pastor David Theil, Christ Lutheran Church, 122 S. Pennsylvania, spoke. He
urged the Board to not allow the variance and/or to live within the rules and
regulations. Pennsylvania Avenue is on the Capitol loop; when they put up their
church sign, they put up what was allowed, 42 square feet. They have a great
relationship with the neighborhood - they have a soup kitchen, concerts for
young people, a computer center that works with Bingham School; they have
many things they would like to advertise. There is a very small section on their
sign that has changeable copy. They really wish they had something bigger
and better. They don't because they chose to live within the regulations. They
support Rite Aid being there, they just wish they would follow the rules and
regulations of being on the Capitol Loop.
Virgil Pinckney, Pilgrim Congregational Church, is concerned with the tone set
on the corner. Its a very busy corner, and they are most concerned with the
Ground Pole sign. The sign that the Rite Aid at M.L. King and Saginaw has is
much less obtrusive and still gets the message across. But to keep that area
from being "glitter' and intrusive signs is their thought.
Maola Danielson, member of Pilgrim Congregational Church, said that they
celebrate the fact that something will finally be built on that corner, but does
object to the sign being higher. Their church did ask for a variance when the
new church sign was put up a year ago, and it was denied. She feels that they
need to live within the rules. At first she was going to object to the 6 signs,
because she didn't think it was necessary, but as she was coming down
Saginaw from Jenison tonight, she could see the signs on the other Rite Aid
building, and they looked very nice. She does object to the larger sign. With
the new cross over, and the new Sparrow building, which is so beautiful, she
hates to have anything take away from that.
Jenny Cook, Sign Art, said that she can do a conforming pylon sign, but they do
need the wall signs on the building, as it is instructional for the public in finding
the drive-though. It will appear as though there are two signs on each
elevation, but she feels that this will be within the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
The Board Chair read a letter from the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, against the
variance.
M. Clark asked about the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization study that was done
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 6
several years ago. The streetscape was one of the big concerns with that. She wonders
if this site plan went through a review process or anything relative to that plan, or if the
plan was just something someone worked on, and was put on the shelf and forgotten.
J. Ruff replied that it has not been forgotten, Sparrow Hospital is implementing and has
agreed to a portion of that plan for their property. Others has inquired how it applies to
their property; and yet, it is not an ordinance in itself, so it does not require people to act in
conformance with it. In this situation, the previous plan was a Perry Drug, which had all of
its parking in front, none behind. This plan has parking all the way around, and there will
be additional improvements made in the right-of-way, by the City.
M. Clark is concerned with the hundreds of children that walk past this corner every day,
with all the curb cuts. J. Ruff said that the Transportation Department has studied this
site. He said that he doesn't have the actual construction site plans with him. There will
be landscaping that will attempt to balance the view of the parking lot with visibility from
the street. More discussion took place concerning landscaping.
M. Clark said that she is not prepared to support a variance. A great deal of time and
energy was spent on the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study, and she doesn't feel
this is in keeping with what is going on there, or the safety concerns of those using the
corner.
E. Horne also will not be supporting, as she has many unanswered questions.
The Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart said that she has difficulty
not to vote on a sign issue, because of potential problems with a left turn. She doesn't have
such a problem if the plan they are discussing is how the buildings are to look along this
corridor. Concerns about parking, design, landscaping, turns, she doesn't think these inform
as far as sign problems are concerned. M. Clark agreed completely with that, however, these
variances are usually granted with the company giving something in return, and Rite Aid is
giving nothing. She feels that this is a self imposed difficulty, this lot can be developed in
conformance. V. Earhart replied that the representative from the sign company has stated
that they can redesign the sign to conform to code. A. Frederick said that he also has
difficulty with this variance, because many businesses have to deal with the sign code, and
many of them have drive-through's. This may be a new design, but the Rite Aid on Cedar
Street has the same considerations, and they were able to conform. J. Garcia had nothing to
add.
V. Earhart made a motion to deal with the petition tonight, voting separately on each of the
issues. Motion seconded by A. Frederick, and approved unanimously on a voice vote.
V. Earhart made a motion to approve BZA-3476.97 at 1004 E. Michigan Avenue, for the two
wall signs, as they will be an aid to customers in circulation around the building. J. Garcia
seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3476.97, 1004 E. Michigan Avenue, not approved due to lack of a favorable vote.
V. Earhart made a motion to deny BZA-3476.97 at 1004 E. Michigan Avenue, for the ground
pole sign. A. Frederick seconded the motion.
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 7
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3476.97, 1004 E. Michigan Avenue, Denied by a vote of 5 - 0.
C. BZA-3477.97, 5032 S. Cedar Street
This is a request by Sign Art Inc., representing Rite Aid Corporation, at 5032 S.
Cedar Street, to construct six wall signs for this building on a corner lot and one
ground/pole sign erected 20'4" high, measuring 87 square feet and set back 10'
from the property line. Section 1442.13(b) of the City of Lansing Zoning Code
establishes that four wall signs are allowed in this instance; therefore, a
variance of 2 signs is being requested. Section 1442.12(h)(5) requires a
ground/pole sign measuring 87 square feet in size and 20' 4" in height to be set
back 22' from the property line; therefore, a 12' setback variance is being
requested.
J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this case is similar to the last, but is
a separate case.
Jenny Cook, Sign Art Inc., representing Rite Aid, said that this request is
identical to the E. Michigan Avenue request. She also said that her
understanding of variances is that they are based on a perceived hardship or
practical difficulty. Their perceived difficulty is that they would like to direct the
flow of traffic to the drive-through. This sign does not contain advertising or a
logo, it is strictly informational in nature.
No one else spoke.
The Board went into the Committee of the Whole. J. Garcia said that he wants to divide the
issue up as well.
V. Earhart made a motion to approve the wall sign portion of BZA-3477.97 at 5032 S. Cedar
Street, as proposed. The motion was seconded by J. Garcia. The motion is for information
circulation and promotes safety.
M. Clark said that she is much more comfortable with the prohibition of left hand turns onto
Cedar Street. E. Horne said that she knows it is very busy there. She doesn't know how they
would cope with the turn lanes on Jolly Road. Mr. Ruff said that this has gone through site
plan review, and Jolly Road will be reconfigured. He told how the intersection would be
utilized. He added that he had more involvement on this site plan than he did on the last case.
In this Rite Aid, he was involved with the Rezoning. He is aware of what comments were
made by other agencies for this Rite Aid.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3477.97, 5032 S. Cedar Street, denied due to lack of a favorable vote.
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 8
V. Earhart made a motion to deny the portion of BZA-3477.97 at 5032 S. Cedar Street , for
the 12' setback variance for the ground pole sign. Motion seconded by A. Frederick.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Frederick X
Earhart X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3477.97, 5032 S. Cedar Street, denied by a vote of 5 -0.
D. BZA-3478.98, 1024 N. Pine Street
This is a request by Theodore and Todd Reuschel to add a second unit to the
structure at 1024 N. Pine Street. Chapter 1250.06(b) of the Zoning Ordinance
requires 5,600 square feet of lot area for two one-bedroom units. The lot is
5,445 square feet in size. This is therefore a request for a variance of 155
square feet from Chapter 1250.06(b) to allow two units at this location.
J. Ruff presented the case. Staff doesn't find a hardship existing at this
location. Also, there is a joint driveway that this property shares with the
neighboring property. The house is owned by two brothers, one of whom is
getting married soon, hence the request to turn the house into a two unit.
However, the city promotes home ownership, and does not promote the
overdevelopment of residential sites. Therefore, staff does not support this
variance.
There were no questions from the Board.
Ted Reuschel, applicant, said that he and his brother bought the house at 1024
N. Pine Street in August of 1994. It was a single family rental, in very bad
shape. When they first went in they found a horrible smell and quite a serious
amount of deterioration. They had to scour the walls and use a leaf rake to
rake out debris. They have put $15 to $20,000 into restoration. Between the
planting and renovation, they have maintained good relationships with the
neighbors. Mr. Reuschel showed pictures of the house. He told of cleaning up
the yard, adding shrubs and brickwork. He stated that they want to save
money, and they want to enjoy the hard work they have put into the house.
They want to add a kitchen to the upstairs. He showed floor plans of the upper
and lower floors. All that would separate the two units would be a door at the
top of the stairs. In the vicinity of the house, he said that there are at least four
two unit dwellings; of those four, three have joint drives, and none has the
property requirements for multi-unit homes, all being well over the amount we
are requesting. They will not be renting the house while they live elsewhere,
they intend to live at this house. The deck they will be adding over the one
story addition will add a considerable amount of square footage of usable
space. They have three cars between the three of them, and that will be true
whether they have one unit or two. The changes would be easily reversible if
they need to convert this house back to a one unit, and they would be willing to
do that if they ever decide to sell it, and they are willing to make that a legal
requirement of doing the modification if that would help persuade the Board of
Zoning Appeals to grant their variance. All that would be necessary would be to
remove the kitchen components.
Bob Cochran, 403 N. Sycamore, President of the Downtown Neighborhood
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 9
Association, addressed the Board. He complimented Mr. Reuschel on his
presentation. He said that they have made a positive contribution to the
neighborhood. By and large, the neighborhood is single family, with a few
exceptions. He spoke about density, and the effect that has on neighborhoods.
Although he understands their personal reasons for wanting to do this, he still
feels that it moves against what the downtown neighborhoods have been trying
to do for 18 years. If there is a way to obligate the Reuschel's to convert the
house back to single family before they sell or move, the Downtown
Neighborhood Association would be willing to support this variance. If they
can't be legally held to this, they would not. But they are very sorry, as the
Reuschel's seem to be very nice folks.
The Board Chair read several communications into the record:
1) Old Forest Neighborhood group, opposed to the variance
2) Property Management Group, owners of 521/523 W. Maple, are
opposed to the change and addition.
The Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark asked if these changes can
be done legally. Mr. Ruff explained that once a variance is granted, it is granted for life. They
go with the property, not with the owner. However, there is nothing to prevent anyone from
having two kitchens in one home, whether it is a full kitchen or a wet bar. He cannot authorize
a building permit to convert this house into a two family dwelling. He can issue a permit to add
a second kitchen to the house, with the stipulation that it is still a singe family dwelling. The
addition of a door at the top of the stairs may be questionable in the building code, but that is a
minor structural change and does not make it a two family house. If this house did become a
rental property, with the owner living away from the property, it would have to be registered,
and that is where we can stop it from being a two unit. A. Frederick said that the issue seems
to be one of privacy, not of converting the house to a two family. The privacy goal can be
achieved without the variance. V. Earhart asked if it would be appropriate to ask the
Rueschel's what their goal is - is it to achieve a two family home, or simply to have privacy? A.
Frederick asked how they ensure that it will stay a single family. J. Ruff stated that, if they did
this, without the variance granted, he would require a notarized letter to that effect, to help with
the enforcement issues in future. The neighborhood organizations will also help by seeing
what is going on.
M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3478.97 at 1024 N. Pine Street, as the hardships are
self-imposed and are counter to city efforts to reduce density. The motion was seconded by V.
Earhart.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3478.97, 1024 N. Pine, Denied by a vote of 5 - 0.
E. BZA-3479.98, 3603 Parkway Drive
This is a request by Vinyl Sash of Flint, Inc. (A.pplicant) on behalf of Gary Miller
(owner) to construct a front addition to the house at 3603 Parkway Drive. The
addition extends 6 feet from the house resulting in an 18 foot front yard
setback. Based upon Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Code, a 22.75 foot
setback is required. Therefore, this is a requested variance of 4.75 feet.
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 10
J. Ruff presented the case.
Robert Bloss, president of Vinyl Sash of Flint, representing Mr. Miller,
addressed the Board. He showed pictures of the house at 3603 parkway, and
pictures of the neighbors house. He said that they were going to use
engineered trusses, take off the existing porch, and put in two porches (19' x 4'
and 19' x 4', front and back) and a ramp, for barrier free livability. The bay
window will be cantilevered out. Mr. Ruff added that the improvements to the
back of the structure do not require any variances.
Dennis Coleman, carpenter, said that they are doing new windows, new siding,
plus the additions and entrances will be enlarged. He said the house should
look brand new when they are done. Once the interior is remodeled, they will
also be enlarging the interior doorways for easier accessability.
E. Horne asked if they were using wolmanized wood for the ramp. Mr.
Coleman replied that they are, and they are also using an exterior carpeting on
the ramp to make a non-skid surface. He added that they will be able to paint
the wood in a year, if the owners choose. J. Ruff asked if the fence that blocks
the back yard will be removed. Mr. Coleman didn't know the answer to that.
The Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole.
M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3479.98 at 3603 Parkway Drive for the 4.75' setback
variance for a front addition, as it is reasonable to make the house more accessible, and is
without negative impact. The motion was seconded by A. Frederick.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3479.98, 3603 Parkway Drive, approved by a vote of 5 - 0.
F. BZA-3480.98, 1925 S. Cedar Street
This is a request by Ray E. Powers of 2009 S. Cedar Street for a variance to
construct a garage and office structure thirteen (13) feet from the rear (east)
property line of the property at the northeast corner of Cedar and Florence
Streets in the 1900 block of S. Cedar Street. Section 1268.08 of the Zoning
Code requires a rear yard setback of 25'. This is a requested variance of 12'.
J. Ruff presented the case. He said that the request is for a 30'x 36' structure,
to be a two bay service garage with an office setup in it. This is not the same
variance request as the last one from Mr. Powers. The code requires
landscape, screening and buffering in the rear yard area. Staff sees the merit
of the request, but does not see a practical difficulty or hardship. We do not
recommend approval.
Jim Cooper, 2009 S. Cedar Street, representing Ray E. Powers, addressed the
Board. He said that they are trying to maximize use of the land. This variance
would allow them to gain 360 additional feet by having this variance. This will
park 2 additional autos for either service or use. We are looking at a long term
program here, as this is a family owned business. He showed pictures of the
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 11
building they built across Florence Street. This new building would be smaller.
They feel they are adding economic development to the area, and mentioned
that they have won the South Side Business Award for improvement of the
area. Mr. Powers has been there for many years. This extra space would give
us greater use of the property. We hope to keep on improving.
No one else spoke.
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole.
A letter opposing the variance was read into the record that discussed litigation regarding the
access to Florence. It also said that Mr. Powers has no regard for the neighbors. The letter
was from Merle B. Anderson.
V. Earhart said that she feels this is the same situation as with the northtown bar, where you
have commercial property abutting residential areas. In those situations, we must be
particularly sensitive to the residents, whose houses are already there. If you have an
easement for a joint drive, and someone is attempting to build on it, we should be concerned.
I don't view the setback that is requested as being simple at all, it depreciates the value of the
residential property, and she thinks that there are options to pursue that would allow most of
what the applicant wants, without infringing on the property rights of the people who live there.
E. Horne said that this would exceed the line of demarcation that has already been drawn. We
need to be sensitive as to how these properties are dealt with.
M. Clark made a motion to hear the applicant again. A. Frederick seconded the motion, which
was approved unanimously on a voice vote.
Jim Cooper said that the case mentioned in the letter has been resolved and dismissed.
Further, if they build the building to 25', which they can by right, they would still have the same
problem with Mr. Anderson.
M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3480.98 at 1925 S. Cedar Street for the requested 12'
variance based upon the notion that to allow commercial development will intrude into a very
fragile residential neighborhood. The motion was seconded by V. Earhart.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3480.98, 1925 S. Cedar Street, denied by a vote of 5 - 0.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Rules of Procedure Update
V. Earhart has more information from the class she took and will look at and
prepare information for the next meeting.
B. Tabled Case: BZA-3469.97 at 120 N. Washington Sq.
J. Ruff updated the Board on this variance. It remained on the table.
PaBoard of Zonin Appeals,
Februa 12 1998
a 12
C. Tabled Case: BZA-3470.97, 3165 E. Michigan Avenue
J. Ruff updated the Board on this variance. Adams Outdoor Advertising has
requested that this variance be withdrawn.
t 3165
V. Earhart made a motion to the accept
the
s withdrawal
Frederick Seconded heamotion.EMotion(carried
an
Avenue, as requested by pp
unanimously on a voice vote.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of November 13, 1997
V. Earhart made a motion to approve the minutes of November
3 a 9 o7ce s printed. The
motion was seconded by A. Frederick, and carried unanimously
B. Minutes of January 8, 1998
V. Earhart made a motion to approve the Minutes ofJan a v8, 1998, as printed. A. Frederick
seconded the motion which carried unanimously a
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1, A communication having to do with towers was received from the
Lansing Historic District Commission, to be reviewed as needed.
2. V. Earhart brought up parking in the North Lansing/Old Town area.
She wants to be able to refer to a plan and apply it (a special district to
meet a special need). Discussion ensued. A. Frederick, liaison to the
Planning Board, said that the Planning Board shares their concerns, and
shared about the Planning Board committee which tabled the action
concerning Ferguson Development.
VIIl. ADJOURNMENT at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
Draft to Clerk 03/05/98
Approved
To Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL'L�i';`:;
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
I. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson E.Horne, at 7.30 p.m. Roll call was
taken.
A. Present
M. Clark V. Earhart A. Frederick „.
J. Garcia E. Horne
B. Absences
C. Bicy G. Hilts E. Spink
C. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to takg
place.
D. Introduction of Staff
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Agenda approved as printed, with the addition of two new items under New
Business.
III. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. BZA-3475.97, 509-513 E. Grand River
This is a request by Bernadine Young for a variance from the required number
of parking spaces. Section 1284.13 of the Zoning Code requires a total of 24
parking spaces for the structure with 2600 spare feet of usable floor area and
three apartment units. The applicant has space available to provide 14 parking
spaces; a variance of 10 parking spaces is therefore being requested.
J. Ruff presented the case.
Bernadine Young, applicant, stated that she was here to answer any questions
the Board might have.
Kenneth E. Fry, 318 W. Pearl St, Potterville, who works at Lou's Barber Shop
at 521 E. Grand River, generally on Wednesdays and Saturdays, addressed
the Board. He stated that street and barbershop talk all say that if Mayor
Hollister and/or bureaucrats had kept their politics out of this, all of this property
on the north side of Grand River between Cedar and Larch Street would have
been under site plan review for new construction with adequate off street
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 2
parking. The hold-out property that queered the deal is now asking for a
parking variance, at the expense of surrounding properties, some of which had
to meet parking requirements for their construction purposes. Mr. Tallarico had
to go through all the hoops. Before Mayor Hollister and Lansing start pumping
grant money, leases, special deals, and other funding into North Lansing, or
any other area for that matter, there should be a development of a parking plan
and the acquirement of sites for parking. It is ludicrous to continue to ignore the
need for parking until after the fact. Fortunately, in this case, there is and
should still be, in most every case, sites available for purchase for the private
parking needed without encroachment into the public parking areas. Public
parking is just that, parking for the public, not for the use of business owners, or
for tenants who want to park all day and night at any hour, and demand it. This
is the reason that we have parking requirements and zoning laws, to eliminate
these problems coming up. He made several other points concerning parking.
He said that this variance is not in the best interest of the general health,
welfare and safety of the public.
V. Earhart asked Mr. Fry to show them where the barber shop is located on a
map, which he did.
Mr. Fry also brought up the fact that Bernadine Young has the option to not only
lease parking, but to buy parking in the area.
Lou Tallarico, 521 E. Grand River, North Lansing, addressed the Board. He
IDA"� said his father bought the barber shop, which opened for business in October of
1937. He still maintains it today. When he was a small child his family lived
over the building. He knows Grand River Avenue and the back of those
buildings like the palm of his hand. There is a parking problem. By granting
this variance, the problem will be compounded more. He said that if anyone
would come down to the Barber shop and sit for a few hours, they will see what
he means. Mr. Tallarico then told about getting a right-of-way from the Board.of
Water and Light, and Harold Moore, who was the council person at the time.
M. Clark asked what type of parking problem there is with the on-street parking
along there. Mr. Tallarico said that the problem is that people come in and park
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. He can see that Ms. Young is trying to do some work in
there, but it's going very slow. The lot could have been graded, a light could be
installed, she could purchase the building next door, which is for sale. But by
putting three apartments upstairs, and having the offices downstairs, it is over-
crowding the building.
Steve Spinrad, Old Town Diner, spoke. He mentioned that there should be a
letter in the file from he and his wife, in opposition to the variance. He said that
his complaint is similar to Lou's. He said that they rent a lot next door to them.
He spoke to one of Ms. Young's renters and asked why they park in front. She
said that they are afraid to park in back, and Mr. Spinrad says that he doesn't
blame them, as the cops are there all the time, and it gets pretty rough in that
alley. The bums hang around, and it's a mess. There is a semi parked up the
street, and he has called the police time after time about it. He estimates at
least 30 police cars at this address per year. There is a serious parking
problem there, and he can't believe that people are going to park in the back of
the building. They appreciate Ms. Young as a neighbor, and her efforts to fix up
the building. She is a good neighbor. There is a vacant house next door that
someone could buy and level, and use the lot for parking. The house was
tagged, but someone ripped the tags off. There are now broken windows and
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 3
the windows look like they are going to fall out.
Kenneth Fry spoke again, stating that every property except for Hot and Now
has been up for sale.
Steve Spinrad spoke again. He said that his property was approached for sale
by Rite Aid, but the deal didn't go through because Ms. Young wouldn't sell.
The Board Chairperson read two communications into the record that were
received concerning this issue.
1) From Board of Water and Light - Electrical has no objections and Water
has no objections.
2) Letter sent in by the Oldtown Diner was read into the record, they have
concerns for parking in the area. Letter from Loretta and Steve Spinrad.
V
There were no other comments or communications.
The Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff said that the back parking area is
very undeveloped at this time, there have been no improvements made, it has some
encroachment on it from adjoining slopes next to adjoining buildings. Improvements would
have to be made if, through the process of permitting, she is granted either a variance or if she
needs another permit for the structure, the parking lot would have to be improved, and the
need for improvement is quite evident. He believes that if it is improved appropriately, it would
be a much better looking parking lot, it would be much more functional, and would be more
readily used. Now, it's not improved, and there are barriers between properties. There is
going to be some difficulty in improvement, because some of the properties are at a higher
grade than others. V. Earhart said that she looked at the parking lot the day before, and it
was like a mud hole. She can't imagine anyone wanting to park there, but if 14 improved
spaces are put in back, she thinks that they will be used. She also saw that two offices are
rented to attorney's, so the number of cars parking at any one time should be low. E. Horne
asked about the master plan for the area. J. Ruff replied that work is under way, and the draft
is to be delivered for review in April. Further discussion ensued parking lot improvements.
V. Earhart made a motion to hear Mr. Fry again, if he was presenting new information. Motion
seconded by J. Garcia, approved unanimously on a voice vote.
Kenneth E. Fry, Potterville, addressed the Board. He stated that he didn't know that the
easement was 40 foot wide, and it is 6 foot additional width, which is adequate for angle
parking with a 16 foot traffic lane. By working with the Board of Water and Light, it could be
developed into an access road, paved, with angle parking.
Lou Tallarico addressed the board again. He said that the drive used to be blacktopped, and
they used to maintain it in the '50's and '60's. They had put a drain in, and years ago, that
whole alley parking lot was smooth, graded, beautiful. That parking lot has to be maintained.
The only reason it is in the shape it is, is because of lack of maintenance.
A. Frederick made a motion to approve BZA-3475.97 at 509-513 E. Grand River with
conditions that improvements be made and long term parking by tenants of the area be used.
The motion was seconded by M. Clark.
A. Frederick said that he made this motion because there is a parking problem on East Grand
River, and currently, this property is not useful for anything. The owner is willing to improve it,
and add 14 parking spaces, which is 14 more than there are now. Also, it would allow for
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 4
some water control to keep water from flowing to other areas.
M. Clark stated that she will not be supporting this, because they are developing this property
with more parking spaces than are necessary. She would be very uncomfortable granting this
variance without looking at the whole picture, and she is not comfortable with this variance at
this time.
V. Earhart said that she too is uncomfortable with this variance at this time. She would feel
better if they were to say 14 spaces in this particular area would be ok, because that is what
the Planning Board had put together for parking in this area, but without the guidance there,
we are just "punting", and she wouldn't want to do it. She feels the Board of Zoning Appeals
needs more guidance. This could set precedence for the area, and that potential could be
problematic.
J. Garcia agrees with the last two comments, feeling this would be "one step forward, two
steps back". He will not be supporting this variance.
A. Frederick said that, since there is so little support, he would like to withdraw his motion,
and table the case until they see the Master Plan.
V. Earhart added that she would be much more comfortable with a table, than a denial.
M. Clark asked the applicant what her desire is on this. Ms. Young replied that she would
rather have a denial, so she can move on, than a table, which may be extended.
The Board Chair stated that they will precede with the original motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3475.97, 509-513 E. Grand River, not approved due to lack of a favorable vote.
The Board took a short recess.
B. BZA-3476.97, 1004 E. Michigan Avenue
This is a request by Sign Art, Inc., representing Rite Aid Corporation, at 1004 E.
Michigan Avenue, to construct six wall signs for this building on a corner lot and
one ground/pole sign erected 20'4" high, measuring 87 square feet and with a
setback of 7' from the property line. Section 1442.13(b) of the City of Lansing
Zoning Code establishes that four wall signs are allowed in this instance; this is
therefore a variance of two (2) signs. Section 1442.12(h)(5) requires a
ground/pole sign measuring 87 square feet in size and 20'4" in height to be set
back 22' from the property line; therefore a 15' setback variance is being
requested.
J. Ruff presented the case.
A. Frederick asked how this is different from the Rite Aid on Cedar Street. Mr.
Ruff replied that the one on Cedar has undergone design changes; it is different
from this one.
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 5
Ms. Jenny Cook, SignArt Company, representing Rite Aid, spoke. She stated
that this is a new style building, different from the one at Cedar and Greenlawn.
They are asking for an additional sign, for the drive through pharmacy. These
signs have no advertising, no logo, they are simply informational to guide
people through the drive through. She also brought a drawing of an alternative
sign style for the pylon sign. She then asked if they can consider the Wall Sign
separately from the Ground Pole Sign. J. Ruff replied that they had both been
advertised at the same time, but it was up to the Board, that they could
separate them for the vote. E. Home asked about the brickwork on the Rite
Aid in Holt that is going up. Ms. Cook replied that it would probably be brick or
split faced block.
V. Earhart asked about the pylon sign, and how it differs from what they have
seen before. Ms. Cook replied that it is still a non-conforming sign, smaller,
with changeable copy.
Pastor David Theil, Christ Lutheran Church, 122 S. Pennsylvania, spoke. He
urged the Board to not allow the variance and/or to live within the rules and
regulations. Pennsylvania Avenue is on the Capitol loop; when they put up their
church sign, they put up what was allowed, 42 square feet. They have a great
relationship with the neighborhood - they have a soup kitchen, concerts for
young people, a computer center that works with Bingham School; they have
many things they would like to advertise. There is a very small section on their
sign that has changeable copy. They really wish they had something bigger
and better. They don't because they chose to live within the regulations. They
support Rite Aid being there, they just wish they would follow the rules and
regulations of being on the Capitol Loop.
Virgil Pinckney, Pilgrim Congregational Church, is concerned with the tone set
on the corner. Its a very busy corner, and they are most concerned with the
Ground Pole sign. The sign that the Rite Aid at M.L. King and Saginaw has is
much less obtrusive and still gets the message across. But to keep that area
from being "glitter' and intrusive signs is their thought.
Maola Danielson, member of Pilgrim Congregational Church, said that they
celebrate the fact that something will finally be built on that corner, but does
object to the sign being higher. Their church did ask for a variance when the
new church sign was put up a year ago, and it was denied. She feels that they
need to live within the rules. At first she was going to object to the 6 signs,
because she didn't think it was necessary, but as she was coming down
Saginaw from Jenison tonight, she could see the signs on the other Rite Aid
building, and they looked very nice. She does object to the larger sign. With
the new cross over, and the new Sparrow building, which is so beautiful, she
hates to have anything take away from that.
Jenny Cook, Sign Art, said that she can do a conforming pylon sign, but they do
need the wall signs on the building, as it is instructional for the public in finding
the drive-though. It will appear as though there are two signs on each
elevation, but she feels that this will be within the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
The Board Chair read a letter from the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, against the
variance.
M. Clark asked about the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization study that was done
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 6
several years ago. The streetscape was one of the big concerns with that. She wonders
if this site plan went through a review process or anything relative to that plan, or if the
plan was just something someone worked on, and was put on the shelf and forgotten.
J. Ruff replied that it has not been forgotten, Sparrow Hospital is implementing and has
agreed to a portion of that plan for their property. Others has inquired how it applies to
their property; and yet, it is not an ordinance in itself, so it does not require people to act in
conformance with it. In this situation, the previous plan was a Perry Drug, which had all of
its parking in front, none behind. This plan has parking all the way around, and there will
be additional improvements made in the right-of-way, by the City. 16,
M. Clark is concerned with the hundreds of children that walk past this corner every day,
with all the curb cuts. J. Ruff said that the transportation Department has studied this
site. He said that he doesn't have the actual construction site plans with him. There will
be landscaping that will attempt to balance the view of the parking lot with visibility from
the street. More discussion took place concerning landscaping.
M. Clark said that she is not prepared to support a variance. A great deal of time and
energy was spent on the East Michigan Avenue Revitalization Study, and she doesn't feel
this is in keeping with what is going on there, or the safety concerns of those using the
corner.
E. Horne also will not be supporting, as she has many unanswered questions.
The Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart said that she has difficulty
voting not to vote on a sign issue, because of potential problems with a left turn. She doesn't
have such a problem if the plan they are discussing is how the buildings are to look along this
corridor. Concerns about parking, design, landscaping, turns, she doesn't think these inform
as far as sign problems are concerned. M. Clark agreed completely with that, however, these
variances are usually granted with the company giving something in return, and Rite Aid is
giving nothing. She feels that this is a self imposed difficulty, this lot can be developed in
conformance. V. Earhart replied that the representative from the sign company has stated
that they can redesign the sign to conform to code. A. Frederick said that he also has
difficulty with this variance, because many businesses have to deal with the sign code, and
many of them have drive-through's. This may be a new design, but the Rite Aid on Cedar
Street has the same considerations, and they were able to conform. J. Garcia had nothing to
add.
V. Earhart made a motion to deal with the petition tonight. Motion seconded by A. Frederick,
and approved unanimously on a voice vote.
V. Earhart made a motion to approve BZA-3476.97 at 1004 E. Michigan Avenue, for the two
wall signs, as they will be an aid to customers in circulation around the building. J. Garcia
seconded the motion.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3476.97, 1004 E. Michigan Avenue, not approved due to lack of a favorable vote.
V. Earhart made a motion to deny BZA-3476.97 at 1004 E. Michigan Avenue, for the ground
pole sign. A. Frederick seconded the motion.
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 7
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3476.97, 1004 E. Michigan Avenue, Denied by a vote of 5 - 0.
C. BZA-3477.97, 5032 S. Cedar Street
This is a request by Sign Art Inc., representing Rite Aid Corporation, at 5032 S.
Cedar Street, to construct six wall signs for this building on a corner lot and one
ground/pole sign erected 20'4" high, measuring 87 square feet and set back 10'
from the property line. Section 1442.13(b) of the City of Lansing Zoning Code
establishes that four wall signs are allowed in this instance; therefore, a
variance of 2 signs is being requested. Section 1442.12(h)(5) requires a
ground/pole sign measuring 87 square feet in size and 20' 4" in height to be set
back 22' from the property line; therefore, a 12' setback variance is being
requested.
J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this case is similar to the last, but is
a separate case.
Jenny Cook, Sign Art Inc., representing Rite Aid, said that this request is
identical to the E. Michigan Avenue request. She also said that her
understanding of variances is that they are based on a perceived hardship or
practical difficulty. Their perceived difficulty is that they would like to direct the
flow of traffic to the drive-through. This sign does not contain advertising or a
logo, it is strictly informational in nature.
No one else spoke.
The Board went into the Committee of the Whole. J. Garcia said that he wants to divide the
issue up as well.
V. Earhart made a motion to approve the wall sign portion of BZA-3477.97 at 5032 S. Cedar
Street, as proposed. The motion was seconded by J. Garcia. The motion is for information
circulation and promotes safety.
M. Clark said that she is much more comfortable with the prohibition of left hand turns onto
Cedar Street. E. Horne said that she knows it is very busy there. She doesn't know how they
would cope with the turn lanes on Jolly Road. Mr. Ruff said that this has gone through site
plan review, and Jolly Road will be reconfigured. He told how the intersection would be
utilized. He added that he had more involvement on this site plan than he did on the last case.
In this Rite Aid, he was involved with the Rezoning. He is aware of what comments were
made by other agencies for this Rite Aid.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3477.97, 5032 S. Cedar Street, denied due to lack of a favorable vote.
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 8
V. Earhart made a motion to deny the portion of BZA-3477.97 at 5032 S. Cedar Street , for
the 12' setback variance for the ground pole sign. Motion seconded by A. Frederick.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Clark X
Earhart X Hilts X
Horne X
BZA-3477.97, 5032 S. Cedar Street, denied by a vote of 5 -0.
D. BZA-3478.98, 1024 N. Pine Street
This is a request by Theodore and Todd Reuschel to add a second unit to the
structure at 1024 N. Pine Street. Chapter 1250.06(b) of the Zoning Ordinance
requires 5,600 square feet of lot area for two one-bedroom units. The lot is
5,445 square feet in size. This is therefore a request for a variance of 155
square feet from Chapter 1250.06(b) to allow two units at this location.
J. Ruff presented the case. Staff doesn't find a hardship existing at this
location. Also, there is a joint driveway that this property shares with the
neighboring property. The house is owned by two brothers, one of whom is
getting married soon, hence the request to turn the house into a two unit.
However, the city promotes home ownership, and does not promote the
overdevelopment of residential sites. Therefore, staff does not support this
variance.
There were no questions from the Board.
Ted Reuschel, applicant, said that he and his brother bought the house at 1024
N. Pine Street in August of 1984. It was a single family rental, in very bad
shape. When they first went in they found a horrible smell and quite a serious
amount of deterioration. They had to scour the walls and use a leaf rake to
rake out debris. They have put $15 to $20,000 into restoration. Between the
planting and renovation, they have maintained good relationships with the
neighbors. Mr. Reuschel showed pictures of the house. He told of cleaning up
the yard, adding shrubs and brickwork. He stated that they want to save
money, and they want to enjoy the hard work they have put into the house.
They want to add a kitchen to the upstairs. He showed floor plans of the upper
and lower floors. All that would separate the two units would be a door at the
top of the stairs. In the vicinity of the house, he said that there are at least four
two unit dwellings; of those four, three have joint drives, and none has the
property requirements for multi-unit homes, all being well over the amount we
are requesting. They will not be renting the house while they live elsewhere,
they intend to live at this house. The deck they will be adding over the one
story addition will add a considerable amount of square footage of usable
space. They have three cars between the three of them, and that will be true
whether they have one unit or two. The changes would be easily reversible if
they need to convert this house back to a one unit, and they would be willing to
do that if they ever decide to sell it, and they are willing to make that a legal
requirement of doing the modification if that would help persuade the Board of
Zoning Appeals to grant their variance. All that would be necessary would be to
remove the kitchen components.
Bob Cochran, 403 N. Sycamore, President of the Downtown Neighborhood
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 9
Association, addressed the Board. He complimented Mr. Reuschel on his
presentation. He said that they have made a positive contribution to the
neighborhood. By and large, the neighborhood is single family, with a few
exceptions. He spoke about density, and the effect that has on neighborhoods.
Although he understands their personal reasons for wanting to do this, he still
feels that it moves against what the downtown neighborhoods have been trying
to do for 18 years. If there is a way to obligate the Reuschel's to convert the
house back to single family before they sell or move, the Downtown
Neighborhood Association would be willing to support this variance. If they
can't be legally held to this, they would not. But they are very sorry, as the
Reuschel's seem to be very nice folks.
The Board Chair read several communications into the record:
1) Old Forest Neighborhood group, opposed to the variance
2) Property Management Group, owners of 521/523 W. Maple, are
' opposed to the change and addition.
The Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark asked if these changes can
be done legally. Mr. Ruff explained that once a variance is granted, it is granted for life. They
go with the property, not with the owner. However, there is nothing to prevent anyone from
having two kitchens in one home, whether it is a full kitchen or a wet bar. He cannot authorize
a building permit to convert this house into a two family dwelling. He can issue a permit to add
a second kitchen to the house, with the stipulation that it is still a singe family dwelling. The
addition of a door at the top of the stairs may be questionable in the building code, but that is a
minor structural change and does not make it a two family house. If this house did become a
rental property, with the owner living away from the property, it would have to be registered,
and that is where we can stop it from being a two unit. A. Frederick said that the issue seems
to be one of privacy, not of converting the house to a two family. The privacy goal can be
achieved without the variance. V. Earhart asked if it would be appropriate to ask the
Rueschel's what their goal is - is it to achieve a two family home, or simply to have privacy? A.
Frederick asked how they ensure that it will stay a single family. J. Ruff stated that, if they did
this, without the variance granted, he would require a notarized stat to that effect, to help with
the enforcement issues in future. The neighborhood organizations will also help by seeing
what is going on.
M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3478.97 at 1024 N. Pine Street, as the hardships are
self-imposed and are counter to city efforts to reduce density. The motion was seconded by V.
Earhart.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3478.97, 1024 N. Pine, Denied by a vote of 5 -0.
E. BZA-3479.98, 3603 Parkway Drive
This is a request by Vinyl Sash of Flint, Inc. (Applicant) on behalf of Gary Miller
(owner) to construct a front addition to the house at 3603 Parkway Drive. The
addition extends 6 feet from the house resulting in an 18 foot front yard
setback. Based upon Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Code, a 22.75 foot
setback is required. Therefore, this is a requested variance of 4.75 feet.
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 10
J. Ruff presented the case.
Robert Bloss, president of Vinyl Sash of Flint, representing Mr. Miller,
addressed the Board. He showed pictures of the house at 3603 parkway, and
pictures of the neighbors house. He said that they were going to use
engineered trusses, take off the existing porch, and put in two porches (19' x 4'
and 19' x 4', front and back) and a ramp, for barrier free livability. The bay
window will be cantilevered out. Mr. Ruff added that the improvements to the
back of the structure do not require any variances.
Dennis Coleman, carpenter, said that they are doing new windows, new siding,
plus the additions and entrances will be enlarged. He said the house should
look brand new when they are done. Once the interior is remodeled, they will
also be enlarging the interior doorways for easier accessability.
E. Horne asked if they were using wolmanized wood for the ramp. Mr.
Coleman replied that they are, and they are also using an exterior carpeting on
the ramp to make a non-skid surface. He added that they will be able to paint
the wood in a year, if the owners choose. J. Ruff asked if the fence that blocks
the back yard will be removed. Mr. Coleman didn't know the answer to that.
The Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole.
M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3479.98 at 3603 Parkway Drive for the 4.75' setback
variance for a front addition, as it is reasonable and without negative impacts. The motion was
seconded by A. Frederick.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3479.98, 3603 Parkway Drive, approved by a vote of 5 -0.
F. BZA-3480.98, 1925 S. Cedar Street
This is a request by Ray E. Powers of 2009 S. Cedar Street for a variance to
construct a garage and office structure thirteen (13) feet from the rear (east)
property line of the property at the northeast corner of Cedar and Florence
Streets in the 1900 block of S. Cedar Street. Section 1268.08 of the Zoning
Code requires a rear yard setback of 25'. This is a requested variance of 12'.
J. Ruff presented the case. He said that the request is for a 30'x 36' structure,
to be a two bay service garage with an office setup in it. This is not the same
variance request as the last one from Mr. Powers. The code requires
landscape, screening and buffering in the rear yard area. Staff sees the merit
of the request, but does not see a practical difficulty or hardship. We do not
recommend approval.
Jim Cooper, 2009 S. Cedar Street, representing Ray E. Powers, addressed the
Board. He said that they are trying to maximize use of the land. This variance
would allow them to gain 360 additional feet by having this variance. This will
park 2 additional autos for either service or use. We are looking at a long term
program here, as this is a family owned business. He showed pictures of the
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 11
building they built across Florence Street. This new building would be smaller.
They feel they are adding economic development to the area, and mentioned
that they have won the South Side Business Award
for extra improvement
space of the
would give
area. Mr. Powers has been there for many years.
us greater use of the property. We hope to keep on improving.
No one else spoke. .)AF-l"
The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole.
A letter opposing the variance was read into the record that discussed litigation regarding the
access to Florence. It also said that Mr. Powers has no regard for the neighbors. The letter
was from Merle B. Anderson.
V. Earhart said that she feels this is the same situation as with the northtown bar, where you
have commercial property abutting residential areas. In those situations, we must be
particularly sensitive to the residents, whose houses are already there. If you have an
easement for a joint drive, and someone is attempting to build on it, we should be concerned.
I don't view the setback that is requested as being simple at all, it depreciates the value of the
residential property, and she thinks that there are options to pursue that would allow most of
what the applicant wants, without infringing on the property rights of the people who live there.
E. Horne said that this would exceed the line of demarcation that has already been drawn. We
need to be sensitive as to how these properties are dealt with.
M. Clark made a motion to hear the applicant again. A. Frederick seconded the motion, which
was approved unanimously on a voice vote.
Jim Cooper said that the case mentioned in the letter has been resolved and dismissed.
Further, if they build the building to 25', which they can by right, they would still have the same
problem with Mr. Anderson.
M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3480.98 at 1925 S. Cedar Street for the requested 12'
variance based upon the notion that to allow commercial development will intrude into a very
fragile residential neighborhood. The motion was seconded by V. Earhart.
VOTE: yea nay yea nay
Clark X Earhart X
Frederick X Garcia X
Horne X
BZA-3480.98, 1925 S. Cedar Street, denied by a vote of 5 - U.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Rules of Procedure Update
V. Earhart has more information from the class she took and will look at and
prepare information for the next meeting.
B. Tabled Case: BZA-3469.97 at 120 N. Washington Sq.
J. Ruff updated the Board on this variance. It remained on the table.
Board of Zoning Appeals, February 12, 1998 Page 12
C. Tabled Case: BZA-3470.97, 3165 E. Michigan Avenue
J. Ruff updated the Board on this variance. Adams Outdoor Advertising has
requested that this variance be withdrawn.
V. Earhart made a motion to accept the withdrawal of BZA-3470.97 at 3165 E. Michigan
Avenue, as requested by the applicants. A. Frederick seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of November 13, 1997
V. Earhart made a motion to approve the minutes of November 13, 1997, as printed. The
motion was seconded by A. Frederick, and carried unanimously on a voice vote.
B. Minutes of January 8, 1998
V. Earhart made a motion to approve the Minutes of January 8, 1998, as printed. A. Frederick
seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. A communication having to do with towers was received, to be reviewed
as needed.
2. V. Earhart brought up parking in the North Lansing/Old Town area.
She wants to be able to refer to a plan and apply it (a special district to
meet a special need). Discussion ensued. A. Frederick, liaison to the
Planning Board, said that the Planning Board shares their concerns, and
shared about the Planning Board committee which tabled the action
concerning Ferguson Development.
Vill. ADJOURNMENT at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
?`' C F i V D
"=� Draft to Clerk 01/22/98
�U FF 9 13 PN (: 49 Approved 02/12/98
To Clerk 02/13/98
LANIsiNc c1T► CLERK
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
I. The meeting was called to order by E.Horne, Chair, at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken.
A. Present
C. Bicy M. Clark V. Earhart A. Frederick
J. Garcia G. Hilts E. Horne E. Spink
B. Absences
None
C. A quorum of eight members was present, allowing voting action to take
place.
D. Introduction of Staff
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Agenda approved as printed
III. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. None
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Rules of Procedure Update
1. V. Earhart, E. Horne, and J. Ruff met on December 29, 1997, to
discuss Rules of Procedure.
B. Tabled Case: BZA-3469.97 at 120 N. Washington Sq.
J. Ruff updated the Board on this variance. It remained on the table.
Board of Zoning Appeals, January 8, 1998 Page 2
C. Tabled Case: BZA-3470.97, 3165 E. Michigan Avenue
J. Ruff updated the Board on this variance. It remained on the table.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of November 13, 1997
1. This will be acted on at the February Meeting.
B. Minutes of December 11, 1997
V. Earhart made a motion to approve the Minutes of December 11, 1997, with
corrections. M. Clark seconded the motion, which carried unanimously on a voice
vote.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. BZA Training was discussed. A. Frederick has already been to training.
Other Board members may be interested.
Vill. ADJOURNMENT at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals
DRAFT Draft to Clerk 01/22/98
Approved
To Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL
THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
I. The meeting was called to order by E.Horne, Chair, at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken.
A. Present
C. Bicy M. Clark V. Earhart A. Frederick
J. Garcia G. Hilts E. Horne E. Spink
B. Absences
None
C. A quorum of Six members was present, allowing voting action to take
place.
D. Introduction of Staff
Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
DRAFT
A. Agenda approved as printed
� N �►
III. HEARINGS/ACTION
A. None
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Rules of Procedure Update
1. V. Earhart, E. Horne, and J. Ruff met on December 29, 1997, to
discuss Rules of Procedure.
B. Tabled Case: BZA-3469.97 at 120 N. Washington Sq.
J. Ruff updated the Board on this variance. It remained on the table.
Pa e 2
Board of Zonin A eats Janua 8 1998
C. Tabled Case: 13ZA-3470.97, 3165 E. Michigan Avenue
J. Ruff updated the Board on this variance. It remained on the table.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. None
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of November 13, 1997 ebruary Meeting.
1. This will be acted on at the F
B. Minutes of December 11, 1997
V. s
Earhart made a motion to approve the Minutes of December 11, 1997, t
y on with
corrections. M. Clark seconded the motion, which carried unanimou
vote.
VII NEW BUSINESS
1 BZA Training was discussed. A. Frested k has already been to training.
Other Board members may be inter
VIII. ADJOURNMENT at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James A. Ruff, Secrtary
Board of Zoning Appeals