Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 1997 Minutes ,E C E IV E D Draft to Clerk 01/02/98 I F`�J 2 Z �,� 1Z 4 I Approved 01/08/98 =u JAIN � : To Clerk 01/21/98 LANSING CITY CLERK MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1997, 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 M. Clark V. Earhart A. Frederick G. Hilts E. Horne E. Spink B. Absences C. Bicy J. Garcia J. Ruff, Secretary, noted that both had called to request excused absences. It was moved by M. Clark, seconded by E. Spink, to excuse both C. Bicy and J. Garcia. Motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. 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 A. Agenda approved as printed III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3473.97, N. W. Corner of Stabler and Berry This is a request by Jack and Lottie Vermett to build a 24' x 40' single family home 26' from the property line along Stabler Street and 34.75' from the property line along Berry on the vacant property located at the N.W. Corner of Stabler and Berry Streets. Chapter 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Ordinance requires the proposed home to be located according to the established front yard setback which is 30.5' for this section of Stabler and 48.7 for this section of Berry Avenue. This is therefore a request for a variance of 4.5' and 13.95' from the respective streets. Board of Zoning Appeals, December 11, 1997 Page 2 J. Ruff presented the case. Jack Vermett presented information stating the main difficulty is the two homes setback in excess of 100' that causes the difficulty for establishing a home. Orienting the home with the front facing Stabler is natural to the area. He said that they have experience in building, having built two homes in the last year. E. Horne asked about the house plans. Mr. Vermett showed the plans for the ranch style home to the Board. Discussion took place regarding the plans. Discussion ensued. E. Horne said that she had talked with some of the neighbors. There were no other speakers or comments. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink stated that he will support the variance request. There are two front yards and fronting on Stabler will be more apparent to the lot situation. E. Horne passed the gavel to M. Clark and commented that the neighborhood group did not have time to address the issue. Some of the neighbors commented that the envelope would be better. The neighbors comments were all negative. They would rather see total development. E. Horne will be voting against this variance. M. Clark asked Ms. Horne why she thought it would be better for the house to face Berry. She replied that, based upon the character of the 100 and 200 blocks of Berry Street, the character would be maintained. E. Spink asked if the use of the envelope would require a two-story house. E. Horne deferred to J. Ruff, who said that the code requires a house to have a minimum "core area" 24' x 24' in size. Based upon the building envelope, a house could fit. V. Earhart made a motion to approve BZA-3473.97 at the N.W. Corner of Stabler and Berry. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Frederick X Clark X Earhart X Hilts X Horne X Spink X BZA-3473.97, N. W. Corner of Stabler and Berry, approved by a vote of 5 - 1. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules of Procedure Update E. Horne spoke to the Rules of Procedure. The subcommittee will have a meeting on December 30, 1997 at 2:00 p.m. 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, December 11, 1997 Page 3 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 were not ready at this time. VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. 1998 Meetings V. Earhart made a motion to approve the 1998 meeting schedule. M. Clark seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. 2. Comments by the Chairperson a. Chairperson meeting summary: They will need an alternate if the Chair or vice-Chair cannot come. V. Earhart made a motion for M. Clark to be the alternate. The motion was seconded by E. Spink, and approved unanimously on a voice vote. b. Cellular Towers: There is a conference in February, which E. Horn will be attending. C. Billboard Ordinance: J. Ruff summarized the new Billboard Ordinance that will be in front on City Council next Monday. d. Additional Meetings: E. Horne mentioned the possibility of scheduling additional meetings, when necessary, due to the large number of variance requests. e. The Chairperson will be attending the 7-Block meeting. 3. E. Spink requested excused absences for the meetings of January, February, March, and April of 1998. G. Hilts made a motion to excuse E. Spink from the meetings of January through April 1998; the motion was seconded by A. Frederick, and approved unanimously on a voice vote. 4. A. Frederick mentioned an article that appeared in the Michigan Planner on Cellular Towers. The Lansing State Journal also had an article, concerning Cellular Towers in Birmingham Michigan. There was some discussion on towers. Board of Zoning Appeals, December 11, 1997 Page 4 5. A. Frederick stated that the Zoning and Ordinance Committee of the Planning Board had met regarding Ferguson's proposal that the BZA dealt with last month. It will be heard at the Planning Board meeting of January 6, 1998. He invited the BZA Board members to come to the meeting. Vill. ADJOURNMENT at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals r;r CE:!VED Draft to Clerk 12/19/97 r ti ': 9 Approved 02/12/98 3 PM To Clerk 02/13/98 LAI S O CI T Y CLERK MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1997, 7:30 p.m. I. The meeting was called to order by E. Horne, Chair, at 7:35 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present M. Clark V. Earhart A. Frederick J. Garcia G. Hilts E. Horne B. Absences C. Bicy E. Spink It was moved by G. Hilts and seconded by V. Earhart to excuse Mr. Spink. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. It was moved by G. Hilts and seconded by V. Earhart to excuse Mr. Bicy. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. C. A quorum of Six members was present, allowing voting action to take place. D. Introduction of Staff Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Jim Sturdevant, Senior Planner Steve Hayward, Senior Planner II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Agenda approved as printed III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3463.97, 637 E. Michigan Avenue A request by Clara's Inc. 637 E. Michigan Avenue, to retain a 53 square foot ground pole sign erected 15 feet 10 inches high and set back 3 feet and 0 feet from the property lines on this corner lot. Section 1442.24(c) of the Lansing Sign Code establishes that a ground/pole sign in the Capitol Center District can be 30 square feet in size, and 10 feet in height with a setback 10 feet from the Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 2 property lines. Therefore, variances of 23 square feet in area, 5 feet 10 inches in height, and 7 feet and 10 feet for minimum setbacks are being requested. Steven Hayward, Senior Planner, presented the case. He stated that staff recommends that the height and setback variances be denied; however, staff does feel that the sign area is appropriate. Ross Simpson, 114 E. Front in Grand Ledge, spoke. He stated that he had been operating since 1978. He also stated that he had talked with someone in Zoning about this sign. They then designed the sign that they wanted, altering it slightly from the sign they brought in. They changed the shape of the sign from what was existing. They took down the existing aluminum sign. The new sign is exactly the same size as the old one, erected on the same poles, except that they sheathed them with P.V.C. and painted it to look like columns. They have done a lot of upgrading. It is very costly to move the sign and would put a great hardship on the business. They think that it is a better sign from what was there. He stated that they were told that they didn't even need an appeal, they could just go ahead and change the faces. He is hopeful that the Board will recognize that this is a better sign than that which preceeded it. No one else spoke. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff explained the policy of the change of sign faces. Mary Clark complemented the applicant on the new signage, and the improvements that they have made, and yet stated that she is in support of the staff recommendation when the ordinance hasn't been met. She approves of the sign, but wants it relocated. M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3463.97 at 637 E. Michigan, as requested for location and height, but to approve the request for one ground pole sign of 10 feet in height, totaling 53 square feet in area, located 10 feet from the property line along E. Michigan Avenue and Pere Marquette. The motion was seconded by J. Garcia. VOTE: yea nay abs yea nay abs Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Clark X BZA-3463.97, 637 E. Michigan, approved for sign area but denied for location and height, by a vote of 5 - 0, with 1 abstention. B. BZA-3464.97, 6741 S. Cedar Street This is a request by Michael Kramer of Central Advertising Company to replace the existing 62 foot tall 348 square foot Howard Johnson sign with a 232 square foot Ramada Inn sign on the existing poles 25 feet from the front property line. The applicant also proposes a second 23.15 square foot ground pole sign 12 feet from the front property line. Sections 1442.12(b) and (h)(5) of the Sign Code allow one ground pole sign which is required to meet the area and setback requirements of Chart 11 of the Sign Code. This is therefore a request Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 3 for variances to allow two ground pole signs and for the main ground pole sign to exceed the maximum square footage allowed, which is 170 square feet (62 square foot variance), and the maximum height allowed, which is 25 feet for the location of this sign (37 foot variance). J. Ruff presented the case. Michael Kramer of Central Advertising spoke. He stated that the second sign is necessary since the building sits way back. With the second sign being placed by Roth Drive, it would be safer and cleaner. He thinks this new proposal would be better. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark asked J. Ruff about the recommendation. He replied that the reasons are 1. to clean up sign clutter, 2. because it will be closer to code, and 3. will achieve the goals of the applicant. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3464.97 at 6741 S. Cedar Street for a 62' tall sign and for the 23' sign to be incorporated into it, so there is one sign total. The motion was seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Clark X BZA-3464.97, 6741 S. Cedar Street, approved as modified by a vote of 6 - 0. C. BZA-3465.97, 1520-22 E. Michigan Avenue This is a request by Papa John's Pizza for a variance from the required number of off-street parking spaces for a carry out and delivery pizza restaurant. Section 1248.13 of the Zoning Code requires approximately 17 off-street parking spaces. The applicant is proposing six off-street parking spaces; a variance of 11 spaces is therefore being requested. J. Sturdevant summarized the case. Jim Stamm, 2344 Barnesberry in East Lansing, spoke. He stated that they had leased this building for the past 12 years, and purchased it just last year. It is an old building, in some disrepair. They desire to renovate the building. They wish to install a parking lot and a patio area. They are opening up the corner. They don't want the view of the rear parking lot blocked, as there has been some vandalism to employee and customer cars. V. Earhart asked if they have plans for landscaping. Mr. Stamm stated that they don't yet have a solid plan, but they have cleaned up the area and added a couple of planters. They will add reasonable landscaping, but don't want to Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 4 close in the property too much. Ms. Earhart then asked if they had had a chance to talk to the people to the south. They had, as witnesses to a court case. There were other neighbors who came in and asked about the variance. They seemed to be in favor of our remaining in the building. No one else spoke. The neighborhood organization for the area had requested information, which they were given; however, no communications were received. Neighborhood groups had been notified. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she was at the ENO meeting, and the issue was discussed. There was, however, no decision made by the ENO. She has no problem with granting this variance. She does, however, have concerns about landscape screening and buffering, and in particular the lighting and how it will affect the surrounding properties. She would like Mr. Ruff to work with the appellants to come up with something appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Ruff stated that landscaping improvements can be positive, and help the business fit into the neighborhood. V. Earhart made a motion to approve BZA-3465.97 at 1520-22 E. Michigan Avenue with conditions of the addition of landscaping screening and buffering, and properly directed outdoor lighting to be approved by the Planning Office. The motion was seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Clark X BZA-3465.97, 1520-22 E. Michigan Avenue, approved by a vote of 6 - 0, with conditions. Chairperson Horne announced that Council member Leeman is present at the meeting. D. BZA-3466.97, 420 S. Grand Avenue This is a request by Mid Michigan Stamps and Signs, Inc. To retain four existing wall signs at the CATA Ground Transportation Center, 420 S. Grand Avenue. There are a total of four wall signs totaling 52 square feet. The front of the building along Grand Avenue has 2 wall signs, and one wall sign each faces Kalamazoo and Lenawee. Since this property is in the Capitol Center District, Section 1442.24(b) & (B)(3) of the Sign Code allows a maximum of 2 wall signs and a total of 40 square feet. Therefore, the requested variances are for two additional signs and 12 square feet of additional signage. J. Ruff presented the case. Martha Andrews of Mid-Michigan Stamps and Signs spoke. She said that these signs are necessary directional signs, as busses will be coming in from Grand Avenue, Kalamazoo Street, and Lenawee Street. They are requesting approval of this sign variance, as their request is discreet, attractive, and necessary. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 5 There was some confusion about the permit. The letters are guaranteed for the life of the building. No one else spoke. The Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole. Chairperson Horne read a communication into the record from Stephanie Whitbeck, Downtown Neighborhood Associations Land Use Chair, who commented that "the DNA questions the staff report recommending approval for four signs, even though the magnitude of the request variance is not great. One would think that three signs would be sufficient, one for each street." M. Clark said that she will support this variance request, due to the size of the property, and as the signs are not intrusive, and are in keeping with the intent of the code. There were no other comments from the Board. V. Earhart made a motion to approve BZA-3466.97 at 420 S. Grand Avenue, as requested. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Clark X BZA-3466.97, 420 S. Grand Avenue, approved by a vote of 6 - 0. E. BZA-3467.97, 1223 Turner Street This is a request by Dave Ferguson to build a stair tower entry and parking structure on the north side of the building located at 1223 Turner Street, which is located within the 100 year flood plain of the Grand River. Section 1288.10 of the Zoning Code requires a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for new construction within the 100 year flood plain that has a floor elevation below the base flood elevation. J. Sturdevant presented the case. J. Ruff added information concerning the associated Special Land Use and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality permits. Barry Wood of Keystone Design, representing Ferguson Development, spoke. He presented overhead graphics showing the total development. They feel that it will have a minimal impact to the flood plain. E. Horne asked about the parking ramp, and how it will be, viewed from the street. Mr. Wood said that it won't be any more imposing than a surface lot, and will taper towards the river. M. Clark asked about the view from the riverwalk. Mr Wood replied that it will be brick and concrete, matching the old Estes Warehouse. No one else spoke. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 6 The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. No discussion took place. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3467.97 at 1223 Turner Street, for construction at or below the flood plain, that the building be used for an access stairway and elevator use, that the applicant receive all necessary permits and approvals from MDEQ, or other federal, state, or local agencies or jurisdictions. The motion was seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Clark X BZA-3467.97, 1223 Turner Street, approved by a vote of 6 - 0. The Board took a five minute recess. F. BZA-3468.97, 1525 Knollwood Avenue This is a request by Bill and Hasna Gempel to restore their fire-damaged property at 1525 Knollwood Avenue. The property is located in the 100 year flood plain which is subject to the Class B Nonconforming regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The repairs constitute a "substantial improvement" and, according to Section 1288.05 of the Zoning Ordinance, the structure must be elevated at or above the 100 year flood plain level, which is approximately 825 ft., or a variance must be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The applicant desires to make the improvement while retaining the existing elevation of the home. The basement and the first floor of the structure are below this elevation. A variance is therefore requested to allow substantial improvement below the 100 year flood plain elevation. J. Ruff presented the case. A. Frederick asked about elevating the structure. Bill Gempel, applicant, spoke. He said that this house is adjacent to their home and they want to fix it up. Hasna Gempel, applicant, spoke. She thanked the Board for hearing their appeal, and said that they would like to fix up the house, that vacant land will not be of any help to them. No one else spoke The Board went into Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart is concerned about floods. They are well presented for shut offs and protections. There is a liability, an increase in flood insurance and may get flooded. Notices are important. A. Frederick asked if there is any board type of policy for this. J. Ruff responded, stating that he didn't believe there was. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 7 M. Clark stated that she is concerned with this request, as the area is congested. She is not supporting it. A. Frederick is also uncomfortable with the request. He feels that the ordinance makes enough accommodations, without variances. Mr. Gempel requested additional time, granted by concensus. He stated that he didn't intend to carry flood insurance, as he intends to assume responsibility. G. Hilts made a motion to approve BZA-3468.97 at 1525 Knollwood, as it is not like building a new home, and will not adversely affect neighbors. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Clark X BZA-3468.97, 1525 Knollwood, was not approved, by a vote of 4 - 2. (Five votes are required to approve the variance). G. - BZA-3469.97, 120 N. Washington Square This is a request by Sign Art to install two 117 square foot illuminated wall signs at a height of 120' on the One Michigan Avenue Building located at 120 N. Washington Square. Since this property is located in the Capitol Center District, and there is an existing ground pole sign, wall signs are regulated according to Section 1442.24(b)(2) of the Sign Code, which limits the total area of one wall sign to 40 square feet. Therefore, the requested variances are for one additional sign and 194 square feet in area. J. Ruff presented the case. Greg Taylor of First of America addressed the Board. He thanked them for the opportunity to speak, and said that staff is accurate in their location. He said that First of America has been in Lansing for over 100 years. The ATM may be incorporated into the existing entrance. He feels that they understand the intent of the ordinance. There are 10 stories with 150,000 square feet. The sign is the building signature. At 120 feet, 40 square feet of signage is not adequate and the sign would not identify them with comparison to location. They would be flexible. The size is based upon height and visibility. The Board Chair read 3 communications that were received by the Planning Office into the record. They were: 1. S. Whitbeck, Downtown Neighborhood Association, agrees with the staff report, due to the view of the Capitol and the precedent that could be set. She is opposed. 2. P. Gentilozzi, downtown business person, is opposed due to the general aesthetics of the signs. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 8 3. J. McClaugh, Comerica Bank, sent a letter in opposition to the variance request. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart is not impressed with the appeal. M. Clark is unwilling to approve, but is willing to table the request to allow the applicant time to work with staff to come up with a request that is more in keeping with the intent of the code, giving options for the other tenants. M. Clark made a motion to table BZA-3469.97 at 120 N. Washington Square, to allow additional information and a more acceptable alternative to be formulated. The motion was seconded by V. Earhart. The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. BZA-3469.97, 120 N. Washington Square, tabled until next month. H. BZA-3470.97, 3165 E. Michigan Avenue This is a request by Adams Outdoor Advertising, representing Story Oldsmobile, located at 3165 E. Michigan Avenue, to erect two wall signs measuring 12 and 43 square feet. Section 1442.13(b) of the City of Lansing Sign Code establishes that two wall signs are permitted per building in the "F" Commercial District while Section 1442.13(I) allows for a maximum of 200 square feet on this building based upon existing signs which the applicant intends to retain; therefore, variances of two wall signs and 240 square feet in sign area are requested, respectively. S. Hayward presented the case, summarizing the recommendation of Staff. Jamie Higgins, Adams Outdoor Advertising, representing Story Oldsmobile, said that last month the Suzuki line of automobiles was added to the selection of new vehicles. We have a 43 square foot proposed wall sign, and a second sign for Suzuki service of 12 square feet that is not intended to be seen from Michigan Avenue, but merely as an interior directional sign. There are two buildings on the property. The main used car showroom has Story and Oldsmobile signs; they are on the second level. He said that he had already informed both Suzuki and Story Olds that an additional free standing sign would be out of the question. The only alternative is to mount something to the building. One thing that caused a problem in acquiring the permit is that the other building on the property encompasses the service department, the parts department, and the used cars, and it is one extremely large building, which faces on two streets, both Michigan Avenue and Frandor Avenue (also known as Mall Court). Two of the three signs that are on this large building face Frandor Avenue, which the City does not recognize as a public street, so it's a toss up as to whether this is a corner lot or not a corner lot, if the street exists or does not exist, or whether those two signs that face that private street should be considered as being viewed by the general public. They do have the one Oldsmobile service sign on this building facing Michigan Avenue, and they would like to remove this sign and install the Suzuki logo and name on this Michigan Avenue side of the building. We feel that the signs are definitely needed for identification there, and we think we have found an appropriate solution for a placement, without adding any free standing signs. We would like your approval. Board of Zoninq Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 9 No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark said that she is unwilling to support the appeal as requested. She said that the Board has heard a similar appeal in the last year, and the company went back to clean up the site, resulting in a reduction to the overall signage. She would like to see something like that done here. She said that there is a lot of clutter on this site, and maybe by working with staff, they may be able to come up with something that comes closer to the intent of the code, but still meets Story Olds needs. Mr. Ruff added that they also did something similar with Bud Kouts a few years ago. M. Clark made a motion to table BZA-3470.97 at 3165 E. Michigan Avenue, to allow staff and the appellant to work on an overall sign plan for the area. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. The motion was carried unanimously on a voice vote. BZA-3470.97, 3165 E. Michigan Avenue, tabled until further information is received. I. BZA-3471.97, 912 W. St. Joseph Street This is a request by Don Hough, 1926 Peggy Place, to erect a 70' x 102'4" addition onto the west end of the existing building at 912 W. St. Joseph Street. In so doing, the applicant is removing two buildings (916 and 918 W. St. Joseph) and erecting the addition in line with the front of the existing building. Section 1268.06(a) requires a front yard setback of 20'. Since the proposed addition would be 12.31' from the front property line, the requested variance is 7.69'. J. Ruff presented the case. Don Hough, 1926 Peggy Place, spoke. He stated that they had been in this location for 20 years, and they have 27 employees. They wish to double the sales volume, and unfortunately, if the variance does not go through, they will be forced to relocate, as the growth will happen, and they need the extra space. They want to stay at their present location, they like it there. They hope that the Board will approve the variance. Larry Gardner, 1984 Lagoon, Okemos, Director of Sales, spoke next. He said that he was hired three years ago. In this time, they have almost doubled their volume. They have a creative and capable staff, but growth has created a problem. During the day, part of their receivables sit in the parking lot, because they have no other place to put it. They have pushed the current building to its limits. The new building will be a showpiece. BRD Printing wants to be at this location. They want to make this their area of the future. They request the variance of the building. The Board Chair read two communications into the record: 1. A letter of support from 19 of the employees of BRD Printing 2. A letter from The Downtown Neighborhood Association, which concurs with the staff report and requests approval of the variance. No one else spoke. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 10 The Board went into Committee of the Whole. E. Horne passed the gavel, and said that, being on the original 7 block planning committee, they originally realized some variances would be necessary. She supports the petition. J. Garcia made a motion to approve BZA-3471.97 at 912 W. St. Joseph, as requested, with the condition that additional landscaping be added. The motion was seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X S ink X BZA-3471.97, 912 W. St. Joseph Street, approved with conditions by a vote of 6 - 0. M. Clark mentioned that the landscaping should be added within 90 days. V. Earhart said that she and her husband drove by the other day, and compared what had been there with what is there, and then looked at the plans for what will be there. She feels this is a positive step. J. BZA-3472.97, 1247 Center Street This is a request by Thomas J. Donall for a variance from the location and number of off-street parking spaces required for a proposed bar/night club establishment to be located at 1247 Center Street. Section 1284.13 requires a minimum of 86 off- street parking spaces for the proposed business establishment. The applicant is proposing to provide 28 parking spaces on-site and 36 spaces off-site, for a total of 64 spaces (74 percent of the required 86 spaces). A variance from 26 percent of the required number of parking spaces is requested, as is a variance under Section 1284.06 to permit joint use of the same off-street parking facility when peak operating hours do not overlap. J. Sturdevant presented the case. He said that there are 86 spaces, 28 on-site and 36 leased for joint use. What they are requesting is a 22 space variance, which is 75% of the required parking. There is a proposed outdoor patio, and 12 of the spaces are for outdoor patio parking. E. Horne asked if the new master plan for the area had been completed. Mr. Sturdevant replied that it had not yet been finished, but that this area is designated commercial, with revitalized residential to the north and east. Thomas J. Donall, applicant, 812 Durant Street, spoke. He brought in a copy of the leases to go into the file on this case. He said that he also owns two buildings in Lansing, Innovations and another building that he has been renovating for the last two years. He owns the bank building on the corner of Turner and East Grand River, and the building across from it at 311 East Grand River. He has a great commitment to the area, and spends a lot of money in the area. He presented a graphic of the building, adding that he has extra space that he can lease out. He showed where the leased space for valet parking is located. M. Clark asked what impact there would be on festivals in the area if he has that Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 11 parking lot leased. Mr. Donall replied that there is development going on to increase the amount of parking available. M. Clark said that, during festivals, Turner Street is closed off. What impact will that have? E. Horne asked what will be put on the patio. Will there be loud music? Mr. Donall replied that the patio will be in the back of the building, and it will be fenced, with tables and landscaping, and no music. E. Horne asked about a letter from Dennis Sykes, Director of Planning and Development, City of Lansing. Mr. Sturdevant stated that there is a letter from the Transportation Division of the City in the file, addressing the amount of parking in the area. Thelma Osteen, 416 Beaver Street, president of the North Lansing Community Association, spoke in opposition to the variance. She stated that this request is right in the middle of the residential neighborhood. She has lived on Beaver Street in three different houses, so she has been there for a very long time. Many of the residents in the area are in similar situations. She talked about the three houses that are within 20 to 35 feet of 1247 Center Street, and about some of the residents who are elderly, or handicapped. She said that she has heard a lot about the parking, but wonders about the traffic that will be overflowing the streets. She would like the Board to take all this into consideration before they make their decision. Beverly Miller, 413 Pearl Street, spoke. She said that she can see this business from her window. She said that the people Mr. Donall talked to are more concerned with themselves than the neighborhood. She said that all but one house on Pearl is residential, as well as on Center Street. She feels that they will be fighting for parking with the Esquire Club, and the Unicorn Bar. This will leave only the street parking, which is all that most of the residents have, as driveways are short in this area. She doesn't want to fight with these customers so that she can have visitors. She said that the bar patrons won't walk as far as the established parking lots. There will be noise, and parking problems, and heavy traffic. She is opposed to this variance. Ruth Weitzel, 1407 Center Street, spoke. She said that except for an apple tree and a catalpa tree, she can see the establishment from her bedroom window. She has been at this address for 17 years this January. This area has struggled, but they have been fixing up the residences. She has converted her house from a four unit to a single family residential. Looking at Lansing, you can see many residential enclaves. This establishment is not compatible with the neighborhood. Not everyone likes valet parking. They will stop and park wherever they find a spot. This variance is not in the best interests of either the neighborhood or of Lansing. Harold King, 1563 N. High Street, said that there is definitely not enough of the required parking available. He asked what would happen with public parking. There is some at Goldenrod, when there is a festival, they block of the street and say no parking. This is a residential area. South of it is the Indian Center, and nearby is the Boys and Girls Club. It is not a good idea to have valet parking. Sally Potter, 907 Britten, said that this is a typical discussion when business abuts the residential. She leases the building that Mr. Donall owns across from the Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 12 bank. He has done a nice job. She would appreciate the evening activity for her business. She said that there are parking spots open on Grand River Avenue. She feels that this is important, and that the applicant can operate a good business. She supports the variance. Ed Conyer, 481 Regent Street, addressed the Board. He stated that growth is great in North Lansing. There is going to be a parking problem, and there is no way around it. All three of the houses across the street from 1247 Center have signed letters of support. The other three surrounding sides are all commercial. At night there is not much else going on in North Lansing. He said that this is similar to the Blue Coyote. He supports the variance. Todd Mack, 1801 Drexel, spoke. He is the owner of the Framing Gallery. He sees some of the issues as be the parking, the patio, and prostitution. This is a high quality establishment. He asked about the patio, which he is in support of. He said that the patio typically gets away from the noise. As far as the festival parking being affected, these are only on three weekends out of the year. No one else spoke. A large number of letter were read into the record. 1. An inquiry letter from Jessica Roosa sent on November 4. She talked with Mr. Sturdevant, and seemed to have no opinion. 2. Eleven identical letters of support from businesses in the Old Town area: -Julie Ann Brisbois, Foibles, at 309 E. Grand River -Dan O'leary, Silver Lead, 1115 Center St. -Rodney Sumpter, Old Town Studio, 1212 Turner -Gregory Husby, Joliage Design System, 303 E. Grand River -Linda Hough Redding, Whims &Wonders, 309 E. Grand River -Sally Potter, Brick House, 311 E. Grand River -(illegible signature), Tom's Furniture, 319 E. Grand River -Paul Emery, The Oakgrove Computer Group, 304 E. Grand River -Sandy Hearz (?), Comerica Bank, 329 E. Grand River -Gregory Patrick, Pleats Interior Design, 305 E. Grand River -Cheryl Van De Kerkhove, Real World Emporium, 1214-16 Turner 3. Twelve identical letters of support from residents in the area: -Robert Granger, 116 W. Maple Street -(illegible signature), 1315 Center Street -(illegible signature), 311 E. Grand River -(illegible signature), 208 W. Grand River -Altha LaPoint, no address -(illegible signature), 202 E. Grand River -Michael Beeke, 216 E. North Street -Sandy Keith, 216 E. North Street -Georgia Turner, 424 Pearl Street -Lucy J. Leslie, no address -(illegible signature), 116 W. Maple Street -Tammy Breslin, 428 Beaver Street 4. A letter from Mary and John Patenge, 126 W. North, in support Bo_and of Zoninq Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 13 5. A memo from Bonnie Sumbler, President of the Old Town Commercial Association, in support 6. A memo from Thomas C. Galyon, President of the Greater Lansing Convention and Visitors Bureau, in support 7. A letter from Terry Grant, Goldenrod Music Inc. at 1310 Turner Street, in support 8. A phone message from Mrs. Lagios, 411 Beaver, saying how nice the building looks, but that they don't need more bars 9. A phone message from Don Burley, 425 Beaver, in opposition 10. A letter from Julian & Carmen Loredo, 1400 Center Street, in opposition 11. A letter from Robert DeVries, a resident of the area, in opposition 12. A letter from Thelma Osteen, President of the North Lansing Community Association, in opposition The Board went into Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that we should look at the used sports store owner. Friction will always exist on these fringe area developments, and the Board has to look at what the Code provides for and determine to do what is right. M. Clark stated that personalities are not pertinent. Good guy vs. bad guy is not a relevant argument. There is lots of exciting development within 6 blocks of the Blue Coyote. The valet parking has worked at the -- Blue Coyote, but this is a different situation. There are three bars within her neighborhood. They operate in varying degrees of harmony based upon management and clientele which are not best mixed. She has concerns, and feels that a different type of use would be more compatible. She will not be supporting this variance. E. Horne said that she knows what this type of development can do to a neighborhood. She prefers a less intense use at this location. Valet parking should be on site primarily. The goal in the city is to support neighborhoods. She also will not support this variance. G. Hilts said that in his opinion, the city parking record is abysmal. The 2000 block, of East Michigan Avenue is an example of parking done right. He can not support this variance, he foresees many problems. A. Frederick said that this is currently zoned commercial and it will remain this way. He feels that this is an inappropriate plan, and he voted against it. However, this building, and this parking plan could work. He agrees that parking in the city is abysmal, as Mr. Hilts said. He feels that this is the best accommodation, and he will support this variance. G. Hilts said that the Board needs to lean on the city hard to fix the parking problem. A. Frederick agreed, adding that this can be a good example. A. Frederick made a motion to approve BZA-3472.97 at 1247 Center Street, with conditions 1) that valet parking service be provided, used, and maintained for parking at all times, and 2) that parking leases be kept current. The motion was seconded by M. Clark VOTE: yea nay yea nay Frederick X Clark X Garcia X Hilts X Horne I X Earhart X BZA-3472.97, 1247 Center Street, denied for lack of favorable votes, 3 - 3. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Case: BZA-3459.97, 2626 Forest Road Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 14 A request by Scott A. Leavitt, son of the property owner at 2626 Forest Road, to construct two outside storage structures, each measuring 1,200 square feet. Section 1248.03 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code establishes that accessory structures are limited to a combined maximum size of 1,000 square feet. There is an existing garage measuring 544 square feet on the property which the applicant intends to retain; therefore a variance of 1,944 square feet is being requested M. Clark made a motion to remove BZA-3459.97 from the table. The motion was seconded by A. Frederick, and carried unanimously by a voice vote. Scott Leavitt, applicant, spoke. He addressed the concerns of the Board from the last two meetings. They are now requesting a 1440 square foot building, and will remove the second floor of the barn. That puts them at a total request of 2360 square feet, which is 100 feet less than their original proposal. They are offering to add a deed restriction to prohibit commercial use at this property. The other concern was that the building would be constructed to allow a commercial venture. He said that the building does not have a driveway to it, and that the entrance door will be on the side, where it is less convenient for use as a commercial venture. This is all that they could come up with as new information. Steve Hayward, Senior Planner, said that he has had some discussion with Mr. Leavitt on their new plan, and explained further about the deed restriction. V. Earhart asked about the original request, and whether this is enough of a change to please the Board. Jim Ruff explained the original request and how it is different from the current request. He also stated that he is concerned about setting precedent, but allowed that this is a very large piece of land, which is deserving of a larger accessory building than that which is allowed by code. But he has an extreme concern about the size of this request, how the Board could defend the code in future cases, and what rationale the Board will use for its defense. V. Earhart made a motion to approve the variance for BZA-3459.97 at 2626 Forest Road, for a 1440 square foot structure, with a side door, no approach, and the deed restriction as described; also, that the two smaller accessory structures be removed. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. V. Earhart stated that she has a hobby which requires a lot of room, and feels that, given the circumstances, she would support this variance, with the conditions as stated. A. Frederick said that, from what he can see, the plan doesn't change the way the property looks, he doesn't see any major renovation, and he doesn't see that it is going to change the character of the neighborhood, and he is a resident of this neighborhood. He likes the idea that the land will stay contiguous. M. Clark said that she will not be supporting this variance, because she thinks it will set precedent for other large properties in Lansing. We have anode with limitations that were deemed large enough, and promptly after that code was passed, we got a large group of people coming in for variances to it. No matter what you set the limitations at, someone will need more space. We have to draw the line. We have stated repeatedly that this is a very large property, certainly deserving of some variance, but this is a huge variance. We have had other similar requests in the past, but she doesn't recall ever having a request this large. She also doesn't recall ever having granted any of them. She doesn't see this property as being that unique. Pa a 15 Board of Zonin A eals November 13 1997 yea nay VOTE: yea nay X X Clark Frederick X X Hilts Garcia X Horne X Earhart BZA-3459.97, 2626 Forest Road, denied for lack of favorable votes, 3 - 3. B. Rules of Procedure Update d be set in At the last meeting, it was decided said that he wouldlcall them during he next week subcommittee to meet. J. Ruvember for the ff to set up a time. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of October 9, 1997 V. Earhart made a motion to approve the minutes of October 9, 1997 as printed. G. Hilts seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Mr. Ruff said that they have worked out the parking system in the lower level of City Hall, so beginning with the tnext melmbers ng, thewho need themoard is me to park there again, and cards will be issued to new Vill. ADJOURNMENT at 11:50 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals R7CEIVED Draft to Clerk 12/19/97 L''_ r F`;` $ Approved To Clerk L;�+cJsv CITY CLERK MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1997, 7:30 p.m. I. The meeting was called to order by E. Horne, Chair, at 7:35 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present M. Clark V. Earhart A. Frederick J. Garcia G. Hilts E. Horne B. Absences C. Bicy E. Spink It was moved by G. Hilts and seconded by V. Earhart to excuse Mr. Spink. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. It was moved by G. Hilts and seconded by V. Earhart to excuse Mr. Bicy. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. C. A quorum of Six members was present, allowing voting action to take place. D. Introduction of Staff Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Jim Sturdevant, Senior Planner Steve Hayward, Senior Planner II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Agenda approved as printed III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3463.97, 637 E. Michigan Avenue A request by Clara's Inc. 637 E. Michigan Avenue, to retain a 53 square foot ground pole sign erected 15 feet 10 inches high and set back 3 feet and 0 feet from the property lines on this corner lot. Section 1442.24(c) of the Lansing Sign Code establishes that a ground/pole sign in the Capitol Center District can be 30 square feet in size, and 10 feet in height with a setback 10 feet from the Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 2 property lines. Therefore, variances of 23 square feet in area, 5 feet 10 inches in height, and 7 feet and 10 feet for minimum setbacks are being requested. Steven Hayward, Senior Planner, presented the case. He stated that staff recommends that the height and setback variances be denied; however, staff does feel that the sign area is appropriate. Ross Simpson, 114 E. Front in Grand Ledge, spoke. He stated that he had been operating since 1978. He also stated that he had talked with someone in Zoning about this sign. They then designed the sign that they wanted, altering it slightly from the sign they brought in. They changed the shape of the sign from what was existing. They took down the existing aluminum sign. The new sign is exactly the same size as the old one, erected on the same poles, except that they sheathed them with P.V.C. and painted it to look like columns. They have done a lot of upgrading. It is very costly to move the sign and would put a great hardship on the business. They think that it is a better sign from what was there. He stated that they were told that they didn't even need an appeal, they could just go ahead and change the faces. He is hopeful that the Board will recognize that this is a better sign than that which preceeded it. No one else spoke. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff explained the policy of the change of sign faces. Mary Clark complemented the applicant on the new signage, and the improvements that they have made, and yet stated that she is in support of the staff recommendation when the ordinance hasn't been met. She approves of the sign, but wants it relocated. M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3463.97 at 637 E. Michigan, as requested for location and height, but to approve the request for one ground pole sign of 10 feet in height, totaling 53 square feet in area, located 10 feet from the property line along E. Michigan Avenue and Pere Marquette. The motion was seconded by J. Garcia. VOTE: yea nay abs yea nay abs Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Clark X BZA-3463.97, 637 E. Michigan, approved for sign area but denied for location and height, by a vote of 5 - 0, with 1 abstention. B. BZA-3464.97, 6741 S. Cedar Street This is a request by Michael Kramer of Central Advertising Company to replace the existing 62 foot tall 348 square foot Howard Johnson sign with a 232 square foot Ramada Inn sign on the existing poles 25 feet from the front property line. The applicant also proposes a second 23.15 square foot ground pole sign 12 feet from the front property line. Sections 1442.12(b) and (h)(5) of the Sign Code allow one ground pole sign which is required to meet the area and setback requirements of Chart 11 of the Sign Code. This is therefore a request Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 3 for variances to allow two ground pole signs and for the main ground pole sign to exceed the maximum square footage allowed, which is 170 square feet (62 square foot variance), and the maximum height allowed, which is 25 feet for the location of this sign (37 foot variance). J. Ruff presented the case. Michael Kramer of Central Advertising spoke. He stated that the second sign is necessary since the building sits way back. With the second sign being placed by Roth Drive, it would be safer and cleaner. He thinks this new proposal would be better. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark asked J. Ruff about the recommendation. He replied that the reasons are 1. to clean up sign clutter, 2. because it will be closer to code, and 3. will achieve the goals of the applicant. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3464.97 at 6741 S. Cedar Street for a 62' tall sign and for the 23' sign to be incorporated into it, so there is one sign total. The motion was seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Clark X BZA-3464.97, 6741 S. Cedar Street, approved as modified by a vote of 6 - 0. C. BZA-3465.97, 1520-22 E. Michigan Avenue This is a request by Papa John's Pizza for a variance from the required number of off-street parking spaces for a carry out and delivery pizza restaurant. Section 1248.13 of the Zoning Code requires approximately 17 off-street parking spaces. The applicant is proposing six off-street parking spaces; a variance of 11 spaces is therefore being requested. J. Sturdevant summarized the case. Jim Stamm, 2344 Barnesberry in East Lansing, spoke. He stated that they had leased this building for the past 12 years, and purchased it just last year. It is an old building, in some disrepair. They desire to renovate the building. They wish to install a parking lot and a patio area. They are opening up the corner. They don't want the view of the rear parking lot blocked, as there has been some vandalism to employee and customer cars. V. Earhart asked if they have plans for landscaping. Mr. Stamm stated that they don't yet have a solid plan, but they have cleaned up the area and added a couple of planters. They will add reasonable landscaping, but don't want to Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 4 close in the property too much. Ms. Earhart then asked if they had had a chance to talk to the people to the south. They had, as witnesses to a court case. There were other neighbors who came in and asked about the variance. They seemed to be in favor of our remaining in the building. No one else spoke. The neighborhood organization for the area had requested information, which they were given; however, no communications were received. Neighborhood groups had been notified. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she was at the ENO meeting, and the issue was discussed. There was, however, no decision made by the ENO. She has no problem with granting this variance. She does, however, have concerns about landscape screening and buffering, and in particular the lighting and how it will affect the surrounding properties. She would like Mr. Ruff to work with the appellants to come up with something appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Ruff stated that landscaping improvements can be positive, and help the business fit into the neighborhood. V. Earhart made a motion to approve BZA-3465.97 at 1520-22 E. Michigan Avenue with conditions of the addition of landscaping screening and buffering, and properly directed outdoor lighting to be approved by the Planning Office. The motion was seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Clark X BZA-3465.97, 1520-22 E. Michigan Avenue, approved by a vote of 6 - 0, with conditions. Chairperson Horne announced that Council member Leeman is present at the meeting. D. BZA-3466.97, 420 S. Grand Avenue This is a request by Mid Michigan Stamps and Signs, Inc. To retain four existing wall signs at the CATA Ground Transportation Center, 420 S. Grand Avenue. There are a total of four wall signs totaling 52 square feet. The front of the building along Grand Avenue has 2 wall signs, and one wall sign each faces Kalamazoo and Lenawee. Since this property is in the Capitol Center District, Section 1442.24(b) & (B)(3) of the Sign Code allows a maximum of 2 wall signs and a total of 40 square feet. Therefore, the requested variances are for two additional signs and 12 square feet of additional signage. J. Ruff presented the case. Martha Andrews of Mid-Michigan Stamps and Signs spoke. She said that these signs are necessary directional signs, as busses will be coming in from Grand Avenue, Kalamazoo Street, and Lenawee Street. They are requesting approval of this sign variance, as their request is discreet, attractive, and necessary. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 5 There was some confusion about the permit. The letters are guaranteed for the life of the building. No one else spoke. The Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole. Chairperson Horne read a communication into the record from Stephanie Whitbeck, Downtown Neighborhood Associations Land Use Chair, who commented that "the DNA questions the staff report recommending approval for four signs, even though the magnitude of the request variance is not great. One would think that three signs would be sufficient, one for each street." M. Clark said that she will support this variance request, due to the size of the property, and as the signs are not intrusive, and are in keeping with the intent of the code. There were no other comments from the Board. V. Earhart made a motion to approve BZA-3466.97 at 420 S. Grand Avenue, as requested. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Clark X BZA-3466.97, 420 S. Grand Avenue, approved by a vote of 6 -0. E. BZA-3467.97, 1223 Turner Street This is a request by Dave Ferguson to build a stair tower entry and parking structure on the north side of the building located at 1223 Turner Street, which is located within the 100 year flood plain of the Grand River. Section 1288.10 of the Zoning Code requires a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for new construction within the 100 year flood plain that has a floor elevation below the base flood elevation. J. Sturdevant presented the case. J. Ruff added information concerning the associated Special Land Use and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality permits. Barry Wood of Keystone Design, representing Ferguson Development, spoke. He presented overhead graphics showing the total development. They feel that it will have a minimal impact to the flood plain. E. Horne asked about the parking ramp, and how it will be, viewed from the street. Mr. Wood said that it won't be any more imposing than a surface lot, and will taper towards the river. M. Clark asked about the view from the riverwalk. Mr Wood replied that it will be brick and concrete, matching the old Estes Warehouse. No one else spoke. Board of Zoninq Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 6 The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. No discussion took place. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3467.97 at 1223 Turner Street, for construction at or below the flood plain, that the building be used for an access stairway and elevator use, that the applicant receive all necessary permits and approvals from MDEQ, or other federal, state, or local agencies or jurisdictions. The motion was seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Clark X BZA-3467.97, 1223 Turner Street, approved by a vote of 6 - 0. The Board took a five minute recess. F. BZA-3468.97, 1525 Knollwood Avenue This is a request by Bill and Hasna Gempel to restore their fire-damaged property at 1525 Knollwood Avenue. The property is located in the 100 year flood plain which is subject to the Class B Nonconforming regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The repairs constitute a "substantial improvement" and, according to Section 1288.05 of the Zoning Ordinance, the structure must be elevated at or above the 100 year flood plain level, which is approximately 825 ft., or a variance must be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The applicant desires to make the improvement while retaining the existing elevation of the home. The basement and the first floor of the structure are below this elevation. A variance is therefore requested to allow substantial improvement below the 100 year flood plain elevation. J. Ruff presented the case. A. Frederick asked about elevating the structure. Bill Gempel, applicant, spoke. He said that this house is adjacent to their home and they want to fix it up. Hasna Gempel, applicant, spoke. She thanked the Board for hearing their appeal, and said that they would like to fix up the house, that vacant land will not be of any help to them. No one else spoke The Board went into Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart is concerned about floods. They are well presented for shut offs and protections. There is a liability, an increase in flood insurance and may get flooded. Notices are important. A. Frederick asked if there is any board type of policy for this. J. Ruff responded, stating that he didn't believe there was. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 7 M. Clark stated that she is concerned with this request, as the area is congested. She is not supporting it. A. Frederick is also uncomfortable with the request. He feels that the ordinance makes enough accommodations, without variances. Mr. Gempel requested additional time, granted by concensus. He stated that he didn't intend to carry flood insurance, as he intends to assume responsibility. G. Hilts made a motion to approve BZA-3468.97 at 1525 Knollwood, as it is not like building a new home, and will not adversely affect neighbors. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Clark I I X BZA-3468.97, 1525 Knollwood, was not approved, by a vote of 4 - 2. (Five votes are required to approve the variance). G. BZA-3469.97, 120 N. Washington Square This is a request by Sign Art to install two 117 square foot illuminated wall signs at a height of 120' on the One Michigan Avenue Building located at 120 N. Washington Square. Since this property is located in the Capitol Center District, and there is an existing ground pole sign, wall signs are regulated according to Section 1442.24(b)(2) of the Sign Code, which limits the total area of one wall sign to 40 square feet. Therefore, the requested variances are for one additional sign and 194 square feet in area. J. Ruff presented the case. Greg Taylor of First of America addressed the Board. He thanked them for the opportunity to speak, and said that staff is accurate in their location. He said that First of America has been in Lansing for over 100 years. The ATM may be incorporated into the existing entrance. He feels that they understand the intent of the ordinance. There are 10 stories with 150,000 square feet. The sign is the building signature. At 120 feet, 40 square feet of signage is not adequate and the sign would not identify them with comparison to location. They would be flexible. The size is based upon height and visibility. The Board Chair read 3 communications that were received by the Planning Office into the record. They were: 1. S. Whitbeck, Downtown Neighborhood Association, agrees with the staff report, due to the view of the Capitol and the precedent that could be set. She is opposed. 2. P. Gentilozzi, downtown business person, is opposed due to the general aesthetics of the signs. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 8 3. J. McClaugh, Comerica Bank, sent a letter in opposition to the variance request. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart is not impressed with the appeal. M. Clark is unwilling to approve, but is willing to table the request to allow the applicant time to work with staff to come up with a request that is more in keeping with the intent of the code, giving options for the other tenants. M. Clark made a motion to table BZA-3469.97 at 120 N. Washington Square, to allow additional information and a more acceptable alternative to be formulated. The motion was seconded by V. Earhart. The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. BZA-3469.97, 120 N. Washington Square, tabled until next month. H. BZA-3470.97, 3165 E. Michigan Avenue This is a request by Adams Outdoor Advertising, representing Story Oldsmobile, located at 3165 E. Michigan Avenue, to erect two wall signs measuring 12 and 43 square feet. Section 1442.13(b) of the City of Lansing Sign Code establishes that two wall signs are permitted per building in the "F" Commercial District while Section 1442.13(I) allows for a maximum of 200 square feet on this building based upon existing signs which the applicant intends to retain; therefore, variances of two wall signs and 240 square feet in sign area are requested, respectively. S. Hayward presented the case, summarizing the recommendation of Staff. Jamie Higgins, Adams Outdoor Advertising, representing Story Oldsmobile, said that last month the Suzuki line of automobiles was added to the selection of new vehicles. We have a 43 square foot proposed wall sign, and a second sign for Suzuki service of 12 square feet that is not intended to be seen from Michigan Avenue, but merely as an interior directional sign. There are two buildings on the property. The main used car showroom has Story and Oldsmobile signs; they are on the second level. He said that he had already informed both Suzuki and Story Olds that an additional free standing sign would be out of the question. The only alternative is to mount something to the building. One thing that caused a problem in acquiring the permit is that the other building on the property encompasses the service department, the parts department, and the used cars, and it is one extremely large building, which faces on two streets, both Michigan Avenue and Frandor Avenue (also known as Mall Court). Two of the three signs that are on this large building face Frandor Avenue, which the City does not recognize as a public street, so it's a toss up as to whether this is a corner lot or not a corner lot, if the street exists or does not exist, or whether those two signs that face that private street should be considered as being viewed by the general public. They do have the one Oldsmobile service sign on this building facing Michigan Avenue, and they would like to remove this sign and install the Suzuki logo and name on this Michigan Avenue side of the building. We feel that the signs are definitely needed for identification there, and we think we have found an appropriate solution for a placement, without adding any free standing signs. We would like your approval. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 9 No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark said that she is unwilling to support the appeal as requested. She said that the Board has heard a similar appeal in the last year, and the company went back to clean up the site, resulting in a reduction to the overall signage. She would like to see something like that done here. She said that there is a lot of clutter on this site, and maybe by working with staff, they may be able to come up with something that comes closer to the intent of the code, but still meets Story Olds needs. Mr. Ruff added that they also did something similar with Bud Kouts a few years ago. M. Clark made a motion to table BZA-3470.97 at 3165 E. Michigan Avenue, to allow staff and the appellant to work on an overall sign plan for the area. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. The motion was carried unanimously on a voice vote. BZA-3470.97, 3165 E. Michigan Avenue, tabled until further information is received. I. BZA-3471.97, 912 W. St. Joseph Street This is a request by Don Hough, 1926 Peggy Place, to erect a 70' x 102'4" addition onto the west end of the existing building at 912 W. St. Joseph Street. In so doing, the applicant is removing two buildings (916 and 918 W. St. Joseph) and erecting the addition in line with the front of the existing building. Section 1268.06(a) requires a front yard setback of 20'. Since the proposed addition would be 12.31' from the front property line, the requested variance is 7.69'. J. Ruff presented the case. Don Hough, 1926 Peggy Place, spoke. He stated that they had been in this location for 20 years, and they have 27 employees. They wish to double the sales volume, and unfortunately, if the variance does not go through, they will be forced to relocate, as the growth will happen, and they need the extra space. They want to stay at their present location, they like it there. They hope that the Board will approve the variance. Larry Gardner, 1984 Lagoon, Okemos, Director of Sales, spoke next. He said that he was hired three years ago. In this time, they have almost doubled their volume. They have a creative and capable staff, but growth has created a problem. During the day, part of their receivables sit in the parking lot, because they have no other place to put it. They have pushed the current building to its limits. The new building will be a showpiece. BRD Printing wants to be at this location. They want to make this their area of the future. They request the variance of the building. The Board Chair read two communications into the record: 1. A letter of support from 19 of the employees of BRD Printing 2. A letter from The Downtown Neighborhood Association, which concurs with the staff report and requests approval of the variance. No one else spoke. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 10 The Board went into Committee of the Whole. E. Horne passed the gavel, and said that, being on the original 7 block planning committee, they originally realized some variances would be necessary. She supports the petition. J. Garcia made a motion to approve BZA-3471.97 at 912 W. St. Joseph, as requested, with the condition that additional landscaping be added. The motion was seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X S ink X BZA-3471.97, 912 W. St. Joseph Street, approved with conditions by a vote of 6 - 0. M. Clark mentioned that the landscaping should be added within 90 days. V. Earhart said that she and her husband drove by the other day, and compared what had been there with what is there, and then looked at the plans for what will be there. She feels this is a positive step. J. BZA-3472.97, 1247 Center Street This is a request by Thomas J. Donall for a variance from the location and number of off-street parking spaces required for a proposed bar/night club establishment to be located at 1247 Center Street. Section 1284.13 requires a minimum of 86 off- street parking spaces for the proposed business establishment. The applicant is proposing to provide 28 parking spaces on-site and 36 spaces off-site, for a total of 64 spaces (74 percent of the required 86 spaces). A variance from 26 percent of the required number of parking spaces is requested, as is a variance under Section 1284.06 to permit joint use of the same off-street parking facility when peak operating hours do not overlap. J. Sturdevant presented the case. He said that there are 86 spaces, 28 on-site and 36 leased for joint use. What they are requesting is a 22 space variance, which is 75% of the required parking. There is a proposed outdoor patio, and 12 of the spaces are for outdoor patio parking. E. Horne asked if the new master plan for the area had been completed. Mr. Sturdevant replied that it had not yet been finished, but that this area is designated commercial, with revitalized residential to the north and east. Thomas J. Donall, applicant, 812 Durant Street, spoke. He brought in a copy of the leases to go into the file on this case. He said that he also owns two buildings in Lansing, Innovations and another building that he has been renovating for the last two years. He owns the bank building on the corner of Turner and East Grand River, and the building across from it at 311 East Grand River. He has a great commitment to the area, and spends a lot of money in the area. He presented a graphic of the building, adding that he has extra space that he can lease out. He showed where the leased space for valet parking is located. M. Clark asked what impact there would be on festivals in the area if he has that Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 11 parking lot leased. Mr. Donall replied that there is development going on to increase the amount of parking available. M. Clark said that, during festivals, Turner Street is closed off. What impact will that have? E. Horne asked what will be put on the patio. Will there be loud music? Mr. Donall replied that the patio will be in the back of the building, and it will be fenced, with tables and landscaping, and no music. E. Horne asked about a letter from Dennis Sykes, Director of Planning and Development, City of Lansing. Mr. Sturdevant stated that there is a letter from the Transportation Division of the City in the file, addressing the amount of parking in the area. Thelma Osteen, 416 Beaver Street, president of the North Lansing Community Association, spoke in opposition to the variance. She stated that this request is right in the middle of the residential neighborhood. She has lived on Beaver Street in three different houses, so she has been there for a very long time. Many of the residents in the area are in similar situations. She talked about the three houses that are within 20 to 35 feet of 1247 Center Street, and about some of the residents who are elderly, or handicapped. She said that she has heard a lot about the parking, but wonders about the traffic that will be overflowing the streets. She would like the Board to take all this into consideration before they make their decision. Beverly Miller, 413 Pearl Street, spoke. She said that she can see this business from her window. She said that the people Mr. Donall talked to are more concerned with themselves than the neighborhood. She said that all but one house on Pearl is residential, as well as on Center Street. She feels that they will be fighting for parking with the Esquire Club, and the Unicorn Bar. This will leave only the street parking, which is all that most of the residents have, as driveways are short in this area. She doesn't want to fight with these customers so that she can have visitors. She said that the bar patrons won't walk as far as the established parking lots. There will be noise, and parking problems, and heavy traffic. She is opposed to this variance. Ruth Weitzel, 1407 Center Street, spoke. She said that except for an apple tree and a catalpa tree, she can see the establishment from her bedroom window. She has been at this address for 17 years this January. This area has struggled, but they have been fixing up the residences. She has converted her house from a four unit to a single family residential. Looking at Lansing, you can see many residential enclaves. This establishment is not compatible with the neighborhood. Not everyone likes valet parking. They will stop and park wherever they find a spot. This variance is not in the best interests of either the neighborhood or of Lansing. Harold King, 1563 N. High Street, said that there is definitely not enough of the required parking available. He asked what would happen with public parking. There is some at Goldenrod, when there is a festival, they block of the street and say no parking. This is a residential area. South of it is the Indian Center, and nearby is the Boys and Girls Club. It is not a good idea to have valet parking. Sally Potter, 907 Britten, said that this is a typical discussion when business abuts the residential. She leases the building that Mr. Donall owns across from the Board of Zoning Appeals, Novemb 13, 1997 Pane 12 er bank. He has done a nice job. She would appreciate the evening activity for her business. She said that there are parking spots open on Grand River Avenue. She feels that this is important, and that the applicant can operate a good business. She supports the variance. Ed Conyer, 481 Regent Street, addressed the Board. He stated that growth is great in North Lansing. There is going to be a parking problem, and there is no way around it. All three of the houses across the street from 1247 Center have signed letters of support. The other three surrounding sides are all commercial. At night there is not much else going on in North Lansing. He said that this is similar to the Blue Coyote. He supports the variance. Todd Mack, 1801 Drexel, spoke. He is the owner of the Framing Gallery. He sees some of the issues as be the parking, the patio, and prostitution. This is a high quality establishment. He asked about the patio, which he is in support of. He said that the patio typically gets away from the noise. As far as the festival parking being affected, these are only on three weekends out of the year. No one else spoke. A large number of letter were read into the record. 1. An inquiry letter from Jessica Roosa sent on November 4. She talked with Mr. Sturdevant, and seemed to have no opinion. 2. Eleven identical letters of support from businesses in the Old Town area: -Julie Ann Brisbois, Foibles, at 309 E. Grand River -Dan O'leary, Silver Lead, 1115 Center St. -Rodney Sumpter, Old Town Studio, 1212 Turner -Gregory Husby, Joliage Design System, 303 E. Grand River -Linda Hough Redding, Whims & Wonders, 309 E. Grand River -Sally Potter, Brick House, 311 E. Grand River -(illegible signature), Tom's Furniture, 319 E. Grand River -Paul Emery, The Oakgrove Computer Group, 304 E. Grand River -Sandy Hearz (?), Comerica Bank, 329 E. Grand River -Gregory Patrick, Pleats Interior Design, 305 E. Grand River -Cheryl Van De Kerkhove, Real World Emporium, 1214-16 Turner 3. Twelve identical letters of support from residents in the area: -Robert Granger, 116 W. Maple Street -(illegible signature), 1315 Center Street -(illegible signature), 311 E. Grand River -(illegible signature), 208 W. Grand River -Altha LaPoint, no address -(illegible signature), 202 E. Grand River -Michael Beeke, 216 E. North Street -Sandy Keith, 216 E. North Street -Georgia Turner, 424 Pearl Street -Lucy J. Leslie, no address -(illegible signature), 116 W. Maple Street -Tammy Breslin, 428 Beaver Street 4. A letter from Mary and John Patenge, 126 W. North, in support Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 13 5. A memo from Bonnie Sumbler, President of the Old Town Commercial Association, in support 6. A memo from Thomas C. Galyon, President of the Greater Lansing Convention and Visitors Bureau, in support 7. A letter from Terry Grant, Goldenrod Music Inc. at 1310 Turner Street, in support 8. A phone message from Mrs. Lagios, 411 Beaver, saying how nice the building looks, but that they don't need more bars 9. A phone message from Don Burley, 425 Beaver, in opposition 10. A letter from Julian & Carmen Loredo, 1400 Center Street, in opposition 11. A letter from Robert DeVries, a resident of the area, in opposition 12. A letter from Thelma Osteen, President of the North Lansing Community Association, in opposition The Board went into Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that we should look at the used sports store owner. Friction will always exist on these fringe area developments, and the Board has to look at what the Code provides for and determine to do what is right. M. Clark stated that personalities are not pertinent. Good guy vs. bad guy is not a relevant argument. There is lots of exciting development within 6 blocks of the Blue Coyote. The valet parking has worked at the Blue Coyote, but this is a different situation. There are three bars within her neighborhood. They operate in varying degrees of harmony based upon management and clientele which are not best mixed. She has concerns, and feels that a different type of use would be more compatible. She will not be supporting this variance. E. Horne said that she knows what this type of development can do to a neighborhood. She prefers a less intense use at this location. Valet parking should be on site primarily. The goal in the city is to support neighborhoods. She also will not support this variance. G. Hilts said that in his opinion, the city parking record is abysmal. The 2000 block of East Michigan Avenue is an example of parking done right. He can not support this variance, he foresees many problems. A. Frederick said that this is currently zoned commercial and it will remain this way. He feels that this is an inappropriate plan, and he voted against it. However, this building, and this parking plan could work. He agrees that parking in the city is abysmal, as Mr. Hilts said. He feels that this is the best accommodation, and he will support this variance. G. Hilts said that the Board needs to lean on the city hard to fix the parking problem. A. Frederick agreed, adding that this can be a good example. A. Frederick made a motion to approve BZA-3472.97 at 1247 Center Street, with conditions 1) that valet parking service be provided, used, and maintained for parking at all times, and 2) that parking leases be kept current. The motion was seconded by M. Clark VOTE: yea nay yea nay Frederick X Clark X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Earhart X BZA-3472.97, 1247 Center Street, denied for lack of favorable votes, 3 - 3. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Case: BZA-3459.97, 2626 Forest Road Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 14 A request by Scott A. Leavitt, son of the property owner at 2626 Forest Road, to construct two outside storage structures, each measuring 1,200 square feet. Section 1248.03 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code establishes that accessory structures are limited to a combined maximum size of 1,000 square feet. There is an existing garage measuring 544 square feet on the property which the applicant intends to retain; therefore a variance of 1,944 square feet is being requested M. Clark made a motion to remove BZA-3459.97 from the table. The motion was seconded by A. Frederick, and carried unanimously by a voice vote. Scott Leavitt, applicant, spoke. He addressed the concerns of the Board from the last two meetings. They are now requesting a 1440 square foot building, and will remove the second floor of the barn. That puts them at a total request of 2360 square feet, which is 100 feet less than their original proposal. They are offering to add a deed restriction to prohibit commercial use at this property. The other concern was that the building would be constructed to allow a commercial venture. He said that the building does not have a driveway to it, and that the entrance door will be on the side, where it is less convenient for use as a commercial venture. This is all that they could come up with as new information. Steve Hayward, Senior Planner, said that he has had some discussion with Mr. Leavitt on their new plan, and explained further about the deed restriction. V. Earhart asked about the original request, and whether this is enough of a change to please the Board. Jim Ruff explained the original request and how it is different from the current request. He also stated that he is concerned about setting precedent, but allowed that this is a very large piece of land, which is deserving of a larger accessory building than that which is allowed by code. But he has an extreme concern about the size of this request, how the Board could defend the code in future cases, and what rationale the Board will use for its defense. V. Earhart made a motion to approve the variance for BZA-3459.97 at 2626 Forest Road, for a 1440 square foot structure, with a side door, no approach, and the deed restriction as described; also, that the two smaller accessory structures be removed. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. V. Earhart stated that she has a hobby which requires a lot of room, and feels that, given the circumstances, she would support this variance, with the conditions as stated. A. Frederick said that, from what he can see, the plan doesn't change the way the property looks, he doesn't see any major renovation, and he doesn't see that it is going to change the character of the neighborhood, and he is a resident of this neighborhood. He likes the idea that the land will stay contiguous. M. Clark said that she will not be supporting this variance, because she thinks it will set precedent for other large properties in Lansing. We have a code with limitations that were deemed large enough, and promptly after that code was passed, we got a large group of people coming in for variances to it. No matter what you set the limitations at, someone will need more space. We have to draw the line. We have stated repeatedly that this is a very large property, certainly deserving of some variance, but this is a huge variance. We have had other similar requests in the past, but she doesn't recall ever having a request this large. She also doesn't recall ever having granted any of them. She doesn't see this property as being that unique. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 13, 1997 Page 15 VOTE: yea na y yea nay Frederick X Clark X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Earhart X BZA-3459.97, 2626 Forest Road, denied for lack of favorable votes, 3 - 3. B. Rules of Procedure Update At the last meeting, it was decided that a time would be set in November for the subcommittee to meet. J. Ruff said that he would call them during the next week to set up a time. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of October 9, 1997 V. Earhart made a motion to approve the minutes of October 9, 1997 as printed. G. Hilts seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Mr. Ruff said that they have worked out the parking system in the lower level of City Hall, so beginning with the next meeting, the Board is welcome to park there again, and cards will be issued to new members who need them. Vill. ADJOURNMENT at 11:50 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals e Draft to Clerk 10/28/97 rl J Approved 11/13/97 To Clerk 11/19/97 CLE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1997, 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. BZA-3458.97, 2611 N. Grand River This is a request by Edward Liebler, President, AAA Lansing Veterinary Associates, P.C., to retain a sign that was erected without a permit, which violates various sections of the Sign Code, on property at or adjacent to 2611 N. Grand River Avenue. The applicant claims the 288 sq. ft. sign is a billboard sign and is requesting variances to Sections 1442.21(f) which prohibits roof signs and 1442.22(e) which allows billboards only on major or minor arterial streets. The sign extends above a roof of a building to which it is attached and the property does not abut the right of way of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Further, the applicant has requested a variance of Section 1442.22(g) if the billboard sign is located less than 400 feet from another billboard on the same side of the street. The applicant indicated that the sign is 421 feet from the nearest billboard. This section requires a 400' distance between billboards. Finally, if the Board so finds that the sign is not a billboard, then the applicant is Board of Zoninq Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 2 also requesting a variance of Section 1442.12(h)(5)(B) which limits ground pole signs to 170 sq. ft. in area. This would be a request for 118 square feet in sign area. J. Ruff summarized this case. Mr. Liebler, applicant, spoke. He stated that it appears to have been a fatal error to build a sign without a permit. Now it is being held against him. The sign was built last February. Mr. Liebler was sent a notice, and he talked with Mr. Gary Brydges, Chief Building Inspector for the City of Lansing. He sent letters to the City asking for clarification. Two tickets were issued regarding this sign. The sign faces M.L. King Jr. Blvd, even though the address is on Grand River Avenue. Mr. Liebler stated that he has received help from Adams Advertising. He felt that he was ok, because the sign faces M.L. King Jr. Blvd, and there are no other signs within 400'. He said there were several technical questions. He put the roof on the sign supports. The intention was not to have a utility building, but rather to have a sign. An architect reviewed the structure and declared it sturdy. He would like to create a utility building out of it. He also said that the sign abuts the railroad tracks, which abut M. L. King; but if it is viewed as not being a billboard sign, but rather a sign on the side of a building, he requested variances to allow it. Mr. Liebler said that zoning is for orderly development of property. He doesn't feel that this should be held against him. Mr. Liebler further stated that this sign is not out of place with the commercial neighborhood. Staff believes that this will set a precedent, but variances are granted all the time. Consideration should be given due to his unique situation. He has fixed up his property, and he feels that the sign is a necessity to help pay for the improvements to the property. He doesn't feel that the 118 sq. ft. will hurt the neighborhood, and can point out many signs that cover a lot more wall area than this one. E. Spink asked who had made the sign. Mr. Liebler replied that he made it himself. M. Clark asked how the size of the sign was determined. Mr. Leibler stated that it is a convenient size (12'x 24') an even number of sheets of plywood. She also asked what the time-table of events was. Mr. Liebler said that it was early spring that he put the roof on the sign, which was before he knew the sign was going to be a problem. G. Hilts said that this is a fair amount of building construction. Mr. Liebler replied that yes, it is, and he was not aware that he needed a permit for a sign, even though the report states that he did know. G. Hilts said that he does not agree with this variance request, due to lack of hardship and he also has a problem with the circumstances. No one else spoke. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink stated that the only question is the sign, not the building or the roof. J. Ruff clarified the roof situation. E. Spink said that he agrees with the comments of Mr. Hilts. It is not abutting M.L.King Jr. Blvd. There is no hardship. He cannot support and this Board has been careful in past sign decisions unless there was a clear reason that the code is a problem. A. Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 3 Frederick said that this is not a complete denial for a sign, since he may still construct a sign according to code. E. Spink made a motion to deny BZA-3458.97 at 2611 N. Grand River Avenue, for all requests, for the reasons outlined in the staff report. The motion was 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 BZA-3458.97, 2611 N. Grand River Avenue, denied by a vote of 8 -0. B. BZA-3460.97, Property adjacent to 3412 Aurelius Road This is a request by E. F. Solomon (owner) fora variance in the height of a structure for the property located adjacent to and west of 3412 Aurelius Road. the applicant is seeking approval to construct a 160 foot tall multi-purpose antenna tower. the Zoning Code limits structures in the "G-2" Wholesale District to 40 feet in height. A variance of 120 feet is therefore being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. M. Clark asked if there are any code requirements for separation. J. Ruff said "not in the Zoning Code." C. Bicy asked what a Monopole is, compared to other poles. J. Ruff described. A. Frederick asked what the purpose of the tower is to be. He was told that it is a "for lease" communication tower. E. Horne said that as you look at the 300' next to this and the tower on Forest Road, this could be visual clutter. J. Poorman, applicant, spoke. He handed out pictures and a report on the antenna pole. He stated that they built the 300' tower, but they don't own them anymore. There are 80' light poles along Aurelius, next to the other towers. He asked for questions. A. Frederick stated that this is in his neighborhood. C. Bicy asked where the closest poles are. He was told that the closest pole is 200' north of the existing tower. C.Bicy asked if there will be lights on top. J. Poorman replied that there will be if required by code. He then asked if there was anything at the base. Mr. Poorman replied that sometimes there is a shed-type building required at the base. Rev. Bicy asked if the property will be fenced. Mr. Poorman replied that it would be fenced along the perimeter. Rev. Bicy asked what the use was to be. Mr. Poorman said that there are no tenants at present, but that the development will create a tax base. Deb Frederick, 3728 Stoneleigh, spoke. She said that they have owned their house for 12 years. One down side of the area is a mixture of businesses, homes, and etc. They don't want to penalize the existing businesses in the Board of Zoninq Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 4 area. She said that when she comes down Provincial House Drive, it is not attractive to the neighborhood. Adding another tower to this business area may make it less desirable/attractive. There is a problem with expanding business. She is opposed to this variance. Arlene Schultz, 3516 Aurelius, spoke. She stated that they live next to the existing tower. They have been here prior to this commercial development. Before the county bought the land for the park, Sablain had cement trucks up and down Aurelius. Another tower will result in more commercial trucks as business expands. A lot of vehicles use the turning lanes for passing. They prefer the residential land use. Guy wires go over her property, even though not on. She doesn't know why they say they don't own the tower, they must have sold part of it. Mr. Poorman asked if he could respond. V. Earhart asked Mr. Poorman to clarify this issue. She made a motion to have him address the board again. E. Spink seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a voice vote. Mr. Poorman said that this was an eight acre parcel. They sold off part of the trucking company which includes the other tower. The office property was sold 12 months ago. There is approximately 1 acre left. V. Earhart asked if the creation of another pole would increase the number of trucks. Mr. Poorman said that it is very passive, maybe one truck per week. This is the most passive use possible. Arlene Schultz asked what the use of the towers will be. She was told that it is for digital phones and the like. Also, she wanted to know how this will affect air traffic. J. Ruff stated that the FAA deals with that issue. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy stated that he will support this for the height variance, as he doesn't think the pole will create traffic problems, and doesn't see any other problems. A. Frederick said that if the variance is granted for the pole, other development could still take place on the property. E. Spink stated that the lot is close to an acre; there isn't a lot of development that could take place there. This is the first time we have heard of development of two towers next to one another. The City needed a plan for towers. Some of that is here. The Board has never been faced with 2 towers that close together. The last company to come before the Board for a tower variance had stated that more towers would be necessary. There was an article about the City erecting towers and renting space and controlling the lease. Towers have been significantly spaced. It appear the success of one tower calls for the construction of another tower. A. Frederick said that the existing tower does not appear full as testified. The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the office and light industry due to the existence of businesses at the time of the plan. The Southeast Area Plan states many places residential preservation was a priority, and even though towers may not have been anticipated, they are a very visible addition to a business. He speaks in opposition, as the plan does not allow for this. G. Hilts said that they should put one in as a redwood tree. C. Bicy said that he will support this due to their being only 160' on Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 5 the acre and similar tall structures that are not necessarily detracting from the area. But, he doesn't think you can put them all together, but must consider that another tower is there. E. Spink said that the existing tower was granted as a replacement, not expanding business at that time. He also notes that the tower is adjacent to residential properties. E. Horne said that there is on Pleasant Grove Road. C. Bicy added that there is one on Forest Road. E. Horne said that she is concerned with the concentration. A. Frederick said that directly across the street, with the exception of the Daycare, it is a newer residential neighborhood with buried utilities, and is very attractive to the area. To the south, the commercial is limited and a lot of residential park land and etcetera. This is the most commercial spot and is an expansion. C. Bicy said that the other tower is 300', almost twice the size, and not a further detraction. E. Horne is in opposition, following through with comments and concerned with concentration and precedent being set. C. Bicy said that someone else will come up with another pole around here. C. Bicy made a motion to approve a 120' variance for a monopole style structure, as the use will not adversely affect the neighborhood. The motion was 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 BZA-3460.97, Property adjacent to 3412 Aurelius Road, approved by a vote of 5 - 3. C. BZA-3461.97, 2210 Carol Way This is a request by Thomas H. Crooks to construct a 20' x 27' garage attached to the front of the existing garage which will be converted to living area. The proposed garage will be 4.25 feet from the side property line. Chapter 1248.08(b)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 6 foot side yard setback. This is therefore a request for a variance of 1.75 feet from the side yard setback requirement. J. Ruff presented the case. Thomas Crooks, applicant, spoke. He submitted a drawing of the request. He said that they have already converted the garage to a utility/storage and laundry room, and office. The upper garden is already in, which makes it difficult to expand behind the house and then move utilities and etc. There is no basement, as it is built on a slab. E. Horne asked if all of the houses were built on slabs. Mr. Crooks replied that to his knowledge, this is the only one and was built by the old Planning Director. A. Frederick said that the other side lot setback distance is 7', and 7' is not sufficient to get the drive back and they would have to convert storage to Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 6 garage, and construct a garage in back. V. Earhart asked how far from the other building adjacent to this. It would be 13' 4%' from the line which supplies ample distance when adding the 4.75'. No one else spoke. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart said that three years ago she came to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a setback variance and Mr. Spink was concerned at that time about the distance to the adjacent home. She will support this variance. A. Frederick stated that he also was at a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to support a neighbor with an odd lot. He also will support. M. Clark said that she too will support this variance. Based upon the circumstances the addition will be able to be maintained, minimal encroachment with the variance request and will result in an improvement with construction of the addition. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3461.97 at 2210 Carol Way. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Clark X Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Spink X BZA-3461.97, 2210 Carol Way, approved by a vote of 8 - 0. D. BZA-3462.97, 1109 S. Genesee Street This is a request by John Green, 1109 S. Genesee, to erect a 6' tall privacy fence to enclose the yard east of the house, on a corner lot. The proposed fence will be located 16' from the S. Genesee Street lot line and 7' from the M.L. King Jr. Blvd. lot line. Section 1292.03 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code allows for the construction of a 3' solid fence in the front yard and taller fences 25' from the intersection of lot lines on corner lots. The applicant is proposing to construct a 6' fence in a front yard within 7' and 16' of the corner lot line's intersection. Therefore, a variance of 3' in height and for 18' and 9' in distance to the intersection of the corner lot lines is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. Dr. John T. Green, applicant, stated that this is a part of ongoing improvements to the property. Many people don't realize that he owns the lot and it has become home to transients and a dumping area. He polices the area frequently and usually fills a bag with things that are sickening. This area serves as open yard space and as an insulator from the sounds from M.L.King Jr. Blvd. The position or type of fence will not obstruct essential views for traffic. Ms. Earhart asked what type of fence it would be. Mr. Green responded that he Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 7 was not familiar with the names of the various styles. Mr. Green also mentioned that he is a teacher and occasionally has 5 - 6 students over to utilize his resources at home. Rev. Bicy asked about children and the types of games played in the yard. Mr. Green said that neighbor children will scrimmage football occasionally. Sheila Verway, 425 N. M.L. King Jr. Blvd., spoke. She is a neighbor to Mr. Green. She feels that the fence does not appear to be a problem. She supports the variance request. Homer Barker, 822 Delevan, spoke. He is the lawn care contractor for Mr. Green. The fence will add privacy for the property and allow use of an area of the yard that is pretty much unusable. There is no real back yard so this is the only area for those type of activities. David Eaton, 425 N. M.L.King Jr. Blvd., spoke in support of the request . He cited problems with living along MLK (noise, debris, and trespassing) and stated that the fence will not obscure views. Barbara Tillman, 410 Bartlett, spoke. She appreciates the area with the openness of yards and mature trees. She would appreciate not seeing the fence and encouraged planting a hedgerow or planted fence instead, such as arbor vitae, privet, trumpet vine, barberry (thorns). She stated that there was no visible path where people cut across the yard. She also was concerned about the long term maintenance of a wood fence. She is not opposed to the purpose. Sandra Hurlbutt, 416 Bartlett, spoke. She stated that she lives on the northwest corner of this intersection, and this is on the southwest corner and that this corner was a part of the entrance into the neighborhood. The older homes demand lots of attention and maintenance. She has lived there since 1969 and is mostly concerned about the aesthetics. She would prefer not looking at a six foot tall fence. E. Horne read a letter from D. Mulcahey, 1200 S. Genesee, into the record. Ms. Mulcahey supports the variance request. The Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy stated that he was ready to make a motion. V. Earhart shared an observation about living on a corner lot, even though it doesn't compare to the traffic the applicant receives on Martin Luther King. She supports this variance. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3462.97 at 1109 S. Genesee Street, for a 6' tall fence setback as proposed, to provide privacy and yet keep clear view for traffic as testified of current practice. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. E. Spink stated that a hardship exists in that this is a corner lot with a lack of rear yard space and high traffic volumes. Also, the setback and design will help mitigate the rear of the neighbors of having a stockaded area. M. Clark stated that usually, these requests have the fence extending to the property line, yet this is unique with the proposed setback. She also will Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Paqe 8 support. E. Horne stated that more landscaping can be added to soften the fence. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Clark X Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X S ink X BZA-3462.97, 1109 S. Genesee Street, approved by a vote of 8 -0. At this time, E. Horne recognized receipt of a letter from Dick Schafer, opposed to BZA- 3458.97. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules of Procedure Update The Board would like to reestablish the committee first thing. V. Earhart, J. Garcia, and E. Horne would be on the committee. B. Tabled Case: BZA-3459.97 at 2626 Forest Road. This is a request by Scott A. Leavitt, son of the property owner at 2626 Forest Road, to construct two outside storage structures, each measuring 1,200 square feet. Section 1248.03 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code establishes that accessory structures are limited to a combined maximum size of 1,000 square feet. There is an existing garage measuring 544 square feet on the property which the applicant intends to retain; therefore, a variance of 1,944 square feet is being requested. E. Spink made a motion to remove this item from the table. The motion was seconded by M. Clark, and approved unanimously by a voice vote. Mr. Scott Leavitt presented pictures of the lot. He stated that the neighbors have suggested putting up a smaller building and keeping the barn, so he would like to revise the variance to retain the barn, tear down the other two buildings and put up a 1500 square foot building which would be hidden from view. The Board enquired of Mr. Leavitt how he had modified the request to prevent it becoming a business in the future. Mr. Ruff said that enforcement is difficult. A. Frederick said that this is also in his neighborhood, and he concurred that it is well hidden. More discussion ensued. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff summarized the changes. He said that the revised request is for 3884 square feet, which is larger than was advertised and would need a new public hearing if pursued. E. Horne stated that she would like to table this request and return it to staff. C. Bicy made a motion to table, Seconded by G. Hilts, to return the case to staff regarding the changes and work with regard. Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 9 Bruce Leavitt requested to speak. He stated that he is the owner and resident at 2626 Forest Road. M. Clark made a motion to allow him to speak, which was seconded by E. Spink, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. Mr. Leavitt stated that he has talked of selling this property, but his son would like to buy and store jeeps there. The upper portion of the barn can't store jeeps there. They want to build a lot on Wabash Street, % mile away, and Scott will move in to this home. It will cost them $4,000 just to tear down the small building. They have talked with others who spoke at the last meeting. The motion made by Mr. Bicy, seconded by Mr. Hilts, to table this appeal once more for staff consideration, was approved unanimously on a voice vote. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of July 10, 1997 C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes of July 10, 1997. G. Hilts seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. B. Minutes of August 14, 1997 E. Spink made a motion to approve the minutes of August 14, 1997, with minor corrections to pages 2 and 3. M. Clark seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. C. Minutes of September 11, 1997 C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes of September 11, 1997, as printed. M. Clark seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. New membership lists were handed out and there needed to be a correction made to M. Clarks data. She was just reappointed; therefore the new expiration date should be included. Vill. ADJOURNMENT at 10:09 p.m. Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 10 Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 10/28/97 U Approved To Clerk CITY CLERK MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1997, 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 DRAFT A. Agenda approved as printed III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3458.97, 2611 N. Grand River This is a request by Edward Liebler, President, AAA Lansing Veterinary Associates, P.C., to retain a sign that was erected without a permit, which violates various sections of the Sign Code, on property at or adjacent to 2611 N. Grand River Avenue. The applicant claims the 288 sq. ft. sign is a billboard sign and is requesting variances to Sections 1442.21(f) which prohibits roof signs and 1442.22(e) which allows billboards only on major or minor arterial streets. The sign extends above a roof of a building to which it is attached and the property does not abut the right of way of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Further, the applicant has requested a variance of Section 1442.22(g) if the billboard sign is located less than 400 feet from another billboard on the same side of the street. The applicant indicated that the sign is 421 feet from the nearest billboard. This section requires a 400' distance between billboards. Finally, if the Board so finds that the sign is not a billboard, then the applicant is Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 2 also requesting a variance of Section 1442.12(h)(5)(B) which limits ground pole signs to 170 sq. ft. in area. This would be a request for 118 square feet in sign area. ORA J. Ruff summarized this case. Mr. Liebler, applicant, spoke. He stated that it appears to have been a fatal error to build a sign without a permit. Now it is being held against him. The sign was built last February. Mr. Liebler was sent a notice, and he talked with Mr. Gary Brydges, Chief Building Inspector for the City of Lansing. He sent letters to the City asking for clarification. Two tickets were issued regarding this sign. The sign faces M.L. King Jr. Blvd, even though the address is on Grand River Avenue. Mr. Liebler stated that he has received help from Adams Advertising. He felt that he was ok, because the sign faces M.L. King Jr. Blvd, and there are no other signs within 400'. He said there were several technical questions. He put the roof on the sign supports. The intention was not to have a utility building, but rather to have a sign. An architect reviewed the structure and declared it sturdy. He would like to create a utility building out of it. He also said that the sign abuts the railroad tracks, which abut M. L. King; but if it is viewed as not being a billboard sign, but rather a sign on the side of a building, he requested variances to allow it. Mr. Liebler said that zoning is for orderly development of property. He doesn't feel that this should be held against him. Mr. Liebler further stated that this sign is not out of place with the commercial neighborhood. Staff believes that this will set a precedent, but variances are granted all the time. Consideration should be given due to his unique situation. He has fixed up his property, and he feels that the sign is a necessity to help pay for the improvements to the property. He doesn't feel that the 118 sq. ft. will hurt the neighborhood, and can point out many signs that cover a lot more wall area than this one. E. Spink asked who had made the sign. Mr. Liebler replied that he made it himself. M. Clark asked how the size of the sign was determined. Mr. Leibler stated that it is a convenient size (12'x 24') an even number of sheets of plywood. She also asked what the time-table of events was. Mr. Liebler said that it was early spring that he put the roof on the sign, which was before he knew the sign was going to be a problem. G. Hilts said that this is a fair amount of building construction. Mr. Liebler replied that yes, it is, and he was not aware that he needed a permit for a sign, even though the report states that he did know. G. Hilts said that he does not agree with this variance request, due to lack of hardship and he also has a problem with the circumstances. No one else spoke. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink stated that the only question is the sign, not the building or the roof. J. Ruff clarified the roof situation. E. Spink said that he agrees with the comments of Mr. Hilts. It is not abutting M.L.King Jr. Blvd. There is no hardship. He cannot support and this Board has been careful in past sign decisions unless there was a clear reason that the code is a problem. A. Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 3 Frederick said that this is not a complete denial for a sign, since he may still construct a sign according to code. E. Spink made a motion to deny BZA-3458.97 at 2611 N. Grand River Avenue, for all requests, for the reasons outlined in the staff report. The motion was 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 BZA-3458.97, 2611 N. Grand River Avenue, denied by a vote of 8 - 0. B. BZA-3460.97, Property adjacent to 3412 Aurelius Road This is a request by E. F. Solomon (owner) for a variance in the height of a structure for the property located adjacent to and west of 3412 Aurelius Road. the applicant is seeking approval to construct a 160 foot tall multi-purpose antenna tower. the Zoning Code limits structures in the "G-2" Wholesale District to 40 feet in height. A variance of 120 feet is therefore being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. M. Clark asked if there are any code requirements for separation. J. Ruff said ..not in the Zoning Code." C. Bicy asked what a Monopole is, compared to other poles. J. Ruff described. A. Frederick asked what the purpose of the tower is to be. He was told that it is a "for lease" communication tower. E. Horne said that as you look at the 300' next to this and the tower on Forest Road, this could be visual clutter. J. Poorman, applicant, spoke. He handed out pictures and a report on the antenna pole. He stated that they built the 300' tower, but they don't own them anymore. There are 80' light poles along Aurelius, next to the other towers. He asked for questions. A. Frederick stated that this is in his neighborhood. C. Bicy asked where the closest poles are. He was told that the closest pole is 200' north of the existing tower. C.Bicy asked if there will be lights on top. J. Poorman replied that there will be if required by code. He then asked if there was anything at the base. Mr. Poorman replied that sometimes there is a shed-type building required at the base. Rev. Bicy asked if the property will be fenced. Mr. Poorman replied that it would be fenced along the perimeter. Rev. Bicy asked what the use was to be. Mr. Poorman said that there are no tenants at present, but that the development will create a tax base. Deb Frederick, 3728 Stoneleigh, spoke. She said that they have owned their house for 12 years. One down side of the area is a mixture of businesses, homes, and etc. They don't want to penalize the existing businesses in the Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 4 area. She said that when she comes down Provincial House Drive, it is not attractive to the neighborhood. Adding another tower to this business area may make it less desirable/attractive. There is a problem with expanding business. She is opposed to this variance. Arlene Schultz, 3516 Aurelius, spoke. She stated that they live nex e� existing tower. They have been here prior to this commercial developme�n P� 4w�— Before the county bought the land for the park, Sablain had cement trucks up IF and down Aurelius. Another tower will result in more commercial trucks as business expands. A lot of vehicles use the turning lanes for passing. They prefer the residential land use. Guy wires go over her property, even though not on. She doesn't know why they say they don't own the tower, they must have sold part of it. Mr. Poorman asked if he could respond. V. Earhart asked Mr. Poorman to clarify this issue. She made a motion to have him address the board again. E. Spink seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a voice vote. Mr. Poorman said that this was an eight acre parcel. They sold off part of the trucking company which includes the other tower. The office property was sold 12 months ago. There is approximately 1 acre left. V. Earhart asked if the creation of another pole would increase the number of trucks. Mr. Poorman said that it is very passive, maybe one truck per week. This is the most passive use possible. Arlene Schultz asked what the use of the towers will be. She was told that it is for digital phones and the like. Also, she wanted to know how this will affect air traffic. J. Ruff stated that the FAA deals with that issue. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy stated that he will support this for the height variance, as he doesn't think the pole will create traffic problems, and doesn't see any other problems. A. Frederick said that if the variance is granted for the pole, other development could still take place on the property. E. Spink stated that the lot is close to an acre; there isn't a lot of development that could take place there. This is the first time we have heard of development of two towers next to one another. The City needed a plan for towers. Some of that is here. The Board has never been faced with 2 towers that close together. The last company to come before the Board for a tower variance had stated that more towers would be necessary. There was an article about the City erecting towers and renting space and controlling the lease. Towers have been significantly spaced. It appear the success of one tower calls for the construction of another tower. A. Frederick said that the existing tower does not appear full as testified. The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan designates the office and light industry due to the existence of businesses at the time of the plan. The Southeast Area Plan states many places residential preservation was a priority, and even though towers may not have been anticipated, they are a very visible addition to a business. He speaks in opposition, as the plan does not allow for this. G. Hilts said that they should put one in as a redwood tree. C. Bicy said that he will support this due to their being only 160' on Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 5 the acre and similar tall structures that are not necessarily detracting from the area. But, he doesn't think you can put them all together, but must consider that another tower is there. E. Spink said that the existing tower was granted as a replacement, not expanding business at that time. He also notes that the tower is adjacent to residential properties. E. Horne said that there is on Pleasant Grove Road. C. Bicy added that there is one on Forest Road. E. Horne said that she is concerned with the concentration. A. Frederick said that directly across the street, with the exception of the Daycare, it is a newer residential neighborhood with buried utilities, and is very attractive to the area. To the south, the commercial is limited and a lot of residential park land and etcetera. This is the most commercial spot and is an expansion. C. Bicy said that the other tower is 300', almost twice the size, and not a further detraction. E. Horne is in opposition, following through with comments and concerned with concentration and precedent being set. C. Bicy said that someone else will come up with another pole around here. C. Bicy made a motion to approve a 120' variance for a monopole style structure, as the use will not adversely affect the neighborhood. The motion was 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 BZA-3460.97, Property adjacent to 3412 Aurelius Road, approved by a vote of 5 - 3. C. BZA-3461.97, 2210 Carol Way This is a request by Thomas H. Crooks to construct a 20' x 27' garage attached to the front of the existing garage which will be converted to living area. The proposed garage will be 4.25 feet from the side property line. Chapter 1248.08(b)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 6 foot side yard setback. This is therefore a request for a variance of 1.75 feet from the side yard setback requirement. . ' �\ J. Ruff presented the case. Thomas Crooks, applicant, spoke. He submitted a drawing of the request. He said that they have already converted the garage to a utility/storage and laundry room, and office. The upper garden is already in, which makes it difficult to expand behind the house and then move utilities and etc. There is no basement, as it is built on a slab. E. Horne asked if all of the houses were built on slabs. Mr. Crooks replied that to his knowledge, this is the only one and was built by the old Planning Director. A. Frederick said that the other side lot setback distance is 7', and 7' is not sufficient to get the drive back and they would have to convert storage to Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 6 garage, and construct a garage in back. V. Earhart asked how far from the other building adjacent to this. It would be 13'41/2" from the line which supplies ample distance when adding the 4.75'. No one else spoke. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart said that three years ago she came to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a setback variance and Mr. Spink was concerned at that time about the distance to the adjacent home. She will support this variance. A. Frederick stated that he also was at a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to support a neighbor with an odd lot. He also will support. M. Clark said that she too will support this variance. Based upon the circumstances the addition will be able to be maintained, minimal encroachment with the variance request and will result in an improvement with construction of the addition. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3461.97 at 2210 Carol Way. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Clark X Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X Spink X BZA-3461.97, 2210 Carol Way, approved by a vote of 8 - 0. D. BZA-3462.97, 1109 S. Genesee Street This is a request by John Green, 1109 S. Genesee, to erect a 6' tall privacy fence to enclose the yard east of the house, on a corner lot. The proposed fence will be located 16' from the S. Genesee Street lot line and 7' from the M.L. King Jr. Blvd. lot line. Section 1292.03 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code allows for the construction of a 3' solid fence in the front yard and taller fences 25' from the intersection of lot lines on corner lots. The applicant is proposing to construct a 6' fence in a front yard within 7' and 16' of the corner lot line's intersection. Therefore, a variance of 3' in height and for 18' and 9' in distance to the intersection of the corner lot lines is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. Dr. John T. Green, applicant, stated that this is a part of ongoing improvements to the property. Many people don't realize that he owns the lot and it has become home to transients and a dumping area. He polices the area frequently and usually fills a bag with things that are sickening. This area serves as open yard space and as an insulator from the sounds from M.L.King Jr. Blvd. The position or type of fence will not obstruct essential views for traffic. Ms. Earhart asked what type of fence it would be. Mr. Green responded that he Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 7 was not familiar with the names of the various styles. Mr. Green also mentioned that he is a teacher and occasionally has 5 - 6 students over to utilize his resources at home. Rev. Bicy asked about children and the types of games played in the yard. Mr. Green said that neighbor children will scrimmage football occasionally. Sheila Verway, 425 N. M.L. King Jr. Blvd., spoke. She is a neighbor to the Mr. Green. She feels that the fence does not appear to be a problem. She supports the variance request. Homer Barker, 822 Delevan, spoke. He is the lawn care contractor for Mr. Green. The fence will add privacy for the property and allow use of an area of the yard that is pretty much unusable. There is no real back yard so this is the only area for those type of activities. David Eaton, 425 N. M.L.King Jr. Blvd., spoke in support of the request . He cited problems with living along MLK (noise, debris, and trespassing) and stated that the fence will not obscure views. Barbara Tillman, 410 Bartlett, spoke. She appreciates the area with the openness of yards and mature trees. She would appreciate not seeing the o�. fence and encouraged planting a hedgerow or planted fence instead, such as arbor vitae, privet, trumpet vine, barberry (thorns). She stated that there was no visible path where people cut across the yard. She also was concerned about the long term maintenance of a wood fence. She is not opposed to the purpose. Sandra Hurlbutt, 416 Bartlett, spoke. She stated that she lives on the northwest corner of this intersection, and this is on the southwest corner and that this corner was a part of the entrance into the neighborhood. The older homes demand lots of attention and maintenance. She has lived there since 1969 and is mostly concerned about the aesthetics. She would prefer not looking at a six foot tall fence. E. Horne read a letter from D. Mulcahey, 1200 S. Genesee, into the record. Ms. Mulcahey supports the variance request. The Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy stated that he was ready to make a motion. V. Earhart shared an observation about living on a corner lot, even though it doesn't compare to the traffic the applicant receives on Martin Luther King. She supports this variance. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3462.97 at 1109 S. Genesee Street, for a 6' tall fence setback as proposed, to provide privacy and yet keep clear view for traffic as testified of current practice. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. E. Spink stated that a hardship exists in that this is a corner lot with a lack of rear yard space and high traffic volumes. Also, the setback and design will help mitigate the rear of the neighbors of having a stockaded area. M. Clark stated that usually, these requests have the fence extending to the property line, yet this is unique with the proposed setback. She also will Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 8 support. E. Horne stated that more landscaping can be added to soften the fence. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Clark X Earhart X Frederick X Garcia X Hilts X Horne X S ink X BZA-3462.97, 1109 S. Genesee Street, approved by a vote of 8 -0. At this time, E. Horne recognized receipt of a letter from Dick Schafer, opposed to BZA- 3458.97. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules of Procedure Update ')RAFT The Board would like to reestablish the committee first thing. V. Earhart, J. Garcia, and E. Horne would be on the committee. B. Tabled Case: BZA-3459.97 at 2626 Forest Road. This is a request by Scott A. Leavitt, son of the property owner at 2626 Forest Road, to construct two outside storage structures, each measuring 1,200 square feet. Section 1248.03 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code establishes that accessory structures are limited to a combined maximum size of 1,000 square feet. There is an existing garage measuring 544 square feet on the property which the applicant intends to retain; therefore, a variance of 1,944 square feet is being requested. E. Spink made a motion to remove this item from the table. The motion was seconded by M. Clark, and approved unanimously by a voice vote. Mr. Scott Leavitt presented pictures of the lot. He stated that the neighbors have suggested putting up a smaller building and keeping the barn, so he would like to revise the variance to retain the barn, tear down the other two buildings and put up a 1500 square foot building which would be hidden from view. The Board enquired of Mr. Leavitt how he had modified the request to prevent it becoming a business in the future. Mr. Ruff said that enforcement is difficult. A. Frederick said that this is also in his neighborhood, and he concurred that it is well hidden. More discussion ensued. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff summarized the changes. He said that the revised request is for 3884 square feet, which is larger than was advertised and would need a new public hearing if pursued. E. Horne stated that she would like to table this request and return it to staff. C. Bicy made a motion to table, Seconded by G. Hilts, to return the case to staff regarding the changes and work with regard. Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 9 Bruce Leavitt requested to speak. He stated that he is the owner and resident at 2626 Forest Road. M. Clark made a motion to allow him to speak, which was seconded by E. Spink, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. Mr. Leavitt stated that he has talked of selling this property, but his son would like to buy and store jeeps there. The upper portion of the barn can't store jeeps there. They want to build a lot on Wabash Street, %z mile away, and Scott will move in to this home. It will cost them $4,000 just to tear down the small building. They have talked with others who spoke at the last meeting. The motion made by Mr. Bicy, seconded by Mr. Hilts, to table this appeal once more for staff consideration, was approved unanimously on a voice vote. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of July 10, 1997 C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes of July 10, 1997. G. Hilts seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. B. Minutes of August 14, 1997 E. Spink made a motion to approve the minutes of August 14, 1997, with minor corrections to pages 2 and 3. M. Clark seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. C. Minutes of September 11, 1997 C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes of September 11, 1997, as printed. M. Clark seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. New membership lists were handed out and there needed to be a correction made to M. Clarks data. She was just reappointed; therefore the new expiration date should be included. Vill. ADJOURNMENT at 10:09 p.m. Board of Zoning Appeals, October 9, 1997 Page 10 Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals ww"""RAFT Draft to Clerk 10/01/97 q p!j Approved 10/09/97 J� ( I` J To Clerk 10/28/97 �rSiJlyU lr�I,1 �/LL1�1'� MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1997, 7:30 p.m. I. The meeting was called to order by E. Horne, Vice-Chair, at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present M. Clark. J. Garcia E. Horne G. Hilts C. Bicy B. Absences E. Spink 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, adding Elections to New Business III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3456.97, 533 E. Greenlawn This is a request by Carolyn Risch to establish a home occupation at 533 E. Greenlawn. This is a request for a variance to Section 1248.03(e)(7) of the Zoning Code, which restricts the equipment of a home occupation to that which is normally used for purely domestic or household purposes. The applicant proposes to establish a one chair nail salon in her home. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this is similar to other appeals the BZA has heard for one-chair beauty salons, but this is for a nail salon. This property is located just east of S. Cedar Street, zoned "B" Residential, surrounded by residential houses. It's on the corner of Garfield Street and Greenlawn. The house has a two-car wide driveway that comes off of Garfield Street, there is no parking on the east side of the street, but there is parking on Board of Zoning Appeals, September 11, 1997 Page 2 the west side of Garfield, so besides the driveway parking there is one block of street parking. Staff doesn't find any problems with this request. Carolyn Risch, applicant, stated that she didn't have any comments to add. Rev. Bicy asked Ms. Risch if she had a license. She stated that she had a manicure license. He then asked her where she works now, and how many appointments she does per week. She replied that she is currently working out of a salon, and that she see's approximately 25 clients per week. She anticipates that many at her home salon. She also stated that it takes approximately 1 hour per client. She said that appointment times may overlap, but there should never be more than one person waiting. The salon will be in a small first floor room. E. Horne asked if they were planning to use their main entrance off of Greenlawn, or if they would be using another entrance. Ms. Risch replied that currently they are using the Greenlawn entrance, but in future would like to add another door off of Garfield. Shawn and Tina Menzie, 521 E. Greenlawn, stated that they had a few concerns. They wonder what the hours of business would be, and what type of business sign there might be. Mr. Ruff stated that they can have, at most, a one square foot sign attached flat to the side of the house, and it cannot be electrified. Ms. Risch stated that typically they are done by eight or nine at night, and she starts around eight or nine in the morning, but she keeps her hours down to approximately 40 hours per week. She does plan to do appointments on Saturdays, and she takes Wednesday's off. No one else spoke. The Board moved into Committee of the Whole. Mr. Ruff went over the standard restrictions that were in the staff report. Mr. Hilts asked if any of these home occupation variances have ever become problems. Mr. Ruff stated that they have not. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3456.97 at 533 E. Greenlawn, with conditions: 1. The owner shall not employ anyone not a resident at this address. 2. No commodity shall be sold from the premises. 3. Not more than twenty percent of the floor area of the building shall be used as nail salon. 4. Not more than one customer's vehicle, or family of customer's vehicle, shall be parked on site at one time, thereby limiting the number of customer vehicles to one. 5. No more than one non-illuminated sign, not to exceed one square foot in size, will be allowed. 6. Approval of this variance is both site- and applicant- specific. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Clark X Garcia X Horne X Hilts X Bicy X BZA-3456.97, 533 E. Greenlawn, approved by a vote of 5 - 0. Board of Zoning Appeals, September 11, 1997 Page 3 B. BZA-3459.97 2626 Forest Road This is a request by Scott A. Leavitt, son of the property owner at 2626 Forest Road, to construct two outside storage structures, each measuring 1,200 square feet. Section 1248.03 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code establishes that accessory structures are limited to a combined maximum size of 1,000 square feet. There is an existing garage measuring 544 square feet on the property which the applicant intends to retain; therefore, a variance of 1,944 square feet is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this is a very large lot, and generally the code is geared toward smaller lots. He also stated that one of the concerns is that the size of the property is able to deal with the size of the structures. There are single family homes surrounding this property, but they would have a significant setback of 30' plus. The staff would like to see an improvement to the situation, instead of building new buildings at the same square footage, especially when one is a two-story structure, and then spread out over a single level, we would recommend approval of being able to build 1500 square foot of accessory structure, separate from the house, not attached to the house, which would replace square foot for square foot. There is basically 1500 square foot of ground being taken up now, and that is what we would propose to be approved. The Board discussed the total amount of square footage. There is 2988 existing, 2944 proposed. Staff recommends 1500 square feet, added to the 544 square foot attached garage, totaling 2044 square feet. Scott Leavitt, applicant, 2627 Fireside Dr, spoke. He stated that he has diagrams and pictures. He says that what they have is a 50 year old barn, and two accessory structures, that were designed for horses and chickens. Between him and his father, they have several antique and historically significant vehicles that they are restoring and they would like to set up a restoration area in these buildings to work on these vehicles. They have an ideal area on the property that is screened from the neighbors by trees and bushes. They would take down the barn and three accessory structures, and if possible, build one 2,400 sq. ft. structure in the screened area. The new building would be of pole construction with steel siding and conventional shingle roofing so that they would blend with the home. They would be keeping the attached garage. The Board discussed the potential problems of this type of variance. Lots of other uses are possible for these buildings, in the future. Rev. Bicy asked what they intend to store in the building. Mr. Leavitt said that they have 6 antique and rare vehicles that they need to store; currently some are being stored at the John Bean Building, and a couple are in his garage. Further discussion ensued. Irvin Sirlouis, 2616 Tamany, spoke. He has known this property for about 25 years, as they have lived in the neighborhood for that long. He stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals, September 11, 1997 Page 4 property is very well maintained. However, he finds that the property is not screened as has been represented. The west side is not screened, and part of the southwest corner is not screened. The rest is very densely screened. He doesn't have any objection to replacing the buildings, as long as the three existing are removed. He wishes that plans of the pole barns were available. Mr. Sirlouis has a problem in that it would be easy to start restoring other peoples vehicles, for profit. This he would not be in support of. He ask's that the appeal, if granted, not be granted tonight. He would like to see the plans of the pole barn first. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she would be unwilling to approve the variance as requested. It is an extremely large lot, but she has serious concerns for creating the potential for a business to be run out of the building. She would be willing to approve a variance for 1500 square feet, but agrees with the neighbor; the Board needs to see what exactly is being built. She would be willing to grant the 1500 square feet but first wants to see the exact proposal. E. Horne agreed, stating that she would much rather table the appeal until drawings are available. Mr. Garcia also agreed. Mr. Hilts feels that the Board would be setting precedent if this were granted as is. Rev. Bicy also would rather table for now, while the pole barn plans, and screening and buffering are nailed down. Ms. Clark stated that they would like the applicant to design the doors and access and etc. to lessen the possibility of using this as commercial later. M. Clark made a motion to table BZA-3459.97 at 2626 Forest Road, for one month, to be provided with information as to what type of structure is being built. G. Hilts seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. BZA-3459.97, 2626 Forest Road, Tabled until October. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. None V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of June 12, 1997 C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes of June 12, 1997, with corrections (addition of J. Ruff as staff, page 1). G. Hilts seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. Board of Zoning Appeals, September 11, 1997 Page 5 VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Officers The gavel was passed to Mr. Ruff. G. Hilts made a motion that E. Horne be elected chairperson of the Board of Zoning Appeals. J. Garcia seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. C. Bicy nominated J. Garcia for Vice-Chair. Mr. Garcia accepted the nomination. G. Hilts seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. VIII. ADJOURNMENT at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 10/01/97 Approved To Clerk CITY CLER'l MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1997, 7:30 p.m. I. The meeting was called to order by E. Horne, Vice-Chair, at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present M. Clark. J. Garcia E. Horne G. Hilts C. Bicy B. Absences E. Spink 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, adding Elections to New Business III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3456.97, 533 E. Greenlawn This is a request by Carolyn Risch to establish a home occupation at 533 E. Greenlawn. This is a request for a variance to Section 1248.03(e)(7) of the Zoning Code, which restricts the equipment of a home occupation to that which is normally used for purely domestic or household purposes. The applicant proposes to establish a one chair nail salon in her home. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this is similar to other appeals the BZA has heard for one-chair beauty salons, but this is for a nail salon. This property is located just east of S. Cedar Street, zoned "B" Residential, surrounded by residential houses. It's on the corner of Garfield Street and Greenlawn. The house has a two-car wide driveway that comes off of Garfield Street, there is no parking on the east side of the street, but there is parking on Board of Zoning Appeals, September 11, 1997 Page 2 the west side of Garfield, so besides the driveway parking there is one block of street parking. Staff doesn't find any problems with this request. Carolyn Risch, applicant, stated that she didn't have any comments to add. Rev. Bicy asked Ms. Risch if she had a license. She stated that she had a manicure license. He then asked her where she works now, and how many appointments she does per week. She replied that she is currently working out of a salon, and that she see's approximately 25 clients per week. She anticipates that many at her home salon. She also stated that it takes approximately 1 hour per client. She said that appointment times may overlap, but there should never be more than one person waiting. The salon will be in a small first floor room. E. Horne asked if they were planning to use their main entrance off of Greenlawn, or if they would be using another entrance. Ms. Risch replied that currently they are using the Greenlawn entrance, but in future would like to add another door off of Garfield. Shawn and Tina Menzie, 521 E. Greenlawn, stated that they had a few concerns. They wonder what the hours of business would be, and what type of business sign there might be. Mr. Ruff stated that they can have, at most, a one square foot sign attached flat to the side of the house, and it cannot be electrified. Ms. Risch stated that typically they are done by eight or nine at night, and she starts around eight or nine in the morning, but she keeps her hours down to approximately 40 hours per week. She does plan to do appointments on Saturdays, and she takes Wednesday's off. No one else spoke. The Board moved into Committee of the Whole. Mr. Ruff went over the standard restrictions that were in the staff report. Mr. Hilts asked if any of these home occupation variances have ever become problems. Mr. Ruff stated that they have not. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3456.97 at 533 E. Greenlawn, with conditions: 1. The owner shall not employ anyone not a resident at this address. 2. No commodity shall be sold from the premises. 3. Not more than twenty percent of the floor area of the building shall be used as nail salon. 4. Not more than one customer's vehicle, or family of customer's vehicle, shall be parked on site at one time, thereby limiting the number of customer vehicles to one. 5. No more than one non-illuminated sign, not to exceed one square foot in size, will be allowed. 6. Approval of this variance is both site- and applicant- specific. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Clark X Garcia X Horne X Hilts X Bicy X BZA-3456.97, 533 E. Greenlawn, approved by a vote of 5 -0. Board of Zoning Appeals, September 11, 1997 Page 3 B. BZA-3459.97, 2626 Forest Road This is a request by Scott A. Leavitt, son of the property owner at 2626 Forest Road, to construct two outside storage structures, each measuring 1,200 square feet. Section 1248.03 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code establishes that accessory structures are limited to a combined maximum size of 1,000 square feet. There is an existing garage measuring 544 square feet on the property which the applicant intends to retain; therefore, a variance of 1,944 square feet is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this is a very large lot, and generally the code is geared toward smaller lots. He also stated that one of the concerns is that the size of the property is able to deal with the size of the structures. There are single family homes surrounding this property, but they would have a significant setback of 30' plus. The staff would like to see an improvement to the situation, instead of building new buildings at the same square footage, especially when one is a two-story structure, and then spread out over a single level, we would recommend approval of being able to build 1500 square foot of accessory structure, separate from the house, not attached to the house, which would replace square foot for square foot. There is basically 1500 square foot of ground being taken up now, and that is what we would propose to be approved. The Board discussed the total amount of square footage. There is 2988 existing, 2944 proposed. Staff recommends 1500 square feet, added to the 544 square foot attached garage, totaling 2044 square feet. Scott Leavitt, applicant, 2627 Fireside Dr, spoke. He stated that he has diagrams and pictures. He says that what they have is a 50 year old barn, and two accessory structures, that were designed for horses and chickens. Between him and his father, they have several antique and historically significant vehicles that they are restoring and they would like to set up a restoration area in these buildings to work on these vehicles. They have an ideal area on the property that is screened from the neighbors by trees and bushes. They would take down the barn and three accessory structures, and if possible, build one 2,400 sq. ft. structure in the screened area. The new building would be of pole construction with steel siding and conventional shingle roofing so that they would blend with the home. They would be keeping the attached garage. The Board discussed the potential problems of this type of variance. Lots of other uses are possible for these buildings, in the future. Rev. Bicy asked what they intend to store in the building. Mr. Leavitt said that they have 6 antique and rare vehicles that they need to store; currently some are being stored at the John Bean Building, and a couple are in his garage. Further discussion ensued. Irvin Sirlouis, 2616 Tamany, spoke. He has known this property for about 25 years, as they have lived in the neighborhood for that long. He stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals, September 11, 1997 Page 4 property is very well maintained. However, he finds that the property is not screened as has been represented. The west side is not screened, and part of the southwest corner is not screened. The rest is very densely screened. He doesn't have any objection to replacing the buildings, as long as the three existing are removed. He wishes that plans of the pole barns were available. Mr. Sirlouis has a problem in that it would be easy to start restoring other peoples vehicles, for profit. This he would not be in support of. He ask's that the appeal, if granted, not be granted tonight. He would like to see the plans of the pole barn first. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she would be unwilling to approve the variance as requested. It is an extremely large lot, but she has serious concerns for creating the potential for a business to be run out of the building. She would be willing to approve a variance for 1500 square feet, but agrees with the neighbor; the Board needs to see what exactly is being built. She would be willing to grant the 1500 square feet but first wants to see the exact proposal. E. Horne agreed, stating that she would much rather table the appeal until drawings are available. Mr. Garcia also agreed. Mr. Hilts feels that the Board would be setting precedent if this were granted as is. Rev. Bicy also would rather table for now, while the pole barn plans, and screening and buffering are nailed down. Ms. Clark stated that they would like the applicant to design the doors and access and etc. to lessen the possibility of using this as commercial later. M. Clark made a motion to table BZA-3459.97 at 2626 Forest Road, for one month, to be provided with information as to what type of structure is being built. G. Hilts seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. BZA-3459.97, 2626 Forest Road, Tabled until October. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. None V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of June 12, 1997 C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes of June 12, 1997, with corrections (addition of J. Ruff as staff, page 1). G. Hilts seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. Board of Zoning Appeals, September 11, 1997 Page 5 VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Officers The gavel was passed to Mr. Ruff. G. Hilts made a motion that E. Horne be elected chairperson of the Board of Zoning Appeals. J. Garcia seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. C. Bicy nominated J. Garcia for Vice-Chair. Mr. Garcia accepted the nomination. G. Hilts seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. VIII. ADJOURNMENT at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals C i,` H D Draft to Clerk 10/02/97 �� i #; , •� Approved 10/09/97 To Clerk 10/28/97 LN 'r3lteu V'i-;i CLERK MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1997, 7:30 p.m. I. The meeting was called to order by J. Page, Chair, at 7:32 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present M. Clark. J. Garcia E. Horne J. Page E. Spink B. Absences C. Bicy G. Hilts 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 E. Horne made a motion to move BZA-3434.97 up on the agenda, due to the length of the delay. M. Clark supported the motion, which was approved by a vote of 4 - 1, with Dr. Spink casting the dissenting vote, as he is opposed to moving tabled items prior to hearings. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3434.97, 809 Center Street E. Horne made a motion to remove this item from the table. The motion was seconded by M. Clark, and carried unanimously by a voice vote. J. Ruff summarized the situation thus far. E. Horne made a motion to accept the Public Service Department communication and for staff to take care of the matter. M. Clark seconded the motion. E. Spink stated that this Board has no jurisdiction and acknowledges that the appropriate City Board has taken action, and therefore, we can take no action. Board of Zoning Appeals, August 14, 1997 Page 2 E. Horne withdrew her motion. E. Spink made a motion to accept the letter from the Public Service Department, but that no action be taken, as this Board has no jurisdiction, as the appropriate Board or department has addressed this sign in the right of way, and therefore we take no action. M. Clark seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Clark X Garcia X Horne X Pa e X Spink X BZA-3434.97, 809 Center Street, has been dispensed with. B. BZA-3450.97, N. E. Corner of Cedar and Florence This is a request by Ray E. Powers of 2009 W. Cedar Street for a variance to construct a garage and office structure five (5) 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 20'. J. Ruff presented the case. As far as staff is concerned, we're not sure that the applicant has demonstrated adequate hardship or practical difficulty, as the structure could be moved forward. It would seem that the primary purpose of keeping the structure back as far as possible is to allow frontage for visibility for vehicles that would be for sale. That is what I believe to be the case. These two lots became vacant when this area of Cedar Street was widened and part of the south lot was also purchased for additional ROW. This would result in some odd setback configurations. It is my understanding that whatever landscaping would be required would be installed by the applicant. The proposed building is 30 x 34, and is proposed to face the south. Part of the building would have 2 overhead doors, to the west would be an office entrance and toilet room, and the building would run east to west for 34 feet, and north to south 30 feet. Staff is concerned with the orientation of the building in regards to the residential properties to the east. We do not find sufficient evidence to approve the request as proposed. However, we did want to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to present his case. R. David Wilson, attorney for Mr. Powers, spoke. He stated that the primary difficulty with this lot is the configuration and size in relation to the location. Mr. Powers went before this Board a year ago concerning the building just south of this location, which is an automobile leasing facility. When the cars can no longer be leased profitably, he proposes to move them to this lot for sale. This variance is being requested because the display in a sales lot is very important, and the current layout is not conducive to sales. We feel that this request is consistent with the particular parcel and with improvement of the area. Dr Spink asked what the property is being used for now. Mr. Wilson replied that Board of Zoninq Appeals, August 14, 1997 Page 3 they are now selling some vehicles there but it is not really suited for that; its primary purpose is a facility for the pickup and leasing of motor vehicles. J. Page asked if there was anybody who would like to speak in support of this appeal? He presented a correspondence from an attorney for the property owner of 1919 S. Cedar Street. It is a lot adjoining north side of the property. This person objects to the variance and there is a legal dispute over an easement that runs on the north/south along the eastern end of Mr. Powers property. The attorney says that the lawsuit has been filed and until it has been resolved the Board is acting prematurely. Rick Helson, attorney for Faith Spencer, spoke.. He stated that he is the author of that letter. As indicated in the letter, he represents Faith Spencer, who is the owner of 1923 S. Cedar and 1919 S. Cedar. Sticking strictly to the purely technical, legal matter without regarding the fact that there is a dispute over the land and the use of it in the courts at this time. I don't think that the practicality or the hardship has been shown. The Board dissolved into Committee of the whole. M. Clark stated that she will not be supporting this appeal because she agree's that practical difficulty and hardship have not been shown in this case and moving a structure closer to the residential property even though it is vacant, is potential detrimental to that residential portion. She will not be supporting this appeal. E. Horne will also not be supporting this. She was looking at the concern of the neighborhood because it is a fragile neighborhood. That house is a bungalow, a small home, it isn't like the variances across the street where there is a great big house which will not be overwhelmed by the variance. She feels that this would not be conducive to the neighborhood and she doesn't like to see buildings that close to residential area's. E. Spink will not be supporting the appeal because of the reason stated in the appeal plus the curb cut on the side street. It's not in a good location for the neighborhood. He said that they have tried to protect the residential nature of those streets and, going back to the widening of Cedar street where they were potentially faced with a lot of variances, they were surprised that, even though the street was widened, there were only 2 or 3 that the Board had to do, so Mr. Spink thinks that the Board needs to be very careful that they don't create situations that call for variances, when they have been so very careful to maintain Cedar Street to the best of their ability. M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3450.97 at the N.E. Corner of Cedar and Florence, due to the lack of the necessary practical difficulty/hardship, effect on traffic patterns, and the property's proximity to residential neighborhoods. E. Spink seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Clark X Garcia X Horne X Pa e X Spink X BZA-3450.97, N. E. Corner of Cedar and Florence, denied by a vote of 5 - 0. Board of Zoning Appeals, August 14, 1997 Page 4 C. BZA-3451.97, 1904 Moffitt This is a request by James L. Sisco, 1904 Moffitt, requesting to finish construction of a single family home. Section 1248.08(B)(2) of the City of Lansing Zoning Code requires a side yard setback of 6 feet. The existing setback for the house was mistakenly set at five feet four inches; therefore, a variance of eight inches is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the Board has a letter from the applicant explaining the situation; that he was, in fact, beginning construction of the house with the understanding that he had the setback of 6 feet. A survey by the Savings and Loan that is financing this project noted the area of 8 inches and we have a situation with the foundation in the ground and a basement that is 8 inches too close to the property line. The east end of Moffitt Street is adjacent to Hughes Road which butts into McKinch Park and a park that was going to be Donnally Park. The lot directly to the east is vacant and so there is no direct impact on it. Mr. Ruff stated that he has difficulty accepting a variance on a mistake in this situation because he is concerned that there isn't a practical difficulty or hardship based upon the code requirements. However, he also believes that it was an honest mistake and it is difficult to decide; if the lot was narrower and set 5'4" from the side lot line, if it was approximately 53 or 54 feet wide, then that would be the appropriate setback requirement for this. I believe that this situation is up to the Board. The other option would be to correct the error by attaching more property to this site and then in doing that, they would have to get a variance from the council for a lot division that is less than 60 feet wide. In no shape or form is it an easy process. The other thing he could do is to pick up and move the foundation. James Sisco, applicant, spoke. He said that this puts him in kind of a bind because he is a small builder and he owns the lot next to it, but if he cut anything off in that, then he won't have a buildable lot there. It was an honest mistake and it was his fault. It was ok to put the basement in and put the walls up until the bank caught it and nobody would of caught it if it had been my own money until it was finished. He is not saying that it was right. It was an error and he would appreciate it if he could get some leniency. E. Horne asked if Mr. Sisco is planning to put another home on the property to the east. Mr. Sisco replied that he is. There will be 20' between the houses , but the set- back from the line would be 5' plus a 15' driveway, plus the lot that he goofed up will have 5' 4", which will be a total of 20' between the houses. The driveway will be next to the lot line that is short now. M. Clark asked if he is putting a garage there? Board of Zoning Appeals, August 14, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Sisco replied that there won't be a garage there, none at all, only two single family homes, with 4 bedrooms. They will be nice homes if he could get the go- ahead to finish them. He knows that it is proper procedure to get the variance before the building goes up if you are going to have a problem. He understands that and has done that before but nobody caught it until the bank caught the discrepancy and that kind of puts him in a bind. He said that he can't pick that stuff up and move it back. He is not blaming anybody but himself. E. Horne said that she is thinking about in the future. After homes get built and then in another 10 years , somebody will want a garage. Will there be room for the garage? Mr. Sisco said that the only place to put a garage is behind the house. There is no room to put it at the end of the house. They have to go past the house and build it on the off site if there is going to be a garage. Mike Markey, J. & L. Investment, stated that he is an owner of adjacent property north of this property and he would like to compliment Jim on coming forward with this mistake. He has been around in the building industry for about 30 to 35 years. There were no other comments. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink stated that he feels they are between a rock and a hard place. He believes the appellant, but the Board needs to be sure to have a legal basis to act, based upon future decision making. He asked Mr. Ruff what action the appellant would have to go through to shave 8" off the other lot. Mr. Ruff stated that he would have to file for a lot split, with the filing fee; a new legal description for both lots; he'd have to get a variance approved by City Council after a recommendation by the Planning Board because the lot would be less than 60' in width, although that type of variance to the Subdivision regulations is not a zoning code variance, and doesn't require a practical difficulty or hardship. If the adjacent lot were wider, he could have done something administratively before even coming to the Board of Zoning Appeals, but these lots are split at the very minimum, which leaves us with no leeway. There are two options, one being the variance and the other would be a lot division. As far as the impacts go from a land use standpoint, I don't believe there are any, per se. Mr. Markey asked for clarification of the statement made by Mr. Ruff, that if 1 foot were moved from the adjacent lot, that the lot to the east would still be a buildable lot. Mr. Markey doesn't believe it will be a buildable lot without the variance. Mr. Ruff replied that if City Council approved the 59' lot, it would then be buildable. M. Clark asked if, since he owns both lots, could he proceed with construction and then do the paper-work? Mr. Ruff replied that he could do two things, number one, he could combine the lots and complete construction, then number two, he could split off the amount of land to have another buildable lot. J. Page passed the gavel. He feels sorry for the appellant, but feels that they would be setting precedent. The next person who comes in and says they have already built the structure, what Board of Zoning Appeals, August 14, 1997 Page 6 are they going to do then? He realizes it is a once in a lifetime mistake, but he really has problems disapproving it for 8", because he feels they are opening themselves up to rationalizing all the following cases. Dr. Spink agreed, but said that this is not a last minute type thing. In all his years, he feels that this is a once in a lifetime situation, where someone comes into the Board and says "I goofed." But he can't really find a legal basis to do it. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3451.97 at 1904 Moffitt, based on the fact that this is a unique situation. J. Garcia seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Clark X Garcia X Horne X Pa e X Spink X BZA-3451.97, 1904 Moffitt, approved by a vote of 5 - 0. D. BZA-3452.97, 1011 S. Washington Avenue This is a request by Ted Samra Sr. of the Crawford Door Company to construct a building approximately 8,000 square feet in size, 2.3' from the front property line at 1011 S. Washington. Chapter 1268.06(a) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 20' in the "F" Commercial District. This is therefore a request for a variance of 177. The applicant received a 24' variance from the BZA on 6/13/96 to construct a new building 1 foot from the rear lot line. Since then, he has redesigned the site and now needs a front yard variance. J. Ruff presented the case. We believe that this plan is better than the plan previously provided. A larger building could be put on the site, but in a desire to put in a more pleasing building that fits the site better, the applicant has requested this variance. The previous request was for a building of over ten thousand square feet, the new request is for a building of eight thousand square feet. Staff has recommended approval, but only for what has been requested. J. Page asked for clarification, and read a letter from W.C. Smith Building (the Tax Tribunal Building). They are opposed to the variance. Ted Samra Sr., appellant, of the Crawford Door Company, spoke. He presented the plan and some pictures. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Dr. Spink was prepared to make a motion. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3452.97 at 1011 S. Washington for a 17.7' front yard variance to allow construction of the proposed 42' wide front portion of the structure, 2.3' from Board of Zoning Appeals, August 14, 1997 Page 7 the front property line. The variance is for the construction of a 42' wide structure only. The motion was seconded by M. Clark. E. Horne commented that this is a good time to do the appropriate buffering and screening. Mr. Ruff clarified that the only direction necessary for screening and buffering is to the east, towards the residential area but a commercial parking lot is between the subject site and the residential properties, which eliminate any requirement. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Clark X Garcia X Horne X Pa e X S ink X BZA-3452.97, 1011 S. Washington, approved by a vote of 5 - 0. E. BZA-3453.97, S. E. Corner of Pheasant and Webster This is a request by J & L Investments to build a new house on the vacant lot at the southeast corner of Pheasant and Webster, 18'4" from the front property line along Webster. Since this is a corner lot, there are two front yard setbacks required. Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code requires a front yard setback as established from both the west and north property lines for new construction. The established front yard setback along Webster is 25'. Therefore, this is a requested front yard variance of 68". The applicant proposes to build a 268" x 44' single family house. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the Board has already heard this case, in June. The applicant last time had a specific plan in mind for a specific buyer. A different plan has been opted for, by buyers of this property, which is slightly larger, and we can't fit it into the building envelope that was approved by the board. It is a corner lot, normally a platted lot in this situation, under the present subdivision regulations, would have to be 70' in depth, which would allow us more variable setbacks. The established setback is 25', leaving a very minimal building envelope. The setback to the south would be 5.1', and the rear yard would be to the east of the house. There would be sufficient setback from Pheasant street to provide for site distance requirements. The driveway is proposed to be to the east side so that any garage construction would occur on that side in the future. The original plan was to be a raised ranch, and this is for a single story ranch, and so the applicant is requesting this variance to build the house up to 18'4" from the front property line along Webster, which is a requested variance of 68". The Board has seen this case before. Dr. Spink asked if he was correct in thinking this is a request for one more foot than last time. Mr. Ruff replied that it is. Mike Markey, of J. & L. Investment Company, spoke. He stated that this is the same parcel of property. He said that the buyer ended up buying a different parcel. They now have a different buyer. He is here to answer any questions. No one else spoke. Board of Zoning Appeals, August 14, 1997 Page 8 The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Dr. Spink stated that, since this project was discussed previously, he would like to move that it be approved. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3453.97, at the S.E. Corner of Pheasant and Webster, for an 18'4" setback from the Webster Street Right of Way. The motion was seconded by M. Clark. E. Horne asked about the configuration of the property. J. Ruff stated that the neighborhood is obviously from the township era. There is an odd-shaped lot next to this property. All the lots were platted east and west, then there was a split that took place. This odd shaped lot was left as a remnant. It cannot be built on without a variance. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Clark X Garcia X Horne X Page X Spink X BZA-3453.97, at the S. E. Corner of Pheasant and Webster, approved by a vote of 5 -0. F. BZA-3454.97, 300 Frandor This is a request by Lansing Retail Center Joint Venture for a parking variance to provide 4.5 cars per 1000 sq. ft. of"gross" ground floor area (G.F.A.) in the Frandor Shopping Center. The existing shopping center consists of 405,000 sq. ft. of"gross" G.F.A., and has 1600 spaces or 4.0 spaces per 1000 square feet of"gross" G.F.A. The applicant is proposing to make major improvements to the shopping center which will include 457,775 sq. ft. of"gross" G.F.A. with 2056 parking spaces or 4.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of "gross" G.F.A. Section 1284.12(c)(1) of the Zoning Code requires one parking space for every 110 sq. ft. of"Usable" floor area which equates to approximately 7 parking spaces for every 1000 sq. ft. of"gross" G.F.A. This is therefore a requested variance of approximately 2.5 parking spaces per 1000 "gross" G.F.A. or 1145 parking spaces. Since the "Usable" sq. ft. cannot be calculated at this stage in the design development phase, the variance is being sought based upon gross floor area. Additionally, the major improvements to the Shopping Center include construction of 67,740 sq. ft. of new buildings within the shopping center with floor elevations below the base flood elevation (B.F.E.) of the Red Cedar River, which is 836.70. Of this, 27,900 sq. ft. will be at 836.00' (.70' below B.F.E.); 19,650 sq. ft. at 835.00' (1.7' below B.F.E.); and 20,190 sq. ft. at 834.00' (2.7' below B.F.E.). Also, an additional 50,000 sq. ft. of the center will be substantially improved which has a floor elevation of 836.10' (.60' below B.F.E.). Variances to construct below the base flood elevation in the floodplain are allowed in accordance with Chapter 1288 of the Zoning Code J. Ruff presented the case. Frandor is working on renovating, totally updating the shopping center. It is in the flood plain. They are going to be removing Board of Zoninq Appeals, August 14, 1997 Page 9 buildings, removing the covered walkways, and then rebuilding parts of the mall, while rehabilitating the whole exterior of the structure. The code provides the hardship for this situation, because it is such a large facility that it over- demands parking spaces, if we looked at the seven parking spaces per 1000 and the studies we have show that. Also, this is in the flood plain along Michigan avenue, and parts of the other side of the site. Chris Brocher, with the firm of Lymack Stern Development Company of Farmington Hills Michigan, spoke. He stated that he is here with Jerry Corr of Frandorson Properties and Pat Cookingham, also of Frandorson Properties. He said that his company is involved with retail shopping centers of high quality. Today Frandor consists of the eastern wing, and the southern area with the Clippert Building, where Trippers Bar and Restaurant are located, and the appendage that sticks out from the eastern wing of approx. 50,000 square feet, there is a driveway between that and the building that used to be Federal's Department Store, which is now Kroger. They became involved in December of 1996. Since then they have been working with a number of major national retailers, as well as the retailers who currently are at Frandor. They want to build a center where people can walk from one end to the other, rather than having to get in their cars and drive. Right now, Frandor has about 4 parking spaces for each 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The variance they are looking for is to have 4.5 cars per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. J. Ruff added that they are adding substantial improvements to the mall by either rebuilding or improving buildings. Mr. Brocher said that they are going to be removing the enclosed walkways, and replacing it with state of the art storefronts and awnings. M. Clark asked about the "urban legend" of cars floating in the Frandor parking lot during flash floods. He said that they will be constructing a better drain system, with collectors which will carry flood waters away more effectively. Also, it may be that the configuration of the buildings creates a "damming" effect, forcing flood water through the narrow opening between the buildings. Discussion ensued about landscaping, which Mr. Brocher said is definitely planned for. Their goal is to take this 40 year old shopping center, completely renovate it, and keep it here for the next 40 years. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Dr. Spink stated that he remembers when Frandor was a park for the children on the east side. He also remembers the flood of'47. He finds this redevelopment overwhelmingly positive. The only problem he sees is the fire lane next to Red Lobster, which is frequently totally blocked. He finds the decrease in flood plain to be a positive thing also. J. Ruff stated that he recently received a site plan for the Rite Aid and the bank on the corner, which will improve the circulation around the Red Lobster. The bank and Rite Aid will have less intense evening parking, which will benefit the customers at Red Lobster. Pa a 10 Board of Zoning Appeals, Au ust 1411997 ff, to E. Sp ink made a motion to approve BZA-3454.97 withon0the flood plain with conditions as Frandor, as recommended by aread include the request for parking, the new buildings by Mr. Ruff and contained in the staff report: 1. Council approve SLU-9-97, construction in Flood Plain 2, State of Michigan issue a so notified)ood thatthe issuanlai lce of at variance l to construct a 3. The applicant be result in structure below the base flood increases eases risk life and propertyeS for flood insurance and such construction and the improvements of the south portion fC the kexisting mall, with flood elevations as requested. The motion was seconded y M. yea nay VOTE: yea nay Clark X Garcia X _Horne X Pa e X BZA-3454.97, 300 Frandor, app roved with conditions by a vote of 5 -0. G. BZA-3455.97, Edgewood Blvd. This is a request by Post Associates,side ofEdgewood Boulevard within the e100 and Inc. for a location on the south proposes to construct a 20 200 blocks, west of American Road. The owner prop of the City of Lansing screen, 4816 seat movie theater. Section 1284.13(b)(13) the proposed Zoning Code requires 1635 parking space for this fa valit riance of 399 park ng spaces y. number of parking spaces is 12 , therefore, is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. The property is zoned "F" Commercial and "G-2" Wholesale. There is no proposed zoning change. It is an odd shaped lot along American Avenue, between Edgewood aand nal lis for ahis area has been s tmo de for commercial development. The prop theater. This complex would offer advanced concession stand, elevated Icafey, video and redemption game area, r specialty food area, a staged seating area, and digital sound. The request lus onhe at the applicant is looking for is one parking space for each four seats, p for every two employees. The practical difficultyngbut they would rather use the cannot accommodate the amount of parking, available space to reduce asphalt,ome d f Brenon t grade changes.areas Anld, the naturalized areas, there will b parking spaces are applicant claims, with supporting evidence, that this many p 9 p not really necessary. The site plan shows how they propose to park all these people, and they also have an explanatory letter. The structure itself will sit on the extreme south east part of the Mark Post, Post Associates Architects, showed the site plan and explained their Board of Zoning Appeals, August 14, 1997 Page 11 position. He told about the history of Jack Loeks Theaters, and talked about their method of scheduling to keep the flow of cars and people balanced over the day. Roger Lubes, Vice President of Operations and Construction, Jack Loeks Theaters, spoke. He said that a large part of their profit comes from the concessions, and they try to schedule to keep the concessions busy but not overwhelmed. They run their shows on a staggered schedule from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and have been doing this for many years. They feel that they do have adequate parking, and have plenty of experience. A four to one ratio does work. J. Page read a letter into the record from Wolverine Development, saying that they don't have anything to do with the development of this site, but they are greatly in favor and feel it will bring business to the south side. Mark Hart, Sam's Club, 330 E. Edgewood, spoke of the parking variance that they had to get before Sam's could open. He said that he is definitely in favor of this, as it will bring quality businesses, including higher quality restaurants which will impact favorably on our business, into the area. J. Ruff stated that several national chains have contacted the city, attracted by this project. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3455.97 at Edgewood Boulevard, for a multi-screen, multi-showing theater, fora lorl allow motionfor was seco parking nded by EPHornery four seats, and one space for each two employees. The VOTE: yea nay yea nay Clark X Garcia X Horne X Pa e X BZA-3455.97, Edgewood Blvd., approved by a vote of 5 - 0. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. J. Page said he submitted a letter of resignation, as he will be moving soon. B. Dr. Spink has asked for the next meeting off, as he will be out of town. E. Horne made a motion to excuse him from the September meeting, seconded by M. Clark. Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. V. PUBLIC COMMENT Board of Zoning Appeals, August 14, 1997 Page 12 A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of June 12, 1997 - not ready at this time. B. Minutes of July 10, 1997 - not ready at this time. Board of Zoning Appeals, August 14, 1997 Page 13 VII. NEW BUSINESS None VIII. ADJOURNMENT at 9:47 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 09/30/97 �• ^ Approved 10/09/97 ( ! l.. 1 (_ 1 i, 2: 3tJ To Clerk 10/28/97 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1997, 7:30 p.m. I. The meeting was called to order by J. Page, Chair, at 7:40 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present C. Bicy J. Garcia M. Clark E. Horne J. Page H. LeBlanc B. Absences G. Hilts E. Spink C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to take place. D. Introduction of Staff Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Donna Wynant, Senior Planner II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda stands as printed. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3442.97, 2710 N. Grand River Avenue This is a request by Trina McIntyre for a variance from the amount of open space required for play area, to establish a child care facility for 45 children at 2710 N. Grand River Avenue. Section 1268.03(I) of the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 6,800 spare feet of open space for play area. The applicant will provide 1,330 square feet of open space at the north end of the property. A variance of 5,470 square feet is therefore being requested. Donna Wynant presented the case. She said that there is a beauty salon in one end of the building. The surrounding zoning is a variety of commercial and industrial, with some residential zoning to the north. The master plan shows commercial land use. The practical difficulty is that the applicant is not able to provide the required amount of play space. A park is located approximately 30 Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 2 seconds away by vehicle, and the applicant would supplement the play space by taking the children to the park. There is sufficient parking on location. Staff finds no negative impact on future development patterns, and recommends approval subject to the two conditions in the report, that an acceptable site plan be submitted to ensure that there is minimum aisle space to maneuver, and that an acceptable landscape, screening and buffering plan be submitted, that would screen the residential structure to the north of the play space. Trina McIntyre, 2700 Delta River Drive, applicant, spoke. She stated that the play space in the back will be used for 10 children at a time, each teacher has 10 children, and each has a different play time than the others. The landlord of both properties suggested that we use that play area. H. LeBlanc asked about transporting children to Horsebrook Park, which has no parking. The only entry is through the Board of Realtors parking lot. Ms. McIntyre said that they will use a van service called Kids Coach, and pull into the parking lot for loading and unloading of the van. Ms. LeBlanc asked if they had already received permission from the Board of Realtors to use their parking lot for this purpose. Ms. McIntyre stated that their understanding is that it is a public park. Ms. LeBlanc said that, while the park is public, the parking lot is privately owned, by the Board of Realtors. Ms. McIntyre stated that they may be able to park on the side street and walk to the park. Also, this is just a back- up plan, not a daily occurance. Rev. Bicy asked about the van. Ms. McIntyre stated that there would be 2 to 5 year olds, and they would go two classes at a time. The van holds 20 kids. Rev. Bicy stated that she would have to get the Board of Realtors to give permission to use their parking lot. He also cautioned her to think hard about the risks involved in having children of this age at a public park on a busy street. Ms. McIntyre asked that the Board look at this based upon the play area in back of the center. She stated that they have already passed the state's requirements, with extra play space, but they still have to pass the city. E. Horne asked if she has looked at other sites. Ms. McIntyre said that they have, but they really need child care in this area. She feels that the children will be safe enough here, the door is near the back, Grand River is not as busy as Saginaw, the kids would be quite a distance from the road. Ms. Horne said that they will have to walk in front of the beauty shop. She asked what other kinds of activities will be provided. Ms. McIntyre said that each child has activities, there are two recesses, approximately 20 to 25 minutes long. C. Bicy asked how much the transportation will cost. Ms. McIntyre said that she has worked out a deal with the van owner, and it will cost her $12 per trip. She reiterated that the park/van arrangement will be occasional. Mr. Page noted that a letter had been received from Robert & Louise Hamilton, the landlords for this property, who are in support of the project. Jean Bradley, 2721 N. Grand River, spoke. She said that she lives directly across from the property, and has lived there since 1965. She has a Masters degree in school social work, and has been a teacher. She has been around to most of the day care centers in Lansing over the years; she has been retired since 1990. She is against this, as there is not enough play area for the Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 3 number of children she proposes to have. Also, it is a dangerous location. there was a little boy killed right there, 10 or 15 years ago. There is a safety factor in the parking lot, as there are cars that use it for a short cut, a turn around. She doesn't feel that it is safe. Mark McIntyre, 2700 Delta River Drive, spoke. He stated that they have checked with all the nearby residents, and have gotten favorable reports; they feel that there is a need for this in the community. Traffic is bad, but its also bad at other day care centers, like on Pennsylvania. Other day cares have limited play area also. Anywhere you go you have a risk of kids running into traffic. Rev. Bicy asked if he could provide them with the addresses of other day care centers with less play area. Mr. McIntyre said that the one on S. Pennsylvania, the one on Michigan Avenue by Waverly, and one on St. Joseph. Ms. Horne commented that the day care on S. Pennsylvania has direct access to their play area. Her greatest concern is that the requested variance does not have direct access to the play area. No one else spoke. The Board moved into Committee of the Whole. Ms. LeBlanc said that the greatest problem is the lack of play space. They did grant a variance to the day care on S. Pennsylvania, but that situation has a park within safe walking distance. They don't have to transport the children by van to Horsebrook Park. Also, this location is right next to a bar. In Lansing, there are a lot of people on shift work, stopping by the bar to have a couple of beers on the way home for work. They would be leaving as the children are being picked up. But the greatest concern is the play space. Because of this, she would have to vote for denial. Ms. Clark stated that she appreciates the need for day care in this area, but will not be supporting this particular application. She agrees that there are some day care centers in town that do have very limited play space, but in the ones that she has supported, they have had the ability to get their children to a play area either without crossing busy streets or there have been other factors involved. She is also concerned with the parking lot, as it is a cut through. Rev. Bicy says that he would like to support this, but he can't. He can't support because of the things that have already been mentioned, one being the lack of play area. The beauty shop doesn't pose a problem, to him; there is a little bit of a problem with the lounge next door, however, he doesn't feel that it is that much of a problem during the day. He is not comfortable with Horsebrook park and transporting the children, one because of the drop off point, and two because if they don't receive approval to use the parking lot, they will have to leave workers there to maintain the children. There needs to be a day care in that area, but most of the day care centers he knows of are in homes. Mr. Garcia said that he also feels some concern about the actual location. He is surprised that someone isn't there from the beauty shop to speak on the effect on their business. He worked for many years for Head Start, so he knows a little about space requirements. He feels torn, between whether he would send his child there, and what they are actually asking for. Staff had recommended approval with conditions. He would probably vote for approval. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny BZA-3442.97 at 2710 N. Grand River Avenue, on the grounds that there is not viable play area . The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 4 VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3442.97, 2710 N. Grand River, denied by a vote of 5 - 1. B. BZA-3445.97, 2015 W. Oakland Avenue This is a request by Griffith & Alamar Canfield (owners) for a variance to permit construction of a 6' tall wooden fence within the front yard of the property at 2015 W. Oakland Avenue. Section 1292.03(a) limits the height of a fence in the front yard to three (3) feet; a variance of 3 feet is requested. This is a corner parcel with two front yard areas and the fence is proposed to extend into the front yard facing Stanley Street. J. Ruff presented the case. This request is for a corner lot, across Stanley Street is West Side Park; its at the end of Old Oakland Avenue. The fence would extend from the southwest corner of the house towards the sidewalk, then south in line with the garage, then back to the garage. Staff has reviewed the application, it is a small yard, and we feel that it is an advantage having West Side Park right adjacent. The positive aspect of the park is not having to supplement the rear yard space by extending it into the front yard with the fence. The fence would extend to the driveway, which is a hazard area. The driveway existing now leads to a single car garage, and it would create a blind spot for anyone walking on the sidewalk. The privacy issue is of utmost importance to the applicant. We will be sending a memo to Parks Dept. requesting that they do some landscaping in the park area to help block out lights and such. Staff can't recommend approval due to the safety factor. M. Clark asked if she was correct in assuming they could have a six foot fence if it didn't extend past the edge of the house? J. Ruff replied that they could. Mr. Canfield, 2015 W. Oakland Avenue, applicant, spoke. He would like to amend his fence plan to lower in that portion of the driveway that would be required for clear vision. The park was an attraction to our purchase of the house. But, when they use their backyard, they feel that they are in a goldfish bowl. If they move the fence back to comply with code, it will leave a very small yard. They also plan to rebuild the garage to a two car garage next year. There is a boulevard between the curb and sidewalk which is considerably wider along Stanley Street than in most residential areas, so that, as far as traffic from Oakland Street, would not be impacted at all by extending the fence along the side of the house. Rev. Bicy asked how much Mr. Canfield would be willing to lower the fence. Mr. Canfield stated that he would lower it to the three foot level, eight foot off the drive, 10 feet from Stanley Street. After that point he would try to Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 5 architecturally try to slope the fence back up to six feet, in a tasteful way, not abruptly. The fence would have fairly close planking, to keep the small dog in the yard. We have done a lot of landscaping, and want to keep things looking nice. M. Clark talked about their plan to enlarge the garage next year. J. Page read a letter from Bruce and Maudie Gates at 2005 W. Oakland, opposed to the fence due to visibility concerns; and a letter from Roger and Mary LaFiette, 2016 W. Oakland, who are also opposed. There were no other comments. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Rev. Bicy stated that he will be supporting this, as long as Mr. Canfield is willing to make the amendments as indicated. M. Clark asked if J. Ruff knew what the established setbacks are along Stanley. J. Ruff replied that they are ok. She then commented that this fence, at the setback as proposed, will ruin the clear vista that exists along this street. E. Horne said that she is still debating with herself. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3445.97 at 2015 W. Oakland Avenue, with conditions as amended by the applicant, thereby overriding the liability created by the fence. No one seconded the motion. M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3445.97 at 2015 W. Oakland Avenue, stating that she can't find an adequate hardship or practical difficulty to build the fence in the established front yard. E. Horne seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3445.97, 2015 W. Oakland Avenue, not passed by a vote of 4 - 2. The fence cannot be built, as a vote of 5 to 1 is necessary for the motion to actually pass. C. BZA-3446.97, 1808-10 Davis Avenue This is a request by Sue Slater and Richard Clark to build an 11' by 16' carport/second story deck, with adjoining walk three feet from the rear (west) lot line of the property located at 1808-1810 Davis Avenue. This necessitates Zoning Code variances of Section 1250.09 which requires a rear yard setback of 30' and Section 1250.11, which allows maximum lot coverage of 40% for structures and 60% including hard surfaced parking. The proposed improvement would result in 50% and 61% lot coverage factors respectively. Therefore, variances of 27' from the rear yard setback requirement and 10% and 1% lot coverage allowances are requested. D. Wynant presented the case. She mentioned that there are two driveways, one off of Davis, and one of the Alley way, so parking is adequate. It does Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 6 appear to be an increase in development for this property. The staff found that a practical difficulty and/or hardship is difficult to establish in this case as improvements can be made which don't require a variance. If the Board approves the variance request, the driveway will need to be appropriately modified and better defined to fit under the second story deck, and to not go more into the rear yard than necessary. There are two letters of support, from 403 Smith Avenue and 1816 Davis Avenue, and those two property owners are endorsing the proposal as described. Richard Clark and Sue Slater, 15248 Francis Rd., applicants, spoke. They said that their goal in proposing this is to improve the property. They were forced to take off a stairway and small landing, due to disuse and disrepair. They feel that they already have a hardship or practical difficulty due to the existing lot coverage, which is already over the limit. They have two proposals, the one presented and another for a smaller deck if the carport can not be approved. Their main goal is to provide their upstairs tenant with a small area where he can go to get some fresh air, put out a barbeque grill, and not have to go down and share the small lot in the yard with the downstairs tenant. They presented drawings of the house so that the board can get an idea of their proposal. This area of the yard is adjacent to neighbors garages and their driveways. The deck will not affect the neighbors property. Rev. Bicy asked what the second story deck would look like. Ms. Slater said that it would be wolmanized wood, built to code, around 10 feet to the bottom of the door, at the same level as the landing that shows in the picture. E. Horne asked how many bedrooms are in each apartment. Ms. Slater replied that there are two bedrooms per unit. Ms. Horne then asked how many children are in each apartment, as she drove by and saw tricycles and such in the yard. Ms. Slater said that there is one child in the lower unit and no children in the upper unit. Ms. Slater said that they could simply side over the area, but it would not be as safe. Also, she said that it would be nicer for the tenant to have a space for a barbeque grill, some personal space. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark commented that this property is a Class "B" Nonconformity, and that the owners are limited in the amount of money they can spend to fix it up without reapplying for Class A status. She went on to discuss her own neighborhood, which is similar, and the nice condition of the house. She stated that she prefers the deck alternative to the carport originally requested. She doesn't consider it ideal, but does find it a livable compromise. H. LeBlanc stated that she also is concerned with the increase in lot coverage, and could support the smaller deck. E. Horne said that she has driven by the house several times, and also feels that the smaller deck would be a better alternative. H. LeBlanc asked what the size of the deck would be. Ms. Slater said that it would be 6' x 14', across the back of the house. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny BZA-3446.97 at 1808- 1810 Davis Avenue as applied for, but to approve the 6' x 14' deck off the upper unit and the applicant will comply with all building Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 7 permits and requirements . The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3446.97, 1808-1810 Davis Avenue, approved by a vote of 6 - 0 as modified. D. BZA-3447.97, 406 Rosadell Avenue This is a request by Perry M. Costello, 406 Rosadell, to enclose an existing 10' x 16' (160 square feet) rear deck to the residence. Section 1248.09 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code requires a rear yard setback of 30 feet. The proposed setback for the enclosed rear porch is 27 feet; therefore, a variance of 3 feet is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. The existing deck is near grade, and they want to enclose it. There really isn't a physical factor that would cause a hardship or practical difficulty, the established setback is greater than the minimum 20 feet so it does force the house back on the site, and it would remain a 27 foot rear yard setback. There are no adverse impacts anticipated regarding circulation. Staff recommended denial. Mr. Ruff stated that they can build the porch without a variance 7' x 16', or however wide they want it. There wouldn't be as much usable space, but it would be usable. Perry Costello, 406 Rosadell, applicant, spoke. He stated that the houses in his neighborhood are very small, as are the lots. There is no way to do anything from side to side. His house has exactly 912 square feet of usable space. At this point, they do not have anywhere to kick their boots off; they have hardwood floors, and the rugs and the floors are difficult to maintain. They intend to use this new room for this. They intend to side it, and put in 10 windows. It will be in harmony with the rest of the house. He then showed the site plan. He also stated that he thinks the request is reasonable and practical. They feel that it is very necessary in maintaining the house on the inside, as well as looking good from the outside. Mr. Costello presented letters from the neighbors. J. Ruff read the five letters into the record. They were from: David and Janice Hoeflinger, 404 Rosadell Russell and Lulu Smith, Rosadell St. Sara Houchen, 412 Rosadell Dean Hartley, 412 W. Willard Mr. and Mrs. Torok, 407 W. Willard They are all in favor of the proposal. Mr. Costello showed pictures of the neighborhood. He stated that the reason Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 8 he is showing the pictures and presenting the letters is to show that this type of structure/addition is not uncommon in their area, that precedent has already been established. There are at least three others in the area who have screened in porches, although they are on deeper lots. He also mentioned that there is no sunlight that gets into the 15' between houses. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Rev. Bicy asked about the 7' being allowed. He asked about the difference in square footage between what he want's and what he can get without a variance. This difference is 48 square feet. However, Mr. Ruff stated that this could be increased by making the addition wider, rather than deeper. Rev. Bicy said that, based upon what is permissible and what is desired, he is prepared to support a 7' room. Mr. Ruff stated that he is permitted by right to have an addition 7' deep and as wide as the house, without a variance or approval of the Board. If this request were granted, it would not create a problem for the neighbors, but it would make the decision making process harder for the board in subsequent variance requests, as no hardship or practical difficulty exists. The Board went on at this point and discussed the issue of"Building Envelopes". C. Bicy made a motion to deny BZA-3447.97 at 406 Rosadell Avenue, based upon the lack of hardship or practical difficulty; however, the applicant can build an addition 7' x the width that the building envelope allows. The motion was seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3447.97, 406 Rosadell Avenue, denied by a vote of 6 - 0. E. BZA-3448.97, 240 Museum Drive This is a request by R. E. Olds Transportation Museum to retain a 30 square foot ground pole sign to be relocated on the property line at the northeast corner of the property at 240 Museum Drive, which is located in the Capitol Center District. Section 1442.24(C)(2) of the Sign Code requires a setback of 10' for this size of sign; therefore, a variance of 10' is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. The museum erected the sign without a permit, it replaced a sign that identifies the museum, but it happens to be in the right of way, so they need to get a sign permit, and to place it in a location which meets code requirements. It would require a 30 square foot sign placed 10 feet from the front property line, so they are proposing to move the sign, but 10 feet from the property line puts the sign in the entrance area of the walk-way, and behind the front line of Impression 5 Museum, so they are requesting to put it at the property line, as long as it otherwise meets code. Norman Witte, Attorney for R.E.Olds Museum, 110 W. Allegan, 10th FI., Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 9 addressed the Board. He stated that the problem is two-fold; first, the sign is 33.6 square feet, a little larger than what is permitted, and second, it is in the right of way, rather than set back like the other sign was. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-saq, and is leased from the city. This is the year of the Olds Centennial, which is very important to us. We are trying to fix up the building, and find the location. He stated that the reason they have a low number of visitors annually is that it is in an awkward location. Since the non- conforming sign has been erected, they have had at least a dozen people say that the reason they never visited before is that they didn't know it was there, but the sign allowed them to be aware of the museum, as well as the location, and they could see it from Michigan Avenue. They have also had problems with people parking in their lot that should have parked at Impression 5 or the Surveyors Museum. They believe that this new sign is good for the entire museum community, as it attracts visitors to our museum, and when they come to our museum, they also know that there are other museums there, which benefits the museum complex as a whole. J. Ruff stated that he spoke to the sign erector who put up the sign. The square footage quoted isn't completely accurate, as the sign isn't square. It is irregularly shaped, so its figured at 30 square feet, which is allowed by code in the Capitol Center district. So, the only thing that we are looking at is the setback issue. Rev. Bicy asked if the sign is lighted. Mr. Witte replied that it isn't lighted at all, either internally or externally, and there are no plans to do this, as the museum isn't open at night. They only have daylight hours. M. Clark asked whether the sign presents a visibility hazard. Mr. Ruff stated that it did not. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3448.97 at 240 Museum Drive, for setbacks of 0' . The motion was seconded by E. Horne. Mr. Ruff stated that the hardship is based on the issue of visibility past the property line. M. Clark stated that she would be supporting due to the location at the end of a cul-de-sac. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3448.97, 240 Museum Drive, approved by a vote of 6 -0. F. BZA-3449.97, 1217 W. Oakland Avenue This is a request by Mark Hornung of Landscape, Architects and Planners, Inc., representing St. Lawrence Hospital, 1217 W. Oakland Avenue, to allow parking 10 feet from the front property line along Oakland Avenue where the ATM machine is currently located. Section 1286.02 of the Zoning Code requires parking to be set back 10 feet from the front property line in the "D-V Professional Office District. A variance of 10 feet is therefore being requested. Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 10 D. Wynant presented the case. She stated that this property was rezoned in 1986 to office to allow the A.T.M. machine. She stated that the practical difficulty is the rezoning which was done in 1986. This parcel was zoned D-1 Professional Office. They would like to get a variance from the parking requirement for that zoning designation. By moving the A.T.M. they will gain approximately 40 parking spaces. Mark Hornung, 809 Center Street, of Landscape, Architects,.and Planners, spoke. He stated that St. Lawrence is doing more outpatient surgery, and the existing parking lot is full every day. They need more space, and the A.T.M. relocation is the easiest way to accomplish this. In addition to the increased parking need, they also want to refurbish the A.T.M. machine itself, and make it more accessible. E. Horne said that she has seen many beautiful landscaping plans from St. Lawrence, but they never seem to be implemented. They grant the variances and the re-zonings, and then when it comes to the landscaping, St. Lawrence does not do it. She is very disappointed, specifically, in the ramp. They have all seen these beautiful plans, but the landscaping and buffering has never been done. She sees this plan today, and knows there is a need, but wonders, are they really going to implement this and make it a really nice site? Mr. Hornung stated that they have done the landscaping in the receiving area, and it is very nice. He said that he will pass on the concerns about the landscaping of the ramp to the hospital, and that the bids have already gone out for this job, including the landscaping. More discussion ensued about the landscaping issue. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Ms. Horne stated that she knows something needs to be done about the whole appearance, but she feels that they need to take care of their commitments. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3449.97 at 1217 W. Oakland Avenue, for a 10' setback variance, subject to the landscape plan as submitted. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3449.97, 1217 W. Oakland Avenue, approved subject to conditions by a vote of 6 - 0. IV. OLD BUSINESS Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 11 A. Tabled Item, BZA-3422.97, 2720 N. East Street J. Ruff summarized this case. Mr. Fuzak, attorney for Capitol Discount, addressed the Board, stating that this is the third time they have appeared before the Board on this issue. He then presented information for members that weren't at the previous hearing for this case. He said that there was no opposition by the neighbors, and that there were 24.7 parking spaces, and 23 spaces are adequate for the business. He also said it is a corner lot, and they are limited as to where they can build. H. LeBlanc made a motion to remove this from the table, supported by E. Horne. The motion was approved unanimously on a voice vote, and BZA- 3422.97 was removed from the table. Further discussion took place. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark said that she feels this is more of a self-imposed hardship. H. LeBlanc agreed with her. C. Bicy added that he doesn't feel this is moving forward. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny BZA-3422.97 at 2720 N. East Street, due to the lack of a hardship or practical difficulty. M. Clark seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3422.97, 2720 N. East Street, denied by a vote of 6 - 0. B. Tabled Item, BZA-3434.97, 809 Center Street M. Clark made a motion to remove BZA-3434.97 from the table. H. LeBlanc seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. D. Wynant summarized this case, and additional materials were handed out. J. Ruff also added information. E. Horne commented regarding the site situation. The Oakland sign is ok. The director sign is even small for the information on it, The third sign is down. She also commented on the layout of the structure, the topography of the lot, and the size of the site. M. Clark said that it should be no problem to get the sign out of the right-of-way. Bob Ford, applicant, said that the corner sign is now landscaped, and showed pictures. He asked if the sign would be allowed in the right-of-way. He was referred to Mark Clark of the City of Lansing Public Service Department. H. LeBlanc made a motion to table this case once again, to allow for the Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 12 processing of an Act-285 review. C. Bicy seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously on a voice vote. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of May 8, 1997 C. Bicy made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 8, 1997. E. Horne supported the motion, which was carried unanimously on a voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. BZA-3443.97, 4720 S. Cedar Street J. Ruff summarized this case. Mr. Canady summarized the case history and asked for the Board to respond to the request. H. LeBlanc stated that she is the liaison between the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals, and would have to recuse herself if the question comes to debating what the Planning Board has recommended. H. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by E. Horne, to not consider BZA- 3443.97, seeing that the Board has not been given authority in the ordinance to grant land use variances. Mr. Canady stated that as he has reviewed more recent zoning case decisions that the Board has been given the right to consider land use variances by State Law. H. LeBlanc called for the question. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Pa e X By a unanimous vote of 6 - 0, the Board of Zoning Appeals refused to consider the request for a land use variance. B. BZA-3444.97, 5630 S. Washington Avenue - Withdrawn Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 13 VIII. ADJOURNMENT A. H. LeBlanc presented the Board with her letter of resignation, as she will be moving out of the City in August. B. J. Page notified the Board that his resignation is pending, also due to a move out of the City. C. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 09/30/97 c- Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1997, 7:30 p.m. I. The meeting was called to order by J. Page, Chair, at 7:40 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present C. Bicy J. Garcia M. Clark E. Horne J. Page H. LeBlanc B. Absences G. Hilts E. Spink C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to take place. D. Introduction of Staff Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Donna Wynant, Senior Planner II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda stands as printed. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3442.97, 2710 N. Grand River Avenue This is a request by Trina McIntyre for a variance from the amount of open space required for play area, to establish a child care facility for 45 children at 2710 N. Grand River Avenue. Section 1268.03(I) of the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 6,800 spare feet of open space for play area. The applicant will provide 1,330 square feet of open space at the north end of the property. A variance of 5,470 square feet is therefore being requested. Donna Wynant presented the case. She said that there is a beauty salon in one end of the building. The surrounding zoning is a variety of commercial and industrial, with some residential zoning to the north. The master plan shows commercial land use. The practical difficulty is that the applicant is not able to provide the required amount of play space. A park is located approximately 30 Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 2 seconds away by vehicle, and the applicant would supplement the play space by taking the children to the park. There is sufficient parking on location. Staff finds no negative impact on future development patterns, and recommends approval subject to the two conditions in the report, that an acceptable site plan be submitted to ensure that there is minimum aisle space to maneuver, and that an acceptable landscape, screening and buffering plan be submitted, that would screen the residential structure to the north of the play space. Trina McIntyre, 2700 Delta River Drive, applicant, spoke. She stated that the play space in the back will be used for 10 children at a time, each teacher has 10 children, and each has a different play time than the others. The landlord of both properties suggested that we use that play area. H. LeBlanc asked about transporting children to Horsebrook Park, which has no parking. The only entry is through the Board of Realtors parking lot. Ms. McIntyre said that they will use a van service called Kids Coach, and pull into the parking lot for loading and unloading of the van. Ms. LeBlanc asked if they had already received permission from the Board of Realtors to use their parking lot for this purpose. Ms. McIntyre stated that their understanding is that it is a public park. Ms. LeBlanc said that, while the park is public, the parking lot is privately owned, by the Board of Realtors. Ms. McIntyre stated that they may be able to park on the side street and walk to the park. Also, this is just a back- up plan, not a daily occurance. Rev. Bicy asked about the van. Ms. McIntyre stated that there would be 2 to 5 year olds, and they would go two classes at a time. The van holds 20 kids. Rev. Bicy stated that she would have to get the Board of Realtors to give permission to use their parking lot. He also cautioned her to think hard about the risks involved in having children of this age at a public park on a busy street. Ms. McIntyre asked that the Board look at this based upon the play area in back of the center. She stated that they have already passed the state's requirements, with extra play space, but they still have to pass the city. E. Horne asked if she has looked at other sites. Ms. McIntyre said that they have, but they really need child care in this area. She feels that the children will be safe enough here, the door is near the back, Grand River is not as busy as Saginaw, the kids would be quite a distance from the road. Ms. Horne said that they will have to walk in front of the beauty shop. She asked what other kinds of activities will be provided. Ms. McIntyre said that each child has activities, there are two recesses, approximately 20 to 25 minutes long. C. Bicy asked how much the transportation will cost. Ms. McIntyre said that she has worked out a deal with the van owner, and it will cost her$12 per trip. She reiterated that the park/van arrangement will be occasional. Mr. Page noted that a letter had been received from Robert & Louise Hamilton, the landlords for this property, who are in support of the project. Jean Bradley, 2721 N. Grand River, spoke. She said that she lives directly across from the property, and has lived there since 1965. She has a Masters degree in school social work, and has been a teacher. She has been around to most of the day care centers in Lansing over the years; she has been retired since 1990. She is against this, as there is not enough play area for the Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 3 number of children she proposes to have. Also, it is a dangerous location. there was a little boy killed right there, 10 or 15 years ago. There is a safety factor in the parking lot, as there are cars that use it for a short cut, a turn around. She doesn't feel that it is safe. Mark McIntyre, 2700 Delta River Drive, spoke. He stated that they have checked with all the nearby residents, and have gotten favorable reports; they feel that there is a need for this in the community. Traffic is bad, but its also bad at other day care centers, like on Pennsylvania. Other day cares have limited play area also. Anywhere you go you have a risk of kids running into traffic. Rev. Bicy asked if he could provide them with the addresses of other day care centers with less play area. Mr. McIntyre said that the one on S. Pennsylvania, the one on Michigan Avenue by Waverly, and one on St. Joseph. Ms. Horne commented that the day care on S. Pennsylvania has direct access to their play area. Her greatest concern is that the requested variance does not have direct access to the play area. No one else spoke. The Board moved into Committee of the Whole. Ms. LeBlanc said that the greatest problem is the lack of play space. They did grant a variance to the day care on S. Pennsylvania, but that situation has a park within safe walking distance. They don't have to transport the children by van to Horsebrook Park. Also, this location is right next to a bar. In Lansing, there are a lot of people on shift work, stopping by the bar to have a couple of beers on the way home for work. They would be leaving as the children are being picked up. But the greatest concern is the play space. Because of this, she would have to vote for denial. Ms. Clark stated that she appreciates the need for day care in this area, but will not be supporting this particular application. She agrees that there are some day care centers in town that do have very limited play space, but in the ones that she has supported, they have had the ability to get their children to a play area either without crossing busy streets or there have been other factors involved. She is also concerned with the parking lot, as it is a cut through. Rev. Bicy says that he would like to support this, but he can't. He can't support because of the things that have already been mentioned, one being the lack of play area. The beauty shop doesn't pose a problem, to him; there is a little bit of a problem with the lounge next door, however, he doesn't feel that it is that much of a problem during the day. He is not comfortable with Horsebrook park and transporting the children, one because of the drop off point, and two because if they don't receive approval to use the parking lot, they will have to leave workers there to maintain the children. There needs to be a day care in that area, but most of the day care centers he knows of are in homes. Mr. Garcia said that he also feels some concern about the actual location. He is surprised that someone isn't there from the beauty shop to speak on the effect on their business. He worked for many years for Head Start, so he knows a little about space requirements. He feels torn, between whether he would send his child there, and what they are actually asking for. Staff had recommended approval with conditions. He would probably vote for approval. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny BZA-3442.97 at 2710 N. Grand River Avenue, on the grounds that there is not viable play area . The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 4 VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3442.97, 2710 N. Grand River, denied by a vote of 5 - 1. B. BZA-3445.97, 2015 W. Oakland Avenue This is a request by Griffith &Alamar Canfield (owners) for a variance to permit construction of a 6' tall wooden fence within the front yard of the property at 2015 W. Oakland Avenue. Section 1292.03(a) limits the height of a fence in the front yard to three (3) feet; a variance of 3 feet is requested. This is a corner parcel with two front yard areas and the fence is proposed to extend into the front yard facing Stanley Street. J. Ruff presented the case. This request is for a corner lot, across Stanley Street is West Side Park; its at the end of Old Oakland Avenue. The fence would extend from the southwest corner of the house towards the sidewalk, then south in line with the garage, then back to the garage. Staff has reviewed the application, it is a small yard, and we feel that it is an advantage having West Side Park right adjacent. The positive aspect of the park is not having to supplement the rear yard space by extending it into the front yard with the fence. The fence would extend to the driveway, which is a hazard area. The driveway existing now leads to a single car garage, and it would create a blind spot for anyone walking on the sidewalk. The privacy issue is of utmost importance to the applicant. We will be sending a memo to Parks Dept. requesting that they do some landscaping in the park area to help block out lights and such. Staff can't recommend approval due to the safety factor. M. Clark asked if she was correct in assuming they could have a six foot fence if it didn't extend past the edge of the house? J. Ruff replied that they could. Mr. Canfield, 2015 W. Oakland Avenue, applicant, spoke. He would like to amend his fence plan to lower in that portion of the driveway that would be required for clear vision. The park was an attraction to our purchase of the house. But, when they use their backyard, they feel that they are in a goldfish bowl. If they move the fence back to comply with code, it will leave a very small yard. They also plan to rebuild the garage to a two car garage next year. There is a boulevard between the curb and sidewalk which is considerably wider along Stanley Street than in most residential areas, so that, as far as traffic from Oakland Street, would not be impacted at all by extending the fence along the side of the house. Rev. Bicy asked how much Mr. Canfield would be willing to lower the fence. Mr. Canfield stated that he would lower it to the three foot level, eight foot off the drive, 10 feet from Stanley Street. After that point he would try to Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 5 architecturally try to slope the fence back up to six feet, in a tasteful way, not abruptly. The fence would have fairly close planking, to keep the small dog in the yard. We have done a lot of landscaping, and want to keep things looking nice. M. Clark talked about their plan to enlarge the garage next year. J. Page read a letter from Bruce and Maudie Gates at 2005 W. Oakland, opposed to the fence due to visibility concerns; and a letter from Roger and Mary LaFiette, 2016 W. Oakland, who are also opposed. There were no other comments. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Rev. Bicy stated that he will be supporting this, as long as Mr. Canfield is willing to make the amendments as indicated. M. Clark asked if J. Ruff knew what the established setbacks are along Stanley. J. Ruff replied that they are ok. She then commented that this fence, at the setback as proposed, will ruin the clear vista that exists along this street. E. Horne said that she is still debating with herself. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3445.97 at 2015 W. Oakland Avenue, with conditions as amended by the applicant, thereby overriding the liability created by the fence. No one seconded the motion. M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3445.97 at 2015 W. Oakland Avenue, stating that she can't find an adequate hardship or practical difficulty to build the fence in the established front yard. E. Horne seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3445.97, 2015 W. Oakland Avenue, not passed by a vote of 4 - 2. The fence cannot be built, as a vote of 5 to 1 is necessary for the motion to actually pass. C. BZA-3446.97, 1808-10 Davis Avenue This is a request by Sue Slater and Richard Clark to build an 11' by 16' carport/second story deck, with adjoining walk three feet from the rear (west) lot line of the property located at 1808-1810 Davis Avenue. This necessitates Zoning Code variances of Section 1250.09 which requires a rear yard setback of 30' and Section 1250.11, which allows maximum lot coverage of 40% for structures and 60% including hard surfaced parking. The proposed improvement would result in 50% and 61% lot coverage factors respectively. Therefore, variances of 27' from the rear yard setback requirement and 10% and 1% lot coverage allowances are requested. D. Wynant presented the case. She mentioned that there are two driveways, one off of Davis, and one of the Alley way, so parking is adequate. It does Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 6 appear to be an increase in development for this property. The staff found that a practical difficulty and/or hardship is difficult to establish in this case as improvements can be made which don't require a variance. If the Board approves the variance request, the driveway will need to be appropriately modified and better defined to fit under the second story deck, and to not go more into the rear yard than necessary. There are two letters of support, from 403 Smith Avenue and 1816 Davis Avenue, and those two property owners are endorsing the proposal as described. Richard Clark and Sue Slater, 15248 Francis Rd., applicants, spoke. They said that their goal in proposing this is to improve the property. They were forced to take off a stairway and small landing, due to disuse and disrepair. They feel that they already have a hardship or practical difficulty due to the existing lot coverage, which is already over the limit. They have two proposals, the one presented and another for a smaller deck if the carport can not be approved. Their main goal is to provide their upstairs tenant with a small area where he can go to get some fresh air, put out a barbeque grill, and not have to go down and share the small lot in the yard with the downstairs tenant. They presented drawings of the house so that the board can get an idea of their proposal. This area of the yard is adjacent to neighbors garages and their driveways. The deck will not affect the neighbors property. Rev. Bicy asked what the second story deck would look like. Ms. Slater said that it would be wolmanized wood, built to code, around 10 feet to the bottom of the door, at the same level as the landing that shows in the picture. E. Horne asked how many bedrooms are in each apartment. Ms. Slater replied that there are two bedrooms per unit. Ms. Horne then asked how many children are in each apartment, as she drove by and saw tricycles and such in the yard. Ms. Slater said that there is one child in the lower unit and no children in the upper unit. Ms. Slater said that they could simply side over the area, but it would not be as safe. Also, she said that it would be nicer for the tenant to have a space for a barbeque grill, some personal space. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark commented that this property is a Class "B" Nonconformity, and that the owners are limited in the amount of money they can spend to fix it up without reapplying for Class A status. She went on to discuss her own neighborhood, which is similar, and the nice condition of the house. She stated that she prefers the deck alternative to the carport originally requested. She doesn't consider it ideal, but does find it a livable compromise. H. LeBlanc stated that she also is concerned with the increase in lot coverage, and could support the smaller deck. E. Horne said that she has driven by the house several times, and also feels that the smaller deck would be a better alternative. H. LeBlanc asked what the size of the deck would be. Ms. Slater said that it would be 6' x 14', across the back of the house. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny BZA-3446.97 at 1808- 1810 Davis Avenue as applied for, but to approve the 6' x 14' deck off the upper unit and the applicant will comply with all building Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 7 permits and requirements . The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3446.97, 1808-1810 Davis Avenue, approved by a vote of 6 - 0 as modified. D. BZA-3447.97, 406 Rosadell Avenue This is a request by Perry M. Costello, 406 Rosadell, to enclose an existing 10' x 16' (160 square feet) rear deck to the residence. Section 1248.09 of the City of Lansing Zoning Code requires a rear yard setback of 30 feet. The proposed setback for the enclosed rear porch is 27 feet; therefore, a variance of 3 feet is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. The existing deck is near grade, and they want to enclose it. There really isn't a physical factor that would cause a hardship or practical difficulty, the established setback is greater than the minimum 20 feet so it does force the house back on the site, and it would remain a 27 foot rear yard setback. There are no adverse impacts anticipated regarding circulation. Staff recommended denial. Mr. Ruff stated that they can build the porch without a variance 7' x 16', or however wide they want it. There wouldn't be as much usable space, but it would be usable. Perry Costello, 406 Rosadell, applicant, spoke. He stated that the houses in his neighborhood are very small, as are the lots. There is no way to do anything from side to side. His house has exactly 912 square feet of usable space. At this point, they do not have anywhere to kick their boots off; they have hardwood floors, and the rugs and the floors are difficult to maintain. They intend to use this new room for this. They intend to side it, and put in 10 windows. It will be in harmony with the rest of the house. He then showed the site plan. He also stated that he thinks the request is reasonable and practical. They feel that it is very necessary in maintaining the house on the inside, as well as looking good from the outside. Mr. Costello presented letters from the neighbors. J. Ruff read the five letters into the record. They were from: David and Janice Hoeflinger, 404 Rosadell Russell and Lulu Smith, Rosadell St. Sara Houchen, 412 Rosadell Dean Hartley, 412 W. Willard Mr. and Mrs. Torok, 407 W. Willard They are all in favor of the proposal. Mr. Costello showed pictures of the neighborhood. He stated that the reason Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 8 he is showing the pictures and presenting the letters is to show that this type of structure/addition is not uncommon in their area, that precedent has already been established. There are at least three others in the area who have screened in porches, although they are on deeper lots. He also mentioned that there is no sunlight that gets into the 15' between houses. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Rev. Bicy asked about the 7' being allowed. He asked about the difference in square footage between what he want's and what he can get without a variance. This difference is 48 square feet. However, Mr. Ruff stated that this could be increased by making the addition wider, rather than deeper. Rev. Bicy said that, based upon what is permissible and what is desired, he is prepared to support a 7' room. Mr. Ruff stated that he is permitted by right to have an addition 7' deep and as wide as the house, without a variance or approval of the Board. If this request were granted, it would not create a problem for the neighbors, but it would make the decision making process harder for the board in subsequent variance requests, as no hardship or practical difficulty exists. The Board went on at this point and discussed the issue of"Building Envelopes". C. Bicy made a motion to deny BZA-3447.97 at 406 Rosadell Avenue, based upon the lack of hardship or practical difficulty; however, the applicant can build an addition 7' x the width that the building envelope allows. The motion was seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3447.97, 406 Rosadell Avenue, denied by a vote of 6 - 0. E. BZA-3448.97, 240 Museum Drive This is a request by R. E. Olds Transportation Museum to retain a 30 square foot ground pole sign to be relocated on the property line at the northeast corner of the property at 240 Museum Drive, which is located in the Capitol Center District. Section 1442.24(C)(2) of the Sign Code requires a setback of 10' for this size of sign; therefore, a variance of 10' is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. The museum erected the sign without a permit, it replaced a sign that identifies the museum, but it happens to be in the right of way, so they need to get a sign permit, and to place it in a location which meets code requirements. It would require a 30 square foot sign placed 10 feet from the front property line, so they are proposing to move the sign, but 10 feet from the property line puts the sign in the entrance area of the walk-way, and behind the front line of Impression 5 Museum, so they are requesting to put it at the property line, as long as it otherwise meets code. Norman Witte, Attorney for R.E.Olds Museum, 110 W. Allegan, 10th FI., Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 9 addressed the Board. He stated that the problem is two-fold; first, the sign is 33.6 square feet, a little larger than what is permitted, and second, it is in the right of way, rather than set back like the other sign was. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-saq, and is leased from the city. This is the year of the Olds Centennial, which is very important to us. We are trying to fix up the building, and find the location. He stated that the reason they have a low number of visitors annually is that it is in an awkward location. Since the non- conforming sign has been erected, they have had at least a dozen people say that the reason they never visited before is that they didn't know it was there, but the sign allowed them to be aware of the museum, as well as the location, and they could see it from Michigan Avenue. They have also had problems with people parking in their lot that should have parked at Impression 5 or the Surveyors Museum. They believe that this new sign is good for the entire museum community, as it attracts visitors to our museum, and when they come to our museum, they also know that there are other museums there, which benefits the museum complex as a whole. J. Ruff stated that he spoke to the sign erector who put up the sign. The square footage quoted isn't completely accurate, as the sign isn't square. It is irregularly shaped, so its figured at 30 square feet, which is allowed by code in the Capitol Center district. So, the only thing that we are looking at is the setback issue. Rev. Bicy asked if the sign is lighted. Mr. Witte replied that it isn't lighted at all, either internally or externally, and there are no plans to do this, as the museum isn't open at night. They only have daylight hours. M. Clark asked whether the sign presents a visibility hazard. Mr. Ruff stated that it did not. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3448.97 at 240 Museum Drive, for setbacks of 0' . The motion was seconded by E. Horne. Mr. Ruff stated that the hardship is based on the issue of visibility past the property line. M. Clark stated that she would be supporting due to the location at the end of a cul-de-sac. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3448.97, 240 Museum Drive, approved by a vote of 6 - 0. F. BZA-3449.97, 1217 W. Oakland Avenue This is a request by Mark Hornung of Landscape, Architects and Planners, Inc., representing St. Lawrence Hospital, 1217 W. Oakland Avenue, to allow parking 10 feet from the front property line along Oakland Avenue where the ATM machine is currently located. Section 1286.02 of the Zoning Code requires parking to be set back 10 feet from the front property line in the "D-V Professional Office District. A variance of 10 feet is therefore being requested. Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 10 D. Wynant presented the case. She stated that this property was rezoned in 1986 to office to allow the A.T.M. machine. She stated that the practical difficulty is the rezoning which was done in 1986. This parcel was zoned D-1 Professional Office. They would like to get a variance from the parking requirement for that zoning designation. By moving the A.T.M. they will gain approximately 40 parking spaces. Mark Hornung, 809 Center Street, of Landscape, Architects, and Planners, spoke. He stated that St. Lawrence is doing more outpatient surgery, and the existing parking lot is full every day. They need more space, and the A.T.M. relocation is the easiest way to accomplish this. In addition to the increased parking need, they also want to refurbish the A.T.M. machine itself, and make it more accessible. E. Horne said.that she has seen many beautiful landscaping plans from St. Lawrence, but they never seem to be implemented. They grant the variances and the re-zonings, and then when it comes to the landscaping, St. Lawrence does not do it. She is very disappointed, specifically, in the ramp. They have all seen these beautiful plans, but the landscaping and buffering has never been done. She sees this plan today, and knows there is a need, but wonders, are they really going to implement this and make it a really nice site? Mr. Hornung stated that they have done the landscaping in the receiving area, and it is very nice. He said that he will pass on the concerns about the landscaping of the ramp to the hospital, and that the bids have already gone out for this job, including the landscaping. More discussion ensued about the landscaping issue. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Ms. Horne stated that she knows something needs to be done about the whole appearance, but she feels that they need to take care of their commitments. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3449.97 at 1217 W. Oakland Avenue, for a 10' setback variance, subject to the landscape plan as submitted. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3449.97, 1217 W. Oakland Avenue, approved subject to conditions by a vote of 6 - 0. IV. OLD BUSINESS Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 11 A. Tabled Item, BZA-3422.97, 2720 N. East Street J. Ruff summarized this case. Mr. Fuzak, attorney for Capitol Discount, addressed the Board, stating that this is the third time they have appeared before the Board on this issue. He then presented information for members that weren't at the previous hearing for this case. He said that there was no opposition by the neighbors, and that there were 24.7 parking spaces, and 23 spaces are adequate for the business. He also said it is a corner lot, and they are limited as to where they can build. H. LeBlanc made a motion to remove this from the table, supported by E. Horne. The motion was approved unanimously on a voice vote, and BZA- 3422.97 was removed from the table. Further discussion took place. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark said that she feels this is more of a self-imposed hardship. H. LeBlanc agreed with her. C. Bicy added that he doesn't feel this is moving forward. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny BZA-3422.97 at 2720 N. East Street, due to the lack of a hardship or practical difficulty. M. Clark seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3422.97, 2720 N. East Street, denied by a vote of 6 - 0. B. Tabled Item, BZA-3434.97, 809 Center Street M. Clark made a motion to remove BZA-3434.97 from the table. H. LeBlanc seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. D. Wynant summarized this case, and additional materials were handed out. J. Ruff also added information. E. Horne commented regarding the site situation. The Oakland sign is ok. The director sign is even small for the information on it, The third sign is down. She also commented on the layout of the structure, the topography of the lot, and the size of the site. M. Clark said that it should be no problem to get the sign out of the right-of-way. Bob Ford, applicant, said that the corner sign is now landscaped, and showed pictures. He asked if the sign would be allowed in the right-of-way. He was referred to Mark Clark of the City of Lansing Public Service Department. H. LeBlanc made a motion to table this case once again, to allow for the Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 12 processing of an Act-285 review. C. Bicy seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously on a voice vote. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of May 8, 1997 C. Bicy made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 8, 1997. E. Horne supported the motion, which was carried unanimously on a voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. BZA-3443.97, 4720 S. Cedar Street J. Ruff summarized this case. Mr. Canady summarized the case history and asked for the Board to respond to the request. H. LeBlanc stated that she is the liaison between the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals, and would have to recuse herself if the question comes to debating what the Planning Board has recommended. H. LeBlanc made a motion, seconded by E. Horne, to not consider BZA- 3443.97, seeing that the Board has not been given authority in the ordinance to grant land use variances. Mr. Canady stated that as he has reviewed more recent zoning case decisions that the Board has been given the right to consider land use variances by State Law. H. LeBlanc called for the question. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Horne X Garcia X Clark X LeBlanc X Page X By a unanimous vote of 6 - 0, the Board'of Zoning Appeals refused to consider the request for a land use variance. B. BZA-3444.97, 5630 S. Washington Avenue - Withdrawn Board of Zoning Appeals, July 10, 1997 Page 13 Vill. ADJOURNMENT A. H. LeBlanc presented the Board with her letter of resignation, as she will be moving out of the City in August. B. J. Page notified the Board that his resignation is pending, also due to a move out of the City. C. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 09/05/97 Approved 09/11/97 To Clerk 09/25/97 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1997, 7:30 p.m. I. The meeting was called to order by J. Page, Chair, at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present C. Bicy (arrived at 7:36) J. Garcia G. Hilts E. Horne J. Page E. Spink B. Absences H. LeBlanc (Excused) M. Clark C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to take place. r—D. Introduction of Staff ._j Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Donna Wynant, Senior Planner ' r ; II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA f w Agenda stands as printed. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3436.97, 110 W. Potter This is a request by Dana and Phyllis Perkins to construct a front addition with a wrap around porch, plus a breezeway, between the house and the garage at 110 W. Potter Avenue. Since this is a corner lot, there are two front yards, Stafford Street and Potter Avenue. The 8' x 24' addition is 17' from the Stafford Street property line (west) and 3' from the Potter Avenue property line (south). Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code requires a setback of 27' from the west property line and 22.5' setback from the south property line for new construction. These are requested front yard variances of 10' and 19.5' respectively. The breezeway will be set back in line with the garage, 15' from the south line. A variance of 7.5' is necessary. Board of Zoning Appeals, June 12, 1997 Page 2 Donna Wynant presented the case. Dana Potter, applicant, spoke. He stated that he really had nothing to add, except that they had originally wanted to build the porch 14 feet wide, but didn't think that the Board would approve it. He also stated that the door on the Stafford Street side has never been used, and is, in fact, caulked shut. E. Horne asked if they would be trying to get their address changed to Stafford Street. Mr. Potter explained that they currently are 110 W. Potter, and five houses from them is 110 E. Potter. They would prefer to have an address of Stafford Street. No one else spoke. The Board moved into Committee of the Whole. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3436.97 at 110 W. Potter, based upon the staff report, and finding that a practical difficulty has been demonstrated, and that there are no hazards created by the variance. C. Bicy seconded the motion. E. Horne commented that she also supports this variance, as lot coverage is not an issue. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Garcia X Bicy X BZA-3436.97, 110 W. Potter Avenue, approved by a vote of 6 - 0. B. BZA-3437.97, 318 Beaver Street This is a request by Henry Riley (owner) for a variance in the front, side, and rear yard setbacks in order to construct a single family residence at 318 Beaver Street. The structure is proposed to be 24' x 28'. Section 1250.07, .08, & .09 of the Zoning Code require a front yard setback of 21', side yard setbacks of 10' and 3.75', and a rear yard setback of 30'. The applicant is requesting a front yard setback of 18', side yards of 10' and 3.5', and a rear yard of 20'. Variances are therefore being requested of T, .25', and 10' in the front, side, and rear yard setbacks, respectively. J. Ruff presented the case. He added that the staff would view this variance request favorably if Mr. Riley would remove the small building located at 320 Beaver Street. Discussion took place concerning the joint driveway. Henry Riley, applicant, spoke. He stated that he bought the properties on Center Street and Beaver Street. The City won't issue him permits to fix the properties up. He wants to take the little blue house down, because there's no Board of Zoning Appeals, June 12, 1997 Page 3 slab under it, there's very little footing, and it's junk. He wants to build a new building on that lot. Rev. Bicy asked what type of permits he had wanted. Mr. Riley stated that he wanted a permit to do siding and windows. The City wouldn't issue one, so he went ahead and put up the siding anyway. There were no other comments. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Rev. Bicy asked about the Zoning of the property. Mr. Ruff stated that it is "C" Residential, which is a single two family use, but the lot sizes aren't large enough to use as two family. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3437.97, 318 Beaver Street, with conditions: 1. That the existing building at 320 Beaver Street be demolished in order to bring both lots into conformance with zoning regulations for housing unit density and to prevent the creation of over-crowded housing conditions; 2. That the lot be graded appropriately for a finished lawn, and 3. The driveway easement between 318 Beaver and 1425 Center be properly executed. The motion was seconded by J. Garcia. Dr. Spink added that he supports this variance as he believes it is consistent with the zoning requirements, it shows willingness to compromise, to permit the best use, and his reason for stating the lawn requirements is because sometimes, that last thing just doesn't get done. He also feels that it is very important that the structure be torn down, and the easement be legally executed. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Garcia X Bic X BZA-3437.97, 318 Beaver Street, approved with conditions, by a vote of 6-0. C. BZA-3438.97, 1110 Oak Street This is a request by Elias Moreno to construct a 10' x 20.3' front addition to the property at 1110 Oak Street, 10.2' from the front property line, and 2.7' from the side property line. The overall structure would cover 43% of the lot. Combined with parking area, the overall lot coverage would be 65%. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Code requires a side yard setback of 3.8'. Section 1248.11 restricts lot coverage to 55% and structural coverage to 40% of the total lot area. This is therefore a request for: a 9.8' variance from the front yard setback requirement; a 1.1' variance from the side yard setback requirement; a 10% variance from the maximum lot coverage ratio; and a 3% variance from the maximum structural coverage ratio. D. Wynant presented the case. Mr. Elias Moreno, applicant, spoke. He stated that he doesn't really have Board of Zoning Appeals, June 12, 1997 Page 4 anything to add, he just hopes that they can have the variance. Mrs. Moreno added that they are a family of four, who can't afford another home. They are trying to create some extra space for their daughters by adding a basement bedroom. Their neighbor across the street came over and looked at their proposal, and has no objections. Mr. Ruff asked how the plan is going to give them more room. Mr. Moreno said that if they can extend the porch, it will give more room. Dr. Spink asked if they would need egress for a basement bedroom, and Mr. Ruff said that they would need a second means of egress, perhaps by way of a window. More discussion took place concerning this. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Rev. Bicy stated that he could approve the variance, but only with a 10' total for the porch, and with an egress window on the west side of the building, and nothing else. Dr. Spink stated that he has two concerns, and Rev. Bicy has spoken to one already, being any variance which would allow an egress window to be put in the front yard is not acceptable. He is also concerned with the lot coverage issue, as the city has tried not to over-develop property, and a 10% variance in lot coverage is very sizable. In this case, it is almost humongous, because the lot is almost covered. He does recognize that the applicants have a need, but he feels that when this issue is balanced out, the goal of not overcrowding the property is foremost. There are other options, including the first floor, or second floor, for extra sleeping areas. Rev. Bicy asked what the porch size is of the house across the street. Dr. Spink added that there appears to be living space above the porch. Mrs. Moreno spoke again. She stated that there used to be a house between 1111 Oak Street and the corner property. When the house was torn down, the lot was split between the two properties. Also, between her house and the next house, a house was torn down, and that lot was also split. E. Horne said that there are options to change the house to increase the amount of living space. She said that they have to be creative; if they start going beyond the 60%, we are going to be in trouble. Rev. Bicy proposed keeping all expansion to the north and south sides E. Spink made a motion to deny BZA-3438.97 at 1110 Oak Street, but that the applicant be encouraged to work within the existing building footprint to get the additional living space. The motion was seconded by E. Horne. Dr. Spink amended his motion to include the clause that if the basement is utilized as a bedroom, the egress must be installed, and it should be to the side, rather than the front. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Garcia X Bic X BZA-3438.97, 1110 Oak Street, denied by a vote of 6 - 0, with the note that the applicant work within the existing footprint to get the additional living space, and further that if a bedroom is put downstairs, the egress window should not be put in the front yard, but rather on the side. Board of Zoning Appeals, June 12, 1997 Page 5 D. BZA-3439.97, 3815 Tecumseh River Road This is a request by Quality Homes, builder for Kathy and Jeremy Boak, 3815 Tecumseh River Road, to construct an 8' x 18' (144 ftz) front porch addition to their residence. Section 1248.07(b) of the City of Lansing Zoning Code requires a front yard setback of 37.5'. The proposed setback for the front porch addition is 32'; therefore, a variance of 5.5' is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He mentioned that a garage was added to the side of the house, and a driveway has yet to be appropriately developed; a driveway should be properly hard surfaced if this board considers approving the request. Jim Schmidts of Quality Homes spoke. He stated that this front porch is going to be roofed, on a crawlspace with a concrete cap. It will not be enclosed. The porch will not affect traffic along Tecumseh River Road. The view from other houses or the road will not be affected, due to the way the road curves at this point. Rev. Bicy asked if the porch would be enclosed. Mr. Schmidts said that it would not be enclosed, not even with screen. Dr. Spink asked how long the porch would be. Mr. Schmidts said that it would be 18' long. More discussion took place concerning the construction of the porch. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3439.97 at 3815 Tecumseh River Road, for an open porch, on the condition that the driveway be completed and hard surfaced. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Garcia X Bic X BZA-3439.97, 3815 Tecumseh River Road, approved by a vote of 6 - 0, with conditions. E. BZA-3440.97, 132 Kipling This is a request by Ken and Sherie Curtin (owners) for a variance in the front yard setback to permit construction of a 10' x 18' kitchen addition to the front of the house located at 132 Kipling Blvd. The established front yard setback as required by Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code is 29'. The requested addition would have a front yard setback of 22'; a variance of 7 feet is therefore requested. Board of Zoning Appeals, June 12, 1997 Page 6 J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that it is a small cape cod style home with a small building footprint, set on a good sized lot. Mr. Ken Curtin, applicant, spoke. He explained that they are a five member family, and with one on the way, they need to expand their living area. He stated that they can't make any other adjustment unless the kitchen and bedrooms are relocated. What they want is a continuation off of the kitchen, totally remodeling it, and adding a double gabled porch to make it look like the original. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3440.97 at 132 Kipling Blvd. as proposed, with a 22' setback. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Garcia X Bicy X BZA-3440.97, 132 Kipling Blvd., approved by a vote of 6 - 0. F. BZA-3441.97, S. E. Corner Webster and Pheasant This is a request by J & L Investments to build a new house on the vacant lot at the southeast corner of Pheasant and Webster, 19'4" from the property line along Webster. Since this is a corner lot, there are two front yard setbacks required. Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code requires a front yard setback as established from both the west and north property lines for new construction. The established front yard setback along Webster is 25'. Therefore, this is a requested front yard variance of 68". The applicant proposes to build a 258" x 40' raised ranch single family home. D. Wynant presented the case. She said that there is enough of a setback at the intersection of the two streets to prevent any sight or visibility problems, especially along Pheasant, that staff recommends approval. J. Ruff added that there are 8" overhangs in the back, and 12" overhangs in the front, which have been counted into the variance. He said that one letter was received from a gentleman whose father lives at 5907 Pheasant, concerned that the structure would be too close to the side property line, which then would overlook the father's house. The variance accommodates enough slack to maintain a 6' rear yard setback, even with the overhang, and still have a 19'4" front yard setback. Because the lot is only 51' wide, all you have to be is 5.1' off the side yard, and that means the foundation could still be 6' away, but the overhang would be 8" closer to the side yard, so it would be about 5.3' more with the overhang, so the variance would allow the entire structure to be 6' off the property line. There is about 10' to 12' between the fence line and the neighbors house to the south, so you have 10' to 12' plus the 6'. It's not so much that the variance directly Board of Zoning Appeals, June 12, 1997 Page 7 affects the setback, but it could. If you force it farther from Webster, you force it closer to this house. The letter is saying that they would prefer as much space as possible, but right now, by right, the structure could be 5.1' off the side lot line. Mike Markey, J & L Investments, spoke. He stated that staff has done an excellent job of preparing the report, and he is just here to answer questions. There were no questions. No one else spoke. Dr. Spink read into the record the address and name of the person who sent the letter. It is from Bill Byrnes, P. O. Box 21081, Lansing MI 48901. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Dr. Spink said that he will be supporting the motion as the requested variance will allow for a side yard more than is required by code. Rev. Bicy said that he also will support the motion. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3441.97 at the corner of Webster and Pheasant for a 5'8" setback variance. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Garcia X Bicy X BZA-3441.97, S.E. Corner of Webster and Pheasant, approved by a vote of 6 - 0. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item, BZA-3422.97, 2720 N. East Street E. Horne made a motion to remove this case from the table. The motion was supported by G. Hilts, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. J. Ruff stated that the applicant has a slide show to present, and some additional cover material, with the reduced site plan, was handed out to the board members at the meeting tonight. There is more structure in the new plan than in the original plan; it provides for some additional parking, which is reasonable for accommodating this commercial use. G. Hilts made a motion to hear additional information on this case. E. Horne seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. J. Fuzak, lawyer for Capitol Discount, presented the slide show, handed out some additional materials to go with the slide show. He stated that they have three stores, with 20 employees, and a proven track record. Their proposal Board of Zoning Appeals, June 12, 1997 Page 8 would mean that the existing building on N. East Street would become completely storage. The new construction would be strictly display area. They feel that they have a hardship and/or practical difficulty, as they on a corner lot, with no options as to rear yard setbacks. If they had an actual rear yard, they would have three setback options; they only have two, and the one they can't exercise is the one that they would actually use for their situation. He said that the Planning Office had suggested three alternatives for them, they all involve 2 of the walls of the building. They want to do the repairs without affecting the load bearing walls, and without having to close down the business. They have changed the number of parking spaces proposed from 14 to 23, and rearranged the curb cuts to allow a smoother flow of traffic. They feel that 23 parking spaces are sufficient for this business. Mr. Fuzak addressed the practical difficulty, which they feel to be its location on a corner lot. He also went over the other requirements for a variance, and they feel that they have valid reasons for the requested variances, and a practical difficulty (corner lot). J. Ruff asked where the front door is going to be. Mr. Fuzak replied that it would be on the north side of the addition. Mr. Ruff also stated that the size of the addition is larger than the original request. Mr. Fuzak said that it is, because they need additional display space. Rev. Bicy asked about the alternative plans indicated on the handouts. Mr. Fuzak said that they had been given to him by Jim Sturdevant of the Planning Office. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Dr. Spink asked Mr. Ruff if this requires a new advertisement, as it is different from the original request. Mr. Ruff said that basically, it is the same variance (5' setback). E. Horne said that she doesn't want to take any action tonight, as she would like to study this new information, and she really isn't ready to take any action at this point. J. Ruff stated that this business typically has outdoor display, and wonders where it is to be, or if they are going to forego outdoor display at this location. Rev. Bicy asked where the outside entrance is for delivery. Mr. Fuzak replied that the old front entryway door will be converted to warehouse entry. Rev. Bicy made a motion, seconded by Ms. Horne, to table BZA-3422.97, 2720 N. East Street, in order for the staff to analyze the new site plan. The Board desired information on dumpster location, how deliveries would be handled, what landscaping would be incorporated, what the exterior would look like, and etc. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. BZA-3422.97, 2720 N. East Street, was tabled. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board of Zoning Appeals, June 12, 1997 Page 9 A. Minutes of May 8, 1997 Minutes were handed out for action at the July Meeting. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. J. Ruff noted that Ms. Clark had requested that her absence be excused. Dr. Spink made a motion, seconded by Ms. Horne, to excuse Ms. Clark from this meeting. Motion Carried. B. Mr. Hilts requested an excused absence for the August 14, 1997 meeting. Dr. Spink made a motion, seconded by Rev. Bicy, to excuse Mr. Hilts from the Boards August 14, 1997 meeting. Motion carried. VII1. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 061 Approved 071 To Clerk 091,02,97 MEETING OF THE REGULARLS MINUTES OF ZONING APPEA HALL BOAR j()-TVA FLOORCITY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS$' 1997, 7:30 P.M- THURSDAY, MAY m. Roll call was The meeting was called to order by E- Horne,Vice-Chair, at 7:33 p• I. taken. Pry M. Clark A. arrived at 7:43) j. Garcia E. Horne H. LeBlanc Hor ne G. Hilts B. Absences E. Spink(excused) present, allowing VOting action to take j. Page A quorum of six members was C. place. D Introduction of Staff j. Sturdevant, Senior Planner Senior Planner r S. Hayward, J AGENDA c� 11. APPROVAL OF _7 Agenda stands as printed. r m �� ry 111. HEARINGSIACTION 3431.979 2214 Vassar Drive 2214 Vassar Drive, A BZA- Susan Deadman, a 1.9, from the side lot line Richard and garage a decreased to uest by �4�� attached 9 osed to b This is a req __)(261 ately 24' and ►s group es a side yard setback of i� construct a 22' x 26 Pa e 2 eats Ma 8 1997 Board of Zonin P► ractical difficulty of this property is the allowed by the Zoning Code. Th S off sharply at mid-lot. topography of the lot, which drop ace. asked the applicant about the maintenancetorant variancesis llike thl of a is which M. Clark reluctant to g She stated that the board is usually es of materials are being may be hard to maintain. She also asked what typ used on the garage replied that they were using cement blocks with aluminum siding. Mr. Deadman lenty of space to get lawn mowers in between He also said Ms. Clark questioned this statement, as in i that there would be p the garage and the property line. mit fence may be built which woulddlibe n considered Mr. Hayward ess for mowing. She future, a erhaps a wider setback c wondered if p er back. stated that this setback does tap No one else spoke, either for or against this appeal. into Committee of the Whole. Mr_21tj stated that his 19" The Board moved i . - lawnmower would fit in the requested setback rive, finding that it is a rove BZA-3431.97 at 2214 Vassar D The motion was to of the lot being a practical difficulty. rM.e Clark made motion the topography reasonable request,LeBlanc. yea nay seconded by yea nay VOTE: X Horne X X Hilts Bic Garcia X IICIU�Ilk BZA-3431.97, 2214 Vassar Drive, app roved by a vote of 6 -0. B. BZA-3432.97, 3500 Gingersnap Lane Arnold and Mary Ellen Yerxa to constructo n add i thron ee he This is a request by ersnap Lane. The applicant proposes rear of the house at 3500 Ging concrete slab. The proposed 10, x 16' ro erty line. Section 1248.09 of the Zoning season room to be built over an existing for new construction. This is addition is 23 feet from id thear of 30 feet Code requires a rear y and variance of 7 feet. therefore a request for a rear y J. Sturdevant presented the case. . . _._,..,� +hat they want to put a Pa e 3 Board of Zonin A eats Ma 8 1997 There were no other comments. e no ommittee of the Whole. Mr. Bicy stated hms with the at h can erequest,difficulty or and The Board went into C ort the variance. He sees no p hardship, but he does supp proceeded to make the motion. Gingersnap Lane. The motion was made a motion to approve BZA-3432.97 at 3500 C. Bicy nay seconded by G. Hilts. yea nay yea VOTE: Horne X X Hilts X X Bic Garcia rsnap Lane, app roved by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3432.97, 3500 Ginge C. BZA-3433.97, 1300 BI. Turner Street This is a request by Barry D. Wood (appiicant) for Ferguson Development and setbacks to develop 46 (owner by contract) for variances in front and rear the west y e units. The two acre site is located on dent al Distrc t.oThe site i a f the 1300 townhouse a River Drive; block of Turner Street, and is zoneding th Street and Dodg corner lot with front yards Zoning Code requires front yard setbacks of 20', and the Section 1256.07 of the Zoning Dodge River Drive. requested setbacks are 6.33' ono the west side of the site rner Street and 7' on srequestf requested yard Also, a rear yard setback of 12 Code requires 25 feet). In summary, (Section 1256.09 of the Zoning and variance of 8' is variances of 13.67' and 14' are requested and a rear y requested. J. Sturdevant presented the case. t. Mr. Sturdevant said Mr. Bicy asked about the parking for this developmenone ou side. Ms. Clark that there were two spaces for each unit, a Riverne inside Driveis acceptable. Mr. the setback along Dodge uires which req inquired why ro ert is zoned "H" Light Industrial, of 33'. Sturdevant stated that the p p y e River only has a right of way mint, a zero foot front yard setback. Dodg Discussion took place concerning the transitional setbacks were discussed. Mr- from commercial to residential; also, surroun ding Sturdevant also extra 10' or so. _-.j the rant lest. He Board of Zoning Appeals, May 8, 1997 Page 4 development. These are to be three story buildings, with a flat on the lower level, and a two story townhome above, so each 22 feet would be a living area. He described more about the layout of the development, including the parking. This is to be a gated community, for automobile access, as they feel it may be an attractive nuisance for those wanting to use the river walk, who may try to park there. Ms. Clark clarified that the only place where there is to be a 7' setback is on the corner unit, otherwise, the setbacks are well within the allowable limits. Ms. LeBlanc stated that the Planning Board has discussed the possibility of future development. Mr. Wood replied that expansion could take place, on the adjacent lot, not on the same lot. There is also a possibility that the vacant land across the street would be utilized for expansion in the future. Ms. Clark asked what the right of way is on Dodge River Drive. She was told that it is 33'. Mr. Bicy wanted to know what would happen to Turner Street. He was told that the right of way would stay the same, but they are moving the street trees to accommodate parking. There will not be street parking. Ms. LeBlanc said that moving the units closer to the street maximizes the open space to the rear of the lots, increasing usable space for the tenants. Mr. Wood said that this development is historically correct in layout. Ms. Horne wondered if the Historic District Commission had been consulted. She was told that it had not. Mr. Sturdevant stated that the staff of the Historic District Commission had seen the plan, but this development is not in any historic district, and therefore, review was not mandated. Ms. LeBlanc stated that the Planning Board did approve the rezoning of this property, which had been zoned for warehouse use. No one else commented. Mrs. Horne read a communication into the record that was received by the Planning Office in regard to this issue. This communication indicated a favorable opinion from Lisa Carey, Program Manager of Old Town Main Street. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Ms. Clark stated that she finds this development exciting and an incredibly positive development for the north end, and can support this variance, now that her concerns about the setback on Dodge River Drive have been clarified. Ms. LeBlanc also supports it, and stated that this development builds on the existing character of the neighborhood and retains it. Mr. Bicy stated that he will support this variance request, as the look and atmosphere will be good for the area. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3433.97 in the 1300 Block of Turner Street, per the -.,-CC .,,__r4 — +ko roni i0Cf i,- nnncistAnt with the nature of the neighborhood. The motion was Pa e 5 Board of Zoni I A eals Ma 8 1997 BZA-3433.97, 1300 B .�. Of;Turn�Street, approved by a vote of 6 -0 D. BZA-3434.97, 809 Center Street Robert Ford of One Oakland uthwest corner of Oakland Ther to retain a second is is a request 32 square feet in size, at the so ground pole sign, ro ert located at 809 Center Street. The o�ot off of parking and Center Street for his p P y Ordinance allows only one and Pole sign is located at the southern the Zoning entrance into their P variance from center P ter 1442. his i request for a va Center Street. Chap pole sign per Parcel. This is the pole at this location. ground p to allow two ground p Chapter 1442.12(b) ra hics in the staff resented the case, referring the board to the g P j. Sturdevant p applicant had an existing sign, wanted a new sign be in report. He stated that theta ermit for it, on the condition to allowt'the old h m to keep nthe a different location, and got a p a varian licant is now requesting ears to be in removed. The app supposed to be taken down. It appears second sign, the one that was supp and has been there a tong adjacent to the right of way; it is non-conforming,arty on a second p other There is also a third sign on the prop, the parking lot. Staff does not support this variance, as there are many possibilities. acquired the applicant, spoke. He stated that they q Robert Ford, landlord and he property is located at the transition of Saginaw quaint, property two Years ago. are located next to is not the q have been in the position of being the and Old Town. The residential area they police homey area it appears to be; rather they have worked with the Lansing to et rid of the drug traffic and the prostitution. neighborhood watch for the area. They Department, trying g to take out the to ee to the City Mr. Ford further stated that he had sent an emp Ypermit, she condition that the first sign be removed h back the P attached to the sign permit. The co and Mr. Ford to ee permit by the Building Office; when the work in the drawer, doesn't didn't mention the condition, put the paper He stated that the buildi He also said and the curve that it sets on. spent a thousand dollars on a new sign were 3 tenants, the windows were shot become visible due to the location, and have that when he bought the building, air. They have renovated it, they was in disrepair. out, and the building increased the tenants from 3 to 9, and he believes that is brought it up to code, on Oakland Street. He said that due to the signage, which increases visibility octant, as it has the directory. __. „f +rr e i identification. They think that the .�,. .,�,ninal sign on Center Street is more imp .,„ ►„tivlina would Pa Re 6 Board of Zoning A eats Ma 8 1997 the one the tenants want. that ord Ms. Clark asked what their plans are a t mpohary sign p for the tird sign. Mtr. F when took they will be taking that down. it was the building over to replace the decrepit sign that was there. Mr. Hilts commented on the sign in the right of way. Ms. Horne said that she shared his concern, but they could discuss this issue in Committee of the he could comment on the right of way, which is Whole. Mr. Ford asked if unusually large. They will move the sign out of the right of way if that is what the Board wants. No one else spoke. desire for a directory. Mr. Ford stated that they feel The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Ms. Clark stated that she is reluctant in ' n general. She does understand the tenant their request is a very practical request, and very reasonable. More discussion ensued o sign code requirement by Ms. Clark and staff, as to what would be allowed for building signs and directional signs. une, to give the staff M . Clark made a motion to table BZA-3434.97 at 809 Center The motion ot until n wasJsecond d by G. Hilts, an opportunity to work with Mr. Ford to solve this issue. and approved unanimously on a voice vote- E. BZA-3435.97, 220 N. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by the Lansing Scho9�4D"�tallc57 square foot ground/pole sign strit/Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, to erect a new 5' from the front property line and to relocate an existing 7' tall, 21 square foot ground/pole sign to a location 5' from the front property line. On the school property, 3 ground/pole signs exist and the new sign will bring the of the Si area of gn Code groundlpole signs t n 114 +a cesroffland to have a max mum(of 50 square feet of allows institutions o ground/pole signage, not exceeding a height of 8' and setbacks dependant a e ht variance of 1'4" an setback variance of 13n requires ag upon the size of the sign. The new sign setback variance of 2d a . The relocate sign Finally, a total sign area variance of 64 square feet is required. S. Hayward presented the case. M. Clark asked if Sign B was to stay. Mr. Hayward said that the use of this sign Board of Zoning Appeals, May 8, 1997 Page 7 Ms. Horne asked if the existing events sign will be removed or repaired. Mr. Araoz said that it could be moved, and repaired. Ms. Clark asked if Eastern High School was in excess of allowable signage. She was told that they are. She then asked if they would be willing to get rid of the smaller sign (sign B). Mr. Araoz said that they would have no problem doing that. Ms. Horne wanted to know if the sign on the corner, and the proposed sign, would be landscaped. Mr. Araoz said that they are putting in a planter, and will trim the bushes. Mr. Hayward added that Eastern has worked very well with Mr. Ruff concerning signage and landscaping, and that the Board can make the landscaping a' condition of approval. Lou Heckheis, Eastern High School AIuiTinus, class of 1946, spoke in favor of this appeal. He stated that their class raised the money for this sign and they would appreciate it if the variance was approved. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark asked if the sign is illuminated. She was told that it is an illuminated sign. Mr. Hilts said that he thinks this is an improvement. Ms. LeBlanc stated that she is in favor, as long as Sign B is eliminated and all the signs are landscaped somehow, especially the new sign. Discussion ensued regarding signage at Eastern High School. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3435.97 at 220 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, on the conditions that Sign "B" is removed, landscaping is done to the discretion of the Zoning Administrator, and that no additional signs are necessary or will be viewed favorably by the Board. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Garcia X Bicy X BZA-3434.97, 220 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, approved by a vote of 6 - 0. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item, BZA-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street The Board has received a request from Betty Speaks, owner of 6026 S. Cedar Street, to cancel her BZA Request. H. LeBlanc made a motion to accept the Board of Zoning Appeals, May 8, 1997 Page 8 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of April 10, 1997 H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve the minutes of April 1997 as printed. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS H. LeBlanc requested an excused absence from the June 12, 1997 BZA meeting. M. Clark made a motion to excuse her; the motion was seconded by J. Garcia, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 061 97 � r 1, Approved 1 _ - To Clerk F , t: � CI l "f CLERK MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ALS CITY HALL LOOR CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 0T THURSDAY, MAY 8, J9971 7:30 P-m• I. The meeting was call ed to order by E. Horne, Vice-Chair, at 7:33 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Pry arrived at 7:43) M. Clark H. LeBlanc C. Horne (arrived J. Garcia G. Hilts E. Hor B. Abs E. Spink (excused) J. Page voting action to take C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing place. D. Introduction of Staff j. Sturdevant, Senior Planner S. Hayward, Senior Planner "P44pr II APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda stands as printed. III. HEARINGSIACTION A. BZA-3431.97, 2214 Vassar Drive by Richard and Susan Deeadmarage 1 9 fans rDrs de lot line.to This is a request __A ;� ►,rnnosed to be decrease _ .,. ...,nc4r�,ct a 22' x 26 4 attached 9 „ __,. „� Pa e2 Board of Zonin A eals Ma 8 1997 ert is the Code. The practical difficulty of this prop Y allowed by the Zoning s off sharply at mid-lot. topography of the lot, which drop ace. is l of a M. Clark asked the applicant about the eluctant to ant variances(like this which She stated that the board is usually r of materials are being may be hard to maintain. She also asked what types used on the garage. e using cement blocks with aluminum siding. were Mr. Deadman replied that they plenty of space to get lawn mowers in between He also said that there would be p and the property line. Ms. Clarklimit access orhmowing.mShe as in the garage be built which would future, a fence may wondered if perhaps a wider setback h d been considered. Mr. Hayward stated that this setback does taper back- No one else spoke, either for or against this appeal. moved into Committee of the Whole. �Mr_Hilts stated that his 19" The Board - lawnmower would fit in the requested setback that it is a a practical difficulty. The motion was made a motion to approve BZA-3431e97ot being4 Vassar Drive, finding M. Clark of th reasonable request, with the topography seconded by H. LeBlanc. yea nay yea nay VOTE: Horne X Hilts X X Bic X Garcia vote of 6 -0- BZA-3431.97, 2214 Vassar Drive, approved by a B. BZA-3432.97, 3500 Gingersnap Lane by Arnold and Mary Ellen Yerxa to construct an proposes three rear of the house at 3500 Gingersnap Lane. Th lab. The proposed 10' x 16' he This is a request e applicant prop concrete s season room to be built over an existing he additi on is 23 feet from the rear prc f 30rty line.eet for new constrru0ct n t This o is Code requires a rear yard setbackvariance of 7 feet. therefore a request for a rear yard vari i c+i irdevant presented the case. Pa e 3 Board of Zonin A eats Ma 8 1997 There were no other comments. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Mr. s Bicyees notated thatems weth the can s ee no difficulty or hardship, but he does support the variance. He proceeded to make the motion. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3432.97 at 3500 Gingersnap Lane. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. yea nay VOTE: yea nay )09, �P_ Hilts Horne X Garcia X Bic X BZA-3432.97, 3500 Gingersnap Lane, approved by a vote of 6-0. C. BZA-3433.97, 1300 BI. Turner Street This is a request by Barry D. Wood (applicant) for Ferguson Development (owner by contract) for variances in front s to ated on the west de of the 1300 acks to develop 46 townhouse units. The two acre site ihe block of Turner Street, and is zoneboDM-urneeSteet andlDodgeTRivertDrive corner lot with front yards abutting Section 1256.07 of the Zoning Code neQSt eetuires rand 7'ont ron Dodge RiverODrve. the requested setbacks are 6.33 on Turner Also, a rear yard setback of 12' on the west side of the site is requestfront yard (Section 1256.09 of the Zoning Code requires and 14' are requested and a rear variance ance of 8' is ). In summary,variances of 13.67 requested. J. Sturdevant presented the case. Mr. Bicy asked about the parking for toneis inside and one t. Mr. Sturdevant said that one outside. Ms. Clark there were two spaces for each unit, inquired why the setback along D dg Zoned River Drive Light Industr all, which requires Sturdevant stated that the property ver only has a right of way of 33'. a zero foot front yard setback. Dodge transitional nature of this development, Discussion took place concerning from commercial to residential; also, surrounds D doge River are set back an r Sturdevant also stated that the buildings along ,-Ytra 10' or so. Pa e 4 Board of Zoning A eats Ma 8 1997 e�Iow development. These are to be above, so ree story each 22 feet h a flat on wou d be afit nn h living area. level, and a twe lower o story townho parking He described more about the unity,out of the for automobile)accesst, as they eel it may be This is to be a gated comm y, an attractive nuisance for those wanting to u lace where here is to be a 7 se the river walk, who may try 0 park there. Ms. Clark clarified that the only p setback is on the corner unit, otherwise, the setbacks are well within the allowable limits. Ms. LeBlanc stated that the Planning Board has dis on could cussed the possibility of take place, on the future development. Mr. Wood replied that expis also a si bi ty that the vacant land adjacent lot, not on the same lot. Th across the street would be utilized for expansion in the future. was Ms. Clark asked what the right of way is on Dougd Riverhapp Dive.Turner Street.told that it is 33'. Mr. Bicy wanted to know was told that the right of way would stay the same, but they are moving the street trees to accommodate parking. There will not be street parking. Ms. DI LeBlanc said that moving iseincreasing units eusable space streetr to the for the tenants.maximizes the op .�,'N%AFTspace to the rear of the lots, in layout. Wood said that this development iiscallhad correctbeen onsultedMShe was told wondered if the Historic DistrictCommission trict that it had not. Mr. Sturdevant state his development is notd that the staff of the e inoany hric Commission had seen the plan, bnc district, and therefore, review was not mandated.s Ms. LeBlaty, chst had beent the Planning Board did approve the rezoning of zoned for warehouse use. No one else commented. Mrs. Horn ffi e inrega dnto thistissuetoThis record that was received by the Planning O communication indicateda1 efavorable opinion from Lisa Carey, Program Manager of Old Town Ma The Board went into Committee of the Whole.opositive development fortt that north end,and can e development exciting and an incredibly po support this variance, now that her concerns aboandut the setback onstated that this de a opme1nt buuiiilds on the is been clarified. Ms. LeBlanc also support rt existing character of the neighborhood and retains ill be good for statedthe that he will suppo variance request, as the look and atmosphere rove BZA-3433.97 in the 1300 Block of Turner Street, per the M. Clark made a motion to approve with the nature of the neighborhood. The motion was Board of Zoning Appeals, May 8, 1997 Page 5 Clark I X BZA-3433.97, 1300 BI. of Turner Street, approved by a vote of 6 -0. 41�p D. BZA-3434.97, 809 Center Street 4 This is a request b Robert Ford of One Oakland Center to retain a second 4 q Y ground pole sign, 32 square feet in size, at the southwest corner of Oakland 4 and Center Street for his property located at 809 Center Street. The other ground pole sign is located at the southern entrance into their parking lot off of Center Street. Chapter 1442.12(b) of the Zoning Ordinance allows only one ground pole sign per parcel. This is therefore a request for a variance from Chapter 1442.12(b) to allow two ground pole signs at this location. J. Sturdevant presented the case, referring the board to the graphics in the staff report. He stated that the applicant had an existing sign, wanted a new sign in a different location, and got a permit for it, on the condition that the old sign be removed. The applicant is now requesting a variance to allow him to keep the second sign, the one that was supposed to be taken down. It appears to be in the right of way; it is non-conforming, and has been there for a long time. There is also a third sign on the property, on a second parcel, but adjacent to the parking lot. Staff does not support this variance, as there are many other possibilities. Robert Ford, landlord and applicant, spoke. He stated that they acquired the property two years ago. The property is located at the transition of Saginaw and Old Town. The residential area they are located next to is not the quaint, homey area it appears to be; rather they have been in the position of being the neighborhood watch for the area. They have worked with the Lansing Police Department, trying to get rid of the drug traffic and the prostitution. Mr. Ford further stated that he had sent an employee to the City to take out the sign permit. The condition that the first sign be removed was attached to the permit by the Building Office; when the employee brought back the permit, she didn't mention the condition, put the paperwork in the drawer, and Mr. Ford spent a thousand dollars on a new sign. He stated that the building doesn't become visible due to the location, and the curve that it sets on. He also said that when he bought the building, there were 3 tenants, the windows were shot out, and the building was in disrepair. They have renovated it, they have brought it up to code, increased the tenants from 3 to 9, and he believes that is due to the signage, which increases visibility on Oakland Street. He said that 41-- .....I . :__ __ r'`..r.i..r Q#rr.r.# 7r — i# hnc #hc e4irdne4nni Board of Zoning Appeals, May 8, 1997 Page 6 the one the tenants want. Ms. Clark asked what their plans are for the third sign. Mr. Ford replied that they will be taking that down. It was a temporary sign put up when they took DRAFT the building over to replace the decrepit sign that was there. Mr. Hilts commented on the sign in the right of way. Ms. Horne said that she shared his concern, but they could discuss this issue in Committee of the Whole. Mr. Ford asked if he could comment on the right of way, which is unusually large. They will move the sign out of the right of way if that is what the Board wants. No one else spoke. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. Ms. Clark stated that she is reluctant in general. She does understand the tenants desire for a directory. Mr. Ford stated that they feel their request is a very practical request, and very reasonable. More discussion ensued of sign code requirement by Ms. Clark and staff, as to what would be allowed for building signs and directional signs. M. Clark made a motion to table BZA-3434.97 at 809 Center Street until June, to give the staff an opportunity to work with Mr. Ford to solve this issue. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts, and approved unanimously on a voice vote. E. BZA-3435.97, 220 N. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by the Lansing School District/Eastern High School, 220 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, to erect a new 9'4" tall, 57 square foot ground/pole sign 5' from the front property line and to relocate an existing 7' tall, 21 square foot ground/pole sign to a location 5' from the front property line. On the school property, 3 ground/pole signs exist and the new sign will bring the total area of ground/pole signs to 114 square feet. Section 1442.12(h)(7) of the Sign Code allows institutions on 2+ acres of land to have a maximum of 50 square feet of ground/pole signage, not exceeding a height of 8' and setbacks dependant upon the size of the sign. The new sign requires a height variance of 1'4" and a setback variance of 13'. The relocated sign requires a setback variance of 2'. Finally, a total sign area variance of 64 square feet is required. S. Hayward presented the case. M. Clark asked if Sign B was to stay. Mr. Hayward said that the use of this sign Board of Zoning Appeals, May 8, 1997 Page 7 Ms. Horne asked if the existing events sign will be removed or repaired. Mr. Araoz said that it could be moved, and repaired. Ms. Clark asked if Eastern High School was in excess of allowable signage. She was told that they are. She then asked if they would be willing to get rid of the smaller sign (sign B). Mr. Araoz said that they would have no problem doing that. Ms. Horne wanted to know if the sign on the corner, and the proposed sign, would be landscaped. Mr. Araoz said that they are putting in a planter, and will trim the bushes. Mr. Hayward added that Eastern has worked very well with Mr. Ruff concerning signage and landscaping, and that the Board can make the landscaping a condition of approval. Lou Heckheis, Eastern High School Alumnus, class of 1946, spoke in favor of this appeal. He stated that their class raised the money for this sign and they would appreciate it if the variance was approved. No one else spoke. :4 n is illumito The Board went into Committee of the While. M. Clark asked if the sign She was told that it is an illuminated sign. Mr. Hilts said that he thinks this is an improvement. Ms. LeBlanc stated that she is in favor, as long as Sign B is eliminated and all the signs are landscaped somehow, especially the new sign. Discussion ensued regarding signage at Eastern High School. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3435.97 at 220 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, on the conditions that Sign "B" is removed, landscaping is done to the discretion of the Zoning Administrator, and that no additional signs are necessary or will be viewed favorably by the Board. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Garcia X Bicy X BZA-3434.97, 220 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, approved by a vote of 6 - 0. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item, BZA-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street The Board has received a request from Betty Speaks, owner of 6026 S. Cedar Street, to cancel her BZA Request. H. LeBlanc made a motion to accept the Board of Zoning Appeals, May 8, 1997 Page 8 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of April 10, 1997 H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve the minutes of April 1997 as printed. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS H. LeBlanc requested an excused absence from the June 12, 1997 BZA meeting. M. Clark made a motion to excuse her; the motion was seconded by J. Garcia, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. Vill. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 7 7 .LANSING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REGULAR MEETING LAN SING CITY HALL, TENTH FLOOR CO3 NC I CHAMBERS THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1997, P.M. AGENDA I, ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. HEARINGSIACTION A BZA-3431.97, 2214 Vassar Dr. and variance request to allow construction of an attache A side y garage. er Snap Lane B. BZA-3432.97, 3500 Ging uest to construct a 10' x 16' addition othe rear of the house, variance requiring A req a 7 foot rear yard setback. C. BZA-3433.97, 130 d 0 l. Turner Street corner of Turner and ' frontyard setbacks at the Variances in Dodge River Drive. D. BZA-3434.97, 809 Center Streetpole sign at the southwest corner A request to retain a second ground of Oakland and Center Streets. is Avenue round E. BZA-3435.97, 220 N. Pennsylvanund pole sign-and move an existing g A request to erect a new ground pole sign in front of Eastern High School. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item, B7A-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street B. Rules of Procedure Update V. PUBLIC COMMENT VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of April 10, 1997 Draft to Clerk rll 18 �997 A Approved May 1997 To Clerk May_�7 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SING BOARD OF ZONING PEA COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR C CITY HALL ITY THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1997, 7:3 p.m' J. Page at 7:35 p.m. Roll call was taken. The meeting was called to order by A. _Present H. LeBlanc C. Bicy M. Clark J. Page E. Horne J. Garcia �. 1 G. Hilts s. 1 B. Abs E. Spink (excused) bers was present, allowing voting action to take C. A quorum of seven mem place. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator 11 APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda stands as printed. III. HEARINGSIACTION A. BZA-3429.97, 307 N. Sycamore is a request by Patricia Dorow to ere a Thighs a�equest for a variance. to t tall fence on her This i Sycamore Street. property located at 307 N. SY Code, which restricts the height of fences in Section 1292.03(b) of the Zoningfeet. This is therefore a the side and rear yard areas of residential ax'imurn height of fences allowed. request for a variance of 2 feet from the m from the . _ .I-- �+n nrooertV line extending Pa e 2 Board of Zonin A eals A ril 10 1997 at Victoria Earhart of 301 N. Sycamore addressed the Baarleasant view.lhShehhas basically the only occupied area, which doesn't haveP NO OBJECTION to the fence, which she understands will be 6' solid, with 2' of lattice at the top. privacy fence would make said that the p her than six feet, said that normally she is not in favor of fences higher The Board went into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy and she will favor the variance. E. e it more private. M. Clark public is minimal a port this but in this case the visual effect to the p area. Horne said that normally she is opposed to fences eooff the gear y also, but will sup request. Her only concern is with the main BZA_3429.97 at 307 N. Sycamore, for the 6 foot fence with C. Bicy made a motion to approve provided at the bottom on that a clearance be a2 foot lattice top as proposed, revent weed1gr growth and etc..between the two fences). The for maintenance supported by E. (to Ho nev nay lawn motion was yea yea nay VOTE: Horne X X Hilts pa e X X Garcia LeBlanc X Clark X X Bic approved by a vote of 7-0. BZA-3429.97, 307 N. Sycamore, B. BZA-3430.97, 2400 S. Cedar Street Sports Bar, located at 2400 S. Coscarelli's Restaurant and Sp n Code permits two This is a request by two or more ment in a shopping center containing Cedar Street, for sign variances, Section 1442.26 of the Sign on S. Cedar wall signs per corner estab respective frontage permitted a maximum of 135 sq. ft. in two wall signs, commercial establishments. Based on their 150 s . ft. in two wall signs. Street, the Sports Bar is p ft.; a third and the Restaurant is permitted a maximum of si nstotaling 115 sq- The Sports Bar presently contains two building 9 sign and re 32 s . ft. is proposed. A variance of one wallpresently has lthree signs sign of q Sports Bar. The restaurant square feet is requested. feet is requested for the Sp applicant is requesting totaling 97 square fee esi 'ns its area, sted.soverall, the variance of two wall 9 ft. of total wall sign area. seven wall signs and 276 sq. of the signs on both walls. J. Ruff presented the case and explained the history . .-eon+inn Coscarelli's Restaurant and Sports Bar, spoke. __ u-"+ori --inn is to go on and Board of Zoning Appeals, April 10 1997 Page 3 There were no other comments. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. E. Horne stated that the goal of the ordinance is to reduce signage on the major arterials in the city. Rite Aid is an example of a recent case, and we need to be consistent. She supports consistency with the staff ecommen the lotion ion of to deny this variance. H. LeBlanc also opposes the variance, supporting instead sign clutter. The business is located next to the street, which is not unusual. M. Clark agrees with the comments thus far, but appreciates the efforts to improve the building, however, she cannot support the additional signage. C. Bicy also agrees with the comments, and understands the problems with the identification of specials. There are many similar situations, he feels we need to be consistent. J. Ruff suggested an alternative. M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3430.97 at 2400 S. Cedar Street, as there is not a significant practical difficulty with the request, and is not in keeping with the goals of the sign code. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Garcia X Page X Clark X LeBlanc X Bicy X BZA-3430.97, 2400 S. Cedar Street, Denied by a vote of 7-0. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item, BZA-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street This item remains on the table. B. J. Ruff updated the Board on the progress of the Board's Committee to review the Board's Rules and Procedures. A revised draft would be sent out with the next packet for Board comment. The City Attorney will also be requested to review the draft. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None Board of Zoning Appeals, April 10, 1997 Page 4 VII. NEW BUSINESS H. LeBlanc made some comments about Board Membership. J. Ruff mentioned that the Board's date to go to Oldsmobile Park is July 3, 1997. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk April 18 1997 Approved To Clerk_— MINUTES OF THE ZOGULAR NING APPEAL MEETING LANSING G" GLERK BOARD OF CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1997, 7:30 P.M- The meeting was called to order by J. Page at 7:35 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Pry H. LeBlanc C. Bicy M. Clark J. Page G. Hilts E. Horne J. Garcia B. Absences E. Spink (excused) A quorum of seven members was present, allowing voting action to take C. q place. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda stands as printed. 111. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3429.97, 307 N. Sycamore l fence on her This is a request by Patricia Dorow to St eet ecta This is a n eight orequest for a variance to property located at 307 N. Sycamore Section 1292.03(b) of the Zoning Code, which restricts the height of fences i the side and rear yard areas of residential di mum he gh to 6 t of fences at. This is llowedre a request for a variance of 2 feet from the from the —- +t, nrnnPrty line extending Board of Zoning Appeals, April 10, 1997 Page 2 Victoria Earhart of 301 N. Sycamore addressed the Board. She said that this is basically the only occupied area, which doesn't have a pleasant view. She has NO OBJECTION to the fence, which she understands will be 6' solid, with 2' of lattice at the top. The Board went into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy said that the privacy fence would make it more private. M. Clark said that normally she is not in favor of fences higher than six feet, but in this case the visual effect to the public is minimal and she will favor the variance. E. Horne said that normally she is opposed to fences of this height also, but will support this request. Her only concern is with the maintenance of the grassy area. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3429.97 at 307 N. Sycamore, for the 6 foot fence with a 2 foot lattice top as proposed, with the addition that a clearance be provided at the bottom for maintenance of the lawn (to prevent weed growth and etc. between the two fences). The motion was supported by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Garcia X Page X Clark X LeBlanc X Bic __FX I F_ BZA-3429.97, 307 N. Sycamore, Approved by a vote of 7-0. B. BZA-3430.97, 2400 S. Cedar Street This is a request by Coscarelli's Restaurant and Sports Bar, located at 2400 S. Cedar Street, for sign variances. Section 1442.26 of the Sign Code permits two wall signs per corner establishment in a shopping center containing two or more commercial establishments. Based on their respective frontage on S. Cedar Street, the Sports Bar is permitted a maximum of 135 sq. ft. in two wall signs, and the Restaurant is permitted a maximum of 150 sq. ft. in two wall signs. The Sports Bar presently contains two building signs totaling 115 sq. ft.; a third sign of 32 sq. ft. is proposed. A variance of one wall signand twelve square feet isrequested for the Sports Bar. The restaurant presently has three signs totaling 97 square feet in area; a fourth sign of 32 square feet is requested. A variance of two wall signs is requested. Overall, the applicant is requesting seven wall signs and 276 sq. ft. of total wall sign area. J. Ruff presented the case and explained the history of the signs on both walls. T .. - - - --"- --------`--- ^--____11:1— M_.,a.,.­—4 .,.,4 C..' 4, D2 cnnLn Board of Zoning Appeals, April 10, 1997 Page 3 There were no other comments. The Board went into Committee of the Whole.E. Horne stated that the goal of the ordinance is to reduce signage on the major arterials in the city. Rite Aid is an example of a recent case, and we need to be consistant. She suppports consistency with the staff recommendation to deny this variance. H. LeBlanc also opposes the variance, supporting instead the reduction of sign clutter. The business is located next to the street, which is not unusual. M. Clark agrees with the comments thus far, but appreciates the efforts to improve the building, however, she cannot support the additional signage. C. Bicy also agrees with the comments, and understands the problems with the identification of specials. There are many similar situations, he feels we need to be consistant. J. Ruff suggested an alternative. M. Clark made a motion to deny BZA-3430.97 at 2400 S. Cedar Street, as there is not a significant practical difficulty with the request, and is not in keeping with the goals of the sign code. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Garcia X Page X Clark X LeBlanc X Bicy X BZA-3430.97, 2400 S. Cedar Street, Denied by a vote of 7-0. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item, BZA-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street This item remains on the table. B. J. Ruff updated the Board on the progress of the Board's Committee to review the Board's Rules and Procedures. A revised draft would be sent out with the next packet for Board comment. The City Attorney will also be requested to review the draft. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None Board of Zoning Appeals, April 10, 1997 Page 4 VII. NEW BUSINESS H. LeBlanc made some comments about Board Membership. J. Ruff mentioned that the Board's date to go to Oldsmobile Park is July 3, 1997. Vill. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 02127197 -1 ""n Approved 04/10/97 To Clerk 04/22197 LANSIN'r' CITY CLERK MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY,MARCH 13, 1997,7:30 p.m. I. The meeting was called to order by Chair J. Page at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present C. Bicy E. Horne M. Clark H. LeBlanc J. Garcia J. Page G. Hilts B. Excused Absences E. Spink C. A quorum of seven members was present, allowing voting action to take place. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. It was moved by H. LeBlanc, seconded by E. Horne to approve the agenda as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. III. ACTION A. BZA-3428.96, 2412 Harding Avenue This is a request by Kenneth Tenney to construct an addition to the existing home at 2412 Harding Avenue. The addition would include living space and a carport/garage that would be 4' from the south side lot line, 3' from the north side lot line, and 16' from the rear lot line. Sections 1248.08(b)(2)(B) and 1248.09 of the Zoning Code, respectively, require side yard setbacks of 4.3' and a 30' rear yard setback. Therefore, variances of .3' and 1.3' to Section 1248.08(b)(2)(B) and 14' to Section 1248.09 are requested. The proposed _. __..-_-j - . 4t- —..ic+;nn hni i,-p -Ptharkq to the rear or south lot lines. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, MARCH 13, 1997 PAGE 2 variances of.3', 1.3' & 14', finding that a hardship/practical difficulty exists based upon the layout of the house on the lot. Also, that the modifications would be an improvement to the area. The motion was seconded by Mary Clark. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules & Procedures- The subcommittee charged with recommending amendments to update the Rules & Procedures of the Board will meet at 6:00 p.m. April 10, 1997 in the Council Conference Room or Chambers. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. It was moved by Mr. Bicy and seconded by Mrs. Horne to approve December 12, 1996 minutes with admendments by Mrs. LeBlanc (pg 3, par. 2, line 2). The motion carried unanimously. B. It was moved by Mr. Bicy and seconded by Mrs. Horne to approve the February 13, 1997 minutes as printed. The motion carried unanimously. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. February absences- Helen LeBlanc made a motion to excuse Joseph Garcia, seconded by Grant Hilts. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Emly Horne made a motion to excuse John Page, seconded by Grant Hilts. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Draft to Clerk 02/20/97 Approved 03/13/97 'E `'E I V E—E) To Clerk 04/08/97 �Pa -9 P111 2' 42 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING LANSIN!3 CITY CLERK BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1997, 7:30 p.m. I. The meeting was called to order by E. Horne at 7:45 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present H. LeBlanc C. Bicy M. Clark G. Hilts E. Horne B. Absences E. Spink (excused) J. Garcia J. Page C. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to take place. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda stands as printed. III. PUBLIC COMMENT A. John Allen of 2606 N. East Street, spoke. He said that if the sign can't stay, then he's in trouble. Going north on N. East Street there are many signs and poles in the way. IV. HEARINGS A. BZA-3426.96, 3320 S. Pennsylvania Avenue (tabled pending new hearing) Board of Zoning Appeals, February 13, 1997 Page 2 J. Ruff presented the case. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3426.96 at 3320 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, subject to the three conditions specified in the report; also, finding that the proposed child care facility is near a public park. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Bicy X BZA-3426.96, 3320 S. Pennsylvania, Approved by a vote of 5-0. B. BZA-3427.97, 2606 N. East Street This is a request by John Allen (applicant) for William Nakfoor (owner) for a variance in the height and setback of a ground pole sign at 2606 N. East Street. The requested sign is 23.5 feet in height, approximately 39.5 square feet in size, and set back approximately 15.5 feet from the front property line. Section 1442.12(c) of the Sign Code requires that a sign of similar size and height have a setback of 23 1/2 feet; a variance of eight feet is therefore requested. The applicant wishes to keep the same pole, but replace the old large frame with a smaller sign as described. J. Ruff presented the case. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3427.96 at 2606 N. East Street, as it is in the best possible location, considering the circumstances. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Bicy X BZA-3427.96, 2606 N. East Street, Approved by a vote of 5-0. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item, BZA-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street Board of Zoning Appeals, February 13, 1997 Page 3 The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. H. Leblanc made a motion to accept the minutes of January 1997 as printed. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously on a voice vote. The Board requested that a communication be sent to the Mayor's Office asking that the unfilled position be filled, and prepared for E. Spink, with a mention of how unfair the present situation is to the petitioners. VII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to discuss at this time. Vill. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 02/20/97 Approved To Clerk t' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1997,7:30 p.m. I. The meeting was called to order by E. Horne at 7:45 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present H. LeBlanc C. Bicy M. Clark G. Hilts E. Horne B. Absences E. Spink (excused) J. Garcia J. Page C. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to take place. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda stands as printed. III. PUBLIC COMMENT A. John Allen of 2606 N. East Street, spoke. He said that if the sign can't stay, then he's in trouble. Going north on N. East Street there are many signs and poles in the way. IV. HEARINGS A. BZA-3426.96, 3320 S. Pennsylvania Avenue (tabled pending new hearing) Board of Zoninq Appeals, February 13, 1997 Paqe 2 J. Ruff presented the case. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3426.96 at 3320 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, subject to the three conditions specified in the report; also, finding that the proposed child care facility is near a public park. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Bicy X BZA-3426.96, 3320 S. Pennsylvania, Approved by a vote of 5-0. B. BZA-3427.97, 2606 N. East Street This is a request by John Allen (applicant) for William Nakfoor (owner) for a variance in the height and setback of a ground pole sign at 2606 N. East Street. The requested sign is 23.5 feet in height, approximately 39.5 square feet in size, and set back approximately 15.5 feet from the front property line. Section 1442.12(c) of the Sign Code requires that a sign of similar size and height have a setback of 23 1/2 feet; a variance of eight feet is therefore requested. The applicant wishes to keep the same pole, but replace the old large frame with a smaller sign as described. J. Ruff presented the case. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3427.96 at 2606 N. East Street, as it is in the best possible location, considering the circumstances. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Hilts X Horne X Clark X LeBlanc X Bicy X BZA-3427.96, 2606 N. East Street, Approved by a vote of 5-0. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item, BZA-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street Board of Zoning appealls Februa 13 1997 Pa e 3 The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. H. Leblanc made a motion to accept the minutes of January 1997 as printed. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously on a voice vote. The Board requested that a communication be sent to the Mayor's Office asking that the unfilled position be filled, and prepared for E. Spink, with a mention of how unfair the present situation is to the petitioners. VII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to discuss at this time. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 1,[..IQJI-13 CITY CLERII: SPECIAL MEE ING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IANUARY 16. 1997 AT 5:00 P.M. Draft to Clerk 02/04/97 Approved 02/13/97 To Clerk 02/24/97 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1997, 7:30 P.M. I. The meeting was called to order by J. Page at 7:45 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present H. LeBlanc J. Garcia J. Page B. Absences E. Spink (excused) C. Bicy G. Hilts M. Clark E. Horne Note: The weather conditions were extremely poor. C. Due to lack of a quorum, no voting action could take place at this meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda stands as printed. III. HEARINGS A. BZA-3426.96, 3320 S. Pennsylvania Avenue (tabled pending new hearing) This is a request by Paula Martin to establish a child care facility at 3320 S. Pennsylvania. This is a request for a variance to Section 1248.03(h) of the Zoning Code, which requires 900 square feet of outdoor play space. The applicant proposes 600 square feet of outdoor play space in the front yard. Thic is thPrPfnre a revised request for a variance of 300 square feet of outdoor Board of Zoning A eats Janua 9 1997 Pa e 2 Garcia. J. Ruff said that if she operates between now and Board action, that no enforcement measures would be taken; especially since the outdoor play space can not be constructed until spring anyway. B. BZA-3427.97, 2606 N. East Street This is a request by John Allen (applicant) for William Nakfoor (owner) for a variance in the height and setback of a ground pole sign at 2606 N. East Street. The requested sign is 23.5 feet in height, approximately 39.5 square feet in size, and set back approximately 15.5 feet from the front property line. Section 1442.12(c) of the Sign Code requires that a sign of similar size and height have a setback of 23 1/2 feet; a variance of eight feet is therefore requested. The applicant wishes to keep the same pole, but replace the old large frame with a smaller sign as described. J. Ruff presented the case. John Allen, 2606 N. East Street, spoke. He said that the new sign doesn't come out as far as the old sign did, and the roof extends closer to the road than the new sign. The old sign was an eye sore. He said that the sign was installed, and could have been put in the old frame, but that would have meant that he would have had to get up there twice if the appeal is approved. There was no other comment. Mr. Allen added that the sign was not intentionally done illegally. J. Ruff summarized some of the background to this case and the difficulty in determining where the front property line is. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item, BZA-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street B. Tabled Item, BZA-3422.96, 2720 N. East Street These items remain on the table. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. There was no public comment. Board of Zonin A eals Janua 9 1997 VII. NEW BUSINESS Pa e 3 There was no new business to discuss at this time. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to clerk 021 Approved To Clerk l THE REGULAR MEETING ',,MINUTES OF HALL „•:; ' `i 1+ vt BOARD OF ZONI 1 Vi FLOOR CITY CITY COUNCIL C MBET Y 91 J997, 7:30 p•m• THURSD b J. Page at 7:45 P.m- ROII call was taken. I. The meeting was called to order Y A Pry ago H. LeBlanc J. Garcia J. Page B. Absences C. Bicy G. Hilts E. Spink (e)(cused) E. Horne M. Clark Poor were extremely P lace at this meeting. Note: The weather conditions w could take p C. Due to lack of a quorum, no voting action D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II AppROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda stands as printed. Avenue (tabled pending new hearing) III. HEARINGS Pennsylvania at 3320 S. A gZA-3426.96, 3320 S. child care facility h of the request by Paula Martin to establish a la space. The a req uest for a variance f outdoornp ?y s 0 c, nt ard. This is Ivania. This is a req square feet o pennsy which requires 900 la space m the fro Zoning Code, square feet of outdoor oses 600 square feet of outdoor play applicant Pro Pyre a revised request for a variance of 300 Board of Zoning Appeals, January 9, 1997 Page 2 Garcia, J. Ruff said that if she operates between now and Board action, that no enforcement measures would be taken; especially since the outdoor play space can not be constructed until spring anyway. B. BZA-3427.97, 2606 N. East Street This is a request by John Allen (applicant) for William Nakfoor (owner) for a variance in the height and setback of a ground pole sign at 2606 N. East Street. The requested sign is 23.5 feet in height, approximately 39.5 square feet in size, and set back approximately 15.5 feet from the front property line. Section 1442.12(c) of the Sign Code requires that a sign of similar size and height have a setback of 23 1/2 feet; a variance of eight feet is therefore requested. The applicant wishes to keep the same pole, but replace the old large frame with a smaller sign as described. J. Ruff presented the case. John Allen, 2606 N. East Street, spoke. He said that the new sign doesn't come out as far as the old sign did, and the roof extends closer to the road than the new sign. The old sign was an eye sore. He said that the sign was installed, and could have been put in the old frame, but that would have meant that he would have had to get up there twice if the appeal is approved. There was no other comment. Mr. Allen added that the sign was not intentionally done illegally. J. Ruff summarized some of the background to this case and the difficulty in determining where the front property line is. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item, BZA-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street B. Tabled Item, BZA-3422.96, 2720 N. East Street These items remain on the table. V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. There was no public comment. Board of Zoning Appeals, January 9, 1997 Page 3 VII. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to discuss at this time. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals