Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 1996 Minutes ♦, C �r�cHIGP� Office of City Clerk City of Lansing Marilynn Slade City Clerk TO: Rhonda Mubarakeh, Planning Department FROM: Dixie Gilmore, City Clerk's Office DATE: December 27 , 1996 SUBJECT: 1996 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes A review of our records indicates the following board minutes are not on file in the Clerk' s Office: September 12 October 10 November 14 December 12 The last board minutes placed on file with our office were for the meetings of May 9, June 13 , July 11 and August 8 (drafts only) . Would you please either provide the missing minutes or advise us of their status? Thank you for your cooperation in bringing this file up to date. /dlg Ninth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1695 • 517-483-4131 • 517-483-6066 FAX MEMO To: Dixie Gilmore, City Clerk's Office From: Rhonda Mubarakeh, Planning Offic �'��\!\ Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Date: January 2, 1997 I am sending you the minutes for July, August, September and October, 1996. They have all been approved, July and August at the September meeting, and September and October at the December meeting. I am working on minutes for November and December, and the May and June minutes are a mess, so I am trying to figure out what happened. They were approved, but what I have makes no sense (remember when I came up to see what you had for June?). If you have any questions, please call! Draft to Clerk 02/27/97 Approved 03/13/97 To Clerk 04/08/97 Rom.. Lrtvr { `7 APR �9 Fri 2. 42 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS LANSING CITY CLERK DECEMBER 12, 1996, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. The meeting was called to order by J. Page at 7.30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present C. Bicy J. Page E. Spink E. Horne H. LeBlanc J. Garcia M. Clark B. Excused Absences G. Hilts C. A quorum of seven members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Agenda was approved as printed. III. HEARINGS A. BZA-3425.96, 5116 S. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by Skyline Outdoor (applicant) for Paulic Enterprises (owner) for a variance in the distance of a billboard structure from a residential zoning district. The subject property is located at 5116 S. Pennsylvania Avenue and is in the "F" Commercial Zoning District. Section 1442.22(h) of the Sign Code requires that a billboard structure be a minimum distance of 75 feet from a residential zoning district. The request is to erect a billboard structure 61 feet from a residential zoning district; a variance of 14 feet is requested. Board of Zoning Appeals, December 12, 1996 Page 2 J. Ruff presented the case. This is just north of the Sir Pizza, and the Pennway Coffee Shop, as well as the Pennway Motel, both of which are zoned residential. Staff does not recommend approval, believing that it would set precedent, changing the sign code for this type of use. Cam Haskins, Skyline Outdoor, spoke. He stated that they have changed their proposal. They now want a sign 30' long, 88' from the motel, rather than 48' long. He said that the Restaurant is zoned residential, but it is a commercial business. He does understand the zoning laws, so wants to build a 30' long sign to try to comply. J. Page asked about the size of the signs; Mr. Haskins said that the sign will be 10' x 30', 300 square feet, along the roadside, a 20' setback from the right of way. He commented that there are other billboard signs along the right of way, so this would be consistent with the area. John Pavlic, owner of the property, spoke. He said that the Pennway Coffee shop has been in existence since the 40's or 50's. He said that South of Jolly Road, along S. Pennsylvania, is all commercial, unless you go onto the side streets. He said that they have talked to the neighbors, who are all in favor of the variance. They would like to go ahead with their plan. A communication was read into the record, from Dr. Schneeburger, who is opposed to the variance. The Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy asked how far out of the setback range they are. Mr. Ruff stated that they are still 61' from residentially zoned land. Discussion ensued. H. LeBlanc stated that she will not support the variance, as the code is very clear about keeping billboards 75' from residentially zoned land. M. Clark stated that she is also opposed to this variance. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny BZA-3425.96 at 5116 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, as it will set precedent which will affect the sign code. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay S ink X Page X Clark X Horne X Bicy X Garcia X LeBlanc X BZA-3425.96, 5116 S. Pennsylvania, Denied by a vote.of 7 - 0. B. BZA-3426.96, 3320 S. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by Paula Martin to establish a child care facility at 3320 S. Pennsylvania. This is a request fora variance to Section 1248.03(h) of the Zoning Code, which requires 900 square feet of outdoor play space. The applicant proposes to enclose a 36' x 23' (828 square feet) space in the front Board of Zoning Appeals, December 12, 1996 Page 3 yard. This is therefore a request for a variance of 72 square feet of outdoor play space. D. Wynant presented the proposal, summarizing the staff report. She stated that the actual area of variance needed is less than that advertised for, if all available area were put toward the play area. Paula Martin, applicant, spoke. She apologized for the mistake in measurement. She feels that there is a need for before and after school care, and stated that she has received many calls from families in the area looking for daycare for their children. She spoke of her need to be running right after the holidays. Bill Shepard, Stockwell Real Estate, leasing agent for the owner, spoke in support of the variance based upon the location of the property near the park. M. Clark asked her how much outdoor space is necessary. She said that hopefully 400 to 500 feet of space would be available. In future they hope to care for only older children, in which case this area would be used for staging. C. Bicy asked what they would do in case of inclement weather. Ms. Martin said that they cannot go out when the weather is bad, regardless of the amount of play space on the property. This is a licensing regulation. C. Bicy asked if there would be any walls torn down. Ms. Martin said that there would not be any walls torn down. C. Bicy asked how long a child in before and after care would be there. Ms. Martin answered that at the most, six hours. There would be 29 children maximum. C. Bicy asked if she had checked to see what the residents of the apartment complex feel about this. Ms. Martin said that she had not, as the apartment complex and the building she wants to use are both owned by the same owner. More discussion took place regarding the size of the play area, its proximity to the sidewalk and the road. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. The Board stated that a better site plan would help their understanding of the situation and that, based upon their discussion, it may be better to grant a greater variance so the play area could be further from the sidewalk, the road and the driveway. It was determined by staff that a new hearing would have to be held to consider a greater variance. E. Spink stated that he was in favor of landscaping between the parking lot and the adjacent home. M. Clark stated that it was a good location and H. LeBlanc expressed her support. It was moved by Bicy and seconded by Clark to table BZA 3426.96 so that the site plan may be refined and a new hearing be scheduled. IV. New Business A. None Board of Zoning Appeals, December 12, 1996 Page 4 V. Public Comment A. None. VI. Adjournment A. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 02/04/97 Approved 02/13/97 To Clerk 02/24/97 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVEMBER 14, 1996, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. The meeting was called to order by E. Horne at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present M. Clark H. LeBlanc E. Horne E. Spink G. Hilts C. Bicy J. Garcia B. Excused Absences J. Page C. A quorum of seven members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Agenda stands as printed. III. HEARINGS A. BZA-3420.96, 3720 Stoneleigh Drive This is a request by Douglas and Barbara Vander Jagt of 3720 Stoneleigh Drive to construct an addition onto the existing garage that would result in a sideyard setback of 4.68'. Section 1248.08(b)(2)(A) of the Zoning Code requires a sideyard setback of 6', therefore a variance of 1.32' is being requested. The proposed addition would accommodate other modifications to the home that would increase the amount of living space. There is a hardship involved in that any addition would extend into front yard setback, difficult grade changes, and other extensive changes. J. Ruff presented the case. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 14, 1996 Page 2 C. Bicy asked if there would be any changes in the height of the garage. Mr. Ruff said that the garage would become a two story portion of the house. Doug Vander Jagt, owner and applicant, spoke. He stated that he is a 14 year resident. He wants to enhance the property and area. He feels he is in a good location. He has talked with the neighbors, and finds that they feel the design is in conjunction with the rest of the neighborhood. The alternatives are difficult. H. LeBlanc asked about the location of the garage. Mr. Vander Jagt said that they would like to move the garage space over about 10 feet, with a breezeway in between, and a study, bedroom, and bathroom above the garage. This space would be for Mr. and Mrs. Vander Jagt, and an elderly family member will move into existing space. Andy Frederick, 3728 Stoneleigh, neighbor to the Vander Jagts, spoke to say that he and his wife are appearing in support of the project. They feel that the addition as planned would add to the character and value of the neighborhood. He encourages the board to approve the appeal. The Board dissolved into the Committee of the Whole. H. LeBlanc stated that the Planning Boards goals and objectives spoke to the issue of our aging population, and this alternative falls in with this goal. C. Bicy asked if this garage is going to remain a two car garage. Mr. Ruff said that it would be, although it will be made deeper to handle the need for additional inside storage, but it would still be a two car garage. M. Clark stated that she will support this variance, She finds it to be a reasonable request. The side yard would still have maintenance room. E. Spink stated that, based upon the discussion tonight, he would support the minimal side yard, as long as the curb cut will be relocated in front of the garage, and the green space be re-added to the area in front of the garage. C. Bicy stated that he too supports the request for the same reasons. He feels that it is a minimal variance. He assumes that the second floor living space will be in compliance, and will be similar in appearance to the rest of the structure. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3420.96 at 3720 Stoneleigh Drive, with conditions as in the staff report: • removal of front yard parking, including removal of the concrete drive approach to the existing garage stall which will be converted to living space • obtaining written authorization to construct in the private public utilities easement (five feet width) on the south lot line prior to attaining a building permit Also, the curb cut will be relocated, and green space added. Motion seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Clark X Horne X Hilts X Garcia X LeBlanc X I S ink I X Bicy X BZA-3420.96 at 3720 Stoneleigh Drive is approved. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 14, 1996 Page 3 B. BZA-3421.96, 2500-2520 S. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by Lansing Cellular Telephone Company ("AirTouch Cellular") to construct a 155 ft. Cellular monopole tower at 2500-2520 S. Pennsylvania Avenue. Section 1274.09 of the Zoning Code allows a maximum height of 120 ft. in the "H" Light Industrial District. Therefore, a 35' height variance is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. Jim Keefer, Dykema Gossett, representing Airtouch Cellular, spoke. He introduced Doris Beck and Bill Veraso of Airtouch Cellular. A packet was supplied to the Board members. Mr. Keefer presented some of the highlights of Cell phone services. He stated that they are trying to concur with the staff report, which recommends moving the pole to the north west corner of the site, to eliminate the visual clutter near the billboard and electrical lines along Pennsylvania Avenue. Bill Veraso of Airtouch Cellular spoke. He talked about the coverage, the capacity, and the radio frequency necessary. Rev. Bicy asked several questions concerning the height of other towers in the area. H. LeBlanc asked about the distance from the nearest buildings. Mr. Veraso indicated that the nearest buildings are on the other side of the railroad tracks, approximately 60 feet from the tower. M. Clark asked about the interference that might occur at the Hospital. Mr. Veraso said that there would be no interference. Dr. Spink asked staff if the relocation of the tower on the site would necessitate readvertisement of the case. Mr. Ruff said that it would not have to be readvertised, as it is on the same lot. Bill Sharkey, 918 Durant Street, speaking in opposition to the appeal, asked that his letter be read into the record. E. Horne made a request that all the monopole tower appeals be pulled together so that the Board would have the information. Mr. Ruff said that there is presently a company mapping the area. It is not yet complete, but when it is completed, he will see if we can get copies of it. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Mr. Sharkey's letter was dealt with by Mr. Keefer, who answered the questions posed: • There are no adverse health effects from cellular towers. This is summarized in the packet • Cellular towers are very strong; during Hurricane Hugo, the poles were able to sustain great winds • The pole is grounded, but there is always the chance that lightening may strike anything that tall • Vandals are always a possibility, but they will be using door alarms and sensory equipment to help prevent vandalism • There are other similar towers in Lansing, with no safety infractions. Board of Zoning Appeals, November 14, 1996 Page 4 Discussion concerning Cellular towers took place, concerning the placement of towers, height of towers, and other tower issues. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3421.96 at 2500-2520 S. Pennsylvania Avenue for a 155' tower with a monopole structure, in the North West corner of the property, with no barbed wire fencing, which proves to be an attractive nuisance. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Hilts X Horne X Clark X Garcia X LeBlanc X S ink I X BZA-3421.96 at 2500-2520 S. Pennsylvania Avenue approved by a vote of 6 - 1. C. BZA-3422.96, 2720 N. East Street This is a request by Donald K. Kurtz (applicant) for Drake Serges (owner) for a rear yard variance to permit an addition onto a commercial structure located at 2720 N. East Street. Section 1268.08 of the "F" Commercial District requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. The applicant is requesting permission to build with a setback of 5 feet; a variance of 20 feet in the rear yard setback is requested. The applicant wishes to add to the north and south ends of the building and have a 5 foot setback from the south (rear) property line. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff is concerned with the balance between building and parking on commercial sites, and specifically with the orientation of this property, as the extra 20 feet would take up parking spaces. Staff recommends denial, but is open to other options on the site, which would allow a larger building but can still maintain more parking than what is proposed. Drake Serges, owner of 2720 N. East Street, spoke. He bought this property in April of 1993, and had hoped that someday an addition would be called for, and it is now. He stated that the aisles are jammed with merchandise, they are narrow, they sell jewelry with nice showcases, but it isn't possible with the 2000 square feet that they currently have. He said that after they submitted the plans, they reexamined the situation and determined that if they can get the variance south within 5 feet of the setback, they wouldn't have to go north. The existing building could then be used for storage only, with the addition being retail space. M. Clark enquired about Mr. Serges offer to only build on the south of the building, and wondered if he would be willing to delay action on the case for a month so that he can be more prepared. Mr. Serges said that he thought it would be a good idea. E. Horne asked him to include buffering. E. Spink indicated that a hardship needs to stated before the board can even consider the appeal. He said that they need to avoid creating other Board of Zoning Appeals, November 14, 1996 Page 5 problems. G. Hilts said that the hardship issue is not addressed in the request for variance or the staff report. M. Clark made a motion to table BZA-3422.96 at 2720 N. East Street. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy, and approved unanimously on a voice vote. D. BZA-3423.96, 925 Stanley Street This is a request by Lansing Cellular Telephone Company ("AirTouch Cellular") to construct a 155 ft. Cellular monopole tower at 925 Stanley Street. Section 1248.10 of the Zoning Code allows a maximum height of 35 ft. in the "B" Residential District. Therefore, a 120' height variance is requested. Also, the equipment shelter is proposed to be located 15 ft. from the rear lot line and the monopole tower is located 20 ft. from the rear lot line. Section 1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a 30' rear yard setback. Therefore, 15' and 10' variances are requested respectively for the structures. J. Ruff presented the case. J. Keefer, spoke. He said that the comments are the same as for the 2500-2520 S. Pennsylvania site. They believe that this is an ideal site, at the back corner of the park, close to the railroad tracks, behind the trees. They agree with the staff recommendation and are available tonight to answer questions. Ms. Horne stated that we have received two communications, one from Mr. Phil Sharkey of the Old Oakland Association, 918 Durant Street, which has already been read into the record during the hearing of BZA-3421.96, and one from Diane Britt of 919 Durant, which was read into the record. Doris Beck said that she had talked to Ms. Britt, and believed her questions were answered. She went over the concerns for the Board. Discussion ensued regarding the lease between the Parks Department and the Cellular Phone Company. It is understood by Airtouch Cellular that if the tower ceases to be used, the tower would be removed. Phil Sharkey, Old Oakland Neighborhood Association, spoke. He had a couple of issues that he needed clarified, including setbacks and the name of the park in question (West Side Park). The Old Oakland Neighborhood Organization had no recommendation for this request, although H. LeBlanc let Mr. Sharkey know that the Planning Board would be hearing the SLU in the future, and they could make a recommendation at that time, if they would like to. Dr. Spink inquired if this appeal would include barbed wire. It was determined that barbed wire could not be used at all, and this should be mentioned in the motion. H. LeBlanc stated that she would be supporting the height variance, although she does, in general, have reservations about using public property for private uses, although this is a special case, with the railroad tracks and the Board of Water and• Light buildings here. E. Horne said that she would not be supporting the Board of Zoning Appeals, November 14, 1996 Page 6 variance, because she doesn't believe in using park land for private businesses; this has been her policy for the last five years, and she will not deviate from it. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3423.96 at 925 Stanley Street, on the condition that the Special Land Use/ACT is approved, landscaping is added, and that no barbed wire is used, based upon the finding that the location, which is adjacent to a railroad and the General Motors plant, is reasonable. E. Spink seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Clark X Horne X Hilts X Garcia X LeBlanc X Spink X Bicy X BZA-3423.96 at 925 Stanley Street approved with conditions by a vote of 6 - 1. E. BZA-3424.96,1208 Edward Street This is a request by Mary E. Page, 1208 Edward Street (owner and resident) for a variance in the side yard setback to permit construction of a bedroom addition. The "B" Residential District requires a minimum side yard setback of six feet (Section 1248.08 of the Zoning Code). The applicant is requesting to construct a bedroom addition and maintain the existing side yard setback of 2 feet on the west side of the home. A variance of 4 feet is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. Mary Page, 1208 Edward Street, introduced herself and her builder, Carl Buck. She restated her variance request, and said that she would try to answer any questions. One of the board members asked if there would be an expansion of the second floor, as well as the first. Ms. Page said that there would not be. No one else spoke. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA 3424.96 at 1208 Edward Street for a 4' variance, due to the hardship of the existing construction, and in the interest of not decreasing the existing setback. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Hilts X Horne X Clark X Garcia X LeBlanc X Spink X BZA-3424.96 at 1208 Edward Street approved by a vote of 7 - 0. Board of Zoning Appeals, .dovember 14, 1996 Page 7 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item: 3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street 1. This item remained on the table. B. Tabled Item: 3418.96, 6131 S. Pennsylvania Avenue 1. This item remained on the table. C. Tabled Item: 3410.96, 900 Long Blvd. J. Ruff summarized the Board's activity regarding this case. H. LeBlanc moved and M. Clark seconded to remove this item from the table. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. The applicant, Marty DuBois of Central Advertising, presented a new drawing and map of the proposed location. He stated that there would only be 8.6 seconds of visibility as one drives along the highway. He stated that they would reduce the size of the sign to a maximum of 18' in height. E. Horne asked if they had been asked to do some landscaping. Mr. DuBois stated that the had been asked to do landscaping, and they intended to do landscaping, but the artist who did the rendering didn't do it as requested. M. Clark asked how this sign compared to most highway signs. Mr. Ruff said that it is small compared to most. C. Bicy asked what would happen to the old sign if the new sign is approved. Mr. DuBois said that they would tear down the old sign. Mr. Bicy asked how long it would take to get the new sign up. Mr. DuBois said that they should be done this winter; they will take down the old sign at the same time as they put up the new sign. He said that the sign could be externally illuminated or internally illuminated, but it would be less expensive to illuminate it externally. The sign is going to be smaller than the existing, but is still 200 sq. ft. larger than the allowed signage. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3410.96 at 900 Long Blvd. for a 240 square foot sign, a maximum of 18' tall with an enclosed base and low key exterior illumination, with landscaping and the original sign to be removed, finding that a large sign is needed for visibility, the 50' setback, the sign is shorter, further back, and smaller. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Hilts X Horne X Clark X Garcia X LeBlanc X S ink X BZA-3410.96 at 900 Long Blvd. approved by a vote of 7 - 0. Board of Zoning Appeals, ,Jovember 14, 1996 Page 8 V. PUBLIC COMMENT A. No one present. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. No minutes ready at this time. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. E. Horne discussed the Board Chairs meeting VIII. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 10.50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 12/05/96 Approved 12/12/96 To Clerk 01/02/97 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 10, 1996, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:40 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present M. Clark H. LeBlanc E. Horne J. Page G. Hilts C. Bicy J. Garcia B. Excused Absences E. Spink C. A quorum of seven members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Agenda was amended: Elections took place at September meeting III. HEARINGS A. BZA-3417.96, 1518 Vine Street This is a request by Nancy E. Willmott, to retain an approximate 10' x 16' front porch on the front of the house at 1518 Vine Street which replaced an approximate 6' x 16' porch. Section 1250.07 of the Zoning Code requires a 20' front yard setback. The porch has a 6' front yard setback. Therefore, a 14' setback variance is requested. A permit was issued allowing the replacement of the existing porch, but not the enlargement. J. Ruff presented the case. Board of Zoning Appeals, October 10, 1996 Page 2 N. Willmott, owner of 1518 Vine Street, spoke. She stated that there was no hardship. It is in an older neighborhood, and others like it, it doesn't block the view of the neighbors, it looks better, and provides more space for use. The old porch wasn't really usable. E. Horne asked how long Ms. Willmott had owned 1518 Vine. She said that she had owned and lived there for ten years. This past year she has relocated. Larry Parks, owner of 215 Custer, stated that he jogs by there every day. He feels that the porch enhances the building and doesn't detract from the area or appear out of line with the neighboring structures. No one else spoke. Chair Page read letters and communications into the record-- Letters: Wayne and Delores Wood, in favor; Jerry Ward, in favor; Thomas Cook, in favor; Kate Koskinen, opposed; David Muylle, opposed. Phone calls: Sharon Pierce, in favor and Mary Margaret Woll, on behalf of Eastside Neighborhood Organization, opposed. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she will not support the appeal. She appreciates the expense of the owner, but feels that there is a lot of overcrowding in the area. She feels that there is a need for green yard space. G. Hilts stated that without a proven hardship, this appeal should not be granted. H. LeBlanc said that she will not support it as it would set a precedent. C. Bicy reiterated LeBlanc's comment, but added that he will support a porch of the original size. J. Garcia sympathized with the owner, but can't support for similar reasons. E. Horne agrees with her colleagues, but wishes to add that the street is narrow as is the lot. She also asked if the restrictions were stated on the permit, when the building permit was issued. Mr. Ruff said that the permit was issued for replacement only. C. Bicy made a motion to deny BZA-3417.96 at 1518 Vine Street, but to modify the request to allow reconstruction in the original size. The motion was seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Clark X Hilts X Garcia X LeBlanc X Horne X Page X BZA-3417.96 at 1518 Vine Street was denied by a vote of 7 to 0. the porch is required to be modified and rebuilt to the original size. B. BZA-3418.96, 6131 S. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by Bill Snethkamp Dodge-Saab Inc. for variances in the number, height, area, and setback of pole signs permitted in the "F" Commercial zoning district. The applicant wants to remove one non-conforming sign that is 23 feet Board of Zoning Appeals, October 10, 1996 Page 3 tall, 31 .5 square feet in area, and set back 2 feet from the front property line, replacing it with a sign that is 18 feet tall, 32.5 square feet in area, and set back 6.75 feet from the property line. The applicant also wishes to relocate an existing pole sign that is set back .5 feet, so that the setback will be increased to 4.5 feet. The sign code permits a maximum of one pole sign of 170 square feet in area, 30 feet in height and set back a minimum of 30 feet from the front property line. The current number of ground pole signs on the site is five, one of which is 36 feet in height. A variance of four pole signs, 6 feet in height, 212.5 square feet in sign area, and 59.25 feet of setback is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. Gary Sturk, 1895 Danbury East, Okemos, representing Snethkamp, spoke. He said that they appreciate the hearing. He said that Snethkamp wouldn't be here for a variance without the Saab logo having to be changed. It used to be Joseph Chrysler/Plymouth and most of the signs have been in their present location for 25 years. It would present an economic hardship to relocate the signs and Saab could remove the franchise from Snethkamp, if the sign is not changed. The showroom was built close to the street, but if it were back further they could gain a greater setback. He has reviewed the staff report and wants the Board to consider the following: • many of the signs have been in place for a considerable time • they disagree with the idea of the light poles being centralized to remove clutter; presently the site is well lighted whether the business is open or not, and primarily for security, they wish to leave the lights in place and in fact have an agreement with the Police Department allowing them to cruise through the lot when the business is closed • the card advertised that the sign would be 7.5' back yet it is 10 feet back from the front property line. Also, the overall height of the main Dodge sign is 30 feet tall rather than 36' as advertised • the directional sign for the Knights Inn and the body shop is important. If this sign is not there, people drive into the main lot and then have to reenter Pennsylvania Avenue to get to the body shop. Therefore, it's important to keep this sign for safety purposes • the temporary banner signs on the light poles are the same type of signs that they have at Spartan, Mike Miller, Capitol, University, and other dealerships. It's part of their display function, and the flags are changed periodically • the dealership has three street frontages, including Pennsylvania, Miller, and Ramada. They would work with the city, and yet prefer not to remove light poles. C. Bicy asked if it was possible to put the Saab sign under the Dodge sign. Mr. Sturk stated that Dodge owns the sign and has an easement for its location. They requested to do this, but Dodge did not allow it. C. Bicy then asked if they could put in a sign island next to the Dodge sign. Mr. Sturk stated that it would block the Board of Zoning Appeals, October 10, 1996 Page 4 drive aisle. G. Hilts asked if corporate ownership of the sign is a common requirement with other car dealers. Mr. Sturk stated that Dodge owns and maintains the sign, and the dealer is caught in the middle. No one else spoke. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that this is a difficult question, as the Board has made an attempt to bring signs more in conformance with the sign code. Due to the size of the property and need for directional signage, some signs may be necessary. Further, she would like to table this item in order to clear up the sign questions. H. LeBlanc stated that there are three basic issues: first, replacing the old sign with a new sign for Saab, second, addressing the signs in the right of way, and third, the signs on the poles for temporary advertising. Further, she would support some sort of signage variance, pending correction of other signage. J. Ruff summarized the process of sign enforcement. C. Bicy would like to see this item tabled in order to come up with overall solutions to the signage issue. J. Garcia stated that he does not wish to see the Board add to the hardship of the business and so would like to have the dealership work with the Planning Office to come up with an overall action plan that can be implemented over a period of time. E. Horne stated that she believes it would be appropriate for the dealership to hire a sign consultant. It may take more than a month. C. Bicy made a motion to table BZA-3418.96 at 6131 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, for further information, bring illegal signs into conformance, and discuss with the Planning Office and Saab what sign size would be allowed to come closest into compliance. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts. The motion was carried unanimously on a voice vote. C. BZA-3419.96, 110/112/114 E. Kilborn Street This is a request by Donald and Veronica Wilson, 210 Strathmore Road, Lansing, Michigan, to divide and sell the property commonly known as 110, 112, and 114 E. Kilborn Street. These three principal structures are all located on a single parcel (PPN#3301-09-408-221)within the "D-1" Professional Office District. This parcel measures 99' x 132' and contains approximately 13,068 sq. ft. The owner has submitted a lot split application to divide this parcel into three separate lots measuring approximately 33' in width, which will result in reduced side yard setbacks. The resulting lots will have side yards measuring 9.5', 5.2% and 6.8' for the principal structures and 2.2', 1.3', and 1.2' for the accessory structure. Section 1260.07 of the Zoning Code requires minimum sideyard setbacks of 10,; therefore, variances of.5', 4.8', and 3.2' are requested for the principal structures and 7.8', 8.7', and 8.8' for the accessory structures. J. Ruff presented proposal and process. Don Wilson, owner of 110/112/114 E. Kilborn, spoke. He said that these lots are larger than some of the other lots. He further stated that they have a buyer for 114 E. Kilborn. Mr. Wilson used to have a partner, but the partner died. He further stated that they want to sell 114 and have the money to fix up the other two Board of Zoning Appeals, October 10, 1996 Page 5 properties. He said that the improvements are pending, including possible siding for the other houses. There will be no other changes for the structures. They wish to keep the other two as rentals. They like the Old Town area and wish to fix up their properties. If garages were torn down the houses would be exposed to a nearby commercial parking lot. Veronica Wilson spoke. She said that one house dates to 1898. The first house built was 112 E. Kilborn, then the other two on the same lot. It is zoned for office, and they have been rentals for a long time. They would prefer to get more homeowners occupying the structures, which means the lots would have to be divided. No one else spoke. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff stated that the variance only applies to the proposed lot lines in between the structures. There was discussion with regard to the potential need for parking, since the properties are in the office district, and the need for driveway easements between the structures. M. Clark made a motion based upon testimony, evidence and the staff report, to approve BZA- 3419.96 at 110/112/114 E. Kilborn Street, with the condition that easements be granted for the driveways, pending City Council approval of the lot division. H. LeBlanc seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Hilts X Horne X Clark X Garcia X LeBlanc X Page X BZA-3419.96 at 1 1 011 1 2/1 1 4 E. Kilborn Street is approved with conditions. E. Horne stated that home ownership would be a positive improvement that will bring stability to the area. M. Wilson commented that the easements are being written. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Tabled Item: 3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street Remained on the Table B. Tabled Item: 3410.96, 900 Long Blvd. J. Ruff summarized the Board's activity regarding this case. H. LeBlanc moved and M. Clark seconded to remove this item from the table. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Board of Zoning Appeals, October 10, 1996 Page 6 The applicant, Marty DuBois of Central Advertising, introduced the manager of the apartments. Kelly Austin, Property manager, Oak Park Village, stated that Oak Park Village contains 618 units, and she requests the Boards help in order to build the sign. The sign will help market the property and maximize occupancy. The current sign is in a poor location, is only partially visible, and is deteriorated. Oak Park Village is service oriented and participates in many community programs. She further stated that she wants help to continue to be a premier housing supplier. Marty DuBois, Central Advertising, stated that the president of the company helped draft the sign code, and they do not put up any signs without permits. He encouraged the Board to drive through the apartment complex. It is well maintained, clean and neat in appearance. The apartments pool of applicants has dropped significantly, 8% last year alone. He stated that no one stops in anymore. The apartments have advertised in other ways, which has not helped. He stated that 35% of travelers are traveling in unfamiliar territory, and they need a sign large enough for visibility along the highway. He further stated some sign and accident statistics. Finally, he stated that the sign will enhance the community and that people who see the sign will hurt no one but will affect many. C. Bicy asked why the application was tabled. J. Ruff responded that it was tabled so that the manager could come and more information could be provided. M. Clark asked why the sign was on the highway. M. DuBois stated that it was to give direction and to identify the complex. E. Horne gave background on the time and process of the approval of the construction of the apartment complex, and stated that she would need more information and could not vote on it tonight. Mr. DuBois stated that he had talked to the developer, Gordon Long. According to Mr. Long, this sign existed prior to him owning the property, which was a farm located on Willoughby Road. G. Hilts asked why the land use issue 24 years ago was relevant to today's sign issue. E. Horne stated that it was necessary to refresh her memory. Mr. DuBois stated that the property has changed hands. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. M. Clark asked J. Ruff to clarify the small signs on Willoughby Road. J. Ruff stated that the small signs on Willoughby Road are located on different properties and along the private drives internal to the apartment complex. M. Clark further stated that she was not sure the sign helps direct people, but that name identification is reasonably appropriate. She would prefer less of a billboard appearance, and more residential character. Mr. DuBois stated that at such a high rate of speed, they need certain size of letters for readability, and their research shows that a lack of signage results in a drop in customer traffic. G. Hilts stated that he was uncomfortable in approving a larger sign as proposed. Mr. DuBois asked if the Board would consider a sign the same size. J. Ruff also stressed other parts of the sign design need to be addressed, such as the height, the landscaping, and the character of the sign. Additional discussion ensued. After further discussion, Mr. DuBois requested the item to be tabled for one more month while he addressed the Board's concerns, and would provide a more detailed drawing and site plan. C. Bicy motioned and H. LeBlanc seconded to table the item. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Board of Zoning Appeals, October 10, 1996 Page 7 V. PUBLIC COMMENT None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. No minutes ready at this time. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. None at this time VIII. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals n Draft to Clerk 12/05/96 `. Approved 12/12/96 To Clerk 01/02/97 i }, �§ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS _',i:• SEPTEMBER 12, 1996, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:31 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present M. Clark H. LeBlanc E. Horne E. Spink G. Hilts C. Bicy (arrived at 7:47) J. Garcia B. Excused Absences J. Page C. A quorum of seven members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator D. Wynant, Senior Planner I1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Agenda was approved as printed. III. HEARINGS A. BZA-3410.96, 900 Long Blvd. This is a request by Central Advertising (applicant) on behalf of Oak Park Village (owner) for a variance to move and reconstruct a non-conforming Multiple Residential District Ground Pole identification sign on the north side of 900 Long Blvd. Section 1442.12(h)(2) permits one sign per lot up to 40 square feet in size and 6 feet in height; the existing sign is 250 square feet in size and 15 feet in height, and is requested to be moved to a new location, reduced to 300 square Board of Zoning Appeals, September 12, 1996 Page 2 feet in size and 20 feet in height. Variances of 260 square feet in size and 14 feet in height are requested. J. Ruff presented the case. M. DuBois of Central Advertising spoke. The apartment complex manager could not attend this meeting. Mr. DuBois stated that they were doing additional research to determine if this sign was permitted. He requested that the variance request be tabled until the next meeting. No one else spoke. M. Clark made a motion to table BZA-3410.96 at 900 Long Blvd. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay S ink X Clark X Hilts X Garcia X LeBlanc X Horne X BZA-3410.96 at 900 Long Blvd. was tabled. B. BZA-3411.96, 3601 S. Cedar Street This is a request by Central Advertising Company to replace a 93 square foot, 21 foot tall ground pole sign with an 81 square foot, 23 foot tall sign, 9 feet from the front property line at 3601 S. Cedar Street. Section 1442.12(h)(5)(B) of the Sign Code requires a setback of 23 feet for a sign of this size; therefore, a variance of 14 feet is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He then read a letter into the record from M. Marcos. M. DuBois, of Central Advertising, spoke. He stated that they didn't want to lower the sign to 15', as the staff report recommended, because people could then steal the numbers off of the sign. He stated that they want to keep the same 20' height that they already have. He doesn't know of any other Clark station that has a sign this low. No one else spoke. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Questions were asked regarding the sign, whether a diesel sign would be retained, and the maximum improvements allowed. H. LeBlanc made a motion that BZA-3411.96 at 3601 S. Cedar Street be approved for a 12 foot setback variance, which would maintain a 9' clearance from grade, for a sign of 72 square feet and a maximum of 21 feet in height. The motion was seconded by M. Clark. Board of Zoning Appeals, September 12, 1996 Page 3 VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X LeBlanc X Hilts X Garcia X Horne X Clark X S ink X BZA-3411.96 at 3601 S. Cedar Street was approved as modified by a vote of 7 to 0. C. BZA-3412.96, 1801 N. Grand River This is a request by Central Advertising Company to modify the existing 19.5' tall, 66 sq. ft. ground pole sign that is located at 1801 N. Grand River Avenue. The modified sign would be 20' tall, contain 72 sq. ft. of sign area and be 5' from the front property line. Section 1442.12(h)(5)(B) of the Sign Code requires a setback of 20.2' for a sign of this size; therefore, a setback variance of 15.2 feet is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. M. DuBois of Central Advertising Company spoke. He stated that the current sign is 5 feet from the property line. The proposed sign would be 8 feet from the property line. He also stated that the sign is not in a lawn area, but rather a paved area. If the sign is lowered, due to the paved state of the lot, cars could conceivably hit the sign. The 72 square foot size is standard for the Total stations. It is 6 square feet larger than the existing sign, but is also 3 additional feet from the property line and is aesthetically more pleasing. No one else spoke. Some discussion ensued between the Board members and Mr. Ruff, concerning possibilities for signage at this location. It was noted that the setback variance would not be to move the sign, but to maintain the existing pole and just the size of the sign head is 3' smaller from the pole which increases the setback. C. Bicy made a motion, based upon testimony, evidence, and the staff report, to approve BZA- 3412.96 at 1801 N. Grand River Avenue for a sign 19.5' tall with a setback of 6' and with 72 square feet of sign area. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc. H. LeBlanc noted that the plastic pennants should not be up. M. Clark noted that she is supporting this motion reluctantly due to the minimal improvement to the setback; however, she finds it aesthetically better. E. Horne agreed with these comments. Board of Zoning Appeals, September 12, 1996 Page 4 VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Hilts X Horne X Clark X Garcia X LeBlanc X S ink X BZA-3412.96 at 1801 N. Grand River Avenue is approved as modified, by a vote of 6 to 1. D. BZA-3413.96, 1128 Prospect Street This is a request by Thomas Culver to construct a 22' x 27' detached garage eight feet from the east property line along Jones Street. Section 1250.08(a)(1) of the Zoning Code requires a 20' minimum front yard setback for this corner lot. A variance of 12' is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this is basically a two-story brick home, zoned "C" Residential, and the surrounding zoning and land use are similar. The garage is situated so that the doors would enter off the north side of the garage, and the driveway could be used, and an additional curb cut is not being requested. It would not stick out further than the property at 312 Jones, even though it does stick out between the porch and the house. It would maintain the three foot side and rear yard setback. J. Ruff read a letter into the record from F. R. Dunavant, who is opposed to the variance. Mr. Culver, owner of the property, was present, and stated that he is there to answer questions. The Board asked him why he wanted to build a garage. He stated that he wants to store his car, his tools, and an old truck in the garage. Mayberry Clem, of 1005 Clem Road, DeWitt, spoke in opposition to the variance request. He is the owner of 1126 Prospect, which shares a joint drive with 1128 Prospect. He is concerned that there might be a safety problem, and that this garage may block the view from the drive. J. Ruff asked about the driveway easement. It was determined that the extent of the easement is unknown. He stated that his understanding of the easement is that both parking and driving are allowed. M. Clark stated that she doesn't have a problem with granting the setback from Jones Street. She feels that this is not a major issue in terms of visibility or aesthetics; and feels that allowing garages on these lots makes them more usable. She does, however, have a problem with not knowing where the easement is. She is not willing to grant a variance for a building that may be in an illegal right of way. She wants clarification on that before Board of Zoning Appeals, September 12, 1996 Page 5 action is taken. J. Ruff said that the variance is for an 8 foot setback, and if the property rights prohibit the building in the easement, the garage would have to be built narrower. Several options were discussed. E. Spink said that the variance deals with the east side of the garage. The easement is not something the Board needs to deal with. Discussion ensued between M. Clark and the Board concerning this issue. C. Bicy made a motion based upon testimony, evidence, and the staff report, to approve BZA- 3413.96 for a 12' variance, 1128 Prospect Street with Conditions: a) the driveway be hard surfaced b) the easement be verified to eliminate any conflict with the shared driveway easement. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Bicy X Garcia X Hilts X Clark X Horne X LeBlanc X Spink X BZA-3413.96 at 1128 Prospect Street is approved with conditions by a vote of 7 to 0. E. BZA-3414.96, 1013 W. Mt. Hope Avenue This is a request by Thomas & Jane Ringenberg to construct a 20.3' x 11.2' rear addition 20'6" from the rear property line. Section 1248.09 of the Zoning Code requires a 30' minimum setback for this lot. A variance of 9'6'' is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. Jane Ringenberg, applicant, spoke. She said that they want to rip off the muddled addition that is there now, and build a new addition. The square footage will become more equal to others in the area. They are not going to have a basement or attic on this addition. Their neighbors are agreeable to this plan. Discussion ensued from the Board. C. Bicy wondered how many square feet this addition will have. He was told that it would be approximately 200 square feet. Board of Zoning Appeals, September 12, 1996 Page 6 E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3414.96 at 1013 W. Mt. Hope Avenue based upon the findings of the staff, for a 9'6" setback variance. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Hilts X Garcia X Bicy X Horne X Clark X Spink X BZA-3414.96 at 1013 W. Mt. Hope Avenue has been approved by a vote of 7 to 0. F. BZA-3415.96, 309 N. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by Maurice and Nancy Nelson, 309 N. Pennsylvania, to operate a one-chair beauty salon in their home. This is a request for a variance to Section 1248.03(3)(7) of the Zoning Code, which regulates home occupations. D. Wynant presented the case. Nancy Nelson, applicant, spoke. She stated that she is a new mother, and would like to work out of her home to be able to spend more time with her children. No one else spoke. Discussion ensued from the Board. C. Bicy asked where she worked in the past. She said that she worked at Ebony and Ivory and at Sheer Magic. E. Spink stated that he usually votes against Beauty Shop variances; however, considering the busy location, and that this would not add traffic to Pennsylvania Avenue, he would be supporting the request. E. Horne was concerned about the number of hours of operation. Further discussion ensued. C. Bicy made a motion based upon testimony, evidence and the staff report, to approve BZA- 3415.96 at 309 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, with conditions, as found in the staff report: 1. The owner shall not employ anyone not a resident at this address. 2. No commodity shall be sold from the premises. 3. Not more than twenty percent of the floor area of the building shall be used for the Beauty Shop. 4. Not more than one customer's vehicle, or family of customers' vehicle, shall be parked on site at one time, thereby limiting the number of customer vehicles to one. 5. No more than one non-illuminated sign, not to exceed one square foot in size, will be allowed. 6. Approval of this variance is both site- and applicant- specific. Board of Zoning Appeals, September 12, 1996 Page 7 The motion was seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Hilts X Garcia X Bicy X Horne X Clark X Spink X BZA-3415.96 at 309 N. Pennsylvania Avenue has been approved with conditions by a vote of 7 to 0. G. BZA-3416.96, 2101 W. Hillsdale Street This is a request by Edna Joyce Johnson for a variance in the side yard setback for a proposed 20' x 24' attached garage at the side of the house at 2101 W. Hillsdale Street. The proposed setback is three feet from the side property line; Section 1248(b)(2)(A) of the Zoning Code requires a side yard setback of six feet in the "A" Residential District. Therefore, this is a requested variance of three feet. J. Ruff presented the case. Edna Joyce Johnson, applicant, spoke. She said that she had shared a drawing of the addition with her neighbors and they have all given a positive response. The addition would be brick. Discussion ensued from the Board. C. Bicy made a motion based upon testimony, evidence and the staff report, to approve BZA- 3416.96 at 2101 W. Hillsdale Street for a 3' setback for a 20' x 24' attached garage, with removal of the existing garage. Seconded by E. Spink. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Hilts X Garcia X Bicy X Horne X Clark X Spink X BZA-3416.96 at 2101 W. Hillsdale Street has been approved by a vote of 7 to 0. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Policy and Procedure Board of Zoning Appeals, September 12, 1996 Page 8 Nothing at this time. B. Tabled Item: BZA-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar No action requested or taken at this time. V. PUBLIC COMMENT None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of May 9, 1996 Two corrections must be made; M. Clark is shown voting twice on one issue, and H. LeBlanc was absent. B. Minutes of June 13, 1996 C. Bicy made a motion to approve the minutes of May 1996, and June 1996, with corrections. Motion seconded by E. Spink, and approved by a voice vote. C. Minutes of July 11, 1996 H. LeBlanc was present, and on page 6, H. LeBlanc requested an excused absence for August, as did G. Hilts. On page 2, E. Horne rather than E. Hilts. On page 5, E. Horne inquired about new businesses and parking. On page 6, E. Spink was not listed as voting, which he did. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve the minutes of July 1996, with corrections. Seconded by C. Bicy. The motion was approved on a voice vote. D. Minutes of August 8, 1996 E. Horne made a motion to approve the minutes as printed, seconded by M. Clark, and approved on a voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Officers E. Spink made a motion to elect Mr. John Page Chairperson and Mrs. Emly Marks Horne Vice-Chair. The motion was seconded by G. Hilts, and passed unanimously on a voice vote. Board of Zoning Appeals, September 12, 1996 Page 9 B. Excused Absence requests E. Spink requested an excused absence for the October meeting. G. Hilts made a motion to grant the request, seconded by E. Horne and passed unanimously on a voice vote. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 9/05/96 Approved 9112/96 To Clerk 12/05/96 U MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS I'L G''A AUGUST 8, 1996, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. The meeting was called to order by M. Clark at 7.30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present M. Clark J. Page E. Horne E. Spink B. Excused Absences C. Bicy H. LeBlanc E. Hilts C. A quorum of four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator J. Sturdevant, Senior Planner II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Agenda was approved as printed. III. HEARINGS A. BZA-3405.96, 1045 Ontario Street This is a request by Cary Ried of 1045 Ontario to construct a new rear porch with a roof, even with the west side of the house, which is approximately 13 feet from the west property line. Section 1250.08 of the Zoning Code requires a 20 foot setback; therefore a 7 foot variance is requested. The homeowner has removed a 6 foot x 16 foot porch and wishes to replace it with an 8 foot x 20 foot porch. This is a corner lot, on the South East corner of ML King and Ontario. The size of the lot, and the fact that it is a corner lot, create the hardship. If granted, the request will not adversely affect the area, and the staff has recommended approval. J. Ruff presented the case. Board of Zoning Appeals, August 8, 1996 Page 2 Cary Reid, owner, spoke. He restated Mr. Ruffs recitation of the case, adding that the new porch would enhance the property. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3405.96 at 1045 Ontario Street be approved based on the fact that it is a corner lot, and the size of the lot. The motion was seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Page X Clark X Spink X Horne X BZA-3405.96 at 1045 Ontario Street was approved by a vote of 4 to 0. B. BZA-3406.96, 3608 S. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a request by Paul Schafer of 3608 S. Pennsylvania Avenue to construct a 14 ft. x 22 ft. addition onto the rear of an existing garage. The total area of the garage would be increased to 884 sq. ft. Section 1248.03 (b) of the Zoning Code allows for a maximum garage size of 720 sq. ft. This is a requested variance of 164 sq. ft. The applicant proposes to use the addition for storage and workshop purposes. J. Sturdevant presented the case. This addition would be on to the rear of the garage, attached by a pedestrian door to the garage. The applicant would like the addition to be attached to the garage so that he won't have to go outside to reach it in the winter The lot is shallow; although an unattached structure could meet setbacks, it would leave very little room in the rear yard. The addition is quite small, just 308 square feet. The home is on a triple lot, and is much wider than it is deep, so there is no problem with lot coverage. This addition is not designed to be a parking area. Staff recommends approval. M. Clark asked if there are any other accessory structures on this lot. J. Sturdevant replied that there were not. Paul Schafer, owner of 3608 S. Pennsylvania, spoke. He presented photographs of the property. He stated that there is ample room to move between the rear of the addition and the property line; he would not be obstructing anyone's view. He also stated that he is retiring this month, and would be spending quite a lot of time there if he is allowed to build it. E. Spink asked about accessory buildings on the property. J. Ruff stated that he has not exceeded the 1000 square foot limit, but has eliminated the possibility of adding another accessory structure. Some discussion ensued. E. Spink made a motion that BZA-3406.96 at 3608 S. Pennsylvania Avenue be approved, on the condition that only a pedestrian door be maintained between the garage and the new hobby room, noting that the hobby room cannot become part of or used as part of a home business, and further that the new hobby room cannot be used as a dwelling unit. Seconded by J. Page. Board of Zoning Appeals, August 8, 1996 Page 3 VOTE: yea nay yea nay Page X Clark X Spink X Horne X BZA-3406.96 at 3608 S. Pennsylvania Avenue is approved with a condition, and two notes, by a vote of 4 - 0. C. BZA-3407.96, 545 S. Park Blvd. This is a request by Edward L. Hawkins of 545 S. Park Blvd. to construct a new 8 foot deep x 28 foot wide covered front porch. The porch addition would result in a 17.4 foot front yard setback. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Code requires a setback of 24.4 feet in this instance. Therefore, a variance of 7 feet is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that this property is actually larger than shown on the survey, due to the vacation of Garfield Street, which added 25 feet. It will not obstruct the view of any of the neighbors. A hardship is created by the wide right-of-way. Staff recommends approval. E. Hawkins, owner of the property, spoke. E. Spink made a motion to approve BZA-3407.96 at 525 S. Park Blvd. be approved based on the staff summary. The motion was seconded by E. Horne. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Page X Clark X Spink X Horne X BZA-3407.96 at 525 S. Park Blvd. is approved without conditions, based on the staff report, by a vote of 4 to 0. D. BZA-3408.96, Greenlawn and Cedar Street This is a request by Ginni Cook, of the SignArt Company, representing Rite Aid, to install seven wall signs that total 215.5 square feet, and erect a 22'3/4" tall, 84.75 square foot ground pole sign that will set back 20 feet from the north and west front property lines, for a proposed Rite Aid Pharmacy to be located on the vacant property at the corner of South Cedar Street and Greenlawn Avenue. Section 1442.13 of the Sign Code allows up to two wall signs and a maximum of 200 square feet in sign area (based upon the location and linear building frontage). Therefore, this is a request to allow five additional wall signs and an additional 15.5 square feet of sign area. Also, Section 1442.12(5)(b) of the Sign Code requires a sign of this height and size to be set back 22 feet from the front property lines. Therefore, this is a requested variance of two feet from the setback requirement. Board of Zoning Appeals, August 8, 1996 Page 4 J. Ruff presented the case. He gave some more information, and stated that staff has not found a hardship in this case, with either the setback, the ground pole sign, or the number and area of wall signage. He stated that staff does not recommend approval of this variance, as staff feels that ample signage has been allowed for by the Sign Code. Ginni Cook, SignArt, and Kevin Northrup, Rite Aid, spoke. They stated that, going south on Cedar there is a First of America bank which sits very close to the road and would obstruct the view even of a 22' sign with a 22' setback. Also, the uniqueness of the drive through pharmacy necessitates signage to educate the public. They also mentioned the Quality Dairy across the road, which has 5 signs, and Coscarelli's which has signs on three elevations; there is an auto dealership across from Coscarelli's which has lots of signs. Mary Hussman, 535 S. Park Blvd. spoke. She stated that this property is next to her property. She has had to listen to the numerous accidents at the Cedar/Greenlawn intersection. She feels that all the signs act as a distraction from a drivers concentration. She objects to the variance. The Board broke into Committee of the Whole. E. Horne stated that she knows there are many accidents at this intersection, as she has lived in this area for her whole life. She also knows that lots of signs line Cedar Street that are not ascetically pleasing, and many are not up to code. This needs to be addressed. She is concerned about the impact of all the signs on the flow of.traffic. J. Ruff addressed the issue of options, whether the appeal is granted or denied. He also mentioned that the property is a block long, which gives the option to change lanes and enter the parking lot after the intersection. E. Spink said that this board has supported the concept of keeping Cedar Street as asctheically pleasing as possible. He is reluctant to grant any variance, but might consider a minimal variance. He feels the requested variance is overkill. J. Page stated that he will not be supporting this variance, as he feels that there is adequate signage allowed for, and there has been no practical difficulty demonstrated. J. Page made a motion that the variance request for BZA-3408.96 at Greenlawn and Cedar Street be denied. E. Horne seconded the motion. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Page X Clark X Spink X Horne X BZA-3408.96 for a ground pole sign variance, setback variance and additional wall signs and area variance is denied. Board of Zoning Appeals, August 8, 1996 Page 5 E. BZA-3409.96, 6250 S. Cedar Street, Suite G This is a request by Johnson Sign Company (applicant) for Talon Development (owner), to install a building-mounted sign of 40.625 square feet in size on Suite 6 at 6250 S. Cedar Street. Section 1442.13 of the Sign Code limits the size of the sign to 30.375 square feet based upon the 13.5 foot building frontage of suite 6; a variance of 10.3 square feet is being requested. J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that this variance request is for a 40 square foot sign where only 30 square feet would be permitted, because of the narrow frontage of the building; it is tenant space in a multiple tenant shopping center. This space is on an inside corner, so the actual space is wider than the 13 foot frontage. Staff feels that this constitutes a hardship. The sign is not any larger than any other tenant signs that currently exist. It would be in proportion with the other signs, but on a narrower facade. Dan Johnson of Johnson Signs spoke. He introduced Dennis King, president of Wherehouse Records, the tenants of the property. He presented a letter from the landlord of the shopping center. Mr. King also spoke. He said that Wherehouse Records has been on Cedar Street for 18 years. He asks that the variance be granted. E. Spink asked if the variance would be specific to Suite G. Mr. Ruff said that it would be. Some discussion ensued. E. Horne made a motion to approve BZA-3409.96 at 6250 S. Cedar Street as presented in the staff report. The motion was seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Page X Clark X Spink X Horne X BZA-3409.96 at 6250 S. Cedar Street has been approved by a vote of 4 to 0, for a 40 square foot sign on Suite G, based on staff report and the comments rendered this evening. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Policy and Procedure Nothing at this time. B. Tabled Item: BZA-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar No action requested or taken at this time. Board of Zoning Appeals, August 8, 1996 Page 6 V. PUBLIC COMMENT None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of May 9, 1996 and June 13, 1996 With only four members present, action was not taken. VII. NEW BUSINESS Last month it was moved and supported that the election of officers be made in the month of September. As such, be prepared next month to carry that forth and take appropriate action. M. Clark mentioned that CATA wants to put illuminated 4 x 6 signs in the bus shelters. Mr. Ruff said that this is a new concept, and a company is doing this all over the country. They provide CATA with the shelters, and bring electricity to them. The signs would be visible to the people inside the shelter and to drivers outside the shelter. He also said that they have put this on hold for awhile. E. Horne inquired of the secretary concerning the vacancies on the board. She wondered if people could take this issue to City Council. Mr. Ruff said that Mr. Johnson of the Mayor's Office is working on getting us new board members, and has one possible person in mind. Mr. Ruff said that if people wanted to, they could send a letter to City Council. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 8/23/96 Approved 9112/96 To Clerk 12/06/96 v; MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JULY 11, 1996 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7.30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present C. Bicy J. Page G. Hilts E. Spink E. Horne H. LeBlanc B. Excused Absences M. Clark C. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda was approved as printed. III. HEARINGS A. BZA-3403.96, S. Cedar Street The applicant, Kenneth Leroy Cardwell, owner of Leroy's Bar and Grill, is requesting to construct a 22 ft. x 32.5 ft. addition to the north side of the existing structure located at 1526 S. Cedar Street. The existing building is set back 13 ft. from the S. Cedar Street right- of- way, which is also the proposed setback of the addition. Section 1268.06 of the Zoning Code requires a setback of 20 ft. in the "F" Commercial District. Therefore, a variance of 7 ft. is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. Based on the layout of the interior of the structure, the staff believes that this is a reasonable request. We have conditions for the approval, and they are contained in the report. Board of Zoning Appeals, July 11, 1996 Page 2 Gordon Watros, who is representing Kenneth Leroy Cardwell, 1252 Northcrest, spoke. He stated that they need the addition for the bathroom, and there is really no other way to build it, and that the addition would help pay for bathroom additions. C. Bicy asked questions regarding the design work outside and inside. E. Horne asked about landscaping. Landscaping is very important. Mr. Watros stated additional landscaping would take up additional parking spaces. No one else spoke. H. LeBlanc noted that the addition would extend no closer to the street than the existing building. C. Bicy moved, seconded by H. LeBlanc, to approve BZA-3403.96 with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant redesign the S. Cedar Street drive aisle parking spaces to be perpendicular with the north property line for approval by the Zoning Administrator. 2. That the applicant proposes screening the trash dumpster on the site plan, for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. 3. That the applicant removes the second row of parking (eight parking spaces on internal row) to facilitate traffic movement. Four parking spaces could be added to the S. Cedar Street drive aisle parking spaces. This will be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. 4. That the applicant constructs a six (6) foot tall wooden privacy fence along the west property line to buffer the residential structures and direct traffic to the north alley and the egresses on Wilson Street and S. Cedar Street. VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Page X Hilts X Horne X Bicy X On a Roll Call vote the motion carried unanimously (5-0). BZA-3403.96 has been approved with conditions. Board of Zoning Appeals, July 11, 1996 Page 3 B. BZA-3404.96, 1531 E. Michigan Avenue The applicant would like for us to consider a request by the Church of the Resurrection, 1531 E. Michigan Avenue, to construct a parish hall at the southwest corner of Jerome Street and Rumsey Avenue. The property was recently rezoned to "DM-3" Residential District for this purpose. The proposed Parish Hall will be 12,694.86 sq. ft., in size which will bring total lot coverage to 101,148.5 sq. ft. or 71.6 percent of the block when considering all of the site (buildings and parking) improvements. Section 1256.11 of the Zoning Code allows a maximum lot coverage of 60 percent. Therefore, this is a requested variance of 11.6 percent. J. Ruff presented the case. They would like to construct a parish hall and remove the existing cafeteria building which has their kitchen in it and some space for meals. The variance was initially advertised at 12,694.86 sq. ft. bringing the total lot coverage to 71.6 percent of the site. The "DM-3" Residential District allows a lot coverage of 60 percent when including buildings and parking areas. They have reduced the size of the parish hall to 11,145 sq. ft., which brings the total of lot coverage to 70%. Therefore, a 10 percent variance is requested. This property was recently rezoned to the "DM-3" Residential district. C. Bicy asked why there would need to be a variance requested when the property is decreasing? J. Ruff explained. E. Hilts asked questions regarding landscaping. J. Ruff stated that with the removal of the old cafeteria and the increase in the parking lot it would provide a better hard-surfaced play area for children, and it will isolate parking a little better than the old plan. Mr. Brian Jeffries, who resides at 3229 Moores River Drive, spoke on behalf of the church. He addressed some of the concerns regarding the playground area. He stated that the playground that is there now will be maintained, and will be a big improvement for the children. Last year Resurrection went through a beautification process during which they tuck pointed the outside of the building. They also planted grass on the front and have been notified by E.N.O. ( Eastside Neighborhood Organization) that they will be receiving a beautification award for their efforts to maintain the property. He then summarized the entire process gone through by the church for this project. They just retained the services of Clark Construction Company to act as general manager on this project. They are very well known in the City and have worked with neighborhood groups. He mentioned that they down-zoned from commercial to residential. The Parish Hall will be used for church functions only. J. Ruff stated that he received a letter from Mary Margaret Woll, and she has had copies of the plans to show any interested members or other residents. She believes that it has achieved the concepts that were agreed to by the church and accepted by council. Board of Zoning Appeals, July 11, 1996 Page 4 E. Horne asked questions. Christine Adams, resident at 207 Rumsey Avenue, representing the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, spoke. She is a new homeowner in the neighborhood who bought in under Sparrow Hospital's Program. Her concern is the 10 percent increase, living across the street from the parking lot, and dealing with the cars that go up and down her street. She likes her neighborhood and appreciates the compromises. Kim Carleton-Smith, resident at 1441 Jerome St., voiced her opinions. She has lived there since June 1994. She thanked the City for sending out the postcard notification of this meeting. She was never approached by the church and solicited in a cooperative atmosphere. She was only updated about what was happening with the church building through her own neighborhood association. She stated that they do have parking problems, and is concerned with the rezoning. She stated that the people of the church are parallel parking and the parking lot that is presently there is inadequate. Kate Koskinen, who resides at 1409 Jerome Street, spoke. She stated that she burned all her stuff concerning this, because she thought she was all done. She was involved in the many hours of discussions and planning changes. After the process was over, she was pleased with the end results. There are parking problems, and the churches' need for this building is evident. The parking was counted for the use of one building at a time. She's concerned that the impact of what goes on in the building will eventually spread out into the neighborhood. Cindy Curry, resident of 2500 Tulane Drive, spoke. She is involved in the Ox Roast and is glad it is only once a year. She stated that one event is not a fair comparison to an outdoor event. There is 200 to 300-maximum seating now and is based upon participation. They are looking for growth to survive; you cannot be stagnant. They are hoping to have some functions that are not possible right now because of certain restraints; due to the functions of the church, they will not be held during the same time that they'll be having masses. She feels that the parking problem would not be any worse than what they are experiencing now. The functions are for parish use, and they are trying to offer additional parishioner basis for the social and spiritual outlet. They want to be open to a fair amount of people so that they won't have to turn these people away. C. Bicy questioned the Ox Roast. How many? When? Cindy Curry stated that it begins Friday after Labor day in the evening up until midnight Saturday and Sunday from noon to seven o'clock. She was not sure as to the number of people that attend. C. Bicy asked if she had received any complaints from the neighbors in that neighborhood. Cindy stated that the church has received complaints. Her understanding is that they have tried to work with those neighbors to resolve those. This is the sixty-second annual Ox Roast and has not always been on Resurrection property. C. Bicy asked if there were any complaints regarding mass on Saturday and Sunday? She stated not to her knowledge. Board of Zoning Appeals, July 11, 1996 Page 5 Any complaints regarding marriages exceeding 300 or more people? She answered not to her knowledge. Brian Jeffries asked for permission to respond. He stated that they meet the requirements under the "DM-3"zoning for parking and conformance with the master plan. With the Sparrow development, Jerome Street is going to be altered. They need this parish hall to maintain the type of service that they need to provide both spiritually and socially. With regard to parking, the parish system is different. A lot of people that attend this church are members of this parish, and a number of them live in and around the parish. They also need accessibility for the disabled, and with this new proposal they will have that. The church opens up its parking lot to the neighborhood for evening use. They started out with a 17,000 sq. ft. facility that holds 700 people down to 400 people and 11,000 square feet. E. Horne wanted to know if there are any business agreements for parking. Yes, doctors' offices observe gentlemen's agreement. E. Hilts would like to see adequate parking around the church. Father Turner has told parishioners not to use illegal parking spaces. People have parked in wrong spaces and have been notified. Mrs. J. Tallarico addressed the 400 person capacity. Sometimes they have funeral dinners, and if the school children were eating at the same time of the dinner, they would certainly need room to accommodate all of these people. This is another reason why they need to have this size of a building. The Board dissolved into Committee of The Whole. H. LeBlanc will reluctantly support the variance and vote against rezoning, but is looking at the variance. The zoning has been approved and eliminating parking is not desired and this is a lot coverage issue now. G. Hilts stated that the street is public parking. The plan appears to be a good proposal. C. Bicy asked about the zoning of downtown churches. J. Ruff responded saying that those churches are zoned "DM-3" or "DM-4" which have the same basic lot and parking requirements. E. Spink's comments were for the audience. This is the first time this Board has seen and discussed the materials except for H. LeBlanc who is on the Planning Board. J. Ruff read a letter regarding BZA-3404.96 from Wayne and Delores Woods, who reside at 1521 Jerome Street. They have lived directly across the street from the parish hall site, and have been members of the parish for forty-three years. They feel that this addition would cause a lot of problems in the neighborhood regarding the number of cars the events will draw. They are against the proposed variance. H. LeBlanc moved to support BZA-3404.96. The motion was seconded by C. Bicy. Board of Zoning Appeals, July 11, 1996 Page 6 VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Page X Hilts X Horne X Bicy X Spink X On a Roll Call vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). E. Horne added that she is very sympathetic to their feelings. She also lives in a neighborhood that has a hospital, church and a high school. She encourages the church to have a greater, communication level with the nonmembers of the parish. G. Hilts also sympathizes with the neighbors in the area. He would like all members to keep in communication with the neighbors in the neighborhood, to keep them informed on what is going on with the church. G. Hilts would like all members to call City Council and the Mayor to get a move on qualified members. H. LeBlanc would like an excused absence for the August meeting. G. Hilts may also need to be excused. E. Horne motioned to approve these excused absences, and E. Spink reluctantly seconded the motion. On a roll call vote, the motion was carried unanimously. III. New Business H. LeBlanc made a motion to suspend the bylaws and hold elections in September. The motion was seconded by E. Horne, and carried unanimously on a voice vote. IV. Public Comment A. None. V. Adjournment A. Meeting adjourned at 9.40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Board of Zoning Appeals, July 11, 1996 Page 7 Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Comments from Audience. G. Hilts would like all members to call City Council & the Mayor to get a move on qualified members. H. LeBlanc wants an excused absence for Septembers meeting. G. Hilts may also need to be excused. E. Horne motioned and E. Spink reluctantly seconded. H. LeBlanc moved to suspend the bylaws and hold elections in September. VIII. Excused Absences A. IX. Public Comment A. None ;. a- X. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures 1. B. Tabled Item: BZA-3342.95, 328 S. Mifflin Street 1. We are awaiting communication from the applicant for this case. C. Tabled Item: BZA-3386.96, US-127 at Dunckel Road 1. E. Horne made a motion to accept the request for withdrawal submitted by the applicants. Seconded by C. Bicy, and approved unanimously on a voice vote. XI. Approval of Minutes A. XII. New Business A. None Board of Zoning Appeals, July 11, 1996 Page 8 XIII. Adjournment A. Meeting adjourned at 9.54 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Draft to Clerk 09/09/96 Approved 09/12/96 To Clerk 12/06/96 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS J U N E 13, 1996, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present C. Bicy J. Page G. Hilts E. Spink B. Excused Absences '. M. Clark (called and requested an excused abscense). E. Horne (action taken to excuse, April 11, 1996). IL rn E. Spink moved and C. Bicy seconded to excuse M. Clark. w On a Roll Call vote, motion carried unanimously (4-0). C. A quorum of four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator S. Hayward, Senior Planner II. Approval of Agenda E. Spink moved and J. Page seconded to take care of Old Business Item: BZA- 3392.96 III. Old Business: Tabled Items: A. BZA-3392.96, 1011 S. Washington Avenue This is a request by Ted Samra Sr. of the Crawford Door Company to construct a 9,817.5 square foot building (85' x 115.5"), one foot from the rear property line at 1011 S. Washington. Chapter 1268.08 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25' in the "F" Commercial District. This is therefore a request for a variance of 24 feet. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that he included a summary in the packet, and the reason it was tabled, was to gather more information regarding the fire safety requirements for the necessity of potentially having an exit out the rear of the building and the type of emergency exit that would be required either around or behind the building. The buildings shape and length would allow two exit doors to be placed on the front of the building. One on the north and south end of the building, there would also be an exit from the office area as well, and that would meet the requirements of the fire and building codes. There may be some other requirements such as a sprinkling or reduced side yard in order for a fire truck to pull up to the side of a building depending on the length of the building. The Board of Zoning Appeals, June 13, 1996 Page 2 exiting doesn't really require that the structure be removed from the back property line, which was the main concern in this case. J. Ruff stated that Mr. Samra would like to get this issue settled, prior to going to an architect. The main concern was having to go across someone else property or property being controlled by someone else. J. Ruff asked if there are any questions. E. Spink moved and J. page seconded that BZA-3392.96 be removed from the table. On a Roll Call vote, motion carried unanimously (4-0). E. Spink moved and C. Bicy seconded that BZA-3392.96 at 1011 S. Washington Avenue is approved, with the understanding that any design for fire exits will not cause people or equipment, to encroach on other surrounding property. The intent is so that people and equipment don't go across other properties. On a Roll Call vote, motion carried unanimously (4-0). BZA-3392.96 has been approved with conditions. IV. HEARINGS A. BZA-3395.96, 1401 Moores River Drive A request by JCR Business Equipment to construct second and third floor additions, an exterior stairwell, deck, and front porch addition to the structure at 1401 Moores River Drive. These, additions, if approved, would be 5 ft. from the front property line adjacent to Moores River Drive and 15 ft. from the property line adjacent to Park Avenue. Section 1260.06 of the Zoning Code requires 20 foot front yard setbacks; therefore, a variance of 15 ft. is requested along Moores River Drive and a 5-foot variance is requested along Park Avenue. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that properties are located in the southwest area of the plan makes a surrounding area for low density residential development, and basically it was an old milk store in this location. For a number of years JCR has been there in the existing structure, and they are wishing to add two floors to the building, and an outside stairwell to get to the second floor, and a cover over the entrance porch which would also serve as a deck entrance leading from the stairs to the second floor which would be the exterior access point for the second floor. He stated that he has a petition of sixteen people of the immediate surroundings and a map that show the location of where these people reside. The building in its present stage has been compatible with the neighborhood and has not been too large for its site. It has a gross size of 1,288 sq. ft., and proposes to add a second floor of 1,288 sq. ft. and a third floor of 448 sq. ft. to the rear portion. It's proposed for storage related use of the existing office, so the total size of the building would be more than 3,000 sq. ft. The concern we have with this is a building of a much larger bulk, taller and would encroach closer to the street. The concern is that it would not fit well into the characteristic of the neighborhood. Staff has recommended denial of the structure. The bulk and height of the structure are significantly greater than the immediate surrounding homes, and we believe that it would impact the neighborhood with the further encroachment of the setbacks. A permit was issued to replace the existing front porch and to include a barrier free ramp to it. A concern was that the site plan showed the property line approximately a foot off the sidewalk, and yet the ramp is right up near the sidewalk. We will have to make sure that everything was done according to the plan, and if there was a Board of Zoning Appeals, June 13, 1996 Page 3 problem with the plan that was presented that will be addressed. We recommended denial based on the size and bulk of the structure and its surroundings. Mr. Herrara spoke. He proposed to go out, but would need variances. He stated that they need warehousing for use of business. The outlook of the building is going to look a lot nicer for the area. They are having leaks in the roof, even the way it would be constructed it would look similar to the homes. He stated that the ramp was not requested, but it was mandated under the new federal and state legislation, and was approved by the board. Jo Flaherty, of 1321 Pattengill, a 20-year resident spoke. She had written comments and generated a petition. The neighborhood's objection to construct second and third floor additions and exterior stairwells, a deck and front porch is not an indictment of the business as a bad neighbor, rather an effort on their part to maintain the integrity of their residential neighborhood. The concern is over the early morning pickup of JCR's trash. The general crammed appearance of the ramp and the fact that the ramp has become a gathering point for young rollerbladers. The neighborhood has accepted the business because has been there for a number of years, and it has remained small and has not distracted from the residential quality. Betsy Rheame 22 year resident of 1203 Moores River Drive spoke. She is located one block east of JCR's business. She stated that she has one of a few two story homes in her area and it is less than 2,000 sq. ft. She has done some historical research on the building. The Sheska family was one of the first owners of the building, and was also the builders of her home. The Sheska's originally lived in the business at 1401 Moores River Drive, which was half living quarters and half a neighborhood grocery store. It was a service-oriented business. It was then a beauty parlor, Aquarium Store and then an Insurance Agency, and now the current business machines office. She feels that the physical structure would not be compatible to the neighborhood and the increased business would be detrimental to an almost exclusively residential neighborhood. She strongly objects to the current request. J. Paquette, owner of JCR business equipment spoke. He stated that his business creates less traffic in the neighborhood. His business is probably 90% of their sales and service is off premises. Property is zoned D1 Professional Office building, and they own two full size city lots. He received a letter from Mr. Fountain approving this business of this property. If he is not allowed to peak the roof, then what we are looking at is a building that is going to continually deteriorate. He wants to build something that is going to fit into the area. The walk-In portion of his business is mostly home styled businesses that operate and it is not convenient for his people to go out for a residential customer that wants to bring in a piece of equipment. He states that his business consists of selling mail openers. They are an IBM dealer for IBM typewriters, laser printers and supplies. They handle time/date stamp units and time clocks. All of this is ground for what the neighborhood is zoned for (D1 Professional Office). This will not create anymore traffic then what is already there, and he stands by his original statement. Sales people may be there in the morning, but they may come into the office every one to two weeks. C. Bicy is concerned about the other floors. Mr. Paquette states that the basement storage now is not heavy in weight, but large in size. He could build a warehouse somewhere else, but that changes the whole character of what he is trying to do and he wants to improve his property so that it doesn't go down in value. C. Bicy asks how high the roof is going to be. Mr. Herrara, the contractor, stated that it's either 30' or 32'. G. Hilts wanted to know if his decision is permanent or if he intends to ever Board of Zoning Appeals, June 13, 1996 Page 4 rent out rooms. Mr. Paquette has no intention on selling the property or renting out rooms. Committee of the Whole discussion. The Board wondered what the normal height of a roof or home is. J. Ruff stated that the size is basically shown on the area top map. Mr. Spink commented that the existing porch and the existing ramp are not something that this board can deal with, that is another issue. C. Bicy made a motion that BZA-3395.96 at 1401 Moores River Drive be denied as recommended by the Zoning Administrator, and staff report because of the size and bulk of the structure, which seem to be greater than the adjacent homes that are in that particular residential area. E. Spink seconded. J. Flaherty requested time for additional comments. E. Spink moved, second by J. Page, to allow additional comments. J. Flaherty commented regarding Mr. Paquette's threat to let it deteriorate, and that the neighborhood will continue to be vigilant and make sure that the structure stays up to the conditions of their neighborhood. Mr. Paquette spoke and said that he had contemplated tearing the building down. He says that he keeps all of his properties in good condition and chose to fix it up to keep his office here. On a Roll Call vote, motion carried unanimously (4-0). BZA-3395.96 has been denied. B. BZA-3396.96, 420 E. Michigan Avenue This is a request by David H. Krause to construct a 12 ft. tall, 60 square foot ground pole sign, one foot from the Cedar Street right of way line for the property at 420 E. Michigan Avenue. Section 1442.24(c)(2) of the Sign Code allows ground pole signs in the Capitol Center District to be a maximum of 10 ft. tall, 30 square ft. in area and a minimum of 10 ft. from the property line. Therefore, these are requested variances of 2 ft. in height, 30 square ft. in area and 9 ft. in setback. The applicant has rehabilitated the building and is opening a new business at this address. The case was presented, and Steve Hayward brought to the attention the concern of the color scheme for the sign by the Department of Transportation. They will be given a color layout for their approval before a sign permit is issued. Mr. Ruff had mentioned that the requirement for the location on the S. Cedar Street side is because of the underground parking that exists underneath the parking lot and the inability to essentially put the pole down through that structure. The height elevation requirement is to maintain the existing on site parking that is located there, to give 8 feet of clearance. The property is in the Capitol Center District which does have more restrictions on signage, but there is the alternative of coming to the Board and requesting up to the city wide maximum, and they are not going outside of the city wide maximum in their request. Jim Ruff added that the sign would be in a cubed shape. The concern here was how to appropriately locate the property with the east- west traffic on Michigan Avenue, and the southbound traffic on S. Cedar Street, and the existing poles that are around the intersection of Michigan Avenue and the added aspect of having a parking garage underneath this level of the deck. Brian Terrell Sign has recommended this shape and size. Each side of the sign would be 30 square ft.. David Krause, the applicant for the request, spoke. He passed out photographs. He had Brian Terrell of Terrell Signs build a sign exactly the same size as the sign that he is proposing and to bring his truck over to erect it exactly the height that the sign Board of Zoning Appeals, June 13, 1996 Page 5 will be. He then backed up about a half a block and took photographs, and it is not real visible. He stated that they do have another version of the sign with the name bolder so that it can be read; it is the same size as proposed. The sign does not interfere with the stop lights. The last version of the sign is white with red letters. On the Cedar Street side there is already a 15-foot setback from the curb. He hopes that this will be an asset to the downtown area. Mr. Krause is currently open for business with two small banners up. C. Bicy asked how many parking spots are available. Mr. Krause responded that he has 15 parking spaces on the surface lot & employee parking underneath. C. Bicy stated that he is in favor of the sign with the condition that the colors be approved by Traffic Engineering, and the sign have only 30 sq. ft. on each side. Brian Terrell, of Terrell Signs spoke. He stated that he has been up and down the street a half dozen times looking at the building in many different angles, to try to use wall signage projection and it was not feasible for good readability. The purpose for this sign was the visibility from three sides. He stated that "you need an adequate sign to conduct business." As far as the colors, red with white background presents more contrast. C. Bicy moved to approve the sign for BZA-3396.96, 420 E. Michigan Avenue for Dugout Enterprises Incorporated, finding that the variance will allow for one ground pole sign measuring 12 foot in height, and totaling 60 square ft. in the area located 10 ft. from the property line along E. Michigan Avenue and 1 foot from the S. Cedar property line (30 square ft. a side), with the condition that the colors be approved by Traffic Engineering. E. Spink seconded the request. On a Roll Call Vote, Motion carried unanimously (4-0) and approved with the conditions described. C. BZA-3397.96, 1427 Kelsey Avenue A request by Mark Talbot of Beach Craft, to construct a 20 foot by 28 foot detached garage, 16 ft. from the (west) property line of the property at 1427 Kelsey Avenue. Section 1248.08(a)(1) of the Zoning Code requires a setback of 20 ft., therefore a variance of 4 ft. is requested. The applicant wishes to tear down the existing single car garage, which has a driveway off from Pattengill Avenue, and construct.this two-car garage with the same setback from the west property line. Steve Hayward presented the case. He stated that the residential property is a corner lot. The size of the property is less than 5,000 square ft.. The lot is essentially the practical difficulty for this property and severely limits the potential garage location, if you consider a 3-foot rear yard or side yard setback and a 20-foot deep garage. The size of the garage 22 x 30 sq. ft. house is consistent with other houses in the neighborhood, and regardless of whether the variance is granted it will remain a residential structure. The structure has two parking spaces, one in the garage and one in the driveway. The proposed garage will increase the number of fully accessible parking spaces to two with a two-vehicle family. Residents have called since the publication of the case, and there have been some concerns that arose after the production of the report. The two concerns are that the garage deviates from the original plan. The neighbor's concern is that the garage will be used to store commercial equipment, because the applicant has a home occupation lawn care business. The regulation of a home occupation was explained to the applicant, and he is exploring other options. Board of Zoning Appeals, June 13, 1996 Page 6 The board's concern was how far from each of property line will the garage be situated from the south or from the east property line, and where the driveway would be in relation to the garage front. The other concern is if there will be any other parking spaces created on site. Rich Combs, owner, said that the driveway would be 5 ft. straight into the door, and it will improve the property by$15,000, 3 ft. from the east, 13 to 14 ft. from the house and 20 ft. from the sidewalk from the west, and 10 ft. from the south. He does have a travel trailer for the parking spot on the side of the garage and will be 3 ft. from the east. Brian Johnson resident at 1423 Kelsey Avenue spoke. He has no problem with the proposed larger size garage, but moving everything 10 ft. north because it blocks their view of the school yard and will create a wall between the two and serve as a privacy fence. He was also concerned about whether he will decide to move out how it will affect the value of his property with a restricted view. E. Spink stated that moving 10 ft. off the back lot, 10 ft. of yard behind garage which makes for a nice place to park vehicles or pile junk which causes a potential problem area in the back. E. Spink moved that BZA-3397.96 at 1427 Kelsey Avenue be approved with the condition that the rear (south) yard has a 3-foot setback, C. Bicy seconded. On a Roll Call vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). BZA-3397.96 has been approved with a condition. Vice-Chairman Bicy declared a five minute recess for the Board. D. BZA-3398.96, 1923 E. Michigan Avenue A sign permit requested by Midway Signs to modify the existing 33 ft. tall, 166.5 square foot ground pole sign that is located at 1923 E. Michigan Avenue. The modified sign would be 29 ft. tall, contain 82.5 square ft. of sign area and be 3 ft. from the front property line off of Michigan Avenue. Section 1442.12(h)(5)(B) of the Sign Code requires a setback of 29 ft. for this size sign; therefore, a variance of 26 ft. is requested. Also, the applicant is proposing to install three wall signs totaling 52.8 square ft.. Section 1442.13(b) of the Sign Code allows a total of two wall signs per building. A variance for one additional wall sign is requested. Jim Ruff summarized the case. He stated that the board has made efforts in the past to seek improvements to meeting the Sign Code, so the 3-foot setback is requested. Staff sees an improvement being made here and believes it to be a reasonably substantial in nature, and making an effort to meeting the Sign Code. They are allowed two wall signs, and typically signs grow on these gas stations. As far as the staff is concerned there is no particular hardship for accommodating the wall signage variance. Chuck Krump, from Midway Signs spoke. He stated that Pylon signs due to the nature and location of the canopy tried to bring the signs down to add a new logo which is 6 x 6 ft. giving a total of 72 square ft. with the Pylon sign. The signs that are up now are the old style Total which is 4 x 12 ft. wide, and below that is a Superstop sign which was the prior owners sign. Due to existing locations we will use the standard approach for wall signs. The third sign could be eliminated and taken off the building and put onto the canopy. E. Spink asked what the size of the sign is Board of Zoning Appeals, June 13, 1996 Page 7 going to be? Mr. Krump responded with 82 'h square ft., there is a Diesel Sign of 10 square ft. makes up the additional 10 square ft.. There was one letter sent in by Sharon King, she is in favor of anything that reduces sign pollution along Michigan Avenue. She would like for the owner to reduce the sign size by about one-half, since the notice doesn't specify how many ft. off the property line the current sign is. She suggests that instead of 29 ft., 12 ft. would be more appropriate. She would be opposed to three walls signs unless it is a corner lot with the building facing the two streets. C. Bicy moved to approve BZA-3398.96, 1923 E. Michigan Avenue to erect a Midway Sign at 29 ft. tall and 82.5 square ft. of sign area, which will be 3 ft. from the property line off of Michigan Avenue (groundpole sign request), Seconded by E. Spink. On a Roll Call vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). BZA-3398.96. The ground pole sign portion of the request has been approved. E. Spink moved that 3398.96, 1923 E. Michigan Avenue, that the request for an additional wall sign is denied, seconded by J. Page. E. Spink stated that the Pole sign is good but don't need to have more than two wall signs. Motion carries BZA-3398.96 has been partially approve for the ground pole sign, and denied the additional wall sign of the request. On a Roll Call vote, the wall sign portion of BZA-3398.96 has been denied. E. BZA-3399.96, 6825 S. Cedar Street A sign permit request by Midway Signs to replace the existing ground pole sign with a 20 foot tall, 72 square ft. in area ground pole sign locating it one foot from the front property line on the property at 6825 S. Cedar Street. Section 1142.12(h)(5)(B) of the Sign Code requires the proposed sign to be located 20.2 ft. in setback. Also, the applicant is proposing to install three wall signs, replacing the existing wall signs. Section 1442.13(b) of the Sign Code allows a maximum of two wall signs. Therefore, an additional wall sign is being requested. J. Ruff presented the case. The existing sign is located in the right of way, so the original proposal to reduce the size of that sign is not available. A 72 square foot sign requires a little more than 20 ft. and 70 square ft. require 20 ft. so we averaged out 72 ft. between the setback requirements and came up with 20.2 foot requirements. The proposed setback of 1 foot from the front property line gives us a 19.2 foot variance request. There is also a request for a third wall sign in this location. The Cedar Street has a fairly wide Right of Way where the old urban rail use to run. The staff has recommended that we approve the ground pole sign, but not approve the third wall sign. The applicant was agreeable to the denial of the third wall sign. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3399.96, 6825 S. Cedar Street (a request by) Midway Sign to erect a 20 foot and 72 square ft. ground pole sign 1 foot from the front property line, and further that the third wall sign request be denied. On a Roll Call vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). BZA-3399.96, 6825 S. Cedar Street the ground/pole sign portion of the request has been approved and the request for a third wall sign has been denied. Board of Zoning Appeals, June 13, 1996 Page 8 F. BZA-3400.96, 2227 Westbury Road A request by Bob Howell Builders on behalf of Travis and Claudet Brooks to construct a roof over a 6' x 18' porch on the front of the house at 2227 Westbury Road. The addition would have a front yard setback of 23'3 and the required setback in this instance, according to Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code, is 262; therefore, this is a requested variance of approximately 3'. J. Ruff presented the case. The houses in this neighborhood don't all line up perfectly straight, this won't add any adverse impact to the intersection or the residence, and we would like to recommend approval. We have received two messages, one being from Sandra Lickert of 2221 Westbury. She is in support of variance for 2227 Westbury. We received a letter from Richard & Colleen Wheat of 2305 Westbury strongly supporting the proposal and asked the variance be granted. The applicant Mr. Bob Howell is the builder and is speaking on behalf of Travis and Claudet Brooks. He added that this will improve the looks of the house and the neighborhood. The porch is back further than the other homes in the area. The house will come out 6 ft. from the front of the house, and the length is 19 or 20 ft. and is not enclosed. J. Ruff commented adding that the houses are of the similar style (ranch), and it looks as if he is going to make a simple extension and will fit in reasonably well. No questions. Travis Brooks of 2227 Westbury Road owner of the home stated that he would like to be able to sit on his porch and watch the neighbors go by, that is the reason that he wants to build this roof. No questions. Ken Poyer who owns property directly west of Mr. Brooks at 2226 Barstow and has been Mr. Brook's neighbor for seven years. He has no problem with the proposed change of his property and concurs with staff and comments. No questions. E. Spink moved that BZA-3400.96, 2227 Westbury Road is approved based on the staff summary. C. Bicy seconded. On a Roll Call vote, the motion carried unanimously(4-0). BZA 3400.96 has been approved. G. BZA-3401.96, 232 S. Capitol Avenue A sign permit request by Central Advertising, on behalf of the Accident Fund Company, to erect new identification wall signage on the building at 232 S. Capitol Avenue. They wish to replace the current 68 square ft. wall sign above the entrance of area and keep the two existing wall signs on the top of the building which total 160 square ft. in area. Section 1442.24(b) of the Sign Code limit's wall signage in the Capitol Center District to 40 square ft. and a total of two wall signs. Therefore, this is a requested variance of 312 square ft. in area and the maintenance of the three wall signs. J. Ruff presented the case. The request of greater than 200 square ft., and with the sign the way it measures at 192 square ft. the two existing wall signs on top of the building would have to be removed. If it was reconfigured to potentially reduce the size of the wall sign on the front of the building or consolidate the words in a different arrangement to reduce the general area that is measured. One of the signs up high can be retained on top of the building, because two wall signs would be allowed as Board of Zoning Appeals, June 13, 1996 Page 9 depending on the variance to be approved. Staff recommends approval of the 152 square foot variance to allow the applicant to erect the front wall sign, but we don't recommend keeping the other wall signs that were erect prior to the 1990 amendments of the Sign Code. It is a large building and you cannot really see the top signs from pedestrian level close to the building. The applicant Marty DuBois from Central Advertising spoke. He thanked the board for hearing the appeal. He made a correction on the square footage of the sign that is being proposed that the overall height is 4.75 ft. rather than 6 ft. and 29.25 ft. long rather than 32 ft. long this changes the square footage to 138.94 square ft. for the sign over the entrance, It was listed on the request at 192 square ft.. The actual square footage is less than the current sign which is 68 square ft.. The proposed sign is 59.31 square ft.. The ordinance required them to draw a box around the sign to determine the square footage. Our proposed sign has an emblem at one end that unfairly exaggerates the square footage of the sign. Maybe you can grant us a variance to have two signs in the front of the building rather than one. Accident Fund Company is a tall building and has two logos at its upper floor and this signage adds a great view of beauty to the Lansing sky line especially at night. The proposed sign will be easier for the people to see because it will be illuminated and more appealing to look at than the old sign. We would be very grateful if the request for the variance is granted. C. Bicy questioned the variance as to what the new variance would be. J. Ruff explained that the total variance comes down below 300 square ft. with a total of 298.9 square ft. so overall there is not as much of a variance being requested, and the staff doesn't see a problem with the wall sign because it is a little bit smaller. We received communication from Roland at the Mole Hole 232 S. Washington. He is in favor of the proposed sign being put up by the Accident Fund. Joseph Chin Jr. is here from the Accident Fund Company to speak. He stated that the Company went through a change in ownership, and with that change they are trying to change the Company. He mentioned that they bring in 500 employees into the Downtown area many who reside within the City of Lansing. They are trying to instill a change in how Corporate America and how corporations view us now as a private company as well as a change in the employees as they enter into our facility. They have spend a considerable money in the community and time and effort with their employees in supporting Lansing. We have a glitch as to how the sign is measured because the corporate logo the way that it is laid out with the diamond really messes' things up, and to change it any more would cause some legal problems, because they have to keep things in perspective with the logo. The total square footage in reality is smaller. The building was built in 1987 it was a tremendous endeavor and great cooperation with the City of Lansing using EDC Funds that they paid off quite a few years before they were due, they were 20 year EDC's which was paid off in one year. When they built there, they made a commitment to stay in the downtown area although the parking situation was not that great with only 65 sites on site. If you look at the building's location to the right is the Ellis Parking ramp and to the left is another building which is being renovated. They have $500.000 to maintain their site with two full time grounds keepers that maintain the property, and they are not proposing anything to down grade the downtown district area. They received notice of a new plan that will cost the Company$8-9,000 in support for retail business, we are not a retail business but decided to not challenge or make an issue of that assessment. Discussion by Board members took place regarding sign location and area. Board of Zoning Apt Is, June 13, 1996 Page 10 C. Bicy says that the Company will have to do one of two things either (1) accept what has been written at this time or (2) to withdraw the request. J. Ruff offered another way to look at this that if they did grant the variance for the sign and recognized the size the way it is measured and then approved up to 180 square feet of signage. They would be able to keep their 120 square foot signs which are on the east side of the building. E. Spink moved that BZA-3401.96 at S. Capitol Avenue the Accident Fund Company, be approved the maximum allowed 200 square footage for combined signage recognizing that the wall sign at the entrance of the building is measured at 59.3 square ft.' as measured by the parameter, allowing up to a maximum of three wall signs keeping the other two. C. Bicy seconded the request. On a Roll Call vote, motion carried unanimously (4-0). BZA-3401.96 has been approved up to 200 sq.ft. of sign area and a maximum of three sign recognizing the wall sign at the front entrance being 59.3 sq. ft. as measured by the perimeter. H. BZA-3402.96, 4916 S. Cedar Street A request by Bill Jakovac, on behalf of Gary Helfmann and A-1 Rent-All, to construct a 22' x 140' storage building 10' from a proposed property line between 4916 S. Cedar Street and 330 Cloverland Drive. This property is currently being considered for rezoning (Z-3-96). If rezoned, Section 1268.08 of the Zoning Code requires a 25' rear yard setback, therefore, a 15' variance is being requested J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that Mr. Helfman, owner of A-1 Rent-All is purchasing or has purchased a 50 x 165-foot section off the side of 330 Cloverland Drive. Presently, A-1 Rent All is proposing to rezone this piece to commercial so that they can build a storage building allowing them to place doors on the east side of the building and to service those doors from the east, keeping the noise and activity that are generated by this type of business from the resident. There existing site is used at its maximum. Most of their activity is either in front of the store or right behind the building. The original proposal as shown on the site plan would have a north door, as well as east facing doors. It would have a 10-foot buffer strip with densely planted conifers and retain the existing 4 foot high chain length fence in the back, and 6 foot high stockade fence along the west border. Part of the proposal is removal of the trailer on the north side of the building which serves as some of their storage. Staff has recommended approval of this request because it is the best of a bad situation where we have some conflicting land uses. We have recommended approval with the following conditions: That only a pedestrian door be on the north side of the building so that the equipment wouldn't come and go from the north side of the building only from the east side of the building. Also, that they build an 8-foot high brick masonry wall that will blend into the neighborhood, then the wall will be reduced in height once it reaches 10-foot from the property line too approximately 3- foot high so that it doesn't conflict with any pedestrian and traffic movement here at the intersection or it won't block other neighbor's view. Finally, we also recommend that the rear wall of the building be masonry (not necessarily brick) earth tone color which will provide a better view and that the height not exceed 15 ft.. Les Linsmeyer of Linsmeyer and Associates representing A-1 Rent-All spoke. Masonry is workable brick or split face block and some discretion to the staff to work out colors and materials for the screen wall between the two properties at a later time. J. Ruff commented about the color of the masonry brick with earth tone colors and not white. Board of Zoning Ap Is, June 13, 1996 Page 11 Bill Jakovac does not have any problems with the requested proposal. He had one question regarding the overhead door on the north side of the building, in order to bring a loading truck in we won't be able to get a truck in that lot because it is so narrow. He wants to have access to unload and load the truck (small type). J. Ruff explained that his concern is by having the vehicular access door there is that activity is going to stay there, plus we will have more activity because the building will contain more product to be able to be leased. Mr. Jakovac stated that loading would be from inside of the building from the north and part of the truck would be inside of the building. Bill Jakovac Jr., 330 Cloverland. Does not have a problem with the northern overhead door but agrees with the rest. Discussion ensued. Gary Helfman, owner of A-1 Rent All, stated that the storage building will allow him to adequately rotate seasonal items to inside the storage so that more items and customer traffic will go out the front door. He estimates that 25% of his goods go out the front door, but anticipates 50% will be able to go out the front door when he can put up his storage building. E. Spink motioned to approve BZA3402.96 at 4916 S. Cedar Street for a rear yard variance of 15 ft. to allow the construction of a storage building 10 ft. from the proposed west property line, with four conditions as modified: 1. An overhead door on the north side of the building is allowed provided the trucks that use it will load and unload inside the building to keep the noise levels down, which means adequate space will need to be reserved inside the building for the vehicles to load and unload in the building. 2. Instead of the existing wood stockade fence used as part of the buffer, a brick masonry wall shall be constructed from the N.W. corner of the proposed building around to the north property line as recommended above. The brick will be a brownish colored brick to best fit in with the adjacent residential character. The height of the brick wall will be eight feet from the building to a point ten feet from the north property line and then be three ft. high from the point around the N.W. corner of the property to the driveway. 3. The west wall of the building shall be constructed of masonry products and will not exceed 15 ft. in height. 4. The rezoning of the property to "F" Commercial is approved by the City Council. On a Roll Call vote, the motion carried unanimously (4-0). BZA-3402.96 has been approved with conditions. V. Old Business A. BZA-3393.96, 3229 Moores River Drive J. Ruff explained that Mr. Jeffries requested withdrawal of the second part of his request from last month that was tabled. He has reduced the size of his garage so that the storage shed and the garage do not exceed 1000 sq. ft. E. Spink moved to remove the tabled portion of BZA-3393.96 from the table and accept the withdrawal of the request. Seconded by J. Page. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Board of Zoning App- Is, June 13, 1996 Page 12 VI. No Action on Policy and Procedures VII. No Public Comment Vill. Minutes C. Bicy moved to accept both sets of minutes as printed for the meeting of March 14, 1996 and April 11, 1996. Seconded by J. Page. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals craft to Clerk 08/09/96 Approved 9/12/96 To Clerk 12/13/96 D �' ,' i!,P R\ 17 Pei 3: 01.4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING LANSING CITY CLERK BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY 9, 1996, 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:40 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present M. Clark C. Bicy G. Hilts J. Page E. Spink B. Excused Absences E. Horne (action taken to excuse, April 11, 1996) H. LeBlanc (action taken to excuse, April 11, 1996) C. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. Hearings A. BZA-3392.96, 1011 S. Washington Avenue This is a request by Ted Samra Sr. of the Crawford Door Company to construct a 9,817.5 square foot building (85' x 115.5"), one foot from the rear property line at 1011 S. Washington. Chapter 1268.08 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25' in the "F" Commercial District. This is therefore a request for a variance of 24 feet. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the owner wants to expand his business by adding an additional building. The neighborhood within a 300 foot radius has been notified about the proposed changes. M. Clark noted that a letter had been sent which requested that this action be tabled for 30 days so the property owner of 1011 S. Washington and his design consultant can meet on-site with the citizens who sent the letter at the site to review their concerns. M. Clark asked Mr. Samra if the request would Board of Zoning Appeals, May 9, 1996 Page 2 adversely affect his schedule, as this may take up to 120 days before completion, which would push them into winter construction. Mr. Samra stated that he wanted to set the building back so that the semi trucks can have better access to the building. The building borders on a parking lot at the rear which is for the Tax Tribunal at the corner. The owner has been there for many years. He said that they have gone inside and spoken with the receptionist in order to use some of the parking lot spaces, and everything has been getting along quite well for 17 years. He does not anticipate any problems at this point. M. Clark was concerned that they might have construction people on the Tax Tribunal's parking lot while building the wall. Mr. Samra assured her that they will be well aware of the progress. C. Bicy questioned Mr. Samra about what will happen to the existing building, and Mr. Samra stated that Capitol Discount will have the option of buying the building. Charles DeMeso of 1110 Platt Street, treasurer of the River Pointe Neighborhood Association, is in favor of the development. The business has done well and they would like to see new construction. David Brundage, 118 E. Hazel Street, President of the River Pointe Neighborhood Association, is in favor of the development also. The board broke into Committee of the Whole. C. Bicy moved to approve the request for a 24' rear yard setback variance subject to site plan review and conditions: 1. The redesign of the parking lot to meet minimum aisle space requirements. 2. Redesign the south curb cut to show how it relates/connects to the curb cut leading into the adjacent parking lot for Capitol City Discount Store. The motion was seconded by J. Page. M. Clark inquired as to whether or not emergency egress would be required along the back wall. If so, the variance may then put the need for egress across others properties. She suggested that the item be tabled for one month to answer the emergency egress question. C. Bicy withdrew his motion for approval, and motioned that BZA-3392.96 be tabled until additional information is gathered and submitted, so the Board will know exactly what they are voting for. The motion was seconded by Dr. Spink and approved unanimously. On a roll call vote, the motion to table BZA-3392.96 was carried unanimously (5-0). B. BZA-3393.96, 3229 Moores River Drive This is a request by Brian and Ellen Jefferies, 3229 Moores River Drive, to expand an attached garage from 528 square feet to 1,012 square feet in size. Section 1248.03(b)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance limits the minimum size Board of Zoning Appeals, May 9, 1996 Page 2 of a building depending on the length of the buiding. The 1 foot doesn't really require that the property be removed from the back property line, that was the main concern in this case. J. Ruff stated that Mr. Powers would like to get this issue settled, prior to going to an archetictit. The main concern was having to go across someone elses property or property being controlled by someone else. J. Ruff asks if there are any questions. ? move that BZA-3392.96 at 1011 S. Washington Avenue be approved, with the understanding that any design for fire exits will not cause people or equipment, to encrouch on other surrounding property. The intent is so that people and equipment don't go across other properties. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3382.96. The motion was seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Hilts X Page X Bicy X Horne X BZA-3382.96 approved by a vote of 6 - 0. B. BZA-3393.96, 3229 Moores River Drive This is a request by Brian and Ellen Jeffries, 3229 Moores River Drive, to expand an attached garage from 528 square feet to 1,012 square feet in size. Section 1248.03(b)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance limits the maximum size of a garage to 720 square feet; a variance of 292 square feet from this requirement is being requested. Section 1248.03(b)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance limits the total square footage of accessory structures to 1,000 square feet for a single family residence. The proposed garage and an existing storage shed on the property would total 112 square feet from this requirement is also requested. J. Ruff presented the case. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3387.96 at 3306 N. East Street, a 1' setback for a 21' tall 60 square foot sign, upon the removal of the existing sign. The motion was seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Hilts X Page X Board of Zoning Appeals, May 9, 1996 Page 3 Bicy X Horne X BZA-3387.96 approved by a vote of 6 - 0. C. BZA-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street This is a request by Alan Henfling, representing the owner, Betty Speaks, to build a 20' x 80' addition to the rear of the existing building at 6026 S. Cedar Street for the storage of transmission parts. The applicant is proposing to build the addition up to the rear lot line. Section 1268.08 of the Zoning Code requires a 25' rear yard setback. Therefore, a 25' variance is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3389.96 at 1527 S. Washington Avenue, for the 22' rear yard setback. The motion was seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Hilts X Page X Bicy X Horne X BZA-3389.96 approved by a vote of 6 - 0. III. Excused Absences A. IV. Public Comment A. None V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures 1. B. Tabled Item: BZA-3342.95, 328 S. Mifflin Street 1. We are awaiting communication from the applicant for this case. C. Tabled Item: BZA-3386.96, US-127 at Dunckel Road Board of Zoning Appeals, May 9, 1996 Page 3 of a garage to 720 square feet; a variance of 292 square feet from this requirement is being requested. Section 1248.03(b)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance limits the total square footage of accessory structures to 1,000 square feet for a single family residence. The proposed garage and an existing storage shed on the property would total 1112 square feet; a variance of 112 square feet from this requirement is also requested. J. Ruff presented the case. Brian and Ellen Jefferies would like to make their ranch house into a two-story house by adding living space over the garage and basically rebuilding the structure. The plans that were presented are of a totally different character. The right elevation shows the garage doors which face to the side, and the front elevation will face the street. J. Ruff noted that the variance is not a substantial variance, yet it allows for an attached structure, and provides entry off of a court situation. It would not adversely affect the neighborhood as designed. The property is on two residential lots which will remain the same. Mr. Ruff thinks that this will be a substantial improvement. The staff recommends approval. Brian Jefferies, property owner, spoke. He noted that he did not plan on having such a large garage. He anticipates having both sets of parents in the house in the future and wanted to create a bigger place for them to stay. He stated that changing the garage is a result of the other design issues. Water is a problem. They have hired someone to come in and deal with the water problem by altering the site drainage. Under the house is primarily crawl space, and he wants to provide more storage space. Mr. Jefferies states that, in order for them to do this project, they had to avoid the buried power lines and easements that went between both lots. Future expansion would be difficult due to future easements. J. Page was concerned about the water problem. J. Ruff said that the water is really a private concern so no official review has to be done. M. Clark said that normally she is reluctant to approve a garage this size because of the limitations that were put in the code initially to prevent inappropriate use. She states that in this kind of development, most of those uses are not a concern. She has no problem with the proposed size of the garage seeing that the space is necessary, but does have a problem with the 10' x 10' shed due to the adverse effect to the neighboring property. M. Clark made a motion that BZA-3393.96 be approved for a garage of 1,012 square feet total due to major improvement of the whole area. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. On a Roll Call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5 - 0). A variance of 292 sq. ft. of Section 1248.03(b)(5) is approved. C. Bicy motioned that the 100 square foot accessory structure stay on its premises and remain there for reasons stated by the appellate. The motion was seconded by J. Page. Board of Zoning Appeals, May 9, 1996 Page 4 VOTE: yea nay yea nay Spink X Clark X Hilts X Page X Bicy X Four favorable votes are required to grant the variance, therefore, the variance is not granted. C. Bicy made a motion to reconsider the 10' X 10 accessory structure. The motion was seconded by J. Page. After further discussion regarding consistency and precedent, C. Bicy withdrew his previous motion and further motioned to table the request for the 112 sq. ft. variance of total accessory structure for reconsideration in 30 days. Mr. Spink would like some time to think more closely about the shed. He states that the rationale needs to be firm. On a Roll Call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5 - 0). BZA-3393.96 is tabled. C. BZA-3394.96, 6026 S. Cedar Street This is a request by Alan Henfling, representing the owner, Betty Speaks, to build a 20' x 80' addition to the rear of the existing building at 6026 S. Cedar Street for the storage of transmission parts. The applicant is proposing to build the addition up to the rear lot line. Section 1268.08 of the Zoning Code requires a 25' rear yard setback. Therefore, a 25' variance is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. The property is located in a triangle of land, which is bounded by Kaynorth Road on the west, Cedar Street on the east, and Miller Road on the south. The site is fairly tight with parking. The triangle is occupied with commercial uses and to the west is residential property. The triangle area around the transmission repair and the auto parts store is congested. Another area of congestion is around the restaurant and the cleaners where circulation and parking is difficult. the building sets 20 feet from the rear property line and is non-conforming. The staff's concern is that the addition sees to be in a reasonable location, however, staff believes that the approval of the 20' structure is going to adversely impact parking. J. Ruff stated that he doesn't think the parking situation should be made worse; also, with the size of the addition, it could potentially be converted to service space at a 20' width, and add to the number of stalls to work in, which would add to the parking requirements and the difficulty of that situation. He suggests that a smaller addition could be built, possibly 5' that could store a lot of transmission parts and etc., keeping an area that would allow a rear yard setback, as well as potential parking area, without increasing the demand for parking. Board of Zoning Appeals, May 9, 1996 Page 5 Alan Henfling, who is representing the owner, spoke. He stated that he does realize the parking problem. The plan for the area in which he intends to build this building is to help create a smoother and more efficient business. The factor that is motivating him is periodic problems with OSHA/DNR. The back of the building is sometimes used for storage of transmission parts and accessories. This creates a problem with the possible expulsion of chemicals into the environment. This building is to help to contain that material to keep it from getting into the drain system. The problem with parked vehicles is not a problem that is created particularly by the business. It is created by the law itself; if there were a legitimate and sensible means of removing these vehicles and correcting the problem that the customer has created, there would not be a parking problem. The problem comes when people refuse to pick up their vehicles and use facilities like this and others as a storage facility for their car. Mr. Henfling further stated that this problem is being taken care of immediately. He said that he runs a high volume business and has a lot of cars there from time to time. Whether he has the building or not, parking will continue to be a problem; it will not vary by having this extra addition put on the building. What it will do is assist the ability to get the cars done in a more efficient manner, and to store certain parts necessary to build these transmission to get the vehicles fixed. He has asked the police to come and tag the vehicles left in the lot, and sometimes it takes up to six weeks to do so. He intends to not only put on an addition, but also to completely repave the area. It will improve the area and will help him to control the loss of any chemicals. He asks that the committee take this matter into consideration. He states that he is trying to do something for the good of the business and the neighborhood. Tom Harke, owner of the radiator repair shop adjacent to Mr. Henfling, spoke. He said that Mr. Henfling pays his taxes there and he can do as he wants. He does not want him to adversely affect his plans of building a building and renting it out. He is looking for a tenant to rent it out before he decides to build, which is the reason for his lot being vacant. He has two lots on Cedar Street and three on Kaynorth. J. Ruff stated that the property Mr. Henfling is talking about does not allow the outside storage of transmission parts. It does not allow the outside storage of disabled vehicles, there are vehicles on the site that have a lot more work that needs to be done to them besides transmission work. He suggests a 5' or 10' addition as adequate or 9 1/' would keep it of the property line without harming the other property. It would allow the parking of a couple of vehicles in a 10' spot. He considers the site to be an eye sore. It does not suggest that he doesn't need the storage space for transmissions, but something smaller would be appropriate without creating additional bays on the building, and leaving space for additional cars to be stored. M. Clark said that she has no problems with an addition on the rear of the building, she wants it to be set back from the property lines far enough for Board of Zoning Appeals, May 9, 1996 Page 6 maintenance. However, she would prefer that it not be set back far enough for storage of vehicles, because that just puts the vehicles closer to the adjacent property. It would be interesting to hear from the applicant what size he feels he needs for storage. Alan Henfling spoke. He said that he did not spend a lot of money on hiring an architect to come and write a clear cut view of what he anticipates on doing. He said that he can adjust his limits, he has a 20' property line depth and will be willing to go to 17' or 18'. He would prefer to keep from having the ability to park vehicles down that line. He does not need to build on or near Tom's property and can adjust it 5' to 10' to get proper utilization of the storage area, and not be at loss in the future. He needs to have room for people to walk comfortably and not make it an OSHA endangerment to his customers. M. Clark suggests that the setback should be no less than 5 '/', which would allow him access around the building. It would not be wide enough to park vehicles or store parts etc., and Code Compliance would hopefully see that it doesn't happen. It would not extend north of that indentation of the property line. The southern half of the building would have that addition and the part to the north end could still be used as a parking space. He would not be able to get a vehicle in from the west, which would eliminate some of the concerns of it being used as a bay. Construction costs may escalate sharply if they build closer than 10' to the property line. The setback of 5 1/' would eliminate most of Ms. Clarks concerns and still allow an expansion. C. Bicy has no objections of expanding the business. He agrees with J. Ruff with the limited parking spaces that exist for automobiles. He would like for Mr. Henfling ,to sit down and figure out exactly how much space would actually be needed to reduce the request. He states that at this point, he cannot approve the request. C. Bicy made a motion to table BZA-3394.96 at 6026 S. Cedar Street for 30 days, for more information. The motion was seconded by E. Spink. On a Roll Call Vote, the motion carried unanimously (5 - 0). BZA-3394.96 has been tabled for 30 days. III. Public Comment A. None IV. Minutes A. None ready for review Board of Zoning Appeals, May 9, 1996 Page 7 V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures Nothing ready at this time. VI. New Business A. None VI I. Adjournment A. Meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\BZA\MINUTES\BZA5MIN Approved 6/13/96 To Clerk 6/21/96 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ,� APRIL 11, 1996, 7:30 P.M. �-I WCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Bicy at 7:35 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present E. Horne H. LeBlanc M. Clark C. Bicy B. Excused Absences E. Spink G. Hilts J. Page E. Horne made a motion to grant excused absences for Page and Hilts. Motion seconded by C. Bicy, and approved unanimously on a voice vote. C. A quorum of four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. Hearings A. BZA-3391.96, 301 Rumsey Avenue This is a request by David Muylle to replace his existing garage at 301 Rumsey Avenue with a 24' x 20' garage. The proposed structure will be 9' behind his house (to the west), 4' from the front (south) lot line. Chapter 1248.07(b) requires a minimum 20' front yard setback and limits the amount of lot coverage by structures to 40% and total coverage, including driveway, to 60%. A variance of 16' from the front yard setback and variance of 26% from the lot coverage (by structures) ratio, and a variance of 20% from the total lot coverage are therefore requested. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the owner wants to take the driveway off the Vine Street side of the property and utilize the 301-305 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 11 1996 - Page 2 Rumsey driveway. The garage structure would reflect the architectural design of the house; the garage doors would face the drive. This is a small corner lot. The garage would be in line with the house. H. LeBlanc inquired whether the driveway would be two cars wide, so that there is room for the cars to maneuver. Mr. Muylle addressed the Board. He said that there were three things he wants to accomplish. One is that the driveway is shot, another is that he wants two parking spaces rather than the one that is there currently, and the third thing is that he wants to improve the streetscape by renovating the house and turning the garage. He also said that the final garage would probably be 20 x 20, to give him more yard space. C. Bicy asked about the orientation of the driveway and garage. Mr. Muylle and J. Ruff described how they would be oriented. M. Clark asked if the easement has been recorded yet. Mr. Muylle said that it hadn't been done yet. E. Horne asked how Mr. Muylle will handle the sale of these three properties at some point in time. He stated that the three pieces are not a logical whole, he just happened to purchase these three over the last ten years. He told how he intended to sell, at some point, these three properties. H. LeBlanc stated that the reason the Board wants the easement recorded is to reduce conflicts between neighbors in the future. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. Some discussion took place. M. Clark stated that the only reason she supports this variance is because Mr. Muylle is creating an extra parking space, which will serve to discourage street and /or yard parking; it is an improvement for the neighborhood. H. LeBlanc stated that she also supports this variance. M. Clark made a motion to approve BZA-3391.96 at 301 Rumsey Avenue, with the condition that the easement status be formalized with the register of deeds, and the existing driveway be removed, so that there is only one drive, rather than the two that currently exist. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Bicy X Horne X Motion approved with conditions, by a vote of 6 - 0. III. Public Comment A. None BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 11 , 1996 - Page 3 IV. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures 1. J. Ruff stated that he is getting together information for the sub- committee (Page, Horne, LeBlanc). We will try to get together prior to the next meeting. A meeting was set up for Friday, April 26. Then any progress made can be handed out at the May 9, 1996 meeting. Also, we will be attending a Lugnuts game, using the City Suite, on May 9, 1996, at 3:00 in the afternoon. B. Tabled Item: BZA-3342.95, 328 S. Mifflin Street 1. M. Clark made a motion to remove BZA-3342.95 from the table. Motion seconded by E. Horne and carried unanimously on a voice vote. H. LeBlanc made a motion to dismiss BZA-3342.95 without prejudice. M. Clark seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously on a voice vote. V. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of March 14, 1996, were not yet available. VI. New Business A. H. LeBlanc requested an excused absence from the May 9 and June 13 meetings. M. Clark made a motion, and E. Horne seconded it, to grant the excused absence. The motion was carried unanimously by a voice vote. B. E. Horne requested an excused absence for the May 9 and June 13 meetings. M. Clark made a motion and H. LeBlanc seconded it, to grant the excused absence. The motion was carried unanimously by a voice vote. VI I. Adjournment A. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Approved 6/13/96 To Clerk 6/21/96 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MARCH 14, 1996, 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7.30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present E. Horne H. LeBlanc M. Clark C. Bicy G. Hilts J. Page B. Excused Absences E. Spink C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator S. Hayward, Planner II. Hearings A. BZA-3382.96, 505 E. Michigan Avenue This is a request by the City of Lansing to erect two ground/pole signs in the parking area of Oldsmobile Park, and one wall sign measuring 91 square feet located on the south facade of Oldsmobile Park, 505 E. Michigan Avenue. Both ground/pole signs will be located zero feet from the property line along Michigan Avenue. The two signs will be 14.67 feet in height and will total 170 square feet in area. One sign will be located near Cedar Street and the other near Larch Street. This location is in the Capitol Center District relative to the Sign Code and, according to Section 1442.24 is limited to one ground/pole sign with a maximum of 10 feet in height and 30 square feet in area. Section 1442.24(b) allows one wall sign with a maximum of 40 square feet. These sections also allow larger signs for unique circumstances to the maximum citywide limitations. This is a request for a variance of one additional ground/pole Board of Zoning Appeals, March 14, 1996 Page 2 sign, 4.67 feet in additional height, and 140 square feet in additional area for the ground/pole signs, 51 square feet in additional area for the wall sign, and a setback variance of 30 feet. J. Ruff presented the case. S. Hayward added information regarding parking. No one else spoke. C. Bicy stated that he is voting for the signs. E. Horne had several concerns, including her feeling that the City should observe the same rules as everyone else when it comes to the Sign Ordinance. She also is concerned with the view to the Capitol building. J. Page stated that he is in support of the variance. M. Clark said that she feels the request is reasonable, not intrusive. She will be supporting. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3382.96 at 505 E. Michigan Avenue for a variance of one additional ground pole sign, 4.67' in additional height, 140 square feet in additional area, and a setback variance of 30' for the ground pole signs, then an additional 51 square feet for the wall sign, and in this motion we should recognize that this is a greater than 5 acre parcel, that it fronts on three different streets, which is a reason for the additional signs, that the building itself is setback a considerable distance from the street, and that the signs intrude less in the public walkway than they would if they were attached to a building. The motion was seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Hilts X Page X Bicy X Horne X BZA-3382.96 approved by a vote of 6 - 0. B. BZA-3387.96, 3306 N. East Street This is a request by Bay Petroleum Corp. to replace the existing sign which overhangs the right-of-way with a 60 square foot, 21' tall ground pole sign which will be 1' from both front property lines at 3306 N. East Street. Section 1442.12(5)(B) of the Sign Code requires the proposed sign to be set back 18' from each front property line (N. East St. and Orchard Glenn) and no taller than 18'. Therefore, a 17' front yard setback variance from each street and a 3' height variance is requested. J. Ruff presented the case. Dave Suty, vice-president of Bay Petroleum, spoke. He introduced Jim Smit, President of Bay Petroleum. Mr. Suty stated that they are aware that this sign does not meet current code and that Bay is going to "co-brand" this station with Citgo, which is the purpose of changing the sign. He said that Board of Zoning Appeals, March 14, 1996 Page 3 really, the only change that will take place is to take down the base and price signs, and replace with Citgo base and price signs. He then showed pictures of the site. He stated that the replacement structure will be setback a little more than the existing structure and that it will be a little bit shorter than the existing structure. Also, they feel that it will be more pleasant in appearance than the existing sign. J. Ruff presented a letter for inclusion in the record from Martin Motor Sports in opposition to the variance. They feel that it will block their sign. There was no discussion. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3387.96 at 3306 N. East Street, a 1' setback for a 21' tall 60 square foot sign, upon the removal of the existing sign. The motion was seconded by M. Clark. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Hilts X Page X Bicy X Horne X BZA-3387.96 approved by a vote of 6 - 0. C. BZA-3389.96, 1527 S. Washington Avenue This is a request by Gerritt Heuer to construct a 640 square foot housing addition and a 576 square foot attached garage three feet from the rear (east) property line. This single family residential property is zoned "F" Commercial and requires a 25' rear yard setback, according to Chapter 1268.08 of the Zoning Ordinance. This is therefore a request for a variance of 2 feet. J. Ruff presented the case. He said that Mr. Heuer is also applying for a Class A non-conforming status through the Planning Board, which was passed, contingent upon the passage of this variance. The entire addition is residential. G. Heuer spoke. He said that this is his residence. There are no bathrooms or bedrooms on the main floor of this house. He also stated that he has been in this area for thirty years. C. Bicy stated that he is in support of this variance. H. LeBlanc commented that she has a concern that if it was sold for commercial use someday, new building, electrical, etc., permits would have to be taken out. Board of Zoning Appeals, March 14, 1996 Page 4 C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3389.96 at 1527 S. Washington Avenue, for the 22' rear yard setback. The motion was seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Hilts X Page X Bicy X Horne X BZA-3389.96 approved by a vote of 6 - 0. D. BZA-3390.96, 917 W. Holmes This is a sign permit request by Jeffery Flynn, of Allyn Salons, for a variance to erect a 14' x 3.17' wall sign (45 square feet), on the back (south) side of the building at 917 W. Holmes, for the Cost Cutters Family Hair Care Business. A sign of the same size was recently approved for the front of the building. Total signage proposed is therefore 90 square feet. Chapter 1442.26 of the Sign Code restricts the number of signs to one and limits the size to a maximum of 46 square feet for this leasable space. This is therefore a request for a second sign and a variance of 44 square feet in the maximum amount of wall signage allowable. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that staff recommended denial of the appeal; however, approval of a smaller rear identification sign would not be inappropriate. Some discussion ensued. Jeff Flynn, 6606 Windsong Drive, applicant, spoke. He talked of the hardship to the business of having only a front sign. He also talked about the other businesses in this development and their signage. He stated that 2/3 of the people entering the development would not even know their business is there. C. Bicy asked if they have already purchased their signs. The front sign has already been installed, the back sign is on order, and has not yet been scheduled. C. Bicy asked if Mr. Ruff had seen the site. He said that he had, and that the other building was designed with two faces but not this building. G. Hilts stated that he could support this variance, due to the unique location. H. LeBlanc said that she also could support this variance, if the size of the sign were reduced. Much discussion ensued. H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve BZA-3390.96 at 917 W. Holmes for 20 square feet of signage on the rear of the building located at 917 W. Holmes Road. The motion was seconded by J. Page. Board of Zoning Appeals, March 14, 1996 Page 5 VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Hilts X Page X Bicy X Horne X BZA-3390.96 approved by a vote of 6 - 0. III. Excused Absences A. Dr. Spink was approved for four months of excused absences at the December meeting. IV. Public Comment A. None V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures 1. The Planning Board has updated their Policy and Procedures manual, and we will look at this issue this year. Mr. Ruff would like the Board to look at the Planning Board Policy and Procedures manual, and consider any changes that might need to be made. B. Tabled Item: BZA-3342.95, 328 S. Mifflin Street 1. We are awaiting communication from the applicant for this case. C. Tabled Item: BZA-3386.96, US-127 at Dunckel Road 1. E. Horne made a motion to accept the request for withdrawal submitted by the applicants. Seconded by C. Bicy, and approved unanimously on a voice vote. VI. Approval of Minutes A. February 8, 1996 H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve the minutes of February 8, 1996, as submitted. Seconded by C. Bicy, and approved unanimously on a voice vote. Board of Zoning Appeals, March 14, 1996 Page 6 VII. New Business A. None VIII. Adjournment A. Meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\BZA\BZAMAR96. Draft to Clerk 02/23/96 Approved 03/14/96 To Clerk 03/18/96 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING , BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CLERK FEBRUARY 8, 1996, 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present r' E. Horne H. LeBlanc --M. Clark C. Bicy G. Hilts J. Page `'' C-. B. Excused Absences r = C-1 E. Spink C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator J. Sturdevant, Senior Planner II. Hearings A. BZA-3385.96, 2009 S. Cedar Street This is a request by Ray E. Powers, owner of A & A Rent-A-Ride, to construct a new building for motor vehicle sales and service, 15' from the rear (east) property line at 2009 S. Cedar St. Section 1268.08 of the Zoning Code requires a 25' rear yard setback in the "F" Commercial District. This is therefore a request for a 10' variance. J. Ruff presented the case. He stated that the owner wants to leave the existing building in place until the new building is completed. He also stated that the 15' behind the building would allow for landscape buffering vs. having a car or two parked there with some buffering between the parking and the houses. He stated that staff has recommended approval with landscaping, and other conditions as outlined in the staff report. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 8, 1996 - Page 2 David Wilson, Attorney representing the owner, Mr. Powers, spoke. He brought some photographs with him to present to the Board. He said that he wanted to affirm, for the record, Mr. Powers' assertion that landscape screening and buffering will be put in as requested. He also provided a petition of neighbors in the adjoining block who will support the variance request. C. Bicy asked what the structure will be made of. Mr. Wilson said that it would be a pole-type building. J. Page asked what type of material would be used to deaden the sound. Mr. Wilson replied that the walls would be fire rated with insulation, which would provide a noise barrier. C. Bicy then asked about the fencing. Mr. Ruff stated that the fence would be primarily 8' through the center area, with the ends at 3' in height. The fence would be a shadow box, tight woven, double sided wooden fence. E. Horne asked what kind of equipment would be inside the building to deal with smells, such as paint smells and so on. Mr. Wilson replied that there would be traps and filtered exhaust fans. H. LeBlanc inquired about the doors, how many and where they would be located. Mr. Wilson said that there would be four on the front, and one door on each end; there would be no pedestrian doors on the back of the building. As for the exhaust fan location, Mr. Wilson stated that any would probably vent through the roof, but painting or vents are not anticipated. E. Horne inquired about the lighting of this property. Mr. Wilson replied that the Board of Water and Light had installed lights within the last 30 days. He agreed to check with the Board about adding light directors to keep the lights turned away from the neighborhood. M. Clark asked why, if this property is presented as an auto rental and sales facility, there should be any paint fumes. She said that this seems more like a body shop. Mr. Wilson said that there would be no body work, that it was indeed an auto rental and sales business. Dianne Knepshield, 517 Woodrow, addressed the Board. She stated that she had sent a letter to the Board, and that she is sure her signature is not on the petition in favor of the variance, as she was not approached. She stated that the lights did go up, but said that they shine directly into their house. She says that regardless of what Mr. Wilson has said, this business is a body shop, that they bring in cars on tow trucks and do body shop work all the time, on Saturdays, Sundays, and evenings. In the summer time, they can't use their back yard frequently because of the fumes from the paint. She said that if it is not a body shop it shouldn't have those problems, it wouldn't have the traffic after hours, and on weekends, that it does. She asked that the variance be denied, or, that the landscaping and fence, which she has heard about for four years, be installed. She says the business has expanded, and taken over the area. She strongly urges the Board to take caution and consider what the neighbors have to endure. C. Bicy asked if the business was there when Mrs. Knepshield moved into the house. She replied that it was an insurance agency, with a manicured lawn, and a different atmosphere than a body shop has. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 8 1996 - Page 3 M. Clark stated that she has had misgivings since she first read the report, concerning the effect the variance would have on the residences in the area. After listening to Mrs. Knepshield's complaint, and listening to the report that was presented, she wanted to know what her reaction was. Mrs. Knepshield stated that she preferred that traffic remain close to Cedar Street, if there was a guarantee that traffic would not be between the business and the houses. J. Ruff told of the history of this property, in the area of zoning violations, plans, and ownership. M. Clark asked what types of business uses are allowed; if a body shop is an allowed use. J. Ruff said that it is, but only as a secondary use. Motor vehicle sales and service are allowed as a primary usage. He said that the noise at the shop could be somewhat relieved by keeping the doors at the north and south ends of the building closed. He also said that this property is not zoned industrial, so it is not exempt from the noise ordinance. A paint booth is not a part of the building permit, and the Fire Marshall could close down the business if they try to do this type of work. Much more discussion took place along this line, among the Board members. J. Ruff read the petition presented by Mr. Wilson into the record, including the list of names of the people who signed it. The signers were: Mark Blum, Marks Lock Shop R.N.Cadwell, Southtown A.B. Janice Beals, Beals Furniture repair Christine Kaleyanakis, 515 Florence David L. Hanna, 533 Woodrow Glenn Scot (?) of 540 Woodrow. Brian Hill, 1920 Ray Mike Hart, 1901 S. Cedar and an illegible signature from 518 Woodrow. C. Bicy made a motion to approve BZA-3385.96 at 2009 S. Cedar Street, based upon the following conditions: 1. That the applicant include a radius and curbs on the site plan for review, to be approved by the Zoning Administrator 2. That the applicant locate the trash dumpster on the site plan for review by the Zoning Administrator 3. That the applicant remove the curb cut on Woodrow Street, to be approved by the Zoning Administrator 4. That the applicant designates the closest parking spaces to the entrance of the building, in particular for disability usage, 5. That the shrubbery and landscaping are done properly around the proper areas to improve the surroundings, 6. That the lighting is corrected to code. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 8, 1996 - Page 4 Also, that the Board of Zoning Appeals would not include as part of the hardship the purchase of land by the State of Michigan. M. Clark spoke to clarify the landscaping, to include that the intent is to landscape behind the building so traffic flow is not possible. The motion was seconded by H. LeBlanc. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Hilts X Page X Bicy X Horne X Motion approved with conditions, by a vote of 6 - 0. B. BZA-3386.96, Dunckel Road at US-127 This is a request by Markham Enterprises (owner by option) and Martin Property Development, Inc. (applicants), for variances to permit construction of a second ground pole sign a maximum of 765 square feet in area and 119 feet in height. Section 1442.12(h)(5) of the Sign Code permits one ground pole sign per parcel with a maximum of 170 square feet in size and 30 feet in height. The applicant is requesting to construct one ground pole sign meeting these requirements for placement along Dunckel Road, and a second large sign for visibility from US-127. This requires variances for the number, height, and area allowed for ground pole signs. J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that the applicant is claiming a hardship, in that this site is close to the interchange, but not adjacent to the interchange. There is a swampy area between this developable property and the interchange that they could not develop even if they owned it, as it is wetlands. It is proposed at this time to remain a part of the Trappers Cove Apartments. J. Ruff stated that the City of Lansing does not have a wetland's ordinance; the State of Michigan is in charge of that, and they may or may not allow signs in the wetlands area. J. Sturdevant added that staff feels that the hardship is debateable in this case, and he has some concerns, primarily that a precedent should not be set. There are other properties in the city that are close to an interstate but don't directly abut it, for example S. Cedar Street, and M. L. King Jr. Blvd., as well as 1-496 through downtown. John Peckham, Martin Properties, spoke. He said that the billboard that is at the site will be removed if the variance is granted. If the re-zoning is denied, the project and variance request will still be on the table. They are two separate issues. They are complying with code in the site plan; no other variances will be asked for. Mr. Peckham then reviewed the staff report, stating that the site is 300' from the highway, not a quarter or half a mile, as BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 8, 1996 - Page 5 the staff report states. He stated that high rise signs exist in Lansing Township, at Kalamazoo and US-127; "precedent setting" is not an accurate statement. He also stated that signs exist on the other side of the interchange from the site the variance is requested for. That seems to him to go along with the development of the area, and is not, in fact, inconsistent with the development. Finally, he stated that the traffic circulation will not be impaired, rather, improvements will be put in at their expense. This he feels to be a positive thing. He feels that they are preserving the wetlands area, the trees and vegetation; if this variance is not approved, they will more than likely clear trees in the wetlands area. He introduced the support staff that he brought with him. Bob Ross, Ross & Associates Enterprises Advertising, spoke. They look for billboard advertising that is close to the exit, but none is available here. Mr. Dee Pettigrew, Marketing Representative for Citgo Petroleum, addressed the Board. He stated that if the public doesn't know that a service station is located at a particular exit, they won't get off. Therefore, they feel that the boom test that was done a week or so ago, gave us an indicator of the height they would have to go to get the exposure to get the motoring public off to the outside lane in time to exit the highway safely. John Peckham spoke again. He said the project will generate 15 to 20 jobs in the Lansing area, be a $2 million investment in the community, and will benefit the residents of the City of Lansing as well as the motoring public; he said that they are making their best effort to preserve the wetlands and trees that exist on this site, and they feel some compensation relative to this request should be given as a result of that. Martin Commercial Enterprises has been in business for 25 years, and operates three Mobil Stations and one Amoco station. They support community activities, and feel that this request is reasonable. Mr. Peckham said that they would appreciate the Board's support of this request, and they feel that their objectives are consistent and not precedent setting in the City of Lansing. Delores Kramer, president of Forest View Citizens Association, spoke, stating that they didn't ask her about this request. She feels that this would be very precedent setting. She said there is a McDonalds on Jolly Road, a Burger King, a Taco Bell, and all the signs are quite low. There are lots of other offices close that don't even have signs. The Harley Hotel and the Red Roof Inn have low signs. The Motor Wheel offices have low signs. They think that this would be very precedent setting, and they do object to this variance. Elaine Chittenden, 2517 E. Cavanaugh Road, spoke, reading a copy of a letter she had prepared for presentation. She opposes this construction as it appears to be the beginning of a cancerous growth. This Dunckel Road area is across from the Bear Lake natural area, and she proposes that the city pass an ordinance that preserves wetlands, woodlots and natural areas. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 8 1996 - Page 6 Several letters were read into the record, from MSU, Mr. Ross, Mr. Speedy, and Mr. Dee Pettigrew. The Board dissolved into Committee of the Whole. E. Horne commented that when she was on the Planning Board, she worked with the Forest View Association for goals and objectives and plan development. She said that they tried to make this area one family dwellings, with a rural character. They tried to retain the feeling of being very natural. Forest Road was made a scenic route about three years ago. The only intent of this was to supply light services for this area. They didn't even want the DM1 (CUP) zoning, they wanted to keep it single family, "Al" residential. Because of the time, interest rates and such, developers came in and put multi- family dwellings in. This was supposed to be the last naturalized area in Lansing. The intent has been changed and she will not support it. It was to deal with the needs of the area only. She will vote against the approval. H. LeBlanc then spoke. She stated that the purpose of the sign code was to gradually improve the signage situation. But this huge sign is counter to the purpose of the sign ordinance. It does not represent an improvement and she would like to believe that we're better than Lansing Township. C. Bicy spoke next, asking if a practical difficulty or hardship exist. This property is not already developed and the variance request does not appear to be an improvement. He understands the need to improve business, but doesn't feel that the sign is an improvement for this area. He doesn't feel there is enough evidence to approve the request. M. Clark made a motion to allow Mr. Peckham another comment. Motion seconded by C. Bicy, and approved unanimously by the Board on a voice vote. Mr. Peckham said that if the sign can't be installed, the unfortunate reality is that the trees will have to be cleared. If the Board can't approve the height, he respectfully requests that we amend the application to allow for the overall square footage of the two faced sign, to be 30' high, 765 square feet. A high rise is preferable, but it doesn't sound probable. C. Bicy made a motion to table BZA-3386.96 located on Dunckel Road at US-127, so that the staff can review the amended request. The motion was seconded by E. Horne, and tabled on a voice vote, so staff can work on the new proposal. This will not be re- advertised, as it is a lesser request than previously. III. Excused Absences A. Dr. Spink was approved for four months of excused absences at the December meeting. IV. Public Comment A. None BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES February 8 1996 - Page 7 V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures 1. The Planning Board has updated their Policy and Procedures manual, and we will look at this issue this year. Mr. Ruff would like the Board to look at the Planning Board Policy and Procedures manual, and consider any changes that might need to be made. VI. Approval of Minutes A. January 1996 H. LeBlanc made a motion to approve the minutes of January 11, 1995, as submitted. Seconded by C. Bicy, and approved unanimously on a voice vote. VII. New Business A. None VI II. Adjournment A. Meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\BZA\BZAFEB96 Draft to Clerk 01/16/96 Approved 02/08/96 To Clerk 02 /09 /96 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING :r 1 2 1�; 1J. a? BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS :•;; � , ��,{ JANUARY 11, 1996, 7:30 p.m. _<J—;6i� Lil Y�Y'fCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. A. Present E. Horne H. LeBlanc M. Clark C. Bicy G. Hilts J. Page B . Excused Absences E. Spink C. A quorum of six members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. D. Introduction of Staff J. Ruff, Zoning Administrator II. Hearings A. B ZA-3383.96, 3400 S. Waverly Road This is a request by Amor Sign Studios, Inc. to install four new wall signs for a total of 122 sq. ft. of signage, following the removal of the 12 existing wall signs at the Admiral Petroleum gas station, 3400 S. Waverly Road. Section 1442.13(b) of the Sign Code limits the number of wall signs to a total of two. This is therefore a requested variance for two additional wall signs. Two signs would be put on the canopy and two on the building itself. J. Ruff presented the case. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES January 12 1995 - Page 2 Steve DuVall, Amor Sign Studios, spoke. He stated that Admiral feels that their canopy is more of a separate building covering the pumps, than a typical canopy as stated in the sign code. He also said that Admiral is updating the old look of their buildings to a new cleaner look. H. LeBlanc stated that she can see a need for three signs at this location, but feels that the fourth sign is redundant. C. Bicy agreed, stating that he will support three signs, two on the canopy and one on the east side of the building. H. LeBlanc made a motion to deny the request as filed, but to grant a variance of three signs, of not more than a total of 150 square feet, one on the east side of the building and two on the canopy. The motion was seconded by J. Page. VOTE: yea nay yea nay LeBlanc X Clark X Hilts X Page X Bicy X Horne X Motion denied as filed and approved as modified, for three wall signs, two on the canopy and one on the building, for a maximum total of 150 sq. ft. III. Excused Absences A. Dr. Spink was approved for four months of excused absences at last month's meeting. IV. Public Comment A. None V. Old Business A. Policy and Procedures 1. The Planning Board has updated their Policy and Procedures manual, and we will look at this issue this year. B. Letter to the Mayor BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES January 12 1995 - Page 3 1. G. Hilts signed a letter to the mayor requesting the existing vacancies on the Board be filled. VI. Approval of Minutes A. November 1995 C. Bicy made a motion, seconded by J. Page, to approve the minutes of November 1995, as submitted. Motion approved unanimously on a voice vote. B. December 1995 C. Bicy made a motion, seconded by J. Page, to approve the minutes of December 1995, with one correction, to change M. Horne (first page, item I.A.) to E. Horne. Motion approved unanimously on a voice vote. VII. New Business A. None VIII. Adjournment A. Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James A. Ruff, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\BZA\BZAJAN96.