Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 1992 Minutes APPROVED JANUARY 14, 1993 TO CLERK MARCH 10, 1993 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 1992 - 7 : 30 PM City Hall Council Chambers loth floor A moment of silence in memory of Bob Hull . The meeting was called to order by Chair H. P. Curran at 7 : 30 PM. Roll call was taken. Present Nancy Carlson w Mary Clark n H. P. Curran Grant Hilts Joan Sheldon Ed Spink Floyd Wright Staff O Jim Ruff, Senior Planner Tabled Appeal #3243 - 400 S. Pennsylvania Floyd moved to have appeal #3243 removed from the table. Second by Spink. Motion carried. Ruff presented and explained 3 alternative site plans to the Board. Alan Martin, with Quality Dairy, 5717 Falls Ct. , Lansing. Just for clarification. "A" is the original plan. What we changed is that there is no back door. There was a back door on the original plan. We have no storage of trash on the east side of the building, its a storage shed. At one time we had a dumpster on the east side but we were asked to move it to the west side. It will be a flat roof with a slight pitch to the south. Clark - How many parking spaces are required? Ruff - I don' t have the exact figures with me but with one space required for every 150 sq. ft. of usable floor area approximately 10 are required for a store this size, Shelley Warren, 3021 Fielding Dr. , Lansing, I 'm the store manger at S . Pennsylvania. I have some pictures for you to look at. We don't have the space now to serve the customers that we 're doing. Its not for increase sales or anything. The back room is real bad with the bottle deposits that we bring in. The addition would help us separate those bottle deposits, for sanitary reasons . For security reasons, blocking off a problem spot for us, BZA Minutes December 10, 1992 the other side of the building has a lot of lights on it, windows . At night its easy for us to keep track of what ' s going on. Where they are proposing to put the building is a blind spot and that is where we run into a lot of problems . That ' s where the kids like to congregate, party, so from that point of view, it would help out a lot. We just don't have the space to store everything we need. Cathy Jenner, 5802 Willow Highway, Grand Ledge. 2 1/2 years ago we started a quality assurance program for Quality Dairy and I 'm that person that goes around to the store. The store has come a long way in cleanliness and that their more aware of what they have to do. I think the changes would help Shelley more. Gary Burnsworth, 13141 Hitching Post, Dewitt. I 'm in charge of store operations, retail operations . About a year ago I began a series of meetings with Jo Flaherty from the Mayor' s office and the neighborhood watch group in that area and there were some significant problems and concerns at that time and one of them was the congregation of people on that blind side of the building. Chief Boles, myself, the neighborhood watch group, and Jo Flaherty, have made significant improvements in that area. I think the advantage of having this storage facility, would improve the store operation and also eliminate a great portion of congregation that does go on periodically during the summer months at that location. Clark - The ice storage that is outside, I would prefer to see it moved to the west side of the building, however, I have concerns that people would congregate around it. Is there anyway that could be moved inside, or is there some reason it has to be outside. If there is anyway we can move it and if it will make a difference in the decision here we will do what we can. Clark made a motion to table appeal #3243 to allow for readvertising based on the need for an additional variance and also to give an opportunity to Quality Dairy and staff to clarify the site plan in regards to parking and storage. Second by Carlson. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #3243 TABLED. Appeal #3250 - 400 block East Edgewood This is a request by Gordon Food Service, Inc . to allow the construction of a building up to the rear property line when a 25 ft . setback is required. BZA Minutes December 10, 1992 A presentation was given by J. Ruff . The applicant proposes to construct a 16, 000 sq. ft. building up to the rear property line of a parcel contained with the Edgewood Town Center Shopping Center in the 400 block of East Edgewood Blvd. The property is zoned ' F ' Commercial and Section 1268 . 08 requires a 25 ft . rear yard setback. This is a requested 25 ft . variance. Jim Doezema. The plat is subject to Operations Easement Agreement. And there is cross parking arrangements . And the way its developed is to provide for an integrated shopping center. Wright - Is there only one entrance to the building? Doezema - I would like to defer to Todd Needham. Todd Needham - There would be one customer entrance and exit with additional emergency exists . Clark made a motion that appeal #3250 be approved on the basis that the development is not going to have a negative impact on surrounding development and its appropriate use of this lot. Second by Wright. Carlson - Is there a drive on the west side? Ruff - Yes Further discussion regarding circulation and site distance followed. Yeas : Clark, Wright, Hilts, Spink, Sheldon, Curran Nays : Carlson Appeal #3250 BENIEB. APPROVED. (correction made at January 14, 1993 meeting.) The Board approved your request to construct a 16, 000 sq. ft. retail building up to the rear (south) property line upon the premises in the 400 block of East Edgewood Boulevard contained within the` Edgewood Town Center. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the building would be developed as part of the overall plan of the Edgewood Town Center and that the rear of the building would be adjacent to the Edgewood Town Center parking lot. The Board is satisfied that this variance is in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Code. Communication Elect a secretary for the Board. Spink made a motion that Jim Ruff be appointed Secretary for the BZA Minutes December 10, 1992 Board of Zoning Appeals . Second by Wright. Motion carried .unanimously. Minutes Sheldon made a motion to approve the November 12, 1992 minutes . Second by Carlson. Motion carried unanimously. 1993 Agenda Spink made a motion to acknowledge and accept the 1993 agenda, including the November meeting will be on Wednesday the loth. Second by Clark. Motion carried unanimously. New Business Spink requested the Chair to write an acknowledgement letter to Vern Fountain for his service. Second by Clark. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8 :50 PM. Res ectfully submitted mod" James A. Ruff Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals November 12 , 1992 - 7 : 30 PM City Hall Council Chambers loth floor The meeting was called to order by Chair .H. P. Curran at 7 : 30 PM. Roll call was taken. Present Absent Joan Sheldon Grant Hilts ' Edward Spink ` - Bob Hull Floyd Wright Mary Clark R Nancy Carlson j H. P. Curran C!] r • Staff i•�7 t-" Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner Tabled Appeal 43243 - 400 S. Pennsylvania Fountain - We received a telephone call from him. He intended to put together a new site plan that would hopefully satisfy some of the concerns that the neighbors brought up at the last meeting, as well as yourselves . He intended to have his architect draw up new plans and he did not get it done, so he called and asked that you defer until your next meeting to give him that opportunity. Spink made a motion to have appeal 43243 remain on the table. Second by Hull . Motion carried unanimously. Tabled Appeal 43237 - 6405 S. Cedar St. Hull made a motion to remove appeal 43237 from the table. Second by Wright. Motion carried unanimously. Winnicker - They have resolved the situation by installing a wall sign. On the wall which faces the freeway ramp so it doesn' t necessitate a free standing sign or a variance to allow for a second free standing sign. The fact that they have the sign on the other side of the building will then mean that they have to balance what they are allowed on the side of the building which faces South Cedar Street. Clark made a motion to deny appeal 43237 as filed. Second by Spink. Yeas : Sheldon, Hull, Spink, Wright, Clark, Carlson, Curran BZA Minutes November 12, 1992 Appeal �3237 DENIED. The Board could not find based on testimony and evidence that there was any particular hardship or practical difficulty that would justify approval of a second ground/pole sign. The Board believes that adequate advertising can be provided for this establishment without seeking a variance from the Sign Code. Appeal #3248 - 3425 E. Saginaw This is a request by 4 H Big Boy Restaurant, Inc . for a zoning variance to allow the attachment of a 36 sq. ft. reader board to a 280 sq. ft. existing sign on the premises of 3425 East Saginaw. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. 4 H Big Boy Restaurant, Inc. has proposed to attach a permanent 36 sq. ft. ( 3 . 6 ' x 101 ) reader board to a 280 sq. ft. ground/pole sign. The existing sign has a 16 ' setback. Chapter 1442. 13 of the city Sign Code allows a maximum 50 sq. ft. sign area at a 16 ' setback. The combined area of the signs would be 316 sq. ft. This reader board addition will require a 266 sq. ft. variance. J. D. Herro, owner of the business , reside at 9397 N. Scenic Lake Drive, Laingsburg. I submitted photographs of other restaurants and businesses in the immediate area, all of which have a copy board and I feel that I am at a very grave disadvantage. I operated for 23 years there. I ' ve always had a portable sign out front and one day it got ticketed and I took it away like a law abiding citizen. I know that a lot of the businesses around me are not in the City of Lansing, but they are my competitors . We are constantly running specials . In order to maintain my competition, draw in new customers. I can' t just rely on the traffic I have . That sign has been up 30 years. All I 'm asking is to put a copy message board on it. I have a second plan here if you decide against the first one. Clark made a motion to grant a variance for appeal #3248 for a sign 120 sq. ft. , with a 10 ' setback, and no higher than 25 ' . Second by Wright. Yeas : Spink, Sheldon, Hull, Wright, Clark, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3248 APPROVED. The Board denied your request as filed to erect an additional 36 sq. ft. to the existing ground/pole sign on the property located at 3425 E. Saginaw Street. The Board did approve a variance to allow to replace the existing sign with a new sign to be attached BZA Minutes November 12, 1992 believe that the additional use of the property for six ( 6 ) arcade games will have any adverse impact on the surrounding area. The Board found that this commercial establishment provides a neighborhood service and that most customers walk to the site as opposed to driving a vehicle . Therefore the Board did not believe that a parking variance of two spaces will have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. Minutes 1st page change from Clark to Hull. 2nd page spelling of Ed Kapallo. Spink made a motion to approve the October 8 , 1992 minutes . Second by Clark. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8 : 10 PM. Emil Winnicker Senior Planner Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 1992 - 7 : 30 PM City Hall Council Chambers loth floor The meeting was called to order by Chair H. P. Curran at 7 : 30 PM. Roll call was taken. Present Nancy Carlson Joan Sheldon Edward Spink Grant Hilts Bob Hull Floyd Wright :. Mary Clark H. P . Curran Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner Appeal #3243 - 400 South Pennsylvania This is a request by Alan Martin of Quality Dairy Co. to add a storage -room to the rear of their building, which will come to within 10 ft . of the (west) rear property line on premises known as 400 South Pennsylvania . A presentation was given by V. Fountain. The petitioner proposes to add a 520 sq. ft. storage addition to the west side of the existing building which will come to within 10 ft . of the rear property line. Hull - There is a small structure to the east side of the storage which is currently used to store pop cans , containers , etc . , is that going to remain there or is it going to be removed? Fountain - I 'm not sure. I ' ll let the applicant respond to that . No representative from Quality Dairy at this time. Ed Kapalla, 907 Hickory. I have information here giving reasons of my opinion. And I have given these to Eleanor Love, I don ' t know if you have them. They are reasons why Quality Dairy should be denied a variance . (See attachment) Alan Martin, arrived, one of the owners of Quality Dairy. The purpose of the addition is for storage for the backroom, we need more space. We could add on to the building to the west in such a way as to completely avoid a variance, however, what it would create is an alley with no parking. By doing it this way we can save some of our parking which we think is important . This is not a major change . I see no changes in the retail operation of the BZA Minutes October 8, 1992 2 business at all . This is merely to add storage space to the building and a way to conserve parking. Wright - How many of your stores in the Lansing area have a 24 hour operation? Martin - Around a dozen. Wright - The one ' s that are not, what are their hours of operation? Martin - 6 AM - 2 AM; 6 AM - midnight . Spink - There ' s presently a shed to the rear of the property on the east side of the building, is that going to remain or be removed? Martin - We could leave it there or take it out . I ' d prefer to leave it. How much square footage do you have there? Martin - 100 sq. ft . , I 'm guessing. Hull - Where are you going to locate the dumpster? Martin - I think we were requested to move it to the west side of the building. Clark - What are the parking requirements for this use? Fountain - Its based on the square footage of the building. Clark - Does this site meet those requirements? Fountain - As far as I know it does . Communication A postcard from Occupant of 419 S . Pennsylvania, #3 , improve what is already there. Ed Kapalla, 907 Hickory - Where are the exits or access to this? Martin - North wall . Kapalla continued with comments about the dumpster, parking, moving the building all the way to the fence, and hours of operation. Hull made a motion to table appeal #3243 . Second by Clark. Yeas : Hilts, Clark, Hull , Spink, Sheldon, Wright, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3243 TABLED The Board tabled your request to construct a rear addition on the existing Quality Dairy store. This request was tabled for further study and report . Appeal #3244 - 3901 Donald St . This is a request by Richard Wilkins to construct an 8 ' x 20 ' SZA Minutes October 8, 1992 3 covered front porch, no closer than 14 . 7 ft . from the front property line at 3901 Donald Street. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Richard Wilkins , 3901 Donald St . My wife is requesting a covered porch, a country looking porch. The posts will have sconces up in the corner, they will be decorative posts , painted in the same color scheme as the house. The bottom of the porch will be a cross hatch. There will be flowers put around the front. The porch will not stick out and block the site of the neighbor. The addition will not cause any traffic problem. Clark - The report referred to the rear of the house not being feasible due to interior configuration. What does that mean? Wilkins - They had talked about putting a porch on the back of the house . The house is only 960 sq. ft. ,_ and there is 3 bedrooms across the back. In order to make an entry way I 'd have to knock out a bedroom. Communication A letter from Benjamin and Doris Rassizi , 4000 Donald Street, object to the request. A letter from Jack Bulock, 3911 Donald St. No objection to an open porch. Object if it were covered because it is a corner lot . Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3244 . Second by Clark. Yeas : Hull, Sheldon, Hilts, Clark, Spink, Wright, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3244 APPROVED The Board approved your request to construct an 8 ' x 20 ' covered but open front porch, no closer than 14 . 7 ' from the front property line . The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the proposed porch addition cannot be constructed on any other side of the dwelling because of the interior design of the home. The Board was satisfied that the proposed change would not have any adverse impact on the adjacent properties and therefore approval is in keeping with the general intent of the Code. Appeal #3245 - 1420 Hillcrest Street This is a request by Rodney Davis to construct a 24 ' x 40 ' detached garage and hobby shop with a 6 ' x 40 ' covered side porch having a BZA Minutes October 8, 1992 4 total of 1200 square feet on his property at 1420 Hillcrest Street. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Rod Davis , 1420 Hillcrest St. Basically what I would like to do is have a 24 ' x 30 ' garage with a small workshop, 10 ' x 24 ' that would be like a wall across the garage, we could have a little hobby shop, for saws and tools . My son and I like to do that type of thing. We like to make toys and fix antiques . This is not a business , just a hobby. Attached to the side of the garage we would like an open patio. We could have a picnic table and barbecue on the patio. Its just a garage to house our vehicles and lawn equipment and garden tractor. The garage would set back away from the street approximately 140 ft. and it would still be 120 ft. from the rear property line . Curran - Would you take out the existing concrete pad? Davis - The garage would be beyond the concrete pad about 10 ft. That would remain there as a drive thru to the garage. Wilkins - I talked to some of the neighbors and they didn ' t seem to have a problem with it. Hilts made a motion to deny appeal #3245 . Second by Sheldon. Yeas : Sheldon, Hull , Spink, Hilts , Wright, Clark, Carlson, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3245- DENIED. The Board denied your request to construct a detached garage measuring 24 ' x 40 ' with an attached porch measuring 6 ' x 40 ' upon the premises known as 1420 Hillcrest Street. The Board does not believe that there is a hardship associated with this request and that the maximum size garage allowed by the Zoning Code allows a reasonable use of the property. The Board further believes that the size of the garage proposed would be out of scale with the residence on this site . Appeal #3246 - 231 McGarry Drive This is a request by Timothy Thocher to construct a 24 ' x 28 ' attached garage to the east side of the home located at 231 McGarry Dr. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. The garage will be 9 ft. from the rear ( east) property line . The Zoning Code requires a setback of 30 ft. BZA Minutes October 8, 1992 5 Tim Thocher, 231 McGarry. We would like to have an attached garage for many reasons . Security reasons , and convenience reasons . We do feel that is the only place we have to build a garage and the way the driveway is oriented it looks like the intent of the original builder was to put a garage there at some point in time . My neighbors in general do not have any objection. Mr. Funk, who is my neighbor would like to see a garage, he thinks it would be beneficial to the street from appearance stand point and it will increase the overall value of the development on the street . Spink - What are you going to do with the shed? Thocher - Originally we intended to rid ourselves of the shed. But after talking with some of the neighbors who have garages we would like to keep the shed for the lawn mower and tools to keep them out of the reach of the kids . Communication A letter from Howard Funk, 221 McGarry Dr. , in favor of garage; it would be an asset to the community. Hull made a motion to approve appeal #3246 . Second by Clark. Yeas : Spink, Hilts , Sheldon, Hull, Wright, Clark, Carlson, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3246 APPROVED The Board approved your request to construct a 24 ' x 28 ' attached garage to the east side of your existing home which will be located 9 ' from the rear property line. The Board found that this is a corner lot which presents a hardship when attempting to make a common addition to a residential home . The Board believes that the request is reasonable and construction of a new garage as proposed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties . Appeal #3247 - 5814 South Pennsylvania This is a request by Warren Sign Systems for Art Van Furniture to receive a variance that will allow for the installation of a wall sign at 5814 S . Pennsylvania which is larger than that allowed by Code . A presentation was given by Emil Winnicker. The applicant proposes a sign 671 . 67 sq. ft. in size. Code establishes that a wall sign no larger than 200 sq. ft. in size would be allowed on the building. BZA Minutes October B, 1992 6 d Road, Warren, MI . The purpose for this Jeff Johnson, 24224 Mound undergone considerable renovation request is Art Van has recently g il to the inside of the store, which now includes center. their There ' s no store space being allocated for clearance there is a market for question we ' re in some hard economic times , to t lower, less priced items so they areeO trying ngnow that to r there his market. Their also trying to let people reduced clearance center space within the store at drastically ft of Our intent originally is , existing is 372 sq• prices . the new ordinance signage, which was allowed under the ordilans we were simply going only allows 200 sq. ft. In our original p maintain the same to replace the existing orate aandurniture Clearance sign, maintain in that same 372 sq. ft . and incorp square footage . The hardship lthat mayk of sbelvery vital to identificationsome that specific area of the store furniture . people who can' t afford very expensiveI e 5723 Richwood, right behind the Art Van store . who Charles pope, Richwood Village Associates , w I represent the property owners , employ me and the management company, Dakota Management Co. , The sidences of the apartment complex g he also work for and the re he si me a note that he definitely objects owner sent o l t pro erty n, And feels it would interfenethe with he ghborhood some of these comments talking to the peoplert don' t actually reflect the rigs but rough shot over Aus asn they rare an opinion in that Art Van has rett much do what they wan a big company from Detroit and they p Y One to do. We had terrible times with them during the its twiceg as big of the comments , we had seen this tremendous sign, as the units we live in, why would they want a signobhof lighdtibg The do a pretty good 7 trucks seen all the way to I-96 . Y noisy things up now. Some of the other comments roblem. The trash arriving late at night, still an ongoing p is very noisy, it sounds like a jet compactor, whatever it is , being a family For us , g airplane, that they use all hours • after 8 : 00 PM is pretty neighborhood, and kids going to school, Their semi ' s We ' re talking 10 : 00, 11 : 00 12 : 00 at night . late . After the second time we had constantly crashing into our fence. We always felt this lack to sue them to get something out of it . of cooperation with Art Van. We have concerns on what Art Van is We really ob ject to it as really going to do back there • ears , so I have a good idea on residents . I ' ve been there for 20 y what ' s been going on there. Clark made a motion to deny appeal #3247 . Second by Carlson. Yeas : Clark, Wright, Hilts , Spink, Hull , Sheldon, Carlson, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3247 DENIED. The Board denied your request to erec and install a wall sign t 671 . 67 ft . in size on the face of the commercial building commonly HZA Minutes October B, 1992 7 located at 5814 South Pennsylvania kn own as Art Van Furniture, Avenue . The Board found based on testimony an the Present time both with ce that the use of ha T identified property was adequately sign. wall sign and a g The Board does not believe there is signs allow adequate e xistin a hardship sship associated with this request and that the denial of the request further identification of the business . Therefore, ral intent of the Zoning Code . is in keeping with the gene Minim g tember 10 Hull made a motion to approve the Au ust 13 and Sep Second by Sheldon. Motion carried unanimously. minutes . Old Business Status of Bill Knapp' s building. Th ere being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9 : 00 PM- , ernon C. Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals September 10 , 1992 - 7 : 30 PM City Hall Council Chambers 10th floor The meeting was called to order by Chair H. P. Curran at 7 : 30 PM. Roll call was taken. Present Joan Sheldon Edward Spink Grant Hilts c3 Bob Hull ry Floyd Wright c , Mary Clark Nancy Carlson H.P. Curran Staff sue, Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner Appeal 43234 - 650 N. Dexter This is a request by Gorgon Guilbault for a variance to retain an open wood deck 9 ft. into the established front yard at 650 N. Dexter. A- presentation was given by V. Fountain. The petitioner proposes to retain a 14 x 14 open wood deck which extends 9 ft. into the established front yard. Gorgon Guilbault, 650 N. Dexter. I ' ve lived there for 26 years . Spink - Why did you build it 2 ft. beyond the side of the house? Guilbault - When we were deciding where to put the deck, we have a sliding door right there and when we fastened the deck onto the house, the added space allows us to put a chair or something in that corner without it being in the way of the door. When was it built? Guilbault - In June. Hull made a motion to approve appeal #3234 . Second by Spink. Yeas : Hilts, Clark, Hull, Spink, Sheldon, Wright, Carlson, Curran Appeal 43234 APPROVED 1 BZA September Minutes The Board approved your request to retain an open wood deck which is located 16 . 5 ft. from the front property line upon the premises known as 650 N. Dexter Drive. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the location of the deck does not adversely impact the adjacent properties and therefore approval is in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Code. Appeal #3235 - 123 Fenton This is a request by Cindy Duling for a variance to allow the 8 ft. high fence in the rear yard area to remain on the property at 123 Fenton. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. The petitioner proposes to keep an 8 ft. high privacy fence ( 40 ' in length) . The code allows a maximum height of 6 ft. Spink - When was the last time an 8 ft. fence was approved, under what conditions? Hilts - There was one off Miller Road, it had been there a long time without any complaints from the neighbors . A letter from Patricia Bokovoy request denial of the fence. A letter from Lauren and Helen Duling support the request. A •letter from Connie Estrada support the request. A letter from Candis Duling, 401 E. Willard support the request. Cindy Duling, 123 Fenton. Why I constructed this section of the fence so far, is finances will only allow that much. The neighbors on the other side, of our property line is so close, and their deck is built up almost 4 ft. high. If the fence was only 6 ft. high they could still see over the fence. And that' s a problem because they have grandchildren that visit them regularly that torment my dogs . They poke sticks through the fence, they tease them, my neighbors have seen it. I am very concerned, I 'm going to put 6 ft. fence the rest of the way. The 8 ft. is for privacy for me, for them too. I don' t want to take any chances of having their kids reach through the fence and getting bit and then sue me. I just want privacy. Wright - The remainder of the yard has a 4 ft. wire fence. Duling - It will be a 6 ft. wood fence as soon as I can finance the rest of it. 2 BZA September Minutes Wright - What is the depth of the lot, it appears to be quite deep. Duling - I don' t know the dimensions, its a city lot. Its very long and narrow. Wright - The fence goes completely around the perimeter of the lot? Duling - Yes it does , both sides and the rear. Joan Weller, 119 Fenton. The fence is between her property and ours . We ' re asking that the fence be lowered to the 6 he east. ofeour. It obscures our view, it walls off everything property. Nc -breeze can come through. Lauren Duling, Cindy' s father, 2460 Ottawa Cove, Everett, MI . When I dug the holes to put the fence in there was asphalt where they had a driveway before, so therefore the fence is erected on her property and so is the other one. And how much wind are you goingto gain over the top from a 6 ft. fence. I have been there and seen there grandchildren poke sticks through the fence at her dogs. I would like to have the 8 ft. fence James Weller, 119 Fenton. ` removed. I want to be able to see the neighborhood. Wright - Clarifying on where a fence can be placed. Clark - In this situation, our obligation isto look Matconcern in structure being built and whether its appropriate .recedent for approving an 8 ft. fence we would be setting a p other decks that are near property lines , so I will not be supporting this appeal. Spink made a motion to deny appeal #3235 . Second by Clark. Yeas : Hull, Sheldon, Hilts , Clark, Spink, Curran Nays : Wright, Carlson Appeal #3235 DENIED. The Board denied your request nton Sto retain an 8 ft. high fence on premises known as The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that there was no hardship related to this request and that approval would only establish precedence for future request in residential areas . Since your appeal was denied you are asked to bring the construction of this fence into compliance with the residential fence ordinance, within 30 days of September 17 , 1992 . 3 BZA September Minutes Appeal #3236 - 715 North Foster This is a request by Gladys M. Rogers for a side yard variance of 2 . 4 ft. to allow for construction of an attached garage 3 ft. from the side property line at 715 North Foster. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. The petitioner proposes to remove the existing garage and construct a new attached one 13 ' x 22 ' in size 3 ft. from the side property line. A petition signed by the immediate neighbors ( 9) supporting the construction of a new garage. , 715 N. Foster. We ' ve lived there for forty years. Gladys Rogers Gladys garage is a lean to and I intend to change the roof line to be my l b in conjunction with the eehouse. ded Itcarof any usize. We have looking.a The larger garage is parking problem onf Foster fandlyho� whoevere put lcomes overn the new dtovbeaable want to make room Y to park in the drive. The garage you have now is large enough for a car? Rogers - Yes Does the RV belong to you? Rogers - Yes prove appeal #3236 . Second by Clark. Spink made a motion to ap Yeas: Sheldon, Hull, Spink, Hilts , Wright, Clark, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3236 APPROVED. ached The Board approved your uestct an as 715 3 5 ft. from the south side 1 North Foster Avenue. The Board found based tba�kyfurther evidence theafront property the knew proposed garage would be set line than the original garage and therefore the Board believes there will be less impact on the adjacent properties. The Board further believes that this reconstruction will be the improvement property and therefore would be in keeping withgeneral intent of the Zoning Code. 4 BZA September Minutes Appeal #3237 - 6405 South Cedar This is a request by Central Advertising representing Bill Knapps . Restaurant for two variances to the Sign Code to allow extra signs and a 14 ft. setback variance at 6405 South Cedar. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. The petitioner proposes an extra pole sign on the east side of the property facing the highway ramp. The petitioner also proposes to place a sign facing South Cedar Street 9 ft. from the front property line. Dick Higgins , Bill Knapp Restaurants , office at 110 Knapp Drive, Battle Creek, Michigan. The matter of the second pole sign. This interchange at South Cedar and I-96 is a unique interchange in the State of Michigan. Because of the uniqueness and unusuality that we face there, is of having State right-of-way as literally another street that we front on, but we have no access to it, the entire east property line of ours abuts state right- of-way. As you come off I-96 and proceed down to Pennsylvania, you have the unusuality there where you can see because it is all clear vision, all state right-of-way, you can see all the way to the site, and if we can be allowed that second sign we think that ` it would lessen the hardship, on us , because we spend a lot of money on the interstate providing outdoor advertising, and when we get the people down into the interchange, its certainly makes it easier for our customers to find this Bill Knapp Restaurant. Its just a very unusual situation. It really needs that second sign for the ease of patronage that really could facilitate their ability to get to the site more easily. Its a real natural to have a sign there. Dir-k Lorencen, Central Advertising Co. We are the company that is going to install the signs. I 'm familiar with the ordinance and I would like to call to your attention, based on the second sign. The ordinance took into consideration that if a building was fronted on two streets it would be allowed a second sign. This property is unique, its the only one that fronts on the highway. Clark made a motion to approve a 14 ft. setback on Cedar Street. Second by Spink. Yeas : Spink, Hilts, Sheldon, Hull, Wright, Clark, Curran Nays: Carlson Appeal #3237 APPROVED for a 14 ft. setback. Clark made a motion to deny the second sign. Second by Sheldon. Discussion. r BZA September Minutes Clark made a motion to table the decision of the second sign until the November meeting. Second by Carlson. Yeas : Clark, Wright, Hilts , Spink, Hull, Sheldon, Carlson, Curran Appeals at their meeting of September 10 , The Board of Zoning round/pole sign which will 1992 approved your request to erect a g be located 9 ft. from the front property line on Cedar Street upon the premises known as 6405 S. Cedar Street. The Board tabled that portion of your request to allow a second ground/pole sign east of the new Bill Knapps building that would have its orientation to the highway ramp located to the east. This matter was tabled oardl the couldbuilin visualizeoexactly1whaton sbenefit completed so that the B would be received from the second ground/pole sign and how it may or may not impact other properties . The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the excessive wide right-of-way along South Cedar Street which is opposite the primary ground/pole sign fronting on Cedar Street is < justification for allowing reduction in the required set back. The Board does not believe ertiestt handcisngn keepingvwith any theverse impact on the adjacent prd p general intent of the Code. Appeal 43238 - 3013 Boston Boulevard This is a request by Richard Edmondson for a variance to allow w th6 construction of a 12 increasing the total size to 24 ' x 36 ' on the property of 3013 Boston Boulevard. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Richard Edmondson, 3013 Boston Boulevard. The reason I want to do this , is for storage actually, I don' t - even visualize carrying the garage into that area. In other words rsrI ' d justvedaput a doorway into that 12 ft. section. I was away d that my neighbors tree had fallen on the building. Hull - Is the boat stored on the property all the time? Edmondson - No, infrequently. Clark - Is the construction your proposing going to be suitable for garage use? any kind Edmondson - The construction would be suitable to carry of vehicle if it was necessary. 6 BZA September Minutes Clark - Why did you choose the 12 ' x 24 ' size? age is 24 ' across the back and by Edmondson - The present gar lost going out to 12 ' does all th all the nstuff gs dthat ewas an to . it. by other building I moved Clark - What was the size of the other building? Edmondson - About 10 ' x 12 ' eal #3238 . Second by Wright. rove app No Carlson made a motion to approve than a second building. It would be more aesthetic appealing objection from the neighbors . Yeas : Hilts , Wright, Carlson, Curran Nays : Clark, Hull, Spink, Sheldon Appeal 03238 DENIED. garage The Board denied your request to constrconapro 4 pertyloccated at addition to the existing detached garage 3013 Boston Boulevard. garagel inreae the total floor area This proposed additionoX°maaelyc114s sq. ft. overthemaximum to 864 sq. ft. or app the Zoning Code . allowed by the final n on the rove the request, "The concurring vote of the majority There was a yeas and4 nay is to approve A eals shall be vote was 4 Y on the Board of Zoning pp of the members serving quirement, decision or necessary to reverse any order , re in favor of determination of the planning Division or it decidetass under an the applicant a matter upon which its required to P In this ordinance, or to effect a variance of y to apprnovecyour request in favor of the request case 5 affirmative votes were necessar only 4 were cast. Those members voting felt it would be more desirabl tHowever see he attached against square footage on the existing gage the proposed variance did not believe inhthe WAS Residential an that the maximum size garage allowed District was reasonable and allowed reasonable use of the property. Appeal #3239 - 2403 Cavanaugh This is a request by Larry Ross for a variance to allow of 2403 e 18 ft. in height construction of a garag on the property Cavanaugh. A presentation was given by v. Fountain. The petitioner proposes to construct a garage 18 ft. in height which matches the design of the house on site. 7 BZA September Minutes this , I sent a photo to the Larry Ross - The reason we re doing to do with this Zoning Its an odd shaped Board of °Uhehroof line ofhouse we are ryrng quite large• is exactly match t 6 acres . Our lot is house. We own approximately neighbors across immediate neighbors , I talked to the Besides MY no objection. It will be My house also have the road and they neighbors garage to mine. approximately 65 ft. from my My neighbors house is 28 ft. to is just over 26 ft. in height. place. We want to the peak. So my garage will not 10 up°atS°cond building. have storage, without having to p neighbors , no objection. A petition from the immediate neig Trappers Cove Bryan Mead, Property Manager, Trapp A letter frOdo not oppose the granting of the 3 ft. height Apartments , variance . S ink. rove appeal #3239 . Second by Sp ink. made a motion to aPP Clark, Spink, Wright, Carlson, Curran Yeas: Hull, Sheldon, Hilts, Appeal 43239 APPROVED. detached x 30 ' roved your request 18 construct a 2t' located at 2403 East The approved a height of 18 ft. on property height of e having and Zoning Code allows a garage The Planning Cavanaugh Road. a height variance of UP to 15 ft. therefore the Board approved ft. and evidence the type of compatible with the existing home that is The Board found based co testimony do not believe construction would be comp negative impact on the site in terms ° he roof haveta Y is in keeping that the 3 ft. variance adjacent properties , therefore the request on the adj Code. with the general intent of the Zoning Appeal #3240 - 926 Dexter side and variance to This is a request by Robert Budd stin for adetached garage one foot construct an addition netonthe eproperty of 926 Dexter . from the side lot A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Budd, 926 S . Dexter . The back of the lot is aboutnbuying Robert eo le, Stoughton, I also talked to theerPark' s P P Pete e to they discovered their prop so I WO to but then for a variance. 2 ft. of to sell that to m it, it would have There were willing parkland and in order to buy on a ballot and that was dedicated p of Lansing to be put to a vote of the entire ICdon' t see any reason to cost I simply balked at the expense. 8 BZA September Minutes that much money if I can get a variance to do this . the voters t that there will ever be a structure onithat It is highly unlikely They did suggest to me, that particular piece of property. move over there 50 from lot 100 , which is on the other side might see if I could bt. and they would simply of the vacant lot, ft. lot. Sheldon - Are you able to park vehicles in your present garage? Budd - No not right now. Second by Clark. Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3240 . Yeas : Sheldon, Hull, Spink, Hilts , Wright, Clark, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3240 APPROVED. t an dition to The Board approved your request ft.cftomrthe side dproperty line existing garage which will be upon the premises known as 926 South Dexterence that the addition and evidence the Parks and The Board found based vacant testimony The would be adjacent tO vandnserves aslaccessotoePoxson Park. Recreation Department that the construction approval was given with codeurequirements which may include a would meet all building line. The Board is satisfied that fire wall along the property this variance is in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Code. We have a communication from the Planning and Municipal Curran Regarding retirees . Development Department. ' or the October 8 , 1992 Nancy son requests an excused absence f Carl meeting. adjourned at 9: 45 PM. There being no further business the meeting —_ Vernon C. ain Secretary Appeals Board of Zoning pP 9 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 1992 - 7 : 30 PM City Hall Council Chambers loth floor The meeting was called to order by Chair H. P. Curran at 7 : 30 PM. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Joan Sheldon Mary Clark Edward Spink Grant Hilts Bob Hull Floyd Wright Nancy Carlson H. P . Curran Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Don Hanna r\D Hearings and Decisions Appeal #3224 - 1012 N. Seymour, 1022 & 1024 N. Seymour, 225 W. Maple and 221 W. Maple This is a request by Emanuel First Lutheran Church and school to construct parking spaces in the required front yard of the proposed parking lots at 1001 N. Capitol . The proposed parking lot is requested to be located on the properties at 1012 Seymour, 1022-24 Seymour, 225 W. Maple and 221 W. Maple following removal of the structures . A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Video tape was shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Curran - How many houses are going to be destroyed? Fountain - The child care center will be removed and relocated in the new addition. There is a total of five structures that would come down. John Meyer of Wigen, Tincknell, Meyer & Assoc . , Inc. , 1647 S . Washington Avenue, Saginaw, MI 48601 . Handed out a packet that has a description of plans . Sheldon asked how many trees would be removed? Meyer - two trees . 1 BZA August Min. We need parking and we need paved playground area. Across the street on Walnut Street is paved playground area. We intend to for parking and playground. Curran - You are taking away some of the green space between the sidewalk and the street for parking, how come? Meyer - There is a deficiency in parking for the church. There are currently 50 parking space, with the total complex we put together we would hope to pick up 67 spaces we ' ll have a total of 137 spaces . We need as many parking spaces in the vicinity of the church as possible for Sunday worship. Phyllis Vanhecke, 217 W. Maple. I have a concern with our driveway. It is jointly owned with the church and I 'm not sure if the parking lot would interfere with our driveway. Richard Lott, 1107 N. Capitol, Walnut Neighborhood Organization. I have one question, are we talking about from the street curb to the sidewalk and then from the other side of the sidewalk into the property. Fountain - The issue before the Board tonight is the front yard parking that would extend from the property line back into their site . Lott - I want to make clear that this is church parking not the school . The school does not need all those spaces . The parking they need is for the church not the school . Another thing this does it changes the residential look of the neighborhood, we loose houses , not only the houses they are going to tear down on the Maple/Seymour corner but also what were formerly houses, which is their current day care and the other two brick buildings that they occupy also . If you look at that street there is a big gap in the middle is their current parking lot. They never screened it, its been paved right to the sidewalk. If that is how they are going to take care of their parking lots I would ask you to turn down this issue. Its a complex issue but its an issue that ' s all tied together and changing the residential look of our area by allowing church parking. This not something our organization desires . Lynn O 'Connor, 1101 N. Capitol, across the block from where the church plans on tearing down the houses in our neighborhood. My house is a very well maintained house, the effect and the ambiance around my house will be destroyed if they put in parking lots . Because that ' s what I ' ll see in two directions every morning when I walk out my front door. I strongly oppose any change that they are asking. Joy Swick, 1035 Seymour. Oppose the parking. 2 BZA August Min. Alexander Kruzel, 1027 Seymour. Oppose the request. Gerald Carne, 226 W. Maple. I speak in opposition, I don't think its necessary to tear down the houses on Maple for a parking lot. Julie Tubbs-Lott, 1107 N. Capitol, Walnut Neighborhood Organization. I 'm against the appeal . I feel it would destroy the character of our neighborhood, be a danger to our children, and would be a danger to the school for blind students who use our neighborhood for training. This front yard parking is for church use and is not for the school and day care expansion. Parking lots create problems, they are hot spots in the summer, they are hangouts, they collect litter, and they require more police protection. Todd Belvin, 211 W. Maple. It would be one of three houses left on that block. I 'm definitely opposed to having a parking lot put in next door to myself . Spink made a motion to table appeal #3224 . Second by Hilts . Yeas : Hilts , Hull, Spink, Sheldon, Wright, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3224 TABLED The Board of Zoning Appeals at their meeting of August 13, 1992 tabled the request to construct off street parking in the required front yards along Seymour and Maple Streets in conjunction with school expansion on property at 1001 North Capitol Avenue. This matter was tabled for further study and report. Appeal #3225 and #3226 are presented together because they are two homes that are side by side and share a joint driveway. Appeal #3225 - 1331 Glenrose This is a request by Evert Kramer, contractor representing property owner Fannie Mae Lathon of 1331 Glenrose, to receive side yard variances to the Zoning Code that would allow for the construction of a garage on the properties located at 1331 and 1335 Glenrose . A garage is proposed to be constructed on both lots over the property line and shared by both owners . A side yard setback variance of 3 ft. is required for each property. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Video tape was shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Wright - There was a shared garage at that location at one time why was it removed? 3 BZA August Min. Evart Kramer - It was dilapidated. It was razed many years ago. Evert Kramer, 2503 Lyman, I 'm the builder, both residents are here . Its pretty self explanatory. Their rear yard is very minimum. To have a standard variance of 3 ft. from the property line would leave a 6 ft. gap in between the two garages . Being that space is such a rare commodity in this case we feel its the best use of both properties . Curran - Is it going to be one building with two doors with a wall between the two stalls? Kramer - In accordance with Building Safety request there will be a fire wall . Fannie Lathon, 1331 Glenrose . I agree with Barry and the contractor for this shared drive. Hilts made a motion to approve appeal #3225 . Second by Sheldon. Yeas : Hull, Sheldon, Hilts , Spink, Wright, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3225 APPROVED. This approval was given with the understanding that the carport would be constructed concurrently with and in conjunction with the proposed carport development for property abutting the property at 1335 Glenrose . The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that this carport would be constructed in conjunction with a carport at 1335 Glenrose and therefore should not have any adverse impact on the adjacent property. Appeal #3226 . - 1335 Glenrose This is a request by Evert Kramer, contractor representing property owner Barry Stachnik of 1335 Glenrose, to receive side yard variances to the Zoning Code that would allow for the construction of a garage on the properties located at 1331 and 1335 Glenrose. A garage is proposed to be constructed on both lots over the property line and shared by both owners . A side yard setback variance of 3 ft. is therefore required for each property. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Video tape was shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Barry Stachnik, 1335 Glenrose. Ms . Lathon and I jointly agreed that we both want to have this carport set up. The lot was designed that way. Our next door neighbors have exactly the same 4 - y BZA August Min. thing. Its going to be an improvement to our property, keep weather off our automobiles and its not practical to do it any other way. The property lines are so small . If we can' t get this variance then we can' t do it at all . Hilts made a motion to approve appeal #3226 . Second by Sheldon. Yeas : Sheldon, Hull, Spink, Hilts , Wright, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3226 APPROVED. The approval was given with the understanding that it would be constructed concurrently with and in conjunction with the proposed carport that will be constructed on the property at 1331 Glenrose . These proposed carports are served by a joint driveway between 1331 Glenrose and 1335 Glenrose . Since these carports are being constructed at the request of both property owners and will be done concurrently with one another the Board does not believe that the variance will have any adverse impact on the adjacent properties . The Board further believes that this variance will allow the most efficient use of the rear yard. Appeal #3227 - 333 East Michigan Avenue This is a request by the City of Lansing to construct approximately 10, 000 sq. ft . of receiving, storage and lobby floor space approximately two feet below the base ( 100 year) flood plain elevation as part of the Lansing Center expansion at 333 E . Michigan Avenue . A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Video tape was shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . Emerson Ohl, 9th floor City Hall , TIFA. We expected Snell Environmental here to make the presentation. What I 'm talking for tonight is the Tax Increment Board, that is financing the expansion of the Lansing Center. The Lansing Center has not had a kitchen, a ballroom, adequate meeting rooms or adequate exhibit space . The Tax Increment Board was directed by the Mayor to study the needs of the Lansing Center and hired Hellmoth, Obaty and Kasenbaum who are exhibition hall convention experts out of St. Louis , Missouri . They have studied the entire area and have given a master plan for the Lansing Center showing the needs not only for the current year but the long term. The master plan has been presented to the City Council who is currently reviewing it. To implement the master plan developed by HOK the Tax Increment Board hired Hobbs and Black the developer of many buildings such as The Grand Tower, the Atrium building and many others . Hobbs and Black the architects in charge of the expansion. Bob Smith of Hobbs & Black is here tonight He 5 BZA August Min. has designed the plan to ensure that as much of the land that is available for the Lansing Center be effectively utilized. As a result of that and pointing out the needs of the users of the Lansing Center the ballroom is designed to be divisible into 8 separate meeting rooms . The utilization of the land on the front of the Lansing Center is to provide additional meeting rooms on the second floor which does not exist today, and in addition to that retention of the existing facilities in the east portion of the Lansing Center. This will allow approximately a 15, 000 sq. ft . ballroom, and a needed kitchen. The storage area which is a minimal of 10 , 000 sq. ft. to be utilized for storage. This will provide for the necessary storage area for the kitchen which will be served by its own elevator at another location. This will bring the center up to the needs of the community and the needs of associations , for much greater occupancy and much greater involvement on the part of the community. This facility will bring us into the 20th century for additional conventions . This has been extensively reviewed and we have reviewed this with DNR. DNR has indicated interest in the use of the building for its commission meetings . Flexibility has been the key in terms of the entire arrangement. In connection with the flood plain insurance, the building today is leased to the exhibition hall authority an automonous group that has its own executive director and its own sales and staff . One of the charges that the Mayor has suggested is the possibility of alternative management organization but the decision whatever it will be, whether privatized or whether it will be through the exhibition hall authority. The decision on the flood plain insurance is there ' s . We ' re the financing arm and the tax increment district was set up in 1982 and so it would expire in 2002 and we have the vehicle to provide the neces.sary funding for the development of the Center. The Plans are well developed have been reviewed. We ' re in the process right now of having the final approval from the City Council on the development plan and the financial plan. We have underwriters lined up for a bond issue and it will utilize the tax increment revenues from the district which is primarily the downtown area . Spink - Mr. Ohl ' s comments seem to be in conflict in what ' s proposed here in regards to flood insurance. We say it will be required. Ohl - Then certainly the automonous group will follow the requirement. Curran - Will the parking underneath the building be affected? Ohl - It will be continued on. Curran - Will it ever expand to Cedar Street? Ohl - We are in the process of acquiring those additional properties at this time. All of the furniture fixtures and 6 BZA August Min. equipment have been finalized in terms of appraisal and acceptance on the part of that. The appraisals have not been accepted by the owners of the property and Mr. Stonehouse in Redevelopment is handling it . Yes this is part of the overall plan. Curran - It seems people are concerned that there is not quite enough loading dock area. Ohl - The loading docks do not change. That ' s part of the existing facilities . The review by HOK indicates more than adequate loading docks . There are 28 ft. doors to enter from the loading dock. Hull - Your still not going to do. shows in there? Ohl - The estimate for retractable seating is already underway as well . That would provide for an arena type seating. They' re expensive but that is one of the considerations within the budgetary limits . Hull - You are planning to do shows in there? Ohl - That is part of the development plan and the development plan includes flexibility to do shows but not necessarily a commitment to do them immediately. Fountain - The Planning Board did consider a special land use for this development for this expansion in the flood plain because it consists of land over a half acre, they have to get involved as ` well as the council . Their meeting was last week and they did recommend approval of a special land use to allow for the expansion of the exhibition hall . The Waterfront Development Board of the City reviewed this and they also gave their endorsement to the expansion. So it as gone through two other bodies . The special land use that the Planning Board recommended is currently before the City Council . Curran - Has DNR looked at it? Fountain - We haven't got a response back yet from the DNR, but they are currently reviewing it. Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3227 . Second by Wright. Yeas : Spink, Hilts, Sheldon, Hull, Wright, Carlson, Curran The Board approved a request by Dave Starr on behalf of the City of Lansing to allow the expansion of the Lansing Center located at 333 East Michigan Avenue, which will extend into the 100 year flood plain of the Grand River and will have a portion of the lowest floor level approximately 2 ft. below the 100 year flood plain elevation, subject to the following conditions : 1 . A permit from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources is required and has been applied for which will have requirements and/or conditions for approval . 7 Iy1 BZA August Min. 2 . Flood hazard insurance will be required for the Lansing Center due to its location in the floodplain. 3 . All permanent mechanical and electrical devices must be elevated above the base flood plain elevation to prevent flood damage . 4 . All storage and temporary mechanical devices ( i . e . coolers/freezers) must either be elevated above the base flood plain elevation or be removable to avoid damage as part of a required flood evacuation plan. 5 . A flood evacuation plan for the removal of vehicles, equipment and any personnel . 6 . Other requirements that may be applied by any local, state or federal agency. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the approval of this request will promote development which is in keeping with the overall goals and policies for the expansion of the Lansing Center. There should be little or no adverse impact from the expansion on either the adjacent properties or the subject property providing all the conditions as outlined above are complied with. Since the appeal was approved this approval may be included in the future expansion plans with the understanding that all the above mentioned conditions are adhered to . Appeal #3228 - 2107 Devonshire This is a request by Janice Martin Brigham to raise the garage roof from a height of 11 ft. to 17 ft. located at 2107 Devonshire. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Video tape was shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . Hilts - What is the height of the garage now? Fountain - (the petitioner - 11 ft . ) Dave Brigham, 2107 Devonshire. We essentially need this room for storage, our cape cod doesn' t have a lot of closet space, we have two children and we all have bikes , we have a lot of garden tools, we have snowblower, lawn mower. We would like storage for our clothes seasonally. We went around the neighborhood to let them know what we were planning on doing. (Petition with neighbors signatures stating no objection) . Wright - Is the current size of the garage 14 x 20? Brigham - Yes Wright - Your proposal is to add 8 ft. more on the 14 ft. dimension to make it 22 ft. wide and 20 ft. deep? 8 BZA August Min. Brigham - I was thinking it would be 20 x 20 . Wright - It says its an 8 x 20 addition, if that ' s correct. Brigham - Its suppose to be 20 x 20 . Sheldon - Will there be electricity? Brigham - We already have electricity in the garage. Sheldon made a motion to approve appeal #3228 . Second by Hull . Yeas : Wright, Hilts, Spink, Hull, Sheldon, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3228 APPROVED. The Board approved your request to reconstruct your existing detached garage which will have a roof height of 17 ft . upon the premises of 2107 Devonshire. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the additional height 2 ft. over the maximum allowed should not have any adverse impact on the adjacent properties . The Board does not believe that the proposed height of the structure will be out of character with the area . Appeal #3229 - 600 Dadson This is a request by James and Phyllis Aenis to construct a roof over the existing front porch at 600 Dadson Street 20 . 6 ft . from the front lot line. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Video tape was shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. We received several petitions stating no objection. James Aenis , 600 Dadson. We have a deck 26 x 6 at the front of our house. When these houses were built, (its a cape cod) , they had no frills on them, just a bare house, the upstairs was not finished and we have put on a garage and a family room and so we wanted a porch, we would like to have a cover over it. We contacted all the neighbors around and nobody has any objections ( letters sent to the Board) . We think it will add to the value to the house and the looks . Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3229 . Second by Hilts . Yeas : Wright, Hilts, Spink, Hull, Sheldon, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3229 APPROVED 9 BZA August Min. The Board approved your request to construct a roof over the existing open front porch at 600 Dadson Street. The addition will extend 6 . 6 ft . into the required front yard. This approval was given with the understanding that the porch would remain open on all sides . The Board found based on testimony and evidence that development along this side of Dadson consists of irregular setbacks and therefore presented an unusual practical difficulty for the owner to make this improvement. The Board does not believe that the change will have any adverse impact on the adjacent properties but will add to the overall appearance of the structure. Appeal #3230 - 427 Community This is a request by Steven Snider to permit the construction of a 10 ' x 18 ' covered deck to the front of the house at 427 Community. The deck will be 31 . 5 ft. from the front property line. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Video tape was shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . Steven Snider, 427 Community. I bought the neighborhood dog and I 'm trying to fix it up. I 've done a bit with it. My fiancee decided she was going to get me a deck. We had a building inspector on. the property, he said everything was fine. She talked with the contractors , secured a loan, paid half the money down, the contractors began the work, one came down to get the building permit and the other two began the work, because they were under the- assumption that there would be no problem, otherwise it wouldn' t be half constructed now. So they removed my porch and started on the deck, and then we found out it didn' t meet the standards . I did speak with my neighbors and they didn ' t seem to have a problem with it. It doesn' t block anyone ' s view or driveway or anything. A letter from Lisa Kennedy, 3226 Schultz, no objection. Wright made a motion to approve appeal #3230 . Second by Spink. Yeas : Hilts , Hull, Spink, Sheldon, Wright, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3230 APPROVED. The Board approved your request to construct a 10 ' x 18 ' covered deck on the front of your home that will be located 31 . 5 ft. from the front lot line upon the premises known as 427 Community Street. 10 BZA August Min. The Board' s approval is made with the understanding that this addition will remain open. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the building setback line along the north side of Community Street is irregular and therefore presents an unusual practical difficulty when attempting to make any reasonable addition to the front of his house . The Board does not believe that the change will have any adverse impact on adjacent properties and therefore is in keeping with the general intent of the Code. Appeal #3231 - 6320 Marywood This is a request by Sandra Robinson to receive a variance that will allow for the construction of a garage 768 sq. ft. in size on the property located at 6320 Marywood. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Video tape was shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Sandi Robinson, 6320 Marywood. The garage that we built is 2 ft. longer than it should be. We built it so we can put our trailer in there . We live where there is no one on the side of us or nobody in the back of us and we 've been robbed twice. And we are co- captains of the neighborhood watch there. There is a large shed in the back that was built there when we came . We want to knock it down and start back up again. Will the garage have a cement floor? Robinson - No, its a pole barn, it will have gravel . A letter from Jay Henderson, 6314 Marywood, no objection. Hilts made a motion to approve appeal #3231 . Second by Sheldon. Yeas : Hull, Sheldon, Hilts, Wright, Carlson, Curran Nays : Spink Appeal #3231 APPROVED The Board approved your request to allow the existing garage which measures 768 sq. ft. in size to remain upon the premises known as 6320 Marywood. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the lot on which the garage is constructed contains eight tenths of an acre much larger than most other lots in the vicinity and therefore does not believe the garage which contains only 48 sq. ft. over the maximum allowed will have any adverse impact on the adjacent residential properties nor will it establish precedent for future proposals . 11 BZA August Min. Appeal #3232 - 828 W. Willoughby This is a request by Calvin Bowden, contractor for owner Jeanne Sanders , to construct a 10 ' x 38 ' roof over an existing front concrete patio at 828 W. Willoughby. The outer support posts will be located approximately 37 ' from the front property line . A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Video tape was shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Calvin Bowden, 1131 W. Columbia Road. There is already an existing porch patio area there and this would provide an opportunity for getting in and out of the house without getting rained or snowed on. (There are copies of letters from neighbors with no objection) . A letter from Deloris Davison, no objection. A letter from Sue Van Schoik, 834 W. Willoughby, no objection. Sheldon made a motion to approve appeal #3232 . Second by Spink. Yeas : Sheldon, Hull, Spink, Hilts , Wright, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3232 APPROVED. The Board approved your request on behalf of the property owner Jeanne Sanders to construct a roof over an existing front concrete porch that will extend 3 ft into the required established front yard upon the premises known as 828 W. Willoughby Road. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the residential building setback line along this area of Willoughby Road is irregular and therefore presents an unusual practical difficulty for the owner when attempting to make a reasonable addition to the front of his home . The Board does not believe that the extension will have any adverse impact on the adjacent residential properties and therefore approval is in keeping with the general intent of the Code. Appeal #3233 - 620 S . Grand, 117 , 121, 129 E. St. Joseph This is a request by Asher, Inc . to build an office building on a parcel of land including 117 , 121 and 129 E . St . Joseph and 620 S . Grand Ave . Additional parking would be provided at 114 and 118 E . Hillsdale. The building would set back 10 ft . from the lot line on Grand 12 BZA August Min. Avenue and 6 ' from the lot line on St. Joseph St . Parking spaces within 6 ' of the property line on St. Joseph and within 9 ' of the property line on Hillsdale are requested. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Video tape was shown of the subject property and surrounding land use.- Sheldon - Are all the house on that block going to go? Fountain - There are a total of five houses that will be removed. Morris Stein of Stein, Hinckle, Dawe, Wood & Johnson, Architects . Jeff Abood, the owner, is also here. We have made one change to the request and after discussing the parking space we have refigured the parking here, moved it back behind the front line so instead of 3 ft. , we would like it back 9 ft . Jeff Abood, 1725 Pingree, Lansing. Asher Inc . is putting forth this appeal request as a family corporation that was formed to purchase this site and to develop this office building. We intend on occupying the building, our law firm, by brothers and sisters and family, my father ' s been practicing in town for 30 years at the location we currently are 117 E . Allegan. The biggest reason why we are looking to relocate, is that a lot of our clients come in and they are disabled and need to have to our building barrier free. We do not have that at this time in our current site. Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3233 . Second by Hilts . Yeas : Spink, Hilts , Sheldon, Hull, Wright, Carlson, Curran Appeal #3233 APPROVED. The Board approved your request to construct a new office building on the northwest corner of Grand Avenue and St. Joseph St . which will be located no closer than 10 ft. to the east front lot line and eleven ( 111 ) feet from the south front lot line subject to the following conditions . 1 . Required landscape, screening and buffering is installed. 2 . Documentation of the "right of access" across the property at 612 S . Grand Avenue . The optimum arrangement would be to develop joint use parking area with staff assigned to parking off site. 3 . That building permits not be signed until adequate parking has been secured. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the proposed use of the sight .is in substantial conformance with the Cherry Hill Master Plan and it was further found that the property 13 BZA August Min. lines are located a substantial distance back away from the curb line increasing the normal front yard setback at this intersection. The Board does not believe that the proposed change will have any adverse impact on the adjacent properties nor will it have any adverse impact on the movement of traffic through this intersection. Therefore the Board believes that the proposed change is in keeping with the general intent of the Planning and Zoning Code. Minutes Spink made a motion to approve the July 9 , 1992 minutes . Second by Sheldon. There being no further business the meeting adjour t 10 : 20 PM. Vern Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 14 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals July 9 , 1992 - 7 : 30 PM City Hall Council Chambers 10th floor The meeting was called to order by Chair H. P. Curran at 7 : 30 PM. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Joan Sheldon Bob Hull Edward Spink Grant Hilts Floyd Wright Mary Clark r � H.P . Curran �. r , Staff -- Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner Don Hanna �J 3 Appeal #3209 - 151 Garden Street 3 - C Winnicker - This appeal was tabled last month to allow us to prepare a site plan to show access and parking to the site. This is a residential property on the corner of Garden Street and Martin Street. This property is in a two family zoning district . It was formerly a two family unit but was vacated for more than a year and lost nonconforming status it had. The appeal is for the lot area . Curran - Are they going to take out the old curb cut and put a new curb cut in? Winnicker - Correct. , Hilts - Is the City erecting a fence? Winnicker - There ' s no proposal to do so. Sheldon - How wide is that driveway? Winnicker - The driveway that is proposed would be the minimum 10 ft . David Powell , 1445 Stillman Road, Mason. Clark - Do you have any information about the status of the lot to the west? 1 Powell - Yes . The owner did redeem the lot. And he ' s going to sell it, but he wants four times the SEV value. Wright made a motion to approve Appeal #3209 , positive impact to the neighborhood. Second by Hilts . Yeas : Hilts, Spink, Sheldon, Wight, Curran Nays : Clark Appeal #3209 APPROVED. The Board approved your request for a 800 sq. ft. variance to the required lot area for a two family unit located in the ' C ' Residential Zoning District at 151 Garden Street subject to the conditions that parking be provided according to code standards and that a driveway and access be established on the east side of the structure. The Board believes that the request is reasonable given the previous use of the property for two units and similar existing developments in the neighborhood. The Board also believes that renovation of the structure and property will be a positive improvement in the area. The Board recognizes that implementation of driveway and parking plans on the east side of the structure will depend on obtaining an easement from the City to cross City owned property. A request for such an easement should be made to the Development Division of the City as soon as possible to facilitate required review and approval . It is the understanding of the Board that the Development Division supports the proposed easement. Appeal #3212 - 806 N. Washington This is a request by Dr. Thomas Flint to expand the first floor office and second floor apartment of the existing building. Winnicker - This has been readvertised. Dr. Flint. I own the property. Last month you asked me if I would agree to a 3 ft . variance. After talking with the architect that would be satisfactory. Correspondence A letter dated June 29 , 1992 from Eight-Two Properties Co . Continue to oppose variance as requested. A letter dated July 9, 1992 from Eight-Two Properties Co . We may have reached a tentative solution to the variance request. 2 Dr. Flint. I have no problems with their concerns . We will keep the existing wall there. The thing stressed with them is that I cannot step on their property. And no permission would be given to maintain the existing wall that is there. I did agree to the 3 ft. Did agree to cutting off the limbs which come over my property. We will keep the existing wall there. The minimum will be 3 ft. It might be more than that after we redo the thing.. I stressed to him the safety of the area. I have been burned out twice, broken into seven times and since we have put up the fence and secured the place, lighted it, we haven' t had the problem. We expect to live in the apartment. We will keep the back wall of the garage which is on the property line because to tear it down and have any blocks fall on their lot line I would have no way of retrieving those and I would not get permission to do it, so we will do that and we tentatively will support the wall from the existing structure over the best I can. The tree is growing now and its cracking the black top. Clark - The south side, the south property, the parking, has that been combined? Flint - I wrote the letter and just got the tax statement and its still divided. Clark - So you feel you still need that variance, your not willing to go with just the one variance? Flint - Don' t know. Winnicker - Only rear yard variance needed if lots are combined, Since the applicant has made the request, to the Assessor ' s Office to do so, only one variance is needed now. We can assume the lots will be combined. Wright - Is that high board fence on your property? Flint - Its on my property. Spink - There ' s a fence on the north side of your property that ' s a combination brick and wrought iron that ' s in need of repair. Spink made a motion that appeal #3212 be approved to allow construction up to 3 ft. from the back lot line with the condition that the parking be removed from the required front yard and that construction be in compliance with all other building and zoning code requirements . Second by Clark. Yeas : Sheldon, Hilts, Clark, Spink, Wright, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3212 APPROVED. 3 The Board did not approve your request as filed and approved a seventeen ( 17 ) ft . variance to the rear yard setback requirement of the Zoning Code for the property located at 806 North Washington Avenue subject to two conditions : 1 . That the parking plan be revised to eliminate any spaces that are inaccessible as defined by the Zoning Code and those shown in the required front yard. 2 . Compliance with all other applicable Building and Zoning Code requirements . The Board believes that the proposal to remove the existing garage and construct additional first floor office and second floor residential space within three ( 3 ' ) feet of the rear property line is a reasonable request given the existing development in the area and the use of adjacent property. The Board also believes that the three ( 3 ' ) ft. setback will allow for proper separation between property lines and provide adequate space for drainage and yard area to maintain the back of the structure . In addition, it is the Boards understanding that you have submitted a request to the City Assessors office to combine the subject property at 806 N. Washington with the lot to the south developed for parking which you also own. Appeal #3216 - 1409-17 East Grand River This is a request by Frank Basel for an interpretation of the Zoning Code, to determine if a proposed building fits the 'G-1 ' zone . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker. - Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Mr. Basel proposes to construct a structure with unspecified use on a property zoned ' G-1 ' Business . Wright - The concrete base that was there, was it formerly a structure on there? Winnicker - A storage building. Spink - It looks like there are two lots there, are they combined? Winnicker - They are not. They are two separate properties fronting Grand River Avenue. Sheldon - Is a pole barn compatible in that neighborhood? Winnicker - Pole barn construction is allowed in the city. Tom Rasmusson and Frank Basel . Basel - This property was zoned in 1942 G-1 goes back 129 ft. from the front line and we had a 4 furniture business in there for almost 50 years and we had a fire about 4 years ago and it destroyed the building. What we want to do is replace the building, not quite as large as the one that was in there, strictly for retail outlet. I don't intend to use it very long personally, but we do want to fix it up. We want to make use of the land. We propose to put a 100 ' w x 80 ' d and set it back as far as that commercial line allows . Rasmusson - You have to understand that whatever is required as far as far as screening and buffering, etc. under Section 1248 he will comply with that. I don' t know how the staff came to the opinion that this was going to be a storage building. He ' s applied for storage building at another location in town. Maybe they confused the two, I doubt it though. This is suppose to be a store. They had a store there from 1942 to 1983 . (Basel 1938) . There ' s about an acre of land and its composed of several parcels . This is going to be on one that is zoned G-1 straight across . Wright - What is the proposed height of this building? Basel - The front is 14 ft. the center is 20 ft. back 14 ' again. Wright - Its going to have a pitched roof? Basel - Yes . Clark - According to the your plans what you are proposing is a pole barn and you have allowed you indicated no space for offices or parking or any of those kind of things . Basel - There will be offices in there, retail outlet . Clark - Your plans don' t indicate that . And there ' s nothing on the site plan about in terms of ingress/egress , parking, etc . Wright - For the record the height of the proposed building is more than 20 ft. according to these plans . Curran - Will the other structure on the adjacent property be removed? Basel - That one building probably will be . Spink - Will the building be placed on both pieces of property? Basel - There ' s 148 . 5 ft . frontage. But we plan on putting the building in the northeast part of this property.. Winnicker - There is no dimensional issue here this evening. The construction of a building will have to conform to all the codes . The issue before you tonight is the decision of the Planning Board regarding this type of building and the proposed use that go in it . Based on the information that we have on hand, the decision of the Planning Division is that this would be a storage building, which is not allowed in the G-1 Business District. 5 Rasmusson - We were simply told that this has to be rezoned. We weren' t given any other explanation. Mr. Basel says he wasn' t . So that ' s why we are here . We ask you to approve this as a G retail and put the restrictions on it that you want that are permissible ones and we 've used for these purposes that are permitted by G-1 we can live with that . That ' s what ' s intended. But don' t deny it than you force us to go to court and what a waste of money. Because we can preserve our rights we have the right of way with circuit court and seek action against the city. Wright - The problem here is interpretation. Winnicker - What is not permitted in G-1 is warehouse without any office or retail use. According to the plans we have in front of us and the site plan we have in front of us there ' s not enough information provided there to convince us that there is any retail or office use in that building. That is why we will not allow for a permit to be issued on that property. Ray Ball, 1010 Otto property abuts to that place. We have had all kinds of problems trying to get rid of that city dump he has out there . Its a great place to raise cats . I 'm sick and tired of this . I don' t see why this man should be allowed to build another thing there until he cleans up the mess that he already has . It was there when we bought and I wasn' t aware of it. If I had been I wouldn ' t own it . And I would like to see something done about that. Russell Anderson, 1417 Sheldon St. From Frank' s track record it can be a warehouse tomorrow and a junk yard in just a little while . And he ' s had storage places there and buildings there before that have been an eye sore and you complain and City of Lansing says we can' t do anything about it. So before we can' t do anything about it lets turn down his zoning and keep it, the way it is . Crystal Goodman, 1445 E . Grand River. I 'm here to speak against this approval . I 've lived there for 38 years . And all that time that place has been a junk heap. And the only thing that has turned it into anything else is the fire that destroyed it and for months after we had rats for the first time when that building burned. And talk about being a cat haven. We have cats that prowl our flower beds and use it for litter boxes until it almost choke you to death. And that ' s because they have a place to live and molt. I feel, like. the other man said, it may be a storage unit today but he sold his other property and he has to have a place to take his stuff and put. I 'm violently opposed to this . I think its time you turned this down so that the neighborhood can have a chance to be decent, safe place for kids and people to live in without having to worry about a junk dealer moving his property in there to be just a storage of junk. When Mr. Basel ' s property was used as a retail outlet, you would not believe, there was stuff in there that never would have been used for anything, ever. I could 6 go on and on telling you all the things that happened in that place through the 38 years that I lived there, but I think its time you people stand up and don' t let him bamboozle us by saying that he ' s going to take this to court if you don' t see it his way. This is like blackmailing the neighborhood. Let him go somewhere else and take the junk to his own house. Tom Stenske, 1440 E . Grand River Avenue . I have lived there the last 9 years , it was my grandmother' s house before I purchased it. Our neighborhood has improved. People are fixing up their houses, and I remember growing up that neighborhood has gone through some rough times . One of the best things that has happened other than the people fixing up the neighborhood that I can see is that place burned down. Those pictures are the best pictures of that property. He should be made to clean up this junk in the backyard. That fence is falling down. I would suggest you give a lot of ear to the people talking up here because what they are saying is hardly an exaggeration. Dave Retter, 222 N. Catherine, I 'm speaking on behalf of my father, William who owns property at 1333 E . Grand River and I think we can thoroughly agree with what everybody has said here tonight. Let him clean up the mess he already has before he rebuilds anything else. And if he does build something and he wants it to be a retail establishment, please, by all means make sure that its going to be a retail establishment that it is not going to be some other pile of junk. And I cannot express that enough, I 've been familiar with that area for years . Paul M. Scott, 412 W. Kilborn. I 'm a board member of the North Lansing Community Association whose building abuts the south end of Mr. Basel ' s storage yard on Turner. I would find it very difficult to believe in the 2 1/2 years that I have been a member of that organization and looking out the north windows of the second floor of the Comfort Station that any of that material could be used in any way for retail . I find it appalling to think that its going to be trucked from one site from the city to another site in the city considering the fights the N.L.C .A. has, had in residential properties regarding Mr. Basel and the storage area on Turner regarding Mr. Basel . I personally lived around the corner from Basel property residential property, I would hope, I would plead, I would beg, for the Board of Zoning Appeals to uphold the decision of the Planning Division. I think it is fair and reasonable given the lack of information that has been presented to you so far. As a former planning commissioner I 'm appalled that a site plan could come in lacking so much information. And I 'm thoroughly supportive of Planning in turning down something that does not offer you the basis or them the basis to make an informed choice. Brad Cornelius , 1435 E . Grand River which is four house from Basel ' s furniture . One of my disappointments in life is that I was 7 on vacation when it burned down. Everything that has been said is true . I don' t known about you but I wouldn' t want a pole barn full of junk next to my house either. If he wants to build that, build it next to his house, not my house. I hope he sells his property. Russell Green, 1414 Congress which is adjacent to Mr. Basel ' s property. The people were right about the cats . Cats use our kids sand box for a litter box. Exactly what does he want to use for the retail . He can' t define retail . And he can do pretty much do anything that he wants to and have it open for an hour a day. I live in the neighborhood. I don' t want a pole barn next to my house. People have been taking time to clean their houses up, they have spent lots of money in the neighborhood and why can' t somebody come along and put in what ' s classified as commercial . A pole barn would not make the neighborhood look good. Why doesn' t the city help him by going out there clean up the junk in his backyard and send him the bill . Communication A telephone call from Jean Ball, would like the junk cleaned up. A letter from Russell and Nancy Green, 1414 Congress . The property is covered with debris and refuse and appears to be used as a dumping ground. It is in dire need of clean up and attention. Spink made a motion that in the matter of appeal #3216 that the appeal of the appellant be denied and the decision of the Planning Division be upheld. Second by Wright. Yeas : Sheldon, Spink, Hilts, Wright, Clark, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3216 . DENIED The Board upholds the current position of the staff and agrees that based on information regarding the use of the proposed building you have provided up to this time, and based on a building and site plan you have submitted, that the structure would be a storage building or warehouse with no indication of space or utility for retail, office or any other permitted use in the 'G-1 ' Business District . A storage or warehouse building of the type proposed is allowed in the 'G-2 ' Wholesale Zoning District. Section 1270 . 01 of the Zoning Code establishes that the intent of the 'G-l ' Business District, the district in which your property is in part located, is to allow for a general retail commercial district for the downtown area. Examples of permitted uses include comparison retail stores , office space, restaurants , taverns , theaters and other similar uses . An accessory structure customarily incidental to any of the principle uses described therein would also be allowed. 8 The Board believes that the structure proposed in this case neither adheres to the intent of the 'G-l ' District nor falls within the category of principle, conditional or special land uses prescribed for the 'G-1 ' Business District . Since the Board denied your appeal, the decision of the Planning Division stands . Appeal #3219 , 5419 M.L. King Jr. Blvd. /N. Logan This is a request by Salvador Alvarado for a parking variance to lease vacant space in his building at 5419 M.L. King/N. Logan for office or general retail use. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The property contains 38 on site parking spaces, 15 spaces fewer than the zoning ordinance would require . The Zoning Code may require an additional 15 spaces if one or more retail tenants fill the vacant space . Salvador Alvarado, 1030 Pickton Dr. I would like to open the northern part of the building which is probably 60% of the building so I can rent it and have some income so I can pay my property taxes . I 'm only using about 40% of the building and I find it very extremely hard to generate enough money to pay for the whole building when only 40% is in use . Sheldon - Do you have a tenant in mind? Alvarado - No I do not have a tenant in mind, I just hope I can get some low key business there that would come in to satisfy the Board not that they would interfere with my parking. Clark made a motion that appeal #3219 be approved it appears to be a reasonable dual use of the property causing no hardship for anyone. Second by Spink. Yeas : Spink, Hilts, Sheldon, Wright, Clark, Curran Nay: none Appeal #3219 APPROVED. The Board believes that the thirty-eight ( 38.) parking spaces currently available on site are sufficient to accommodate the proposed expanded use of the building, and that the variance is a reasonable request provided the peak hours of operation of your restaurant business and any other business established in the portion of the building currently vacant do not overlap to any great extent. 9 The Board found based on testimony and evidence that utilization of the parking lot on the site is low during day time hours , The major portion of your restaurant business is of the drive through nature during the day or occurs late at night. Appeal #3220 - 127 East Mason This is a request by Ron and Judy Weck for a variance to retain an existing 4 ft. tall fence in the front yard at 127 East Mason. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The code requires fences located in the front yards 4 ft . tall to be at least seventy-five percent open uniformly distributed. The code also requires fence to not obstruct vision from vehicular and pedestrian traffic on adjacent public ways . Wright - Isn' t the primary purpose of the Code of reducing the height of the fence for safety reasons? Winnicker - That ' s correct . Wright - In this case how could the fence be altered to satisfy the safety factor? Winnicker - There are three alternatives . It could be lowered a foot so that is no higher than 3 ft. The top foot could be made so that it is open at least seventy-five percent . Or it could be replaced with a chain link fence. Spink - So even at seventy-five percent open there still are some other issues that might need to be addressed. Winnicker - If the fence were seventy-five percent open it can be 4 ft . high. Ron and Judy Weck, 127 E . Mason. I (Judy) put the fence up for my daughter, I have a handicap daughter. She has no self boundaries , to know fear, or to cross the street or take off and I wouldn' t find her. She can' t talk to let anyone know where she lived. We had gone through similar things August/September of last year with our 6 ft . and that ' s when we found out different rules of the fences , cause I had no idea you had to get permits . I just you could put up 8 ft . fence in the backyard if you wanted to. Then we talked to the city, the zoning board, that had told us the 6 ft. cannot go past the front of the house . I asked what if we want another fence up there, well then it had to drop down to 4 ft . , unless we stayed with solid, it had to be 3 ft . But never explained the seventy-five percent visibility. So therefore there was a misunderstanding. (Ron) as your moving you can see more than you can see with the solid picture because its changing as your moving with it, you can see as you go. 10 (Judy) I also have some letters from the neighbors that have no objection. We have one neighbor that does and she backs in her drive so therefore she pulls out and from her drive to the fence is about 12 ft. (Ron) she has 12 ft. of clearance before she even thinks about our fence. (Judy) to see any child walk to the sidewalk and by the time she gets to the sidewalk the whole sidewalk and whole street is open." Marty McCray, 2658 Frank Street, Lansing. I 'm friends with Ron and Judy and previously to them buying this property this property was quite run down and looked quite bad. I visit Ron about 3 or 4 times a week, I pull in his driveway, have no problem pulling out of his driveway. I think the fence and its purpose is justified in the fact that they are a mother and father trying to protect their daughter. And I don' t understand the seventy-five percent open hole theory if your saying your going to look at it through two angles , either at seventy-five percent at one angle or its a certain percentage looking through two angles , that doesn ' t make sense to me. As well as that I believe that Ron and Judy called the city and they tried to follow all the rules, they built their fence, the rules keep changing. I have been there numerous times when city people have been there . I don' t see how you can follow rules when they keep changing. I 'm here in support of the fence and I wish Amanda could be here to speak to you because she needs the fence, it helped her I think in a lot of different ways that none of us could probably even imagine. Rose Younglove, 4347 Wonstead, Holt. I 'm Amanda ' s grandmother and I can see the difference in just a little time she can go out the door and go in and out and she ' s so much happier. About five houses from where her house is its where the kids come out of Everett High School in their cars and walking too. And she has to have something to protect her. I don' t know about any rules, all I know is what' s in my heart, please help her. David Penex, 1225 N. Grand River. I have known the Weck' s a long time, I 've known Amanda since she was born. Amanda is a very special girl . Since the erection of the fence you wouldn' t believe the security felt in the home . Before there was a fear of Amanda wandering off just to have a normal conversation with her parents you had to worry about the child. She happened to one time when I was there she wandered off founded her 3 or 4 houses down the street . With the fence there it does help. Steve Ritter, 219 E . Mason Street . I have a handicap boy myself and he goes down there and plays all the time . It gives me and my wife a good feeling because he can' t run across the street and get hit by a car or anything. I live five houses down and I look out my kitchen window I can see perfect through that fence. I can sit and watch them play. I support that fence. 11 Clay McMillan, 523 Ash Street, I 'm also a Code Compliance Officer for the City of Lansing. The reason I 'm here tonight is I went out and cited the property for the fence and etc . And then I saw this small child that was playing in the yard, locked in and all of her friends were coming and going. Now I know this is an unusual thing but I think the personal thing happening a small child ???????????????????? Like they said, she knows no fear, she comes and goes out of the house, they suggested that she be kept in the backyard. Her doctor said to be in the front yard. Well these people didn ' t understand, in fact a relative gave them the money to build a fence and helped them build a fence . Maybe the father and mother didn' t understand. I support the codes, but I feel that this is an exception because of the child' s condition and because the people can see . Now I 've driven in and out of that place several times to make sure that I wasn' t so wrong as I might think I was . And I took these pictures myself . I can find nothing truly wrong except for the word of the code. I see no danger in this . But I found safety in that fence for that small child and they leave open so she can come in the house and she ' s locked in but people can come in the gate and play with her. I have been there many times , for reasons that there have been complaints . I have to follow up on complaints and this is what I witnessed. This is an exception. This child needs a place to play because she can' t talk and if she gets lost they have no way to find her, she would have no way to find her way back home. Pat Bokovoy, 123 Mason Street. I 'm the one that called in the complaint on this fence. And I live next door and I feel, I back my car in all the time because in the winter time I use to have to go to work and I could get out that way but I have an 82 year old mother that have friends coming over who have large cars and with cars parked in front of 127 Mason St. and their friends parked in front of our house at 123 Mason St . I have to go out an make sure that there is no oncoming traffic with these older people coming to our house, because we have Van Houten' s on Cedar Street, we have the Dairy Queen on Cedar Street, plus the school children when school is in session that cavorts our street and the street is very narrow and when cars are parked in front of, 127 and our house we have difficulty seeing getting out. I have sme pictures here that I took recently. One in particular that I took a pick up truck was parked in their driveway and I had a nephew that brought our rototiller back and he has a long box on his pick up truck and I requested he stop when he was able to see whether there was any traffic coming. The fence is also used for the dogs . There are two dogs that reside at this residence and when it is hot and the wind is blowing from the east there is a very strong odor of urine that drifts our way, so if we are out on the front porch it isn' t very pleasant to smell . So it isn' t just for the child it is for the dogs too . Because the dogs have a pen out behind the garage and if this fence was allowed to stay I would request that there be no parking signs in front of 127 Mason Street and 123 Mason Street. So that we could with larger cars pulling in the right way in the 12 driveway rather than backing in that we could see the traffic coming up and down the street. I 'd like to say the fence is not for the dogs . The dogs are like my daughters best friend and they follow her around. The neighbors have witnessed that ???????????????? they do have a pen ???????????????????? and if they start barking I make them come in the house they do not use the bathroom in the front yard they are not allowed that for my daughters ???????????????????and also our fence ???????????????? a couple years ago she asked for no parking signs too so its not just ??????????????????? Communications A letter from 3030 Stabler in support fence. Ned Devereaux, 213 Mason June Short, 203 Mason no objection Michael Kady 126 E . Mason Michigan State University, Pediatric resident Sue Esponosa 212 Everettdale Irene Gallagher Pelletier 4921 Devonshire Hilts made a motion that appeal #3220 be approved for the hardship caused by the condition of the child. Second by Wright . Yeas : Wright, Hilts, Curran Nays : Clark, Spink, Sheldon Appeal #3220 DENIED A motion made by Mr. Hilts of the Board to approve the variance and supported by Mr. Wright did not receive the votes necessary to be approved. The vote of the Board members present was split 3-3 . Keep in mind that at least five (5) Board members must vote in favor of an appeal before any variance can be approved. Since your appeal was not approved, it will be necessary to remove the fence or make modifications to the structure that will bring it into conformance with code requirements . Any modification you may plan should be reviewed by the Planning Division prior to implementation to assure that the result will be consistent with the code. Appeal #3221 - 906 West Barnes This is a request by James Young for a variance to allow the 6 ft . high wood fence to remain in the front yard of the corner property. 13 A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to retain a 6 ft. high solid wood fence at the front property line and in the front yard along Delevan Avenue . Wright - Is the placement of the fence an issue and also is the height an issue? Winnicker - Both are issues, the fence is in the front yard and is higher than 3 ft . and its a solid fence. Wright - So even if its moved it will still have to be reduced. Winnicker - Correct if its moved back to the position recommended by staff you still need to grant a variance, but under the condition that it be moved back as recommended by staff, unless you choose to grant the appeal as filed. When I first started this project I was given false information concerning the Delevan, as a matter of fact I had the wrong office and they were- giving me information. They told me accurately concerning the distance from the intersection to the fence that fronts Barnes Avenue but they told me based on what they were telling me that there wasn' t a front on Delevan because there was suppose to be a variance. A guy wanted to build a house there, Mr. McKay who we bought the property from, so that property was vacant, we bought the property planned on making it a big back yard. We are in the right of way, that we acknowledgement, that was a mistake . We sent a letter to Mr. Spackman. There is an act of some sort (Emil - Act 285) it will probably be denied on that . We ' re saying that we will move it out of the right-of-way back 2 ft . We ' re asking to have a 6 ft . variance approved with the knowledge that we are required to move it back out of the right-of-way 2 ft . We were told (not by anybody official) 18" but that was the old code . , Wendy Young - I would like to add, prior to building the fence we checked with neighbors because we wanted to be we really enjoy our neighbors and enjoy living there so we wanted to check with them prior to building to make sure it wouldn' t 'offend anybody there. Everybody said that it was a fine idea in fact Mr. Campbell who lives in the yellow house directly behind us was out helping us dig holes and helping supply us with some of the tools that we needed to build a fence . When Mr. McCue stopped by I believe he was going on his way to a softball game and saw the fence and said this was in violation, he stopped by and informed us at that time . However, he did tell us that nobody had filed a complaint so to our knowledge nobody has filed a complaint he just happened to see it and stated that was why he stopped by. There may be a complaint filed this time, I don' t know. One of the other things we done is canvassed the neighborhood, we got some people to sign some petitions our immediate neighbor have signed the petitions . People up and down the block have been very supportive some neighbors that 14 live down the street that we haven't even met we 've only lived there a year have come down today in support of our fence. Marge Surrell has been instrumental in helping us get hooked up South Central Neighborhood Organization who does not oppose our fence being there. They say that it is OK. And all of our immediate neighbors think that the fence is an improvement in the neighborhood and don' t see any reason to do anything different with it. Communication A letter from Patricia Dorow, 1612 Delevan, object to this type of fence as a front yard screening. Plantings could grace his corner with some high/low small sections of privacy treatment . The niece of Bertha Venzke of 1615 Delevan not opposed to the fence but thinks it is too close to the street . A letter from Shirley Jones Murray, president SCNO. Mainly because of the reported satisfaction of the neighbors the SCNO has decided not to oppose the request . A letter from Martin and Marilynn Campbell , 1614 Delevan, no objection. A letter from Eugene Howland, lives next door and has no objections . A letter from Mary Costello, 901 W. Barnes , directly across the street, no objection to the fence. A letter from Andrew and Jamie Flanagan, 905 W. Barnes , live across the street no problem with the fence. A letter from Darrell Fowler, 815 W. Barnes, no objection. Petitions in support of fence . Spink made a motion that appeal #3221 be approved based on staff recommendations in relationship to the placement of the fence and that the height of the fence remain at 6 ft. Second by Hilts . Yeas : Hilts , Clark, Spink, Sheldon, Wright, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3221 APPROVED The Board did not approve your request as filed to maintain a 6 ft. high fence in the front yard on property located at 906 West Barnes Avenue . The Board approved a three ( 3 ' ) ft. variance from the Zoning code to allow for a solid wood fence six ( 6 ' ) ft. in height in the front yard of your property located at 906 West Barnes Avenue subject to the condition that the fence be moved back from 15 its present location along Delevan Street about 21 ft. west to a point even with the east building line of the residence located at 1614 Delevan. ( see attached sketch) . The Board believes that a legitimate hardship exists in this case . Lot #169 can only be utilized as a yard area due to past decisions of the Board to not grant setback variances that would accommodate development. As a yard area it is logical to allow the privacy and security of a fence at some reasonable setback. In addition, the property is on a corner lot with two required front yards . The Board believes that the setback required as a condition of this approval will provide both a reasonable area for yard use and a suitable setback along Delevan. As a result of this action, you may retain the fence as long as it is relocated as directed within the next 30 day period. Appeal #3222 - 2005 East Michigan Avenue This is a request by David Murray for a parking variance of six spaces to allow for construction of outdoor patio deck 18 ' x 18 ' in size . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to construct an open patio deck 18 ' x 18 ' in size on the north side of the Green Door Lounge . The code requires five parking spaces for the proposes patio. In addition one parking space will be lost due to construction of the deck. Curran - With all the city parking back behind the building, why do they need a 16 space variance? Winnicker - The property is still nonconforming by nature of the fact that they don' t have sufficient on site parking, so any addition to the building generates additional parking requirement which they cannot provide. I . ' Dave Murray, senior partner and general manager of the Green Door. All I can do is echo everything Emil has said. Apparently the only reason I need a variance is because I don' t own an additional 6 parking spaces . The request to build is an economic request, because the fact that most of the bars and restaurants and lounges nowadays seem to be going to the outdoor patio business . I don' t think it will increase my business but at least it will give my customers an opportunity to choose whether they wanted to sit outside and have a sandwich or sit inside . And we are competing with a lot of businesses now that are building patios . The first step that we took was to get permission from the Liquor Control Commission to do this and they granted permission. The Lansing City Police Department inspected the property, they gave it their 16 blessing. It boils down now to the parking variance. As far as the noise problem, the only thing I can assure that would relate to that is that we are not going to keep in open in the evening. It will be just for lunch hours , afternoon business , early evening business up to approximately 8 : 30-9 : 00 PM and then we ' ll close it down. I am not going to keep it open at night . Most of my business takes place because of entertainment inside at night and we are not going to have entertainment outside. Mary Margaret Woll , president of Eastside Neighborhood Organization. The board suggested that I talk to Mr. Murray and I did and I went out and looked at the site. My only request would be I saw no problems with it at all but one he is not going to leave those doors open and try to air condition the entire east side . So therefore I have no worry about the doors being open and it is 18 ' x 18 ' isn ' t very big. Parking spaces they' ve got. The only thing I would request of Mr. Murray is his shut down hour out there . I would like to see that in some form of writing. A young lady from my board was with me who lives right behind the Green Door and she had no problems with it at all . The buffering and screening that the city put in I think they did a very good job in that parking lot . Kurt Weber, 122 N. Clemens, which is two houses away from the Green Door. The parking lot at night is filled with cars in the evening lining up along the fence line occupying both rows of the strip parking lots there occupying the entire lot to the right spilling over into the First of America Bank lot . Parking occurs in front of my home around Jerome and Fairview at night and we suffer from a lot of noise and litter, debris , fights and screaming, that occurs from the patrons as they exit the Green Door between the hours of 10 : 00 PM and 2 : 00 AM. I am here to speak in objection to granting the variance which would allow the construction of this deck because I believe that the Green Door has over the last two or three years shown a perpentency for expansion and also an increase contributing to the increase noise level of the neighborhood. Traffic is at extremely high levels in the evening. You cannot keep your windows open at night in the summer because of the noise that precipitated by the patrons upon the edit of the Green Door. The management of the Green Door exerts no control of their patrons when they exit the Green Door. Partying continues after the 2 : 00 AM bar closing up until 3 : 00 or 3 : 30 AM at some times . In terms of securing the neighborhood and providing for a revitalization effort which many of the neighbors have undertaken in the past are requesting that this variance not be approved. I circulated a petition which has been signed by the neighbors occupying the homes on N. Clemens , east on Jerome, and south on Fairview voicing objections to granting this variance. This morning was the first time I hear of the ENO, they did not contact any of the people in the neighborhood or request their input into this variance request and didn' t circulate anybody through ,the neighborhood requesting people who live in the area their input into this request . 17 Elizabeth Berg, 2007 Jerome. We moved in December. Some evenings you can hear the music with no doors open and I can just imagine what we ' ll be hearing and the noise level that will be continuing on the patio. Those six cars that the variance is lacking will end up parking on my street or on Clemens or Fairview. These people live there they don' t want some drunk walking around 2 : 00 AM to find their car. I oppose the 18 ' x 18 ' patio. Michell Wood, 2007 Jerome, I also oppose the patio. My biggest problem is the parking. Jerry Lawler, 205 Ridge, East Lansing. I 'm familiar with this area. I spent 15 ' years living at 122 Horton which parallels Clemens . I currently own two buildings and have for a number of years directly across the street, 2002 and 2004 East Michigan. I basically wrote the proposal for the parking lots and working with the neighbors . In my tenure out there we have gone through four different owners of the Green Door. And I will give credit where credit is due, it is nothing like it use to be and I spent months working with the police department with previous owners . We use to have motorcycle gangs out there, we use to have fights . My concern is what if the next owner puts in piped music out on the patio. A letter from Raupp Campfitters, Thomas C. King, president, 421 S. Washington, Royal Oak, Michigan opposition to the granting of the variance . A letter from Raupp Campfitters , Dave McCune, 2021 E . Michigan. object to variance . A letter from Kurt Weber, 122 N. Clemens enclosed a petition from the neighbors expressing objection. Clark made a motion that appeal #3222 be denied for the parking variance. Second by Sheldon. Yeas : Sheldon, Hilts , Clark, Spink, Curran Nays : Wright Appeal #3222 DENIED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that no legitimate hardship or practical difficulty exists to justify the variance. In addition, there would be no guarantee that the potential impact of parking demand, and noise generated from an outdoor deck could be controlled to the satisfaction of nearby residents . Appeal #3223 - 5317 South Cedar This is a request by Spartan Muffler to erect a 32 sq. ft . sign on the front property line at 5317 S . Cedar St . 18 A presentation was given by Don Hanna. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to install a 5 . 5 ft. high, 32 sq. ft. ground/pole sign with the leading edge of the sign on the front property line . Clark - Is the veterinary sign in the right-of-way. Hanna - Yes Clark - Is that allowed or legal? Hanna - It is illegal . No representation. Spink made a motion that appeal #3223 be approved. Second by Hilts . Yeas : Clark, Wright, Hilts , Spink, Sheldon, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3223 APPROVED The Board found based on testimony and evidence that a legitimate hardship exists in this case due to the unusually wide public right-of-way in front of the business . Requiring that the eleven ( 11 ' ) ft, setback be maintained would place the sign well back from view of passing motorists and much further back than signs associated with other commercial businesses along South Cedar. Minutes Correction, Hilts was absent. Spink made a motion to approve the June 11, 1992 minutes as amended. Second by Clark. Election of Officers Spink nominated Curran as Chair and Wright as Vice Chair. Second by Wright. Approved by unanimous vote . . e non C . Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 19 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals June 11, 1992 - 7 : 30 PM City Hall Council Chambers loth floor The meeting was called to order by Chair H. P . Curran at 7 : 30 PM. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Joan Sheldon Grant Hilts Edward Spink Bob Hull Unexcused Absence Floyd Wright Mary Clark Christopher Steele,__ r ~ H.P . Curran Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Emil Winnicker, Planner Donovan Hanna CO co Appeal #3207 - 5701 South Pennsylvania ' This is a request by Spartan Toyota, Inc . to replace an existing non-conforming ground/pole sign with a dimensional conforming ground/pole sign on the premises known as 5701 S . Pennsylvania. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to replace an existing 130 sq. ft . sign, 29 . 6 ft. in height and setback 17 . 5 ft . from Pennsylvania with a 60 sq. ft . sign, 22 . 5 ft. in height with a setback of 22 . 5 ft . from Pennsylvania. Mark Shuert, 325 Kedzie, East Lansing. We want to take down the sign we pieced together back in 1987 and replace it with a brand sign for our new Lexus facility. I have pictures . I think it will significantly improve the location. Correspondence A letter from James K. Meinershagen, Manager, ABC Appliance Inc . Pontiac, Michigan. Next door neighbor. No objection to sign, it will not interfere with our business . 1 Spink' made a motion to approve appeal #3207 . Second by Clark. Yeas : Spink, Clark, Sheldon, Hull, Wright, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3207 APPROVED. This approval was made with the condition that the size of the sign will not exceed approximately 45 sq. ft . , will be set back 22 .5 ft . from the front property line and not exceed a height of 22 . 5 ft. The Board more specifically addressed a sign shown on the drawing labeled type C that was submitted by the applicant indicating that this would be the sign that would be erected in the place of the existing sign. (see attached drawing) The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the proposed sign would be in substantial conformance with the Sign Code from the standpoint of meeting the minimum dimensional requirements and therefore it will be a significant improvement to the advertising signs on this property. Appeal #3208 - 1532 Glenrose This is a request by Cathy Bauer for a variance to allow construction of a 10 ' x 26 ' rear addition within 28 ' of the rear property line at 1532 Glenrose. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Cathy Bauer, 1532 Glenrose, Lansing. I would like to put on a 26 ' x 10 ' addition and I had no information as far as what the zoning requirements were and now I wish I would have asked for two more feet. Is it too late to do that? Fountain - It would have to be resubmitted. Clark made a motion to approve appeal #3208 . Second by Sheldon. Yeas : Wright, Sheldon, Clark, Spink, Hull , Curran Nays : none Appeal #3208 APPROVED. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the proposed addition would not have any adverse impact on the adjacent residential properties . The Board believes that the proposed addition is reasonable and will allow use of the property in keeping with the general intent of the Code . 2 Appeal #3209 - 151 Garden Street This is a request by Dave Powell for a variance to allow the structure to be rehabilitated as a two unit structure which lacks the minimum lot area on the premises known as 151 Garden Street . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to renovate the structure as a two family dwelling. Dave Powell , 1445 Stillman Road, Mason. The house now is a boarded up eyesore and I would like to go in and renovate the house and make two family dwelling. Curran - How will you handle the parking? Powell - Diagram that shows - there ' s room for two cars on each side of the house. There ' s 13 ' x 40 ' on each side of the house which would be two car links deep. Curran - Is there only one curb cut. Powell - Its on a corner and I think the corner is cut . Winnicker - There ' s one there. Curran - Will you have to cut down any trees? Powell - Maybe one. Clark - Are you going to tear down the outside entrance on the east side? Powell - Yes it has to be completely renovated. Clark - Where will the entrance be? Powell - It will be more to the front of the house . Paul Scott, 412 W. Kilborn. I 'm a little concerned with the driveways on both sides . I think that it detracts from the street facade of the property. I would also question whether the appellant has other Lansing rental property and if so if they are registered and have been kept in registered condition. Andrew Powell, 3000 Atlas . Yes we do own two other residential units in the City of Lansing that meet all minimum code requirements . Dave Powell - As the property stands now it is boarded up, its a nuisance, its a possible drug hang out . And to make the property cost effective it needs to be two unit . Its been a two unit in the past . The property to the west is a two unit . My goal is to improve the neighborhood. I own one other property on that street and trying to keep it nice. 3 The Board requested that the applicant get a site plan for parking, for the porch and the status of the lot next door . Hull made a motion to table appeal #3209 . Second by Sheldon. Yeas : Spink, Hull, Sheldon, Clark, Wright, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3209 TABLED This matter was tabled for further study and report and more specifically they want a site plan showing the driveway and off street parking plans . Appeal #3210 - 1414 Poxson This is a request by Dorothy Bos for a front yard variance to allow the construction of an enclosed front porch no closer than 24 ft. to the front property line upon the premises located at 1414 Poxson. A presentation was given by E . Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to construct an enclosed front porch 24 ft . from the front property line, 2 . 8 ft . into the established front yard setback of 26 . 8 ft . Brian Erickson, 4131 Arlene Dr . , Builder for Dorothy Bos , spoke in support of the request. Hull made a motion to approve appeal #3210 . Second by Clark. Yeas : Clark, Hull, Spink, Sheldon, Wright, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3210 APPROVED The Board believes that the proposed addition will be an asset and that the addition to the front is reasonable since the setback of the existing homes in this block face is irregular. The Board does not believe that the proposed addition will have any negative impact on the adjacent properties . Appeal #3211 - 1020-1026 West Mount Hope This is a request by James Engman for a rear yard variance to construct an addition to the rear of the center building ( 24 x 8 . 5) which will be 15 . 2 ft . from the rear property line upon the 4 premises known as 1020-1026 W. Mt . Hope . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to add a 24 x 7 . 5 ft . storage area to the rear of the building. The addition will also house environmental remediation equipment for ground water cleansing. James Haskell, 1839 E . Willoughby, Holt . I work for the builder that would be building the proposed addition. The contamination is still in the ground. I 've been working with Jeff Pincone from Strata Environmental . The contamination, is from the tanks they took out two years ago, and last summer they drilled test wells all away around on the other side of Mt . Hope just to see how far the contamination had carried. They dug a gigantic hole and filled it full of clean sand, and the water is suppose to leach to this sand. They have a big recovering well down there, pump the water out of that and it goes through a filtration system. It has to be inside a heated building. We thought this was the easiest way to do it without interrupting the business too much. Sheldon - How long will it take to remove the contamination? Haskell - Within two years possibly. Curran - Will the access from this building be from outside . Haskell - The west side of the building is supposedly has an overhead garage door. It has to be all insulated and heated. There will also be an entrance from the rear of the building. Wright - Westerly of the three structures , is that part of your property? Haskell - Yes , Jim Engman is the owner. There are three stores and he owns the property immediately behind that. Clark - If it becomes a noise problem, what recourse do the neighbors have? Fountain - The noise ordinance could be utilized. Clark made a motion to approve appeal #3211 . Second by Wright . Yeas : Sheldon, Clark, Spink, Hull, Wright, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3211 APPROVED The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the proposed addition will house environmental remediation equipment for ground water cleansing and that this equipment is necessary to remove all adverse contaminates on the site . 5 The Board does not believe that the proposed addition will have any adverse impact on the adjacent property, . The Board found that the existing development on site limits the location of the addition. The Board believes that the changes are reasonable and is in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Code . Appeal #3212 - 806 North Washington This is a request by Dr. Thomas Flint for a rear and side yard variances to expand the first floor office and second floor apartment' of the existing structure at 806 North Washington. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to remove an existing garage and expand his office on first floor, and apartment on second floor the expansion will extend to the south and east property lines . Applicant - I had a request from the tax board to combine the two properties . That would be the parking lot to the south of the building and my office building so I have a sent a letter to join the two properties which is the question if whether I want to keep them separate. I 'm not keeping them separate, I 'm joining the two properties together. Capital Consultants surprises me . We have gotten along with everyone . We had problems with the property of the parking lot since Capital Consultants has leased to LCC which is approximately 3 lots beyond that . So this is why we constructed, several years ago this fence, to separate the two properties , we had a problem with beer bottles, paper, etc . The construction part of this could be done on my property there would be no reason to go on Capital Consultants property. The reason we are putting this on due to OSHA requirements , sterilization procedures that are incorporated in a dental practice today require that we have a larger sterilization station. The other thing we are planning on moving into the apartment . No one has lived in the apartment since the fire. Its not a rental thing. We are going to maintain the property ourselves . Its been a dental practice there since 1941 . I am proud of the office and proud of Dr. Tucker ' s property that we owned at one time, still do own to the north of US . Clark - What is the time frame for you to combine the properties? Flint - If it wasn' t done in 30 days they were going to do it automatically. Curran - On the diagram you gave us , you are going to take down the three car garage and build a two story addition. Flint - The main floor, the dental office will be extended back to incorporate the sterilization procedures . Upstairs is a very small 6 apartment and what we want to do with the addition up there is make it our living quarters . Over the garage we want to put a porch. There is one bedroom in the existing apartment now. Clark - Would leaving a 3 or 4 ft. zone back there to allow you access to the back of your house be acceptable? Flint - I have an existing wall there now, we 've painted it and no one from Capital Consultant came out and said we can ' t step on their property. After the fires we had to put a security fence up because of Capital Consultants property. That ' s a high crime area there, we have it lit up at night and security systems . I 'm not changing anything, but to cut down the strip and what that does is move the garage forward and what we are doing in the office is only 533 sq. ft. And the sterilization room of the 533 sq. ft. will take the whole one area. Clark - What type of building materials are you planning for the exterior of that addition? Flint - Vinyl siding, 4 ' x 7 ' window for the opotories . Correspondence A letter from Raymond E . Tadgerson, Partner, Eight-Two-O Properties Co . . 820 N. Washington. Request that the variance be denied. Clark made a motion to table appeal #3212 . Yeas : Sheldon, Hull, Wright, Clark, Curran Nays : Spink Appeal #3212 TABLED This request is tabled for further study and report, more specifically as the addition relates to the rear lot line and the concerns raised by Capital Consultants who own the adjacent land. Appeal #3213 - 5935 Enterprise Drive This is a request by Bill Schroeger for Sam Eyde for a variance to allow barbed wire on top of a 6 ' high chain link fence on the premises of 5935 Enterprise Drive. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to install barbed wire on top of a 6 ' high chain link fence . Bill. Schroeger, employed by Sam Eyde . We are contractor and owner of property. On our original site plan we submitted we showed a 6 ' cyclone fence, so during the course of construction we started 7 erecting the fence and we were contacted by Tru Green in their regional office and they told us that their liability carrier said the fenced in area needed to be a secured fence . Reason being, they park their trucks and their sprayers on site and they fill the sprayers the night before and they are concerned with vandalism. We stopped construction and met with the city, we were not aware of a barb wire variance. Curran - What ' s going to be in the back behind the fence? Schroeger - Nothing, we own the property, its wide open. The lot to the west is vacant at this time . Sam Eyde, 2800 Bryon Circle, Lansing. We have no residence within a great distance of the property. I didn ' t think our request was detrimental to anybody who had good intentions . The actual height of the fence at the lowest point is 74' , so its over 6 ' . I don ' t think its an unreasonable request . Wright made a motion to approve appeal #3213 . Second by Sheldon. Yeas : Spink, Clark, Sheldon, Hull, Wright, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3213 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that zoning and development in this vicinity is industrial and warehousing, and therefore they do not believe that the insulation of barb wire on the existing 6 ' high fence will have any negative impact on the adjacent properties . Minutes Hull made a motion to approve the April 9 , 1992 and May 14 , 1992 minutes . Second by Wright. Motion carried unanimously. Old Business Hull remind Board of his excused absence for next month. New Business Spink may be absent for next meeting. Steele ' s term of office was not renewed. The board is now short two members . Election of officers next month. 8 Adjourn There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 00 PM. er r2' Foun ain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 9 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals May 14 , 1992 - 7 : 30 PM City Hall Council Chambers loth floor The meeting was called to order by Chair H. P . Curran at 7 : 30 PM. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Joan Sheldon Ed Spink Grant Hilts Bob Hull Floyd Wright Mary Clark Christopher Steele H. P . Curran Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning- Administrator Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner Donovan Hanna, Graphics Appeal #3181 - 2525 M.L.King Blvd. /N. Logan St . This is a request by William Ensley/Fantasy Warehouse to appeal a decision of the Planning Division relative to Chapter 1296 and proposed use of property located at 2525 M.L.King Blvd. /N. Logan St . to allow for an operation of an adult bookstore . The applicant maintains that the decision of the Planning Division to apply Chapter 1296 to the property is incorrect and is therefore appealing this decision. A presentation was given by E . Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Steele - The question about it being an adult book store, can you tell me why that ' s significant, does not that ordinance that applies to adult book stores , also apply to any other form of adult entertainment? Winnicker - It applies to several types of adult entertainment, but specifically we ruled on the fact it would be in part an adult book store, based on the information we received, and that falls under Chapter 1296 . 01 which is the adult entertainment ordinance . TIC' lildt. x Steele - Whether it is an adult book store or adult entertainment of any kind the impact would be the same, would it not? Winnicker - It falls within Chapter 1296 under the conduct and requirement of 1296 , all those are within that ordinance, and it describes various activities , one of which is an adult bookstore . Steele - The proximity requirements of that Code are the same whether its an adult bookstore or Winnicker - Correct, 300 ft . from the property line of any residentially zoned district . Hilts - That piece to the north is also residential? Winnicker - Correct. Hilts - Is that a buildable lot? Winnicker - Its a buildable lot as a lot of record, its a piece of clear vision property owned by the Michigan Department of Transportation. Steele - Was that parcel zoned 'A' Residential prior to the reconstruction of that corner? Winnicker - When it was annexed into the City. Sheldon - Could you please explain the west 200 ft . ? Winnicker - Parcel 124 , according to the property description approximately west 200 ft of that property is zoned in the 'A ' Residential District . Wright - There is a small triangle in the upper corner marked 131, is there any significance in that? Winnicker - That ' s a piece of property which is owned by the City under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, and is a separate parcel that is beyond 300 ft . from the property lines . Bradley Shafer, Attorney at Law in Okemos , Michigan, I 'm representing the petitioners here . This appeal was ordered by Judge Glazer of the Circuit Court, this is subject to a lawsuit . Judge Glazer entered an order that I would like to submit as an addendum to this packet of documents , which basically indicate that this appeal is to be considered pursuant to the old zoning code, or the old adult zoning code which was modified about December 19th of last year. 2 There is also a letter Mr. Ensley sent that was actually prepared by myself for Mr. Ensley that was submitted to the City which clearly indicated at that time that the use of the property was not going to be either an adult book store or an adult show bar or adult anything else pursuant to the Zoning Code as it existed at the time. For that reason, I would basically say that whether or not these areas are within 300 ft . or can be considered to be residential so that you can consider the 300 ft. dimensional locational requirements of the old adult zoning code, I would say that has absolutely nothing to do with the appeal before this panel right now, for the very simply reason that the intended uses of the premises were not and are not now adult uses under the old zoning code which this appeal pursuant to Judge Glazer order is supposed to be considered under. The small triangular area up at the top, has been discussed, is basically MDOT property and is a clear vision area and can' t ???????? be used for any residential purpose whatsoever, you can ' t build on it you can' t do anything on it whatsoever . (Cite a number of cases ) . Even if this panel was to find that the uses as contemplated by Mr. Ensley and uses are set forth specifically in that letter, were to be adult under the old zoning code, I would argue that the small triangular area up at the top, the MDOT area, could not be considered to be residentially zoned property for the consideration of this appeal . The second area by the Grand River, which Mr. Winnicker did not indicate is also owned by Mr. Ensley, and as Mr. Winnicker indicated only the section abutting the Grand River is in fact zoned residential . The reason for that is because across the Grand River that area is basically wooded and across the Grand River is another area of woods and there are beyond that a couple of old houses , and I guess the idea was to be that if in fact there were houses on one area of the Grand River they did not want any commercial business going in on the Grand River on that side and therefore it was zoned residential . The problem with that is thought its basically in a flood plain area and that cannot be used by any stretch of the imagination for any type of construction for residential purposes either. In addition, because of the way that the residential property is basically put behind, what is unquestionably commercial property, the only properties abutting that line up against M.L.King Blvd. /Logan are Mr. Ensley' s property and the building that is presently situated there and the truck repair facility it makes a mockery out of any zoning to consider that residential property, nobody, even if Mr. Ensley did not own that property, nobody is going to build residential in that area . So again, even if this panel was to find one of the uses or both of the uses that Mr. Ensley has indicated would be adult under the old zoning code I would argue clearly that, that area cannot be considered to be residential . 3 A third issue, there 's also the question on this appeal as to whether or not the show license provision of the Lansing City Code is applicable in these circumstances , one of the issues we were .hashing back and forth before Judge Glazer was the issue whether or not the City of Lansing and the Building Department could require Mr. Ensley to obtain a quote "show" license before being issued a building permit . I explained to Judge Glazer that I didn' t believe that either the Building Board of Appeals which we have already been to on this case, or the Zoning Board of Appeals had any jurisdiction to hear that issues , but Judge Glazer wanted me to bring up that issue to both panels in case you or the Building Board of Appeals felt that, that type of decision was within your jurisdiction. I would commend you to read the Lansing Zoning Code in the show license provision in the City ordinances and I would just state that there is no requirement to obtain any type of show license prior to being issued a building permit or prior to attempting to get proper zoning or prior to getting any type of authorization to open this business . Cliff Flood, attorney, representing the City of Lansing in the action that Mr. Ensley has filed against the City. First of all Judge Glazer' did not say file an appeal . He said go exhaust administrative issues for your administrative rights . That ' s why we are here . He did not say to address any issues . He just said you can ' t come to me before you come before this body first and that ' s why he is here . In my opinion Mr. Shafer has misstated the law about whether a state or a city can zone state land and whether the state is subject to city zoning. Maybe the state isn' t, but Mr. Ensley is . The same with the show license issue . The judge did not say come and take that issue to this board, the decision to raise that issue was Mr. Ensley' s , the judge had no say in that . There are a whole bunch of issues we can talk about here, but all you really need to address here, are two issues . Is that going to be a book store, an adult book store? The records clear on that it is going to be, you may have some doubt about the constitutionality of the ordinance and he ' s raised those questions and those issues will be litigated in trail or at court . And the second issue is , is there residentially zoned property? That ' s all you have to decide. The question whether it should be residentially zoned and all that other stuff is superfluous . Mr. Ensley and Mr. Shafer and our law firm will have lots of fun fighting that issue out later, before Judge Glazer. But you need not waste your time with it . Ray Feldpausch, 2130 Cooley Street, I am here in support of what the City' s decision is and I would like everybody in the audience who also is in support of what the City' s decision has been so far please stand . Thank you. 4 Robert A. Linton, 1719 Tecumseh River Road, northwest of the property being discussed. I have been here several times regarding this issue I just want to state again my personal feelings about this type of facility, not only at this location, but at any location in the City of Lansing. I think the time has come for neighborhoods , cities , states , societies , nations , and the world to decide what they want in their communities . I would bet everything I have that if a vote were taken by the taxpayers of this City, you would have an overwhelming mandate that this is not what the City wants . I would ask you to search your conscious , this is not what we want to disperse out into the neighborhoods . We had this concentrated on East Michigan Avenue, now we are about to see it dispersed out into the City, touching and fringing on neighborhoods . The wrong thing to do, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you . Helen LeBlanc, secretary of the River Forest Neighborhood Association. The neighborhood association supports the City in upholding the zoning code which says that adult oriented businesses should not be located within 300 ft . of residentially zoned property. Mary Zeineh, 2252 Tecumseh River Road. I am a parent of 6 children, but I am also president of Cumberland Elementary School PTA, which is northwest of this property. I do represent not only my 6 children but I represent over 300 students and their parents . We submitted to the Planning Commission signatures of over 200 parents who are against this facility and I want you to know I am an active parent both at Cumberland and Otto, and I see kids from all walks of life . I feel I 'm qualified to say that our children are constantly bombarded by negative influences in our society today. Our group does support the City Planning Commission on their decision and we ask that you also deny his appeal . Paul Scott, 1223 Larned Street, member of the Board of Directors of the North Lansing Community Association whose boundaries abut the property on the east side of King/Logan. The organization is opposed to this zoning variance. We do believe that no matter who owns the residential property that issue is mood, it is within 300 ft . I also speak as members of the Friends of Turner Dodge and the presence of this kind of business at the entrance to what we hope to do with our master plan would be a detriment to the types of activities we hope to have going on there. Thank you. John Monkman, 2420 Darby, Lansing. I plan on riding my bike someday by that stretch of land, with the riverwalk the City' s been working so hard for. To take another point. We are in the midst of one of the finest bowling going on in the. United States right now within 300 ft of that property. Its making national headlines . We have to keep this, we already collected over 2 , 000 signatures . We all agree we support the city on this decision. 5 Communication A telephone message from Chuck Jackson, 2526 N. Grand River, owns property across the street . Objects , against it, area is totally residential , would erode property values . A letter and a telephone message from Beverly Baker, 2007 Riverside Court, Lansing. Does not want adult bookstore in neighborhood. A telephone message from Jim Dowe, River Forest Subdivision, opposes adult book store; supports City position regarding interpretation. A letter from John Mehling, 2031 Cumberland Road, hope you turn down Ensley' s plan to put an adult book store in our neighborhood. This is a residential area and we do not need his adult book store and patrons in our neighborhood. Such an establishment will effect the morality of our adults and children. A letter from Albert LeBlanc, president of River Forest Neighborhood Association, the neighborhood association supports the zoning decision that denies permission for an adult bookstore . We feel the Lansing code gives needed protection to people who live in our city, and feel that this proposal is not compatible with our neighborhood. Committee of the Whole Clark - We are being asked to make two decisions? One, if it is an adult book store or an adult use and two if its adjacent or whatever to give a variance to allow within 300 ft of a residential . Winnicker - Correct . There are two issues you are asked to review this evening, and those are the two . Clark - And our basis for deciding if its an adult use? Winnicker - Well the evidence which has been presented to you in your packet, there is a summary and an explanation of the position of the City plus there is a chronology of events . Steele - As I understand Judge Glazer ' s order, we are to consider it only in light of the prior adult business ordinance and not under the new code. Can you tell us the differences? Winnicker - There are a couple of differences . The 300 ft perimeter, the old code describes adult uses , adult bookstore, theaters , things of that nature and requires that it be limited beyond that 300 ft limitation of the district which is property line of a residentially zoned district, now its been expanded to include not only residentially zoned but also use and there some 6 other expansion of the new code which include certain areas of the City where such uses would be excluded. Steele - As it applies to this instance that would make no difference because the residential zoning applies in both instances . But I gathered there was a distinction as to whether or not it would be considered an adult business, whether this business would be considered an adult business under the old code . Winnicker - No there ' s not an issue, as far as the City is concerned, it definitely is an adult business . Steele - What is the definition of an adult business under the old Code? Winnicker - You have to go to what is the definition of an adult book store . Its an establishment which limits entry, limits ,minors as far as entry, and contains a substantial or significant amount of material which relates to sexual conduct, nudity, sexually explicit material . Steele - Do you have a copy of that prior code, is it available for us to review? Winnicker - I can get you one. Steele - It seems we are being asked to rule on something that is way different from the kind of things we ordinarily look at and we don ' t actually have before us a documents relative to that. Curran - Why don ' t we talk about the 300 ft . That has not changed. And that ' s one of the appeals . Are we willing to say an adult bookstore or an adult anything can go near the 300 ft. to a piece of land that is zoned or used residentially. Winnicker - Well in this case your only concerned with a piece of property which is residential . Winnicker - There are two issues before you tonight. The issue of whether an adult book store was proposed and the issue that there is property within 300 ft. zoned 'A' Residential . Curran - Do we have to decide if that spot is residential? Winnicker - You only have to decide whether the decision of the City was sound. Steele - Is this appropriate to come before this board? Winnicker - Those are the only two issues that are appropriate . 7 Wright - I am well aware of the test that the City codes underwent, the various discussions that took place in this room before City Council and the fact that the code was found valid at that time and I believe, I don' t have the facts in front of me, I believe that the code has been tested in the courts and found valid and therefore I don ' t see what the issue is . The court already decided that our code is valid. Winnicker - Again, you are not asked to consider the validity of the code . Its not one of the two issues your asked to consider. Wright - We are being asked to decide if this issue is a violation of the Code, is that what we ' re asked? Winnicker - It falls under 1296 . The adult book store falls under 1296 . Wright - There ' s no way to grant a variance . Winnicker - You ' re not being asked to grant a variance . Only to rule on the two decisions the city made on the two issues . This is very different from variances you usually are accustomed to hearing, dimensional variances . This is the other responsibility you have which you don ' t have a lot of experience with to rule on decisions related to the zoning code that the city has made. We made two decisions that the business in part include activities described as an adult book store and that this subject property is located within 300 ft. of a residentially zoned property. I think that the evidence is in front of you, and its clear evidence. Steele - Just for the sake of discussion, I will make a motion to ---------- it is an appeal to overturn the City' s decision on two issues , whether Class 'A ' exists within 300 ft. and the other is to whether or not it is an adult book store . I take it back, I 'm not ready to make a motion. I want to know what the code says about this . Curran - (Reads over the chronology) Winnicker - There is one other reference to adult book store and that is in the application to this Board. And I can quote "applicants Ensley and Fantasy Warehouse desire to operate a show bar and bookstore on the property as referenced above . Show bar will be non alcoholic and it is the present desire to present various types of performance dancing which will include semi nude and possibly nude dancing. The bookstore will contain some but not a totality of materials that . are of an adult sexually explicit variety" . Steele - Is the appellant maintaining that it is not an adult book store under the code? 8 Winnicker - It ' s the decision of the City that he is maintaining that it is an adult book store . Steele - I don ' t understand that. He ' s made an appeal , right? Winnicker - He ' s made an appeal . Steele - In which he maintains what, that it is or is not an adult bookstore . Winnicker - He ' s maintaining that the City' s decision that it would include in part an adult book store, is not correct . Steele - I want to hear what the appellant says that it is . Can the appellant say what they Shafer????? - I 'm going to have to back up a little bit and talk about the difference between the old zoning code and the new zoning code . Mr. Winnicker said there was no difference . Curran - It would be real helpful if you would just tell us what he is going to do in there . Shafer - OK. What he is going to do is what he is maintained all along. He never indicated that there was going to be an adult book store . Someone from the City department wrote in that it was going to be an adult book store . It is going to be a bookstore that does not have pursuant to the old zoning code a substantial or significant portion of its stock and trade as adult material . The show bar will only present topless dancing, not bottomless . Under the old zoning code that is not adult, under the new zoning code it is adult . The only reason that your initial appeal documents , which I clarified in the addendum I filed today, says possibly nude entertainment, is only under total nude entertainment, is only under the circumstance that Judge Glazer rules the old zoning code to be unconstitutional . So I am not seeking, Mr. Ensley is not seeking, Fantasy Warehouse is not seeking, to put a business in there that will provide totally nude entertainment nor are they proposing to put in a business that has as a significant or substantial portion of its stock and trade adult material . That ' s what the old zoning code said. We have been maintaining that all along. Mr. Ensley has never indicated that he was going to put a "adult" location in it . Winnicker - The City bases its decision on evidence presented to it, the evidence is in your packet . An adult book store, adult materials are included even in this referenced appeal . Sheldon - I am getting confused, the old code, the new code. It says in here Chapter 1296 . And I have that code and I studied it carefully in preparation for this . I don ' t know what the old 9 zoning code is . Winnicker - The portion of the code we are reviewing tonight is that previous version of 1296 . 01 . Steele - I find it a little strange that we ' re in the position of the City telling us what a business is going to be doing. If that business owner maintains that they are going to be operating a certain type of business , then I don ' t see how we are in a position to say otherwise . Until they operate the business and we find out they aren ' t operating it as they said they were. I don ' t see how it is possible for us to judge a business in advance and say that - --- if the owner of the business says its going to be this type of a business, city' s not going to operate the business , the owner of the business is going to operate the business . I don' t understand that at all . Hull - I think I can possibly answer Chris ' s concern. Any decision we make, its still going back to Circuit Court. Maybe we should ask the City Attorney or at least the attorney representing the City, how did you decide that this was an adult use. Appellant says it isn ' t . Flood - Some of this is beyond what we really need to get into . And you are right . No matter what you do here today, you are not going to have the last say on this . This is going someplace else, and you 've got a thing to do . The City has made a determination based in part on a whole bunch of factors that Mr. Ensley is going to operate a bookstore there. You ' ve seen how he has been all over the map with respect to this property as to what he is going to do there, he ' s been conflicting things . What Mr. Shafer is talking about is some technical reading of the statute or of the ordinance and what he is talking about is the constitutional challenge to that ordinance . And again, that is not your bailiwick, you don ' t want to do that, that ' s going to be in Circuit Court. You ' ve got the Classic Cat, where it was going to be a restaurant, it was going to be a health club, let me back up. I can' t tell you what the City was thinking. But I know what I 'm thinking after looking at all the evidence . The place at Grand River was going to be a health club, going to be a restaurant, going to be Ginza therapy, whatever that is , it opens up, its a show bar, its a book store and its got viewing booths . Does it sound familiar? I 'm sorry Mr. Ensley, what? (Background, Mr. Ensley, its also legally zoned. ) That ' s absolutely correct . That one is legally zoned and we are not after that one . This one isn' t. So the City has made a decision that it is going to be an adult book store. I agree with that, I don ' t have a problem with that, but I can' t get into their minds . I think the evidence is there for you to reach that conclusion. 10 Hull -That ' s what I hoped you would provide and I 'm sorry to say you haven' t done it . Flood - That ' s right, we can wait I guess until he opens up and he goes in there and we can start counting books or doing something. All we have is our past history. Hull - Let me tell you what I hoped you would do for us . I hoped that when you got up there you would have said Planning has said thus and so based on thus and so the ordinance says that falls within the scope of the ordinance or it fails to fall within the scope of the ordinance, and that ' s why we say he ' s operating an adult operation. Flood - I guess I have to be careful because, let me make it absolutely clear, I don' t represent the City on this . I 'm involved (Hull , who do you represent) let me finish. I mean the Planning Division. I represent the City of Lansing in a lawsuit Mr. Ensley has filed against Mr. Fountain, Mr. Knot, and half the Planning Division people . We ' re involved in that litigation, I have to be careful here because I 'm not the city attorney for the purposes of this Board. I can tell you what ' s happening in Circuit Court and I 'm here to make sure that any representation to you about the legal action are accurate . The bottom line is they made a determination, I don ' t have a problem with that based on what I ' ve seen, but its their determination, I think its accurate and you have to decide whether you think their determination was accurate and then the bottom line is ' no matter what you do, we are going back up to Circuit Court and litigate it . I 'm sorry I can ' t provide you with much more than that . Winnicker - I just want to highlight that the decision of the City is based on statements made by the applicant over a period of time. Chronology is laid out there. Even up to the appeal itself, it references adult materials and that ' s what we base our decision on. We make decisions like this on various uses throughout the City daily based on best information. And that ' s how we arrived at our decision. Steele - I don ' t like it. It sounds to me your decision is based on a essentially character assassination of the appellant, that you have made a determination about some past history that says that this guy waffles about what he is going to do and so you determine that in this particular instance he is going to waffle about that . Winnicker - Mr . Steele our decision ( Steele tries to interrupt) is based on comments he made and I advise you again to read what has been presented . Wright - Point of order (Steele tries to interrupt again) I don ' t think Mr. Steele asked the Chair to speak to begin with, so why is he constantly speaking out of turn all the time without getting 11 permission from the Chair to speak. Curran - Is there anybody who wishes to speak on this matter and lets do it real formally. Wright - I know its getting confusing the more we go on, but as I understand the question hinges on whether or not the appellant is going to do the operation in this location that he says he is going to do or whether he ' s not going to do that operation but something that is not permitted in this district . Now that issue is very difficult as you well know because courts across the land have the same problem in defining what an adult bookstore is and we can ' t decide that issue here tonight anyway. My feelings on the matter is whether or not I want to trust the judgment of the Planning Division in interpreting the Code which they so carefully developed over a period of time . Whether or not we can trust their judgment that they know what they are talking about . I , for one, believe they do know what they are talking about, I 'm ready to vote on the matter right now. I 'm going to support the City in this case . Curran - can we have a motion? Wright - If you want a motion now I ' ll make a motion. Curran - Are we ready for a motion? Clark - Yes . Wright - Unless Mr. Steele wants to speak again . Clark - I 'm prepared for a motion. Hull - So am I . Curran - lets have a motion. Wright - I don ' t know how to word the motion except I think the interpretation is that we are, the question, the issue is whether or not we are supporting the City' s position on this matter. That ' s all I can say. My motion would be that we do support the City' s position on the matter and if that ' s not the proper wording than I ' ll need some help to restate it . Curran - do we have a second to that motion. Clark second. Curran - Will that give us the information, will that motion get what is needed from us? 12 Winnicker - We have a lengthy discussion on tape this evening, but it would be useful to be more specific on the motion, support the City' s position as indicated in the presentation, in the write up. Wright - I would move that we support the City' s position on Appeal #3181 , the City' s position as stated in the material which has been presented to us . Accepted by Clark. Curran - Any discussion on the motion. Steele - I believe that the City' s position on the matter of whether or not there is a book store proposed is a position based on conjecture and we have not been supplied with either the ordinance materials to review or proper preparation for this for us to make that kind of a decision, no have I seen a specific statement from the appellant as to the nature of the business that they are going to operate, and I believe that the appellant is placed in a bad light by the presentation of the City without any specifics of what is proposed or what is going to be done . That ' s , the history of the past it s not a statement of what is proposed right now, I don ' t see what ' s proposed right now. And I also feel that the dimensional question, the 300 ft . to a residential use in regard to the or to residential zoning in regard to the one property the tiny parcel owned by MDOT that is irrelevant because it cannot be used residentially. And I don ' t know how to view it in regard to the other although it seems as though that cannot be used residentially either so I will not be supporting the motion. Hilts - I 'm a little disturbed that our City Attorney couldn ' t be present . I think in view of some of the issues that it might have been helpful . I don ' t know, I guess in some regards I agree with Chris . Hull - I respond to your concern, I wish he would be here to, but as I understand he is a party to this suit . And I think that accounts for the fact he is not here, this gentleman is, however I wasn ' t absolutely thrilled with what he had to say. I 'm satisfied, I 'm supporting this motion as reasonable. I don ' t think there ' s any doubt ????? isolation requirements are required, that they are required under the ordinance . That in itself is enough in my book to say sorry go back to circuit court and talk to the judge about that . That ' s not something I can take care of . Second thing on adult use, I understand ?????? and I quite frankly I 'm not at all disappointed about the fact that it is ???? probably be a good healthy argument about that because its a first amendment right and when you start fooling around with first amendment rights I think you ought to be very careful about it and I don ' t think this body is going to sell this issue, that ' s going to be solved by Judge Glazer. In my opinion, all I have to do in order to make decision, and I already made is to say the Planning people and the zoning people act responsibly and assess the situation as best the could 13 given the information they were given. And I think the answer to that is they certainly did, so I have no problem supporting this motion. I think its the only thing we can do under the circumstances . Yeas : Clark, Sheldon, Hull , Hilts , Wright, Curran Nays : Steele Motion passed. The Board was satisfied and found based on testimony and evidence that you did in fact intend to develop an adult bookstore upon the premises commonly known as 2525 M.L.King Blvd. /N. Logan Street . The Board found that this type of business is regulated by Chapter 1296 of the Planning and Zoning Code and further found that the proposed business would be located within 300 ft . of residentially zoned property. The Board made their decision based on the testimony of you and your attorney, and all the evidence presented to them by the Lansing Planning Division as it relates to this appeal . Appeal #3200 - 1428 Marquette This is a request by Ralph Kallweit to construct a residential structure 27 ' 9 " from the front property line on the premises of 1428 Marquette . The established setback in that blockface is 34 . 6 ' . He is asking for a variance of 6 ' 9" . A presentation was given by E . Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The petitioner proposes to construct a two story addition and remodel a portion of his existing home. The new construction will extend to within 27 ' 9" from the front property line . 14 Clark - When this appeal was filed the construction had not begun? Winnicker - No . They came in for a building permit . Actually analyzed several alternatives , going to rebuild to the exact dimension before but decided to come to this board to ask them for two additional feet. They had some sophisticated plans to build it prior Ralph Kallweit, 1428 Marquette. We decided to take off the old part of the home that we live in. Before we did that we got a building permit . I had the understanding that since we were building on the same, I can ' t say the same foundation because we wanted to take that foundation up and throw it away, but we were putting the new foundation in the identical same spot, we didn ' t come out and inch, we didn ' t go back in inch. We were putting the foundation in the same spot as the old foundation was . When we took out the building permit, I assumed that this was a remodeling, but then our builder had two feet overhang, it comes out two feet, and the reason for that was it made the house look nicer then if we just came straight back. We ' re not building anything except this two feet overhang beyond what the building was to begin with. What we took down was a shack. This is going to be a beautiful place. It will be an addition to the community. Everybody around has signed a petition that it would be alright with them. Hilts made a motion to approve the appeal . Second by Hull . Yeas : Hilts , Wright, Sheldon, Clark, Steele, Hull, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3200 APPROVED. The Board understood that this new addition is replacing a portion of your existing single family home which was removed. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the established front yard setback in this vicinity is irregular and that to grant relief from this type of situation is in keeping with the general intent of the Code. The Board does not believe that the new addition will have any negative impact on adjacent properties , but will however, enhance the development of the site. Appeal #3201 - 610 North Sycamore 'This is a request by Rich Beeman to construct a detached garage on the premises of 610 North Sycamore . A presentation was given by Vern Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . 15 The applicant proposes to construct a two car detached garage 20 ft. from the Lapeer Street right-of-way and 12 . 5 ft . from the Sycamore Street right-of-way. Sheldon - I have concerns about the back of the garage and it fronts the residential part of the street . I would like to here what will be done to enhance that area with landscaping, buffering of some kind. Fountain - That is something you can address to the petitioner. In this particular case it isn ' t required to put landscape, screening and buffering in on residential property. Clark - What is the typical setback of the houses on Lapeer? Fountain - Less than 20 ft . Many of the houses along Lapeer are probably 10 to 12 to 15 ft . , very close . Rich Beeman - The garage will be white, it will be attractive, it will enhance the neighborhood, it will not be protruding beyond the front of either house, which is my home on Sycamore, or the other house that backs up to me. The side of the garage will face Sycamore . I also have for your consideration the type of building I am considering. Curran - Is it metal? Beeman - Its all steel . Curran - Are you going to pave the driveway? Beeman - It is going to be hardsurfaced. Beeman - I would like this variance because otherwise with an ordinary permit I have to build a building down to stay within 60 ft . off of Lapeer I have to build it down within 6 ft . of the existing house, which wouldn' t even look good. Curran - Will you be removing any trees? Beeman - There are two trees that have to go . Clark - I have a concern that the building is not a conventional one but steel . Beeman - I have no problem with a conventional one, but I prefer the steel building. I think its more attractive . Sheldon - I bring up the issues of landscaping the rear part of this structure . But frankly, I 'm disappointed with the appearance of this garage based on what we were given. Wright - The elevation or altitude of this building seems to be considerably higher than a conventional garage . Is the purpose of the building so that you can store large vehicles? 16 Beeman - No the biggest think will be an S10 Chevrolet pickup. Wright - Do you know what the height of the building is? Beeman - 16 ft . total . Fountain - The height of the building cannot exceed 15 ft . Donna Brockwell , president of Genesee Neighborhood Association. Several of us on the board discussed this as it was presented and we were in favor with no opposition from the surrounding neighbors and that there be the appeal granted for the traditional garage . We did ask the some buffering with bushes and shrubs or whatever be provided in the variance . Charlie Coleman, 616 W. Lapeer, second house from this building. I don ' t see any problem with him building it . It ' s alright with me . Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3201 due to the hardship of the irregular shape of the lot and with the provision that the design of the garage include the siding and roofing compatible with the architectural character of the area and further to include screening and buffering planting along both Lapeer and Sycamore . Yeas : Hull , Sheldon, Hilts , Clark, Wright, Steele, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3201 APPROVED. This appeal was approved with two specific conditions : 1 ) That the type of construction for the garage will be of the conventional type with a pitched roof and not to exceed a height of 15 ft . 2 ) That a landscape, screening and buffering plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits . The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the irregular shape of this lot and its configuration as it relates to surrounding properties did present a hardship when trying to make reasonable use of the entire site . The Board does not believe that the location of the garage will have any adverse impact on the adjacent properties providing the conditions as cited above are adhered to . Appeal #3202 - 3811 Cooley Drive This is a request by Dennis Brenner for a variance to allow an attached garage to be built one foot from the side property line on the premises of 3811 Cooley Drive . 17 A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to construct a single car garage attached to the east side of the duplex, similar to that which will be built onto the west side of the structure . Dennis Brenner, 3813 Cooley Drive . I purchased this duplex mid March due to losing my 24 year occupation last fall and having to sell my home, I found myself in rentals and trying to scramble for a place to find to live . When I purchased the property I found myself faced with a lot of problems , I lived in a 2400 sq ft home with a 2 1/2 car garage . This winter I had to scrape ice and due the things people have to do that don ' t have a garage . I have owned rental property in the City of Lansing, I liquidated that, but I provided garages for the tenants when I had other properties . Its and owner occupancy duplex, we put about $20 , 000 worth of improvements in this property, it had been vacant for about a year. We are in the process of finishing the garage on the one end . I would like to add the garage on the other side . I talked to most of my neighbors before making the appeal, initially I didn ' t think there would be concerns , and there now since surfaced some concerns , and I would not want to find a problem with my neighbors . I do believe that an attached garage is far superior to an unattached garage in the back area. And I feel it would be superior than a storage shed. Cindy Krupp, 3805 Cooley Dr. , adjacent property owner. I sent a letter stating our concerns . Space between houses is something we searched for when buying our home . The construction and/or maintenance of the garage would require access to our property and wild flower garden. A letter from Glen and Ruth Lewis , 3800 Glasgow Drive . Firmly opposed to the proposed 'code violation. Hilts made a motion to deny appeal #3203, no hardship. Second by Steele . Yeas : Hilts , Clark, Hull , Sheldon, Steele, Wright, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3202 DENIED The Board following testimony and evidence did not believe that there was a hardship associated with this request and therefore approval would not be in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Code. Appeal 3203 - 3203 East Saginaw 18 This is a request by Marshall Music for a variance to construct a new building up to the rear property line on the premises known as 3203 E . Saginaw. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to construct a building up to the rear lot line . Code requires a 25 ft. rear yard setback. Bruce Stewart, with Stein, Hinckle, etc . architects for the project, 1120 Keystone Ave. I have larger plans for you to look at . Basically what we are proposing is to push the building all to the south property line. We are connected to the McDonald ' s, in order to do that effectively we needed to put our parking across the front . We have an easement that runs down the east property, for access from Frandor. In order to create enough parking for the site, we are parking underneath the back of the building. Clark made a motion to approve appeal #3203 . Second by Hilts . Yeas : Hilts , Sheldon, Clark, Steele, Hull , Wright, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3203 APPROVED. This appeal was approved with the understanding that all other code requirements shall be met . The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property in question is zoned commercial which will allow the development as proposed. The Board further understood that the property will be one ownership, however the property will be divided into two parcels for tax purposes and therefore the rear yard requirement is insignificant in this particular case . Appeal #3204 - 311 Smith Avenue This is a request by Darlene Swiler to establish a one chair beauty shop in her home on the premises of 311 Smith Avenue . A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant wishes to be self employed in her home . She does not believe that a one chair salon in her home will adversely impact 19 the neighborhood. Darlene Swiler - I will be the only person employed there . I have a long driveway, the clients will be parking in the driveway. There will not be any signs . Wright - Do you have a room set aside to install a one chair? Swiler - Yes I do . A petition from the neighbors have no objection to the salon. A letter from Meredith Beach, 316 Smith, no objection. A letter from Mickey Simpson, 312 Smith, no objection. A letter from Robin Crane, no objection. Clark made a motion to approve appeal #3204 . Second by Hilts . Yeas : Hilts , Hull , Wright, Clark, Steele, Curran Nays : Sheldon Appeal #3204 APPROVED This appeal was approved with the following conditions : 1 . The approval is site, applicant and use specific . 2 . No overlapping of schedule of clients . 3 . It shall operate in compliance of all other requirements specified under Section 1248 . 03 ( e) ( 1) -( 7 ) . Appeal #3205 - 430-440 North Larch Street This is a request by The Volunteers of America for a variance to allow capacity for up to 75 men, women and children in shelter on the premises of 430-440 North Larch Street. A presentation was given by E . Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to establish a shelter for up to 75 men, women, and children at the site. Pat Dowell - The City of Lansing has purchased our present men ' s center located at 327 River Street . This facility has 34 beds and has been filled to and beyond capacity for the last four months . There has been a dramatic increase in both shelter and meals provided for the first quarter of this year. We 've prepared more than 4 , 686 meals and have provided beds of 1 ,543 more beds compared to first year of last quarter. The demand for our services are far greater than anticipated. 20 Jon Addiss , 2113 S . Washington, Volunteer of America board member. We will have our own parking and some green space . The entrance will be in the back, southeast corner. Our offices will be there, and our thrift store . Hilts made a motion to approve appeal #3205 . Second by Sheldon. Yeas : Clark, Sheldon, Hull, Hilts , Wright, Steele, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3205 APPROVED. With approval of this request the Board made it contingent upon getting approval for the special land use that is currently pending before Lansing City Council . It was further understood by the Board that all other Code requirements related to the proposed use of this site will be met . The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the site in question is zoned Light Industrial and the proposed use is being considered in accord with the Planning and Zoning Code as a Special Land Use . The Board believes that approval of this request is reasonable given the unique nature of the emergency shelter facility and the circumstances related to the relocation of the volunteers . The Board does not believe that the increase number of occupants will have any negative impact on the property itself providing all other code requirements are met . Hilts requests an excused absence for the June meeting. Hull requests an excused absence for the July meeting. Meeting adjourned at 9 : 50 PM. Vernon C. Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 21 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals April 9 , 1992 - 7 : 30 PM City Hall Council Chambers loth floor The meeting was called to order by Chair H. P . Curran at 7 : 30 PM. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Joan Sheldon Grant Hilts Edward Spink Bob Hull Floyd Wright Mary Clark Christopher Steele H . P . Curran Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Don Hanna Tabled Appeal #3192 , 5540 South Pennsylvania Hull made a motion to remove appeal #3192 from the table. Second by Clark. Motion carried unanimously. Safelite Glass proposes to have a second wall sign that in combination with the first sign will be 154 sq. ft . in size. A presentation was given by V. Fountain . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . This is a request to allow the Safelite wall sign which is on the north wall of the building to be removed and relocated to the south. Chris Runquist with Stockwell Real Estate group. We are property managers for the property and representing the owners . We discussed changing the main marquee sign. It appeared that it wasn ' t going to work because, in order to change the marquee sign we are going to have to reduce the size of the sign and because all of the tenants are requesting more signage along with the fact that one of the current tenants does not even have signage on the marquee sign. Clark - Would you be interested in any alternatives? Runquist - I think we would be interested in removing the Safelite sign after their lease is terminated. r0 Clark - But you ' re not interested in removing the Auto Care sign with the large red letters? Runquist - I think that there is some importance to that sign. This is not your typical retail center. Its an auto care center and people need to be aware of the fact that it is an auto care center. When you remove the auto care lettering on the wall its not very obvious that it is actually an auto care mall . So we would prefer to keep the auto care . Sheldon - I noticed that Safelite has three signs , Jiffy Lube also has three signs, some of the others have less signage . Runquist - Well the fact that Safelite has that extra sign on the east wall in the first place was the concession that was given to them. And we inherited this property as managers as well as the owners did, it was a concession that was given to Safelite when another tenant came into the mall who was going to perform the same services as Safelite and Safelite had an exclusive on that service which was sunroof ' s . So Safelite opted to drop their exclusive and allow the other tenant to come in if they could have that sign. At the time the sign was given it was ok ' d. Hull - The information that it is an auto care mall, isn ' t that repeated on the pole sign? Runquist - Yes it is . Runquist - I ' d like to make the point that if that Safelite sign cannot be moved, its going to be virtually impossible to lease that space, basically because anybody would be under the impression that it was Safelite Glass . Ken Stockwell, Stockwell Real Estate Group - I ' d like to add, should you allow us to move the sign over with the stipulation that when Safelite Glass leaves that it comes down, that ' s agreeable with me . Communication A letter from Robert Mote, 837 Fred St. , objects to the variance request. Hull made a motion to deny appeal #3192 , no hardship or practical difficulty. Second by Clark. Yeas : Wright, Sheldon, Clark, Spink, Steele, Hull , Curran Nays : none Appeal #3192 DENIED The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the property at 5540 South Pennsylvania Avenue is developed with an auto care mall and that the advertising for this mall includes a large number of identification signs for the businesses within it. 2 The Board does not believe that there is a hardship or practical difficulty associated with this request and that the minimum requirements of the Sign Code allow reasonable identification for this facility. Appeal #3194 - 1621 East Michigan This is a request by Bay Petroleum to construct a gasoline supply station within 1 ft . of the rear property line at 1621 East Michigan. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Dave Suty, 419 Spring Street I 'm representing Bay Petroleum. Also, Jim Smit, Bay Petroleum and Joe McGuire, Wolverine Dev. The EPA and Michigan Department of Natural Resources mandates that we upgrade our service station as far as the tanks and the piping. In addition to that, that site is polluted. We have contamination in the ground there, we are required to take immediate action to clean up that site . To clean up that site we have to remove everything from the property. So granting the variance will allow us to put the building one foot off the rear property line thus having the building back there will act as a buffer which is joined by the parking lot . We would have 6 ft. of high fence around the property. It would afford us room in the middle for the tanks . It would allow us to bring our transport truck on the property to unload the fuel into the tanks . Currently that truck is parked along Marshall Street . From a safety standpoint, the traffic flow would be improved; visibility will be better for employees, as well as safety. We would be eliminating three existing buildings . We would install landscaping. Parking would be improved. We would enclose the dumpster and aesthetically enhance the site . Neighbors in vicinity signed in support for variance.. Clark - What is being proposed for a curb cut on Marshall? Suty - We are going to be closing the curb cut that is closest to the corner on Michigan Avenue now. There are two, one will be closed and we will landscape the area . And we will be pulling back the curb cut along Marshall approximately another 8 ' -10 ' from where it is now. Mary Margaret Woll , Eastside Neighborhood Organization. No one from the eastside has any objections . I have two . I like the building put back, one because of the safety of the attendants . I would like to see real trees or real bushes . I agree with the entire concept, but I hope the point of signage is not let go completely and considered another issue because that is the one thing that I personably would object to is the fact the sign just isn ' t like any other we have and we would rather having, be a 3 little calmer, but I do understand that ' s their sign and that ' s what people look for . But otherwise I think it will be a great improvement to the neighborhood. Joe McGuire, Wolverine Development - We are affiliated with Bay. I ' ve worked with both the tenant and landlord with this . The owner is a retired lady in Traverse City. This is her only source of retirement money. I think the sign should be a separate issue than what ' s before us tonight . Sheldon - It says in the report that the sign would be replaced. Fountain - He ' s asking that its an issue he wants to keep separate. It ' s an issue we discussed at staff level that we feel we have to address everything on that property, especially when you have a sign that would probably be in violation of two sections of the code, one the flashing issue, and extending over the front property. Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3194 . Second by Clark. Yeas : Spink, Hull , Sheldon, Clark, Wright, Curran Nays : Steele Appeal #3194 APPROVED. This appeal was approved with the understanding that the front ground/pole sign off Michigan Avenue will be modified to eliminate any overhang on the public right-of-way and elimination of the flashing arrow that exists on the current ground/pole sign.. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the variance would allow redevelopment of the site that would substantially improve this property primarily from the standpoint of ingress and egress to the site and allowing for loading and unloading vehicles on private property as opposed to public right-of-way as it now is done . The Board does not believe the variance to the rear yard requirement will adversely impact the adjacent property, which is an off-street parking lot . In addition, the Board believes that the variance will encourage the continuation of a neighborhood service . Appeal #3195 - 5030 South Cedar This is a request by Beacon Sign Company to erect a ground/pole sign closer to the front property line and taller than permitted by Code at 5030 South Cedar. 4 A presentation was given by Vern Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to replace two ground/pole signs with one new 7 ' x 10 ' ground/pole sign at the southeast corner of the site to identify the gas station as it changes from Union 76 to Citgo . Clark - The setback is what you are asking for but you were going to conform on the height? Applicant - The zoning requires that the sign be no taller than 16 ft . The standard pole sign for CITGO the pole is a 12 ft. pole with a 7 ' x 10 ' sign, which means it would be 19 ft. overall in height . We are going to cut it down 3 ft. to bring it down to the request of 16 ft. and ask your consideration for the setback. Spink made a motion to approve appeal #3195 at 5030 S . Cedar with the setback requirement only 18 ft. since the appellant has agreed to stay within the height of variance . Significant improvement of signage on S . Cedar. Second by Clark. Yeas : Clark, Hull, Spink, Sheldon, Steele, Wright, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3195 APPROVED. This approval was given with the understanding that existing ground/pole sign on Jolly Road will be removed. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the proposed redevelopment of signage on this property will be a significant improvement to the existing situation an therefore believe that the approval of this variance is in keeping with the general intent of the Code. Appeal #3196 - 3125 Everett Lane This is a request by Ron McGill to allow a satellite dish to remain on top of the detached garage at 3125 Everett Lane. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The owner installed a .satellite dish on top of the detached garage . The total height of approximately 25 ft . Accessory structures are allowed to a maximum height of 15 ft . A 10 ft . variance of Section 1248 . 10 (b) is requested. No representation. Communications 5 Carl McMann of 307 E . Hodge, dish should not be that high off the ground. George Wood, 3201 Stabler, not opposed to variance . Sheldon made a motion to approve appeal #3196 . Will not adversely affect the surrounding land use. Second by Spink. Subject to all Building Codes . Yeas : Sheldon, Clark, Spink, Steele, Hull, Wright, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3196 APPROVED. This request was approved with the understanding that a permit application will be made . The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence the satellite dish at its location does not adversely impact the adjacent properties and therefore to allow this variance is in keeping with the general intent of the Code. Appeal #3197 - 2832 Greenbriar This is a request by Scott Walker to permit a photographic studio in his attached garage with specialized equipment . A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to expand his attached garage for photographic studio using specialized equipment not normally found in single family dwelling. Scott Walker, 2832 Greenbriar. I am requesting the use of my garage as a studio for my part time photography business . As well as use of special equipment . The special equipment is a little vaguer because I 'm using cameras and its not really clear what special equipment means . The reason I 'm doing this , is that I want to make good quality photography, that ' s the fundamental basis of my concern. In order to produce good quality photographs I have to have sufficient ceiling height and this is something I don ' t have at the current time. The market that I 'm trying to work for is basically wedding market and family portrait market . This studio is necessary to do quality work. I also care about the quality of my neighborhood, and I ' ve lived there 14 years . I have a petition from 45 of my neighbors supporting my request . I will use the same siding I have on the house, it will be consistent with what I have now. Spink - Will you have heat out there?' Water? Walker - I will have heat out there, no water. Heat will be 6 portable electric heat, and a drop fan from the top . There will be no services out there, other then plugs for temporary use . Spink - Where is your dark room? Walker - I don ' t plan to use a dark room. Clark made a motion to approve appeal 43197 with the 11 conditions that are stipulated on the basis that it will have no negative impact on the neighborhood. Second by Hull . Yeas : Spink, Hull, Wright, Clark, Steele, Curran Nays : Sheldon Appeal #3197 APPROVED. The Board ' s approval was subject to the following conditions : 1 . The appeal is site, applicant and use specific . 2 . That no additional portions of the house or garage or any other accessory structure on the lot be used for this purpose . 3 . The business shall only be conducted as a home occupation photo studio not a processing lab for others . 4 . That the operation of this home occupation be monitored at appropriate intervals (every 6 months ) to assure continued compliance with the operational characteristics outlined in the applicant ' s submission. 5 . That in the event, that the applicant moves or is no longer in business at this site, all other persons be prohibited from renting or utilizing this space for anything other than as accessory garage space . 6 . No person, other than a member of the family residing in the dwelling unit, engages in the home occupation. 7 . The use of the dwelling unit as a home occupation is clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes . 8 . No change occurs in the outside appearance of the dwelling, other than the proposed garage addition. 9 . Not more than one ( 1) sign exists , which sign does not exceed one square foot in area, is not illuminated and is mounted flat against the wall of the dwelling. 10 . The sale of goods does not occur in the dwelling unit or on the lot on which the dwelling unit is located. 11 . Not more than one client is served at one time . The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence and providing all the conditions of approval are followed that this would not have any negative impact on the adjacent residential property and that this type of home occupation would be in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Code . Appeal #3198 - 2011 Harding 7 This is a request by Dave Taylor to construct a 7 ' x 20 ' enclosed porch at 2011 Harding. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to remove an existing 5 . 5 ' x 6 ' front porch and replace it with a 7 ' x 20 ' enclosed porch . Dave Taylor, I have a rough drawing of what we are proposing. Sheldon - What is this room going to be used for? Taylor - Sitting room, her living room is really small and this is actually doubling the size of her living room. She just wants some extra space and more light . Wright made a motion to approve appeal #3198 . Second by Spink. Yeas : Spink, Clark, Sheldon, Hull , Wright, Steele, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3198 APPROVED. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the proposed porch addition would not have any negative impact on the adjacent residential properties and approval is in keeping with the general intent of the Code. Appeal #3199 - 5400 South Cedar This is a request by K-Mart for a ground/pole sign of 35 . 5 ft. in height and 235 . 5 sq. ft . in area located at 5400 South Cedar. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use . The applicant proposes to replace the existing K-Mart sign with the new K-Mart logo that along with the existing IGA sign on the sign structure will result in a total sign structure of 35 . 5 ft . in height and 235 . 5 sq. ft. in area. Wright - There isn' t an IGA sign, are they going to have their own sign? SPEAKER The total square footage that you represented includes the IGA so there ' s no change in that. Hull made a motion to approve appeal #3199 . Second by Clark. 8 Yeas : Wright, Sheldon, Clark, Spink, Steele, Hull, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3199 APPROVED. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the proposed redevelopment of this sign would be a significant improvement over the existing signage for this property and therefore approval is in keeping with the general intent of the Code . Minutes Clark made a motion to approve the March 12 , 1992 minutes . Second by Sheldon. Motion carried unanimously. E . Spink requests an excused absence for the May 14 , 1992 meeting. Meeting adjourned at 9 : 43 PM. Vernon C . Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 9 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Lansing Board of Zoning Appeals March 12 , 1992 - 7 : 30 PM Lansing City Hall Council Chambers 10th floor The meeting was called to order by Chair H. P. Curran at 7 : 30 PM. Roll call was taken. Present Joan Sheldon Edward Spink Grant Hilts Bob Hull Floyd Wright Mary Clark Christopher Steele H.P. Curran Staff; Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner Don Hanna, Graphics Coordinator Ste' ti z Tabled Appeal #3183 , 1410 Congress v _ Fountain, there was a public hearing at the last meeting. Ita� r' to allow the construction of an open front porch Tinto the required front yard and a deck in the side yard up to the property line. The Board approved the front vard variance and n- tabled the side yard variance until there was an opportunity to take a look at alternate proposals . Steele - How much of a variance does that require? Fountain - They have to maintain 6 ft. side yard so a 5 ' deck will require 2 ft. variance. Margaret Williams, 827 Sunset Lane, East Lansing, representing Robert Schoals , who is the owner. We have reduced it down to the o ft . which would at least make it so you can walk through and carry things , like lumber or picnic table or bring things from the back yard. Curran - Is there going to be a trellis or something to block that from the house next door? Williams - There can be . The neighbors signed a petition that I had, they have absolutely no problem at all, they don' t request anything at all. Sheldon -- Is the area underneath the deck going to have a door on BZA Minutes March 12 , 1992 it? Williams - It was going to stand by itself , it can be enclosed. Spink - Would the side deck require a railing? Fountain - Yes Clark made a motion that Appeal #3183 at 1410 Congress be approved for a side yard variance to build a deck 5 ft . from the house and no closer than 4 ft. from the side lot line . Based in the unusual topography of the land and the fact that this is setback from the adjacent property owners lot line. Second by Spink. Yeas : Spink, Clark Sheldon, Hull, Hilts, Wright, Steele, Curran Nays : None Appeal #3183 APPROVED. The Board denied the request to allow the construction of an open deck up to the east property line. The Board did however approve an open deck 5 ft. in width and no closer than 4 ft. to the east property line. This deck as they understand will be integrated with the deck on the front of the structure which they granted a variance for at their meeting of February 13 , 1992 . The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that a deck 5 ft . in width along the east side of the building would not have any adverse impact on the adjacent residential property. The Board further found that the topography of this site limited access into the rear yard and that the proposed deck would allow for ease of access into the rear yard. The Board believes that approval of this request as modified is in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Code. Appeal #3188 - 200 block North Chestnut This is a request by Michigan Community College Association for a variance to allow the construction of an office building in the 200 block of North Chestnut Street (east side) 10 ' from the rear lot line and 10 ' from the front lot line. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Sheldon - Will a retaining wall be required? Fountain - Yes Dave Fleming, President of Dabbert and Fleming Architects representing the Michigan Community College Association. The surrounding neighbors we have talked to prefer this location for the citing of the building in that it closes off some of the BZA Minutes March 12 , 1992 rear living areas of some of the homes that are facing into the interior of the block, it is a much more efficient utilization of the site as far as lot coverage is concerned. Curran - The main entrance will be off Chestnut Street? Fleming - The main elevation is going to face Chestnut Street, the main front door will actually face south. Sharon Kellogg, 421 W. Ionia - The rear of my property abuts the parking area. My property is zoned D-1 Professional I use it as residential on the second floor, office on the first floor. Concerned about the trees . Would like the trees to remain, if they plan to destroy them, then I am opposed to the variance. Eleanor Dillon, 328 N. Walnut, President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association. We have no problem with the variance if Sharon is satisfied with the trees that will be left and it will not destroy the character of her living area. Correspondence A letter from Walter P. Maner owner of 212 N. Chestnut is not opposed to the variance. The proposed development is compatible with the area. A letter from Jonathan E. Maire, Attorney, 423 W. Ionia Street. It is our preference that the proposed structure be located at the original site, on 220 N. Chestnut, and that the proposed site be devoted to parking. If the Board decides to grant the variance, I would simply request that the East wall of the structure be required to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible, and that the variance be conditioned upon development of a landscaping plan that will both preserve existing trees along the property lines and add such further trees or shrubs as will adequately buffer the proposed building and parking area to the South. Spink made a motion that the variances at the 200 blk of N. Chestnut Street be approved subject to the rezoning of the property to D-1 Professional Office District. Based on the fact that the setbacks are similar to the adjacent structures and allow more efficient use of the property and that the screening and buffering of the concerns of the neighborhood be considered and shared with the adjoining property owners before it is finalized. Second by Hilts . Yeas : Hilts , Wright, Sheldon, Clark Spink, Steele, Hull, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3188 APPROVED. BZA Minutes March 12 , 1992 The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the front yard setback would be similar to development in the vicinity. The Board believes that the change will allow more efficient use of the property and the irregular shape of this lot does present a practical difficulty when attempting to develop the property as proposed. The Board further believes that approval of this request will promote compatible development. It is further understood that a landscape screening and buffering plan will be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits for this development and that this landscape screening and buffering plan will be circulated by the Planning Division to the adjacent property owners for their review and comment prior to final approval. Appeal 43189 - 720 North Washington This is a request by Michigan Realtors Association to install a 16 . 5 sq. ft. sign on the existing brick wall at the front of their property, 720 N. Washington, 1/2 foot from the property line . A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slide were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Michael Penkevich, representing Stamp Rite Incorporated, I 'm here to represent Michigan Retailers Association. We did have a sign on the building originally they had a lot of problems with customers coming in and finding them. They couldn' t see it with the trees and planters . Sheldon - What is the background of this sign? Penkevich - It is made out of aluminum, bronze in color with silver lettering. Steele made a motion to approve appeal 43189 at 720 N. Washington, appropriate for the situation, reasonable request. Second by Clark. Yeas : Spink, Hull, Sheldon, Hilts, Clark, Wright, Steele, Curran Nays : none Appeal 43189 APPROVED. The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the existing wall prohibits reasonable identification in strict compliance with the Code. The Board does not believe that the proposed sign on top of the BZA Minutes March 12 , 1992 brick wall will detract from the development in the vicinity. In summary the Board believes that approval of this request is in keeping with the general intent of the Code. Appeal 43190 - 2820 Gatsby Court This is a request by David Bowker for a variance to allow the closest corner of a single family structure to be located 25 ft . from the front property line at 2820 Gatsby Court . A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. David Bowker, contractor, and representing property owner. The property has a developable area that is L shaped. Steele - Would you have room to move it further south? Bowker - No Correspondence A message from Jack & Della Blanchard, 2712 Gatsby Court, no objection. Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3190 at 2820 Gatsby Court, hardship cause by the figuration of the lot. Second by Clark. Yeas : Hilts, Clark, Hull, Spink, Sheldon, Steele, Wright, Curran Nays : none Appeal 43190 APPROVED. The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the irregular shape of this lot constituted a hardship and therefore approval of this request is in keeping with the general intent of the code. Appeal #3192 - 5540 South Pennsylvania This is request by Stockwell Real Estate Group, Inc. for a sign variance to allow a second wall sign and a total sign area of 154 sq. ft. for Safelite Glass on the premises known as 5540 South . Pennsylvania. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. BZA Minutes March 12 , 1992 What we are Ken Stockwell , Stockwell Real Estate Group - Whis to lease proposing as a leasing agent and property manager, the space. We are not asking for a new sign, we are asking to move a sign, from one side of the building to another. Kris Runquist, property manager, work for Stockwell Real Estate Group. Correspondence A letter from Robert Mote, 837 Fred Street, does not want the variance granted. til the next Hull made a otion fmand the table appeal #3192 applicantcan discuss alternatives . meeting so that staf alternatives . Second by Spink. Yeas : Hilts , Sheldon, Clark, Spink, Hull, Wright, Curran Nays : Steele Appeal #3192 TABLED This request was tabled to allow an opportunity to work out any other alternatives that might be considered in lieu of the second wall sign, more particularly a redesign of the existing the installation of the proposed ground/pole sign or identification sign on the existing ground/pole sign. Appeal #3193 - 112 East Allegan Street This is a request by Community First Bank to replace an existing ground/pole sign with a new ground/pole sign of 54 . 2 sq. ft . , 16 . 75 ft. in height and extending to the right-of-way line, on the premises known as 112 East Allegan Street. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker . Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Steele is the variance for height and the square footage? Winnicker - Height 6 . 7 ' and square footage 24 . Jean Hughes from Valley City Sign. John Berg, vice president marketing director soon to be Community First Bank. Hughes - Capital Federal is becoming Community First Bank, they have two options , they could replace the name and the existing e the structure, bring sign without a variance; or they can chang it into closer conformance with the ordinance. The new sign is BZA Minutes March 12 , 1992 stationary, it will not revolve, it is internally lit. Hilts made a motion to approve the appeal, it is an improvement in the existing situation. Second by Clark. Yeas : Sheldon, Spink, Hilts , Hull, Wright, Clark, Steele, Curran Nays : none Appeal #3193 APPROVED. based on testimony and evidence that approval The Board found will allow the instalmat he existing" sign and halso suthatntthe reduction in size from permanent sign rotating sign would be discontinued and a p installed in its place. The Board believes that this would bsignificantiimprovement to the development and therefore approval ng with the general intent of the code. Minutes Sheldon made a motion to approve the February 13 , 1991 minutes . Second by Clark. Motion carried unanimously. New Business Steele moved that Dr. Spink be recommended and Hullo as a special outstanding volunteer, supported unanimously. Excused Absence Hilts requested an excused absence for the April meeting. Meeting adjourned 9 : 00 PM. - ernon C. Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals January 9 , 1992 - 7 : 30 PM City Hall Council Chambers loth floor cn The meeting was called to order by Chair H. P. Curran at 7 : 3��M, ` Roll call was taken. ro Present Q; Joan Sheldon Edward Spink , c� Grant Hilts N Bob HullCil Floyd Wright Mary Clark Christopher Steele H. P. Curran Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Appeal 43177 - 3402 Lowcroft This is a request by Louise Gross to operate a dog grooming salon as a home occupation on the premise of 3402 Lowcroft. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of . the subject property and surrounding land use. The Code limits the equipment that may be used in operation to a home occupation to that normally used for domestic or household purposes . The equipment used in dog grooming exceeds the defined limitation. Louise Marie Gross, 3401 Lowcroft. I was on general assistance but that has been taken away now. I have had a bad back for years and I think with this business of my own, I can work at my own pace. I would like to take the far bedroom on the south end of the house near the driveway and put a door and steps there and make that into a dog grooming room. I ' ll have a raised tub to bath them in, and a small grooming table, where I can cut and trim nails . I ' ll have a hand dryer and other supplies of soap and things like that. A couple of dog cages to put them in while 7aiting. It will be by appointment only and I will only have one a time. They will be coming as another one is leaving. I ve plenty of parking. 1 Curran - Do you have to have a license to do dog grooming? Gross - No. Communication A letter from a Nicole Dodge at 3417 Lowcroft, no objection. A letter from Susan Pennington, 3428 Lowcroft, no objection. A letter from Harold Holbrook, 3432 Lowcroft, no objection. A letter from William Clifford, 707 W. Holmes Road, no objection. A letter from Helen Littlefield, on 830 Edison, objects . Eileen Schmidts , 701 W. Holmes Road. I have no objection. I see no problem with it. Spink - not agreeable to putting in another door. Clark - Is the door that goes into the kitchen coming off the driveway or in back? Gross - The kitchen door is in front right by the tree on Lowcroft. Steele made a motion to approve appeal #3177 with conditions . Second by Hilts. Yeas: Clark, Hull, Hilts , Wright, Steele, Curran Nays: Spink, Sheldon Appeal #3177 APPROVED The request was approved subject to the following conditions: 1 . No person, other than a member of the family residing in the dwelling unit, engages in the home occupation. 2 . The use of the dwelling unit as a home occupation is clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes . 3 . Not more than 20o of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit is used in any way for the home occupation. 4. No change occurs in the outside appearance of the dwelling. 5. Not more than 1 sign exists, which sign does not exceed 1 square foot in area, is not illuminated, and is mounted flat against the wall of the dwelling. 6 . The sale of goods does not occur in the dwelling unit or on the lot on which the dwelling unit is located. 7. Not more than once customer is served at one time. 8. Approval of this variance shall be applicant and site specific. 2 9. That all the animals taken in for grooming shall be housed inside the home both before and after grooming. The Board believes the request is reasonable and was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the use proposed will not have any adverse impact on the adjacent residential development. Appeal 43178 , 6505 SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA This is a request by Dale Simon Service Station Manager to erect a new ground/pole sign of 54 sq. ft. , 8 ft . in height with a 5 . 25 ft. set back from the front property line on the premises known as 6505 South Pennsylvania. The new sign will be replacing an existing 133 sq. ft. , 25 ft. high sign with flashing lights in the same location. A presentation was given by Vern Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to replace an existing ground/pole sign of 133 sq ft of sign area, 25 ft in height with a 5 . 25 ft setback and flashing lights with a new ground/pole sign of 54 sq ft of sign area, 8 ft. in height with a 5 . 25 foot setback and no flashing lights . The applicant also proposes to maintain without alteration a second ground/pole sign at the back of the property of approximately 65 feet in height used for expressway identification for I-96 . Chris Knoll???? , from Shell Oil, 31275 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills. I have pictures of the existing sign we propose to install. Communication A telephone message from George Fritz , manager of the Days Inn on South Pennsylvania, has no objection, improvement to the existing situation. Hilts made a motion to approve appeal 43178 . Second by Clark. Yeas : Hilts, Wright, Sheldon, Clark, Spink, Steele, Hull, Curran Nays : none Appeal 43178 APPROVED The Board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the new proposed sign would be in closer compliance with the sign ordinance, therefore approval of the variance of this nature is in keeping with the general intent of the Code. 3 Appeal #3179 , 2004 Vermont Avenue This is a request by Michael and Terri O' Dell to construct a two story addition to the side of the structure and an attached two car garage within 17 feet of fAvthe rear property line on the premises known as 2004Vermont A presentation was given nsb Vern iFountain. ng land Slides were shown of the subject property and Mike O'Dell, 2004 Vermont. Its going to be a two story addition, and two car attached garage. Curran - Will the exterior all be the same? O' Dell - yes . Curran - will the big tree remain? O' Dell - yes . Clark made a motion to approve appeal 43179 on the basis of the hardship caused by the irregular shape lot . Second by Hull. Yeas : Spink, Hull, Sheldon, Hilts , Clark, Wright, Steele , Curran Nays: none Appeal #3179 APPROVED The Board found based on testimony and evidence that the lot in question is a corner �dshipTin lot is irregular making reasonablelnusehope and the therefore creates a ha property. The Board does not believe that the proposed construction will have any adverse impact on the adjacent development. Appeal 43180 , 228 Museum Drive This is a request by D.J. Krogol, Manager, Riverwalk Theatre to install a 4 x 10 ft. light htrearquee sign to advertise upcoming events at he Riverwalk A presentation was given by Vern Fountain. Slide were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. D.J. Krogol, Managing Director of Riverwalatre havee . Weadon' t front on any street. This is the only means t our disposable to get the changing program of events to the public. Sheldon made a motion to approve appeal #3180 . Second by Hilts . Yeas : Hilts , Clark, Hull, Spink, Sheldon, Steele, Wright, Curran 4 Nays : none Appeal #3180 APPROVED. The Board does not believe that the proposed sign will have any adverse impact on adjacent development and should enhance the use of the Riverwalk Theatre by advising people of coming events . The wall sign to be installed will be no larger than 4 x 10 and will be utilized for advertising upcoming events for the Riverwalk Theatre. Old Business Attendance of Board members for the last two years was submitted to the Board. Curran requested an excused absence for the Board meeting of February 13 , 1992 . Approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8 : 15 PM. --, lam' JY.., y/ ,� non C. Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 5