Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 2000 Minutes Draft to Clerk 12/28/00 Approved 01A 1/01 To Clerk 01/16/01 -MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 14, 2000, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick E. Horne Absent: R. McCloud V. Earhart had an excused absence. Staff: S. Stachowiak L. Davis A. A quorum of at least four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Frederick moved to approve the agenda as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3608.00 - 1416 Pierce Rd. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. The applicant is Mrs. Judy Lynn Davidson. The applicant intends to have a home occupation which would be a one-chair beauty salon. The variance from Section 1248.03(e) of the Zoning Code outlines 7 conditions of having a home occupation in residential districts. The seventh condition is that no equipment is used except equipment which is normally used for purely domestic or household purposes. The applicant would like to install one hydraulic chair such as those normally used in beauty salons. In addition to that, a shampoo sink and three commercial hair dryers. Since that equipment is not normally used for household purposes, the applicant is here to ask for a variance. The ordinance says that the BZA may approve such equipment so long as the intensity of the use will not be increased to a level that will adversely impact any lot within 300 feet of the lot seeking board approval. The Planning Department is confident that it will not. With that in mind, they are recommending that the variance request be approved. Judy Davidson addressed the Board. She stated that there is a room in the front of the house that will be used for this purpose. There is also a bathroom in the front of the house as well, so none of her regular living area will be impacted by this business. She has plenty of parking space available. Most of her clientele are senior citizens who do not drive. She picks up most of them and brings them to her house. She can fit 8 cars in her driveway, but doesn't need that much room. G. Hilts read correspondence into the record from Ann & Stanley Ordiway, 1500 Pierce Rd. asking that the BZA take into account traffic issues in the area. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 2 E. Horne referred to an error in the staff report and requested that it be changed. A. Frederick stated that, as he understands from the Zoning Code, the conditions for a home occupation do not include a traffic issue. BZA doesn't have jurisdiction over traffic issues in this case. He doesn't see how there would be any adverse affect on the neighborhood in having this home occupation. G. Hilts agrees. He doesn't believe that it will have any impact on traffic issues at all. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3608.00, a variance for a home occupation to use a salon in a room no bigger than 12' x 13' and allow a hydraulic chair, a shampoo sink and 3 commercial hair dryers to be considered equipment not usually used for domestic or household purposes. B. Burgess seconded. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3608.00, 1416 Pierce Rd., has been approved B. BZA-3609.00, 1230 Reo Rd. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. Mr. Bolt is requesting a variance for 512 square feet of garage area and 232 square feet of accessory structure space. The way the ordinance is written for a lot that is 5000 square feet in size or greater, they are allowed 720 square feet of garage area and 1000 square feet of total accessory structure area which would mean garage area plus storage area. Mr. Bolt currently has an existing garage/accessory structure that is 1064 square feet in area. He would like to build a 168 square foot addition to the garage for a total of 1232 square feet. In this case, if that addition were to be constructed, the garage would actually be larger than the home. The hardship, as stated by the applicant, is that he does not have a basement, so he uses his garage for storage area. The reason that the variance request is for 512 square feet of garage area and 232 square feet of total accessory structure area, even though at this time, Mr. Bolt is only asking to construct a 168 square foot addition, is because the addition in the diagram was constructed, as far as the Planning Office can tell, sometime in 1993 without a building permit. In order to make everything legal, they have included that in the variance request. The Planning Office has outlined basically 3 options that the Board has. The first one would be to deny the entire request, which would mean tearing down the addition that is there. The second one is to approve what is currently existing to make it all legal with the condition that the garage be resided so that the siding is all common for the entire garage and that the driveway be hard surfaced providing access to the third garage bay. The third option is to approve the entire request as submitted with the same conditions as option 2. The Planning Office is recommending approval of Option #2. A. Frederick asked staff about garage and accessory structures being separate or together. Is it permissible to add the 720 square feet plus the additional square feet for the accessory structure to combine that into one building or would we ordinarily expect it to be in two? G. Hilts stated that they have done that where it is all under one roof. But, in general, what they have done is require that there be some sort of separation between the storage area and vehicle parking so that it wasn't a very large garage. S. Stachowiak stated that is how they deal with it from an administrative level as well. Alexander Bolt addressed the Board. He stated that he wanted to clarify the history of the property. The third bay that he wants to add to was built at least 15 years ago by the owner that he bought the house from. It is a very old addition. Neighbors around him know about the history of this addition. They know the gentleman who built that third bay which he used to store his boat. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 3 He has been checking around the area and has seen many garages that are much larger than what he is proposing. He stated that he doesn't have a basement. All of his storage has to be done outside in the garage itself. When he moved in to his home, he was a bachelor with three vehicles. That is why he bought this property in order to store his vehicles. Now that he is married, he has more to store as well as a 41h vehicle. He stated that this is very simple. The plan includes siding the whole thing exactly like the house and it will look very nice and increase the value of the property. The third bay is disassociated from the first 2 by a cement wall that was the original wall. It is separate. He stated that this will not have any adverse impact on the environment or his neighbors. A. Frederick stated that the other garages that he has seen that are much larger probably got there without benefit of permit. He stated that he is satisfied that someone before the applicant put on the addition without a permit. He asked the applicant how he intends to keep the garage and accessory structure separate? A. Bolt stated that he could put up a barrier in front of the old wall line, the rear of the garage. He stated that wouldn't be a problem. A. Frederick also stated that since the addition was built without a permit, it was probably never inspected by a building inspector to make sure it was up to code. He asked the applicant if he had ever had anyone look at the addition to make sure that it was safe and up to code? A. Bolt stated that his builder stated that it was built to code. A. Frederick asked if the applicant would have any objections to a city inspector coming out and inspecting the addition? If there were any problems with the addition meeting code, would the applicant object to fixing these things? A. Bolt stated that he would not have any problem with that, although he isn't sure how they are going to be able to tell if it is built to code or not due to the fact that it is a pole structure. A. Frederick stated he was thinking more along the lines of electrical, etc. A. Bolt stated he has no problem with that at all. G. Hilts stated that his concern is the hardship. Not having a basement is not a defined hardship in the code. His opinion would be that the board doesn't have the ability to give the applicant more than what sits there right now. There will definitely need to be an inspection done on that. He doesn't see how the BZA can give him any more than what he has right now. A. Bolt stated that his understanding was that the BZA could grant variances that were outside of the code. G. Hilts stated that was true if, according to the way the code defines hardship or practical difficulty, they find that because of the nature of the lot or some circumstance it meets that definition. But not having a basement doesn't meet that criteria of a hardship or practical difficulty. A. Bolt stated that this is private property. He bought it as is and plans to do what he will with it as long as he creates no harm to his neighbors. Arbitrary ordinances can be struck down. He stated that this is a simple thing and has no impact on anyone but him. A. Frederick stated that the board's authority is limited by the code. If the applicant disagrees with the code and doesn't think that it is proper, he may very well agree with him on that, but the proper venue for taking that up is with the body that set the code - City Council. Along with the City Council having set the code, it also limits BZA's authority to the code and it limits their authority on certain exceptions under the code. One of the big things is the practical difficulty. If there is a practical difficulty that is not of the property owner's doing that will limit his enjoyment of the property, then that is where the practical difficulty definition comes from. That is what allows the BZA to approve a variance. But if the practical difficulty or hardship is one of the property owner's own doing, then they are limited on the decisions that they can make. They simply have no BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 4 authority to go against the city ordinance. A. Bolt kept stating that S. Stachowiak said that the Planning Office had a recommendation that allowed him to resume his construction. S. Stachowiak stated that the staff report outlines 3 options that the BZA has. One was to approve the request in it's entirety; one was to deny the request in its entirety; and one was a middle ground to approve what does exist without the 168 square foot addition. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that he believes that Mr. Bolt is not responsible for the lack of permit on the property that somebody else who previously owned the home did. He heard Mr. Bolt say that he is willing to allow an inspector to come out and take a look at any possible code violations that may exist. He did indicate that he would be more than willing to bring the building up to code. Mr. Frederick stated that he thinks that is the essential foundation of whole point for the code in the first place-to protect people and the general public. He also heard Mr. Bolt say that he would be willing to make the accessory structure meet within their definition of an accessory structure that is attached to a garage and he would make that a condition to approve this variance. He is a little troubled with the practical difficulty because he too has no basement. His garage is also used for storage and meets code and his cars sit outside. Considering that the structure is there and that in the past, they have set a higher standard for professionals rather than ordinary citizens who may not be as aware of things that can be built, he would be willing to support the variance, but only for those rather narrow reasons. If he did approve it, he would want to condition it with the accessory structure needing to be made separate from the third bay so that it is clearly not part of that bay and that the third bay be inspected to make sure that it meets code and that it be brought up to code if necessary. G. Hilts agrees. B. Burgess stated that he agrees also. He stated that Mr. Bolt said that he bought the property for the three garages. Taking that at face value, an accessory structure would be a valid thing given the history that was discussed. A. Frederick moved to approve the third bay, 344 square feet, and the accessory structure, 168 square feet, on BZA-3609.00, 1230 Reo Rd. with the conditions that the garage be resided,that a hard-surface driveway be laid to provide access to the third bay, that the accessory structure be made separate so that it satisfactorily meets the definition of code for an accessory structure to the satisfaction of the appropriate city inspector, and that the third bay which was constructed without benefit of permit be inspected and any code violations be brought up to code. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA3609.00, 1230 Reo Rd. has been approved. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 5 C. BZA-3610.00, 5750 S. Cedar St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is the new site of the Farmer Jack. It was formerly Builder's Square. The applicant is Sam Haddad. She referred to the diagram in the board packet for the existing sign and the proposed sign. The existing Builder's Square sign is a total of 33' overall height. What is proposed would be approximately 28'tall. It is somewhat lower than what is there right now and 52 square feet smaller than what is there right now. There are two variance requests. One is for the size of the sign. They are permitted a maximum of 170 square feet total. They are asking for an additional 98 square feet. The required setback is 30'from the property line. They are asking for a variance to go not only to the property line, but actually it would extend into the road right-of-way. The variance that the BZA is dealing with is to allow them to go to the property line with the condition that they get a right-of-way permit from MDOT to do that type of work. The sign exists right now. They don't intend to move the sign. They intend to use the existing poles. It will be somewhat lower because the sign isn't going to peak above the poles as it does right now. Planning recommends approval of this request for those reasons. It brings it closer into conformance with the ordinance than what it is right now. They also feel that there is some type of hardship involved here because this particular site is unique from the adjacent properties because it has an additional 17' of right-of-way coming from Cedar St. The right-of-way line actually jogs when you come from north to south. If they were to meet code, their sign would have to be in 17' further than any other business on the same side of the street. General discussion ensued regarding the size of the sign and conformity. Sam Haddad addressed the board. He stated that S. Stachowiak explained it perfectly. He also stated that there is some practical difficulty in re-facing the existing sign face. His understanding is that they can change the face without a permit, but they elected to go with a newer sign as was described. It is safer and will light up better. The material of the face on the existing sign is vinyl. The practical difficulty is that this type of vinyl cannot be re-faced in this climate. No graphics can be put on it. This will be a nicer sign to look at. A. Frederick asked Mr. Haddad if he would have any difficulty meeting the code with the other building signs. S. Haddad stated that they already have the permits for those other signs. General discussion ensued regarding conforming signs, etc. Steve Smith, Valvoline Oil, addressed the Board. He approves of having Farmer Jack there. Big businesses are needed in that area for more traffic. More traffic means more business for him. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that the last property he remembers dealing with about these matters was K-Mart. He also stated that Farmer Jack is willing to comply with the code. The practical difficulty is real. General discussion ensued with applicant not at the microphone regarding obtaining a permit from MDOT, the need for a permit, etc. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 6 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3610.00, 5750 S. Cedar St. to allow a 30'front yard setback variance and a 98 square foot variance from the maximum square feet of ground pole signage because the applicant has agreed to bring the sign closer into conformance,to make it safer and because the 17' right of way that appears to be there, for no apparent reason, is certainly a practical difficulty. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3610.00 has been approved. D. BZA-3611.00, 4218 Killarney Ct. S. Stachowiak presented the case. She stated that the lot is irregular in shape because it is on a cul-de-sac. It is also very short. Right now the applicants have a detached garage that sits 6' away from the house and 6' off the rear lot line. The applicant would like to construct an enclosed breeze-way that would connect the garage with the home. Once the garage is connected to the house, it becomes part of the principal structure and has to comply with all of its setbacks. The principal structure has a 30' rear yard setback. They are asking for a 24' variance. This is recommended for approval. The practical difficulty involved is that because of the lot's layout, its size and the shallow depth of the lot, there is no way that the applicant could construct an attached garage on this lot and comply with code. It would be impossible. Leo LeVeque addressed the Board. He stated that the steps from the house to the garage are a hazard in the winter. There is a lot of snow and ice. They are putting salt on it and trying to keep it clear, but it is difficult. A. Frederick asked if they intended to use the breeze-way in any manner other than as a way to get back and forth from the house to the garage? L. LeVeque stated no. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that the practical difficulty is very apparent here. A. Frederick stated that he is not sure he understands the significance of having an uncovered breeze-way or a covered breeze way or just a roof to keep the snow off and how that would make the structure part of the house. S. Stachowiak explained that if they even put a roof connecting the house and the garage, it is considered attached. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 7 E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3611.00, 4218 Killarney Ct., a request for a 24' rear yard setback variance from the required 30' setback to permit an enclosed breeze way connecting the garage and the house that would have had a 6' setback. A practical difficulty does exist because of the shape, depth and relatively small size of the lot. Also this would not create a significant impact on the future land use development patterns in this area and it would not adversely impact circulation, the environment or the character of the neighborhood. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3611.00 has been approved. IV OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch (no action) B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan (no action) C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw(no action) D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar(no action) E. BZA-3607.00, 6030 S. Pennsylvania (action) A. Frederick moved to take BZA-3607.00 off the table. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to remove from table. S. Stachowiak reviewed the case. She stated that this is at the corner of Pennsylvania and Miller Rd. The applicant has a corner business. For a corner business in a shopping center, the applicant is allowed two wall signs. He would like to have three- one that faces the internal parking lot, one that faces Miller Rd., and an additional sign on the east side of the building that directly faces Pennsylvania Avenue. The basis for his request is that westbound traffic going down Miller Rd. cannot tell that the building is Pet Supplies Plus because the existing signs are on either side of the building - north and south. This was tabled last month because the applicant submitted some pictures of a D.O.C. building and also mentioned a couple of other properties in the area that have additional wall signage beyond what the ordinance allows- one was a Meijers store at 6200 S. Pennsylvania Ave. Pet Supplies Plus is expanding into what used to be the Kinko's property. The Kinko's area in the shopping center had more signs that what is allowed by ordinance. They did research on this to find out how they were able to get so much signage. Planning was not able to find anything - no sign permits, etc. They also looked at the D.O.C. building. They have a wall signs on all three sides of the building. They found in the register that sign permits were issued for all three signs-two of them were issued at one time and then, in the same year-four or five months later, a permit for one more wall sign was issued. She doesn't know if the planner who did the review of that didn't look to see how many signs had already been approved when they approved the third sign. She does know that they were approved though. The applicant went through the proper process. He did come in and apply for the permit and was given one. E. Horne asked what year that was. S. Stachowiak stated that it was 1980. General discussion ensued regarding the fact that the code started in 1983. S. Stachowiak stated that the next one was Meijers, 6200 S. Pennsylvania. She found that they have two large Meijer wall signs and two or three much smaller wall signs that said "Welcome". BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 8 Basically, there were four large wall signs. She also found that in 1978, three wall signs were approved; one for 66 square feet, one for 72 square feet and one for 90 square feet. That was in March of 1978. In May of 1978, two additional wall signs were approved, 153 square feet each. In 1988, an additional two wall signs were approved, possibly replacing some of the older ones. In 1990, there was one additional sign that was approved. It appears that the signs that are there right now, also have valid sign permits that were approved by the Planning Office. The applicants also mentioned a gas station on the corner of Miller and Cedar. She went out there and looked, but didn't see any gas stations that had three wall signs. She did see one that had two wall signs. It is a gas station that also has a Dunkin' Donuts in it. Then there was some additional signage on the canopy. She didn't see one that actually had three wall signs on the building. General discussion ensued regarding canopy signs, different properties, signs approved by variance, etc. B. Burgess stated that Pet Supplies Plus has reformatted their store so that the main entrance is the east entrance facing Pennsylvania Ave. They don't use the doors on the sides of the buildings as they used to use. The way they reconfigured their business, there is a door in the southeast corner and there is one on the north side. The business is now set up so that its main facing structure is facing Pennsylvania Ave. Having a major sign at the major entrance point is a different consideration. The board has not considered that before. It is a much improved access now. A. Frederick stated that one of the things that he was interested in when they last heard this case was the possibility of ground, directional signs at the entrance drives. He said that it may not satisfy the need or belief that another wall sign is needed, but at least it would alert people driving along that this is where they would go in. Did the applicant discuss that with staff at all? S. Stachowiak stated that she clearly remembered that conversation last time. She thinks they said that they could have directional signs, very limited in size. They couldn't be advertising. They had to be strictly directional. She stated that directional signs do not come anywhere near solving the issue of the additional wall sign. B. Burgess stated that they do have the ground pole sign which is visible to north and south traffic. Why couldn't they use one of their other signs, possibly the one facing north, and put that on the front of the building and not have a wall sign on the north side of the building because the north and south traffic could use the ground pole sign as their point of reference. That would be another option. General discussion ensued regarding wall sign variances, size of signs, businesses, etc. E. Horne stated that she agrees that they have enough signage. She feels that they could change the arrangement of the signs and possibly include window signage. A. Frederick requested from the chair to hear from the applicant. Wayne Wright addressed the board. He stated that he trusts that the people setting on this board are fair and professional. He stated that one of the main points that trips them up is that they are professionals trying to work within a system asking for permission for something that not only seems reasonable but already existed for 10 years without approval. Their opinion is that the board has to enforce these ordinances across the board and make the violators take down their signs that don't conform or allow them this reasonable sign request. It doesn't make sense to him. There are several businesses, which they have a list of, that don't conform. The signs that were existing, they could have left up. They are very ugly and wrapped all the way around the entire space that Kinko's occupied. They could have said that these are existing signs that have been there for 10 years at least. They are down-sizing considerably from what was there. The signs are BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 9 torn down now. Why didn't anybody notice for 10 years that they never had a permit for their signs that were so over the allowable square footage? He disagrees with the fact that Pet Supplies Plus is not a big business. There is a considerable amount of square footage that they occupy and it is quite a large structure. They need the representation on each wall. They are down-sizing. In reference to Farmer Jack, they are still bigger than what they were allowed even though they are down-sizing, but because it's existing and they're down-sizing, they are getting some variance there. He believes their request is reasonable because it is much less than what was there for the past 10 years. The main entrance is there and there needs to be representation there. Some people don't notice pole signs. They are hard to read and are a traffic hazard. Most people look at the building to see who is there for their point of destination. A lot of people use this store. He stated that this is the "Meijers of pet foods". There are two hardships in his opinion. One is that they need representation in signage to identify the building. There is quite a deal of area where you wouldn't catch either one of those other signs. If one of those signs is moved, then there is going to be a great deal of area where you don't know what is there on that side. There is no way to win because this is a peninsula. The other hardship is financial. It is much easier for them to put a wall sign up than to do anything else. A sign is already made for this. G. Hilts stated that they have convinced him. Based on the fact that, yes, it is an improvement from what Kinko's had there. He has changed his mind and will vote to approve the request. A. Frederick stated that it may seem like the board is holding them responsible where other businesses are getting away with violating the sign ordinance. He would agree that they are having to go through this because they did the right thing and applied. However, there are a lot of other businesses that have complied with the ordinance and have applied for a variance and have been denied as well. The violators make it appear that it is unfair to the applicant and it is unfair to violate and not get caught. But if the board were to vote and approve this variance, it would be unfair to all of the businesses whom they have denied in this sense. G. Hilts stated that the city has, over the past several years, revised the sign code to be much more restrictive especially along areas such as Cedar St., Pennsylvania Ave. They have done things about billboards, etc. to try and get less and less. General discussion ensued with the applicant regarding comparisons of their situation with other variance requests. TAPE ENDS -2ND TAPE DID NOT WORK G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. General discussion ensued regarding size of sign as it relates to size of wall, etc. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3607.00, 6030 S. Pennsylvania,for a third wall sign. Seconded by A. Frederick. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 10 VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3607.00 has been approved. F. Rules of Procedure -(no action) G. Resignation of Mary Clark S. Stachowiak explained that Mary Clark has now moved to Mackinaw City and there is no forwarding address or phone number. It was suggested that the board accept her verbal resignation that she gave to Jim Ruff, Planning Manager. A. Frederick moved to accept the verbal resignation of mary Clark. Seconded by B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve with regrets. V. PUBLIC COMMENT - none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of November 9, 2000 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII NEW BUSINESS - none Vlll. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 10 VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3607.00 has been approved. F. Rules of Procedure -(no action) G. Resignation of Mary Clark S. Stachowiak explained that Mary Clark has now moved to Mackinaw City and there is no forwarding address or phone number. It was suggested that the board accept her verbal resignation that she gave to Jim Ruff, Planning Manager. A. Frederick moved to accept the verbal resignation of mary Clark. Seconded by B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve with regrets. V. PUBLIC COMMENT - none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of November 9, 2000 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII NEW BUSINESS - none VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 12/28/00 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 14, 2000, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick E. Horne r3 i Absent: R. McCloud V. Earhart had an excused absence. Staff: S. Stachowiak L. Davis A. A quorum of at least four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. If APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Frederick moved to approve the agenda as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3608.00 - 1416 Pierce Rd. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. The applicant is Mrs. Judy Lynn Davidson. The applicant intends to have a home occupation which would be a one-chair beauty salon. The variance from Section 1248.03(e) of the Zoning Code outlines 7 conditions of having a home occupation in residential districts. The seventh condition is that no equipment is used except equipment which is normally used for purely domestic or household purposes. The applicant would like to install one hydraulic chair such as those normally used in beauty salons. In addition to that, a shampoo sink and three commercial hair dryers. Since that equipment is not normally used for household purposes, the applicant is here to ask for a variance. The ordinance says that the BZA may approve such equipment so long as the intensity of the use will not be increased to a level that will adversely impact any lot within 300 feet of the lot seeking board approval. The Planning Department is confident that it will not. With that in mind, they are recommending that the variance request be approved. Judy Davidson addressed the Board. She stated that there is a room in the front of the house that will be used for this purpose. There is also a bathroom in the front of the house as well, so none of her regular living area will be impacted by this business. She has plenty of parking space available. Most of her clientele are senior citizens who do not drive. She picks up most of them and brings them to her house. She can fit 8 cars in her driveway, but doesn't need that much room. G. Hilts read correspondence into the record from Ann & Stanley Ordiway, 1500 Pierce Rd. asking that the BZA take into account traffic issues in the area. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 2 E. Horne referred to an error in the staff report and requested that it be changed. A. Frederick stated that, as he understands from the Zoning Code, the conditions for a home occupation do not include a traffic issue. BZA doesn't have jurisdiction over traffic issues in this case. He doesn't see how there would be any adverse affect on the neighborhood in having this home occupation. G. Hilts agrees. He doesn't believe that it will have any impact on traffic issues at all. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3608.00, a variance for a home occupation to use a salon in a room no bigger than 12' x 13' and allow a hydraulic chair, a shampoo sink and 3 commercial hair dryers to be considered equipment not usually used for domestic or household purposes. B. Burgess seconded. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3608.00, 1416 Pierce Rd., has been approved B. BZA-3609.00, 1230 Reo Rd. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. Mr. Bolt is requesting a variance for 512 square feet of garage area and 232 square feet of accessory structure space. The way the ordinance is written for a lot that is 5000 square feet in size or greater, they are allowed 720 square feet of garage area and 1000 square feet of total accessory structure area which would mean garage area plus storage area. Mr. Bolt currently has an existing garage/accessory structure that is 1064 square feet in area. He would like to build a 168 square foot addition to the garage for a total of 1232 square feet. In this case, if that addition were to be constructed, the garage would actually be larger than the home. The hardship, as stated by the applicant, is that he does not have a basement, so he uses his garage for storage area. The reason that the variance request is for 512 square feet of garage area and 232 square feet of total accessory structure area, even though at this time, Mr. Bolt is only asking to construct a 168 square foot addition, is because the addition in the diagram was constructed, as far as the Planning Office can tell, sometime in 1993 without a building permit. In order to make everything legal, they have included that in the variance request. The Planning Office has outlined basically 3 options that the Board has. The first one would be to deny the entire request, which would mean tearing down the addition that is there. The second one is to approve what is currently existing to make it all legal with the condition that the garage be resided so that the siding is all common for the entire garage and that the driveway be hard surfaced providing access to the third garage bay. The third option is to approve the entire request as submitted with the same conditions as option 2. The Planning Office is recommending approval of Option #2. A. Frederick asked staff about garage and accessory structures being separate or together. Is it permissible to add the 720 square feet plus the additional square feet for the accessory structure to combine that into one building or would we ordinarily expect it to be in two? G. Hilts stated that they have done that where it is all under one roof. But, in general, what they have done is require that there be some sort of separation between the storage area and vehicle parking so that it wasn't a very large garage. S. Stachowiak stated that is how they deal with it from an administrative level as well. Alexander Bolt addressed the Board. He stated that he wanted to clarify the history of the property. The third bay that he wants to add was built at least 15 years ago by the owner that he bought the house from. It is a very old addition. Neighbors around him know about the history of DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 3 this addition. They know the gentleman who built that third bay which he used to store his boat. He has been checking around the area and has seen many garages that are much larger than what he is proposing. He stated that he doesn't have a basement. All of his storage has to be done outside in the garage itself. When he moved in to his home, he was a bachelor with three vehicles. That is why he bought this property in order to store his vehicles. Now that he is married, he has more to store as well as a 4th vehicle. He stated that this is very simple. The plan includes siding the whole thing exactly like the house and it will look very nice and increase the value of the property. The third bay is disassociated from the first 2 by a cement wall that was the original wall. It is separate. He stated that this will not have any adverse impact on the environment or his neighbors. A. Frederick stated that the other garages that he has seen that are much larger probably got there without benefit of permit. He stated that he is satisfied that someone before the applicant put on the addition without a permit. He asked the applicant how he intends to keep the garage and accessory structure separate? A. Bolt stated that he could put up a barrier in front of the old wall line, the rear of the garage. He stated that wouldn't be a problem. A. Frederick also stated that since the addition was built without a permit, it was probably never inspected by a building inspector to make sure it was up to code. He asked the applicant if he had ever had anyone look at the addition to make sure that it was safe and up to code? A. Bolt stated that his builder stated that it was built to code. A. Frederick asked if the applicant would have any objections to a city inspector coming out and inspecting the addition? If there were any problems with the addition meeting code, would the applicant object to fixing these things? A. Bolt stated that he would not have any problem with that, although he isn't sure how they are going to be able to tell if it is built to code or not due to the fact that it is a pole structure. A. Frederick stated he was thinking more along the lines of electrical, etc. A. Bolt stated he has no problem with that at all. G. Hilts stated that his concern is the hardship. Not having a basement is not a defined hardship in the code. His opinion would be that the board doesn't have the ability to give the applicant more than what sits there right now. There will definitely need to be an inspection done on that. He doesn't see how the BZA can give him any more than what he has right now. A. Bolt stated that his understanding was that the BZA could grant variances that were outside of the code. G. Hilts stated that was true if, according to the way the code defines hardship or practical difficulty, they find that because of the nature of the lot or some circumstance it meets that definition. But not having a basement doesn't meet that criteria of a hardship or practical difficulty. A. Bolt stated that this is private property. He bought it as is and plans to do what he will with it as long as he creates no harm to his neighbors. Arbitrary ordinances can be struck down. He stated that this is a simple thing and has no impact on anyone but him. A. Frederick stated that the board's authority is limited by the code. If the applicant disagrees with the code and doesn't think that it is proper, he may very well agree with him on that, but the proper venue for taking that up is with the body that set the code - City Council. Along with the City Council having set the code, it also limits BZA's authority to the code and it limits their authority on certain exceptions under the code. One of the big things is the practical difficulty. If there is a practical difficulty that is not of the property owner's doing that will limit his enjoyment of the DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 4 property, then that is where the practical difficulty definition comes from. That is what allows the BZA to approve a variance. But if the practical difficulty or hardship is one of the property owner's own doing, then they are limited on the decisions that they can make. They simply have no authority to go against the city ordinance. A. Bolt kept stating that S. Stachowiak said that the Planning Office had a recommendation that allowed him to resume his construction. S. Stachowiak stated that the staff report outlines 3 options that the BZA has. One was to approve the request in it's entirety; one was to deny the request in its entirety; and one was a middle ground to approve what does exist without the 168 square foot addition. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that he believes that Mr. Bolt is not responsible for the lack of permit on the property that somebody else who previously owned the home did. He heard Mr. Bolt say that he is willing to allow an inspector to come out and take a look at any possible code violations that may exist. He did indicate that he would be more than willing to bring the building up to code. Mr. Frederick stated that he thinks that is the essential foundation of whole point for the code in the first place -to protect people and the general public. He also heard Mr. Bolt say that he would be willing to make the accessory structure meet within their definition of an accessory structure that is attached to a garage and he would make that a condition to approve this variance. He is a little troubled with the practical difficulty because he too has no basement. His garage is also used for storage and meets code and his cars sit outside. Considering that the structure is there and that in the past, they have set a higher standard for professionals rather than ordinary citizens who may not be as aware of things that can be built, he would be willing to support the variance, but only for those rather narrow reasons. If he did approve it, he would want to condition it with the accessory structure needing to be made separate from the third bay so that it is clearly not part of that bay and that the third bay be inspected to make sure that it meets code and that it be brought up to code if necessary. G. Hilts agrees. B. Burgess stated that he agrees also. He stated that Mr. Bolt said that he bought the property for the three garages. Taking that at face value, an accessory structure would be a valid thing given the history that was discussed. A. Frederick moved to approve the third bay, 344 square feet, and the accessory structure, 168 square feet, on BZA-3609.00, 1230 Reo Rd. with the conditions that the garage be resided,that a hard-surface driveway be laid to provide access to the third bay, that the accessory structure be made separate so that it satisfactorily meets the definition of code for an accessory structure to the satisfaction of the appropriate city inspector, and that the third bay which was constructed without benefit of permit be inspected and any code violations be brought up to code. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA3609.00, 1230 Reo Rd. has been approved. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 5 C. BZA-3610.00, 5750 S. Cedar St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is the new site of the Farmer Jack. It was formerly Builder's Square. The applicant is Sam Haddad. She referred to the diagram in the board packet for the existing sign and the proposed sign. The existing Builder's Square sign is a total of 33' overall height. What is proposed would be approximately 28'tall. It is somewhat lower than what is there right now and 52 square feet smaller than what is there right now. There are two variance requests. One is for the size of the sign. They are permitted a maximum of 170 square feet total. They are asking for an additional 98 square feet. The required setback is 30' from the property line. They are asking for a variance to go not only to the property line, but actually it would extend into the road right-of-way. The variance that the BZA is dealing with is to allow them to go to the property line with the condition that they get a right-of-way permit from MDOT to do that type of work. The sign exists right now. They don't intend to move the sign. They intend to use the existing poles. It will be somewhat lower because the sign isn't going to peak above the poles as it does right now. Planning recommends approval of this request for those reasons. It brings it closer into conformance with the ordinance than what it is right now. They also feel that there is some type of hardship involved here because this particular site is unique from the adjacent properties because it has an additional 17' of right-of-way coming from Cedar St. The right-of-way line actually jogs when you come from north to south. If they were to meet code, their sign would have to be in 17'further than any other business on the same side of the street. General discussion ensued regarding the size of the sign and conformity. Sam Haddad addressed the board. He stated that S. Stachowiak explained it perfectly. He also stated that there is some practical difficulty in re-facing the existing sign face. His understanding is that they can change the face without a permit, but they elected to go with a newer sign as was described. It is safer and will light up better. The material of the face on the existing sign is vinyl. The practical difficulty is that this type of vinyl cannot be re-faced in this climate. No graphics can be put on it. This will be a nicer sign to look at. A. Frederick asked Mr. Haddad if he would have any difficulty meeting the code with the other building signs. S. Haddad stated that they already have the permits for those other signs. General discussion ensued regarding conforming signs, etc. Steve Smith, Valvoline Oil, addressed the Board. He approves of having Farmer Jack there. Big businesses are needed in that area for more traffic. More traffic means more business for him. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that the last property he remembers dealing with about these matters was K-Mart. He also stated that Farmer Jack is willing to comply with the code. The practical difficulty is real. General discussion ensued with applicant not at the microphone regarding obtaining a permit from MDOT, the need for a permit, etc. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 6 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3610.00, 5750 S. Cedar St. to allow a 30'front yard setback variance and a 98 square foot variance from the maximum square feet of ground pole signage because the applicant has agreed to bring the sign closer into conformance, to make it safer and because the 17' right of way that appears to be there, for no apparent reason, is certainly a practical difficulty. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3610.00 has been approved. D. BZA-3611.00, 4218 Killarney Ct. S. Stachowiak presented the case. She stated that the lot is irregular in shape because it is on a cul-de-sac. It is also very short. Right now the applicants have a detached garage that sits 6' away from the house and 6' off the rear lot line. The applicant would like to construct an enclosed breeze-way that would connect the garage with the home. Once the garage is connected to the house, it becomes part of the principal structure and has to comply with all of its setbacks. The principal structure has a 30' rear yard setback. They are asking for a 24' variance. This is recommended for approval. The practical difficulty involved is that because of the lot's layout, its size and the shallow depth of the lot, there is no way that the applicant could construct an attached garage on this lot and comply with code. It would be impossible. Leo LeVeque addressed the Board. He stated that the steps from the house to the garage are a hazard in the winter. There is a lot of snow and ice. They are putting salt on it and trying to keep it clear, but it is difficult. A. Frederick asked if they intended to use the breeze-way in any manner other than as a way to get back and forth from the house to the garage? L. LeVeque stated no. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that the practical difficulty is very apparent here. A. Frederick stated that he is not sure he understands the significance of having an uncovered breeze-way or a covered breeze way or just a roof to keep the snow off and how that would make the structure part of the house. S. Stachowiak explained that if they even put a roof connecting the house and the garage, it is considered attached. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 7 E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3611.00, 4218 Killarney Ct., a request for a 24' rear yard setback variance from the required 30' setback to permit an enclosed breeze way connecting the garage and the house that would have had a 6' setback. A practical difficulty does exist because of the shape, depth and relatively small size of the lot. Also this would not create a significant impact on the future land use development patterns in this area and it would not adversely impact circulation, the environment or the character of the neighborhood. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3611.00 has been approved. IV OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch (no action) B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan (no action) C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw(no action) D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar(no action) E. BZA-3607.00, 6030 S. Pennsylvania (action) A. Frederick moved to take BZA-3607.00 off the table. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to remove from table. S. Stachowiak reviewed the case. She stated that this is at the corner of Pennsylvania and Miller Rd. The applicant has a corner business. For a corner business in a shopping center, the applicant is allowed two wall signs. He would like to have three- one that faces the internal parking lot, one that faces Miller Rd., and an additional sign on the east side of the building that directly faces Pennsylvania Avenue. The basis for his request is that westbound traffic going down Miller Rd. cannot tell that the building is Pet Supplies Plus because the existing signs are on either side of the building - north and south. This was tabled last month because the applicant submitted some pictures of a D.O.C. building and also mentioned a couple of other properties in the area that have additional wall signage beyond what the ordinance allows - one was a Meijers store at 6200 S. Pennsylvania Ave. Pet Supplies Plus is expanding into what used to be the Kinko's property. The Kinko's area in the shopping center had more signs that what is allowed by ordinance. They did research on this to find out how they were able to get so much signage. Planning was not able to find anything - no sign permits, etc. They also looked at the D.O.C. building. They have a wall signs on all three sides of the building. They found in the register that sign permits were issued for all three signs-two of them were issued at one time and then, in the same year-four or five months later, a permit for one more wall sign was issued. She doesn't know if the planner who did the review of that didn't look to see how many signs had already been approved when they approved the third sign. She does know that they were approved though. The applicant went through the proper process. He did come in and apply for the permit and was given one. E. Horne asked what year that was. S. Stachowiak stated that it was 1980. General discussion ensued regarding the fact that the code started in 1983. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 8 S. Stachowiak stated that the next one was Meijers, 6200 S. Pennsylvania. She found that they have two large Meijer wall signs and two or three much smaller wall signs that said "Welcome". Basically, there were four large wall signs. She also found that in 1978, three wall signs were approved; one for 66 square feet, one for 72 square feet and one for 90 square feet. That was in March of 1978. In May of 1978, two additional wall signs were approved, 153 square feet each. In 1988, an additional two wall signs were approved, possibly replacing some of the older ones. In 1990, there was one additional sign that was approved. It appears that the signs that are there right now, also have valid sign permits that were approved by the Planning Office. The applicants also mentioned a gas station on the corner of Miller and Cedar. She went out there and looked, but didn't see any gas stations that had three wall signs. She did see one that had two wall signs. It is a gas station that also has a Dunkin' Donuts in it. Then there was some additional signage on the canopy. She didn't see one that actually had three wall signs on the building. General discussion ensued regarding canopy signs, different properties, signs approved by variance, etc. B. Burgess stated that Pet Supplies Plus has reformatted their store so that the main entrance is the east entrance facing Pennsylvania Ave. They don't use the doors on the sides of the buildings as they used to use. The way they reconfigured their business, there is a door in the southeast corner and there is one on the north side. The business is now set up so that its main facing structure is facing Pennsylvania Ave. Having a major sign at the major entrance point is a different consideration. The board has not considered that before. It is a much improved access now. A. Frederick stated that one of the things that he was interested in when they last heard this case was the possibility of ground, directional signs at the entrance drives. He said that it may not satisfy the need or belief that another wall sign is needed, but at least it would alert people driving along that this is where they would go in. Did the applicant discuss that with staff at all? S. Stachowiak stated that she clearly remembered that conversation last time. She thinks they said that they could have directional signs, very limited in size. They couldn't be advertising. They had to be strictly directional. She stated that directional signs do not come anywhere near solving the issue of the additional wall sign. B. Burgess stated that they do have the ground pole sign which is visible to north and south traffic. Why couldn't they use one of their other signs, possibly the one facing north, and put that on the front of the building and not have a wall sign on the north side of the building because the north and south traffic could use the ground pole sign as their point of reference. That would be another option. General discussion ensued regarding wall sign variances, size of signs, businesses, etc. E. Horne stated that she agrees that they have enough signage. She feels that they could change the arrangement of the signs and possibly include window signage. A. Frederick requested from the chair to hear from the applicant. Wayne Wright addressed the board. He stated that he trusts that the people setting on this board are fair and professional. He stated that one of the main points that trips them up is that they are professionals trying to work within a system asking for permission for something that not only seems reasonable but already existed for 10 years without approval. Their opinion is that the board has to enforce these ordinances across the board and make the violators take down their signs that don't conform or allow them this reasonable sign request. It doesn't make sense to him. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 9 There are several businesses, which they have a list of, that don't conform. The signs that were existing, they could have left up. They are very ugly and wrapped all the way around the entire space that Kinko's occupied. They could have said that these are existing signs that have been there for 10 years at least. They are down-sizing considerably from what was there. The signs are torn down now. Why didn't anybody notice for 10 years that they never had a permit for their signs that were so over the allowable square footage? He disagrees with the fact that Pet Supplies Plus is not a big business. There is a considerable amount of square footage that they occupy and it is quite a large structure. They need the representation on each wall. They are down-sizing. In reference to Farmer Jack, they are still bigger than what they were allowed even though they are down-sizing, but because it's existing and they're down-sizing, they are getting some variance there. He believes their request is reasonable because it is much less than what was there for the past 10 years. The main entrance is there and there needs to be representation there. Some people don't notice pole signs. They are hard to read and are a traffic hazard. Most people look at the building to see who is there for their point of destination. A lot of people use this store. He stated that this is the "Meijers of pet foods". There are two hardships in his opinion. One is that they need representation in signage to identify the building. There is quite a deal of area where you wouldn't catch either one of those other signs. If one of those signs is moved, then there is going to be a great deal of area where you don't know what is there on that side. There is no way to win because this is a peninsula. The other hardship is financial. It is much easier for them to put a wall sign up than to do anything else. A sign is already made for this. G. Hilts stated that they have convinced him. Based on the fact that, yes, it is an improvement from what Kinko's had there. He has changed his mind and will vote to approve the request. A. Frederick stated that it may seem like the board is holding them responsible where other businesses are getting away with violating the sign ordinance. He would agree that they are having to go through this because they did the right thing and applied. However, there are a lot of other businesses that have complied with the ordinance and have applied for a variance and have been denied as well. The violators make it appear that it is unfair to the applicant and it is unfair to violate and not get caught. But if the board were to vote and approve this variance, it would be unfair to all of the businesses whom they have denied in this sense. G. Hilts stated that the city has, over the past several years, revised the sign code to be much more restrictive especially along areas such as Cedar St., Pennsylvania Ave. They have done things about billboards, etc. to try and get less and less. General discussion ensued with the applicant regarding comparisons of their situation with other variance requests. TAPE ENDS -2ND TAPE DID NOT WORK G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. General discussion ensued regarding size of sign as it relates to size of wall, etc. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 10 B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3607.00, 6030 S. Pennsylvania, for a third wall sign. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3607.00 has been approved. F. Rules of Procedure -(no action) G. Resignation of Mary Clark S. Stachowiak explained that Mary Clark has now moved to Mackinaw City and there is no forwarding address or phone number. It was suggested that the board accept her verbal resignation that she gave to Jim Ruff, Planning Manager. A. Frederick moved to accept the verbal resignation of mary Clark. Seconded by B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve with regrets. V. PUBLIC COMMENT -none Vi. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of November 9, 2000 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII NEW BUSINESS - none Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 11/21/00 Approved 12/14/00 To Clerk 12/18/00 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVEMBER 9, 2000, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick E. Horne R. McCloud V. Earhart had an excused absence Staff: S. Stachowiak ' A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA Additions to agenda: New Business A. 2001 Calendar Dates for BZA Meetings B. Excused absence for Ms. Victoria Earhart C. Official Resignation for Ms. Mary Clark Mr. Burgess moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Mr. Frederick Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3604.00 -2520 York Road Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Lynn and Diana Owen, for a variance to construct a porch on an existing cement stoop that extends 6 feet in front of their house at 2520 York Road. The porch will encroach into the average front yard setback by 6.54 feet. Currently, the front yard setback of the house at 2520 York Road is 30.83 feet and the average front yard setback within 180 feet along York Road is 31.37 feet. Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code requires the front yard of each lot in an "A" Residential District to be not less than the average front yard setback of lots, which lots are wholly or partially within 180 feet of any lot proposed to be built on and located on the same side of the street in the same blockface. However, in no case shall the front yard required under this subsection be less than 20-feet nor more than 50-feet. Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of this variance request to build a porch that extends 6.54 -feet into the existing front yard setback, with the stipulation that this porch will not be enclosed now or in the future. Mr. Lynn Owen introduced himself and his wife. He stated that they have an existing front porch already and all they want to do is put a cover over it and have a country type setting. He and his wife are willing to sign whatever is necessary to state that they will never enclose the porch and that in the event the house is sold, future buyers may not enclose the porch. They have talked to a number of their neighbors concerning the porch, and the neighbors have been in support of the renovations. The neighbors feel that this renovation would be an enhancement to the neighborhood. The house that is directly to the south of the Owens' property is a corner lot that faces onto Glascow Street BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2000 Page 2 and sits almost entirely behind their house which is what caused them to have to come in for a variance. With the curvature of the road, there is no way to infringe on anyone's view. It was moved by Mr. Frederick to approve a variance to build a front porch that will be setback 24'-10"from the front property line which encroaches into the average front yard setback by 6.63 feet with the condition that the front porch shall not be enclosed. Ms. Horne seconded. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X McCloud X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA -3604.00, 2520 York Road, has been approved B. BZA-3605.00, 1313 Ohio Avenue Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by David and Mary VanZwoll, 1313 Ohio Avenue, for a variance to construct an 8' deep x 16' wide, covered porch on the front of the house that would have a 14.9' front yard setback. Section 1250.07 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20' minimum front yard setback. Therefore, this is a variance request for 5.1'. The variance is being recommended for approval with the condition that the porch not be enclosed now or in the future. The porch will not extend any further toward the road than what is there now. The applicants removed the metal awnings that were covering the porch and want to build a permanent roof that will be supported by the porch that is currently there. Other homes in the area encroach equally or further toward the street and toward the front property line than this property. Most of the homes in the area have covered porches. Mr. Frederick asked if the entire porch, including what is there now, will require a building permit. Ms. Stachowiak said, "yes." S. Stachowiak reported that she had spoken to the Chief Building Inspector about this issue and he said that because the roof will be supported by the porch, the entire porch now requires a building permit. So both what is existing there right now and what the applicants intend to do if the variance is granted will all be inspected by the Building Safety Department and will be subject to compliance with the State Construction Code. It was moved by Mr. Frederick that BZA-3605.00 be approved for a 5'.3"' variance to allow the existing structure to become a roofed porch with the condition that any type of enclosure of the porch beyond what is proposed be prohibited. Seconded by Ms. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X McCloud X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA3605.00, 1313 Ohio Ave. has been approved. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2000 Page 3 C. BZA-3607.00, 6030 Pennsylvania Ave. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is two variance requests by Larry Holland, owner of Pet Supplies "Plus" at 6030 S. Pennsylvania, for a variance to allow a third wall sign, 102 sq. ft. in size, totaling 291 sq. ft. This business has been at this site for a number of years. Pet Supplies Plus will be taking over the Kinko's area and expanding. The existing signs total 189 sq. ft. The applicant is requesting a third wall sign and an additional 91 sq. ft. of signage. Staff recommends denial of this variance. Staff felt that the signs that are there now right now, including the ground pole sign that is on site, provide adequate signage for traffic coming from any direction. The applicant, Larry Holland introduced Wayne Wright, from Classic Neon Sign Company and Capital Signs, and asked him to speak first. Mr. Wright stated that this is sort of a unique situation. He understands that the ordinances are in place and he agrees with them for the most part. He disagrees with the fact that you can see this location from any angle driving up. He explained that the ground pole sign is perpendicular to the wall where they want to add a sign. There is also an entrance and an intersection where they want to put the sign. He feels that it is a safety hazard for traffic because it is a destination anchor, it draws quite a few people, and there is a safety issue and basic visibility issue of being able to identify the building they are gong to. A lot of people travel to get to this place. If a driver is coming down Miller, a pole sign does no good at all. The pole sign does not, in his opinion, adequately represent the store. He mentioned a letter he wrote that explains basically what they are asking for. They also have some diagrams of their request. From a logical stand point, Kinko's had more signage on their building than what Pet Supplies "Plus" is asking for all together. Kinko's had signs on all three sides. Even with the additional signs, Pet Supplies"Plus" will have considerably less than what was on the building to begin with. He feels they are downsizing in a big way. He also feels that these signs are aesthetically pleasing and fit the facade. If they are denied that opportunity, he feels they will have to put a bunch of neon signs all over the windows which will be bigger and not as aesthetically pleasing. They would like to get this variance so that they can comply with the look of the center and have the exposure that is needed as an anchor tenant. He presented a drawing of the proposed signs. Mr. Holland stated that he believes the variance he is requesting has been given to numerous businesses before. He said that there are several business that are in currently violation . He presented photographs of the D.O.C. business. He also stated that if they don't put anything on the end of the building, there will be a big blank space on the building. He asked about the sign at Burger King on the corner of Jolly and Dunckel. Mr. Frederick stated that Burger King is not within the Lansing City limits. He said that it is in the township and can do whatever the township permits. Wayne Wright stated that he feels that his client is being penalized by not having a separate business here. If this were a separate business, the amount of space that he is taking over and expanding into would be allowed more signs than they are asking for. Why penalize him for having a big business. It was explained by Mr. Hilts that it is the zoning code that requires this compliance and it is not meant to be something that penalizes anyone. The City Council passed the Zoning Code and we have to either abide by it or find practical difficulty of why we can grant a variance. It is not meant to be punitive. The basis of the zoning code is safety and there are some safety issues involved, such as visual clutter and distractions. Mr. Hilts stated that over the last few years, the City has progressively made the sign code more restrictive for size, setback location, etc. Some of these locations that have bigger and more signs, are probably older, and it has been the policy of the board to have them make their signs smaller. He also stated that he fails to see the hardship or practical difficulty required to grant this variance. If the business is doing so well that they are expanding, obviously people know where they are. Mr. Holland said that the address number is on the building, above every entrance. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Hilts asked that the Board be convinced that there is a hardship or practical difficulty. Mr. Frederick suggested directional sign at the entrance on Miller Road. Discussion followed. S. Stachowiak reported that directional signs, by definition, cannot on contain es, rest commercial messages. They have to be limited to directing people rooms, restrictions on smoking, door openings, or contain traffic control messages and parking signs. They could not have a sign that says, "Pet Supplies Plus," but could possibly have a sign that says"Parking for Pet's Plus." It was suggested by Ms. Horne to move the existing sign closer to the entrance to help eliminate some of the visual clutter. Mr. Frederick said that we should explore the possibility of directional signs. Mr. Hilts said that the applicant did present some signs at businesses that appear to be out of compliance. He would like to see those signs investigated because if they are "grandfathered in"there is nothing we can do about it. But, if they are not, he would be happy to bring it to the attention of the Planning Board and have Code Compliance investigate it. Someone should go through the applications to see what was granted. S. Stachowiak stated that Donna Wynant researched how Kinko's was able to get as much signage as what they had since that business was established while the Sign Code has been in effect. She was not able to find anything, not even a sign permit. Ms. Horne stated that we need additional study on this issue and that this should be tabled until further study has been completed. The Sign Code allows each establishment in a shopping center to have one wall sign. Corner establishments within a shopping center may have one wall sign per facade. Section 1442.13( 1 ) stipulates that the maximum amount of wall signage permitted for the subject building is 200 square feet. This is, therefore, a request for a variance from Section 1442.26(c)to allow a third wall sign, and a variance from Section 1442.13( i) to allow an additional 91 sq. feet of signage. Ms. Horne made a motion to table this request until further study has been conducted. Seconded by Mr. Frederick. NAY VOTE YEA Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X McCloud X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0 to table BZA-3607.00. IV OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch (no action) B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan (no action) C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw(no action) D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar(no action) E. Rules of Procedure -(no action) V. PUBLIC COMMENT -none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Minutes of October 12 2000 Mr. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as printed. Ms. McCloud seconded. Motion carried. QOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2000 Page 5 VII NEW BUSINESS A. 2001 Calendar Dates for BZA ars meetings-Discussion on dates for next y t the 2001 Mr. Burgess and seconded by Mr. Frederick to c accept Deed. was moved dates as presented. Motion carried. Ms. Horne opp calendar of meeee meeting Mr. Frederick moved that Ms. Horne be Mot excused from the Anril 12, d001, meeting because of religious beliefs. Mr. Burgess seconded B. Excused Absence for nicoiaEarhart for December 2000 meeting. Ms. Earhart will be having surgery. Mr. Frederick moved and Mr. Burgess seconded-to give Ms. Earhart an excused absence for the December meeting. Motion carried. C. Resignation of Mary Clark It was recommended that Ms. Clark be eoataenda for next month.to see if she II lives in Lansing. T e BZA asked that her resignation be on th g D. New Members participate on the Board of Zoning There was discussions bed that t citizensto get he BZA contact the Mayor and City Council about the Appeals. It was sugg lack of members on the BZA. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, LC��zcv Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 11/21/00 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVEMBER 9, 2000, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction:, Roll call was taken. e i Present: J B. Burgess G. Hilts A. Frederick E. Horne R. McCloud V. Earhart had an excused absence CD Staff: CO S. Stachowiak A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA Additions to agenda: New Business A. 2001 Calendar Dates for BZA Meetings B. Excused absence for Ms. Victoria Earhart C. Official Resignation for Ms. Mary Clark Mr. Burgess moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Mr. Frederick Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3604.00 -2520 York Road Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Lynn and Diana Owen,for a variance to construct a porch on an existing cement stoop that extends 6 feet in front of their house at 2520 York Road. The porch will encroach into the average front yard setback by 6.54 feet. Currently,the front yard setback of the house at 2520 York Road is 30.83 feet and the average front yard setback within 180 feet along York Road is 31.37 feet. Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning Code requires the front yard of each lot in an "A" Residential District to be not less than the average front yard setback of lots,which lots are wholly or partially within 180 feet of any lot proposed to be built on and located on the same side of the street in the same blockface. However, in no case shall the front yard required under this subsection be less than 20-feet nor more than 50-feet. Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of this variance request to build a porch that extends 6.54-feet into the existing front yard setback, with the stipulation that this porch will not be enclosed now or in the future. Mr. Lynn Owen introduced himself and his wife. He stated that they have an existing front porch already and all they want to do is put a cover over it and have a country type setting. He and his wife are willing to sign whatever is necessary to state that they will never enclose the porch and that in the event the house is sold,future buyers may not enclose the porch. They have talked to a number of their neighbors concerning the porch, and the neighbors have been in support of the renovations. The neighbors feel that this renovation DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2000 Page 2 would be an enhancement to the neighborhood. The house that is directly to the south of the Owens' property is a corner lot that faces onto Glascow Street and sits almost entirely behind their house which is what caused them to have to come in for a variance. With the curvature of the road,there is no way to infringe on anyone's view. It was moved by Mr. Frederick to approve a variance to build a front porch that will be setback 24'-10"from the front property line which encroaches into the average front yard setback by 6.63 feet with the condition that the front porch shall not be enclosed. Ms. Horne seconded. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X McCloud X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3604.00, 2520 York Road, has been approved B. BZA-3605.00, 1313 Ohio Avenue Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by David and Mary VanZwoll, 1313 Ohio Avenue,for a variance to construct an 8'deep x 16'wide, covered porch on the front of the house that would have a 14.9'front yard setback. Section 1250.07 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20' minimum front yard setback. Therefore,this is a variance request for 5.1'. The variance is being recommended for approval with the condition that the porch not be enclosed now or in the future. The porch will not extend any further toward the road than what is there now. The applicants removed the metal awnings that were covering the porch and want to build a permanent roof that will be supported by the porch that is currently there. Other homes in the area encroach equally or further toward the street and toward the front property line than this property. Most of the homes in the area have covered porches. Mr. Frederick asked if the entire porch, including what is there now,will require a building permit. Ms. Stachowiak said, "yes." S. Stachowiak reported that she had spoken to the Chief Building Inspector about this issue and he said that because the roof will be supported by the porch,the entire porch now requires a building permit. So both what is existing there right now and what the applicants intend to do if the variance is granted will all be inspected by the Building Safety Department and will be subject to compliance with the State Construction Code. It was moved by Mr. Frederick that BZA-3605.00 be approved for a 5'.3"' variance to allow the existing structure to become a roofed porch with the condition that any type of enclosure of the porch beyond what is proposed be prohibited. Seconded by Ms. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X McCloud X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA3605.00, 1313 Ohio Ave. has been approved. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2000 Page 3 C. BZA-3607.00, 6030 Pennsylvania Ave. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is two variance requests by Larry Holland, owner of Pet Supplies"Plus" at 6030 S. Pennsylvania, for a variance to allow a third wall sign, 102 sq.ft. in size,totaling 291 sq.ft. This business has been at this site for a number of years. Pet Supplies Plus will be taking over the Kinko's area and expanding. The existing signs total 189 sq.ft. The applicant is requesting a third wall sign and an additional 91 sq.ft. of signage. Staff recommends denial of this variance. Staff felt that the signs that are there now right now, including the ground pole sign that is on site, provide adequate signage for traffic coming from any direction. The applicant, Larry Holland introduced Wayne Wright,from Classic Neon Sign Company and Capital Signs, and asked him to speak first. Mr.Wright stated that this is sort of a unique situation. He understands that the ordinances are in place and he agrees with them for the most part. He disagrees with the fact that you can see this location from any angle driving up. He explained that the ground pole sign is perpendicular to the wall where they want to add a sign. There is also an entrance and an intersection where they want to put the sign. He feels that it is a safety hazard for traffic because it is a destination anchor, it draws quite a few people, and there is a safety issue and basic visibility issue of being able to identify the building they are gong to. A lot of people travel to get to this place. If a driver is coming down Miller, a pole sign does no good at all. The pole sign does not, in his opinion, adequately represent the store. He mentioned a letter he wrote that explains basically what they are asking for. They also have some diagrams of their request. From a logical stand point, Kinko's had more signage on their building than what Pet Supplies "Plus" is asking for all together. Kinko's had signs on all three sides. Even with the additional signs, Pet Supplies"Plus"will have considerably less than what was on the building to begin with. He feels they are downsizing in a big way. He also feels that these signs are aesthetically pleasing and fit the facade. If they are denied that opportunity, he feels they will have to put a bunch of neon signs all over the windows which will be bigger and not as aesthetically pleasing. They would like to get this variance so that they can comply with the look of the center and have the exposure that is needed as an anchor tenant. He presented a drawing of the proposed signs. Mr. Holland stated that he believes the variance he is requesting has been given to numerous businesses before. He said that there are several business that are in currently violation . He presented photographs of the D.O.C. business. He also stated that if they don't put anything on the end of the building,there will be a big blank space on the building. He asked about the sign at Burger King on the corner of Jolly and Dunckel. Mr. Frederick stated that Burger King is not within the Lansing City limits. He said that it is in the township and can do whatever the township permits. Wayne Wright stated that he feels that his client is being penalized by not having a separate business here. If this were a separate business,the amount of space that he is taking over and expanding into would be allowed more signs than they are asking for.Why penalize him for having a big business. It was explained by Mr. Hilts that it is the zoning code that requires this compliance and it is not meant to be something that penalizes anyone. The City Council passed the Zoning Code and we have to either abide by it or find practical difficulty of why we can grant a variance. It is not meant to be punitive. The basis of the zoning code is safety and there are some safety issues involved, such as visual clutter and distractions. Mr. Hilts stated that over the last few years,the City has progressively made the sign code more restrictive for size, setback location, etc. Some of these locations that have bigger and more signs, are probably older, and it has been the policy of the board to have them make their signs smaller. He also stated that he fails to see the hardship or practical difficulty required to grant this variance. If the business is doing so well that they are expanding, obviously people know where they are. . DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Holland said that the address number is on the building, above every entrance. Mr. Hilts asked that the Board be convinced that there is a hardship or practical difficulty. Mr. Frederick suggested directional sign at the entrance on Miller Road. Discussion followed. S. Stachowiak reported that directional signs, by definition, cannot contain commercial messages. They have to be limited to directing people to telephones, rest rooms, restrictions on smoking, door openings, or contain traffic control messages and parking signs. They could not have a sign that says, "Pet Supplies Plus," but could possibly have a sign that says Parking for Pet's Plus. It was suggested by Ms. Horne to move the existing sign closer to the entrance to help eliminate some of the visual clutter. Mr. Frederick said that we should explore the possibility of directional signs. Mr. Hilts said that the applicant did present some signs at businesses that appear to be out of compliance. He would like to see those signs investigated because if they are "grandfathered in"there is nothing we can do about it. But, if they are not, he would be happy to bring it to the attention of the Planning Board and have Code Compliance investigate it. Someone should go through the applications to see what was granted. S. Stachowiak stated that Donna Wynant researched how Kinko's was able to get as much signage as what they had since that business was established while the Sign Code has been in effect. She was not able to find anything, not even a sign permit. Ms. Horne stated that we need additional study on this issue and that this should be tabled until further study has been completed.The Sign Code allows each establishment in a shopping center to have one wall sign. Corner establishments within a shopping center may have one wall sign per facade. Section 1442.13( I) stipulates that the maximum amount of wall signage permitted for the subject building is 200 square feet. This is,therefore, a request for a variance from Section 1442.26(c)to allow a third wall sign, and a variance from Section 1442.13(i)to allow an additional 91 .sq. feet of signage. Ms. Horne made a motion to table this request until further study has been conducted. Seconded by Mr. Frederick. VOTE YEA L NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Horne X McCloud X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0 to table BZA-3607'.00. IV OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch (no action) B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan (no action) C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw(no action) D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar(no action) E. Rules of Procedure -(no action) V. PUBLIC COMMENT -none DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2000 Page 5 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Minutes of October 12 2000 Mr. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as printed. Ms. McCloud seconded. Motion carried. VII NEW BUSINESS A. 2001 Calendar Dates for BZA Meetings Discussion on dates for ne)d years meetings. It was moved by Mr. Burgess and seconded by Mr. Frederick to accept the 1 calendar of meeting dates as resented. Motion carried. Ms. Horne opposed. Mr. Frederick moved that Ms. Horne be excused from the April 12, 2001, meeting because of religious beliefs. Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion carried. B. Excused Absence for Victoria Earhart for December 2000 meeting. Ms. Earhart will be having surgery. Mr. Frederick moved and Mr. Burgess seconded.to give Ms. Earhart an excused absence for the December meeting;. Motion carnad. C. Resignation of Mary Clark It was recommended that Ms. Clark ID-- cont2ctad to sea if she still lives in Lansing. The BZA asked that her resignation be on the agenda for next month. D. New Members There was discussion about How to get citizens to participate on the Board of Zoning Appeals. It was suggested that the BZA contact the Mayor and City Council about the lack of members on the BZA. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 10/30/00 Approved 11/09/00 To Clerk 11/21/00 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 12, 2000, 7:32 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:32 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: B. Burgess G. Hilts V. Earhart E. Horne R. McCloud A. Frederick Staff: S. Stachowiak S. Quon ; A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at themeeting. B. V. Earhart asked that"Absence at a future BZA meeting" be added to the agenda under new business. _: 1 C. E. Horne asked that"Michigan Planner" be added to the agenda under new business. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess moved to approve the agenda with the additions of absence at a future board meeting and Michigan Planner. Seconded by R. McCloud. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3601.00, 1229 Berten St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Gordon and Connie Swix regarding a variance to permit construction of a covered entrance/stoop to the front of the home which would have a 10.5 foot front yard setback. The proposed 3.5 foot deep and 5 foot wide covered stoop/porch is a minor addition to the front of the house and is the minimum necessary to correct the problem and retain the design of the house. In addition,the variance request would not adversely impact circulation or the environment. Mr. Frederick asked if a building permit had been pulled when the e)asting porch was enclosed. Ms. Stachowiak replied "yes". The applicant, Gordon Swix stated that the e)asting porch was enclosed to make it more of a 3- season room. He explained that the way it is now,there is no way to open the door without backing down the steps and there is nowhere to put things down while opening the door. He further explained that when people leave through the door of the e)asting porch,they have to immediately step down which is not good for people who are not steady on their feet. Mr. Swix said that he has no problem with the stipulation of not being able to enclose entranceway. Mr. Frederick asked Mr. Swix if he used a contractor when the porch was enclosed, and if so, did the contractor warn against this situation. He also asked if the side entrance to the home could be used. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 2000 PAGE 2 Mr. Swix stated that he did use a contractor to do the work, but was never warned about this situation. He also stated the using the side entrance would be cumbersome. Mr. Frederick stated that the problem was self-imposed by the applicants when the existing porch was enclosed. Mr. Hilts asked what alternatives the applicants would have had, other than putting it on the side of the house which is not practical. He said that the new entranceway would not be out of place. Mr. Frederick said that he cannot see the practical difficulty in this case. Mr. Hilts stated that the house in the neighborhood are old. Ms. Earhart asked if the BZA would have looked at this differently had it been brought to the Board at the time the existing porch was enclosed. She questioned whether it would have made a difference if the request had been made sooner rather than later. Mr. Frederick moved to approve a variance for a 10.5 ft. front yard setback (9.5 ft. variance)with the condition that the new structure could not be enclosed. Seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X McCloud X Frederick X Horne X Burgess X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3601.00, 1229 Berten St. has been approved. B. BZA-3602.00 5400 Bilk MIL King, Jr. Blvd. Sam Quon presented the case. This is a request by Nextel Communications requesting a height variance of 60-feet to add a 17-foot cellular antenna to an existing 78-foot utility tower. A practical difficulty exists because the Zoning Code allows a maximum height of 35 feet for structures in the "A" Residential District. The location,size, and character of the proposal is reasonable. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation will not be impacted by this proposal. The construction of this tower will not set an adverse precedent for future development. Mr. Quon explained that Nextel is looking for a site to improve their coverage area in southeast Lansing. He stated that Nextel will be colocating their antenna which would eliminate another tower going up in another area. Mr.Quon recommended approval of the request with the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Frederick asked if a chart had been provided that shows the subject property as the best location for the tower. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 12 2000 PAGE 3 Ms. Barb Bailey, representing Nextel Communications showed the maps that Mr. Frederick asked about. She stated that Nextel likes to use existing structures whenever necessary and that the new antenna will not be very noticable because there is a tower already there. Ms. Bailey explained that cellular antenna heights will start coming down. She said that it will not increase traffic, cause nuisances to neighbors or affect property values in the area. In response to a question from Mr. Hilts,she stated that Nextel has introduced the wireless internet. Mr. Frederick asked about another Nextel site. Mr. Quon stated that the site Mr. Frederick is referring to is outside of the City. Mr. Frederick said that it is a reasonable request with reasonable conditions of approval. Mr. Frederick made a motion to approve a variance of 60-feet to erect a 17-foot high addition to an existing 78-foot high tourer as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. Ms. Horne said that she appreciates that Nextel is colocating because it is a great way to bring service to the people of Lansing. She stated that she would feel more comfortable if the language in the staff report and for the motion stated that the request is to add 17-feet to the existing 78-foot tower. Mr. Frederick accepted the amendment from Ms. Horne. Mr. Frederick seconded the amendment to the motion. A roll call vote was taken for the amendment to the original motion. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Frederick I X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. A roll call vote was taken on the original motion, as amended. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 12 2000 PAGE 4 VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3602.00„ 5400 Blk ML King, Jr. Blvd., has been approved. C. BZA-3603.00 NW Corner of Dell Rd. and Aurelius Rd. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Curtis Smith_regarding a variance from the required (established) front yard setback from Dell and from Aurelius Rd. The proposed house will not result in any negative impact on pedestrian or vehicular traffic and will not have a negative impact on future development patterns. Any development of this property requires a variance due to the placement of homes on the two adjacent lots. Staff believes this to be a reasonable proposal, given these existing circumstances. The existing curb cut located further east on the lot is required to be closed with.the new driveway to be located closer to the west property line as shown on the site plan. David Wells, representing the applicant,stated that the proposed building will finish the corner and make the neighborhood look settled. He also said that Dell is a dead-end street and the proposal will not increase traffic. Lester Smith, 1933 Dell Road,told the Board that his is the current owner of the property. He said that when the property was split, he was told by the City that a variance would be granted. Mr. Hilts asked when the property was split. Mr. Smith replied 11 year ago". Mr. Frederick asked Mr. Smith who told him that a variance would be approved. Mr. Smith replied "Eleanor Love". Mr. Frederick stated that there are two practical difficulties. He also said that the intent was not to make the property unbuildable. Ms. Earhart expressed support for the variance as recommended. Mr. Hilts said that commercial development on this corner would be out of place. Ms. Earhart moved to approve the request for a variance of 18-feet from the required front yard setback from Dell Road and 12-feet from the required setback from Aurelius Road to allow the development of a 48'x27'8" single family home on the vacant lot at the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 12 2000 PAGE 5 northwest corner of Dell and Aurelius Roads that would be 32-feet from Dell Road and 38-feet from Aurelius Road be approved,with the condition that the existing curb cut is moved further west toward west property line. Seconded by Mr. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X McCloud X --- Horne X Frederick X Burgess X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3603.00, NW corner of Dell Rd. and Aurelius Rd. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch (no action expected) B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan (no action expected) C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw (no action expected) D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar(no action expected) E. Rules of Procedure -(no action expected) V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of September 14, 2000 Ms. Horne moved to approve the minutes as printed. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. Motion carried. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Absence at a future meeting Ms. Earhart said that she will not be at the November meeting. She will not be having surgery, but will be going up north. Ms. McCloud made a motion to grant Ms. Earhart an excused absence for the November meeting. Ms. Horne seconded the motion. Motion carried. B. Michigan Planner Ms. Horne thanked whoever is responsible for making sure that ZBA is getting the Michigan Planner. VII ADJOURNMENT AT 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ; a Susan Stachowiak,Zoning Administrator I MINU Draft to Clerk09i TES OF Approved 10/ BOARD 7'HE REGULAR _ 7-0 clerk OF ZONING APP MEETING '' C1TY COUNCIL SEP7TEMBER 14 APPEALS ►• CONFERENCE ROp 0' 7:33 P,&J y ROB M, 10T - The meeting was c H FLOOR C1TY call was taken. called to order HALL- by G. Hilts at 7:30 p,rn• Chairman Hrlts Present: read the B B' Burgess ZA introduction. Roll G. Hilts Ste: V. Earhart E. Horne E Davis R• McCloud A S. Quon. D. WYnant A quorum of at least five members w meeting. B as present, allowing voting M• Clark has given action to Planning her verbal resignationbe taken at the g h manager. This le avingC. ►vas added to Business. the Board of Zoning L. Davis introduced'Susan New Business. Appeals to S. Stachowiak express Stacho Jim Ruff, S. Staxpressed her wtak Z°nin Ad Lansing and is her fo►yvard 1easure at being the Administrator to the 11, to workin new Zonin Board. g with the BZq g Administrator for the 13 BU OVAL OF AGENDA City of Front moved to approve pproVe a ont Yard Parking, Seconded With the 111, nded by R. Mcclouq additions of M Clark's AE'4RINGS/gCT10N unanimous voice vote tonation and discussion BZA-3S99.0 approve agenda. Sa Quo221S W. Holmes Rd. m n Presented Parking On the case. zoned '°F,, adjacent This is Comment Properties. Mr. Bloc Mr.quest by Mr. Fred drive thro The lot Is a Owns a co Blocker for site. ugh 0onvenience store, PprOxtmately 10,500 s ercial building a variance to share Mr. Bloc Shanor ' W. Holmes sUbmitte ken purchase a s Be square feet, gat 2215 d for kend the ea and Barber Su The build- W. Rd. Proposed use.review when staff discove Property the intent to O PPIies g was built as a maY grant Section 1284•06 d that there pen uP a billiapdreviously Occupied of businesses do to Of the Zonin was not ade hall Plans the s not Overlap- sharing °f Off-street a specifies that the BOff-street g for were pace for eve r Underparkin and of parkin Therefore every 3 people that Section 1284.13 g between businesses Zoning Appeals Parking p' Mr. Stocker is re are allowed in the billiard halls when Ow g spaces Mr require to have building. The are required to peak hours Owner Of 2203 Blocker has an 48 Parkin building permits 144 have 1 parking agreement agreement g spaces. Right now, the people. with MrHolmes' which is the with adjacent site only The hours Of o rooks site of the Y has 20 an Aeration for who Owns 2227 1910 Meat Market Y Owners. The Property d from 1:00 p,m to the 1910 W Holmes Rd and he p rty and another 4 u 4:00 Meat Market which is Ida Is also has an 11:00 p.m Monda Marked Par not 9 on Sunday. CurrentlMonday- Saturday, 9SOuthside carryout. P.M. to 9:00 Y through Thu spaces to front. Ida,s there are 8 striped OO ng a 7 00 p.m. Practical difficult• on Sunday. y, 12:00 hours of O parking spaces the y is evident Y Currently, the noon to midnight on FrigatOn is fro a °nno e builaIng occu nt due Y have 4 m 11.00 °n the site is pies aPproximatel the lot size. T striped parking spaces Saturday and 1:00 Parking difficult due Y 26/o of the lot a lot is approximately °n site. ng Spaces curre to the location , the Desi functioa circus A hardship or ntly straddle the bui►din gntnquare feet and proOft °n g and existing curb cutsr Addion parking plan Y line east Additional) side. HowevP� +►,.. . Y, 11 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 2 with the use. The use basically determines the parking. Therefore, the hardship is self-imposed. Staff looked at the compatibility of this proposal with the surrounding neighborhood. This intersection, the majority of uses on each of the corners are commercial with the exception of Shabazz Academy which is on the northeast corner. Residential neighborhoods surround this commercial enclave. Pool halls basically generate more traffic than other commercial uses. This is reflected in the Zoning Code. Vehicular circulation and parking on this particular site and adjoining site tends to be a problem because the parking lot is worn out, there is not adequate striping and there is not enough signage to help direct traffic in and around this site. Staff doesn't anticipate any environmental impact on this project. Staff also doesn't anticipate any impact on future development of this site. Staff recommends denial of this request because the lease agreement that Mr. Blocker has would provide him with only 12 additional parking spaces-that is with 1910 Meat Market because their hours do not overlap while Ida's hours of operation overlap with Mr. Blocker's. Basically, staff is recommending that this request be denied because he would still be deficient by 16 parking spaces. Staff also would like to state that there are other options available such as reducing the usable floor area of the pool hall to match the existing parking available, to consider establishing or leasing the building for other commercial uses, to add land to the site for more parking or seek an agreement with the shopping center to the south to provide the parking needed. Mr. Fred Blocker addressed the Board. He stated that he has been a resident of Lansing for 40 years. He has worked for CATA for 30 years and took his retirement to purchase this building. He stated that he went downtown to do the paperwork for this. He stated that he was misled in the information that he was given. He was told that he needed an extra bathroom so he put that in. They said that he needed a water fountain so he put that in. He put in everything that he was told to put in by the City of Lansing. Then it came down to the parking facility. He is on a bus route and there is a public parking lot, but he can't get access to it at this time because they are selling the parking lot. He stated that he did everything he was told to do. Also since he is on the bus route, some people will ride the bus to get to the pool hall and some people will walk. But he is being told that everybody has to drive a vehicle there with 3 people to a car. He thinks that is unfair because if he would have been told up front that the building wasn't adequate for what he wanted, he wouldn't have put any money into the building. It seems that he is being misled after he has put so much into the building. He remodeled the whole building. He just asked for a chance to open it up. He has never seen a pool hall with 144 people in it. He is only going to have 7 pool tables in there. He doesn't know what 100 people are going to be doing standing around when only 2 people can play pool at a time. The most would 4 people that could play on one table. He stated that if he had 100 people standing around, he would ask someone to leave himself. He stated that all he wants is a chance to open it up. If things don't go right, he will be the first to close it down. He has no problem with that. But he has spent all of his money making this building the way that the City wants it. E. Horne asked staff what department he went to? S.Quon stated that he went to the Building Department. Basically, the Building Inspector or Plan Review Analyst informed him of the improvements that he needed to make in order to have a pool hall. However, nothing was submitted formally for review. Once this request was submitted, it went through Site Plan Review and various departments had an opportunity to look at it. When it was sent to Planning, they had a chance to look at it and evaluate it. Basically, based on the Zoning Code for parking, it was deficient and that is when the issue with parking was brought up. General discussion ensued regarding when he was given this information, when the formal request was filed, the procedure of information circulation when submitted, etc. V. Earhart asked staff about the occupancy numbers. She referred to Mr. Blocker's statement about too many people being in the pool hall if it is 100 people. How does staff determine how many people will be occupying a pool hall? S. Quon stated that is based on what the Fire Department determines as the occupancy load of the building. They look at the area of the building and the use. Then they use that to determine how many people are permitted inside the building. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 3 V. Earhart stated that her question surrounds the space taken up by the pool tables themselves. Is that something that the Fire Department takes into consideration minus x-number of square feet per pool table? S. Quon stated that he doesn't think so. He stated that he doesn't fully understand the formula that the Fire Department uses and is not familiar with their code. They do look at the space that can be occupied by people in general versus storage space. They only count the space where people can be in and roam around and occupy during business hours. General discussion ensued regarding capacities, the logics of the numbers and the reality of the numbers. Also discussion ensued regarding the fact that the 144 people seems too many for this particular use. Willie Fuller addressed the Board. He is the vice president of Shanora's Beauty and Barber Supply. He stated that he sold the building to Fred Blocker with the impression that he was going to open up a pool hall. He informed Mr. Blocker that he should go down to the city and find out what he has to do. He stated that they both came down to the Zoning Department and spoke with someone. They were told that they see no problem with the parking, but they have to go to City Hall to get a permit. They did all the steps that they were told to do. Then at the end of the process, after money was invested, they were told that the parking was inadequate. Someone dropped the ball. He stated that he doesn't agree with the occupancy number of 144 people. He has never seen 144 people in a pool hall. People come in at different times of the day to play pool. Mr. Blocker was misled in the process. He requested that the Board please give Mr. Blocker a chance to open his pool hall. He stated that Mr. Blocker has done everything that was asked of him. Sheila Blocker addressed the Board. She stated that Mr. Blocker is a hard worker. He has worked for CATA for over 30 years and had contributed to the City of Lansing. He has just retired and put his money into this building. She asked the Board to please give him a chance with this. It is unfair treatment that her husband has received and they just want a chance. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess shared some calculations that he came up with regarding the number of occupancy. He came up with 32 parking spaces. He also stated that he noticed that Mr. Blocker currently cannot negotiate with the parking lot behind him due to the fact that it is up for sale. He supports the request with the condition stating that Mr. Blocker would negotiate with the new owners of the parking lot to see if he can get the other spaces when it becomes known. V. Earhart stated that another condition that they might put on that is for an hourly occupancy number to be taken so that when they get to the point of having a grocery store or shopping center owner in looking at negotiations, perhaps they can look at the actual numbers that are being generated to see how close they come to the zoning. E. Horne stated that another condition should be that he plans to only have 7 pool tables. She stated that they need to look at this as far as the code is concerned, to have another category in regards to a special land use or a special condition. With the changes that the City is having, the BZA needs to look into the future of different uses and redevelopment of these different areas. G. Hilts stated that he believes that the occupancy number is too high. B. Burgess moved to approve 32 parking spaces with the stated conditions that the applicant will negotiate with the new owners of the shopping center behind his business for more parking spaces at that time, that the applicant keep an hourly total of the number of people in the pool hall for providing data to the BZA or to the shopping center for negotiations and also that there are only 7 pool tables maximum in the building. Seconded by V. Earhart. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 4 VOTE 1 YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3599.00, 2215 W. Holmes Rd. has been approved. B. BZA-3600.00, 6741, 6801, 6841, 6911 S. Cedar& 1241, 1250 Roth St. Donna Wynant presented the case. This case involves quite a large redevelopment of this 14.8 acre site on the south end of Cedar St. There will be a big change to this area with the Holiday Inn going through a major expansion across the street. This will give it a whole new look to that end of town. Lowe's Home Improvement Center will be 136,000 square feet for the store and will have a garden center on the north end of that building 33,667 square feet in size. It is a very large development. She referred to the staff report and the diagrams of the site and signs. She went over what signs would be removed as well as buildings to be demolished and what would be put up in their place. Staff recommends approval of this request. She referred to previous cases like this, i.e. Celebration Cinema, Shaheen Chevrolet, etc. The site developer for Lowe's, John Schaefer, addressed the board. He stated that this development will greatly enhance the area. He explained the need for the 3 signs. Basically, each of the three areas, which include the main store area, the garden center, and the lumber area, need to be identified separately based on what they provide. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that this reminds her of the previous cases mentioned. For the same reasons that she agreed with those previous cases, she also agrees with the need for these signs. It seems very reasonable and she will support this request. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA 3600.00,for one additional wall sign and 274 additional square feet of area space. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA IF—NAY Hilts X Earhart X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3600.00, 6742, 6801, 6841, 6911 S. Cedar& 1241, 1250 Roth St. has been approved. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch (no action expected) B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan (no action expected) C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw(no action expected) D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar(no action expected) E. Rules of Procedure -No change in status. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ME"i ING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, /000 PAGE 5 V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of August 10, 2000 B. Burgess stated that the staff listed as present was not correct. L. Davis will correct. V. Earhart moved to approve the minutes with corrections. Seconded by B. Burgess. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Phone resignation by Mary Clark from the Board of Zoning Appeals It was decided by the board to wait for the official letter of resignation from Mary Clark before considering it. B. Front Yard Parking Issues General discussion ensued regarding the BZA getting more front yard parking issues brought before them. It was requested by the Board to be given the rules on Front Yard Parking. C. V Earhart stated that her attendance for November, December and January might be in question due to her having surgery in October. D. Ideas for Recruiting for BZA G. Hilts asked for ideas for recruiting members for the Board. It was suggested maybe a Lansing State Journal ad, possibly in Cheryl Risner's article. Also possibly could use the City of Lansing TV channel. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sue Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk09/20/00 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS SEPTEMBER 14, 2000, 7:33 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. I rl ._1 Present:B. Burgess G. Hilts V. Earhart E. Horne R. McCloud Staff: c? L. Davis S. Quon D. Wynant = rya c-) A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. M. Clark has given her verbal resignation leaving the Board of Zoning Appeals to Jim Ruff, Planning Manager. This was added to New Business. C. L. Davis introduced Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator to the Board. S. Stachowiak expressed her pleasure at being the new Zoning Administrator for the City of Lansing and is looking forward to working with the BZA. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess moved to approve agenda with the additions of M. Clark's resignation and discussion of Front Yard Parking. Seconded by R. McCloud. Unanimous voice vote to approve agenda. 111. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3599.00, 2215 W. Holmes Rd. Sam Quon presented the case. This is a request by Mr. Fred Blocker for a variance to share parking on adjacent properties. Mr. Blocker owns a commercial building at 2215 W. Holmes Rd. zoned "F" Commercial. The lot is approximately 10,500 square feet. The building was built as a drive through convenience store. Shanora's Beauty and Barber Supplies previously occupied the site. Mr. Blocker purchased the property with the intent to open up a billiard hall. Plans were submitted for review when staff discovered that there was not adequate off-street parking for the proposed use. Section 1284.06 of the Zoning Code specifies that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant a variance to permit sharing of off-street parking between businesses when peak hours of businesses do not overlap. Under Section 1284.13, billiard halls are required to have 1 parking space for every 3 people that are allowed in the building. The building permits 144 people. Therefore, Mr. Blocker is required to have 48 parking spaces. Right now, the site only has 20 parking spaces. Mr. Blocker has an agreement with adjacent property owners. The property owner of 2203 W. Holmes, which is the site of the 1910 Meat Market, and he also has an agreement with Mr. Brooks who owns 2227 W. Holmes Rd., which is Ida's Southside Carryout. The hours of operation for the 1910 Meat Market are Monday- Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sunday. Currently there are 8 striped parking spaces on site and another 4 unmarked parking spaces in front. Ida's hours of operation is from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 12:00 noon to midnight on Friday & Saturday, and 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. Currently they have 4 striped parking spaces on site. A hardship or practical difficulty is effident due to the lot size. The lot is approximately 10,500 square feet and the building occupies approximately 26% of the lot. Designing a functional circulation parking plan on the site is difficult due to the location of the building and existing curb cuts. Additionally, 11 DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 2 parking spaces currently stradle the property line on the east side. However, the issue here is with the use. The use basically determines the parking. Therefore, the hardship is self-imposed. Staff looked at the compatibility of this proposal with the surrounding neighborhood. This intersection, the majority of uses on each of the corners are commercial with the exception of Shabazz Academy which is on the northeast corner. Residential neighborhoods surround this commercial enclave. Pool halls basically generate more traffic than other commercial uses. This is reflected in the Zoning Code. Vehicular circulation and parking on this particular site and adjoining site tends to be a problem because the parking lot is worn out, there is not adequate striping and there is not enough signage to help direct traffic in and around this site. Staff doesn't anticipate any environmental impact on this project. Staff also doesn't anticipate any impact on future development of this site. Staff recommends denial of this request because the lease agreement that Mr. Blocker has would provide him with only 12 additional parking spaces-that is with 1910 Meat Market because their hours do not overlap while Ida's hours of operation overlap with Mr. Blocker's. Basically, staff is recommending that this request be denied because he would still be deficient by 16 parking spaces. Staff also would like to state that there are other options available such as reducing the usable floor area of the pool hall to match the existing parking available, to consider establishing or leasing the building for other commercial uses, to add land to the site for more parking or seek an agreement with the shopping center to the south to provide the parking needed. Mr. Fred Blocker addressed the Board. He stated that he has been a resident of Lansing for 40 years. He has worked for CATA for 30 years and took his retirement to purchase this building. He stated that he went downtown to do the paperwork for this. He stated that he was misled in the information that he was given. He was told that he needed an extra bathroom so he put that in. They said that he needed a water fountain so he put that in. He put in everything that he was told to put in by the City of Lansing. Then it came down to the parking facility. He is on a bus route and there is a public parking lot, but he can't get access to it at this time because they are selling the parking lot. He stated that he did everything he was told to do. Also since he is on the bus route, some people will ride the bus to get to the pool hall and some people will walk. But he is being told that everybody has to drive a vehicle there with 3 people to a car. He thinks that is unfair because if he would have been told up front that the building wasn't adequate for what he wanted, he wouldn't have put any money into the building. It seems that he is being misled after he has put so much into the building. He remodeled the whole building. He just asked for a chance to open it up. He has never seen a pool hall with 144 people in it. He is only going to have 7 pool tables in there. He doesn't know what 100 people are going to be doing standing around when only 2 people can play pool at a time. The most would 4 people that could play on one table. He stated that if he had 100 people standing around, he would ask someone to leave himself. He stated that all he wants is a chance to open it up. If things don't go right, he will be the first to close it down. He has no problem with that. But he has spent all of his money making this building the way that the City wants it. E. Horne asked staff what department he went to? S.Quon stated that he went to the Building Department. Basically, the Building Inspector or Plan Review Analyst informed him of the improvements that he needed to make in order to have a pool hall. However, nothing was submitted formally for review. Once this request was submitted, it went through Site Plan Review and various departments had an opportunity to look at it. When it was sent to Planning, they had a chance to look at it and evaluate it. Basically, based on the Zoning Code for parking, it was deficient and that is when the issue with parking was brought up. General discussion ensued regarding when he was given this information, when the formal request was filed, the procedure of information circulation when submitted, etc. V. Earhart asked staff about the occupancy numbers. She referred to Mr. Blocker's statement about too many people being in the pool hall if it is 100 people. How does staff determine how many people will be occupying a pool hall? DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 3 S. Quon stated that is based on what the Fire Department determines as the occupancy load of the building. They look at the area of the building and the use. Then they use that to determine how many people are permitted inside the building. V. Earhart stated that her question surrounds the space taken up by the pool tables themselves. Is that something that the Fire Department takes into consideration minus x-number of square feet per pool table? S. Quon stated that he doesn't think so. He stated that he doesn't fully understand the formula that the Fire Department uses and is not familiar with their code. They do look at the space that can be occupied by people in general versus storage space. They only count the space where people can be in and roam around and occupy during business hours. General discussion ensued regarding capacities, the logics of the numbers and the reality of the numbers. Also discussion ensued regarding the fact that the 144 people seems too many for this particular use. Willie Fuller addressed the Board. He is the vice president of Shanora's Beauty and Barber Supply. He stated that he sold the building to Fred Blocker with the impression that he was going to open up a pool hall. He informed Mr. Blocker that he should go down to the city and find out what he has to do. He stated that they both came down to the Zoning Department and spoke with someone. They were told that they see no problem with the parking, but they have to go to City Hall to get a permit. They did all the steps that they were told to do. Then at the end of the process, after money was invested, they were told that the parking was inadequate. Someone dropped the ball. He stated that he doesn't agree with the occupancy number of 144 people. He has never seen 144 people in a pool hall. People come in at different times of the day to play pool. Mr. Blocker was misled in the process. He requested that the Board please give Mr. Blocker a chance to open his pool hall. He stated that Mr. Blocker has done everything that was asked of him. Sheila Blocker addressed the Board. She stated that Mr. Blocker is a hard worker. He has worked for CATA for over 30 years and had contributed to the City of Lansing. He has just retired and put his money into this building. She asked the Board to please give him a chance with this. It is unfair treatment that her husband has received and they just want a chance. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess shared some calculations that he came up with regarding the number of occupancy. He came up with 32 parking spaces. He also stated that he noticed that Mr. Blocker currently cannot negotiate with the parking lot behind him due to the fact that it is up for sale. He supports the request with the condition stating that Mr. Blocker would negotiate with the new owners of the parking lot to see if he can get the other spaces when it becomes known. V. Earhart stated that another condition that they might put on that is for an hourly occupancy number to be taken so that when they get to the point of having a grocery store or shopping center owner in looking at negotiations, perhaps they can look at the actual numbers that are being generated to see how close they come to the zoning. E. Horne stated that another condition should be that he plans to only have 7 pool tables. She stated that they need to look at this as far as the code is concerned, to have another category in regards to a special land use or a special condition. With the changes that the City is having, the BZA needs to look into the future of different uses and redevelopment of these different areas. G. Hilts stated that he believes that the occupancy number is too high. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 4 B. Burgess moved to approve 32 parking spaces with the stated conditions that the applicant will negotiate with the new owners of the shopping center behind his business for more parking spaces at that time, that the applicant keep an hourly total of the number of people in the pool hall for providing data to the BZA or to the shopping center for negotiations and also that there are only 7 pool tables maximum in the building. Seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3599.00, 2215 W. Holmes Rd. has been approved. B. BZA-3600 00, 6741 6801 6841, 6911 S. Cedar& 1241, 1250 Roth St. Donna Wynant presented the case. This case involves quite a large redevelopment of this 14.8 acre site on the south end of Cedar St. There will be a big change to this area with the Holiday Inn going through a major expansion across the street. This will give it a whole new look to that end of town. Lowe's Home Improvement Center will be 136,000 square feet for the store and will have a garden center on the north end of that building 33,667 square feet in size. It is a very large development. She referred to the staff report and the diagrams of the site and signs. She went over what signs would be removed as well as buildings to be demolished and what would be put up in their place. Staff recommends approval of this request. She referred to previous cases like this, i.e. Celebration Cinema, Shaheen Chevrolet, etc. The site developer for Lowe's, John Schaefer, addressed the board. He stated that this development will greatly enhance the area. He explained the need for the 3 signs. Basically, each of the three areas, which include the main store area, the garden center, and the lumber area, need to be identified separately based on what they provide. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that this reminds her of the previous cases mentioned. For the same reasons that she agreed with those previous cases, she also agrees with the need for these signs. It seems very reasonable and she will support this request. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA 3600.00, for one additional wall sign and 274 additional square feet of area space. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3600.00, 6742, 6801, 6841, 6911 S. Cedar& 1241, 1250 Roth St. has been approved. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ME,-,ING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, _000 PAGE 5 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch (no action expected) B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan (no action expected) C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw(no action expected) D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar(no action expected) E. Rules of Procedure -No change in status. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of August 10, 2000 B. Burgess stated that the staff listed as present was not correct. L. Davis will correct. V. Earhart moved to approve the minutes with corrections. Seconded by B. Burgess. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Phone resignation by Mary Clark from the Board of Zoning Appeals It was decided by the board to wait for the official letter of resignation from Mary Clark before considering it. B. Front Yard Parking Issues General discussion ensued regarding the BZA getting more front yard parking issues brought before them. It was requested by the Board to be given the rules on Front Yard Parking. C. V Earhart stated that her attendance for November December and January might be in question due to her having surgery in October. D. Ideas for Recruiting for BZA G. Hilts asked for ideas for recruiting members for the Board. It was suggested maybe a Lansing State Journal ad, possibly in Cheryl Risner's article. Also possibly could use the City of Lansing TV channel. VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sue Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 08/29 MINUTES Approved 09,4 ` ES OF THE REGULAR To Clerk 09 5 BOARD OF ZONING MEETING CITY c'( AUGUST 10 APPEALS NCIL�CpNFERENCE 2000, 7:33 P•M• I' ROLL C ROOM, 107'H FLOOR CITY The meeting was called to HALL call was taken. order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the B Pry' ZA introduction. Roll A. Frederick B. Burgess Ste: G. Hilts V. Earhart J Sturdevant E. Horne R. McCloud A. A quorum of at least five members was meeting. B present, allowing voting action to be taken at the Mrs. Clark re II quested an excused absence for tonight's ght's meeting. A. Frederick OF AGENDA III agenda moved to approve agenda. Seconded b HEARINGS/ y E• Horne. Unanimouso approve voice vote t A ACTION BZA-3597.00 1129 Jim Sturdev Bement on to the north t presented the case. have side of the This is a re two front yards. Bement at 1129 Bement by Robert Forbis to minimum setb ment and Jo Street. This is a corner Ioaandd a 2co considered Street. ack of 20'. The nes Streets. addition Therefore a 12' proposed addition Section '250.07 d to variance is will be 81 from the east Zoning Code re J Sturdevant stated that requested. pr°pert quires a variance fro at the a Y line along Jones Reside m the front applicant has an ntial District. yard setback, Option to buy the properly surrounding land It is a relatively The property is A perty and is requesting a designates uses are y small lot a y a single family residence 9nates this are single famil Pproximatel + zoned "C"house to a for reside Y residential and so is he zoning P by 120' Ion expand his kitchen ntial use. Mr. Forbis is g' All of the NW corner o f B n and attach Proposing g• The comprehensive Ian two sides. For ement and Jones a garage. However g t0 construct an addition onto he construct a a 39/ dee St, it is required to , because the lot is on practical plot this does not leave meet a minima a corner, the the lot, it would addition to the sufficient lot area r buildyard ing setback of area on Yard of the lot. So Prohibit any reaso house and because Of small size reasonable construction of the the placement of the existing t ope area to Of the lot andpractical difficulty then isaddition in what is essentially house on Since the the loc the antic* applicant is cation of the house requirement of the code for two front the rear recommends negative impacts a reasonable sized in what is on + nds on the addition to the home dee Yards the Property. approval of neighborhood or future develo t p r building area, s perty of 12 and there is no a variance m the front yard setback along patterns in the E. Horne g the Jones area, staff ne stated that she St. side of the Will r Forbis noticed that have to get a all of the homes o J• Sturdev curb cut approval if he is n Jones St. have alleys to their ant stated that is going to put his garages. because most correct. garage where he That wa of the parkin I recommended to the wants it? Y wet not have g area would be over the applicant that he Parking spaces in the property line if placed on the Jones St side.access from the Y Public right of way. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2000 PAGE 2 A. Frederick referred to the drawing and asked if the 12' variance that the board is being requested to grant just for the garage or does the board need to grant a variance to a distance from the house too? J. Sturdevant stated that by ordinance, a house established on a lot of record is conforming so there is no need for addressing the setback of the house itself, only the addition. The report was prepared by Ms. Witherspoon. Robert Forbis, 1129 Bement St., Lansing addressed the Board. Let me preface about what I am about to say- you are speaking with someone who understands the meaning of rules, laws, and procedures because I am a Lansing Police Officer. I don't bring that up to get special treatment but I want you to know that when it comes to rules to follow I understand that and I appreciate the formality of this meeting but also I am very familiar with people who need variances, not property wise, but life-wise. I would like to turn in a petition from all of my neighbors on the surrounding blocks, saying that they have absolutely no problems with my proposal and to cut the curb on Jones St. in order for me to access my proposed garage off of Jones St. It sounds like that the variance will be approved for me to build a garage, and while I appreciate that, making me come in off of the alley will create a hardship for me because it will ruin my side yard. By allowing me to come in off of Jones St. will allow me to have the easiest access and while I can appreciate that it will be closer to the street and impact the parking I don't see how it is enough of an issue to change the structure around. There are several hardships that I am faced with. First I have no parking space- I had to cut a section of my fence to avoid parking on the street between 2- 5:OOam I have no space for a garage or a driveway. The reason that I want to attach the garage is because that would be the easiest route for me to extend my kitchen and have an entryway that will lead into the garage. That is the easiest way for me to improve my house value and the structure. I have also spoken to my neighbors who will speak tonight also who lives across the street from me who says that he has no problems along with the other people on the other blocks around me who have no problem with me coming in off of Jones St. Furthermore, there is no sidewalk on Jones St. from Hickory to Lamed St. So the fact that the City would need to set that City property aside for a sidewalk to be built there. There is a sidewalk on the other side of Jones St. and a sidewalk hasn't been built for 70 years. The main problem that I have is that I have a small house on a small lot. The main problem is that the house itself is against the variance, I cannot construct anything being non conforming with the variance laws. A. Frederick stated that as he understands what he is saying about entering the garage from the alley that could result in him having a 30' driveway. That would take up a lot of your grass. R. Forbis stated that he would ruin 30' of his yard in order to accommodate a driveway so he could come in off of the alley. There is also an oak tree over 100 years old that he would have to destroy in order to come in off of the alley. Greg Forbis addressed the Board. I am the previous owner of 1129 Bement. I bought the house in 1991 as an owner occupied house and turned it into a rental. Since the house did not have a garage I had to rent the house for a lot less. I think the garage would enhance the area. Gary Lintemuth, 1203 Bement, addressed the Board. The addition would be directly across the street from my house. I have no problem at all with a curb cut and being able to access that from Jones St. There are a couple of problems with having him access it from the alley. People are known to park in the alley in inopportune moments. Given the fact that he is a police officer, he may need to get out of his alley in a hurry. Plus this will take out his whole yard. I came forward to support the curb cut on Jones. I cannot see any effect on the neighborhood at all. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that we have had many requests for variance with corner lots and I can understand the practical difficulty. I can understand the applicant's desires to not want to go through his whole yard and cut down a tree. I could easily support this variance as the way it way proposed without any conditions. I also support the curb cut. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2000 PAGE 3 G. Hilts stated that, in this case, I also agree. V. Earhart stated that I don't think we do the city any good to encourage slabs of concrete if we have an alternative. G. Hilts stated that my feeling was if there was a side walk it might be different but I don't ever see the city putting a sidewalk down there. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3597.00, a 12'variance request for 24' X 24' addition to the north side of the house at 1129 Bement St. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3597.00, 1129 Bement St. has been approved. B. BZA-3598.00, 1500 James St. J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Mr. Lupe Inosencio, Jr. The zoning is "C" Residential District and Mr. Inocencio would like to add an addition of 10' along the rear of his house. However, his house is located on a corner of 3 streets: James St., Dodge River Dr., and Black Ct. This lot has 3 front yards. He referred to the area map and site plan in the board packet. His Black Ct. front is 22', his proposed addition would be within 17' of the property line. Since this house has 3 street frontages, it is an addition that makes sense because it extends the house the full width of the back. There would be no negative impact on the neighbors or on the development patterns in the area. This is a very well kept house. This addition makes a lot of sense for the applicant and for the community. Staff recommends approval. A. Frederick asked if the variance that we would be granting would be a variance of 5? J. Sturdevant stated that was correct. Manuel DelGado- contractor, addressed the board. He spoke with all of his surrounding neighbors and all approved. His biggest challenge is that he lives on an odd corner. The little proposed addition would have a hip roof like the existing roof. The addition would fit in with the style of the house and the rest of the neighborhood. The porch would be removed. The windows would match as well with the same character. E. Horne asked about what was going to be taken off of the house. M. DelGado explained drawings. General discussion ensued regarding the location of the addition on the house. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that he is not sure where the 5'variance is. General discussion ensued regarding established setback and proposed setbacks. Also looked at site plans in board packet. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 200u PAGE 4 V. Earhart moved that the variance from the front yard for BZA-3598.00 be granted as proposed, 5' variance due to the irregular shape of the lot and the frontage on 3 streets. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X McCloud X Horne X ----------------- Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3598.00, 1500 James St. has been approved. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch (no action expected) B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan (no action expected) C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw(no action expected) D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar(no action expected) E. Rules of Procedure -No change in status. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of July 13, 2000 inutes as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion A. Frederick moved to approve the m carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused absence for A Frederick for the September meeting E. Horne moved to accept excused absence. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to accept excused absence. B. Excused absence for V Earhart for the October meeting A. Frederick moved to accept excused absence. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice to accept excused absence. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, i i Jim Ruff, Planning Manager Draft to Clerk 08/29/00 Approved �t To Clerk ^n MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING,_. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ' AUGUST 10, 2000, 7:33 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: A. Frederick B. Burgess G. Hilts V. Earhart E. Horne R. McCloud Staff: L. Davis D. Witherspoon D. Wynant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. Mrs. Clark requested an excused absence for tonight's meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Frederick moved to approve agenda. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3597.00, 1129 Bement Jim Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Robert Forbis to add a 24' X 24' addition on to the north side of the house at 1129 Bement Street. This is a corner lot and considered to have two front yards. Bement and Jones Streets. Section 1250.07 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum setback of 20'. The proposed addition will be 8' from the east property line along Jones Street. Therefore, a 12' variance is requested. J. Sturdevant stated that the applicant has an option to buy the property and is requesting a variance from the front yard setback. The property is a single family residence zoned "C" Residential District. It is a relatively small lot approximately 39'/2'deep by 120' long. All of the surrounding land uses are single family residential and so is the zoning. The comprehensive plan designates this area for residential use. Mr. Forbis is proposing to construct an addition onto the house to expand his kitchen and attach a garage. However, because the lot is on a corner, the NW corner of Bement and Jones St, it is required to meet a minimum front yard setback of 20' on two sides. For a 39'/2'deep lot this does not leave sufficient lot area or building envelope area to construct a practical addition to the house and because of the placement of the existing house on the lot, it would prohibit any reasonable construction of the addition in what is essentially the rear yard of the lot. So the practical difficulty then is the requirement of the code for two front yards, the small size of the lot and the location of the house within what is on a 15'/z' deep building envelope. Since the applicant is constructing a reasonable sized addition to the home and there is no anticipated negative impacts on the neighborhood or future development patterns in the area, staff recommends approval of a variance of 12' in the front yard setback along the Jones St. side of the property. E. Horne stated that she noticed that all of the homes on Jones St. have alleys to their garages. Will Mr. Forbis have to get a curb cut approval if he is going to put his garage where he wants it? J. Sturdevant stated that is correct. I recommended to the applicant that he access from the alley DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEN fING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 2 because most of the parking area would be over the property line if placed on the Jones St. side. That way we do not have parking spaces in the public right of way. A. Frederick referred to the drawing and asked if the 12' variance that the board is being requested to grant just for the garage or does the board need to grant a variance to a distance from the house too? J. Sturdevant stated that by ordinance, a house established on a lot of record is conforming so there is no need for addressing the setback of the house itself, only the addition. The report was prepared by Ms. Witherspoon. Robert Forbis, 1129 Bement St., Lansing addressed the Board. Let me preface about what I am about to say- you are speaking with someone who understands the meaning of rules, laws, and procedures because I am a Lansing Police Officer. I don't bring that up to get special treatment but I want you to know that when it comes to rules to follow I understand that and I appreciate the formality of this meeting but also I am very familiar with people who need variances, not property wise, but life-wise. I would like to turn in a petition from all of my neighbors on the surrounding blocks, saying that they have absolutely no problems with my proposal and to cut the curb on Jones St. in order for me to access my proposed garage off of Jones St. It sounds like that the variance will be approved for me to build a garage, and while I appreciate that, making me come in off of the alley will create a hardship for me because it will ruin my side yard. By allowing me to come in off of Jones St. will allow me to have the easiest access and while I can appreciate that it will be closer to the street and impact the parking I don't see how it is enough of an issue to change the structure around. There are several hardships that I am faced with. First I have no parking space- I had to cut a section of my fence to avoid parking on the street between 2- 5:OOam I have no space for a garage or a driveway. The reason that I want to attach the garage is because that would be the easiest route for me to extend my kitchen and have an entryway that will lead into the garage. That is the easiest way for me to improve my house value and the structure. I have also spoken to my neighbors who will speak tonight also who lives across the street from me who says that he has no problems along with the other people on the other blocks around me who have no problem with me coming in off of Jones St. Furthermore, there is no sidewalk on Jones St. from Hickory to Lamed St. So the fact that the City would need to set that City property aside for a sidewalk to be built there. There is a sidewalk on the other side of Jones St. and a sidewalk hasn't been built for 70 years. The main problem that I have is that I have a small house on a small lot. The main problem is that the house itself is against the variance, I cannot construct anything being non conforming with the variance laws. A. Frederick stated that as he understands what he is saying about entering the garage from the alley that could result in him having a 30'driveway. That would take up a lot of your grass. R. Forbis stated that he would ruin 30' of his yard in order to accommodate a driveway so he could come in off of the alley. There is also an oak tree over 100 years old that he would have to destroy in order to come in off of the alley. Greg Forbis addressed the Board. I am the previous owner of 1129 Bement. I bought the house in 1991 as an owner occupied house and turned it into a rental. Since the house did not have a garage I had to rent the house for a lot less. I think the garage would enhance the area. Gary Lintemuth, 1203 Bement, addressed the Board. The addition would be directly across the street from my house. I have no problem at all with a curb cut and being able to access that from Jones St. There are a couple of problems with having him access it from the alley. People are known to park in the alley in inopportune moments. Given the fact that he is a police officer, he may need to get out of his alley in a hurry. Plus this will take out his whole yard. I came forward to support the curb cut on Jones. I cannot see any effect on the neighborhood at all. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 3 A. Frederick stated that we have had many requests for variance with corner lots and I can understand the practical difficulty. I can understand the applicant's desires to not want to go through his whole yard and cut down a tree. I could easily support this variance as the way it way proposed without any conditions. I also support the curb cut. G. Hilts stated that, in this case, I also agree. V. Earhart stated that I don't think we do the city any good to encourage slabs of concrete if we have an alternative. G. Hilts stated that my feeling was if there was a side walk it might be different but I don't ever see the city putting a sidewalk down there. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3597.00, a 12'variance request for 24'X 24' addition to the north side of the house at 1129 Bement St. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Frederick rX Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3597.00, 1129 Bement St. has been approved. B. BZA-3598.00, 1500 James St. J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Mr. Lupe Inosencio, Jr. The zoning is "C" Residential District and Mr. Inocencio would like to add an addition of 10' along the rear of his house. However, his house is located on a corner of 3 streets: James St., Dodge River Dr., and Black Ct. This lot has 3 front yards. He referred to the area map and site plan in the board packet. His Black Ct. front is 22', his proposed addition would be within 17' of the property line. Since this house has 3 street frontages, it is an addition that makes sense because it extends the house the full width of the back. There would be no negative impact on the neighbors or on the development patterns in the area. This is a very well kept house. This addition makes a lot of sense for the applicant and for the community. Staff recommends approval. A. Frederick asked if the variance that we would be granting would be a variance of 5'? J. Sturdevant stated that was correct. Manuel DelGado- contractor, addressed the board. He spoke with all of his surrounding neighbors and all approved. His biggest challenge is that he lives on an odd corner. The little proposed addition would have a hip roof like the existing roof. The addition would fit in with the style of the house and the rest of the neighborhood. The porch would be removed. The windows would match as well with the same character. E. Horne asked about what was going to be taken off of the house. M. DelGado explained drawings. General discussion ensued regarding the location of the addition on the house. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEL i ING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 4 A. Frederick stated that he is not sure where the 5' variance is. General discussion ensued regarding established setback and proposed setbacks. Also looked at site plans in board packet. V. Earhart moved that the variance from the front yard for B7-A-3598.00 be granted as proposed, 5' variance due to the irregular shape of the lot and the frontage on 3 streets. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3598.00, 1500 James St. has been approved. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch (no action expected) B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan (no action expected) C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw(no action expected) D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar(no action expected) E. Rules of Procedure -No change in status. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of July 13, 2000 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused absence for A Frederick for the September meeting E. Horne moved to accept excused absence. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to accept excused absence. B. Excused absence for V Earhart for the October meeting A. Frederick moved to accept excused absence. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice to accept excused absence. VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Planning Manager DRAFT Draft to Clerk 07/27/00 Approved 08/10/00 To Clerk 08/21/00 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS J U LY 13 2000, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: A. Frederick B. Burgess G. Hilts V. Earhart E. Horne Staff: L. Davis D. Witherspoon D. Wynant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. R. McCloud requested an excused absence for tonight's meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. Earhart moved to approve agenda. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3594.00, vacant land (Belaire Avenue) D. Witherspoon presented the case. This is a request by Markey Associates to build two 2- bedroom duplexes on lot#7 and#8. She referred to the location map in the board packets. The applicant is requesting a variance of 1,100 square feet. The required lot area for a 2-bedroom duplex would be 3,200 square feet for one or a total of 6,400 square feet for two. The surrounding land uses consist of"A" residential to the north and "C" residential to the south. She showed the different land uses using the location map. At one time, the property in question was zoned "A" residential and was rezoned in 1965 to "C" residential. The existing duplexes were built in 1971 then vacant lots#8, #7, #6 and#5 and the other ones to the south of that were built in 1968. There is, basically, a mixed use of residential properties in the area. She referred to the staff report in regards to conforming lots. The square footage requirement for a 2-bedroom duplex is 6,400 square feet and the required number of parking spaces would be 4. The lots are similar in size to the single family lots in the area and can be developed for single family use. Therefore, a hardship or practical difficulty is not evident because the applicant has alternatives to develop the properties as single family homes which is permitted by right. In terms of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, there is a mixture of housing in this area. The remaining dwellings in this neighborhood are basically single family houses on lots that average about 6,000 square feet in size. Because these are lots of record, single family development can be built on them. Duplexes would be compatible in this neighborhood, but the smaller size lots would increase the density and reduce the amount of open space. These are irregularly shaped lots. It would not have any type of negative impact on vehicular or pedestrian circulation. There is no anticipated negative impact on the environment. The approval of this variance could set a precedence for the other three vacant parcels to be developed at 2-bedroom duplexes which are similar in size to the subject property. There are some other options that the applicant has to developing these lots. They can develop the lots for a duplex if it meets the lot area requirement as indicated in the staff report. She referred to the staff report. They can also develop it as single family or they can combine the lots and develop a single duplex or acquire the two lots to the south of that, do a lot split and put some housing developments on there. At this time, staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for a variance to reduce the minimum lot area requirement by 1,100 square BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 2 feet. The applicant has other alternatives. A similar request came before the Board of Zoning Appeals in 1971. She referred to the information in the staff report. The same request was brought before the board at that time. The same alternatives were presented to the applicant at that time for denying the request for those lots for a variance. Mike Markey, Kruger Properties, addressed the Board. He stated that the zoning is two family. It was zoned that way many years ago as a buffer to the commercial that is on the corner. He stated that he questions the zoning that D. Witherspoon presented. He also stated that there is an old grocery store on the corner that, in 1971, was a grocery store. In the late 1970s, it became one of the most famous gentlemen's club in this town. These lots, their back yards, back up against this gentlemen's club. When they talk about a practical difficulty and an option to put single family homes in there, absolutely. Who are they going to sell it to? He stated that when the original request was brought before the board in 1971, it was a grocery store. That is not the case anymore. When they talk about analyzing the Zoning Code, they can build an efficiency and a 1- bedroom unit on the lot right now. What is the difference then if they put two 2-bedrooms units in? They can put a duplex in there now, but they have to put an efficiency and 1-bedroom. They can do that by right at this point. Is it going to take up more green area by putting a 2-bedroom unit there compared to an efficiency- no. Will it take up less parking? Maybe by one unit. That, to him, doesn't hold a lot of water. This right that he is asking for here is what is a right that has already been conferred onto the adjacent property owners of the built out units. The staff report states that lot#9 &#10 are 2-bedroom units. Those are 3-bedroom units. They don't come anywhere near close to meeting the zoning requirements. The staff report also shows lot#4 as being a non-conforming - absolutely. All they are asking to do is enjoy the same right that the adjacent property owner's have. Those were built after 1971 on lots#9 and #10. Lot#4, somehow or another, as well as the balance of the lots, were built out before the 1971 appeal. He passed out photos to the board. A. Frederick asked if he was saying that the existence of the gentleman's club is a practical difficulty? M. Markey stated yes. To be able to market those for single family residences, that is a practical difficulty. A. Frederick asked why he believes that. M. Markey stated that it is the amount of disturbances that are there consistently as far as fights and the traffic in and out. Anybody with young children looking to have their back yard and live there and invest in a neighborhood, when right over the back fence is that gentlemen's club, that is a practical difficulty. A. Frederick stated that he agrees that it is a difficulty. A practical difficulty by the board's definition is something that is caused by a particular configuration of the lot or the parcel with the existing Zoning Code. Perhaps the gentlemen's club might be out of compliance. He has no doubt that they have a lot of disturbances going on, but by Zoning Code standards, that is not a practical difficulty. Unfortunately, he would not be convinced that would support the applicant's claim because, whether you had duplexes or single family homes, if nobody is going to want to live there, if you put in duplexes, twice as many people aren't going to want to live there. M. Markey stated that there is a difference between somebody willing to make monthly mortgage payments and have a home, than there is for someone willing to rent. When they talk about the practical difficulty of the configuration of the lot, quite frankly, if they were squared up like the adjacent lots are, because of their circular pattern on the frontage, they meet the frontage requirements. These didn't even meet the requirements when they were platted. There was a 6,000 square foot requirement when the plat was approved for this. There is not even 6,000 square feet of area there. There is around 5,400 or 5,500 square feet. G. Hilts stated that they are plenty big enough to put a single family on. They were not platted with the idea in mind of a duplex. M. Markey stated that the "C" zoning was put there as a buffer with good planning against the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 3 commercial development they knew was going to transpire on this corner. Nancy Nelson addressed the Board. She stated that she doesn't agree with some of the statistics given. A. Frederick requested point of order and requested the speaker to address the board and not the applicant. N. Nelson apologized and continued. She stated that the National Market Basket was in there and it wasn't much of a problem. Then they put a teenager club in there. That was terrible. They ransacked the neighborhoods, beat up kids and stole things. She is not in favor of DeJaVu. They voted not in favor of it as best they could, but it didn't work. However, she can honestly say that she has never had a moment's trouble with any customers from DeJaVu. They drive there, they don't walk. They drive out onto Jolly Rd. They don't drive in their neighborhood at all. There is no noise. The police have been called there rarely. With the fencing, they have taken great pains to make it"park-like". There are privacy fences all along those properties. She stated that she is very much against the request. She stated that there are five duplexes and most of them have at least four cars. Their driveways will not accommodate four cars without hanging over the sidewalk. She explained the neighborhood and the number of cars accommodated. She voiced a concern with the amount of traffic and the safety of the children in the neighborhood. She also voiced her concern regarding problems with the existing duplexes and the transients that live in them. Oscar Champod addressed the Board. He stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 27 years. He stated that they don't have that much problem from DeJaVu. The noise level is no where near where it used to be. It has been a lot better since they have put up their fences. The biggest problem that they have right now is who would want to invest in there as opposed to paying rent. The people that are in the duplexes now paying rent are transients. There are more drug raids and police calls on those areas. They have parties and leave trash in the front yards. There is also extra traffic congestion due to this. Lisa Champod addressed the Board. She stated that there are problems with too much traffic from the duplexes right now. There is too much congestion. Kim Smith addressed the Board. She stated that she lives across the street from the duplexes. The value of the surrounding properties has gone down due to the duplexes and the problems that they are creating. G. Hilts read correspondence into record opposing this request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that zoning exceptions are not a right. There are alternatives available to the applicant without making any change or variance to the current requirements and allowances. In her opinion, this would be an extremely disruptive change in the neighborhood. The rent vs. mortgage presentation is basically the reverse of the argument that the homeowners are making that their property, where they live, with mortgages, is being run down by overcrowded properties such as the exception would allow. B. Burgess stated that the options are available to the applicant. The exception of the code is a hardship on the land that he cannot see. He doesn't think that the board should contribute to the difficulty by allowing this particular proposal. A. Frederick stated that even though the lots are irregularly shaped, they are buildable as they sit by right. Value can be obtained from these particular parcels. He doesn't see any practical difficulty. G. Hilts agreed. E. Horne also agrees. After taking a visual inspection today of that area, she sees that they should try to limit and have open space and make it a livable and viable area. She cannot support this variance. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 4 V. Earhart moved to deny BZA-3594.00, vacant land (Belaire Ave.). Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3594.00, vacant land (Belaire Ave.) has been denied. E. Horne requested that Code Compliance take a look at that neighborhood for zoning violations in regards to rentals, parking, etc. B. BZA-3595.00, 2720 Grant St. D. Wynant presented the case. She stated that this particular property is located at the corner of Park Blvd. and Grant. The applicant is William Brown, owner of the property. His request is to obtain a variance in order to build a front porch, which would be a covered porch, onto the front of the house 8' out from the house and the full width of the house which is 36'. She explained the established front yard setback referring to the staff report. She also explained the calculations used to obtain the setback information. She stated that there is not a practical difficulty or hardship that is unique to this particular property. It is limited as to where he can build on the property. An 8'x36' addition is 288 square feet onto the front of the property. He is proposing this as an improvement to the property to function as a nice porch on the front as well as make it more attractive. However, in terms of the actual hardship or practical difficulty, by code definition there is not that in place. However, staff did feel that it was a reasonable request and wanted the board to be aware of that. It is in a single family neighborhood on a corner lot. The area is primarily cape cods and bungalows. There are not a lot of homes with front porches or covered entries. There are a lot of stoops or small covered entries, but nothing like a covered porch. It will not create any sight or visibility problem. There is plenty of distance there from the intersection. It certainly doesn't interfere with any pedestrian traffic. They are concerned about future development patterns. Even though they look at each request on a case by case basis, they felt that an 8' projection might be a bit excessive in terms of projecting out in front of the other house. Staff thought that maybe a 6' projection might do it for a porch. Staff recommends denial of the request for 8', but allow a 6' variance to be granted for a 6'x36'front porch. She stated that the property is nicely tree-shaded. She mentioned that it might encourage other people for these types of things. B. Burgess asked about the subject of front porches being regular, popular improvements. General discussion ensued regarding front porches, practical difficulty of such, etc. E. Horne asked if any of the trees would go. D. Wynant stated that it should be addressed to the applicant. She explained where the trees are on the property using the drawing and digital camera pictures. General discussion ensued regarding how the front yard setback is established, practical difficulty regarding porches, etc. Bill Brown, owner, addressed the board. He passed out a petition of 17 signatures of neighbors that don't have any problem with him building the porch. He stated that the 6'will not stop him from doing the project. The 7'will give him a nice front porch swing that he can walk around the edges of. He referred to the cad drawing. He stated that an 8' addition will be more substantial and give it more of a look and feel to it. He would appreciate more than 6', but can live with less than 8'. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 5 B. Burgess asked if any of the trees were going to be removed. B. Brown stated that a couple of trees would be removed. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick asked staff if they were to grant an 8' variance, where would the 20' minimum setback land? D. Wynant stated that the applicant would be allowed a 4' projection or 4' deep porch. The house right now is at 24'. It would just be a ledge. V. Earhart stated that the board would have to grant the applicant a variance if the applicant was going to have any kind of a porch at all. General discussion ensued regarding setbacks, size of porch, etc. B. Burgess stated that, as far as the sight line, the porch will be behind the trees that are already there. E. Horne asked staff about previous case and how large that porch was. B. Brown was able to answer that and stated that it is about 5'wide. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3595.00, 2720 Grant, an 8' variance from the required front yard setback. Seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X Horne X Burgess Ix Frederick Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3594.00, 2720 Grant has been approved. C. BZA-3596.00, 1215 E. Michigan D. Witherspoon presented the case. This is a revision from Sparrow Hospital's previous case, BZA-3575.00 which the Board of Zoning Appeals approved on April 13, 2000. This is for a rear yard variance for the construction of an additional MRI unit to the north side of the building on a lithotriptor vestibule. The only difference in this staff report from the previous report is that the request is for a larger addition as well as the lithotriptor vestibule is larger. The applicant is requesting a 1,817 square foot addition to the north side and west end of the hospital. This is an additional 379 square feet. The proposed lithotriptor vestibule is 395 square feet. The original lithotriptor vestibule was 49 square feet. This is an additional 346 square feet. In terms of the location, size and character, the size of the addition to the hospital as well as the lithotriptor vestibule are reasonable considering the size of the hospital. Basically, this is not going to change the character of the area. In terms of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, she did send another memo to the Transportation Department for the City of Lansing to ask if they had any problems with the request. Sparrow Hospital did address those concerns at the April meeting. Transportation has no problems with the request as long as all of the conditions that were associated with the last BZA case follows this BZA case. In summary, since the MRI needs to be installed on grade, there is no other logical location on site to place the addition. Also, the waiting area for the patients using the lithotriptor has increased to allow the patients to wait in a controlled space with family. The location, size and character appear to be reasonable. Staff recommends approval with the conditions that a new curb cut and gutter and/or necessary curb modifications are made as indicated in the previous report. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 6 A. Frederick asked if this was essentially a technical correction? D. Witherspoon stated that was the case. Also, the additions are larger than before. Bob Walsh, Albert Kahn Associates, addressed the Board. He stated what they did after the last approval, they wanted to make sure that they had the setback before they went to further development. He stated that there were complaints that when the lithotriptor was at the hospital that there wasn't a good vestibule to seal off the air, so the corridor used to get very cold. Generally, the patients would wait in the corridor. He referred to a drawing presented to the Board. What they are doing now is increasing the size of it where they have a separate door. By making the vestibule larger, they allow the cold air to stay out of the rest of the hospital and then they have a special waiting area for the patient and the family as a whole and are not interfered with by anybody else walking through the corridor. That is the primary reason why they made the lithotriptor vestibule larger. Basically, it is for more convenience for the hospital, the patients and their families. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that there doesn't appear to be any substantive change to this request from the previous request that they ruled on. He reiterated his previous support of this case that it is for the good of the citizens of the city. He supports this request with the conditions stated. B. Burgess stated that he supports this as well. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3596.00, 1215 E. Michigan with the condition that the curb cut adjacent to the addition be closed with new curb and gutter and/or necessary curb modifications are made. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3596.00, 1215 E. Michigan has been approved. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch No change in status. B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan No change in status. C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw St. No change in status. D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar No change in status. E. BZA-3580.00, 300 W. Ottawa& 209 N. Seymour E. Horne moved to take BZA-3580.00 off the table. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to take off table. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 7 E. Horne moved to accept withdrawal letter from applicant. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to accept withdrawal. F. BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. A. Frederick moved to take BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. off the table. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to take off table. D. Wynant presented the request again. She presented a memo from Sam Quon, Senior Planner, who worked on this case. She stated that the request was to put up a 6'tall fence in the front yard on a corner lot. She referred to the site plan in the board packet. The alternatives were discussed on site. She presented the new alternative which is to have a 6'tall fence at a 20' setback from the front property line. It is a family daycare- up to 6 children. Staff recommends that the alternative variance request to allow a 6' high fence be set back 20'from the front property line along Starr Ave. be approved. E. Horne stated that she still has a problem with the site plan. She stated that there were previous cases like this that were denied that were near schools and playground areas. She does not support this case. A. Frederick stated that he agrees. He cannot support this request. General discussion ensued regarding responsibility of kids, fencing, etc. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. has been denied. F. Rules of Procedure No change in status. G. Memo from Bud Burgess B. Burgess moved to take off table. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to take off the table. B. Burgess explained the memo and asked for clarification on these issues. He is concerned with how the board treats applicants as far as being fair, non-emotional, respectful, etc. He stated that sometimes there are confrontations that are not necessary. General discussion ensued regarding how the board conducts themselves, responding to irate applicants, listening skills, being non-emotional, how the board is supposed to react to being verbally attacked by the applicants, trying to keep decisions based strictly on codes and ordinances instead of emotions, etc. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of June 8, 2000 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 8 V. Earhart stated that pg. 11 and pg. 12 were incorrect. She was not at the meeting to vote. E. Horne stated that on pg. 9, she voted "yes" on the 1st vote. E. Horne moved to approve the minutes with corrections. Seconded by A. Frederick. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused absence for Regina McCloud A. Frederick moved to accept excused absence. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to accept excused absence. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Planning Manager Draft to Clerk 07/27/00 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS J U LY 13 2000, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: ` A. Frederick B. Burgess G. Hilts V. Earhart E. Horne c Staff: v i ;l1 L. Davis D. Witherspoon D. Wynant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. R. McCloud requested an excused absence for tonight's meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. Earhart moved to approve agenda. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3594.00, vacant land (Belaire Avenue) D. Witherspoon presented the case. This is a request by Markey Associates to build two 2- bedroom duplexes on lot#7 and #8. She referred to the location map in the board packets. The applicant is requesting a variance of 1,100 square feet. The required lot area for a 2-bedroom duplex would be 3,200 square feet for one or a total of 6,400 square feet for two. The surrounding land uses consist of"A" residential to the north and "C" residential to the south. She showed the different land uses using the location map. At one time, the property in question was zoned "A" residential and was rezoned in 1965 to "C" residential. The existing duplexes were built in 1971 then vacant lots#8, #7, #6 and#5 and the other ones to the south of that were built in 1968. There is, basically, a mixed use of residential properties in the area. She referred to the staff report in regards to conforming lots. The square footage requirement for a 2-bedroom duplex is 6,400 square feet and the required number of parking spaces would be 4. The lots are similar in size to the single family lots in the area and can be developed for single family use. Therefore, a hardship or practical difficulty is not evident because the applicant has alternatives to develop the properties as single family homes which is permitted by right. In terms of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, there is a mixture of housing in this area. The remaining dwellings in this neighborhood are basically single family houses on lots that average about 6,000 square feet in size. Because these are lots of record, single family development can be built on them. Duplexes would be compatible in this neighborhood, but the smaller size lots would increase the density and reduce the amount of open space. These are irregularly shaped lots. It would not have any type of negative impact on vehicular or pedestrian circulation. There is no anticipated negative impact on the environment. The approval of this variance could set a precedence for the other three vacant parcels to be developed at 2-bedroom duplexes which are similar in size to the subject property. There are some other options that the applicant has to developing these lots. They can develop the lots for a duplex if it meets the lot area requirement as indicated in the staff report. She referred to the staff report. They can also develop it as single family or they can combine the lots and develop a single duplex or acquire the two lots to the south of that, do a lot split and put some housing developments on there. At this time, staff recommends denial of the DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 2 applicant's request for a variance to reduce the minimum lot area requirement by 1,100 square feet. The applicant has other alternatives. A similar request came before the Board of Zoning Appeals in 1971. She referred to the information in the staff report. The same request was brought before the board at that time. The same alternatives were presented to the applicant at that time for denying the request for those lots for a variance. Mike Markey, Kruger Properties, addressed the Board. He stated that the zoning is two family. It was zoned that way many years ago as a buffer to the commercial that is on the corner. He stated that he questions the zoning that D. Witherspoon presented. He also stated that there is an old grocery store on the corner that, in 1971, was a grocery store. In the late 1970s, it became one of the most famous gentlemen's club in this town. These lots, their back yards, back up against this gentlemen's club. When they talk about a practical difficulty and an option to put single family homes in there, absolutely. Who are they going to sell it to? He stated that when the original request was brought before the board in 1971, it was a grocery store. That is not the case anymore. When they talk about analyzing the Zoning Code, they can build an efficiency and a 1- bedroom unit on the lot right now. What is the difference then if they put two 2-bedrooms units in? They can put a duplex in there now, but they have to put an efficiency and 1-bedroom. They can do that by right at this point. Is it going to take up more green area by putting a 2-bedroom unit there compared to an efficiency- no. Will it take up less parking? Maybe by one unit. That, to him, doesn't hold a lot of water. This right that he is asking for here is what is a right that has already been conferred onto the adjacent property owners of the built out units. The staff report states that lot#9 &#10 are 2-bedroom units. Those are 3-bedroom units. They don't come anywhere near close to meeting the zoning requirements. The staff report also shows lot#4 as being a non-conforming - absolutely. All they are asking to do is enjoy the same right that the adjacent property owner's have. Those were built after 1971 on lots#9 and#10. Lot#4, somehow or another, as well as the balance of the lots, were built out before the 1971 appeal. He passed out photos to the board. A. Frederick asked if he was saying that the existence of the gentleman's club is a practical difficulty? M. Markey stated yes. To be able to market those for single family residences, that is a practical difficulty. A. Frederick asked why he believes that. M. Markey stated that it is the amount of disturbances that are there consistently as far as fights and the traffic in and out. Anybody with young children looking to have their back yard and live there and invest in a neighborhood, when right over the back fence is that gentlemen's club, that is a practical difficulty. A. Frederick stated that he agrees that it is a difficulty. A practical difficulty by the board's definition is something that is caused by a particular configuration of the lot or the parcel with the existing Zoning Code. Perhaps the gentlemen's club might be out of compliance. He has no doubt that they have a lot of disturbances going on, but by Zoning Code standards, that is not a practical difficulty. Unfortunately, he would not be convinced that would support the applicant's claim because, whether you had duplexes or single family homes, if nobody is going to want to live there, if you put in duplexes, twice as many people aren't going to want to live there. M. Markey stated that there is a difference between somebody willing to make monthly mortgage payments and have a home, than there is for someone willing to rent. When they talk about the practical difficulty of the configuration of the lot, quite frankly, if they were squared up like the adjacent lots are, because of their circular pattern on the frontage, they meet the frontage requirements. These didn't even meet the requirements when they were platted. There was a 6,000 square foot requirement when the plat was approved for this. There is not even 6,000 square feet of area there. There is around 5,400 or 5,500 square feet. G. Hilts stated that they are plenty big enough to put a single family on. They were not platted DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 3 with the idea in mind of a duplex. M. Markey stated that the "C" zoning was put there as a buffer with good planning against the commercial development they knew was going to transpire on this corner. Nancy Nelson addressed the Board. She stated that she doesn't agree with some of the statistics given. A. Frederick requested point of order and requested the speaker to address the board and not the applicant. N. Nelson apologized and continued. She stated that the National Market Basket was in there and it wasn't much of a problem. Then they put a teenager club in there. That was terrible. They ransacked the neighborhoods, beat up kids and stole things. She is not in favor of DeJaVu. They voted not in favor of it as best they could, but it didn't work. However, she can honestly say that she has never had a moment's trouble with any customers from DeJaVu. They drive there, they don't walk. They drive out onto Jolly Rd. They don't drive in their neighborhood at all. There is no noise. The police have been called there rarely. With the fencing, they have taken great pains to make it "park-like". There are privacy fences all along those properties. She stated that she is very much against the request. She stated that there are five duplexes and most of them have at least four cars. Their driveways will not accommodate four cars without hanging over the sidewalk. She explained the neighborhood and the number of cars accommodated. She voiced a concern with the amount of traffic and the safety of the children in the neighborhood. She also voiced her concern regarding problems with the existing duplexes and the transients that live in them. Oscar Champod addressed the Board. He stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 27 years. He stated that they don't have that much problem from DeJaVu. The noise level is no where near where it used to be. It has been a lot better since they have put up their fences. The biggest problem that they have right now is who would want to invest in there as opposed to paying rent. The people that are in the duplexes now paying rent are transients. There are more drug raids and police calls on those areas. They have parties and leave trash in the front yards. There is also extra traffic congestion due to this. Lisa Champod addressed the Board. She stated that there are problems with too much traffic from the duplexes right now. There is too much congestion. Kim Smith addressed the Board. She stated that she lives across the street from the duplexes. The value of the surrounding properties has gone down due to the duplexes and the problems that they are creating. G. Hilts read correspondence into record opposing this request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that zoning exceptions are not a right. There are alternatives available to the applicant without making any change or variance to the current requirements and allowances. In her opinion, this would be an extremely disruptive change in the neighborhood. The rent vs. mortgage presentation is basically the reverse of the argument that the homeowners are making that their property, where they live, with mortgages, is being run down by overcrowded properties such as the exception would allow. B. Burgess stated that the options are available to the applicant. The exception of the code is a hardship on the land that he cannot see. He doesn't think that the board should contribute to the difficulty by allowing this particular proposal. A. Frederick stated that even though the lots are irregularly shaped, they are buildable as they sit by right. Value can be obtained from these particular parcels. He doesn't see any practical difficulty. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 4 G. Hilts agreed. E. Horne also agrees. After taking a visual inspection today of that area, she sees that they should try to limit and have open space and make it a livable and viable area. She cannot support this variance. V. Earhart moved to deny BZA-3594.00, vacant land (Belaire Ave.). Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3594.00, vacant land (Belaire Ave.) has been denied. E. Horne requested that Code Compliance take a look at that neighborhood for zoning violations in regards to rentals, parking, etc. B. BZA-3595.00, 2720 Grant St. D. Wynant presented the case. She stated that this particular property is located at the corner of Park Blvd. and Grant. The applicant is William Brown, owner of the property. His request is to obtain a variance in order to build a front porch, which would be a covered porch, onto the front of the house 8' out from the house and the full width of the house which is 36'. She explained the established front yard setback referring to the staff report. She also explained the calculations used to obtain the setback information. She stated that there is not a practical difficulty or hardship that is unique to this particular property. It is limited as to where he can build on the property. An 8'x36' addition is 288 square feet onto the front of the property. He is proposing this as an improvement to the property to function as a nice porch on the front as well as make it more attractive. However, in terms of the actual hardship or practical difficulty, by code definition there is not that in place. However, staff did feel that it was a reasonable request and wanted the board to be aware of that. It is in a single family neighborhood on a corner lot. The area is primarily cape cods and bungalows. There are not a lot of homes with front porches or covered entries. There are a lot of stoops or small covered entries, but nothing like a covered porch. It will not create any sight or visibility problem. There is plenty of distance there from the intersection. It certainly doesn't interfere with any pedestrian traffic. They are concerned about future development patterns. Even though they look at each request on a case by case basis, they felt that an 8' projection might be a bit excessive in terms of projecting out in front of the other house. Staff thought that maybe a 6' projection might do it for a porch. Staff recommends denial of the request for 8', but allow a 6' variance to be granted for a 6'x36' front porch. She stated that the property is nicely tree-shaded. She mentioned that it might encourage other people for these types of things. B. Burgess asked about the subject of front porches being regular, popular improvements. General discussion ensued regarding front porches, practical difficulty of such, etc. E. Horne asked if any of the trees would go. D. Wynant stated that it should be addressed to the applicant. She explained where the trees are on the property using the drawing and digital camera pictures. General discussion ensued regarding how the front yard setback is established, practical difficulty regarding porches, etc. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 5 Bill Brown, owner, addressed the board. He passed out a petition of 17 signatures of neighbors that don't have any problem with him building the porch. He stated that the 6'will not stop him from doing the project. The 7'will give him a nice front porch swing that he can walk around the edges of. He referred to the cad drawing. He stated that an 8' addition will be more substantial and give it more of a look and feel to it. He would appreciate more than 6', but can live with less than 8'. B. Burgess asked if any of the trees were going to be removed. B. Brown stated that a couple of trees would be removed. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick asked staff if they were to grant an 8' variance, where would the 20' minimum setback land? D. Wynant stated that the applicant would be allowed a 4' projection or 4' deep porch. The house right now is at 24'. It would just be a ledge. V. Earhart stated that the board would have to grant the applicant a variance if the applicant was going to have any kind of a porch at all. General discussion ensued regarding setbacks, size of porch, etc. B. Burgess stated that, as far as the sight line, the porch will be behind the trees that are already there. E. Horne asked staff about previous case and how large that porch was. B. Brown was able to answer that and stated that it is about 5'wide. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3595.00, 2720 Grant, an 8'variance from the required front yard setback. Seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3594.00, 2720 Grant has been approved. C. BZA-3596.00, 1215 E. Michigan D. Witherspoon presented the case. This is a revision from Sparrow Hospital's previous case, BZA-3575.00 which the Board of Zoning Appeals approved on April 13, 2000. This is for a rear yard variance for the construction of an additional MRI unit to the north side of the building on a lithotriptor vestibule. The only difference in this staff report from the previous report is that the request is for a larger addition as well as the lithotriptor vestibule is larger. The applicant is requesting a 1,817 square foot addition to the north side and west end of the hospital. This is an additional 379 square feet. The proposed lithotriptor vestibule is 395 square feet. The original lithotriptor vestibule was 49 square feet. This is an additional 346 square feet. In terms of the location, size and character, the size of the addition to the hospital as well as the lithotriptor vestibule are reasonable considering the size of the hospital. Basically, this is not going to change the character of the area. In terms of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, she did send another memo to the Transportation Department for the City of Lansing to ask if they had any problems with the DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 6 request. Sparrow Hospital did address those concerns at the April meeting. Transportation has no problems with the request as long as all of the conditions that were associated with the last BZA case follows this BZA case. In summary, since the MRI needs to be installed on grade, there is no other logical location on site to place the addition. Also, the waiting area for the patients using the lithotriptor has increased to allow the patients to wait in a controlled space with family. The location, size and character appear to be reasonable. Staff recommends approval with the conditions that a new curb cut and gutter and/or necessary curb modifications are made as indicated in the previous report. A. Frederick asked if this was essentially a technical correction? D. Witherspoon stated that was the case. Also, the additions are larger than before. Bob Walsh, Albert Kahn Associates, addressed the Board. He stated what they did after the last approval, they wanted to make sure that they had the setback before they went to further development. He stated that there were complaints that when the lithotriptor was at the hospital that there wasn't a good vestibule to seal off the air, so the corridor used to get very cold. Generally, the patients would wait in the corridor. He referred to a drawing presented to the Board. What they are doing now is increasing the size of it where they have a separate door. By making the vestibule larger, they allow the cold air to stay out of the rest of the hospital and then they have a special waiting area for the patient and the family as a whole and are not interfered with by anybody else walking through the corridor. That is the primary reason why they made the lithotriptor vestibule larger. Basically, it is for more convenience for the hospital, the patients and their families. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that there doesn't appear to be any substantive change to this request from the previous request that they ruled on. He reiterated his previous support of this case that it is for the good of the citizens of the city. He supports this request with the conditions stated. B. Burgess stated that he supports this as well. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3596.00, 1215 E. Michigan with the condition that the curb cut adjacent to the addition be closed with new curb and gutter and/or necessary curb modifications are made. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA IFNAY Hilts X Earhart X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3596.00, 1215 E. Michigan has been approved. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch No change in status. B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan No change in status. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 7 C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw St. No change in status. D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar No change in status. E. BZA-3580.00, 300 W. Ottawa& 209 N. Seymour E. Horne moved to take BZA-3580.00 off the table. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to take off table. E. Horne moved to accept withdrawal letter from applicant. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to accept withdrawal. F. BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. A. Frederick moved to take BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. off the table. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to take off table. D. Wynant presented the request again. She presented a memo from Sam Quon, Senior Planner, who worked on this case. She stated that the request was to put up a 6'tall fence in the front yard on a corner lot. She referred to the site plan in the board packet. The alternatives were discussed on site. She presented the new alternative which is to have a 6'tall fence at a 20' setback from the front property line. It is a family daycare- up to 6 children. Staff recommends that the alternative variance request to allow a 6' high fence be set back 20' from the front property line along Starr Ave. be approved. E. Horne stated that she still has a problem with the site plan. She stated that there were previous cases like this that were denied that were near schools and playground areas. She does not support this case. A. Frederick stated that he agrees. He cannot support this request. General discussion ensued regarding responsibility of kids, fencing, etc. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Earhart X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. has been denied. F. Rules of Procedure No change in status. G. Memo from Bud Burgess B. Burgess moved to take off table. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to take off the table. B. Burgess explained the memo and asked for clarification on these issues. He is concerned with how the board treats applicants as far as being fair, non-emotional, respectful, etc. He stated that sometimes there are confrontations that are not necessary. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 8 General discussion ensued regarding how the board conducts themselves, responding to irate applicants, listening skills, being non-emotional, how the board is supposed to react to being verbally attacked by the applicants, trying to keep decisions based strictly on codes and ordinances instead of emotions, etc. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of June 8, 2000 V. Earhart stated that pg. 11 and pg. 12 were incorrect. She was not at the meeting to vote. E. Horne stated that on pg. 9, she voted "yes" on the 151 vote. E. Horne moved to approve the minutes with corrections. Seconded by A. Frederick. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused absence for Regina McCloud A. Frederick moved to accept excused absence. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to accept excused absence. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Planning Manager DRAFT Draft to Clerk 06/19/00 Approved 07/13/00 To Clerk 07/18/00 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JUNE 8, 2000, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick B. Burgess G. Hilts R. McCloud Staff: J. Sturdevant S. Quon A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at th_e meeting. B. V. Earhart requested an excused absence for tonight's meeting. o II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA c; A. Frederick moved to approve agenda. Seconded by R. McCloud. Unanimous voice vote to approve agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3588.00, vacant land (American Rd.) J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Menard's Home Improvement store. They want to locate their new facility on American Rd. behind Sam's Club and next to the new Shaheen Chevrolet property. He referred to the site plan attached to the staff report. They are proposing to relocate the right of way of American Rd. That right of way relocation is to make room for their new facility store north of that relocated road. That is being reviewed under an ACT 285 review process through the Planning Board and will eventually have to go to City Council for approval. He stated that they are looking at two variances; one from the rear yard setback requirement and another from the sign code requirements. He referred again to the site plan explaining the area and what is being proposed. The applicant is proposing to construct an 14'tall rack that also serves as a fence to enclose the rear yard of the business which is a lumber yard/home improvement center. In the F-Commercial District, which this is zoned, the rear yard setback requirement for a structure is 25'. They would like to place that rack 10'from the rear property line. Therefore, they are asking for a variance of 15' in the rear yard setback. Keep in mind that, while this is not a part of the permanent building, it is a structure of significance that would otherwise be required to meet the rear yard setback requirement. That is why the variance for this fence because it is more than just a fence. The second variance is for signage for the property. He referred again to the staff report and sign information shown in the staff report. He stated that they are asking for a total of 509 square feet of building sign area. Typically, in the F-Commercial District, there is a limit on building sign area of 200 square feet. To put this in perspective, recent developments that have occurred in the area include Shaheen Chevrolet and the Celebration Cinema. Both of these projects came before this board for variances from the sign code. Celebration Cinema sought approval for a 766 square foot sign on the rear of the building facing I- 96 and an 87 square foot sign on the front of the building facing Edgewood Blvd. In addition, Shaheen Chevrolet received a variance for an additional ground pole sign and for an additional 7.12 square feet of sign area for the building itself. So there is some precedent for additional building signage in this area. A lot of it because these are buildings oriented towards 1-96 and they are also viewed from quite a distance. In order to have a sign that can be read from that distance, they have to be a little bit larger. In terms of a recommendation, staff recommends the variance for 15' in the rear yard setback be approved. This is a reasonable request because this BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 2 property backs up to the back of other commercial establishments. There is really no impact in regards to a negative impact on these other commercial establishments and also this is not the primary building, but an accessory that encloses the lumber yard. However, on the sign request, staff recommends that the variance requested for 10 signs be denied as proposed. Some sort of an alternative might be acceptable here. This report was prepared by Donna Wynant and she recommends a variance for a total of 500 square feet of signage that would be contained within only two signs. That would allow something comparable to what Celebration Cinemas did to allow them to have good sign visibility from the freeway but without having so many different signs on the front of the building. Tom O'Neil, Menard's, addressed the Board. He passed out plans and photos to the Board and referred to them. He stated that Menard's is a home improvement retailer. They typically construct a store which is now 161,000 square feet which is 330 feet in depth, 480 feet in front facade from left to right which is a lot of space. They try to break up the monotony by placing a number of departmental signs which identify a number of the different departments in their store - Millwork, Lumber, Hardware, etc. along with the large Menard's sign and a Welcome to Menard's - Your Home Improvement Store of the 21"Century sign. Typically, their stores are 161,000 square feet and they have to the rear of the store a rear yard area which is 3.5 acres in size. It is paved and accessible by a gated canopy and it is enclosed by a 14' high treated lumber pallet racking/fence. On the exterior it is treated lumber. It is a lot more aesthetically pleasing than is mesh fence. On the interior is pallet racking which provides some utility to their use for sales and storage of product for their customers. In this instance, they are coming before the board for three variances. One on the proximity of that treated lumber storage structure, the pallet racking, to the rear property line as well as the number of wall signs and the square footage of wall signs. With respect to the setback of the pallet racking from the rear property line, they tried to compile some site plans which would depict their storage structure meeting the setback requirement of 25'. Based on the number of parking spaces that they have to have, the 330' in depth of their store and the necessary area which they need behind the store for trucks to load and unload, for trucks to turn around, for emergency vehicles to safely maneuver behind the store, it was not feasible to lose the extra 15'. With the relocation of American Rd. being as it is, there simply is no place where they can make up that extra footage. They have tried and failed. The lot cannot be improved by Menard Inc. without such a variance. In addition, the failure to comply with the setback requirement back in that area does not cause significant hardship on their neighbors. That is simply a delivery area for them. Losing the lineal footage to the property line should not present a detrimental impact to either of those organizations or impact property values in the area. With respect to the signage, he referred to the site plans and explained the different signs. The total package adds up to 509 square feet. They feel that because of their proximity to the interstate, because of the fact that they are going to constitute a regional draw hoping to get a lot of people from all points on the southern side of Lansing, they need a pretty extensive sign package to make themselves known in a community which they are not currently located in and to generate some interest and make sure people identify with Menard's. Adjacent property in the area has also had to deal with the same constraints of the sign ordinance in the past and the board has seen fit, in those instances, to find some room to allow for enlarged signage on square footage of the sign which is available. They ask the board to do so in this instance. With respect to the setback variance, the hardship which is going to be caused would be an undue hardship to Menard. Based on their cad efforts to remedy that problem, there is no remedy that they can find which would allow for Menard's to make a reasonable use of the property in that it would just be too detrimental from a traffic flow, from internal circuitity in that rear yard area, from emergency and truck vehicle access for deliveries and for emergency services, to make it a viable option to recess the pallet racking and storage structure 25'from the property line. The hardship is peculiar to the property. Once American Rd. is relocated, there is nowhere they can regain extra land to make it work in which they could comply with the zoning ordinance requirements of the 25' setback. The proposed use of the property is in compliance with and in conjunction with the neighboring uses in the area. The surrounding development will not be economically harmed by the Menard development, it should be enhanced. It should draw additional customers to make everyone happy. That can only be enhanced by the grant of a variance with respect to the wall sign square footage and the number of wall signs. A. Frederick asked what the area of the property to the west of the building is used for? BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 3 T. O'Neil stated that is also outside sales and storage area which is enclosed by the pallet racking. He referred to the drawings and explained the area questioned. He also passed out a picture of another Menard's store showing an example of the pallet racking. G. Hilts asked how the trucks will maneuver in that area. T. O'Neil explained using the drawings as examples. B. Burgess stated that the staff has proposed an alternative of having two signs with a total square footage of 500 square feet. How does he respond to this? It seems that the main sign should be large because a small sign can't be seen. T. O'Neil stated that they have looked at that. The Menard's sign is the one that is absolutely crucial to their development. From the interstate, it could be debated that the smaller square footage signs could even be legible. G. Hilts asked how many doors are in the store where people would be coming in and out? T. O'Neil referred to the drawings to answer the question. A. Frederick stated that Mr. O'Neil said that the pallet rack is more aesthetically pleasing than the fence. Could he talk about what the aesthetics of it are and particularly what kind of landscaping and buffering they are intending to have there? T. O'Neil again referred to the drawings to answer the question. He stated that a lot of their competitors and other types of home improvers that they have seen typically go with no fencing whatsoever or a mesh see-through fence which is only used for security purposes rather than making a good impression and having something that is better looking. That is what they think that they have accomplished with that treated lumber fence. It is a fence in which you don't see all the lifting products behind the store, you don't see piles of crushed rock and such behind the store. There is a fence with a landscaped area adjacent to it. It is their opinion that it gives a better appearance than their competitors have come up with. As far as the landscaping, they have a number of deciduous trees and evergreens along the entirety of the fence line to break up the monotony of even the treated lumber itself. A. Frederick stated that the back of his store faces Sam's and the other stores? There isn't a real issue with being exposed to the general public. T. O'Neil stated that was correct. M. Clark asked if the fence will come along the street as well and be 14' high? T. O'Neil stated that was correct. A. Frederick stated that no matter which way you look at it, they will end up with an unusually shaped lot. He can appreciate the difficulty that the applicant has had in coming up with a plan. What appears to be left are two triangular shaped pieces on the southeast and southwest. Do they have any plans for those two areas? T. O'Neil again referred to the drawing to answer the question. He stated they have nothing in mind for those two pieces. Pat Parker addressed the Board. He stated that he is here with the owners of the property and the sellers of the property. He just wanted to come and let the Board know that they are here. He would like to thank the City Planning Department for their input and cooperation in working with this project. He thinks that it is going to be a very good project for the city. In his understanding, Menard's has in excess of 150 stores even though Michigan has not been a big market for them yet. They will bring more than 100 employees to the city of Lansing and he hopes that this will be a real credit to the city. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 4 G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that he likes the idea of the fence even though it is tall. A. Frederick stated that he especially appreciates that they are willing to go ahead and build it anyway even though all they are going to be doing is hiding their operation loading and unloading. General discussion ensued regarding fencing, screening, etc. B. Burgess stated that he is supportive of the request with the recommendation of staff of 500 square feet total. E. Horne asked staff if Public Service and Transportation have reviewed the report in relation to the street? General discussion ensued regarding ACT 285 review results, responsibility of relocation of road, etc. A. Frederick stated that the public hearing for the vacation and re-dedication of American Rd.was held Tuesday night. Part of the presentation was Menard's will cover the complete cost of moving, re-paving, etc. Basically, they will reconstruct the relocated portion of American Rd. at no cost to the City of Lansing. He also stated that he is not sure what staff is recommending as an alternative for the signs. He would like to hear what staff thinks would be a reasonable alternative. J. Sturdevant read what Donna Wynant wrote in the staff report. He stated that it is not a variance in the number of signs that she is recommending, it is just a variance in the total square footage. He thinks that she is leaving some flexibility there for the applicant to choose how he wants to split that square footage up between two different signs. He stated that when he met with D. Wynant, she explained that 500 square feet was a number that she felt was reasonably close to what this Board has done before in terms of Celebration Cinema and Shaheen Chevrolet. That is why she chose that number. If there is good reason to tweak that number one way or another, they can do that. M. Clark asked if there were any pole signs proposed for this site? J. Sturdevant stated that there is one pole sign proposed on the Menard's property. It is in the front of the store out towards the street. That sign, as proposed and shown in the report, is within the code limit of 30' tall and 170 square feet. In terms of other signs, the Edgewood Town Center development overall has a sign that is in the boulevard where Edgewood and Cedar St. intersect. That sign advertises Sam's Club, Target, etc. Apparently there is not adequate room on that sign to include Menard's. In addition, there is the big freeway sign that approximately 40'tall. You don't see it when you drive by there anymore because it is hidden in the trees. That is located on what is going to be the southwest out parcel. They have proposed no change to that at all. Whether or not there is room to include Menard's on that sign or not, it would probably require that they remove one of the other tenants that is listed there in order to put Menard's there. General discussion ensued regarding ground pole signs for Celebration Cinema, the need for excessive signage with a ground pole sign, etc. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 5 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3588.00,vacant land (American Rd.), the proposed 10' setback variance for the pallet/rack from the rear of the property line. Seconded by M. Clark. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X [Frederick LX Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, the setback variance for BZA-3588.00, vacant land (American Rd.) has been approved. A. Frederick moved that a variance of 300 square feet beyond the 200' maximum of wall signage allowing a total of 500 square feet to be contained within two wall signs be approved for BZA-3588.00,vacant land (American Rd.). Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE I YEA NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick Ix Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, the sign variance for BZA-3588.00,vacant land (American Rd.) has been approved. B. BZA-3590.00, 230 E. South St. J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Pond &Associates for a variance in the front yard setback of 3 'Y2 ' for a building on a piece of property that is zoned H-Light Industrial. Typically, in the H-Light Industrial District, you have two different front yard setback requirements. If the property on the opposite side of the street is industrial, there is no front yard setback requirement. If the property on the opposite side of the street is primarily residential, then there is a front yard setback requirement of 25'for the H-Light Industrial District. In this case, the property on the opposite side of South St. is residential, so there is a 25' setback requirement. The applicant is proposing to place a prefabricated building on the property for use as office space. The remainder of the property is already developed as telecommunications switching equipment and different electrical equipment that is associated with that. It is in a fenced in yard. He referred to the site plan in the board packet. The proposed building is out towards the front of the site adjacent to the parking area. The applicant could fit this building on the site without a variance. However, in order to do that, they would have to remove one or two large oak trees that are on the property. He referred to the pictures attached to the report. This site is on the south side of South St. and it is east of the old train depot. Between the train depot and this property is a large parking lot. He referred to the map of the land use plan for this area from the River Island Amendment Plan showing the location of the proposed building and the depot. He explained the surrounding area. On the north side of South St. is the River Point neighborhood. This is a neighborhood that, in recent years, is on a strong comeback in terms of the amount of money that the residents there have been putting into their housing and organizing in terms of the Lansing Neighborhood Council. They have even done the River Point Plan to try to help with that. It is a strong residential neighborhood. There are historic older Victorian homes in that area. Anything BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 6 that happens on this particular property needs to be very sensitive to that. To summarize, the applicant wants to put a pre-fabricated structure on this site of 960 square feet. That is about the size of a small ranch starter home. It would be set 3 '/2' over the 25' property line front yard setback. The variance is for 3 '/z'. Staff is recommending that this building, if the variance is granted, have a brick finish or even a wood finish, but not a vinyl siding, so that it would be compatible with the residential neighborhood across the street and the old train depot next door. Also, the conditions listed in the staff report have been modified slightly. The 2"d condition calls for skirting to be finished or appear as masonry or poured concrete wall around the building. It just needs to be a permanent masonry foundation. There is also some fencing that has been proposed. Staff would like no fencing in the front yard and that the fencing be brought even with the front of the building and no barbed wire on that fencing. Those are basically the three conditions that staff would like to see there; the finish of the building; a permanent foundation; and no fencing or barbed wire in the front yard. With that, staff does recommend approval. Darrell Henry, KMC Telecom, addressed the Board. He stated that he is in site development. He stated that the building was originally intended to face the road as a front entrance. They are proposing to rotate that so that it will face the parking lot in order to save the oak trees. The conditions that the staff asked for on the permanent foundation, he has plans for a permanent foundation. They propose a brick skirt around it but not a full brick finish. The finish that is on the building as proposed is a stucco type finish. It is basically a cement type board. It is supposed to be a lot more durable than the older type wood siding. The only other point that he would like to address is the fence. They have had in the past at other sites problems with people breaking into these buildings. He would request that they be allowed to put a fence in. The neighboring property at the depot does have barbed wire around their fence and their existing property does have barbed wire around their existing fence. Unfortunately, this past winter their shrubbery died. If they were allowed to put this fence up, they could probably put up more shrubbery or do something with the landscaping to satisfy their recommendations. He passed around pictures for the board to review and explained them. A. Frederick asked staff if that would meet staff's requirement for a permanent foundation? J. Sturdevant stated that if it didn't look like something set up on blocks, that would be fine. M. Clark asked how high the foundation would be? D. Henry stated that it would be about 3'tall with a stucco finish above that. He referred to the pictures to answer questions. General discussion ensued regarding the foundation, size, looks, etc. M. Clark asked if the finish being proposed something that the staff would find compatible with the older structures in that neighborhood? J. Sturdevant stated that not according to the staff report as Susan Cantlon wrote it. It is desired to have brick or wood clapboard. Vinyl would not work. A. Frederick asked if the concrete board could be covered with something that would make it look more compatible? D. Henry stated that the factory might have an option for that, but he is not sure. Vinyl would be very easy to do and would be less expensive. There is a real need for this building. He believes that it would help the looks of the property from the front view even as it is as opposed to what there is now. As far as that goes, the existing structure has slats in the chain link fence. If they did that to their fence, they would not see much of the building anyway. It would have a rolling gate with a card swipe type automatic entrance there. If the fence is allowed, you won't see the building. General discussion ensued regarding where to place a fence, visibility, vinyl siding options, etc. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 7 David Zimmerman, River Point Neighborhood Association, addressed the Board. He stated that they got the information on this from Mrs. Cantlon shortly before their membership meeting in May. He took the information to the meeting. There was a general consensus that 3 '/2 would not be a problem. He didn't realize that the 3 Y2'were to save the trees. If he would have brought that up to the neighborhood, they would have been very enthusiastic about it. They are working at getting the rest of the barbed wire out of the area. One other concern that he has is that he knows when the lease expires on the parking lot, then the paid parking lot that is there will be developed by the owner, Darryl Kessler. He is hoping that with this 3 '/z'variance, it doesn't set a precedent for Mr. Kessler if he comes and wants to put something in closer to the street. He hopes that the board will take a look at it again then. The neighborhood wants to work with them and welcomes new business.. M. Clark stated that, if indeed, development does take place in the future, they might want to remind the board sitting at that time that this variance was granted in part to save those trees and that was sort of an extenuating circumstance. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick asked staff about first condition. Is there a way to word that the building finish will be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood? J. Sturdevant stated that it would be better to be more specific. A. Frederick stated that he would like to see a condition that clearly states that the trees are to be preserved. He stated that he wanted to amend the Vt condition to add "or in clapboard style siding similar to the clapboard in the rest of the residential neighborhood not to exceed the width of the clapboard in the residential neighborhood". He thinks that would prevent them using any T111 siding. M. Clark moved to approve the variance of 31/2' to construct the 960 square foot administrative building at 230 E. South St., BZA-3590.00,with the conditions: 1. The building shall have a brick finish in an earth-tone color or in clapboard style siding similar to the clapboard in the rest of the residential neighborhood not to exceed the width of the clapboard in the residential neighborhood. 2. The skirting shall be finished to appear as a masonry or poured concrete wall. 3. All hitch and wheel assemblies of this pre-fabricated building shall be removed or hidden by perimeter skirting. 4. No fence permitted in the front yard and remainder of fence must comply with code requirements (per oral amendment to staff report). 5. The trees are to be preserved. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA I NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3590.00, 230 E. South St. has been approved with conditions listed above. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 8 C. BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. Sam Quon presented the case. This is a request by Joe and Melanie Peeler. They are requesting a variance to permit a fence in the front yard that exceeds the height limit of 3'. Mr. & Mrs. Peeler have children and operate a daycare at their residence. Their residence is on a corner lot and they are proposing to construct a 6' high fence behind the front of their house on Reo Rd. side and along the perimeter of the northern portion of the property as well. He referred to the site plan. The purpose of the proposed fence is to prevent children from climbing over the fence and running into the street. Section 1292.03 of the Zoning Code allows a maximum height of 3'for a fence in the front yard. However a fence can go up to 4' if it is 75% open and as long as vision through the fence does not obstruct vision for vehicular traffic on adjacent streets. Basically, a hardship or practical difficulty is not evident. The property is similar in size and dimension to the majority of properties located at this intersection. The property owners could have approximately 3,825 square feet of open space area if a 6'fence was constructed meeting current zoning code. The open space for play area exceeds that which is required for a daycare which is 900 square feet. The houses in this neighborhood do not have fences similar in character to this proposed fence. However, there are a few fences and hedges that exceed the maximum height allowed by the zoning code. These fences and hedges are in violation of the code. Code Compliance has been notified of these violations in this area and they are addressing this issue. The proposed fence would block the view from the front of 4606 Star Ave. at the intersection. It creates a visual barrier. This proposed fence could impede visibility of vehicles backing out at 4606 Star Ave. However, the driveway at that property is further north so there is some space in between. This proposed project would not result in any environmental impact. Approval of the fence in the front yard without a necessary hardship or practical difficulty can result in other illegal fences going up in this neighborhood which would make enforcement difficult. Staff recommends denial of this request because there are other options available. One is constructing a 4'wrought iron or similar type fence would solve this problem and would be difficult for children to climb over. Also planting shrubs along a 3' high solid fence would eliminate access to the fence. Melanie Peeler, 2106 Reo Rd., addressed the Board. She stated that she is here for the safety of the children due to the number of cars traveling faster than the posted speed limit on Reo and to prevent the numerous questionable individuals walking in the area conversing with the children or being allowed to watch the children playing. Second, they are asking for the variance because of the numerous thefts that they have experiences of toys, bikes, etc. from their yard and a few cases of vandalism. As a result, this is a hardship for them. It would not be practical or cost effective for them to install a 6'fence in the manner in which the Planning Division states that they would allow. It would not allow for enough open space for the children to play due to a garden planted yearly in the northwest corner and a swing set that would have to be moved to the area inside the fencing. Also, it would be an eye sore and very impractical to have a fence run down the middle of their lawn. They, as the homeowner, should not be punished because no other fence is similar to what they are proposing, nor should they be denied the proposed fencing just because it might encourage others to make similar improvements or make it difficult for zoning to enforce the codes. They followed the proper channels and so should others planning to erect fencing. The proposed fence will not affect the visibility of motorists or pedestrians at the stop sign located at the northwest corner of Reo and Star. Nor will the fence cause a visual barrier for the homeowners on Star Ave. when they are exiting their driveways. They would not think of compromising the safety of motorists or pedestrians. They are only trying to protect their children, their property and their privacy. They consider the fencing to be an improvement to the neighborhood, not a hindrance. She also handed over a petition signed by neighbors on Star north of Reo including the neighbor directly to the north of them at 4606 Star along with others within 300'of their property giving their approval. She asked the board to please give strong consideration to approval of their variance request. A. Frederick asked about the interpretation of the code in regards to daycare facilities. S. Quon stated that it depends on the size. If they have under 6 children, they are allowed to have a group daycare home by right. They are required to have a certain amount of play area. Anything larger than that up to 12 children would require a Special Land Use. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 9 A. Frederick also asked about the play area being fenced? As a family daycare of 6 or fewer children, which the applicant has, the code does not specify. G. Hilts stated that historically, the board has been reluctant to grant variances for fences because of the difficulties that it creates in setting precedent, etc. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. **TAPE DID NOT RECORD FROM THIS POINT ON.** A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA IF—NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. has been denied. A. Frederick made motion to reconsider. Seconded by B. Burgess VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-1, BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. to be reconsidered. A. Frederick stated that special attention needs to be given to visibility. G. Hilts asked about the kind of fence, it is less visually reconstructive. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 10 A. Frederick moved to table BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. Seconded by M. Clark. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick x Motion to table carried by a vote of 5-1, BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. has been tabled. D. BZA-3592.00, 201 E. Grand River J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Barry Ferguson, 1223 Turner Street, Lansing, MI 48906, for a permit to erect a projecting sign in lieu of a ground pole sign for the building located at 201 E. Grand River Avenue. Section 1442.13(h) of the Sign Code only permits a projecting sign when a ground pole sign cannot be used according to the ground pole sign setback chart. Because of the location of the building in an area containing many buildings that are on the National Register of Historic Places, the applicant wants to use a projecting sign that is more appropriate to the district than a ground pole sign. The variance requested is to permit the use of a projecting sign in lieu of a ground pole sign. In addition, Section 1442.13(b)of the Sign Code permits two building mounted signs, and the proposed projecting sign constitutes a third building mounted sign. Therefore, a variance to permit a third building mounted sign is also requested. Barry Ferguson, 1223 Turner St., addressed the Board. He stated that the Old Town area is about 60% delivery traffic and 40%walking traffic. The area has grown a lot. It doesn't get a lot of foot traffic, but it does get quite a bit of car traffic. It is because of that this variance is needed. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that there used to be a ground pole sign that was removed. M. Clark stated that a projected sign goes against everything the board has worked for, but this is a unique situation. She is willing to support. B. Burgess stated that they are making a special effort. He will support this as well. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3592.00, 201 E. Grand River with the 3 conditions from staff listed below: 1. That the size, design, and materials for construction of the proposed signs be as indicated in this application. 2. That the City Council approve ACT-9-2000 for the projection of one sign up to two feet over the right-of-way of E. Grand River Avenue. 3. If a ground pole sign is ever erected on the site, the projecting sign must be removed and the building is only permitted the number of signs allowed under the sign ordinance in effect at that time. 4. Seconded by R. McCloud. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 11 VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3592.00, 201 E. Grand River has been approved. E. BZA-3593.00, 4613 Donald St. S. Quon presented the case. This is a request by David N. Glenn for variances to construct a 29' x 14.33' side addition and 20.5'x 4'front porch onto his home at 4613 Donald Street. The proposed addition would be on the south side of his house and have a front yard setback of 11, and a rear yard setback of 19.5'. Sections 1248.07 and .09 of the Zoning Code require a front yard setback of 20' and a rear yard setback of 30'. Therefore, this is a request for 9'front yard and 10.5' rear yard setback variances. David Glenn, 4613 Donald, addressed the Board. E. Horne asked about putting up a new roof? D. Glenn stated that a new roof will be in place once the addition is complete. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that he agrees with staff recommendation and he will support this. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3593.00, 4613 Donald St. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X McCloud X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3593.00 has been approved. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch No change in status. B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan No change in status. C. BZA-3554.99 907 W. Saginaw St. No change in status. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 12 E. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar No change in status. F. BZA-3579.00, 6256 Gardenia Motion made by A. Frederick to take off table. Seconded by E. Horne. J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a variance of 264 square feet. This is a request by Paul Reed for a variance to allow a 18'X 20.5' addition onto the rear of the existing garage at 6256 Gardenia. The existing garage is 369 square feet and the existing shed on the property is 72 square feet in size. The addition onto the existing garage will result in a 984 square foot garage. The total square footage proposed is 1,056. Section 1248.03(b)(5) of the Zoning Code stipulates the maximum size of garage for the subject parcel as 720 square feet. Section 1248.03(b)(2)of the Zoning Code allows up to 1000 square feet of the total accessory structure space. This is therefore a request for a variance of 264 square feet from the maximum amount of garage space allowed and a variance of 56 square feet from the maximum amount of accessory structure allowed. A. Frederick stated that he would support this because of the large lot. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3579.00, 6256 Gardenia, the 264 square foot addition to garage with conditions of the staff report and specified maximum size for the building addition of 30'x20.5'. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X McCloud X Burgess X Clark X Frederick IX Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3579.00 has been approved with condition. G. BZA-3580 00 300 W. Ottawa &209 N. Seymour No change in status. H. Rules of Procedure No change in status. I. Memo from Bud Burgess Leave on table for next month's meeting V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of May 11, 2000 A.Frederick moved to approve the minutes as printed. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused absence for Mary Clark for July and August A. Frederick moved to accept excused absence. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to accept excused absence. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 13 B. Excused absence for Victoria Earhart for June's Meeting A. Frederick moved to accept excused absence. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to accept excused absence. VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Adm nistrator Draft to Clerk 06/19/00 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING '- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS J U N E 8, 2000, 7:30 P.M. u CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY.HALL'+ I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by G. Hilts at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hilts read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick B. Burgess G. Hilts R. McCloud Staff: J. Sturdevant S. Quon A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. V. Earhart requested an excused absence for tonight's meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Frederick moved to approve agenda. Seconded by R. McCloud. Unanimous voice vote to approve agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3588.00 vacant land (American Rd.) J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Menard's Home Improvement store. They want to locate their new facility on American Rd. behind Sam's Club and next to the new Shaheen Chevrolet property. He referred to the site plan attached to the staff report. They are proposing to relocate the right of way of American Rd. That right of way relocation is to make room for their new facility store north of that relocated road. That is being reviewed under an ACT 285 review process through the Planning Board and will eventually have to go to City Council for approval. He stated that they are looking at two variances; one from the rear yard setback requirement and another from the sign code requirements. He referred again to the site plan explaining the area and what is being proposed. The applicant is proposing to construct an 14'tall rack that also serves as a fence to enclose the rear yard of the business which is a lumber yard/home improvement center. In the F-Commercial District, which this is zoned, the rear yard setback requirement for a structure is 25'. They would like to place that rack 10' from the rear property line. Therefore, they are asking for a variance of 15' in the rear yard setback. Keep in mind that, while this is not a part of the permanent building, it is a structure of significance that would otherwise be required to meet the rear yard setback requirement. That is why the variance for this fence because it is more than just a fence. The second variance is for signage for the property. He referred again to the staff report and sign information shown in the staff report. He stated that they are asking for a total of 509 square feet of building sign area. Typically, in the F-Commercial District, there is a limit on building sign area of 200 square feet. To put this in perspective, recent developments that have occurred in the area include Shaheen Chevrolet and the Celebration Cinema. Both of these projects came before this board for variances from the sign code. Celebration Cinema sought approval for a 766 square foot sign on the rear of the building facing I- 96 and an 87 square foot sign on the front of the building facing Edgewood Blvd. In addition, Shaheen Chevrolet received a variance for an additional ground pole sign and for an additional 7.12 square feet of sign area for the building itself. So there is some precedent for additional building signage in this area. A lot of it because these are buildings oriented towards 1-96 and they are also viewed from quite a distance. In order to have a sign that can be read from that distance, they have to be a little bit larger. In terms of a recommendation, staff recommends the variance DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MtETING MINUTES JUNE b, 2000 PAGE 2 for 15' in the rear yard setback be approved. This is a reasonable request because this property backs up to the back of other commercial establishments. There is really no impact in regards to a negative impact on these other commercial establishments and also this is not the primary building, but an accessory that encloses the lumber yard. However, on the sign request, staff recommends that the variance requested for 10 signs be denied as proposed. Some sort of an alternative might be acceptable here. This report was prepared by Donna Wynant and she recommends a variance for a total of 500 square feet of signage that would be contained within only two signs. That would allow something comparable to what Celebration Cinemas did to allow them to have good sign visibility from the freeway but without having so many different signs on the front of the building. Tom O'Neil, Menard's, addressed the Board. He passed out plans and photos to the Board and referred to them. He stated that Menard's is a home improvement retailer. They typically construct a store which is now 161,000 square feet which is 330 feet in depth, 480 feet in front facade from left to right which is a lot of space. They try to break up the monotony by placing a number of departmental signs which identify a number of the different departments in their store - Millwork, Lumber, Hardware, etc. along with the large Menard's sign and a Welcome to Menard's- Your Home Improvement Store of the 21st Century sign. Typically, their stores are 161,000 square feet and they have to the rear of the store a rear yard area which is 3.5 acres in size. It is paved and accessible by a gated canopy and it is enclosed by a 14' high treated lumber pallet racking/fence. On the exterior it is treated lumber. It is a lot more aesthetically pleasing than is mesh fence. On the interior is pallet racking which provides some utility to their use for sales and storage of product for their customers. In this instance, they are coming before the board for three variances. One on the proximity of that treated lumber storage structure, the pallet racking, to the rear property line as well as the number of wall signs and the square footage of wall signs. With respect to the setback of the pallet racking from the rear property line, they tried to compile some site plans which would depict their storage structure meeting the setback requirement of 25'. Based on the number of parking spaces that they have to have, the 330' in depth of their store and the necessary area which they need behind the store for trucks to load and unload, for trucks to turn around, for emergency vehicles to safely maneuver behind the store, it was not feasible to lose the extra 15'. With the relocation of American Rd. being as it is, there simply is no place where they can make up that extra footage. They have tried and failed. The lot cannot be improved by Menard Inc. without such a variance. In addition, the failure to comply with the setback requirement back in that area does not cause significant hardship on their neighbors. That is simply a delivery area for them. Losing the lineal footage to the property line should not present a detrimental impact to either of those organizations or impact property values in the area. With respect to the signage, he referred to the site plans and explained the different signs. The total package adds up to 509 square feet. They feel that because of their proximity to the interstate, because of the fact that they are going to constitute a regional draw hoping to get a lot of people from all points on the southern side of Lansing, they need a pretty extensive sign package to make themselves known in a community which they are not currently located in and to generate some interest and make sure people identify with Menard's. Adjacent property in the area has also had to deal with the same constraints of the sign ordinance in the past and the board has seen fit, in those instances, to find some room to allow for enlarged signage on square footage of the sign which is available. They ask the board to do so in this instance. With respect to the setback variance, the hardship which is going to be caused would be an undue hardship to Menard. Based on their cad efforts to remedy that problem, there is no remedy that they can find which would allow for Menard's to make a reasonable use of the property in that it would just be too detrimental from a traffic flow, from internal circuitity in that rear yard area, from emergency and truck vehicle access for deliveries and for emergency services, to make it a viable option to recess the pallet racking and storage structure 25' from the property line. The hardship is peculiar to the property. Once American Rd. is relocated, there is nowhere they can regain extra land to make it work in which they could comply with the zoning ordinance requirements of the 25' setback. The proposed use of the property is in compliance with and in conjunction with the neighboring uses in the area. The surrounding development will not be economically harmed by the Menard development, it should be enhanced. It should draw additional customers to make everyone happy. That can only be enhanced by the grant of a variance with respect to the wall sign square footage and the number of wall signs. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 3 A. Frederick asked what the area of the property to the west of the building is used for? T. O'Neil stated that is also outside sales and storage area which is enclosed by the pallet racking. He referred to the drawings and explained the area questioned. He also passed out a picture of another Menard's store showing an example of the pallet racking. G. Hilts asked how the trucks will maneuver in that area. T. O'Neil explained using the drawings as examples. B. Burgess stated that the staff has proposed an alternative of having two signs with a total square footage of 500 square feet. How does he respond to this? It seems that the main sign should be large because a small sign can't be seen. T. O'Neil stated that they have looked at that. The Menard's sign is the one that is absolutely crucial to their development. From the interstate, it could be debated that the smaller square footage signs could even be legible. G. Hilts asked how many doors are in the store where people would be coming in and out? T. O'Neil referred to the drawings to answer the question. A. Frederick stated that Mr. O'Neil said that the pallet rack is more aesthetically pleasing than the fence. Could he talk about what the aesthetics of it are and particularly what kind of landscaping and buffering they are intending to have there? T. O'Neil again referred to the drawings to answer the question. He stated that a lot of their competitors and other types of home improvers that they have seen typically go with no fencing whatsoever or a mesh see-through fence which is only used for security purposes rather than making a good impression and having something that is better looking. That is what they think that they have accomplished with that treated lumber fence. It is a fence in which you don't see all the lifting products behind the store, you don't see piles of crushed rock and such behind the store. There is a fence with a landscaped area adjacent to it. It is their opinion that it gives a better appearance than their competitors have come up with. As far as the landscaping, they have a number of deciduous trees and evergreens along the entirety of the fence line to break up the monotony of even the treated lumber itself. A. Frederick stated that the back of his store faces Sam's and the other stores? There isn't a real issue with being exposed to the general public. T. O'Neil stated that was correct. M. Clark asked if the fence will come along the street as well and be 14' high? T. O'Neil stated that was correct. A. Frederick stated that no matter which way you look at it, they will end up with an unusually shaped lot. He can appreciate the difficulty that the applicant has had in coming up with a plan. What appears to be left are two triangular shaped pieces on the southeast and southwest. Do they have any plans for those two areas? T. O'Neil again referred to the drawing to answer the question. He stated they have nothing in mind for those two pieces. Pat Parker addressed the Board. He stated that he is here with the owners of the property and the sellers of the property. He just wanted to come and let the Board know that they are here. He would like to thank the City Planning Department for their input and cooperation in working with this project. He thinks that it is going to be a very good project for the city. In his understanding, DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MtETING MINUTES JUNE s, 2000 PAGE 4 Menard's has in excess of 150 stores even though Michigan has not been a big market for them yet. They will bring more than 100 employees to the city of Lansing and he hopes that this will be a real credit to the city. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts stated that he likes the idea of the fence even though it is tall. A. Frederick stated that he especially appreciates that they are willing to go ahead and build it anyway even though all they are going to be doing is hiding their operation loading and unloading. General discussion ensued regarding fencing, screening, etc. B. Burgess stated that he is supportive of the request with the recommendation of staff of 500 square feet total. E. Horne asked staff if Public Service and Transportation have reviewed the report in relation to the street? General discussion ensued regarding ACT 285 review results, responsibility of relocation of road, etc. A. Frederick stated that the public hearing for the vacation and re-dedication of American Rd. was held Tuesday night. Part of the presentation was Menard's will cover the complete cost of moving, re-paving, etc. Basically, they will reconstruct the relocated portion of American Rd. at no cost to the City of Lansing. He also stated that he is not sure what staff is recommending as an alternative for the signs. He would like to hear what staff thinks would be a reasonable alternative. J. Sturdevant read what Donna Wynant wrote in the staff report. He stated that it is not a variance in the number of signs that she is recommending, it is just a variance in the total square footage. He thinks that she is leaving some flexibility there for the applicant to choose how he wants to split that square footage up between two different signs. He stated that when he met with D. Wynant, she explained that 500 square feet was a number that she felt was reasonably close to what this Board has done before in terms of Celebration Cinema and Shaheen Chevrolet. That is why she chose that number. If there is good reason to tweak that number one way or another, they can do that. M. Clark asked if there were any pole signs proposed for this site? J. Sturdevant stated that there is one pole sign proposed on the Menard's property. It is in the front of the store out towards the street. That sign, as proposed and shown in the report, is within the code limit of 30' tall and 170 square feet. In terms of other signs, the Edgewood Town Center development overall has a sign that is in the boulevard where Edgewood and Cedar St. intersect. That sign advertises Sam's Club, Target, etc. Apparently there is not adequate room on that sign to include Menard's. In addition, there is the big freeway sign that approximately 40'tall. You don't see it when you drive by there anymore because it is hidden in the trees. That is located on what is going to be the southwest out parcel. They have proposed no change to that at all. Whether or not there is room to include Menard's on that sign or not, it would probably require that they remove one of the other tenants that is listed there in order to put Menard's there. General discussion ensued regarding ground pole signs for Celebration Cinema, the need for excessive signage with a ground pole sign, etc. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE b, 2000 PAGE 5 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3588.00, vacant land (American Rd.), the proposed 10' setback variance for the pallet/rack from the rear of the property line. Seconded by M. Clark. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, the setback variance for BZA-3588.00, vacant land (American Rd.) has been approved. A. Frederick moved that a variance of 300 square feet beyond the 200' maximum of wall signage allowing a total of 500 square feet to be contained within two wall signs be approved for BZA-3588.00, vacant land (American Rd.). Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, the sign variance for BZA-3588.00, vacant land (American Rd.) has been approved. B. BZA-3590.00, 230 E. South St. J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Pond &Associates for a variance in the front yard setback of 3 '/z 'for a building on a piece of property that is zoned H-Light Industrial. Typically, in the H-Light Industrial District, you have two different front yard setback requirements. If the property on the opposite side of the street is industrial, there is no front yard setback requirement. If the property on the opposite side of the street is primarily residential, then there is a front yard setback requirement of 25' for the H-Light Industrial District. In this case, the property on the opposite side of South St. is residential, so there is a 25' setback requirement. The applicant is proposing to place a prefabricated building on the property for use as office space. The remainder of the property is already developed as telecommunications switching equipment and different electrical equipment that is associated with that. It is in a fenced in yard. He referred to the site plan in the board packet. The proposed building is out towards the front of the site adjacent to the parking area. The applicant could fit this building on the site without a variance. However, in order to do that, they would have to remove one or two large oak trees that are on the property. He referred to the pictures attached to the report. This site is on the south side of South St. and it is east of the old train depot. Between the train depot and this property is a large parking lot. He referred to the map of the land use plan for this area from the River Island Amendment Plan showing the location of the proposed building and the depot. He explained the surrounding area. On the north side of South St. is the River Point neighborhood. This is a neighborhood that, in recent years, is on a strong comeback in terms of the amount of money that the residents there have been putting into their housing and organizing in terms of the Lansing Neighborhood Council. They have even done the River Point Plan to try to help with that. It is a strong residential DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 6 neighborhood. There are historic older Victorian homes in that area. Anything that happens on this particular property needs to be very sensitive to that. To summarize, the applicant wants to put a pre-fabricated structure on this site of 960 square feet. That is about the size of a small ranch starter home. It would be set 3 '/2 ' over the 25' property line front yard setback. The variance is for 3 '/2'. Staff is recommending that this building, if the variance is granted, have a brick finish or even a wood finish, but not a vinyl siding, so that it would be compatible with the residential neighborhood across the street and the old train depot next door. Also, the conditions listed in the staff report have been modified slightly. The 2nd condition calls for skirting to be finished or appear as masonry or poured concrete wail around the building. It just needs to be a permanent masonry foundation. There is also some fencing that has been proposed. Staff would like no fencing in the front yard and that the fencing be brought even with the front of the building and no barbed wire on that fencing. Those are basically the three conditions that staff would like to see there; the finish of the building; a permanent foundation; and no fencing or barbed wire in the front yard. With that, staff does recommend approval. Darrell Henry, KMC Telecom, addressed the Board. He stated that he is in site development. He stated that the building was originally intended to face the road as a front entrance. They are proposing to rotate that so that it will face the parking lot in order to save the oak trees. The conditions that the staff asked for on the permanent foundation, he has plans for a permanent foundation. They propose a brick skirt around it but not a full brick finish. The finish that is on the building as proposed is a stucco type finish. It is basically a cement type board. It is supposed to be a lot more durable than the older type wood siding. The only other point that he would like to address is the fence. They have had in the past at other sites problems with people breaking into these buildings. He would request that they be allowed to put a fence in. The neighboring property at the depot does have barbed wire around their fence and their existing property does have barbed wire around their existing fence. Unfortunately, this past winter their shrubbery died. If they were allowed to put this fence up, they could probably put up more shrubbery or do something with the landscaping to satisfy their recommendations. He passed around pictures for the board to review and explained them. A. Frederick asked staff if that would meet staff's requirement for a permanent foundation? J. Sturdevant stated that if it didn't look like something set up on blocks, that would be fine. M. Clark asked how high the foundation would be? D. Henry stated that it would be about T tall with a stucco finish above that. He referred to the pictures to answer questions. General discussion ensued regarding the foundation, size, looks, etc. M. Clark asked if the finish being proposed something that the staff would find compatible with the older structures in that neighborhood? J. Sturdevant stated that not according to the staff report as Susan Cantlon wrote it. It is desired to have brick or wood clapboard. Vinyl would not work. A. Frederick asked if the concrete board could be covered with something that would make it look more compatible? D. Henry stated that the factory might have an option for that, but he is not sure. Vinyl would be very easy to do and would be less expensive. There is a real need for this building. He believes that it would help the looks of the property from the front view even as it is as opposed to what there is now. As far as that goes, the existing structure has slats in the chain link fence. If they did that to their fence, they would not see much of the building anyway. It would have a rolling gate with a card swipe type automatic entrance there. If the fence is allowed, you won't see the building. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 7 General discussion ensued regarding where to place a fence, visibility, vinyl siding options, etc. David Zimmerman, River Point Neighborhood Association, addressed the Board. He stated that they got the information on this from Mrs. Cantlon shortly before their membership meeting in May. He took the information to the meeting. There was a general consensus that 3 '/i would not be a problem. He didn't realize that the 3 '/'were to save the trees. If he would have brought that up to the neighborhood, they would have been very enthusiastic about it. They are working at getting the rest of the barbed wire out of the area. One other concern that he has is that he knows when the lease expires on the parking lot, then the paid parking lot that is there will be developed by the owner, Darryl Kessler. He is hoping that with this 3 '/2' variance, it doesn't set a precedent for Mr. Kessler if he comes and wants to put something in closer to the street. He hopes that the board will take a look at it again then. The neighborhood wants to work with them and welcomes new business. M. Clark stated that, if indeed, development does take place in the future, they might want to remind the board sitting at that time that this variance was granted in part to save those trees and that was sort of an extenuating circumstance. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick asked staff about first condition. Is there a way to word that the building finish will be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood? J. Sturdevant stated that it would be better to be more specific. A. Frederick stated that he would like to see a condition that clearly states that the trees are to be preserved. He stated that he wanted to amend the 1st condition to add "or in clapboard style siding similar to the clapboard in the rest of the residential neighborhood not to exceed the width of the clapboard in the residential neighborhood". He thinks that would prevent them using any T111 siding. M. Clark moved to approve the variance of 3 '/2'to construct the 960 square foot administrative building at 230 E. South St., BZA-3590.00, with the conditions: 1. The building shall have a brick finish in an earth-tone color or in clapboard style siding similar to the clapboard in the rest of the residential neighborhood not to exceed the width of the clapboard in the residential neighborhood. 2. The skirting shall be finished to appear as a masonry or poured concrete wall. 3. All hitch and wheel assemblies of this pre-fabricated building shall be removed or hidden by perimeter skirting. 4. No fence permitted in the front yard and remainder of fence must comply with code requirements (per oral amendment to staff report). 5. The trees are to be preserved. 6. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 8 Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3590.00, 230 E. South St. has been approved with conditions listed above. C. BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. Sam Quon presented the case. This is a request by Joe and Melanie Peeler. They are requesting a variance to permit a fence in the front yard that exceeds the height limit of 3'. Mr. & Mrs. Peeler have children and operate a daycare at their residence. Their residence is on a corner lot and they are proposing to construct a 6' high fence behind the front of their house on Reo Rd. side and along the perimeter of the northern portion of the property as well. He referred to the site plan. The purpose of the proposed fence is to prevent children from climbing over the fence and running into the street. Section 1292.03 of the Zoning Code allows a maximum height of T for a fence in the front yard. However a fence can go up to 4' if it is 75% open and as long as vision through the fence does not obstruct vision for vehicular traffic on adjacent streets. Basically, a hardship or practical difficulty is not evident. The property is similar in size and dimension to the majority of properties located at this intersection. The property owners could have approximately 3,825 square feet of open space area if a 6'fence was constructed meeting current zoning code. The open space for play area exceeds that which is required for a daycare which is 900 square feet. The houses in this neighborhood do not have fences similar in character to this proposed fence. However, there are a few fences and hedges that exceed the maximum height allowed by the zoning code. These fences and hedges are in violation of the code. Code Compliance has been notified of these violations in this area and they are addressing this issue. The proposed fence would block the view from the front of 4606 Star Ave. at the intersection. It creates a visual barrier. This proposed fence could impede visibility of vehicles backing out at 4606 Star Ave. However, the driveway at that property is further north so there is some space in between. This proposed project would not result in any environmental impact. Approval of the fence in the front yard without a necessary hardship or practical difficulty can result in other illegal fences going up in this neighborhood which would make enforcement difficult. Staff recommends denial of this request because there are other options available. One is constructing a 4' wrought iron or similar type fence would solve this problem and would be difficult for children to climb over. Also planting shrubs along a 3' high solid fence would eliminate access to the fence. Melanie Peeler, 2106 Reo Rd., addressed the Board. She stated that she is here for the safety of the children due to the number of cars traveling faster than the posted speed limit on Reo and to prevent the numerous questionable individuals walking in the area conversing with the children or being allowed to watch the children playing. Second, they are asking for the variance because of the numerous thefts that they have experiences of toys, bikes, etc. from their yard and a few cases of vandalism. As a result, this is a hardship for them. It would not be practical or cost effective for them to install a 6'fence in the manner in which the Planning Division states that they would allow. It would not allow for enough open space for the children to play due to a garden planted yearly in the northwest corner and a swing set that would have to be moved to the area inside the fencing. Also, it would be an eye sore and very impractical to have a fence run down the middle of their lawn. They, as the homeowner, should not be punished because no other fence is similar to what they are proposing, nor should they be denied the proposed fencing just because it might encourage others to make similar improvements or make it difficult for zoning to enforce the codes. They followed the proper channels and so should others planning to erect fencing. The proposed fence will not affect the visibility of motorists or pedestrians at the stop sign located at the northwest corner of Reo and Star. Nor will the fence cause a visual barrier for the homeowners on Star Ave. when they are exiting their driveways. They would not think of compromising the safety of motorists or pedestrians. They are only trying to protect their children, their property and their privacy. They consider the fencing to be an improvement to the neighborhood, not a hindrance. She also handed over a petition signed by neighbors on Star north of Reo including the neighbor directly to the north of them at 4606 Star along with others within 300' of their property giving their approval. She asked the board to please give strong consideration to approval of their variance request. A. Frederick asked about the interpretation of the code in regards to daycare facilities. S. Quon stated that it depends on the size. If they have under 6 children, they are allowed to have DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MtETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 9 a group daycare home by right. They are required to have a certain amount of play area. Anything larger than that up to 12 children would require a Special Land Use. A. Frederick also asked about the play area being fenced? As a family daycare of 6 or fewer children, which the applicant has, the code does not specify. G. Hilts stated that historically, the board has been reluctant to grant variances for fences because of the difficulties that it creates in setting precedent, etc. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. **TAPE DID NOT RECORD FROM THIS POINT ON.** A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA IF—NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X L: Motion carried by a vote of 5-1, BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. has been denied. A. Frederick made motion to reconsider. Seconded by B. Burgess VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick x Motion carried by a vote of 5-1, BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd.to be reconsidered. A. Frederick stated that special attention needs to be given to visibility. G. Hilts asked about the kind of fence, it is less visually reconstructive. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 10 A. Frederick moved to table BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. Seconded by M. Clark. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion to table carried by a vote of 5-1, BZA-3591.00, 2106 Reo Rd. has been tabled. D. BZA-3592.00, 201 E. Grand River J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Barry Ferguson, 1223 Turner Street, Lansing, MI 48906, for a permit to erect a projecting sign in lieu of a ground pole sign for the building located at 201 E. Grand River Avenue. Section 1442.13(h) of the Sign Code only permits a projecting sign when a ground pole sign cannot be used according to the ground pole sign setback chart. Because of the location of the building in an area containing many buildings that are on the National Register of Historic Places, the applicant wants to use a projecting sign that is more appropriate to the district than a ground pole sign. The variance requested is to permit the use of a projecting sign in lieu of a ground pole sign. In addition, Section 1442.13(b) of the Sign Code permits two building mounted signs, and the proposed projecting sign constitutes a third building mounted sign. Therefore, a variance to permit a third building mounted sign is also requested. Barry Ferguson, 1223 Turner St., addressed the Board. He stated that the Old Town area is about 60% delivery traffic and 40% walking traffic. The area has grown a lot. It doesn't get a lot of foot traffic, but it does get quite a bit of car traffic. It is because of that this variance is needed. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that there used to be a ground pole sign that was removed. M. Clark stated that a projected sign goes against everything the board has worked for, but this is a unique situation. She is willing to support. B. Burgess stated that they are making a special effort. He will support this as well. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3592.00, 201 E. Grand River with the 3 conditions from staff listed below: 1. That the size, design, and materials for construction of the proposed signs be as indicated in this application. 2. That the City Council approve ACT-9-2000 for the projection of one sign up to two feet over the right-of-way of E. Grand River Avenue. 3. If a ground pole sign is ever erected on the site, the projecting sign must be removed and the building is only permitted the number of signs allowed under the sign ordinance in effect at that time. 4. Seconded by R. McCloud. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 11 VOTE Y—E IFNAY Hilts X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3592.00, 201 E. Grand River has been approved. E. BZA-3593.00, 4613 Donald St. S. Quon presented the case. This is a request by David N. Glenn for variances to construct a 29' x 14.33' side addition and 20.5'x 4'front porch onto his home at 4613 Donald Street. The proposed addition would be on the south side of his house and have a front yard setback of 11, and a rear yard setback of 19.5'. Sections 1248.07 and .09 of the Zoning Code require a front yard setback of 20' and a rear yard setback of 30'. Therefore, this is a request for 9' front yard and 10.5' rear yard setback variances. David Glenn, 4613 Donald, addressed the Board. E. Horne asked about putting up a new roof? D. Glenn stated that a new roof will be in place once the addition is complete. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that he agrees with staff recommendation and he will support this. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3593.00, 4613 Donald St. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA IF—NAY Earhart X Horne X McCloud X Burgess X Clark X Frederick x Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3593.00 has been approved. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch No change in status. B. BZA-3553.99, 736 E. Michigan No change in status. C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw St. No change in status. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MtETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000 PAGE 12 E. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar No change in status. F. BZA-3579.00, 6256 Gardenia Motion made by A. Frederick to take off table. Seconded by E. Horne. J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a variance of 264 square feet. This is a request by Paul Reed for a variance to allow a 18'X 20.5' addition onto the rear of the existing garage at 6256 Gardenia. The existing garage is 369 square feet and the existing shed on the property is 72 square feet in size. The addition onto the existing garage will result in a 984 square foot garage. The total square footage proposed is 1,056. Section 1248.03(b)(5) of the Zoning Code stipulates the maximum size of garage for the subject parcel as 720 square feet. Section 1248.03(b)(2) of the Zoning Code allows up to 1000 square feet of the total accessory structure space. This is therefore a request for a variance of 264 square feet from the maximum amount of garage space allowed and a variance of 56 square feet from the maximum amount of accessory structure allowed. A. Frederick stated that he would support this because of the large lot. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3579.00, 6256 Gardenia, the 264 square foot addition to garage with conditions of the staff report and specified maximum size for the building addition of 30'x20.5'. Seconded bv E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X McCloud X Burgess X Clark X Frederick Ix Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3579.00 has been approved with condition. G. BZA-3580.00, 300 W. Ottawa& 209 N. Seymour No change in status. H. Rules of Procedure No change in status. I. Memo from Bud Burgess Leave on table for next month's meeting V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of May 11, 2000 A.Frederick moved to approve the minutes as printed. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Vll. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused absence for Mary Clark for July and August A. Frederick moved to accept excused absence. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to accept excused absence. B. Excused absence for Victoria Earhart for June's Meeting A. Frederick moved to accept excused absence. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to accept excused absence. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MtETING MINUTES JUNE b, 2000 PAGE 13 Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 06/06/00 Approved 06/08/00 To Clerk 06/14/00 "- —' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ;D J U 14 0; 3 l BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY 11, 2000, 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by B. Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Vice Chairman Burgess read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick B. Burgess V. Earhart R. McCloud Staff: L. Davis J. Sturdevant D. Wynant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. G. Hilts has an excused absence, previously approved. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. Earhart moved to approve agenda. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3576.00, 1000 E. Mt. Hope Donna Wynant, Senior Planner, presented the case. This request is by Harold Hardy, Hardy and Sons Signs for the property at 1000 E. Mt. Hope. The owner is Sami Alihasan. This was a vacant gas station at that corner, the southeast corner of the intersection at Mt. Hope and Pennsylvania, for a number of years. Now the new owner is hoping to put a new ground pole sign at that intersection. The area is comprised of offices and commercial development. There is a church to the south. The gas station does have a canopy which they have a permit for some wall signs which has been granted, although she doesn't believe the sign is up yet, but that is not part of this request. The request, basically, is that the setback that they would like to place that sign at would be 7' from the property lines adjacent to Mt. Hope and Pennsylvania. There is a place at the corner where they would like to place the sign. She showed an illustration of the sign elevation to the board. It has been reviewed by the Transportation Engineer who has indicated that, based on the sign's placement, it would not create a sight visibility problem. Because of that, staff recommends that the request for a 13' front yard setback from the required 20' setback for the proposed sign be granted with the condition that the previous sign be removed. Harold Hardy, Hardy and Sons Signs, addressed the Board. Larry Marshky, Atlas Oil, also addressed the Board. Mr. Hardy gave pictures to the Board explaining the area involved and the type of sign. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark asked staff if the only variance being requested was the setback? D. Wynant stated that was correct. M. Clark asked about the pole sign that was there before. D. Wynant passed around pictures of site explaining existing pole/new pole sign as well as landscaping. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ivirETING MINUTES MAY 11, 200u PAGE 2 M. Clark stated that she would support this variance. The request is not asking for a variance for anything but the setback. The size of the lot is not very large and for the ingress and egress, that is pretty much the location that is available. She prefers the lower sign to the one that was there previously. It is more attractive for the neighborhood. She doesn't see that it creates a problem with traffic visibility, development, etc. She will support this appeal. A. Frederick asked, if the code was met, where would the sign go? D. Wynant stated that it would be a 20'setback from both property lines. It would be in the circulation area and would obstruct traffic and circulation on the site. A. Frederick asked if that was why the original sign is there, because of the difficulty in traffic flow. D. Wynant stated that the pole has been there for many years and the sign code was drastically different at that time. It substantially changed in the 80's to be more of a graduated application that the larger the sign, the further back into the property it had to be, the further the setback. In that case, it came under a different sign code. A. Frederick stated that he would support the variance as well. He can see where the sign just wouldn't fit and would really cause a hazard to the gas station and traffic. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3576.00, 1000 E. Mt. Hope, a requested variance from the 20' setback to the 13'front yard setback for the sign with the condition of the removal of the existing sign pole. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X McCloud X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3576.00 has been approved. B. BZA-3577.00, VOIDED C. BZA-3578.00, 6251 Grovenburg D. Wynant presented the case. This case is by Mr. Henry Cheeseman, who owns the property at 6251 Grovenburg Rd. This is a request for a variance that involves a replacement of an existing garage for a larger garage. The total square footage would be 1,012 square feet. The site is on Grovenburg Rd. in a residential area. She referred to the zoning map in the board packet, as well as the site plans and photographs of the area. The current garage is 644 square feet and the proposal is to remove that current garage which is a 2-car, detached garage and replace that with one overall garage. She stated that the office has not received a floor plan to see how that is being used, but the applicant has indicated that he would like a larger garage with some storage space. The request is for a variance to allow this that would involve 292 square feet of garage area since a lot of this size is allowed up to 720 square feet for the garage. Along with that, the maximum amount of square footage to the accessory structures is 1,000 square feet. So, since this is 1,012 square feet for the overall garage, the request is also for 12 square feet to go over that total accessory structure area. The analysis goes into hardship and practical difficulty. The area basically has a variety of garages. The garage itself is much larger than garages in the area. It was hard to establish a practical difficulty in this case as to why they couldn't meet the requirements of the code, although they do have a large lot. It is 130'wide by 297' deep. It is just under an acre in size. The applicant has indicated that they need extra storage space. The house itself is approximately 802 square feet. Staff has concerns about the fact that the accessory BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS wiEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 200U PAGE 3 structure is larger than the house itself. Staff believes that the applicant has some alternatives since they do have a garage that is 644 square feet. They could add on to that to get up to the maximum of 720 square feet. They could also build a separate structure of 280 square feet for storage. In many of these cases, people want to combine things. They know that they can have a large garage and an accessory structure for storage -they want to combine them to have things consolidated and not have various buildings. Staff recommends denial of this request. Staff did also go on to say that if there is consideration in this variance that, at least, the 1,000 square feet of total accessory structure is not exceeded. Also that the width of the garage be no greater than the current 22'that the current garage is now. D. Wynant stated that,just for the board's information, the next case is very similar to this one. Mr. Henry Cheeseman addressed the Board. He stated that the reason that he is here is that he got caught in a situation that he had remodeled a couple of houses, which are rentals of his. Some of the lumber that he took out of there was cut up and tied up with duct tape. It is piled up beside the garage. The city called for a clean up. He stated that he received a letter and was given a week to get it taken care of. Also during the winter time, he had trimmed some trees at these other properties as well as his own property. He had brush there as well as the lumber. He called the inspector at the time and asked him if he would come out and talk with Mr. Cheeseman. The inspector said that he would and he did. What it amounted to was the inspector telling Mr. Cheeseman to put the materials inside. Mr. Cheeseman stated that taking a garage that is 22'x22' with a full size van and a full size car already in it, it is hard to put anything else in it. He stated that there is an 8' expansion on the back which is 20' long. If you put a couple other things in there, you really run into trouble as far as size. There is not room to walk. He has a 10'x10' steel shed out back that looks terrible and that needs to be replaced or repaired. Basically, what it amounts to is that with the other properties that he has, he needs to keep a certain amount of equipment to take care of problems that arise at those properties. What it amounted to was that the inspector walked in and stated that it wouldn't be a problem if Mr. Cheeseman would do this, get rid of the brush. Mr. Cheeseman stated that he chipped up the wood, moved the other materials like the inspector asked, and thought he was under control. About two weeks later, some gentleman came across the yard. Mr. Cheeseman stated that he had put a sheet of luan on underneath the boards that they had bundled up for bon fires for the grand kids this summer. That didn't make it into the trash because the container was full. He stated that this gentleman picked it up and took it. Mr. Cheeseman's wife saw this man and asked him what he was doing. The man told her that he was here to pick up the trash. She said that there was nothing there but one board. The man stated that was what he was supposed to do and if they had a problem with it, they could call. Mr. Cheeseman's wife called the inspector's office and spoke with the inspector's boss and explained what happened. The boss explained that she would get with the inspector and then get back with Mr. Cheeseman. Two days went by and he called the inspector's boss. He got in touch with the inspector. The inspector told him that he would get with his boss and find out what is going on. Two days later the inspector called him back and told him that everything was cool. Everything was under control. Mr. Cheeseman stated that, at the time that the inspector came, he showed him what he had and asked him what the process was to add on to this existing garage. The inspector told Mr. Cheeseman that he would run into trouble immediately because he was trying to go over 720 square feet. However, he could put another building on that piece of property and go up to 1,000 square feet. That is when Mr. Cheeseman went to the Planning Office and spoke with Jim Sturdevant. Mr. Sturdevant stated that the only way he could do anything any different is to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals and explain what the problem is. He stated that he has spent his money on this. About 3-4 days ago, he got a bill that stated that he owes$285.00 for trash removal. He immediately called the inspector and asked what was going on. The inspector informed him that they tried to stop it but couldn't. Mr. Cheeseman spoke with the boss and was told that there really is not a way to stop this once it gets going. He was told that he now has to talk to an attorney. Basically what is asking for is he is allowed up to 1,000 square feet of building space on that property. He has another property which is 50'wide x 235' long where he can put the same amount of building on it because it is under the grandfather clause. What he is asking is to be able to put one building -to take the 22x22 and add to it another building 22x24 - keep it the same width and let it go straight back. When you put the 24' on there, you end up with a piece that is 3'x4'too big that shoves it over 1000 square feet. But if you go out and try to buy a package, you can buy it much cheaper on a given size. If you try to drop it down to get to the 1000 square feet, you start cutting a lot of material and it is a lot of hassle. Basically, with the rental houses, having to have two tractors to do the mowing if BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS M MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 4EETING MINUTES either to something happens. Right here is an example -they give you so man{ shove 4 busays to hels into move the trash, get the brush cut, whatever, and basically he is trying about 1 '/z bushels of space. He stated that e was used to rebuild transmissions after not a hardship,just a situation. The gwoarkgfor a 22x22 that is existing right now. That garagewas one o good many years by the predecessor as i Plannb ui gldoesb tfwant todo this hstbecause it f the things that he was told was that the reason thaallows people to rebuild cars, but they are already d breaks up the property. He thinks it would keep things small. By keeping it g it and it is not helping any by trying to as two buildings, look a lot cleaner. He thinks it would be a lot less tr put our w ntery. The uorsummer stuff inside, you just noted for not having a lot of storage space. If you p y don't have any room, same as with plants,tools, etc.thn than one. TheBasically teas nhfor the 3x4 extra is at is what he is la matter o be able to have one building iece rhea can't buy a package that is 22x23 -they sell it 22x24-that is cost. If he went to buy p the reason for the 12 square feet over. A. Frederick asked the applicant if rental intended buildito use the building to store lumber and other materials that he uses for his other Mr. Cheeseman stated that, no it wasn't. He said that he h f he breaks one of them, he has to as two lawn rhave because backup properties the properties that he has are fairly large a with the ordinances before they tractor because code compliance only gives you a week sewers comply up room. He needs to be start fining you. He also has a tape for cleaning out sewers that takesett n rid of the steel shed. able to put all of this equipment into one building. He is plannand he on gthinksthat it would look a lot As long he is going r ab o do I cheap rage t storage shed siting in the back yard.d like to do it this w, better than having p A. Frederick stated that, as he understands his answer, he is planning on using this as part of his rental business. ui ment that takes Mr. Cheeseman stated that at timesl he has to.so takes care his ownrhouse.enters don't has the h p lawn, sos eHe s to do it himself. He stated that he a building up space. He stated that ant wouldals look much as one building than broken up also has problems with B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. applicant A. Frederick stated that he doesn't see a practical difficulty. It appears to him that the reason the needs additional storage space is to basically run a business or commec specifically ventureercial what the zon repairs, ordinance maintenance and upkeep of his rental properties. He thinks that is sp Yential was intended for because this particular site is com hat th surrounded y residt whatever structures lehe snot support a variance for this. He would recommend this variance. allowed under the code. He would also recommend that the board deny d to deny BZA-3578.00, 6251 Grovenburg. Seconded by A. Frederick. V. Earhart move_ NAY VOTE YEA Earhart X Horne X McCloud X X Burgess X Clark Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3578.00 has been denied. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 5 D. BZA-3579.00 6256 Gardenia She stated that Paul Reed owns the property. It is in a residential D. Wynant presented the case. gly. The property in this case is to allow a garage 20.5 feet to the rear of that existing area w single family homes zoned accordingly. with that is its square feet to have an addition on that of 30x garage. There is also a shed on the property that is 72 square feet in size. This is, therefore, a request for a variance of 264 square feet from the maximum amount of garage space allowed and a variance of 56 square feet from the maximum amount of accessory structure allowed. Again, with this size of a lot, the maximum size of the garage is 720 square feet. The maximum amount of total accessory structure is 1000 square feet. She referred to the site plan in the board packet. The applicant stated that the workshop and storage space would be strictly used for his own purposes and not to conduct any type of home occupation. The applicant has indicated that the basement is finished and there is no place for tools and a variety of other things. He would like to add the addition onto the existing garage to park a vehicle in that location as well. He has indicated on his application that he would have to build a separate structure elsewhere on the lot. It is difficult to find the practical difficulty in this case. He wants to consolidate his structures by combining all of them into one overall structure which would exceed both the maximum square footage on accessory structures and also exceed the maximum size of garages allowed being 720 square feet. The house itself, a two-story house, the garage is smaller than the house. She referred to the board packet information. Staff recommends that the request for a 30x20.5 foot addition onto the existing garage be denied as requested. If the board does choose to approve this, staff has some things for consideration. They would like to see that the 6x12 shed be removed and the driveway be hard-surfaced, which is currently graveled. The area consists of a variety of these types of hard-surfaced and gravel driveways. Also, outdoor storage materials be enclosed in the proposed structure and no home occupation be conducted in the garage or accessory structure. M. Clark asked about the gazebo. Was the gazebo included in the figures? D. Wynant stated that it was not included in the figures. When the office first got the site plan, it was not shown on the site plan and was discovered later. M. Clark asked what the size of the gazebo was? D. Wynant stated that she did not know, but to check with the applicant. If it were counted in to all of the accessory structures, it would far exceed the 1056 square feet which is the total being requested in this variance. She passed out a photograph. Paul Reed, owner, addressed the Board. He stated that the garage is getting old and he would like to get up to a size that he can really use. He sees a lot of other people make separate structures and as soon as zoning is gone, they add on to it and connect them. He would rather just make one structure all at once and get something that he can use that is more proportionate to his lot. Even with all the total structures, he would have less than 20% of his lot covered. It would be nicer to have one big structure to do everything with. It would look a lot better than it does now. The shed is old and can be taken down if he has too. The driveway can be expensive. He doesn't see a connection to it. He gave letters of approval from neighbors to the board. He stated that his next door neighbor had a problem with zoning coming in and not having enough garage space to put their stuff in. They were written up. They had a dumpster there and sent in a cleaning crew. Didn't tell them, no inspector came by to ever say that they weren't in compliance. But they had a list of things to clean up. He sat and watched the cleaning crew come through and they only picked up good stuff. They walked by trash, dead batteries, flat tires and only took good stuff. A lot of people on the street don't really think that was too honest. It was definitely not a clean up- they picked up what they wanted. He stated that the structure that he wants to put up is proportionate to the lot- long and thin. It stretches straight back. M. Clark asked Mr. Reed if he understood what they were talking about with the gazebo being included in the accessory structure limitations? P. Reed stated that D. Wynant covered that with him. He stated that seems like a recreational thing to him. He stated that he has the permits for it. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 6 M. Clark stated that it would be included in the 1000 feet that he would normally be allowed. She has no idea what the square footage of that might be. P. Reed stated that it is 16 foot square, six sides, a little bit bigger than 16x16. he has four retive that ive Todd Behovitz, 6237 Gardenia, addressed h afantastic oar e stated neighbohaThey have huge lotss He said on the street too. He stated that Paul Reeds to keep up lots that size, you need larger equipment.and big Paul He thinks nks it is a ge at the ordinary. There are other properties pole barns similar. You need space to keep up properties that idea. There are many properties that are very size. B. Burgess read correspondence into record. D. Wynant also read voicemail message into record showing support. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that, per her understanding, he is allowed 1000 square feet of total accessory structure by uare feet remaining to build a code. If the gazebo is approximately 256, that leaves which huwou d st 744 ubstantially ally increase the size of his garage. He is allowed a 720 square foot garage y the lot,the to be under garage now which is 369 square feet. CooNs deb m the difference eg the size fnce for his garage.that is going to beualready exists, she would not have a problem 9 o necessarily the 100 square feet additional that they would be allowing him to build. She is not willing to g 1000 square feet if he decided to tear down the one building,gazebo and they ao for he talking e whole ta1few Bquare feeut if he t ext�ang to retain the gazebo and consolidate everything i allowing him to expand. She would also concur with the staff thec onmendations that the existing she removed and that the driveway be surfaced, E. Horne asked staff if you were to build a new 2-door garage, don't you need to have a cement driveway to that approach? aril es, they do look for that. D. Wynant stated that w as correct. When they look at permits for any g 9 ould be the same if the garage was asingle-car garage? E. Horne asked if that w D. Wynant stated that it is a requirement k f e or that when they get buil surfacednance that drivewys be hard either ding permits onga ages. asphalt or portland cement. They do the M. Clark stated that the problem with making a motion concrete etl mbeon he information She aked staff stated is that have a don't know exact on hosize w the board m"ght deal There with that. suggestion p. Wynant stated that the applicant gave an approximation. She said that the board could specify a range within a certain square footage on the gazebo. The board could say that the variance including the gazebo could be up to a certain amount. a garae in excess of e 720 square feet, but not to M. Clark made motion to approve the construction of area of he gazebo and hwith the 4 conditions listed in exceed the 1000 square feet with the inclusion of the shed,the hard surfacing of the driveway,the the staff recommendations; the removal of the existing stora a of the outdoor materials in the proposed addition; and that no home occupation be conducted. 9 Seconded by V. Earhart. would be more likely to support this request. The other A. Frederick stated that he still has some concerns. He would still like to see or understand the practical difficulty and he doesn't. If the board can explain one to him, h problem he has is not having the size of the gazebo. He tlthe square f000esn't like ltageoof he gazebo s before hehat he would p have. He would like to se not really sure what they vote in support of the motion. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 7 M. Clark stated that, in terms of the practical difficulty, in the past the board has approved some oversized garages when they have had oversized houses and they have said that those are in keeping with the size of the house and were compatible. Also, when the board has looked at oversized lots, there have been occasions where the board has said that it makes sense. This is not an extreme variance to the garage, maybe 20 square feet. A. Frederick stated that he could support it if it was 20 square feet. General discussion ensued regarding size of gazebo, total square footage, etc. M. Clark wanted the appellant to know that the board was willing to approve it on that basis, but they need to know the size of the gazebo. V. Earhart made motion to table BZA.3579.00, 6256 Gardenia. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to table BZA-3579.00, 6256 Gardenia. E. BZA-3580.00 300 W. Ottawa St. & 209 N. Seymour St. Jim Ruff presented the case. He passed out information to the Board that was given to him that evening. This is a request by Wigen, Tincknell, Meyer&Associates representing the prospective owners of property on behalf of Michigan Catholic Conference. They are requesting a height variance for construction of a new 4-story office building on property that includes 300 W. Ottawa & 209 N. Seymour St. There is also a small portion of property that the diocese owns otherwise that is part of their property adjacent to this. The property is zoned D-1 Professional Office. The area that they are looking at is rectangular in size. It is 132'x165'. It basically composes 2 original city lots as platted. Presently on the property there are two buildings- 300 W. Ottawa is a chancery building; 209 N. Seymour is a house that has been converted to an office over the years. The church and rectory for St. Mary's is just north of this site. South is the State Capitol. To the east is a church across Seymour St. To the west are offices that are included in a historic district. The zonings are varying around the site; DM-4 to the north that the church is primarily on; south is the Capitol (which isn't zoned); the east is zoned DM-3 and E-1 Apartment district; and to the west it is also zoned office. The River Island Area Amendment Plan designates the land use for office. The applicant, on behalf of Michigan Catholic Conference, proposes to obtain the subject property and construct a new 61 foot high 4-story office building at this location that would also have a basement. He stated that he would like the applicant to give all the details about the development to the board. In the D-1 Professional Office district, structural height is not to exceed 45' (Section 1260.09). Building height is defined in the case of this building which has a flat roof. When you look at a building that has a gabled or a pitched roof, it is halfway between the eave and the ridge. They take a medium spot between the eave and the ridge and that is the building height. This is a flat building so it is to the height of the structure as it exists. Their request here is for a 61'tall structure. The applicant believes the exterior character of the proposed building, both in design and materials, would be consistent and compliment the historic nature of the surrounding structures. The building's footprint would occupy all available site area and its function requirements dictate the need for a building that would be 61'feet in size, therefore exceeding the building height allowances in the Zoning Code by 16'. It is a request for a 16' high variance. The building itself would meet all of the other setback requirements for the property of front, side and rear yard setbacks. The unresolved issue stated in the report is the fact that they have been looking at alternatives for parking situations to support the office building. Yet, tonight they are not requesting a variance for parking. The parking allowances here are for on-site parking or within a similarly zoned property within 300'to be able to accommodate parking. They are looking at all those possibilities. It is a sensitive area and they are trying to minimalize the impact to the area with the development. Staff believes that the square footage requirements and the style of the proposed office building is, even though not the same as those immediately to the west and the local district, they are comparable in height and massing to those on the north side of the block and in the 200 block to the east. The design also reflects the Italian heritage of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no adverse impact on vehicular or pedestrian traffic circulation patterns anticipated. This is a downtown environment area. Typically, there is a lot of pedestrian traffic in the area and they would anticipate that would remain. The building is going to be set back from the corner so there will be visibility around the building so it shouldn't be an impact on vehicular sight distances. The proposed variance for height does not necessarily impact the future patterns for development for the area and the Michigan Catholic Conference is committed to preserve the art deco chancery by aggressively advertising the structure for sale and providing funds to assist BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 8 in its relocation. Staff recommends approval of the variance for the height of 61'with the understanding that the parking requirements still need to be resolved and the existing chancery building is actively promoted with incentives for its relocation. V. Earhart asked for clarification as to how high 61' feet is. Was there something in the area to compare it to? J. Ruff stated that the applicant will have comparison graphics to present to the Board. He also stated that a building that would be similar in height would be the AT&T building on Capitol Avenue. That would be fairly close. But it presents itself differently on the street level due to the fact that particular building is at the front property line. A. Frederick asked Mr. Ruff why a request for a variance was chosen as the way to go for this rather than going through the Planning Board and ask that it be rezoned so that the height variance wouldn't be necessary? J. Ruff stated that the property is already zoned Office. They want to use it for office, so they are taking this path as a means of trying to achieve that goal. They believe they can meet all of the setback requirements and such. If it were zoned to another district such as G-1, there would be no setback requirements, no height limitations necessarily and they don't think that they need to go that far. They don't think that they need that much leeway for the structure. They don't want to crowd the site. This was their choice to make as far as which way to go for an application. A. Frederick asked what would be the most restricted zoning district that would allow a building of this height? J. Ruff stated that probably an E-1 Apartment Shop district. He believes that would allow a building up to 1 00'tall and would still require parking and would still require setbacks and an office use. M. Clark asked how much parking was required for this request and what then happens? The applicant would not be allowed to build unless they can meet that requirement somehow? The permits would not be issued? J. Ruff stated that was correct. For office space, it is one for every 200 square feet of usable floor area. The owners have that all calculated and prepared in their report. Sister Monica Kostielney, president and CEO of the Michigan Catholic Conference, addressed the Board. She stated that they have been downtown at 505 N. Capitol for over 30 years. They have grown considerably. They are very tight on space and need to expand. They have this opportunity for a property and they wish to seek a variance for height as has been described. She stated that they are excited about this. The Michigan Catholic Conference is the public policy agency for the Roman Catholic Church in Michigan. It is the official spokesperson for that group. In addition, they offer a range of services for their membership. They have over 10,000 contracts and medical insurance. They serve over 22,000 employees. In addition to that, they have the workers comp, unemployment comp. They administer all 16 programs that service the catholic membership. Their public policy statement of purpose is for the well being of the people in Michigan. They have a host of issues that if they have to do with the well being of people, they are in fact theirs from agriculture, criminal justice, education, welfare reform, etc. They are unique as an institution in the state. As a catholic conference, they are unique in the country, in fact, being the largest and fastest growing. To explain the technical and the architectural elements that they have, she would like to have John Meyer of Wigen, Tincknell, Meyer&Associates make that presentation. Mr. John Meyer, Wigen, Tincknell, Meyer&Associates, addressed the Board. He stated that they have been retained by the Catholic Conference to design their new facility. He presented some colored printouts and drawings of the building to show to the Board. He stated that this building is probably one of the strongest architectural statements that has been made in downtown Lansing in a long time. They are proud to be a part of this. They have worked long and hard on this particular project to try to arrive at a building that would be good for their client and good for BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 9 downtown Lansing. He stated that they have been working in Lansing for a number of years. He treats Lansing as his own home town. In order for the Michigan Catholic Conference to fulfill its mission successfully, they need to stay in downtown Lansing. They need to be close to the Capitol. They need to have a strong presence in the state and a strong presence by state government. The subject site presents the best available option for this project. Care has been taken to design a building that is sensitive to the historic district with historic buildings surrounding it. Having been involved in the restoration of the Michigan State Capitol, he holds that project very dear as well. The tradition and character of the exterior facade speak to the catholic heritage of the catholic conference. It is intended to reinforce a statement about that organization and to reinforce the historic nature of the immediate surroundings. The building's setbacks have been increased from the buildings that exist on those sites today. The buildings that would be removed to make this possible are much closer to the property lines than this one will be. As Mr. Ruff stated, the setbacks are in compliance with the zoning ordinance. The exterior uses the highest possible quality materials. It will be a combination of limestone and brick. He referred to the drawings for the board and stated that it has an Italian renaissance character. He stated that it is a building designed to be in an urban setting and it is a building that is designed to be compatible with the neighbors. He stated that it is difficult for them to say that they could do this building any other way than what they have done from a number of standpoints. They have, on the first floor, public services. Those public services include some meeting spaces that dictate some higher ceilings. They have chosen to put all of the mechanical equipment inside the building with the exception of the chiller which will be carefully concealed. All of the rest of the mechanical equipment will be within the building so that it is not an eyesore. That dictates that they have to have additional heights also. The floor to floor heights on the upper floors are such that they can accommodate the duct work that is necessary to get around with the air conditioning - heating ducts and so on. The combination of these has caused the building to grow in height- a little bit more than would be normal for a 4-story building. They feel that it is essential to have those heights in order to meet the program needs of the building. They looked at a lot of different options and concluded that this is the best solution to meet all of the needs of the Michigan Catholic Conference. They don't see a way that they can accomplish it without building the building as it is proposed with a 4-story height. The building will be highly landscaped so that it is again a nice statement for downtown and they are, as Mr. Ruff said, working on some options to provide parking that will be within the zoning requirements. They understand that if they don't meet those, they don't get site plan approval. They know that they have some work cut out for them, but they are in negotiations on those issues and feel that they can successfully complete those negotiations. The practical difficulty in this case is that they would be unable to maintain the design integrity and to utilize this unique site to its greatest potential giving its neighbors in the City of Lansing a worthwhile piece of architecture- architecture that compliments the fabric of its own environment, the surrounding areas as respectful of the Michigan State Capitol and of the other historic buildings in the area. V. Earhart stated that she lives about 4 blocks from what is being proposed. She is curious about where they are going to put all of the people that come and make use of their services. Where is the parking going to go? What are their options? Without taking down some of the churches down there, she doesn't see where they are going to put a parking lot. J. Meyer stated that there are no plans for a parking structure to do this that their clients would build or own. There are no plans to demolish any buildings to provide parking. There are negotiations ongoing with individuals that are considering some parking structures that he would rather not go into detail on because they are in negotiations. V. Earhart stated that what he is saying is that it is not at all unlikely that someone could come buy her house and put a parking structure there. J. Meyer stated that would not happen because they have distance requirements that they have to conform to. V. Earhart stated that what she is saying is that they are putting another high intensity use building downtown where they already are having parking problems with the legislature, with LCC, with state government, the new judicial buildings that are going in, etc. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 10 J. Meyer stated that he is aware of numerous projects on the drawing boards that are addressing major parking expansions in downtown Lansing. This will not impact the residential areas to the north of this property with parking. The fact is that this is an urban setting and they have tried to design a building that is compatible and comfortable with an urban setting. They are trying to be a good neighbor with the historic district with the design of this building. They understand that there are some concerns with the neighbors. He has personally met with a number of the neighbors and listened to concerns. At one time, they were proposing a major parking structure. They have backed away from that because of the concerns of the neighborhood and they are looking for other options. They feel that they have some good, strong options in the works and they do not feel that those options are going to be a detriment to the neighborhood to the north. He can't say more than that at this time, but the board will, before the project is approved, know that they have successfully solved those parking issues. E. Horne stated that at the present where the building is to stand, she noticed that it says "Cathedral Parking". Are they going to be taking any parking away from the church? J. Meyer stated that there is some parking on site now. He referred to the drawings that were presented to the board. He stated that will be a few spaces that will be lost as a result of this project, but only a few. E. Horne asked if that would interfere with the signage that says "Cathedral Parking"? J. Meyer stated that it would not. He also stated that there is no parking on site at all. A. Frederick stated that he is more concerned about the practical difficulty because he doesn't understand it they way it was described. He stated that what he heard Mr. Meyer say was that he wanted to build a structure that doesn't meet the zoning code ordinance and they can't build the building that they want to build because what they have designed doesn't meet with the ordinance. As Mr. Frederick understands the ordinance, that is what he believes it is there for. J. Meyer stated that the building is designed 4 stories in height for a reason. In most public governmental type buildings, they would have heavy use public functions on the first floor. As you go up in that building, the highest level is the most private or the least public contact. They are also dividing this by department. So they have public on the first floor and various departments on the upper three floors and they are divided by use and functions of those three floors. They actually have some space on the north side of the building where there is a setback. They could, he suspects, build a 3-story, but it would totally destroy the function of the building. That would create some terrible operational problems by dividing departments and creating difficulties with operation efficiency and with the ability for people in the same department to work together. For those people working on public policy that need total quiet and the ability to concentrate, if they are split on two floors and those that are on the lower floor with another department are going to have disruption that just doesn't work. There is a practical difficulty in that they could probably build it 3 stories, but it wouldn't function the way that they need it to function. He also stated that there is no additional area on the lot. The footprint on the first floor covers most of the lot with the exception of some minor dumpster space. A. Frederick stated that he does appreciate that they attempted to meet the setbacks and chose to go up because there are a lot of buildings very close by right now that are higher than that and more are planned in the surrounding area. He does appreciate that their design took that into account and he thinks that it would add to the look of the building if the board approves it. He stated that he would have to think more about the practical difficulty because it seems that it is self imposed rather than something that the zoning code itself is denying you. He believes that you could get reasonable use out of the building. It might not meet your client's needs, but the client still might be able to build on it. J. Meyer stated that they would have to revisit the whole issue of whether or not this is a practical place to build or if they can work with the departments split on three floors versus four floors. He would be disappointed if that were the case that they would have to rethink that because he thinks this is, as he said in his opening remarks, this is probably one of the more aesthetic buildings that will be created in downtown Lansing in a long time. He thinks that it is a building of high quality BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 11 that they haven't seen in downtown Lansing in a long time too. He stated that they struggled with this for a long time looking at how they could solve this problem. A change in zoning was a consideration that they had, but they felt that it was probably a better approach to ask the board for a zoning variance than to ask the city to change zoning because changing zoning is changing policy whereas they are asking the board to give them some leeway with the ordinance. He stated that they have considered all of these issues and felt that this was the fairest approach for everyone involved. Cathy Stul, 320 W. Ottawa, addressed the board. She stated that she lives right next to the proposed building. She owns properties at 320, 322, 318, 326, 328 Ottawa and around the corner at 208 Seymour St. Needless to say, she has some concerns. She passed around to the board some written information to support her remarks. She stated that two of her buildings, the Emery houses, the old row houses, they were quite excited when they were given historic designation a couple of years ago. When they found out about the prospect of an office building coming right next door to them, it was kind of scary. She recalled what Mr. Meyer stated about the urban setting. She stated that they see it more as a neighborhood. The houses around there and the church, they are all kind of the same kind of structure, the same kind of architecture. They are really proud of it. Being across from the State Capitol, a lot of their tenants are lobbyists. It is real exciting to be in that area. When she looks and thinks that there are no buildings on either the 200 block or the 300 block or the 400 block of Ottawa that are in any way consistent with the proposed building, she sees this as dwarfing the existing properties. She knows that there has been an effort made to be kind of consistent and try to be historic and those kinds of things, but she agrees with the practical difficulty being a self imposed one. She stated that, as an attorney she looks at the law, and she doesn't see a practical difficulty here. She stated she can appreciate what they are trying to achieve here, opening services to the public, what that tells her is that Ottawa St. is going to be more busy and where are these folks going to park. She stated that they have to kick out people from their parking lot all of the time. Her secretary has to watch the parking lot and evict people from the parking lot. She stated that her understanding is that the requirement is 1 parking spot for every 200 feet. She stated that puts them at more than 150 parking spots . She stated that she doesn't think that they have that in all of downtown Lansing, let alone in that area. These are her concerns and she won't continue because she dealt with a lot of the issues in the information she handed out to the board. She thinks that it is kind of premature at this particular point in time. There are a lot of unanswered questions here. She is most concerned about the traffic in the area. She likes to be able to walk across the street and to go the Capitol and get a sandwich and not worry about getting hit or anything like that. That is a practical concern. The parking issue, she thinks, is very instrumental. When she looks at her properties and thinks that there is going to be a "skyscraper" right next to her buildings, it is scary. She asked the board for their thoughtful consideration in this. Chuck Colati, 313 Seymour, addressed the Board. He stated that he moved into this address last Labor Day. He is quite familiar with the Michigan Catholic Conference as he worked for the Catholic Diocese in Grand Rapids a few years back. He stated that one of his questions is, in terms of the need for this large of a building at this location is, what is going to happen to the other building? He didn't know if the Conference was going to abandon that building and move the same functions into the other one because a practical way of solving the dilemma might be for them to take the two different functions that Sister Monica discussed that the Conference has, one public affairs function and the other the service function, and split those apart so that the existing Michigan Catholic Conference building might continue to be used for the services function providing payroll information, etc. for the various diocese and allow them to build a building within the confines that meet the zoning requirements without having to build a tall structure as they are proposing. That would give them a closer proximity to the Capitol. He stated that seems to him to be a practical solution. It would then, by reducing the volume of the building, further reduce the parking requirement for that particular building and maybe allow them to come up with some more practical alternatives in the area. He agrees that there are some other issues that could be dealt with, but it seems to him that if those two functions that the Conference does do not necessarily have to be physically located in the same building. They are really two distinct kind of functions. By separating them and continuing to use existing building, it would reduce the size requirements for this building and take away any practical difficulties that they might have. Ellen Sprouls, 616 W. Ionia, addressed the Board. She stated that she is concerned about the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 12 parking. She is also concerned about the massing of the building and the consistency with the building matching the structures in the area. She stated that Mr. Ruff referred to the fact that this was an area of variant zoning. The architect referred to it as an urban setting. She stated that her understanding is that in an urban setting where you would find a building like this would be G-1 - you can build right to the curb and don't have any parking requirements. The 300 block of Ottawa St. is not a downtown area like Washington Square. It is not the corner of Abbott and E. Grand River in East Lansing. It is not the heart of downtown Grand Rapids. This, as the variant zoning suggests, is a transitional area between the Central Downtown Lansing Area and the neighborhoods that are to the west and to the north of this area. It is a business district and a residential area. She doesn't think that this type of an office structure, where they don't know where they are going to park 150 vehicles in their neighborhood - and quite frankly her neighborhood is already a sea of parking lots- she just doesn't see it as an appropriate place for this type of a building no matter how well this building may be designed. To address the whole idea of the building and how its consistent with the design, she has some pictures to give to the board. She gave them pictures of the buildings in the neighborhood to compare. She stated that she lives 3 blocks from this site. She asked the board to deny this request. She doesn't think that it is an appropriate building for this type of a transitional neighborhood. It is not, in her opinion, an urban setting. It is a transitional zone. David Anderson, 320 W. Ottawa, chairman of the Historic District Commission, addressed the Board. He stated that while the Historic District Commission has not had an opportunity for a meeting to formally address the issues here, they have had two meetings where these issues were discussed and they had an opportunity to discuss them amongst themselves and, with one exception, the members of the board uniformly thought that this was inappropriate. He passed out information to the board for their review. He asked why the north side of the Capitol residential in character when they have the different zoning in other parts of the city? He stated that the answer is pretty simple and straight forward. A few years ago, a central city development plan was adopted by the Planning Board and City Council. The Planning Board designates the area to the north of the Capitol to be residential in character. He referred to the information given to the Board. He stated that the reason that is important to the Board is that in 1970, the State of Michigan accepted the plan adopted by the City of Lansing and by legislation it can only be changed if the state and the Lansing Planning Board say that it should be changed. This isn't really a zoning issue so much as it is a planning issue because the city has already adopted and by state law ratified that use like what is being proposed here simply cannot occur. He asked Mr. Ruff if the Department of Management& Budget or the Planning Board acted on this application. J. Ruff stated that they had not. D. Anderson stated that, even if the board could, and he doesn't think that they can without the Planning Board acting first and without the Department of Management& Budget looking at it, there are other reasons why the board can't consider this. First of all, he has reviewed the city file. He has looked at the material that was there. He looked for a communication. He stated that he knows that sometimes people come to this board without being the owner. They have an option to purchase or a contract or something like that and the board allows them to proceed with an option. There is always a representation that there is an option to purchase or some legal relationship. He stated that he was glad to see a representative of the Conference here saying that they endorsed it because the city file has nothing to indicate that is the case either. He thought that this was just a trial balloon. But clearly there is nothing in the file and they have no reason to believe that the owner is, in any way, participating in this plan. There is no option, there is no letter from the Diocese and St. Mary's because he thinks that some of the parcels are owned by each of the people and clearly, as they indicate, the owner has to participate in this project. He stated that he was listening to the comments made by Mr. Frederick and he thinks that Mr. Frederick hit the nail on the head. What is the practical difficulty? It comes down, in part, to looking at this, what is the practical difficulty. As he understands it from staff, the practical difficulty is that this building is several blocks away from zoning which doesn't have any height restriction and so why don't they just allow that here because it is going to be a nice looking building. If that is the case - and he has many clients on Saginaw, Michigan Avenue and S. Washington who own property near other kinds of zoning who would like to have some of the attributes of that zoning and the precedent that the board would be setting here by allowing this would be very frightening. Can the owner make reasonable use of the property without the variance? The property is a rectangular piece of BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 13 property. There is nothing about the property, except that it is across from the Capitol and they should have some reverence for property across from the Capitol, that would in any way indicate that it can't be used. There is nothing that would indicate that. Is the hardship created by the proposal and not something unique about the property? He stated that this is a rectangular piece of property. The reason that there is a hardship is because they might not build the building if they don't get the variance. There are other locations where they could build such a building consistent with the zoning code. What is particular to this lot? He stated that there is nothing particular to the lot other than, as he understands from the staff report, it is close to other property that is zoned differently and they would like to have some of the attributes of that. He stated that it just doesn't make any sense to him and he doesn't think that it passes the straight face test to use that as a basis for the kind of practical hardship which they are asserting. He stated that he was a little concerned about some of the comments that were made about parking from the architect. The architect stated that there would be a few parking spots which would be lost. He stated that he believes it is more than 70 spots. They have a huge lot which is used just for parking and then next to behind the diocese and the other building, the majority of those lots are used for parking. He stated that when they wanted to build the hall a few years ago and the board granted them a variance for parking because they had this parking which they now want to take away which the board relied on in good faith and honesty. They also told the board that they have a long time relationship to the parking at the Roosevelt Building which the board relied upon and accepted as true. He stated that the parking spots already lost and the spots proposed to be lost, where is that parking going to come from? He stated that the environment is the neighborhood that is look at in the Central City Plan. That is the environment that they have and that the city adopted as partners with the State of how the property was to be used. He passed out pictures to the Board of the surrounding area. He referred to a parking lot in the pictures. He stated that because the plan ignores the city's partnership with the State and the long term plans for the area north of the Capitol to be possibly commercial, but residential in character, the hardship is that they would like to have some of the attributes of zoning that is close to them. That being that they can build a higher building and because of the traffic issues and because their criterion just can't be met with what has been presented to the board. This application really must be denied. They have to at least show bonafide, honest hardship that doesn't just come from the fact that they want to build a higher building than the zoning allows. He referred to the 7-block area. He respectfully asked the board to act on this request today, to acknowledge that they can make reasonable use without the variance, that the hardship comes from the applicant and not anything unique to the property. He stated that there is no possible way that this could meet the board's criterion. Dave Wilson, 209 N. Walnut, addressed the Board. He stated that he agrees with the comments that have been made. He doesn't believe that the applicant has shown a practical difficulty. He also stated that parking, presently, is a very difficult problem for all of them that are in the area. What he has heard this evening, that problem would be compounded greatly by this project. He is concerned about the fact that no real explanation has been presented suggesting how that problem would be resolved. He respectfully asked the board to deny the request based on the information presently before the board. Monica Zuchowski, 320 N. Walnut, president of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, addressed the Board. She stated that, for those that weren't aware, the Downtown Neighborhood Association's boundaries are the river on the east, the river on the north, the river on the south, and Martin Luther King on the west. This area is within their boundaries. Actually, it is quite close to her house. She stated that on March 11th at their monthly meeting, the Board of Directors of the Downtown Neighborhood Association voted to oppose the proposal by the Michigan Catholic Conference. It was actually a 3-part motion, one of which is not relevant to this proposal at this point, but she will include it because it was part of the original motion. The first was that they oppose the demolition of the buildings at both 300 W. Ottawa and 209 N. Seymour. They also opposed the building of the large office building at the corner of Seymour and Ottawa. The third portion was that they opposed, at that time what was still being talked about, a parking ramp at the corner of Seymour and Ionia. The concerns from the DNA centered on, not only the raising of the historic buildings, but it is also counter to the Master Plan and the size of the footprint of the proposed office building itself. As they oppose the construction of the new office building at Seymour and Ottawa, they also oppose the granting of a height variance for such proposed building. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 14 Sharon Kellogg, 421 W. Ionia, addressed the Board. She sincerely asked the board to deny this request for a variance. Linda Peckham, 311 Seymour St., addressed the board. She stated that she has lived downtown for 18 years. She is also an English professor at Lansing Community College. Some of the circumstances surrounding this building are not new. They are the same issues that have come up in the neighborhood many times between LCC and other buildings. Parking is difficult and full. She agrees with all of the comments that have been made about the amount of parking that will be required by this which is not yet determined, and with the problems about the scale of the neighborhood. She also spoke as the president of the Historical Society of Greater Lansing, now resigned. They have a long standing policy of asking boards to consider carefully the demolition of historic structures. There is not a district yet. They hope that there will be someday. Until there is, they hope that buildings cannot be either torn down or moved when they are of historic character. B. Burgess read correspondence into record. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she realized that they weren't supposed to be dealing with parking, but she cannot consider a variance of 61 feet without considering the other portions of the problem that presents itself. She supposes that because she is located so close to where this request involves, the issue of parking really bothers her. She went over all of the buildings and area around the proposed building site. She stated that there is no place near the proposed building site that is going to give them access to parking. She stated that the only place that she can see parking going at this moment is in the area north at the convent. All of that is vacant. Just put up a parking structure. It wouldn't be any higher than the building. What she is saying is that it seems to her rather naive to grant the variance to allow a 61' building when they are not going to get enough parking to put people in the building. Every time they take out a spot, as was pointed out, to build a building, you have taken out not just one, but two -the one that was parking there plus the one of the person that is coming into the building. She cannot support the variance that is requested here at all. A. Frederick asked V. Earhart if there was an acceptable parking plan, would she be more comfortable with allowing the variance? V. Earhart stated that if there were an acceptable parking plan, she might be able to look at it seriously. But right now, she looks at it and sees no way that this building will work this way, why bother with the details of whether it is going to be 61' or not. She agrees with Ellen Sprouls that this is not a transitional building. To her, it is out of character both with the churches and with the office buildings that are immediately to its west. She thinks that it is too high. She must agree that it is beautiful, but must ask if they really want to compete with the Capitol at this point. The building is out of character. A. Frederick stated that he heard testimony from the architect that led him to believe there is a solution for the parking in the making. They haven't gotten to that yet. He stated that maybe the request is a little premature. V. Earhart stated that she heard that too. But, looking at what is around that building, she can't see it. She doesn't know where they are going to put it. If they are going to put it in the vicinity of the convent, which is where all of the surface parking is right now, it is more than the 300 feet that is required, isn't it? J. Ruff stated that the block to the northeast which has the Lansing Housing Commission in it, the block itself is not more than 300 feet, but the existing surface parking lot, he believes, is. The property where the former Roosevelt Building stood is less than 300 feet as well. V. Earhart stated that is owned by the state. A. Frederick stated that he would be willing to wait to make his decision if he could hear what the solution to the parking was. If there is no solution that is acceptable, all of the rest of this may be mute. He would be willing to move to table until the architect has an opportunity to finalize their solution to the parking BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 15 problem. Seconded by V. Earhart. On a voice vote, there were 5 yeas and 1 nay (Horne). BZA-3580.00 has been tabled. V. Earhart asked chairman for a 10 minute break for the board. B. Burgess recessed the meeting for 10 minutes. F. BZA-3581.00, 412 W. Ionia Jim Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that this is a request by Rick VanFossen Builders representing the Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association for a front yard variance to construct a new front porch. The location is 412 W. Ionia. It is zoned D-1 Professional Office. The D-1 Professional Office District has a front yard setback requirement of 20'. Currently, there is an 8'x8' square porch on the front of this building. They want to remove that and replace it with a porch that is 6' out from the building and 20' long. The applicant has done some research into the historic character of this building and found that the porch that they are proposing to build is historically correct. Apparently it used to be on this building, so they are trying to re-create something that was there in the past and remove the current porch. This requires that the new porch be 59" from the front property line which equates to a variance of 14'3". The applicant is requesting a variance of 14'3" in the front yard setback. The practical difficulty here is the location of the building. It doesn't meet the current code requirement of 20'front yard setback because the building was constructed before the advent of the Zoning Ordinance. There is some additional information in that the city's Historic District Commission has reviewed this proposal. At their meeting in April, they voted unanimously to recommend approval of the porch design and the front yard setback that is being proposed because it fits in with the history of the building and the historic character of the neighborhood. There really are no adverse impacts that staff can determine for allowing this variance. Staff recommends approval. Rick VanFossen addressed the board. He stated that the inside of the building has been restored. The windows have been made operable. There are old style wooden storms and screens on the windows. They have taken the vinyl siding out and trim off the exterior of the building and replaced it with cedar and proposed it come out around the front. If this variance passes, they can build the porch and paint it with a 3-color scheme. Monica Zuchowski, 320 N. Walnut, president of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, addressed the Board. She stated that last evening at their monthly meeting, the Board of Directors of the Downtown Neighborhood Association voted to support the request on behalf of the Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association for a variance of the front yard setback for the purpose of replacing the existing front porch. The MCT offices have been within the DNA boundaries for many years and they were pleased when they purchased a building and began the rehabilitation of the interior combined with an extensive restoration of the exterior. They feel that when those projects are finished and the new porch is added, 412 W. Ionia will be a building to admire. The Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association is to be commended for their efforts. The DNA recommends approval of the request for a variance. Sharon Kellogg, 421 W. Ionia St., addressed the board. She stated that she is here to support the request for a variance for this property. The little porch is structurally unsound and she would love to see a porch that more represents the porch that was on the property originally. J. Sturdevant added that the staff report was prepared by Susan Cantlon, Senior Preservation Planner. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she agrees with Sharon. This is the street she lives on. The house will be a gem when it is done. She also stated that Colleen McNamara, who is part of the whole group, redid the house that is immediately behind V. Earhart's. If she and her group are doing as good a job on this one as they did on the one behind hers, she doesn't hesitate to support the requested variance. A. Frederick stated that it is not very often that he can go to the Zoning Code and read it and have it so clear. He read a small portion of the Zoning Code pertaining to this case. He stated that he finds this particular case very easy to see the practical difficulty based on what he read in the code. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 16 V. Earhart stated that the current structure is 8'x8' so it extends 2' closer to the road than the request which is 6'. They are, in fact, improving on the variance by granting what is requested. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3581.00, the variance of 14'3"to construct a historically correct 6'x20' porch at 412 W. Ionia St. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X McCloud X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3581.00 has been approved. G. BZA-3582.00, 4600 S. Cedar St. J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that before he gets into specifics, he gave some background. The next 6 cases are all the same applicant and they all have to do with signs at convenience stores and filling stations. The first two, 4600 S. Cedar and 3306 N. East St. are Citgo brand stations. They all are being converted to a new brand through a program that the owners have going with a company out of Canada called Pioneer. They all want to have similar sign packages identifying this new brand that is going to be new to the City of Lansing and to the area. Because each site is different in terms of what is there now for existing signage and also the age of the sites and the size of the sites, even though the packages are all quite similar, the variances aren't. There is a quite a variation in the different variances that are being requested. J. Sturdevant started with this case. He stated that it is currently zoned A-Residential and mostly F-Commercial. This is one of the Citgo stations. Currently this site has a ground pole sign that meets the current code. So that sign will have face changes which don't even require a permit, so the board does not need to look at a variance. What they do want to do is replace 3 building mounted signs- one on the building itself and two on the gasoline canopy. They can't consider the gasoline island canopy as part of the building. They are allowed two building mounted signs in total in the current code up to a certain square footage. They are under the square footage total, but they want to use 3 signs instead of 2- one on the building and two on the canopy. That is the variance that is requested to permit a 3'd building mounted sign. This particular site is at the southwest corner of Potter St. and S. Cedar St. It is a brand new station. It was redeveloped in 1997. There are currently 5 building mounted signs on the property and that would be reduced down to three with the variance. He stated that he really is not able to establish an adequate practical difficulty in this instance. The site has adequate signage in terms of the ground pole sign that identifies it to north and southbound traffic on Cedar St. and two building mounted signs that would be permitted under the current code which could be placed on the gasoline island canopy opposite the building so you would actually have signage facing three different directions- north, south and to the east, across Cedar St. There would also be a sign on the front of the building itself. The Pioneer brand sign would be not only on the pole sign, but on the gas canopy, but the sign that would be placed on the building itself wouldn't identify the gas brand, but it would identify the building as a convenience store and what they are using is a brand called Snack Express. Under the current code, they could have a Pioneer sign on the canopy and the Snack Express sign on the building. What they want to do is put 2 Pioneer signs on the canopy, basically one facing the north and one facing the south which would be redundant with the ground pole sign that they are already permitted. Because of the absence of any practical hardship or difficulty, staff recommends denial of the third building mounted sign that is requested. B. Burgess stated that he lives in that neighborhood. He asked why they were allowed five signs to begin with? BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 17 J. Sturdevant stated that he is not certain. He could not locate the sign permit file for that address. Joe Maguire, Bay Petroleum, addressed the Board. He stated that his family owns Bay Petroleum along with Wolverine Development, which he is the president of. They are also the property owner. Bay has been an unprofitable operation and they need to do something. They wanted to keep it independent branded to be more price competitive. They wanted to keep it locally owned and they were successful in doing that. They are teaming up with the largest independent gasoline retailer in Canada, another family owned company being Pioneer. He stated that this is a new brand to the U.S. This will be their U.S. headquarters out of Bay petroleum in Lansing on Spring St. It will be all the same people at the station, all of the same supervisory personnel. It will still be a Lansing based company. They are bring good top flight marketers in as partners whose theme is the lowest possible price. Sometimes that can mean stations that are less than sightly. It is absolutely not the case with these operators. That is something that Bay is obsessive about, keeping their stations in good condition. These people have the same mind set and this is a great marriage of two companies. With it comes this new brand, but not to all of their stations. You will still see the Bay sign. The first two cases, including S. Cedar, happen to be stations that they have addressed recently and gone to the Citgo format. The final four are all Bay stations, old sites reliant on legal, non-conforming signs. Simply to replace what they have now, even with less square footage and with greater setbacks, requires these variances. They are absolutely essential to their ability to bring a new brand. As being independent, they don't have the benefit of advertising, etc. They need signage as an integral part of what the company is all about. He also stated that they make every effort to reach out to the neighbors in the area. For all six cases, they obtained the notice list from the Planning Office and they sent letters to all the neighbors telling them what they were doing and inviting them to contact him. They received a few calls at home and they explained everything and addressed all concerns. The Planning Office was able to identify two different neighborhood organizations who would be interested in this. He attended a meeting with Eastside Neighborhood Organization. There were questions, but no opposition. He also provided information to the Moores River Park Neighborhood Association. He stated that the signage is absolutely essential to their type of operation being independent. They can't afford commercials, etc. He stated that people have 1-3 seconds while driving by to identify a building, this having signs on both sides of the canopy. Dave Suty, vice president of Bay Petroleum, addressed the Board. He stated that on the signage at the stores, what they are proposing to remove and put up is a package. He stated that is a 46% reduction in signage which does not include the changing of the faces at Cedar and N. East St. He stated that there has been an evolution in their industry. Gas stations used to do backroom work and was technically a gas station. Then there were the 7-11 that came in as convenience stores. Then gas and convenience stores were put together. It didn't work very well and the reason for that is those things are at opposite ends-fuel and food don't go together. The idea of branding the canopy"Pioneer" is simply because that is the fuel identity. It is encompassing of the fuel operations. The Snack Express is put on the building to identify what the building is for. It identifies, but more importantly, it separates the food service from the fueling. Not being able to identify and separate those needs causes a difficulty in perception and in operation. He stated that they do have the ground pole sign, but that identifies what is on the property. To identify what is happening at the fuel, almost every store in the country puts their signs on the side of the canopy and then they identify their store in some other manner and name. With the canopies close to the road, having one sign facing the street doesn't give a presentation to the customer unless they are right in front of the store. That is why everybody in the industry puts them on the ends. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that he heard some very good business reasons why more signs should be permitted, but he heard them when the board heard the request from the station at the corner of Cedar and Long Blvd. At that point, he was more in favor of approving the request for a variance, but the testimony heard and comments made by board members made him deny their request. He would have to do so for this case as well. All of the gas stations in Lansing operate under the same business constraints and it wouldn't be equitable for him to support this request and have voted against the case at Cedar and Long Blvd. He can't support this request. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 18 B. Burgess stated that he goes by this station all of the time. He stated that he hasn't seen the little signs that face the neighborhood at all. The ground pole is very sufficient. He cannot support this request. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3582.00, 4600 S. Cedar, a request for a sign variance. Seconded by M. Clark. VOTE YEA IF—NAY Earhart X Horne X McCloud X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3582.00 has been denied. H. BZA-3583.00, 3306 N. East St. J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that this is another Citgo station. This is basically a similar station with the same variance request as the previous case. They want to replace 3 building mounted signs- one on the building itself and two on the gasoline canopy. They can't consider the gasoline island canopy as part of the building. They are allowed two building mounted signs in total in the current code up to a certain square footage. They are under the square footage total, but they want to use 3 signs instead of 2- one on the building and two on the canopy. That is the variance that is requested to permit a 3'd building mounted sign. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark moved to deny BZA-3583.00, 3306 N. East St. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA IFNAY Earhart X Horne X McCloud X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3583.00 has been denied. I. BZA-3584.00, 5843 S. MIL King Jr. Blvd. J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that the property is zoned F-Commercial. There are actually 3 variances here. First, is a variance to permit a 3'd wall sign. In addition, one of the wall signs would be facing toward a residential use, but that is all under the same section of the code. The second variance is to permit construction of a ground pole sign 18'tall with setbacks variances of 17' and 12' or, in other words, 1' back from ML King right of way and 8' back from the right of way of Valencia St. The third variance is for the area of building mounted signs because this particular station has a very small building. It has a very short frontage and is not allowed as much. They are allotted 50 square feet, they are requesting 56 square feet. As far as practical difficulty, he still has to apply the same logic in terms of the building signs and the practical difficulty for the number of them that he did for the previous two cases. Because this is a different site, in terms of its size, there is a practical difficulty for the location of the ground pole sign. If BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 19 they made the ground pole sign conform to the code, it would stick back in the middle of the driveway access or the parking lot area. Therefore, there is a practical difficulty because of the smaller size of this property. He stated that he cannot support the building sign variances, but he does support the requested variance for the ground pole sign. Joe Maguire, Bay Petroleum, addressed the Board. He stated that the ground pole signs are an important matter. He passed around pictures to the board of the ground pole signs that they want to replace. He referred to these pictures. He stated that if the board continues its logic on the number of wall signs and deny their ability to have the 3`d one, would they please consider granting the variance to allow them to have a sign facing the residential use. If they are only going to have one Pioneer sign on the canopy, they would very much appreciate the ability to have it facing the highest traffic side. J. Sturdevant stated for point of clarification that the proposed canopy signs are basically 3' on a side - 9 square feet. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark moved that the request for a variance of a 3`d wall sign be denied; that the request for a sign facing the residential use be approved and be no more than 3'xX; that the request for a variance for a pole sign with a 17' and 12' variance in terms of setback be approved as specified in the staff report for BZA- 3584.00, 5843 S. ML King Jr. Blvd. Seconded by V. Earhart. M. Clark stated that the reason she would support the pole sign, in particular, is that this is a reasonable location and an improvement to what is there now. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X McCloud X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3584.00 has been approved per motions stated. J. BZA-3585.00, 1621 E. Michigan Ave J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that this variance is similar to the one on S. ML King. He stated that this is the smallest site of all of them - only 65'x85'. It is zoned F-1 Commercial. The pole sign is requested to have a variance of 0 setback from the right of way at Michigan Avenue and 2' from the right of way of Marshall St. In terms of practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship, he still can't support the variance for the extra building signs, but he does support, for the same reasons as before, the variance request for the pole sign because if it were to meet the required setback, it would be right in the middle of the driveway. M. Clark stated that in the staff report it stated that one of the signs would face a residential area. Is that true in this case? J. Sturdevant stated that was an error in the staff report. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 20 V. Earhart moved to deny the request for a 3`d wall mounted sign noting that there is no concern about residential use and that they approve the request for an 18'tall ground pole sign with setbacks of 0 feet from the right of way at Michigan Avenue and 2'from the right of way at Marshall St., setback variances of 18'and 16' respectively for BZA-3585.00, 1621 E. Michigan Ave. Seconded by M. Clark. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X McCloud X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3585.00 has been approved per motions stated. K. BZA-3586.00, 500 W. Mt. Hope J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that it is at the northwest corner of Bradley St. and Mt. Hope. He stated that this is for the 3 basic variances as before. It is adjacent to residential uses to the east and west. It is residential to the north and a mixture of residential and commercial to the south. The ground pole sign in this case is requested with setbacks of 3' from Mt. Hope Ave. and T from Bradley St., so the setback variances would equate to 15' from each one of those rights of way. Similar to the previous proposals, he has difficulty finding the ability to support any practical difficulty for the building signs, but he does support the proposed variances for the ground pole signs. Joe Maguire, Bay Petroleum, addressed the Board. He asked for the ability to put at least 1 3x3 sign facing the residential area. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark moved that the variance for the 3rd wall mounted sign be denied; that the variance to allow a sign facing a residential use be approved as 3x3; that the variance requesting a ground pole sign 18' high with setbacks of Y from Mt. Hope and 3'from Bradley St.with setbacks of 15' and 15' respectively be approved; and it is related to the size of the lot and it would also appear that the ground pole sign is going to be put in a position that is more conforming than what is there existing so the situation could be improved and deny extra square feet for wall signage requested. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA IF—NAY Earhart X Horne X McCloud X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3586.00 has been approved per motions stated. L. BZA-3587.00, 1700 W. Willow J. Sturdevant presented the case. He stated that this is to request a variance to permit the 3`d wall BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 21 mounted sign plus 1 facing a residential area. The 2nd variance is to permit construction of a ground pole sign 18'tall with setbacks of 2'from the right of way of Willow St. and 4'from the right of way of Comfort St. or setback variances of 16' and 14' respectively. He does not believe that this case required an area variance. This does have residential uses across Comfort St. and to the west down Willow St. There is commercial across the street on the other side of Willow. His recommendation is for approval of the variance for the ground pole sign as his previous logic dictates. He cannot support the wall mounted signs. E. Horne asked if the board approves this, in November 1999 for a sign, are they changing the size of the sign? Did they have to get a special variance for that? J. Sturdevant stated that the previous sign variance was for a 50 square foot sign. This sign will actually be a little bit larger than that- 56 square feet. But it is simply a matter of the fact that this is the closest size in their standard format to what was previously approved. J. Maguire corrected J. Sturdevant on the square footage. He thought they were requesting 51 square feet. J. Sturdevant stated that his report said it was 52 square feet, but wouldn't need a variance. M. Clark asked Mr. Maguire that if he was only going to have one sign facing the residential area, does he want it facing Willow? Mr. Maguire stated that he would want it facing Comfort St. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clarke moved that BZA-3587.00, 1700 W. Willow,that they deny the variance for a 3rd wall sign; that they approve a variance to allow a sign to face the residential uses to the east and that it be 3'x3'; and that a variance be allowed to construct a ground pole sign 18'tall with setbacks of 2'from Willow and 4'from Comfort, variances of 16'and 14' respectively. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X McCloud X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0, BZA-3587.00 has been approved per motions stated. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch No change in status. B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan No change in status. C. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw St. No change in status. D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar No change in status. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 11, 2000 PAGE 22 E. Rules of Procedure No change in status. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of April 13, 2000 R. McCloud asked what constituted an excused absence. She called in to the Planning Office, but it was after hours. V. Earhart moved to accept excused absence for R. McCloud. Seconded by A. Frederick. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by E. Horne. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Memo from Bud Burgess V. Earhart moved to table until next month. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to table. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 04/27/00 Approved 05/11/00 To ClerK 05/15/00 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 13, 2000, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by B. Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Vice Chairman Burgess read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick B. Burgess V. Earhart r Staff:L. Davis S. Quon J. Sturdevant , A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at_ttje meeting. ` rR B. G. Hilts has an excused absence, previously approved. C. R. McCloud was absent; not excused. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. Earhart moved to approve agenda. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve agenda. II1. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3572.00, 6619 S. Pennsylvania Sam Quon presented the case. This is a request by James Bolton of Jan Signs, Inc. representing Belle Tire located at 6619 S. Pennsylvania Ave. This is a variance request for the number and area of wall signs allowed on the property according to the sign code. The property currently has two wall signs on the front or west side of the building that total 200 square feet. The sign permit for these signs was issued in December 1999. The applicant is now proposing to put up a third wall sign that will be 480 square feet- a 12'x40'sign on the rear side of the building or the east side for a total of 680 square feet of total signage. Section 1442.13(b) of the Sign Code permits only two wall signs and Section 1442.13(i) of the Sign Code allows a maximum of 200 square feet of total signage for the property. This is, therefore, a variance request for a third wall sign and a variance of 480 square feet of additional wall sign. The property is located near where Pennsylvania and S. Cedar intersect. The zoning of the property is G-2. Zoning surrounding the property to the south and east is DM-4 Residential and F-Commercial is to the west. Currently there is commercial to the north. Interstate 96 is on the south. The Days Inn hotel is located east of the property. There is commercial to the west. The variance requires four criteria to be met. First, does a practical difficulty or hardship exist? The applicant has stated in their application that instead of putting up another billboard, they want to put a sign on the back of the building that faces 1-96. They want to do this instead of putting up an unsightly billboard. If the variance is not granted, the applicant will have to seek out another property to lease in order to put up another billboard to advertise. Staff does not see a practical difficulty or hardship in this situation. The second criteria is location size and character in harmony with the surrounding area. The property is located at the south end of Pennsylvania. The structure faces Pennsylvania and is north of the expressway. There is commercial development located to the north, south and west. The Days Inn is located on the east and is accessed by a drive just south of the subject property. Basically, the environment is already built up. The third criteria is if there is a problem with vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The wall sign proposed for the rear of the building does not affect vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Parking spaces are located to the west, south and east of the building. A sidewalk is along Pennsylvania Avenue which provides pedestrian access. The fourth criteria is BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Nir-ETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2000 PAGE 2 does this have an impact in future development patterns. No negative impact is anticipated from this development. However, a variance granted to allow this additional signage will exceed the maximum wall signage allowed to gain expressway exposure may encourage other businesses to do the same. It would, therefore, set a precedence for future variance requests. The subject location does not meet the criteria for billboards according to the Sign Code. It is not permitted to have a billboard no closer than 200 feet to a residential zoned district. The property to the west which is zoned DM-4 Residential therefore prevents a billboard from being located on the property. Staff believes that the existing ground pole sign is tall enough to be seen from the expressway. The ground pole is located on the site to accommodate better signage if the applicant wishes to do that. Basically, they are allowed to go 30 feet back from the property line and can have a 30 foot high sign up to 170 square feet in size. Another consideration is that there is a glass door located on the rear of the building. If this glass door is retained, they may include signage if placed on the inside of the window giving them exposure to both the Days Inn and the expressway. Staff recommends that this request be denied since sufficient options and alternatives exist for adequate exposure of the business to S. Pennsylvania, S. Cedar St. and 1-96. Jim Bolton, Jan Signs Inc., addressed the Board representing Belle Tire. He is here upon request of his customer who is moving into the vacated building. The back of the building faces the freeway. His customer feels that it is an ample way to state that he is there on westbound traffic because they don't see the front of the building or the side of the building or the pole sign until they have already gone by it. He is already beyond the exit point where the store is located. He simply wants to put a sign on the back of the building as large as possible in his eyes. This is the largest one they make for that particular company. They have one in Oak Park where they took down a huge roof sign that was existing on a building and dressed it with signs on the facade. The city was very happy to get rid of the roof sign. This is what they are looking for is freeway exposure. You will never see the sign from Pennsylvania Avenue. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that in reference to the comment about the unsightly billboard - she is of the opinion that an unsightly billboard and an unsightly wall sign are one and the same. The billboard does have the benefit of being legal in that place, whereas, the wall sign is not legal under what we have in the code. It seems to her that in order to gain freeway exposure, the alternative of relocating the ground pole sign is what they would need to go after. The wall sign is only going to get exposure to one side of the freeway and one mile after the exit, whereas, if there is a ground pole sign that is visible from both east and west bound lanes, you would not only be alerting people that if ever you get to this way and want to get off the freeway, there is a tire place there. She is not persuaded to support this request. A. Frederick agrees. He stated to keep in mind that freeway exposure it not to take the exit, but to keep in mind that the business is there. If this variance is granted, other businesses would want the same consideration. If the ground pole sign is good, then the purpose is met. He won't support this request. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3572.00, 6619 S. Pennsylvania Ave. Seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3572.00 has been denied. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IynCETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2000 PAGE 3 B. BZA-3573.00, 1235/1247 Center St. Jim Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by two different businesses located in the Old Town area. The first business is located at 1235 Center St. It was previously occupied by the North American Indian Center. It is located on Center St.just south of Clinton St. It is on the west side in the Light Industrial zoning district. The second business is the Spiral Bar located at 1247 Center St. right on the corner of Clinton St. These two businesses want to team up to share a parking area. The Spiral Bar has a parking lot with approximately 29 spaces in it. The building at 1235 Center St. has room for a dozen cars to be parked out front. The building at 1235 Center St. has recently been rehabilitated and they have an office tenant occupying a portion of the structure. But in order to occupy the remainder of the building, they need to come up with parking to serve that use. Right next door at the Spiral Bar is a 29 space parking lot that is used primarily on evenings and weekends. Whereas the office is used primarily on weekdays during the day. The Zoning Code allows two businesses to share parking facilities when the peak hours do not overlap with permission of this Board. That is what these two businesses are requesting now. That would provide an extra 29 spaces so that the building at 1235 Center St. could be occupied by another business. It would also allow the nightclub at 1247 Center St. to gain a modest, but additional 12 spaces that are close to the front door. Currently, the nightclub leases the majority of the spaces from the city lot that is down near the Fish Ladder and then provides 29 on site. He believes that they are required a total of 86 parking spaces. They have the 29 on site and then lease the balance from the city in a lot that is 1 '/2 blocks away. Under the code, that is allowed. However, they have an incentive to provide parking for other businesses in Old Town and to relieve a little bit of the burden of parking for themselves in having to lease them from someplace else by gaining an addition of 12 spaces right near their front door. It would help alleviate some of the pressure of bar patrons parking in the adjacent residential neighborhoods. It has been a problem. Simply put, it will not alleviate all of the problems with the bar parking that the neighborhood may have, but it is going to certainly help relieve some of it. Staff recommends approval of this request. M. Clark asked what uses are allowed under current zoning? J. Sturdevant stated that currently it is zoned Light Industrial. It could allow office uses, industrial uses, even a bar or restaurant with proper parking. General discussion ensued regarding code for that area, parking, etc. E. Horne asked about a change in ownership. If someone else buys that property, are they still obligated to share parking? J. Sturdevant stated that he didn't believe that they would. It would depend on the contract documents that the owners put together. He stated that the Board could make it a condition of approval of the variance to have a copy of the contract and make sure that the parking agreement remains valid. Mr. Tony Scruby, 1725 Dover Place, Lansing, addressed the Board. He stated that he is one of the owners of the property- Greg Arnston and Mr. Scruby own it. It is a 10,000 square foot building. Roughly 2500 square feet will be Big Brothers/Big Sisters. They will be moving in May 15Y. He stated that they had talked to United Way also about the balance of the space of the building but ran into a problem because of the parking. When they bought the building, they thought that they would be able to purchase part of Dard's property, which is to the south. Dard's has since decided not to sell so Mr. Scruby is kind of locked in. There are a couple of houses across the street that, from his understanding, are condemned - at least one of them is, it is boarded up. They thought that maybe they could buy one of those properties and tear it down. There is a vacant lot just around the street. But they won't be able to do any of that, so their only choice is to share the parking with the Spiral next door. The majority of the people that have come in and looked at this building, he has told them about the city lot which is by the Brenke Fish Ladder at the end of Turner St. Everyone of them has turned up their noses and said that they have mostly women employees, they don't want to walk at night if they happen to be working late, even though it is probably the safest part of the city right now. But it is kind of hard to convince people of that. That is the situation. They are kind of backed into a corner right now. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2000 PAGE 4 V. Earhart asked how many people work late? Right now you are using their lot during the daytime hours, if people are working late, will that interfere with the shared parking? Mr. Scruby stated that he understands what is being said. He stated that Big Brothers/Big Sisters have assured them that their hours are pretty much done at 6:00. He has no idea who would be coming in looking at the balance of this space. They are certainly going to try and keep it within the same time frame, but he doesn't know if that is going to be the case or not. Parking down there is really difficult. They have another 7000 feet there. Right now, if they can share with the Spiral, that is another 32 spaces and they have 12 or 14. They have also put a tremendous amount of money into this building and it has improved the area drastically. He would think that the neighbors would be happy about that. A. Frederick asked what the hours of operation of the Spiral Bar were? Mr. Scruby stated that the owner is here, but his understanding is Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday from 9:00 p.m. on. Mr. Tom Donall, 1247 Center St., owner of Spiral Bar, addressed the Board. He stated that the hours of operation are: 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Wednesday- Saturday; 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday. Everyone in that area is trying to work together to make the area happen to bring Old Town to a better place to come. The parking situation is really rough down there right now. Basically, they came to him and wanted to use the parking lot so that they can fill their space. He has always been there for anybody that has wanted to do any kind of improvements because they are all trying to work together to make the place come alive and come together. Besides that, it helps him out to keep the people off of the street if he can use the 14 spaces closer to his door. He thinks that it will work good for both of them where Mr. Scruby can fill his building and then he can also use those spaces too. Mr. Scott McClain, 1405 Center St., addressed the Board. He stated that he lives next door to the Spiral Bar. Currently, he is very familiar with the problems that are presented here. He is a job superintendent of a half million dollar restaurant going in at 719 Grand River-the Ramon's project. He is here tonight to tell the board that what he is really frustrated about in working with his clients and living next to the Spiral Bar, he is having problems with his parking there too. He is trying to figure out how the Board makes its decisions in allowing the bar to open with a parking lot that is 3 blocks away. They all raise their children in that neighborhood. The Board's decisions that they make at this table are so important. That this bar was able to be put in this location was a total nightmare in itself. They have nothing but total problems with people on weekends and Thursday nights parking in front of their homes. They raise their kids there. He can't even begin to tell the Board, this is non-neighborhood format. What his problem is on this issue is "Are you robbing Peter to pay Paul?". He knows that they have fixed up the building, but the neighborhood has had problems in that building in the past with parties called Waves which young kids have. V. Earhart asked him to specify which building he was talking about since there are two buildings there. Mr. McClain stated he is talking about the old Indian Center. They have had problems with parties being held there. Currently, regarding the parking situation, they have had meetings with Representative Martinez, meetings with the city. Nothing has been solved with the parking situation. It seems to get worse and worse. They are trying to live with them, but it is just a nightmare. He stated that they have had problems with both buildings. Maybe they are fixing it up and trying to bring it back to life, but here they are already having people parking in that parking lot every weekend. There was one police officer that wrote 42 tickets in one hour in front of both buildings two weekends ago. That is a lot of tickets in a residential neighborhood. What he is saying is that already people are parking in that parking lot. He doesn't see what this variance is going to do. Now he has built an outdoor bar- a patio. If he gets these spaces, is that going to allow him to open up his patio at the bar so that the neighbors can listen to all the noise and screaming at night? J. Sturdevant stated that Mr. Donal[ already has a permit for the patio. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2000 PAGE 6 Mr. McClain stated that he just wants whoever can solve the problems down there to work with the residents. He thinks that a lot of residents would be happy if Center St. was completely closed off so that nobody could drive down the street or park there. He stated that if the board lived there, they wouldn't put up with it. Something has to be done. This has gone on and on and they can't raise their families anymore there. When they moved in there, it was a nice, quite neighborhood. He realizes that things are changing, but it has to be at least livable. He asked the board to weigh their decision very closely. He doesn't think that a favorable decision will help because they already park there now. It is just a business deal. Something has to be done. If the board gets future zoning variances like this, please take into account the neighborhood, because the worst thing that happened in this whole case was when the bar was proposed, it got pushed through with the parking lot 3 blocks away from site and now a whole lot of people are miserable. The board's decisions are very important. E. Horne stated in order to set the record straight, it was not this board that made that decision. Mr. McClain stated that he was glad to hear that this board wouldn't have passed such a thing because now they are paying for it. Mr. Beverly Miller, 413 Pearl St., addressed the Board. She stated that when the notices were sent out for this meeting, the person next door to her got one. She stated that Scott didn't get one. If there is a reason for that, she doesn't know. J. Sturdevant stated that they could look in the file to see who the notices went to. Ms. Miller stated that she doesn't know who laid out the parking for the Indian Center for the 12 spaces, but they are very cramped. If you get some people out there who are drinking and get into their cars, they will be backing into each other. She stated that the board needs to see the parking lot to see what she means. It is very cramped. During the day, the businesses use the street parking. She sees no reason why that business can't do it too. People in the neighborhood don't mind it if they park in front of their houses during the day. It's the bar business at night that is a problem. Bar patrons are not the same as day patrons. They go to the bar to drink and get drunk or have a good time. Most of them get drunk. They come out of the bar late at night slamming doors, hollering and screaming. Two and a half years ago, Mr. Donall came to the board and asked the board for a variance then. Mr. Donall thinks a variance means that if he can get close enough to his number, the board will allow the rest of the customers to park on the street. Right now, all his patrons except for the 29 park on the street. He had valet service. The city said that if they are going to open their bar, they must use the valet service. He used it for a few months. Bar people will park as close to the bar as they can get-that's just the way it is. East Lansing has the same problem. You can't tote a bar person to the bar and then back. Only a few will do it. What that variance is going to do is to tell him "go ahead. He can still park on the street. Its OK. If the customers don't use it, its not our fault. If the customers do use it, more power to you." The reason why Mr. Donall needs the spots, and he should have told you that, was that a bar is not the same as any other business when it comes to parking. If he is zoned H-Light Industrial, he must have either H-Light Industrial parking, Heavy Industrial parking or J-parking. Those are the only three he can use. Now since next door is there, he can use that, but he also has to be under contract with it. He can't just park his patrons there. However, the other person can. The other business can park in his parking lot without a contract. But he has to be either the owner or he has to be under contract. J. Sturdevant stated that both businesses have to be under contract. Ms. Miller asked who both businesses have to be under contract. J. Sturdevant stated that it is because that is part of the requirements of shared parking. Ms. Miller stated that in order for Mr. Donal]to have his bar, he has to have (per Mr. Sturdevant) 86 spaces. The City of Lansing gave the bar 300 capacity. He should have one parking space for every 3 people. That is almost 100 parking spaces. He needs 99 parking spaces in reality, unless the board gives him a variance for less. If he opens the patio and increases his capacity, he will need more parking spaces. In the meantime, after 2 1/2 years, they end up at ground zero, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2000 PAGE 6 customers are still parking on their streets, in front of their homes, slamming their car doors, yelling and screaming. She stated that the board does have some power in the parking situation and could alleviate it for them by refusing this variance and making Mr. Donall park his customers in the lot that the city built. He needs to valet park and alleviate the pressure on the neighborhood. She stated that they did not infringe on Mr. Donall's business, he infringed on their neighborhood. Therefore, they are asking the board that if they do give him the 12 spaces, make it a requirement that he use all the spaces that are available to him. V. Earhart asked for clarification if Ms. Miller didn't mind the parking during the day, only had a problem with the parking at night? Ms. Miller stated that was correct. She does mind the parking at night in their neighborhood. V. Earhart stated that, yet she objects to a variance that would permit 12 spaces right next door to the restaurant to be used at night? Ms. Miller stated that they use the spaces anyway. She stated that she doesn't see this as the board giving him a variance; she sees this as the board saying "Its ok, go ahead and keep looking for parking spaces". He has the parking spaces. He doesn't need to look and he doesn't need those 12 spaces. It is because he knows that if his customers park next door to his bar, they will use his bar. If he has to tote them from a parking lot, then they will not come. Mr. Harold King, 1563 N. High St., addressed the Board. He stated that, at one time, he was on the Old Town Revitalization Committee. Back then, it was always discussed that parking in Old Town was a terrible thing with all the hopes they had of building and re-generating that area of the city. But he thinks that the history on this is quite important. He thinks that when you go into contracts knowing how some of those contracts have been handled in the past, guarantee to him that they are going to be handled that way in the future too. To begin with, Tom first had an agreement with the record company on the corner of Turner and Clinton. That fell through. Then he was working on an agreement with Ferguson and as he explained that in different meetings, some of the options with Mr. Ferguson was that Mr. Donall could park in Mr. Ferguson's parking lot at night and Mr. Ferguson would be able to use his bar for daytime parties and entertainment. But there are regulations on where bar patrons can park. He understands that was one of the reasons why that proposal didn't go any further. Then Mr. Donall was working with Comerica. The presentation given to them, he understands, wasn't exactly up to par. When Comerica discovered it was a bar going in and not a restaurant, then they withdrew their proposal that he use their customer parking down on Grand River and Center St. Then there was the deal worked with the city. There had to be a variance because he did not have the required parking spaces, but it was on the premise and understanding that valet parking would move the patrons from Spiral Bar down to the Fish Ladder and get their car and bring it back. He personally went down and counted cars in that parking lot. Eight was the most he ever saw out of the 57 spaces. One time, in Ellen Beal's committee, it was brought up in discussion. In that meeting, Mr. Donall stated that the neighbors have been nasty to him and he is not doing valet parking anymore. Ellen Beal reminded him that he needed to understand that this is not an option. He has an obligation to do valet parking. That was what his license was issued on and if he doesn't do it, then maybe the city needs to look at that. One of the things that he has heard tonight- Big Brothers/Big Sisters -he doesn't understand why they couldn't walk down to the city parking lot if they are there during daytime hours. It is a good exercise, but there was a comment that they might be working over. Now that would be a concern for him if he had a lady friend or knew someone who was walking those streets at night by themselves because it is not one of the better neighborhoods. It's improving - it's not what it used to be, but it still has a long ways to go. One of the neighborhood problems has been since the day the Spiral Bar opened up. If the board can imagine wall to wall people and bathroom facilities, there is one thing patrons don't do. They won't pay $5.00 or $25.00 cover so that they can stand in line to go to the bathroom. These streets and porches have been urination sites since the bar opened. He has seen female attire and male attire both using the streets as a public bathroom. He tried to film it, but the camera wouldn't work in that light. He wanted to film it to bring it down to City Council and say "This is what you are helping our neighborhoods do". It is only reasonable. The patrons are not going to pay those kind of covers and go in an entertainment place and stand in line for 40 minutes. That is just a number out of his BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2000 PAGE 7 head. He is very weary and cautious that these agreements would ever be followed through. If that patio is going in, Mr. Donall is going to move some of his parking spaces now. Is there provision that this is how he is going to make that difference up? They don't know. Is that a requirement? If it is, it is not mentioned in this paper as he read it and he thinks that is an important issue. We, just as a city, redeveloped Brenke Fish Ladder and they have several new businesses going in. But this city is under contract with Mr. Donall for those 57 spaces- $5.00 per space already done. These contracts not only have to be kept up, but he is going to start making an issue downtown because if he doesn't see those cars valet parked and people going back and forth, there is going to be an absolute public outcry because that is part of this licensing. He wants to know how that impacts this request tonight. Has this board heard anything about that expansion and loss of spaces? He feels that it is important that the board has more information than he does. Maybe it is not as important as he thinks it is. They do depend on the board for looking these situations over and coming to their conclusions based on the facts and how they are presented. Mr. Harold Leeman, Council member for 1 st ward, addressed the Board. He stated that he has followed this issue ever since he got on Council. His neighborhood is up there off of Center St. There is Beaver St., Pearl St. and Liberty. There is no question that without the follow through of the valet parking by Mr. Donall, it has hurt the neighborhood. Mr. Donall did start at the beginning when business opened, he did have that available. But he has discontinued that. The effects are, especially tonight, for some reason a lot of young people show up on Thursday night. From 10 p.m. to 2 a.m., these neighbors are facing a crisis regarding the amount of noise and cars and urination. He is frustrated as a Council member that Mr. Donall does not go out of his way to run the valet parking, to make sure that people do not park up in the neighborhood. It is not enforceable, but the signs are there. Dave Berridge put them up that say 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. - Neighborhood Parking Only". But of course, if you are from East Lansing and want to come to an event, they are not going to look at a sign that says that. But the signs were something to put out there to try and make sure visitors to the bar do not park there. Having said that, they were hoping that the valet parking was going to work. Even though he did not support it when it came in front of the Council, he has been trying to work with the neighbors and trying to get the owner to use the valet parking. Having said all this, it is true that the neighborhood has and continues to have a problem with parking on Center St. and the side streets- specifically Liberty and Pearl St. The individual that has renovated the old Boys &Girls Club, he has an interest in trying to have that business open and have the people that go there have a parking spot. He thinks that there is a balance that the board needs to look at and decide if that is needed. He asked Mr. Sturdevant what the history of the building was. He knows that the individual has put a lot of money into the building and now it is a late date in trying to assist him. V. Earhart stated that she is getting a lot of vibes that if she were an underage drinker and went and urinated on someone's lawn should be the reason that the Board says "No, you can't use the parking". Isn't there some other way of addressing an underage person drinking in a bar who urinates on neighbor's properties? She stated that it seems to her that they object to the on-street parking, but are also saying that you can't use the 12 spaces next door. It seems to her that this is a police problem, separate from a parking problem. Mr. Leeman stated that he remembers when the bar first opened, Mr. Donall went out of his way to try to make sure people didn't park in the neighborhood. They would have people at the door and people on Center St. and Clinton. He did his best to make sure people didn't park there and if they did to move the vehicle. He had the valet parking system going at that time. The bottom line is, if the people were not parking in the neighborhood, the kids would not be noisy, slamming the doors and urinating. It is a police concern. It is also a bar owner concern because of what he agreed to. Like he said, there may be more positives to letting this go through and have the parking go there. He thinks that the neighbors were just trying to relate a little history about the valet parking. If the valet parking has not been working for over a year, does the board recognize the whole issue of valet parking and does the board want to address it or not address it and just let the powers to be- the administration, the Council and Mr. Donall -work it out and try to start up the valet parking again. If the valet parking was working and the cars were not up in the neighborhood, the board would not hear the complaints which are very true. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2000 PAGE 8 A. Frederick stated that it was his understanding that the other building has been vacant for a while and that there were problems with parties in that building. He asked how denying this variance would help the neighborhood since it would be providing more parking spaces. Mr. Leeman stated that he supports the renovation, but doesn't want the attention to be diverted by the fact that the citizens would not be here tonight if the valet parking was being done. A. Frederick asked if Mr. Leeman would rather have the board deny the variance and leave the building vacant. Mr. Leeman stated that he thinks that where he is coming from is that the board give the variance, but if the board doesn't give the variance tonight- and they may want to look into some things about should the valet parking issue be addressed. A. Frederick stated that the board does not have enforcement power. Mr. Leeman stated that he understood that. He stated that he wanted to make sure that the Board knew the issue -the fact that the person that has the business next to the Spiral needs to get that occupied and he needs so many spaces using the Spiral. He doesn't think there is any problem with that issue when it comes to the fact that it is Monday through Friday daytime. He stated that he didn't know how many board members were here 2 '/z years ago when this issue was in front of the Board, but he wanted to make sure they knew the issues. He stated that if the Board approved this, it was fine. Hopefully, Mr. Donall will go out of his way to work with the neighborhood and get that valet parking system working. E. Horne asked that since the Council granted the permit, what were the stipulations in regards to valet parking? Mr. Leeman stated that to run a valet parking system was one stipulation. He stated that he repeatedly heard that the bar applicant had to follow through on that, but regarding enforcement, there wasn't much. J. Sturdevant stated that he couldn't comment on the liquor license, but Mr. Donall has met the zoning requirements. Mr. Leeman stated that the valet parking was working. He stated that he will hear by Monday more complaints from constituents regarding this and it needs to be resolved. B. Burgess invited Mr. Donall to address the Board again due to various complaints. Mr. Donal[ again addressed the Board. He stated that they tried the valet parking for several months and it wasn't working. It is free valet. It is what the city asked him to do, not something he had to do. He stated that he said he would do it and it wasn't a problem to do it, but it wasn't working. The kids just won't use it. The most cars ever parked there was 8 cars. He talked to the city and it was decided that it would be ok not to do that, but to have somebody outside on busy nights to control traffic, which they do. He stated that he will talk to Mr. Leeman after this meeting to explain some of this to him. He stated that Mr. Leeman never came to him to discuss any of these issues at all. He stated that he is there for the community. He owns 3 businesses in that community. He wants to see that area grow and see things happen. He is there and has been there for them. This is what has happened with the valet. If he can get the people closer to the bar in parking areas, that is fine. It's just that the area doesn't have a lot of parking right now. As far as Ferguson goes, the deal they had parking people in his lot just didn't work out for reasons and how he wanted to use his bar and what he wanted to do. It just didn't work out between them. Mr. Donall stated that he has tried other areas in there to use parking and they haven't been very successful, but he has tried. M. Clark stated that when he originally applied, they denied it because of lack of parking. The city gave the lot for him to use for parking and now he doesn't use the lot. She is confused by this. Mr. Donall stated that he does use the lot. The confusion is that the city needs to recognize the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2000 PAGE 9 parking problems in Old Town and they are going to have to work on more parking for people that want to come into the area. Two years ago, they lost 7 different businesses that wanted to come into the area. He has a lot invested in that area. He stated that the Council needs to realize that the parking problems need to be addressed. As business grows, you have to have more parking. It not just the owner's responsibility, but also the city's. General discussion regarding parking. B. Burgess asked if the patio would decrease existing parking at the bar? Mr. Donall stated that is a separate issue. They are trying to get more parking, that is all. He is trying to work with everyone involved in getting more parking and addressing these concerns. He stated that Mr. Leeman has never contacted him with any problems. He stated that this is the first he has heard of any of it. B. Burgess read correspondence into record signed by several neighbors. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that there is a practical difficulty in the original setbacks. Spiral's parking is not the real issue here. The vacant buildings do become problems. He stated that the variance will help some. He is prepared to support. M. Clark stated that she is not prepared to support at this time. She understands the need of parking for 1235 Center, but can't support because they don't know who the tenants will be. The board needs to know specific use. A. Frederick stated that they could put a condition on approval on hours of operation. The variance approval would not affect enforcement. M. Clark stated that she is prepared to table this until the tenant for 1235 Center is known. V. Earhart asked if this is an example of the chicken or the egg. She prefers a proviso on the variance to start. A. Frederick asked if the board has authority for conditions because of the wording of the ordinance. General discussion ensued regarding parking issues, enforcement issues and examples of other parking situations. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3573.00, 1235 & 1247 Center St. with parking sharing as specified in staff report. Friendly amendment stating that variance is invalid if either business hours overlap. Seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3573.00 has been approved. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2000 PAGE 10 C. BZA-3574.00, 2211 S. Cedar St. S. Quon presented the case. This is a request by Kirk McKinney, for a variance from the front yard setback requirement to permit the front canopy entrance at the Great Lakes Diner at 2211 S. Cedar Street to be 11 feet from the front (west) property line. Section 1268.06(b) of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that a canopy cannot be any closer than 12 feet from a front property line. This is, therefore, a request for a one foot variance. Mr. Kirk McKinney, Great Lakes Diner, addressed the Board. He reiterated what was presented in the staff report. He stated that he was unaware that the contractor never acquired a permit for the awning. They are requesting this variance due to the fact that they need some place for the patrons to wait. The covered area provides enough shelter from the wind, etc. for customers to wait for a table -to make the area smaller will defeat the purpose and really not work. He is asking for approval on this variance request. M. Clark asked why a permit was never applied for? Mr. McKinney stated that he was unaware that the contractor hadn't applied for a permit, but that is no reason. He stated that he is not very pleased with the contractor or satisfied with the canopy. A. Frederick stated that it is difficult for him to find any hardship here. The hardship was self induced either by the owner or the contractor. General discussion ensued regarding this. B. Burgess read correspondence into record. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that he could give this no support due to the fact that it sounds like the contractor caused the hardship. M. Clark stated that she agreed. They are trying to keep a certain visual appearance for Cedar St and have tried to hold to code. V. Earhart stated that it is unfortunate because it looks great. General discussion ensued. V. Earhart moved to deny BZA-3574.00, 2211 S. Cedar St. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3574.00 has been denied. D. BZA-3575 00 1214 E. Michigan Ave. J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Albert Kahn Associates, Inc., 7430 Second Avenue, Detroit, MI representing the owner, Sparrow Hospital to add a 1,438 sq. ft. addition to the north side of Sparrow Hospital at 1215 E. Michigan Ave. The proposed addition will house a second MRI unit, office, dressing room and patient holding room. This building is proposed to be 3'8" from the north (rear) property line. Section 1258.09 of the Zoning Code requires a 25' rear yard setback. Therefore, a variance of 21'4" is requested. Staff recommends approval. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2000 PAGE 11 Mr. Robert Walsh, Sparrow Hospital, addressed the Board. He presented all information in regards to the proposal for an addition to house a 2"d Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) unit, office, dressing room and patient holding room. He also explained the addition of a concrete pad built to support the portable "lithotripter"trailer which will visit the site on a monthly basis and stay for a week. Mr. Ira Ginsburg, Sparrow Hospital, addressed the Board. He explained how the trailer that was transporting the "lithotripter" would drop it off and pick it up. A. Frederick stated his concerns regarding parking and traffic congestion. Mr. Ginsburg explained that the actual process of hooking up and unhooking the trailer was not a long process and when the trailer is in place, it sets back enough to be completely out of the way. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she believes that this is a reasonable request. She commended Sparrow on working so well with the neighborhoods all this time. A. Frederick stated that he agrees. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3575.00, 1215 E. Michigan Ave. A friendly amendment from A. Frederick was added to redesign the curb cuts. Seconded by M. Clark. [VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X Burgess X Clark X -------------------- Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0, BZA-3575.00 has been approved. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch No change in status. B. BZA-3553 99 735 E. Michigan No change in status. C. BZA-3554 99 907 W. Saginaw St. No change in status. D. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar No change in status. E. Rules of Procedure No change in status. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of March 9, 2000_ V. Earhart moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by A. Frederick. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MCETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 2000 PAGE 12 VII. NEW BUSINESS None VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, A, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 03/23/00 Approved 04/13/00 To Clerk 04/14/00 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING r� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS rn ( MARCH 9, 2000, 7:30 P.M. --CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by B. Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Vice Chairman Burgess read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick B. Burgess V. Earhart R. McCloud Staff: L. Davis S. Quon J. Sturdevant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. G. Hilts has an excused absence, previously approved. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess stated that BZA-3532.99, 120 N. Washington, which is a withdrawal by the applicant needed to be added to "Old Business". V. Earhart moved to approve agenda. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3566.00, 917 E. Cavanaugh J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Mr. Alan Martin, Quality Dairy Company for a rear yard variance of 7' for their building located at 917 E. Cavanaugh Rd. This is on the corner of Cavanaugh and Pennsylvania. The store is oriented towards Pennsylvania Ave. The rear of the building faces towards the west or perpendicular to Cavanaugh Rd. He referred to the site plan and the board packet. Currently the building is approximately 25'from the rear yard or the west property line. There was an earlier addition to the back of the building that is 9' wide and has a setback of approximately 15 that is used as an enclosure for bottle storage. The applicant is requesting the variance of 7'for a smaller enclosure that is located behind the bottle storage enclosure be approved. This is to house compressors for the air conditioning. Then it would only have an 18' setback from that west property line. As far as the history of the property, it used to be a gas station and was later converted into a Quality Dairy store for retail use. As far as a practical difficulty or hardship, the layout of the store and the rear yard on the west side make it the most logical location for them to put their compressor equipment. If the variance isn't granted, the applicant would have to move the compressor to the roof of the building. Because of adjacent apartment buildings that overlook this building, staff felt that having them look over the additional compressor equipment on the roof would not be as good as being able to put it down on the ground and enclosing it in a soundproof structure. As far as its impact on vehicular or pedestrian traffic or on the future development patterns of the area, staff doesn't see it really having any significant impact. It is a small addition to the building - only about 5'xT. A. Frederick stated that in his neighborhood there are several air conditioning compressors for residential air conditioning that are not enclosed. Is there any restriction BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 2 on where they can be placed? It seems to him that they are put in the most convenient place for them and don't really take into account any property lines or anything like that. He doesn't see any problem with that, but they are not enclosed, so they are not a building. Could this installation be done that way if no enclosure was built? Could they just put the compressor out there? J. Sturdevant stated that they could or they could just put it on the roof. But they wanted to enclose it to protect it and also to insulate the sound that it would make due to the fact that it is adjacent to an apartment building and another single family home. A. Frederick stated that really to enable them to make something more attractive for something that they could do anyway, they have to come and ask the board for a variance. J. Sturdevant stated that was correct. J. Sturdevant stated that he wanted to add one thing to the report. Because of the nature of the area - it is behind what they use for storing their bottles- it is kind of shielded from view from the street. Because of that, it is somewhat of an attractive nuisance. It doesn't have anything to do with the actual compressor housing itself. But it has to do with that back corner of the store. In staff's check of the site, there was some evidence of some vagrants loitering there. He would recommend, along with the approval of the variance, that as a condition either extra lighting be put back there to discourage vagrants from loitering back there or that it be gated off to discourage that as well. He thinks that would add to the security of the neighborhood. Mr. Alan Martin, Quality Dairy, addressed the Board. He stated that they put an addition onto that building about 10 years ago. They remodeled and built the addition in 1974. They have been on that corner for a long time. They have received very few complaints from the neighbors. They want to be a good listener and a good neighbor and corporate citizen. They are quite significantly different than some of their other stores that are in the older parts of town. It is pretty quiet in that neighborhood. It is a little surprise to hear about the attractive nuisance, but they are not in favor of that and would like to counteract it in any way they can. As far as the reason for it, it really has a lot to do with the refrigeration of the cooler and the ice cream freezers. What are they proposing to do is a split system were the compressors will be on the ground in this enclosure and the coils that let off the heat will be on the roof as opposed to a situation now where all the compressors and the coils are on the roof. They feel that this is more efficient, quieter and easier to maintain and generally an improvement to the operation of the store. For that reason, he would like to ask the board's indulgence. V. Earhart stated that there is a shack or something like that on the roof now. Will that be removed? Mr. Martin stated that it would be removed and another one put in its place which will be smaller because all they are trying to do is get rid of the heat. M. Clark asked about being aware of the problem, which is obvious looking at the site plan that area is a problem in the back due to the secluded corner, is fencing that area off a feasibility? Mr. Martin stated that security fences are fine. Fences that block vision are not good. As far as doing it, it can be done. There is a dumpster back there. He doesn't know if a fence will discourage what J. Sturdevant is talking about or whether lighting would be more adequate. His thinking is because he has neighbors and apartments with cars, he leans towards lighting as a solution. He stated that they put lights in the back of their stores now anyway. M. Clark asked if that area was lit now. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, Z000 PAGE 3 Mr. Martin stated that he thinks that the southwest corner is lit where the back door is. He doesn't think that the northwest corner has any lighting on it. He stated that the neighbors don't have any fences either. He would lean towards lighting as a solution. B. Burgess read communication into record from R. Bruce Carruthers &Associates, P.C. They have no objections to this request. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that the site plan indicates that there is an existing fence back in that northwest corner of the property. What kind of fence is it? J. Sturdevant stated that is a wood privacy fence. M. Clark asked if it belonged to Quality Dairy or the apartments? J. Sturdevant stated that fence is on Quality Dairy's property. He stated that it is very secluded back there because of those fences too. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3566.00, 917 E. Cavanaugh, a request for a 7' variance for an addition to house a compressor subject to the addition being made noise proof to reduce any generation of noise from the compressor and subject to the addition of security lighting that will not glare into the adjoining property. Seconded by V. Earhart. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. BZA-3566.00, 917 E. Cavanaugh has been approved with conditions. B. BZA-3567.00, VOIDED C. BZA-3568.00, 2575 Oxford J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Charles Abraham for a variance in the square footage of an attached garage. The request is for 913 square feet which is a variance of approximately 193 square feet in the size of the garage. The Zoning Code permits a garage of only 720 square feet on a lot greater than 5,000 square feet in size. Currently, it is a new home under construction. It is zoned A-Residential. All of the surrounding property is residentially zoned. It is across from Francis Park which is located on the other side of the street to the west. The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan 1990 designates the land use as residential for this area. The home that Mr. Abraham is building is in excess of 3,400 square feet total size. He is requesting this so that he can have a 3-car garage to go along with that large home. The maximum floor area of a private garage in the A-Residential District is limited to 720 square feet by the code. The maximum square footage of accessory buildings all together is limited to 1,000 square feet. So this proposal falls in between those two limits. It is bigger than 720 square feet and smaller than 1,000 square feet. In regards to practical difficulty or hardship, a lot of it has to do with the scale of the house in general and the development of other houses in that neighborhood. The A-Residential zone allows a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. This lot is over 25,000 square feet. Obviously a 3,400 square foot house is much larger than the average in Lansing. It is a neighborhood of large single family homes throughout. In the past, this Board has approved variances that have been somewhat similar for other homes in the neighborhood. He referred to BZA- 3393.96 which was for the Jeffrey's residence at 3229 Cambridge Rd. They had a variance for a garage of 1,012 square feet. BZA-3334.95 was for the Horani residence. That was a much larger garage that was requested, but a much smaller one that was approved, but still somewhat greater than the 720 square feet. Also, on Cambridge Rd. just'/z block over from the applicant's property, a variance was approved in 1999 for 108 square feet of extra square footage of an attached garage with a new construction of that home at 1405 Cambridge. In addition, there was one house on Oakmont Court, which is in the condominium area down Moores River Dr. about 'h mile that was approved for another 100 square feet or so in that garage. So, there is precedent for these large lots with large houses with attached garages to allow them to go a little bit bigger, but not BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 4 significantly bigger in terms of size. In terms of its impact on traffic patterns and circulation, none is anticipated. The same with the environmental features or with the local land use patterns. This is an area with larger houses and the request tends to be consistent with that. Because the design of the garage in integrated into the house combining the garage and accessory structures, basically all as one unit- because there are no other anticipated adverse impacts, staff has recommended approval of the request. Mr. Chuck Abraham, homeowner, addressed the Board. He stated that it is a side- loading garage. He feels that they are making a sizable investment into the home and a 3-car garage in most areas is quite common right now. He thought that the value of the home would increase. Most of the homes of that size might have 2 or 3 vehicles in there. He just wants to have that availability now or down the line if, 10 or 15 years down the line he ever sold it, it would add to the value of the property. Plus, he needs that much room in his garage because he needs the doors wider than normal. He increased the size of the 8'doors a little bit. The garage can't be seen from the front of the street. He referred to the plans of the property. It is for convenience and to keep with the properties around there. His builder also recommended that he build a 3-car garage as well. M. Clark asked if it was set up with two doors? Are they wide enough to make it a 3-car garage? Mr. Abraham stated that there is a 12' and a 16' door. A. Frederick asked that even though by code there could still be a small accessory structure, would the applicant have any objections if that were a condition of approval that the applicant wouldn't be allowed to build another accessory structure? Mr. Abraham stated that he thought that if he did do a pool, there might be a small building on the outside. But he doesn't know how big it would be, but it would need to be accessible. He would prefer to leave that option open if feasible. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she would like to observe that this is another one of those cases where there is a big lot and a desire for a garage that is larger than what the code provides for. It is another one of those cases that needs to get over to Planning for consideration and for additional information when they are looking at possible code revisions or areas of problems. A. Frederick stated that he recalled two of the cases that staff mentioned. He believed that in one, the applicant agreed before he made the presentation, that he would build no additional structures. The other one was a condominium. He was prohibited from putting an accessory structure anywhere on the property anyway and that was part of his justification for getting a little extra square footage, although it wasn't something that the Board was able to address since it was a rule of the Condominium Association. It still allowed for the approval of it with the expectation that no accessory structures would be built. But he can understand the applicant's desire for at least a small structure for a pool to keep equipment and a pump for heating of the water, etc. He is not sure how big an 87 square foot accessory structure would be. General discussion ensued as to the size of the accessory structure and what was feasible for it. A. Frederick stated that a pool was certainly an amenity that he would expect to see with a house such as this. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3568.00, 2575 Oxford, a request of a variance of 193 square feet of additional garage or storage space. Seconded by R. McCloud. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. BZA-3568.00, 2575 Oxford has been approved. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 5 D. BZA-3569.00, 920 Townsend Sam Quon presented the case. This is a request by Rick Alfaro, Alstrom's Paint Finishing, on behalf of General Motors to install a 135' high central exhaust stack as part of GM's Lansing/Grand River Assembly Plant. The property is zoned [-Heavy Industrial and currently the plant is in the construction stage. Land use surrounding the property is primarily manufacturing and parking lot. The surrounding zoning is heavy industrial and J-parking. The 1990 River Island Comprehensive Plan recommends continuing industrial use at this location. The section of the code which this variance is being requested is Section 1276.09 of the Zoning Code which does not allow any structures to exceed a height of 120' in the I-Heavy Industrial district. There are four standards which need to be met when evaluating a variance request. The first one is- Is there a practical difficulty or hardship? A practical difficulty does exist because the Department of Environmental Quality requires that exhaust stacks within 200' of any fresh air intake to be located at least 20' above the air intake. The reason for the height of 135' is to allow the emissions from the stack to disburse into the air before it goes beyond the property line for air quality standards. The next criteria that needs to be evaluated is the location, size and character- Is it harmonious with the surroundings? The proposed 135' exhaust stack would be located entirely within the GM property which meets all the setback requirements. The applicant has removed an existing 200'tower previously located in the general area. This facility is also located near the Board of Water& Light towers which are 625' high. This would be compatible with the surrounding character of the facility. The next criteria is- Will this generate any impact on vehicular or pedestrian circulation? Staff does not anticipate any impact from this proposal. The next criteria is - Will there be any impact on the environment? The reason for the height of the stack is to mitigate any type of environmental impact that can potentially occur with a lower stack. Basically, this addresses any emissions that might come out of the paint facility. The next consideration is the future land use pattern. The approval of the height variance for this exhaust stack is not anticipated to impact any future development in this area. Staff recommends approval of this request for a height variance of 15' for the exhaust stack for the new assembly plant with the condition that no other structures exceed 120' in height at the site. Mr. Rick Alfaro, Alstrom Paint Finishing, addressed the Board. He referred to a drawing he prepared for the Board to show how high the exhaust stack would be. He stated that the nature of the stack is that you won't be able to tell that it is an exhaust stack. It will be clad in the same finish as the rest of the building. The size of the stack is 12'x20' - it is a rectangular stack. The issue of the air intake is to guarantee that fresh air is brought into the building and is no where near the exhaust that is going out. Mr. Bill Frank, GM project engineer, addressed the Board. He recommends approval of this request. He stated that there are no other structures on site that have plans to go over the 120' elevation at this time. As they move further down the road, he assumes there would be the option to come back and re-visit that from a planning perspective. It will have the same siding as the rest of the building, so it will blend right in with its surroundings. From an eye perspective, it is 135', but compared to the way 1-496 dips down, you can barely see the crane that is there right now. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she believes that this is a reasonable request. She sees no problem with granting this variance. M. Clark moved to approve BZA-3569.00, 920 Townsend, a height variance of 15'with the condition that no other structures exceed the 120' limits on the site. Seconded by E. Horne. A. Frederick stated that this is clearly a practical difficulty when there is a conflict with the City code and the requirements of state DEQ. He suggests that Planning staff take note of this that there might be an opportunity for modification of the Zoning Code to take something like this into account. It is certainly BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 6 there with the intent of protecting the safety of the inhabitants of that building. V. Earhart stated that, for general purposes, is that she thinks that the last statement that was made regarding the mitigation of environmental problems would be something that is valuable to put in the report itself. The fact that there aren't any negative environmentals is something the Board needs to know. But when there's actually a positive result of a modification being made such as the mitigation that is pointed out, she thinks that needs to be in the report. General discussed ensued regarding mitigation benefits, etc. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. BZA-3569.00, 920 Townsend has been approved with condition. E. BZA-3570.00, 1317 N. Jenison Sam Quon presented the case. Mr. Forbush wishes to erect a 1,000 square foot detached building which will consist of a 450 square foot garage and a 550 square foot woodworking hobby shop. Section 1248.03(b) of the Zoning Code allows up to 720 square feet of garage area and a maximum of 1,000 square foot for all accessory structures. Additionally, paragraph 6 specifies that the floor area of additions and structures attached to a private garage including but not limited to covered patios, decks, storage areas and carports, shall be included in calculating the total allowable area of that garage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for 280 square feet of additional garage area. The property is in the A-Residential zone. It is a single family house. The surrounding land use is primarily single family with an additional two family residential to the east. The surrounding zoning is A-Residential, with A, B and C- Residential to the east. The River Island Comprehensive Plan of 1990 designates the land use as low density residential 0 to 6 dwelling units per acre. Section 1240.06(c)1-4 of the Zoning Code requires that four criteria and standards be evaluated when evaluating a variance request. One- does a practical difficulty or hardship exist? In this case, no practical difficulty exists. The applicant would be able to construct two detached accessory structures up to 1,000 square feet in the rear yard by code. Additionally, the applicant wants enough room in the back so he is able to park his motor home in the rear. He referred to the site plan attached to the board packet. The next criteria for evaluation is location, size and character. The proposed combined 1,000 square foot accessory structure would be located entirely on the property and meet all the setbacks. However, most of the homes in the area have attached garages or single and two-car detached garages with no additional accessory structures. Combining the hobby shop and garage space for 1,000 square foot structure would not be in character with the surrounding neighborhood. The ground area of the house is 1,046.5 square feet. The detached garage covers almost as much area. Even though a complete and to scale site plan has not been submitted, the code will limit the property to only 2,290 square feet of driveway area due to the lot coverage restriction within the code. Considering the applicant's desire not to back out of the driveway and the additional driveway area necessary for a turnaround and the mobile home, this could easily be exceeded. Forty percent of the lot can be covered by structure, but the total lot area is not allowed to be covered by more than 55% of hard surface or non-permeable areas. The next criteria is impact on vehicular or pedestrian circulation. No additional impact is anticipated from this proposal. As to the impact on environmental feature,there is a potential for environmental impact resulting from this project. Woodworking tools such as band saws, sanders, drills, etc. may be operated late in the evening or in the early morning which can generate noise that can filter into adjacent properties. Additionally, there is an elevation difference on the property from where the house is located to the rear yard of approximately 7Y2 '. There has been a history of water accumulating in the back. If this structure was constructed, the area would need to be filled in and this would displace water onto adjacent properties. As to future land use patterns, the approval of this garage will impact future development patterns in this area as it will set a precedence for large accessory structures in this area. Other information, the applicant feels that two separate buildings constructed on the lot with the required rear, side and front yard setbacks would not accommodate room to maneuver and park two family cars, a 30' long motor home, a full size pickup truck and one additional automobile. The BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 7 applicant currently intends to use the woodworking hobby shop for non-commercial purposes. However, if the applicant wished to have the woodworking as a home occupation in the future, it would not be allowed in a detached structure under the current code. Also, the combined building allows the applicant to provide a storage area in the attic of the garage that would be difficult to achieve if the two structures were detached. Staff recommends against approval of this request for a variance to construct a 1,000 square foot detached garage which also will house a hobby shop. Mr. Henry Forbush, 1317 N. Jenison, addressed the Board. He stated that if the Board was looking at a mortgage report site plan, he already told the committee when he applied for the variance that was not drawn to scale and shows a misconception of the size area that the building would cover on the property. He stated that he submitted drawings that were to scale showing the size of the building. He stated that he does have a hardship. In fact, he has five areas of hardship. He has a limited sight distance. He has a cap on the back of his pickup and between that and the neighbor's shrubs bordering the north side of his drive, a blind spot is created when backing out. He cannot see children on the sidewalk through the back of his pickup truck. So he must drive out forward which means that I must have room to turn around in his back yard. He stated that he has searched for another way around that, but couldn't find one. He further stated that splitting the building does not allow enough room to park a 30' motor home and have maneuvering room for a pickup truck and a family car which is what he owns. On the drawings that he submitted that are to scale, it shows that splitting the building, there is not enough maneuvering room for a turnaround. Also the scaled out drawings that he has submitted show that placing the building any other way on the property doesn't allow sufficient room for maneuvering. His wife, who is a licensed appraiser agrees with him that connecting the proposed building to their home will take away from the value of the property simply because the only place to connect the two is on a wall where there are windows above their kitchen sink. It would not be aesthetically friendly to the neighborhood. He also stated that a building of smaller size would not house all of his hobby equipment and still leave room for the use of it. His equipment would not be used between the hours of 5 p.m. and 8 am which would have more effect on the neighborhood. Also the building would be insulated for sound and for warmth. So, it would not be environmentally unfriendly to the neighborhood. The way the building was designed, with a center wall being the bearing wall, it can't be altered to create more space, either for parking or for hobby shop. It's not like he could turn it into a cabinet shop or anything else. That is not his intention. He stated that the city is in no danger of him using the building for any commercial endeavor or for any purpose other than stated. There are other ordinances already in place protecting the city from that. In conclusion, he has photos of other structures in the neighborhood that are of the same approximate size. Some of the structures in the neighborhood that are of the same size that he is proposing are as large or larger than the homes that they serve. He has photos of this. He also has two photos of a residential property within Lansing where the building is twice the size that he is proposing to build and it is on residential property and a driveway goes to it. M. Clark asked if the building would be heated? Mr. Forbush stated that it would be heated. V. Earhart stated that she doesn't understand the scale drawing. Mr. Forbush explained the drawings that were submitted to the Board. B. Burgess read correspondence into the record pertaining to this case. In a petition form, the neighbors that signed it (7 total) are in favor of this planned improvement. He also read another correspondence into the record from the property owner at 1313 N. Jenison stating that he is in favor of this request as well. A. Frederick stated that he had a question for staff. He asked if staff had an opportunity to look at the photographs that Mr. Forbush has in regards to the other properties? BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 8 S. Quon stated that he had not had a chance to do the research. He doesn't believe that Susan Cantlon, who did the report on this case, had a chance to research the photos either. V. Earhart asked how long a driveway has to be? S. Quon/J. Sturdevant stated that a driveway needs to be 12'wide maximum or the width of the garage approach. General discussion ensued regarding circulation on the lot, number of driveways, front yard parking, etc. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she has several concerns about this appeal. She thinks that it is important that the Board not create problems in the future when they are taking action. She thinks that it is also important that they are aware of possible repercussions of things today. One of the things that she is concerned about with this property because of the difference in grade from the front to the rear currently, if it is filled in, that water will go somewhere. If it is going to be paved, the water will go somewhere. Unless some provisions are being made for capturing that water, it is going to drain on the neighbors property. She is also concerned that while the applicant's intentions are to use this as a hobby shop and garage, etc., the problem is that if the Board grants the variance, they are creating a structure that is going to be there forever. Who knows what the next owner of the property might decide to use. Some of the discussion that happened when the code was being written and the reason that the garage sizes were limited the way they were was because Lansing was plagued with a number of home occupations that were negative for neighborhoods- body shops, repair shops, things that were generating noise, fumes, etc., that were problems for the neighborhoods. So one of the ways that was designed to help the city control that kind of thing was to control the size of the garages and the potential for that kind of use. When you are creating a building that is heated and that is the size that you are requesting, it's ideal for that kind of use in the future even though that's not the original intent. Another thing that concerns her about this appeal is that while they don't have anything definite, it would appear that when you talk about having a turnaround area, etc., the lot area coverage would be exceeded. Again, one of the reasons that the city created a limitation on lot area coverage was because of drainage and because of desire to have green space and shrubbery and things like that to soften neighborhoods. In older neighborhoods with small lots, it is very easy to pave the entire neighborhood. It becomes a very difficult living situation for everyone. She sees a number of things that could potentially happen here that would not be a positive development for surrounding neighbors. A. Frederick stated that in the interest of precedence regarding future land use, in the October meeting, the Board addressed a request that was almost identical to this one - BZA-3555.99. This was a request for a variance for additional square footage accessory structure and garage so that the applicant could more easily park his motor home. There were a couple of comments in discussion that the practical difficulty was self imposed in this case and that the motor home could be stored off site. It wasn't the property that was causing a problem. He stated that he will have to remain consistent in his decision and not support the request for this variance. M. Clark moved to deny BZA-3570.00, 1317 N. Jenison. Seconded by A. Frederick. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. BZA-3570.00, 1317 N. Jenison has been denied. F. BZA-3571.00, 3003 E. Michigan Ave. J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request for a variance in the front yard setback for a building in the F-Commercial district. It is the Staples store at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Homer St. He referred to the staff report and site plan and explained it. He stated that the property is in the flood plain - Red Cedar River. In addition to the setback issue, they also have to receive a Special Land Use permit, but that is a separate issue from what is being looked at now. The property is zoned commercial. Adjacent properties are all commercial except to the west which is unzoned BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 9 because it is part of the right of way for 1-127. It doesn't impact anything in terms of residential property or even other commercial development. Homer St. is the side street and Michigan Avenue is the main circulation route. He stated that there is adequate parking on the property to accommodate the expansion and square footage of the building. V. Earhart asked that in addition to what the applicant is proposing as additions, they are going to have to relocate the curb cuts, etc. E. Horne asked if they will have to get permits to do that. J. Sturdevant stated that was correct. General questions ensued regarding the site plan and who owned certain parking areas. Mr. Tony Gentilozzi, Gentilozzi Real Estate, addressed the Board on behalf of the owner of the property, Shaheen Properties, LLC. He answered questions that the Board had in regards to parts of the site plan itself. He stated that Frandor went through a renovation and expansion. Staples primary competitor has relocated on site at Frandor and has significantly impacted the Staples sale at this store between 35-40% so far. The current Staples store is approximately 5,000 to 8,000 square feet less than a proto-typical store that they would build today in order to compete with their competition which is relatively new in the last 5-6 years. They feel a compelling need in order to remain in that location to increase their size. They wanted to go larger, but felt that wasn't plausible in the long- term situation. This was the minimum amount that they felt they could do to expand and add more product line to the store. They only have about 21/2 years left on their lease agreement. Quite truthfully, if this doesn't work, they will pick up and go out east. Though it is a good corner and provides a necessary service, particularly to the downtown right now, it is not a developer's grab to expand the building and increase their net income. Quite truthfully, Staples will be building this out of pocket because they will not extend their lease. It doesn't make sense for the developer to put the capital into expanding the store. Essentially, they are getting it for a very nominal fee. It is not motivation for the owner to increase his income stream over there and perhaps enhance his yield. It is more of an effort, at this point, to accommodate Staples in every way possible to allow them to effectively compete with their new found competition who is very close. It is a tough site and he hates to sit before the Board asking for a variance at all. He doesn't like variances personally. He has a degree in Urban Planning and understands that these are to be handed out under special conditions. In this particular instance, a substantial part of the building is non-conforming to the current code in that it was constructed before the setback was adopted by the city. He believes that this is truly one instance where a variance will not have a material effect on the surrounding property and, for that matter, have a negative effect in any substantial way. Quite truthfully, MDOT is happy to get the curb cut pushed down a little further from the intersection. At least, that is what he has been told. He just wanted to explain their motivation. It is not a profit center, it is trying to keep another business in that area and allow them to effectively compete. J. Sturdevant stated that staff recommends approval of the front yard setback because they don't see any adverse effects to it. The hardship is the established building setback. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark moved to approve BZA-3571.00, 3003 E. Michigan Ave., a variance of 19'. Seconded by V. Earhart. M. Clark stated that is contingent on the approval of the Special Land Use and it is based on the fact that this seems to be a reasonable use of the property without negative impacts. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 10 A. Frederick stated as a point of interest that the Special Land Use has not yet come before the Planning Board. E. Horne stated that she would like the amount of square footage of the addition (533 square feet)to be included in the motion. Both the maker and supporter of the motion agreed to the friendly amendment to the motion. On a roll call vote,there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. BZA-3571.00, 3003 E. Michigan Ave. has been approved. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch No change in status. B. BZA-3532 99 120 S.Washington Sq. (withdrawn by applicant) E. Horne moved to remove BZA-3532.99, 120 S.Washington Sq.,from the table. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to remove from table. V. Earhart moved to accept withdrawal of BZA-3532.99, 120 S.Washington Sq. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to accept withdrawal. C. BZA-3553.99 735 E. Michigan A. Frederick moved to remove BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan from the table. Seconded by V. Earhart. B. Burgess read letter from applicant dated October 1999 which turned out to be original letter sent by applicant- not withdrawal letter. General discussion ensued regarding letter and requirements/clarification regarding parking spaces and proposal/intentions of applicant. General discussion ensued regarding accepting the withdrawal. L. Davis reminded the Board that a motion was on the table to remove this case from the table. The board decided to deny the motion to take it off the table. This case is left on the table at this time. D. BZA-3554.99 907 W. Saginaw St. No change in status. E. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar No change in status. F. Rules of Procedure L. Davis stated that J. Ruff is still awaiting answer from the City Attorney's office. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of February 10, 2000 E. Horne stated that on page 5, BZA-3565.00, 1000 Brad St., on the vote it has to be a roll call vote, not unanimous voice vote. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 11 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes with the above mentioned corrections. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS None Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jim uff, Zoning dministrator Draft to Clerk 03/23/00 Approved To Clerk =r)MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING G' NIf:' 24 Phi I: 4 1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MARCH 9, 2000, 7:30 P.M. CITY GObNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by B. Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Vice Chairman Burgess read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick B. Burgess V. Earhart R. McCloud Staff: L. Davis S. Quon J. Sturdevant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. G. Hilts has an excused absence, previously approved. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess stated that BZA-3532.99, 120 N. Washington, which is a withdrawal by the applicant needed to be added to "Old Business". V. Earhart moved to approve agenda. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve agenda. I11. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3566.00, 917 E. Cavanaugh J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Mr. Alan Martin, Quality Dairy Company for a rear yard variance of 7' for their building located at 917 E. Cavanaugh Rd. This is on the corner of Cavanaugh and Pennsylvania. The store is oriented towards Pennsylvania Ave. The rear of the building faces towards the west or perpendicular to Cavanaugh Rd. He referred to the site plan and the board packet. Currently the building is approximately 25'from the rear yard or the west property line. There was an earlier addition to the back of the building that is 9'wide and has a setback of approximately 15'that is used as an enclosure for bottle storage. The applicant is requesting the variance of T for a smaller enclosure that is located behind the bottle storage enclosure be approved. This is to house compressors for the air conditioning. Then it would only have an 18' setback from that west property line. As far as the history of the property, it used to be a gas station and was later converted into a Quality Dairy store for retail use. As far as a practical difficulty or hardship, the layout of the store and the rear yard on the west side make it the most logical location for them to put their compressor equipment. If the variance isn't granted, the applicant would have to move the compressor to the roof of the building. Because of adjacent apartment buildings that overlook this building, staff felt that having them look over the additional compressor equipment on the roof would not be as good as being able to put it down on the ground and enclosing it in a soundproof structure. As far as its impact on vehicular or pedestrian traffic or on the future development patterns of the area, staff doesn't see it really having any significant impact. It is a small addition to the building - only about 5'xT. A. Frederick stated that in his neighborhood there are several air conditioning compressors for residential air conditioning that are not enclosed. Is there any restriction Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 2 on where they can be placed? It seems to him that they are put in the most convenient place for them and don't really take into account any property lines or anything like that. He doesn't see any problem with that, but they are not enclosed, so they are not a building. Could this installation be done that way if no enclosure was built? Could they just put the compressor out there? J. Sturdevant stated that they could or they could just put it on the roof. But they wanted to enclose it to protect it and also to insulate the sound that it would make due to the fact that it is adjacent to an apartment building and another single family home. A. Frederick stated that really to enable them to make something more attractive for something that they could do anyway, they have to come and ask the board for a variance. J. Sturdevant stated that was correct. J. Sturdevant stated that he wanted to add one thing to the report. Because of the nature of the area - it is behind what they use for storing their bottles- it is kind of shielded from view from the street. Because of that, it is somewhat of an attractive nuisance. It doesn't have anything to do with the actual compressor housing itself. But it has to do with that back corner of the store. In staff's check of the site, there was some evidence of some vagrants loitering there. He would recommend, along with the approval of the variance, that as a condition either extra lighting be put back there to discourage vagrants from loitering back there or that it be gated off to discourage that as well. He thinks that would add to the security of the neighborhood. Mr. Alan Martin, Quality Dairy, addressed the Board. He stated that they put an addition onto that building about 10 years ago. They remodeled and built the addition in 1974. They have been on that corner for a long time. They have received very few complaints from the neighbors. They want to be a good listener and a good neighbor and corporate citizen. They are quite significantly different than some of their other stores that are in the older parts of town. It is pretty quiet in that neighborhood. It is a little surprise to hear about the attractive nuisance, but they are not in favor of that and would like to counteract it in any way they can. As far as the reason for it, it really has a lot to do with the refrigeration of the cooler and the ice cream freezers. What are they proposing to do is a split system were the compressors will be on the ground in this enclosure and the coils that let off the heat will be on the roof as opposed to a situation now where all the compressors and the coils are on the roof. They feel that this is more efficient, quieter and easier to maintain and generally an improvement to the operation of the store. For that reason, he would like to ask the board's indulgence. V. Earhart stated that there is a shack or something like that on the roof now. Will that be removed? Mr. Martin stated that it would be removed and another one put in its place which will be smaller because all they are trying to do is get rid of the heat. M. Clark asked about being aware of the problem, which is obvious looking at the site plan that area is a problem in the back due to the secluded corner, is fencing that area off a feasibility? Mr. Martin stated that security fences are fine. Fences that block vision are not good. As far as doing it, it can be done. There is a dumpster back there. He doesn't know if a fence will discourage what J. Sturdevant is talking about or whether lighting would be more adequate. His thinking is because he has neighbors and apartments with cars, he leans towards lighting as a solution. He stated that they put lights in the back of their stores now anyway. Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 3 M. Clark asked if that area was lit now. Mr. Martin stated that he thinks that the southwest corner is lit where the back door is. He doesn't think that the northwest corner has any lighting on it. He stated that the neighbors don't have any fences either. He would lean towards lighting as a solution. B. Burgess read communication into record from R. Bruce Carruthers&Associates, P.C. They have no objections to this request. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that the site plan indicates that there is an existing fence back in that northwest corner of the property. What kind of fence is it? J. Sturdevant stated that is a wood privacy fence. M. Clark asked if it belonged to Quality Dairy or the apartments? J. Sturdevant stated that fence is on Quality Dairy's property. He stated that it is very secluded back there because of those fences too. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3566.00, 917 E. Cavanaugh, a request for a 7' variance for an addition to house a compressor subject to the addition being made noise proof to reduce any generation of noise from the compressor and subject to the addition of security lighting that will not glare into the adjoining property. Seconded by V. Earhart. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. BZA-3566.00, 917 E. Cavanaugh has been approved with conditions. B. BZA-3567.00, VOIDED C. BZA-3568.00, 2575 Oxford J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request by Charles Abraham for a variance in the square footage of an attached garage. The request is for 913 square feet which is a variance of approximately 193 square feet in the size of the garage. The Zoning Code permits a garage of only 720 square feet on a lot greater than 5,000 square feet in size. Currently, it is a new home under construction. It is zoned A-Residential. All of the surrounding property is residentially zoned. It is across from Francis Park which is located on the other side of the street to the west. The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan 1990 designates the land use as residential for this area. The home that Mr. Abraham is building is in excess of 3,400 square feet total size. He is requesting this so that he can have a 3-car garage to go along with that large home. The maximum floor area of a private garage in the A-Residential District is limited to 720 square feet by the code. The maximum square footage of accessory buildings all together is limited to 1,000 square feet. So this proposal falls in between those two limits. It is bigger than 720 square feet and smaller than 1,000 square feet. In regards to practical difficulty or hardship, a lot of it has to do with the scale of the house in general and the development of other houses in that neighborhood. The A-Residential zone allows a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. This lot is over 25,000 square feet. Obviously a 3,400 square foot house is much larger than the average in Lansing. It is a neighborhood of large single family homes throughout. In the past, this Board has approved variances that have been somewhat similar for other homes in the neighborhood. He referred to BZA- 3393.96 which was for the Jeffrey's residence at 3229 Cambridge Rd. They had a variance for a garage of 1,012 square feet. BZA-3334.95 was for the Horani residence. That was a much larger garage that was requested, but a much smaller one that was approved, but still somewhat greater than the 720 square feet. Also, on Cambridge Rd. just '/2 block over from the applicant's property, a variance was approved in 1999 for 108 square feet of extra square footage of an attached garage with a new construction of that home at 1405 Cambridge. In addition, there was one house on Oakmont Court, which is Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 4 in the condominium area down Moores River Dr. about'/2 mile that was approved for another 100 square feet or so in that garage. So, there is precedent for these large lots with large houses with attached garages to allow them to go a little bit bigger, but not significantly bigger in terms of size. In terms of its impact on traffic patterns and circulation, none is anticipated. The same with the environmental features or with the local land use patterns. This is an area with larger houses and the request tends to be consistent with that. Because the design of the garage in integrated into the house combining the garage and accessory structures, basically all as one unit- because there are no other anticipated adverse impacts, staff has recommended approval of the request. Mr. Chuck Abraham, homeowner, addressed the Board. He stated that it is a side- loading garage. He feels that they are making a sizable investment into the home and a 3-car garage in most areas is quite common right now. He thought that the value of the home would increase. Most of the homes of that size might have 2 or 3 vehicles in there. He just wants to have that availability now or down the line if, 10 or 15 years down the line he ever sold it, it would add to the value of the property. Plus, he needs that much room in his garage because he needs the doors wider than normal. He increased the size of the 8' doors a little bit. The garage can't be seen from the front of the street. He referred to the plans of the property. It is for convenience and to keep with the properties around there. His builder also recommended that he build a 3-car garage as well. M. Clark asked if it was set up with two doors? Are they wide enough to make it a 3-car garage? Mr. Abraham stated that there is a 12' and a 16'door. A. Frederick asked that even though by code there could still be a small accessory structure, would the applicant have any objections if that were a condition of approval that the applicant wouldn't be allowed to build another accessory structure? Mr. Abraham stated that he thought that if he did do a pool, there might be a small building on the outside. But he doesn't know how big it would be, but it would need to be accessible. He would prefer to leave that option open if feasible. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing_none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart stated that she would like to observe that this is another one of those cases where there is a big lot and a desire for a garage that is larger than what the code provides for. It is another one of those cases that needs to get over to Planning for consideration and for additional information when they are looking at possible code revisions or areas of problems. A. Frederick stated that he recalled two of the cases that staff mentioned. He believed that in one, the applicant agreed before he made the presentation, that he would build no additional structures. The other one was a condominium. He was prohibited from putting an accessory structure anywhere on the property anyway and that was part of his justification for getting a little extra square footage, although it wasn't something that the Board was able to address since it was a rule of the Condominium Association. It still allowed for the approval of it with the expectation that no accessory structures would be built. But he can understand the applicant's desire for at least a small structure for a pool to keep equipment and a pump for heating of the water, etc. He is not sure how big an 87 square foot accessory structure would be. General discussion ensued as to the size of the accessory structure and what was feasible for it. A. Frederick stated that a pool was certainly an amenity that he would expect to see with a house such as this. Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 5 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3568.00, 2575 Oxford, a request of a variance of 193 square feet of additional garage or storage space. Seconded by R. McCloud. On a roll call vote,there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. BZA-3568.00, 2575 Oxford has been approved. D. BZA-3569.00, 920 Townsend Sam Quon presented the case. This is a request by Rick Alfaro, Alstrom's Paint Finishing, on behalf of General Motors to install a 135' high central exhaust stack as part of GM's Lansing/Grand River Assembly Plant. The property is zoned I-Heavy Industrial and currently the plant is in the construction stage. Land use surrounding the property is primarily manufacturing and parking lot. The surrounding zoning is heavy industrial and J-parking. The 1990 River Island Comprehensive Plan recommends continuing industrial use at this location. The section of the code which this variance is being requested is Section 1276.09 of the Zoning Code which does not allow any structures to exceed a height of 120' in the I-Heavy Industrial district. There are four standards which need to be met when evaluating a variance request. The first one is- Is there a practical difficulty or hardship? A practical difficulty does exist because the Department of Environmental Quality requires that exhaust stacks within 200' of any fresh air intake to be located at least 20' above the air intake. The reason for the height of 135' is to allow the emissions from the stack to disburse into the air before it goes beyond the property line for air quality standards. The next criteria that needs to be evaluated is the location, size and character- Is it harmonious with the surroundings? The proposed 135' exhaust stack would be located entirely within the GM property which meets all the setback requirements. The applicant has removed an existing 200'tower previously located in the general area. This facility is also located near the Board of Water& Light towers which are 625' high. This would be compatible with the surrounding character of the facility. The next criteria is- Will this generate any impact on vehicular or pedestrian circulation? Staff does not anticipate any impact from this proposal. The next criteria is - Will there be any impact on the environment? The reason for the height of the stack is to mitigate any type of environmental impact that can potentially occur with a lower stack. Basically, this addresses any emissions that might come out of the paint facility. The next consideration is the future land use pattern. The approval of the height variance for this exhaust stack is not anticipated to impact any future development in this area. Staff recommends approval of this request for a height variance of 15'for the exhaust stack for the new assembly plant with the condition that no other structures exceed 120' in height at the site. Mr. Rick Alfaro, Alstrom Paint Finishing, addressed the Board. He referred to a drawing he prepared for the Board to show how high the exhaust stack would be. He stated that the nature of the stack is that you won't be able to tell that it is an exhaust stack. It will be clad in the same finish as the rest of the building. The size of the stack is 12'x20'- it is a rectangular stack. The issue of the air intake is to guarantee that fresh air is brought into the building and is no where near the exhaust that is going out. Mr. Bill Frank, GM project engineer, addressed the Board. He recommends approval of this request. He stated that there are no other structures on site that have plans to go over the 120' elevation at this time. As they move further down the road, he assumes there would be the option to come back and re-visit that from a planning perspective. It will have the same siding as the rest of the building, so it will blend right in with its surroundings. From an eye perspective, it is 135', but compared to the way 1-496 dips down, you can barely see the crane that is there right now. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she believes that this is a reasonable request. She sees no problem with granting this variance. Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 6 M. Clark moved to approve BZA-3569.00, 920 Townsend, a height variance of 15'with the condition that no other structures exceed the 120' limits on the site. Seconded by E. Horne. A. Frederick stated that this is clearly a practical difficulty when there is a conflict with the City code and the requirements of state DEQ. He suggests that Planning staff take note of this that there might be an opportunity for modification of the Zoning Code to take something like this into account. It is certainly there with the intent of protecting the safety of the inhabitants of that building. V. Earhart stated that, for general purposes, is that she thinks that the last statement that was made regarding the mitigation of environmental problems would be something that is valuable to put in the report itself. The fact that there aren't any negative environmentals is something the Board needs to know. But when there's actually a positive result of a modification being made such as the mitigation that is pointed out, she thinks that needs to be in the report. General discussed ensued regarding mitigation benefits, etc. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. BZA-3569.00, 920 Townsend has been approved with condition. E. BZA-3570.00, 1317 N. Jenison Sam Quon presented the case. Mr. Forbush wishes to erect a 1,000 square foot detached building which will consist of a 450 square foot garage and a 550 square foot woodworking hobby shop. Section 1248.03(b) of the Zoning Code allows up to 720 square feet of garage area and a maximum of 1,000 square foot for all accessory structures. Additionally, paragraph 6 specifies that the floor area of additions and structures attached to a private garage including but not limited to covered patios, decks, storage areas and carports, shall be included in calculating the total allowable area of that garage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for 280 square feet of additional garage area. The property is in the A-Residential zone. It is a single family house. The surrounding land use is primarily single family with an additional two family residential to the east. The surrounding zoning is A-Residential, with A, B and C- Residential to the east. The River Island Comprehensive Plan of 1990 designates the land use as low density residential 0 to 6 dwelling units per acre. Section 1240.06(c)1-4 of the Zoning Code requires that four criteria and standards be evaluated when evaluating a variance request. One-does a practical difficulty or hardship exist? In this case, no practical difficulty exists. The applicant would be able to construct two detached accessory structures up to 1,000 square feet in the rear yard by code. Additionally, the applicant wants enough room in the back so he is able to park his motor home in the rear. He referred to the site plan attached to the board packet. The next criteria for evaluation is location, size and character. The proposed combined 1,000 square foot accessory structure would be located entirely on the property and meet all the setbacks. However, most of the homes in the area have attached garages or single and two-car detached garages with no additional accessory structures. Combining the hobby shop and garage space for 1,000 square foot structure would not be in character with the surrounding neighborhood. The ground area of the house is 1,046.5 square feet. The detached garage covers almost as much area. Even though a complete and to scale site plan has not been submitted, the code will limit the property to only 2,290 square feet of driveway area due to the lot coverage restriction within the code. Considering the applicant's desire not to back out of the driveway and the additional driveway area necessary for a turnaround and the mobile home, this could easily be exceeded. Forty percent of the lot can be covered by structure, but the total lot area is not allowed to be covered by more than 55% of hard surface or non-permeable areas. The next criteria is impact on vehicular or pedestrian circulation. No additional impact is anticipated from this proposal. As to the impact on environmental feature, there is a potential for environmental impact resulting from this project. Woodworking tools such as band saws, sanders, drills, etc. may be operated late in the evening or in the early morning which can generate noise that can filter into adjacent properties. Additionally, there is an elevation difference on the property from where the house is located to the Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 7 rear yard of approximately 71/2 '. There has been a history of water accumulating in the back. If this structure was constructed, the area would need to be filled in and this would displace water onto adjacent properties. As to future land use patterns, the approval of this garage will impact future development patterns in this area as it will set a precedence for large accessory structures in this area. Other information, the applicant feels that two separate buildings constructed on the lot with the required rear,.side and front yard setbacks would not accommodate room to maneuver and park two family cars, a 30' long motor home, a full size pickup truck and one additional automobile. The applicant currently intends to use the woodworking hobby shop for non-commercial purposes. However, if the applicant wished to have the woodworking as a home occupation in the future, it would not be allowed in a detached structure under the current code. Also, the combined building allows the applicant to provide a storage area in the attic of the garage that would be difficult to achieve if the two structures were detached. Staff recommends against approval of this request for a variance to construct a 1,000 square foot detached garage which also will house a hobby shop. Mr. Henry Forbush, 1317 N. Jenison, addressed the Board. He stated that if the Board was looking at a mortgage report site plan, he already told the committee when he applied for the variance that was not drawn to scale and shows a misconception of the size area that the building would cover on the property. He stated that he submitted drawings that were to scale showing the size of the building. He stated that he does have a hardship. In fact, he has five areas of hardship. He has a limited sight distance. He has a cap on the back of his pickup and between that and the neighbor's shrubs bordering the north side of his drive, a blind spot is created when backing out. He cannot see children on the sidewalk through the back of his pickup truck. So he must drive out forward which means that I must have room to turn around in his back yard. He stated that he has searched for another way around that, but couldn't find one. He further stated that splitting the building does not allow enough room to park a 30' motor home and have maneuvering room for a pickup truck and a family car which is what he owns. On the drawings that he submitted that are to scale, it shows that splitting the building, there is not enough maneuvering room for a turnaround. Also the scaled out drawings that he has submitted show that placing the building any other way on the property doesn't allow sufficient room for maneuvering. His wife, who is a licensed appraiser agrees with him that connecting the proposed building to their home will take away from the value of the property simply because the only place to connect the two is on a wall where there are windows above their kitchen sink. It would not be aesthetically friendly to the neighborhood. He also stated that a building of smaller size would not house all of his hobby equipment and still leave room for the use of it. His equipment would not be used between the hours of 5 p.m. and 8 am which would have more effect on the neighborhood. Also the building would be insulated for sound and for warmth. So, it would not be environmentally unfriendly to the neighborhood. The way the building was designed, with a center wall being the bearing wall, it can't be altered to create more space, either for parking or for hobby shop. It's not like he could turn it into a cabinet shop or anything else. That is not his intention. He stated that the city is in no danger of him using the building for any commercial endeavor or for any purpose other than stated. There are other ordinances already in place protecting the city from that. In conclusion, he has photos of other structures in the neighborhood that are of the same approximate size. Some of the structures in the neighborhood that are of the same size that he is proposing are as large or larger than the homes that they serve. He has photos of this. He also has two photos of a residential property within Lansing where the building is twice the size that he is proposing to build and it is on residential property and a driveway goes to it. M. Clark asked if the building would be heated? Mr. Forbush stated that it would be heated. V. Earhart stated that she doesn't understand the scale drawing. Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 8 Mr. Forbush explained the drawings that were submitted to the Board. B. Burgess read correspondence into the record pertaining to this case. In a petition form, the neighbors that signed it (7 total) are in favor of this planned improvement. He also read another correspondence into the record from the property owner at 1313 N. Jenison stating that he is in favor of this request as well. A. Frederick stated that he had a question for staff. He asked if staff had an opportunity to look at the photographs that Mr. Forbush has in regards to the other properties? S. Quon stated that he had not had a chance to do the research. He doesn't believe that Susan Cantlon, who did the report on this case, had a chance to research the photos either. V. Earhart asked how long a driveway has to be? S. Quon/J. Sturdevant stated that a driveway needs to be 12'wide maximum or the width of the garage approach. General discussion ensued regarding circulation on the lot, number of driveways, front yard parking, etc. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark stated that she has several concerns about this appeal. She thinks that it is important that the Board not create problems in the future when they are taking action. She thinks that it is also important that they are aware of possible repercussions of things today. One of the things that she is concerned about with this property because of the difference in grade from the front to the rear currently, if it is filled in, that water will go somewhere. If it is going to be paved, the water will go somewhere. Unless some provisions are being made for capturing that water, it is going to drain on the neighbors property. She is also concerned that while the applicant's intentions are to use this as a hobby shop and garage, etc., the problem is that if the Board grants the variance, they are creating a structure that is going to be there forever. Who knows what the next owner of the property might decide to use. Some of the discussion that happened when the code was being written and the reason that the garage sizes were limited the way they were was because Lansing was plagued with a number of home occupations that were negative for neighborhoods- body shops, repair shops, things that were generating noise, fumes, etc., that were problems for the neighborhoods. So one of the ways that was designed to help the city control that kind of thing was to control the size of the garages and the potential for that kind of use. When you are creating a building that is heated and that is the size that you are requesting, it's ideal for that kind of use in the future even though that's not the original intent. Another thing that concerns her about this appeal is that while they don't have anything definite, it would appear that when you talk about having a turnaround area, etc., the lot area coverage would be exceeded. Again, one of the reasons that the city created a limitation on lot area coverage was because of drainage and because of desire to have green space and shrubbery and things like that to soften neighborhoods. In older neighborhoods with small lots, it is very easy to pave the entire neighborhood. It becomes a very difficult living situation for everyone. She sees a number of things that could potentially happen here that would not be a positive development for surrounding neighbors. A. Frederick stated that in the interest of precedence regarding future land use, in the October meeting, the Board addressed a request that was almost identical to this one- BZA-3555.99. This was a request for a variance for additional square footage accessory structure and garage so that the applicant could more easily park his motor home. There were a couple of comments in discussion that the practical difficulty was self imposed in this case and that the motor home could be stored off site. It wasn't the property that was causing a problem. He stated that he will have to remain consistent in his decision and not support the request for this variance. Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 9 M. Clark moved to deny BZA-3570.00, 1317 N. Jenison. Seconded by A. Frederick. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. BZA-3570.00, 1317 N. Jenison has been denied. F. BZA-3571.00, 3003 E. Michigan Ave. J. Sturdevant presented the case. This is a request for a variance in the front yard setback for a building in the F-Commercial district. It is the Staples store at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Homer St. He referred to the staff report and site plan and explained it. He stated that the property is in the flood plain - Red Cedar River. In addition to the setback issue, they also have to receive a Special Land Use permit, but that is a separate issue from what is being looked at now. The property is zoned commercial. Adjacent properties are all commercial except to the west which is unzoned because it is part of the right of way for 1-127. It doesn't impact anything in terms of residential property or even other commercial development. Homer St. is the side street and Michigan Avenue is the main circulation route. He stated that there is adequate parking on the property to accommodate the expansion and square footage of the building. V. Earhart asked that in addition to what the applicant is proposing as additions, they are going to have to relocate the curb cuts, etc. E. Horne asked if they will have to get permits to do that. J. Sturdevant stated that was correct. General questions ensued regarding the site plan and who owned certain parking areas. Mr. Tony Gentilozzi, Gentilozzi Real Estate, addressed the Board on behalf of the owner of the property, Shaheen Properties, LLC. He answered questions that the Board had in. regards to parts of the site plan itself. He stated that Frandor went through a renovation and expansion. Staples primary competitor has relocated on site at Frandor and has significantly impacted the Staples sale at this store between 35-40% so far. The current Staples store is approximately 5,000 to 8,000 square feet less than a proto-typical store that they would build today in order to compete with their competition which is relatively new in the last 5-6 years. They feel a compelling need in order to remain in that location to increase their size. They wanted to go larger, but felt that wasn't plausible in the long- term situation. This was the minimum amount that they felt they could do to expand and add more product line to the store. They only have about 2'/Z years left on their lease agreement. Quite truthfully, if this doesn't work, they will pick up and go out east. Though it is a good corner and provides a necessary service, particularly to the downtown right now, it is not a developer's grab to expand the building and increase their net income. Quite truthfully, Staples will be building this out of pocket because they will not extend their lease. It doesn't make sense for the developer to put the capital into expanding the store. Essentially, they are getting it for a very nominal fee. It is not motivation for the owner to increase his income stream over there and perhaps enhance his yield. It is more of an effort, at this point, to accommodate Staples in every way possible to allow them to effectively compete with their new found competition who is very close. It is a tough site and he hates to sit before the Board asking for a variance at all. He doesn't like variances personally. He has a degree in Urban Planning and understands that these are to be handed out under special conditions. In this particular instance, a substantial part of the building is non-conforming to the current code in that it was constructed before the setback was adopted by the city. He believes that this is truly one instance where a variance will not have a material effect on the surrounding property and, for that matter, have a negative effect in any substantial way. Quite truthfully, MDOT is happy to get the curb cut pushed down a little further from the intersection. At least, that is what he has been told. He just wanted to explain their motivation. It is not a profit center, it is trying to keep another business in that area and allow them to effectively compete. Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 10 J. Sturdevant stated that staff recommends approval of the front yard setback because they don't see any adverse effects to it. The hardship is the established building setback. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. M. Clark moved to approve BZA-3571.00, 3003 E. Michigan Ave., a variance of 19'. Seconded by V. Earhart. M. Clark stated that is contingent on the approval of the Special Land Use and it is based on the fact that this seems to be a reasonable use of the property without negative impacts. A. Frederick stated as a point of interest that the Special Land Use has not yet come before the Planning Board. E. Horne stated that she would like the amount of square footage of the addition (533 square feet) to be included in the motion. Both the maker and supporter of the motion agreed to the friendly amendment to the motion. On a roll call vote, there were 6 yeas and 0 nays. BZA-3571.00, 3003 E. Michigan Ave. has been approved. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch No change in status. B. BZA-3532.99 120 S. Washington Sq. (withdrawn by applicant) E. Horne moved to remove BZA-3532.99, 120 S. Washington Sq.,from the table. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to remove from table. V. Earhart moved to accept withdrawal of BZA-3532.99, 120 S. Washington Sq. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to accept withdrawal. C. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan A. Frederick moved to remove BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan from the table. Seconded by V. Earhart. B. Burgess read letter from applicant dated October 1999 which turned out to be original letter sent by applicant- not withdrawal letter. General discussion ensued regarding letter and requirements/clarification regarding parking spaces and proposal/intentions of applicant. General discussion ensued regarding accepting the withdrawal. L. Davis reminded the Board that a motion was on the table to remove this case from the table. The board decided to deny the motion to take it off the table. This case is left on the table at this time. D. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw St. No change in status. E. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar No change in status. Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 9, 2000 PAGE 11 F. Rules of Procedure L. Davis stated that J. Ruff is still awaiting answer from the City Attorney's office. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none Vl. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of February 10, 2000 E. Horne stated that on page 5, BZA-3565.00, 1000 Brad St., on the vote it has to be a roll call vote, not unanimous voice vote. A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes with the above mentioned corrections. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS None Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Draft Draft to Clerk 02/28/00 Approved 03/09/00 To Clerk 03/09/00 - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 143 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FEBRUARY 10, 2000, 7:30 P.M. `CI COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by B. Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Vice Chairman Burgess read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick B. Burgess V. Earhart Staff: J. Ruff L. Davis D. Wynant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. R. McCloud requested an excused absence. V. Earhart made motion to accept excused absence. Seconded by A. Frederick. Carried unanimously by voice vote. G. Hilts has an excused absence, previously approved. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA No action taken. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3565.00, 1000 Brad St. J. Ruff stated that Donna Wynant will present the case. D. Wynant presented the case. This case is located at 1000 Brad St. The applicants are Gary and Vonda Houghtaling. She referred to the graphics in the board packets to show location of Brad St. Atwood School and Atwood Park are in that area immediately north of the applicant's property. The request is for a fence. The maximum height on fences in the rear yard is 6'tall. It is different in the front yard for a privacy fence. That is 3'tall -4' for a cyclone or see-thru type fence. The applicant is requesting to put up a fence beyond the maximum of 6'to 8'tall which would be a privacy fence. She referred to the graphics in the board packet showing the fence detail. The applicant is proposing to enclose the entire rear yard with the fence. She referred to the site plan in the board packet showing where the fence would be. She stated that the Houghtalings have been having some problems with vandalism to their property. They have a pool. She circulated photographs to the Board showing the property, the pool and the city park behind the property. The applicants have been having problems with things being thrown into their pool (i.e. branches, etc.). They have also experienced some theft. The applicants believe that what they really need there is an 8'tall fence. They believe that 6'tall would not be tall enough for them to prevent these types of things from happening. D. Wynant stated that the Planning Office looks at pools as being something that really attract people. People are curious about them. The applicants want to screen the view to their rear yard -thus the reason for the 8'tall fence. As far as vehicular and pedestrian traffic, that wouldn't be affected. That is more of a concern in the front yard with tall fences. The area does have a fence that is illustrated in one of the photographs at 920 Brad St. It is a basket weave type fence that sits right up against Evergreen trees BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2000 PAGE 2 that run along the school/park fence. She couldn't find a building permit for that. Any fence that is above 6'tall needs to have a building permit. The applicants did point out that fence is something that already exists in the area. There is a concern that approval would establish setting precedent for taller fences in this area along homes that back up to the school and park. There have been some concerns that have been expressed about blocking visibility to schools and parks. It was brought out in the City's five year Parks & Recreation Master Plan that there is concern about safety and the perception of crime in parks and schools. There is a concern about these types of things blocking off visibility to these types of areas. Certainly the applicant is entitled to a 6'tall fence. In summary, the 8'tall fence does not appear to be necessary for a screening but may help to keep children from easily climbing over the fence to trespass into the applicant's yard. Staff believes this could be accomplished by a 6'tall fence without the additional 2' of fencing. The fence could screen the rear yard from view which could potentially resolve problems of trespassing and vandalism. In the staff's recommendation, they would like to hear from the applicant to see what kind of problems they have been having. The staff would like to take a look at the need for an 8'tall fence surrounding the entire rear yard. The applicant currently has a cyclone fence that runs along their side property lines with some plastic slats. The staff's recommendation is to hear from the applicant to see what kind of concerns and needs that they feel that they have for that tall of a fence. Otherwise, the staff is questioning why the extra 2' is needed, instead of the 6'which is what the code allows. V. Earhart asked if anyone had heard from the neighbors. D. Wynant stated that there was a communication which was given to B. Burgess. B. Burgess read the communication into the record - (a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Downand supporting the variance). B. Burgess asked if the wood pointed fences allowed? J. Ruff stated that they are allowed. The "stockade" style are not as sturdy due to the fact that they are made out of pine or a lighter material. It is usually not treated. It is harder to keep and maintain. This fence would be a dog-eared fence which would usually have 3/4 inch thick material that is used for creating the boards. An 8' fence requires some special structural elements and strength to make sure that it can handle wind pressure, etc. Mr. & Mrs. Gary and Vonda Houghtaling addressed the Board. He stated that they have had a lot of problems behind the school. When you get a lot of children playing soccer, at recess, everything congregates to their back yard. The children go in between the lilac bushes. They had to cut all of the lilac bushes out due to a virus they got. They stated that the lilac bushes confined the back yard. But now because they got a disease and had to be removed, there is nothing to confine the back yard. They stated that Mr. Houghtaling sleeps during the day, Mrs. Houghtaling works during the day and there is no one to supervise the back yard during the daytime. There have been kids who have jumped the back fence and have gone into their back window and stole VCRs, camera, radio, etc. There has been a lot of vandalism. There has been patio furniture stolen. The applicant feels that a 6'fence up next to a 4' fence - kids can still climb over the top of the fences. That is why they want to go up an extra 2' in the fence to save some lives. They have caught kids in the pool. They love their pool, but they don't want any kids to get hurt. They love living in Lansing and their neighbors know that they wouldn't put up a shoddy fence. They are willing to pay the extra $1600-1700 for security reasons. They referred to the fence at 920 Brad St. That fence has been up for 19 years. They don't know if it required any variance. That fence has stopped a lot of their problems in their yard. They stated that some kids were in their yard earlier this fall, he got up early and could see what was going on. Three kids were breaking branches off the lilac bushes. He went out and told them to get away from the fence. He was told that it wasn't his property and they could do what they wanted. The kids came back and were causing problems. They tried to talk to the parents, but the parents don't care. They BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2000 PAGE 3 stated that the kids have jumped over the 4' fences to get into their pool. They know that the pool is an attraction. There has been bean bag filler thrown into their pool by kids. It took him 1 '/2 hours to clean it up. Kids have also thrown eggs into their pool. They have called the police and the police have caught the kids. Kids are not like they used to be. That is why they want to go the extra 2'. They talked to Dewitt Fencing and were assured that the fence would be built secure enough. The fence would enhance the property. They stated that the neighbor next door wants to attach to their fence and finish his yard with it. It is for safety reasons that they want to put the extra 2' of fence in. M. Clark asked who owns the cyclone fence that is on the back of their property? Mr. Houghtaling stated that the school owns the fence. M. Clark asked how much space would be between the school's fence and their fence? Mr. Houghtaling stated that it would be about 34 in. M. Clark asked how the space between the fences would be maintained? Mrs. Houghtaling stated that there are rocks and black visqueen all around that area. They wanted to put shrubs in between the fences. M. Clark stated she was referring to papers, trash, etc that would collect in that area. Mr. Houghtaling stated that they have a good relationship with their neighbors and would keep it clean. They stated that they had thought about putting a gate in so that they could get into that area to clean it up. General discussion ensued regarding what might collect there, how it would be cleaned up, access to that area, etc. A. Frederick asked if the applicant has talked to the school about the problem? Mr. Houghtaling stated that they called over to the school and talked to the principal regarding kids throwing things into the pool. He asked if the principal could put a "safety patrol"there by the fence. A person was put there and lasted for about 3 weeks. They stated that would only be good until May anyway. June, July and August would still be problem months even though the school isn't open. A. Frederick asked if they have done more than file a complaint with the police. Have they talked with a community police officer? Mr. Houghtaling stated that they haven't. He stated that the parents should be watching their children and keep them in control. A. Frederick stated that some of the things that have happened are considered crime and the police would be able to do something about it. Mr. Houghtaling stated that they can call the police and they will come, take a report, drive by Atwood school and flash a light and that is about as far as it goes. J. Ruff asked what is between the 4' fence and the improvements to the pool? Is there a walk around the pool? How much distance is between the fence and the improvements of the pool? Mr. Houghtaling stated that there is skirting around the pool. He stated there are rocks around the area. They stated that it is about 12'. The pool is free designed - kidney shaped - so the area is not equal. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2000 PAGE 4 B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff commented that his concern would be if the fence was anywhere relatively close to the school fence which has to remain, there will be kids using that fence to lean on, grab the top of the other fence, etc. A 4'difference is not a lot. If the Board is inclined to approve this, he would encourage that there be at least a 6'separation between the two fences so that there wouldn't be an opportunity for standing on one fence to reach the other. It would allow potentially for an adequate amount of space to maneuver to clean and maintain the area between the two fences. One of first things they talked about was that the applicant could have the fence if it meets building code requirements for the principal structure. But the pool is out far enough that the applicant can't do that type of thing. Therefore, the applicant applied for this appeal. V. Earhart stated that some things need to be done in terms of making the area inhospitable. She suggested berry bushes, climbing roses, anything that grows with big thorns. It would be less likely to take the leap into something of that nature than the lilac bushes that the kids were going through. Another thing that she could see possibly helping with the unwelcome intruders would be a motion detector with a light connected to it so that when you go past it, the light comes on. She stated that she hates to see the Board using zoning as a substitute for inadequate policing. She also hates to think that they are using zoning because the neighborhood kids won't behave their parents. She personally doesn't think that an 8' fence is going to give that much more over the 6' fence that is permitted. She will not support this request. A. Frederick stated that the point that J. Ruff made in putting the fence up further away from the existing cyclone fence that is apparently owned by the school, that would prevent anybody from using the 4'fence to climb over a fence whether it were 6' or 8'. That might be one solution there. The other main point that he wants to make is that in the fence variances that the Board has discussed before, his bottom line has always been an issue of public safety. The fence variances that they have done recently have been an issue of much more potential for severe harm to the public rather than what appears to be mostly annoyance and property damage. He is not sure that this issue is any more than typical vandalism from kids. Maybe more can be done to deal with the problem than just simply walling the yard off. He also will not support this request. He does like the idea of nasty bushes. V. Earhart added additionally that the applicant mentioned that their neighbor wants to carry the fence across to the next yard. Pretty soon, there will be a neighborhood with all 8' fences back there-then what happened to the zoning code? She gave an example of a variance that her next door neighbor was given for an 8' fence, but she only put up a 6' fence and found that the height was adequate. She didn't really need an 8'fence. J. Ruff stated that one of the more social issues he would bring up-which are all 2-way streets- a park is supposed to be an amenity. He understands that kids can be problematic. There is a lot less respect for property these days. There is a lot of"me-ism" and self gratification in people's values these days. A park is supposedly an amenity. There will be children back there. There is play equipment near their yard so he can see that there are privacy issues that the applicant has as well as probably a number of other neighbors there could have. The other issue to it is that it also provides an idea of ownership. If the park is fenced off from the ownership of the people being able to see into the park, it becomes much more of an attractive nuisance area. It becomes an enclosed open space that people can't see into. People are more apt to do things when people can't see them doing those deeds. There is a balance to how much visual blockage you try to achieve in a situation like this. Yet, these neighbors' recreational space is all joining together. Even though there are limitations to it because of the existing fences, you can still see. If there is a problem, you can see the problem. A fence is very solid, structured and permanent. He thinks that, if everybody wanted to do that along there, soon you have walled off the park and there is no accountability there of who is in the park. Then you have to staff it and have police there. Another option for security would be if the school and the Parks Department be petitioned for a taller fence. They potentially could go in with the neighbors and erect a newer fence that would be tall enough to keep the kids from jumping the fence. This might help keep the trespassing issue down. There are concerns there and there is a real balance needed in it. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2000 PAGE 5 A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3565.00, 1000 Brad St., a request for a variance of an additional 2'for an 8'fence. Seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE I YEA NAY Earhart X Horne X Burgess X Clark X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-1, BZA-3565.00, 1000 Brad St., has been denied. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that there is no change in status. B. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar J. Ruff stated that the traffic study has not been done yet. C. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan J. Ruff stated that there was no action. D. Rules of Procedures Will be discussed after approving minutes V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of January 13, 2000 E. Horne moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by M. Clark. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Rules of Procedures E. Horne moved to take Rules of Procedures off table. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. B. Burgess referred to the copy of the Rules of Procedures that were included in the Board packet. J. Ruff stated that this revised draft was from February 5, 1998. This was after they had further discussion from previous meetings. He explained what happened from previous meetings. What had been worked on most recently were attendance issues and tried to clean up the voting, also included something on committees. V. Earhart asked if it had gone over to the city attorney's office? General discussed ensued regarding whether it was supposed to go to the City attorney's office before and whether that was what the Board was waiting on. J. Ruff stated that he doesn't recall, but he will verify it. E. Horne stated that in regards to the Selection of Officers, there was much discussion on the time that the elections took place - right now it is July. What was decided? J. Ruff stated that he believed that there was discussion on moving the election to September. It was originally set as July- being tied to the fiscal year. One of the reasons that came up was because if new members are appointed in July and come to BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2000 PAGE 6 their first meeting in July, it allows the Board to get to know each other somewhat before they vote on a chair and vice chair if it is moved to September. That was some of the reasoning behind it. There is more of an understanding of each other and sometimes people aren't quite appointed by the July meeting. V. Earhart stated that whatever they do, let's take the "time" clause out of parenthesis and put it at the beginning of the sentence saying "At the meeting in September, the Board shall . . . .". E. Horne moved to change from "the meeting in June to the meeting in September". Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to approve. B. Burgess stated that there doesn't seem to be a formalized way of communicating within the Planning Board community. He went to the Board Chairs meeting and found out that the purpose of that was for staff to communicate to various boards. He brought up that this is a vehicle that should go both ways. J. Ruff stated that under the "Duties of the Chairperson"there could be a note that related communications from the Board would be shared through the Board Chair to the attending department. That might be a way to open the door. B. Burgess stated that he would like to see a meeting or"retreat" be done once a year to review decisions made by the Board. A. Frederick stated that as he recalled, the City Council had a retreat and had difficulties with the Open Meeting Act. If there were enough of them, it was considered an official meeting and therefore had to be open. Discussion ensued regarding having a retreat, having it be an open meeting, etc. J. Ruff stated that they could do what the Planning Board does when they have the Board Evaluation -which is posted - is to set aside a regular month (a lesser used month) to meet. General discussion ensued regarding setting up the meeting, etc. E. Horne suggested having a combined meeting with the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Board also. E. Horne moved to table Rules of Procedures. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. B. J. Ruff stated that planners will start attending board meetings in J. Ruff's place since he was filling in as Planning Manager as well for now. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 02/28/00 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FEBRUARY 10, 2000, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by B. Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Vice Chairman Burgess read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick B. Burgess V. Earhart Staff: J. Ruff L. Davis D. Wynant A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. R. McCloud requested an excused absence. V. Earhart made motion to accept excused absence. Seconded by A. Frederick. Carried unanimously by voice vote. G. Hilts has an excused absence, previously approved. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA No action taken. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3565.00, 1000 Brad St. J. Ruff stated that Donna Wynant will present the case. D. Wynant presented the case. This case is located at 1000 Brad St. The applicants are Gary and Vonda Houghtaling. She referred to the graphics in the board packets to show location of Brad St. Atwood School and Atwood Park are in that area immediately north of the applicant's property. The request is for a fence. The maximum height on fences in the rear yard is 6'tall. It is different in the front yard for a privacy fence. That is 3'tall - 4' for a cyclone or see-thru type fence. The applicant is requesting to put up a fence beyond the maximum of 6'to 8'tall which would be a privacy fence. She referred to the graphics in the board packet showing the fence detail. The applicant is proposing to enclose the entire rear yard with the fence. She referred to the site plan in the board packet showing where the fence would be. She stated that the Houghtalings have been having some problems with vandalism to their property. They have a pool. She circulated photographs to the Board showing the property, the pool and the city park behind the property. The applicants have been having problems with things being thrown into their pool (i.e. branches, etc.). They have also experienced some theft. The applicants believe that what they really need there is an 8'tall fence. They believe that 6'tall would not be tall enough for them to prevent these types of things from happening. D. Wynant stated that the Planning Office looks at pools as being something that really attract people. People are curious about them. The applicants want to screen the view to their rear yard -thus the reason for the 8'tall fence. As far as vehicular and pedestrian traffic, that wouldn't be affected. That is more of a concern in the front yard with tall fences. The area does have a fence that is illustrated in one of the photographs at 920 Brad St. It is a basket weave type fence that sits right up against Evergreen trees Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2000 PAGE 2 that run along the school/park fence. She couldn't find a building permit for that. Any fence that is above 6'tall needs to have a building permit. The applicants did point out that fence is something that already exists in the area. There is a concern that approval would establish setting precedent for taller fences in this area along homes that back up to the school and park. There have been some concerns that have been expressed about blocking visibility to schools and parks. It was brought out in the City's five year Parks & Recreation Master Plan that there is concern about safety and the perception of crime in parks and schools. There is a concern about these types of things blocking off visibility to these types of areas. Certainly the applicant is entitled to a 6'tall fence. In summary, the 8'tall fence does not appear to be necessary for a screening but may help to keep children from easily climbing over the fence to trespass into the applicant's yard. Staff believes this could be accomplished by a 6'tall fence without the additional 2' of fencing. The fence could screen the rear yard from view which could potentially resolve problems of trespassing and vandalism. In the staff's recommendation, they would like to hear from the applicant to see what kind of problems they have been having. The staff would like to take a look at the need for an 8'tall fence surrounding the entire rear yard. The applicant currently has a cyclone fence that runs along their side property lines with some plastic slats. The staff's recommendation is to hear from the applicant to see what kind of concerns and needs that they feel that they have for that tall of a fence. Otherwise, the staff is questioning why the extra 2' is needed, instead of the 6' which is what the code allows. V. Earhart asked if anyone had heard from the neighbors. D. Wynant stated that there was a communication which was given to B. Burgess. B. Burgess read the communication into the record - (a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Downand supporting the variance). B. Burgess asked if the wood pointed fences allowed? J. Ruff stated that they are allowed. The "stockade" style are not as sturdy due to the fact that they are made out of pine or a lighter material. It is usually not treated. It is harder to keep and maintain. This fence would be a dog-eared fence which would usually have 3/4 inch thick material that is used for creating the boards. An 8' fence requires some special structural elements and strength to make sure that it can handle wind pressure, etc. Mr. & Mrs. Gary and Vonda Houghtaling addressed the Board. He stated that they have had a lot of problems behind the school. When you get a lot of children playing soccer, at recess, everything congregates to their back yard. The children go in between the lilac bushes. They had to cut all of the lilac bushes out due to a virus they got. They stated that the lilac bushes confined the back yard. But now because they got a disease and had to be removed, there is nothing to confine the back yard. They stated that Mr. Houghtaling sleeps during the day, Mrs. Houghtaling works during the day and there is no one to supervise the back yard during the daytime. There have been kids who have jumped the back fence and have gone into their back window and stole VCRs, camera, radio, etc. There has been a lot of vandalism. There has been patio furniture stolen. The applicant feels that a 6' fence up next to a 4'fence - kids can still climb over the top of the fences. That is why they want to go up an extra 2' in the fence to save some lives. They have caught kids in the pool. They love their pool, but they don't want any kids to get hurt. They love living in Lansing and their neighbors know that they wouldn't put up a shoddy fence. They are willing to pay the extra $1600-1700 for security reasons. They referred to the fence at 920 Brad St. That fence has been up for 19 years. They don't know if it required any variance. That fence has stopped a lot of their problems in their yard. They stated that some kids were in their yard earlier this fall, he got up early and could see what was going on. Three kids were breaking branches off the lilac bushes. He went out and told them to get away from the fence. He was told that it Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2000 PAGE 3 wasn't his property and they could do what they wanted. The kids came back and were causing problems. They tried to talk to the parents, but the parents don't care. They stated that the kids have jumped over the 4' fences to get into their pool. They know that the pool is an attraction. There has been bean bag filler thrown into their pool by kids. It took him 1 '/2 hours to clean it up. Kids have also thrown eggs into their pool. They have called the police and the police have caught the kids. Kids are not like they used to be. That is why they want to go the extra 2'. They talked to Dewitt Fencing and were assured that the fence would be built secure enough. The fence would enhance the property. They stated that the neighbor next door wants to attach to their fence and finish his yard with it. It is for safety reasons that they want to put the extra 2' of fence in. M. Clark asked who owns the cyclone fence that is on the back of their property? Mr. Houghtaling stated that the school owns the fence. M. Clark asked how much space would be between the school's fence and their fence? Mr. Houghtaling stated that it would be about 3-4' in. M. Clark asked how the space between the fences would be maintained? Mrs. Houghtaling stated that there are rocks and black visqueen all around that area. They wanted to put shrubs in between the fences. M. Clark stated she was referring to papers, trash, etc that would collect in that area. Mr. Houghtaling stated that they have a good relationship with their neighbors and would keep it clean. They stated that they had thought about putting a gate in so that they could get into that area to clean it up. General discussion ensued regarding what might collect there, how it would be cleaned up, access to that area, etc. A. Frederick asked if the applicant has talked to the school about the problem? Mr. Houghtaling stated that they called over to the school and talked to the principal regarding kids throwing things into the pool. He asked if the principal could put a "safety patrol"there by the fence. A person was put there and lasted for about 3 weeks. They stated that would only be good until May anyway. June, July and August would still be problem months even though the school isn't open. A. Frederick asked if they have done more than file a complaint with the police. Have they talked with a community police officer? Mr. Houghtaling stated that they haven't. He stated that the parents should be watching their children and keep them in control. A. Frederick stated that some of the things that have happened are considered crime and the police would be able to do something about it. Mr. Houghtaling stated that they can call the police and they will come, take a report, drive by Atwood school and flash a light and that is about as far as it goes. J. Ruff asked what is between the 4'fence and the improvements to the pool? Is there a walk around the pool? How much distance is between the fence and the improvements of the pool? Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2000 PAGE 4 Mr. Houghtaling stated that there is skirting around the pool. He stated there are rocks around the area. They stated that it is about 12'. The pool is free designed - kidney shaped -so the area is not equal. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. J. Ruff commented that his concern would be if the fence was anywhere relatively close to the school fence which has to remain, there will be kids using that fence to lean on, grab the top of the other fence, etc. A 4' difference is not a lot. If the Board is inclined to approve this, he would encourage that there be at least a 6'separation between the two fences so that there wouldn't be an opportunity for standing on one fence to reach the other. It would allow potentially for an adequate amount of space to maneuver to clean and maintain the area between the two fences. One of first things they talked about was that the applicant could have the fence if it meets building code requirements for the principal structure. But the pool is out far enough that the applicant can't do that type of thing. Therefore, the applicant applied for this appeal. V. Earhart stated that some things need to be done in terms of making the area inhospitable. She suggested berry bushes, climbing roses, anything that grows with big thorns. It would be less likely to take the leap into something of that nature than the lilac bushes that the kids were going through. Another thing that she could see possibly helping with the unwelcome intruders would be a motion detector with a light connected to it so that when you go past it, the light comes on. She stated that she hates to see the Board using zoning as a substitute for inadequate policing. She also hates to think that they are using zoning because the neighborhood kids won't behave their parents. She personally doesn't think that an 8' fence is going to give that much more over the 6' fence that is permitted. She will not support this request. A. Frederick stated that the point that J. Ruff made in putting the fence up further away from the existing cyclone fence that is apparently owned by the school, that would prevent anybody from using the 4'fence to climb over a fence whether it were 6' or 8'. That might be one solution there. The other main point that he wants to make is that in the fence variances that the Board has discussed before, his bottom line has always been an issue of public safety. The fence variances that they have done recently have been an issue of much more potential for severe harm to the public rather than what appears to be mostly annoyance and property damage. He is not sure that this issue is any more than typical vandalism from kids. Maybe more can be done to deal with the problem than just simply walling the yard off. He also will not support this request. He does like the idea of nasty bushes. V. Earhart added additionally that the applicant mentioned that their neighbor wants to carry the fence across to the next yard. Pretty soon, there will be a neighborhood with all 8'fences back there -then what happened to the zoning code? She gave an example of a variance that her next door neighbor was given for an 8'fence, but she only put up a 6'fence and found that the height was adequate. She didn't really need an 8'fence. J. Ruff stated that one of the more social issues he would bring up-which are all 2-way streets- a park is supposed to be an amenity. He understands that kids can be problematic. There is a lot less respect for property these days. There is a lot of"me-ism" and self gratification in people's values these days. A park is supposedly an amenity. There will be children back there. There is play equipment near their yard so he can see that there are privacy issues that the applicant has as well as probably a number of other neighbors there could have. The other issue to it is that it also provides an idea of ownership. If the park is fenced off from the ownership of the people being able to see into the park, it becomes much more of an attractive nuisance area. It becomes an enclosed open space that people can't see into. People are more apt to do things when people can't see them doing those deeds. There is a balance to how much visual blockage you try to achieve in a situation like this. Yet, these neighbors' recreational space is all joining together. Even though there are limitations to it because of the existing fences, you can still see. If there is a problem, you can see the problem. A fence is very solid, structured and permanent. Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2000 PAGE 5 He thinks that, if everybody wanted to do that along there, soon you have walled off the park and there is no accountability there of who is in the park. Then you have to staff it and have police there. Another option for security would be if the school and the Parks Department be petitioned for a taller fence. They potentially could go in with the neighbors and erect a newer fence that would be tall enough to keep the kids from jumping the fence. This might help keep the trespassing issue down. There are concerns there and there is a real balance needed in it. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3565.00, 1000 Brad St., a request for a variance of an additional 2'for an 8'fence. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to deny. BZA-3565.00, 1000 Brad St., has been denied. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that there is no change in status. B. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar J. Ruff stated that the traffic study has not been done yet. C. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan J. Ruff stated that there was no action. D. Rules of Procedures Will be discussed after approving minutes V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of January 13, 2000 E. Horne moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by M. Clark. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Rules of Procedures E. Horne moved to take Rules of Procedures off table. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. B. Burgess referred to the copy of the Rules of Procedures that were included in the Board packet. J. Ruff stated that this revised draft was from February 5, 1998. This was after they had further discussion from previous meetings. He explained what happened from previous meetings. What had been worked on most recently were attendance issues and tried to clean up the voting, also included something on committees. V. Earhart asked if it had gone over to the city attorney's office? General discussed ensued regarding whether it was supposed to go to the City attorney's office before and whether that was what the Board was waiting on. J. Ruff stated that he doesn't recall, but he will verify it. E. Horne stated that in regards to the Selection of Officers, there was much discussion on the time that the elections took place - right now it is July. What was decided? J. Ruff stated that he believed that there was discussion on moving the election to September. It was originally set as July- being tied to the fiscal year. One of the reasons that came up was because if new members are appointed in July and come to their first meeting in July, it allows the Board to get to know each other somewhat before they vote on a chair and vice chair if it is moved to September. That was some of the reasoning behind it. There is more of an understanding of each other and sometimes Draft BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2000 PAGE 6 people aren't quite appointed by the July meeting. V. Earhart stated that whatever they do, let's take the "time" clause out of parenthesis and put it at the beginning of the sentence saying "At the meeting in September, the Board shall . . . .". E. Horne moved to change from "the meeting in June to the meeting in September". Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to approve. B. Burgess stated that there doesn't seem to be a formalized way of communicating within the Planning Board community. He went to the Board Chairs meeting and found out that the purpose of that was for staff to communicate to various boards. He brought up that this is a vehicle that should go both ways. J. Ruff stated that under the "Duties of the Chairperson"there could be a note that related communications from the Board would be shared through the Board Chair to the attending department. That might be a way to open the door. B. Burgess stated that he would like to see a meeting or"retreat" be done once a year to review decisions made by the Board. A. Frederick stated that as he recalled, the City Council had a retreat and had difficulties with the Open Meeting Act. If there were enough of them, it was considered an official meeting and therefore had to be open. Discussion ensued regarding having a retreat, having it be an open meeting, etc. J. Ruff stated that they could do what the Planning Board does when they have the Board Evaluation -which is posted - is to set aside a regular month (a lesser used month) to meet. General discussion ensued regarding setting up the meeting, etc. E. Horne suggested having a combined meeting with the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Board also. E. Horne moved to table Rules of Procedures. Seconded by V. Earhart. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. B. J. Ruff stated that planners will start attending board meetings in J. Ruff's place since he was filling in as Planning Manager as well for now. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Draft Draft to Clerk 01/28/00 Approved 02/10/00 To Clerk 02/16/05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS �rr�4 JAN UARY 13 2000 7:30 P.M. Y COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by B. Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Vice Chairman Burgess read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick B. Burgess R. McCloud Staff: J. Ruff A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. V. Earhart requested an excused absence due to illness. A. Frederick made motion to accept excused absence. Seconded by E. Horne. Carried unanimously by voice vote. G. Hilts has an excused absence, previously approved. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess wants to add to New Business choosing someone to chair the meetings if B. Burgess is not present, since G. Hilts will be absent from the BZA meetings for a few months. E. Horne made motion to approve agenda with the above stated addition. Seconded by A. Frederick. Carried unanimously by voice vote. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar, 1000 Block JustAMere and 1209 through 1301E Willoughby J. Ruff stated that Donna Wynant will present the case. He stated that for the benefit of the Board, the applicant would appreciate an extended time in order to present all of the features of the proposal. This appeal is a portion of actions that are in front of both the Planning Board and City Council as well as the Board of Zoning Appeals. J. Ruff stated that the Planning Board is considering a re-zoning request as well as an ACT 285 which is a request for a pedway over the public right-of-way of JustAMere so there would be some air rights easements to JustAMere. Thirdly, because this would involve changes to the Master Plan, the Planning Board is also looking at a Master Plan amendment. Their hearing was Tuesday night. They don't anticipate any actions on their behalf at least until sometime in February. The Board of Zoning Appeals will hear the entire proposal tonight, but the Board's responsibility is to look specifically at the height variances involved. Since that is a dimensional characteristic of a plan that has not yet been approved, the Planning Office's recommendation will be to table it after the hearing tonight. D. Wynant presented the case. She referred to the beginning of the staff report which listed the various actions to be taken. The Board of Zoning Appeals, on this development, will focus on height and setback variances. The location is in the 6800 block of S. Cedar St.just south of Long Blvd. at JustAMere. The expansion of this development will be west to the rear of the existing development with a hotel expansion and an expansion of the convention center. There will also be a proposed extended stay BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2000 PAGE 2 suites which would be to the south closer to Willoughby. The existing development in the area consists primarily, to the north, of office and commercial development; to the east is additional commercial development; to the west are some single family homes as well as an apartment development, Oak Park Village; to the south is additional office and commercial development. Willoughby marks Delhi Township. D. Wynant also referred to maps in the staff report that highlight the various types of developments in the area. She stated that the development will feature the hotel which will be 99'tall. The maximum height in that zoning district, which is F-Commercial is 40'. That would require a 59' variance on that portion of structure. She referred to the site plan. The second variance to look at would be the parking ramp to the south of the development. It would be a 3-story parking deck. The maximum height that would have with the stair towers would be 55'. In that zoning district which is J-Parking District, that has a maximum height of 45'. In that case, they are looking at a 10' variance request to allow that to go up to 55'. The extended stay suites, which is the development closer to Willoughby Rd. is proposed to be at a height of 55'. They are requesting that to be zoned F Commercial District. It is currently zoned residentially. The height restriction in that zoning district is 40' and the maximum building height requested there is 55'. That is, therefore, a 15' height variance. Those are the structural variances requested. As also part of this development, there will be a pedestrian overpass. In that case, since it goes up to and over the property lines, in those zoning districts there is a minimum setback requirement of 20'. The request there is for a 20' front yard variance to allow for that pedestrian overpass to go up to those property lines and over. She referred again to the proposal packet given to the Board. She summarized that the variances are on the height of the expanded hotel, the height of the parking ramp which is really due to the stairs, the maximum height is exceeded on the extended stay suites, and then the setback variance that is requested on the pedestrian overpass. J. Ruff stated that when this was prepared for advertisement, the applicant's architect gave the Planning Office a best guess maximum height. The Planning Office advertised what was thought to be the absolute maximum that those would be at that time. At Tuesday night's meeting, Mr. Long presented some additional data which gave the Planning Board more accurate height of those portions of structure because they are continuing to refine the design work. As such, there are some differences in the numbers that are presented tonight. But the advertisement was for the numbers that are in the staff report. The applicant will give you numbers that are less than that tonight due to the refinement that has been done in the drawing. A. Frederick moved to allow applicant 20 minutes maximum. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous by voice vote. Mr. Gordon Long, 6910 S. Cedar St., Lansing MI, addressed the Board. He also introduced Mr. Kevin Luchetti, an executive with the Holiday Inn. He then passed to the Board their proposal packets. He stated that this is an expansion of an existing business. He stated that he has been a developer/builder/real estate broker in the Greater Lansing area since 1951. They started the Long's Convention Center 27 years ago. They added the hotel to it 14 years ago. They are asking to expand those facilities by adding to the hotel, adding to the existing convention center and meeting areas and adding a new Extended Stay Facility. It is a hotel and is similar to Residence Inn Suites. They have been operating as a full service group hotel ever since the hotel was established. They know the market and what they are missing in that market. Their purpose in asking for this expansion is that they are convinced that they need to add additional meeting space to reach 90% of the business that is available. This will not shift rooms from one side of town to the other, but will bring new business to Lansing. They currently have 300 rooms in the existing hotel including the convention center. He referred to the proposal packet that was given to the board. He stated that they want to add 161 rooms. In addition to that, they will add 32,000 square feet of exhibit space and 25,000 square of meeting space. Total added area would be approximately 320,000 square feet of expansion. They have about 250,000 square feet now. The Staybridge Suites will have 152 rooms, a combination of efficiencies, 1 & 2 bedrooms with their own parking. There is a 13,000 square foot single story office building. Staybridge has its BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2000 PAGE 3 own parking. He referred to maps for the Board. The pedway is 18'to the bottom. He described the location and the plans for the buildings. He also described the air photos of the location. He referred to maps and photos of area from different views. He further explained the entire area with the expansions and referred to drawings. Using these drawings, he explained each floor of the hotel expansion. He showed and explained the height variances requested for the building and stairway. J. Ruff clarified that in the J District, the ramp height can be up to 45'. G. Long explained and showed on drawings the height of the ramp and the variance requested. He then explained in detail the Staybridge Suites building referring to drawings and floor plans. There is a significant gable- 54'to top of the roof- flat roof doesn't look as good. He stated that zoning does need to be changed. E. Horne asked what the height of the bottom of the pedway was? G. Long stated that it is 18' high above the street. E. Horne asked J. Ruff if one of the emergency fire engines with the boomers go underneath the pedway? J. Ruff stated that it could go underneath the pedway. The minimum height allowance that the Fire Marshall already informed him of is 13 '/z feet. The Fire Marshall gave him a specific response to that. Ken Kruger, 920 JustAMere, Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. He stated that what Mr. Long is not telling the Board is that he is displacing a few people by doing this. Mr. Long is also pushing his hotel into residential area which is already encroached by the hotel, and he is pushing it even deeper into it. K. Kruger stated that Mr. Long said that the area is mostly zoned "F Commercial" at this time - it is not. It is zoned "J Parking" and "A Residential". Mr. Long is trying to change all of that into "F Commercial" and "J Parking". Mr. Long will tear down 13 structures to do so. Mr. Kruger stated that if the hotel is built, it will be even closer and even higher and he will not be able to watch the sun come up until it is high in the sky. The structure will be approximately 200'from his house. He feels that the whole project is not necessary. He feels that perhaps it is needed in the city but not in his residential neighborhood. He doesn't believe that the overpass should be constructed over a residential street. He thinks that the parking ramp has no purpose other than to entice people to come to Mr. Long's hotel perhaps - 2500 parking spots in a residential neighborhood - he doesn't see it. The whole project is basically "noosing" his neighborhood more. Mr. Long has developed everything around it so far and he will continue to do so until he pushes everyone out of there. He referred to the letters in the board packets. Mr. Kruger constructed both of those letters and had people sign it. Everyone who signed those letters are people who will have to live with his project. They don't want it. They don't think that any of it should be allowed. Mr. Kruger stated that he was talking about height variances and crossing the street variances. He stated that he believes this case should be tabled until such time as any of the changes of the zoning are completed - not in process- all of that should be absolute and fact before any variances are granted for buildings that may never be built. Francis Sutton, 908 JustAMere Ave., Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. He stated that he has been there at the end of the street for 33 years. He is retired. He stated that with this structure going in, he does not know if his property will be any good to anybody else but him and his wife. First of all, he is opposed to this. They don't need it in south Lansing. They don't need this kind of business there. The interchange of 1-96, South Cedar and South Pennsylvania is already saturated with hotels. That is his opinion. Now if he and his wife decides to sit outdoors on a hot summer night, what are they going to have to look at? The birds are gone, the trees are gone. This is a residential area. Houses are being torn down and taken out to the Granger dump. He stated that there is a big convention center right down the road that can be used. They don't need it. It is not feasible. He doesn't want to look up the street and see a parking ramp or a BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2000 PAGE 4 pedway across the street. It would look like Las Vegas. He stated that some people might think all this will be pretty. It might be for someone who comes in for an hour or so. But it won't be pretty to the people who have to live there. That's the way he feels about it. He will have to be the one who lives with this. Joe Garza, 7021 Georgia Ave., Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. He stated that he wants to go back to when the Clarion was built by Mr. Long. Back at that time, there was a lot of pollution. There were trucks all over Georgia Ave. and all kinds of construction work. There were picket lines from union and non-union members. There was some crime there also - one of the truck drivers ran over one of the members of the picket line. There were a lot of episodes in that area at that time. Now that Mr. Long is trying to come back and expand his hotel, if they are going to go through the same episodes again, somebody is going to be liable. He also stated that there have been shootings and robberies at the townhouses. It was a nice street. Now it is dangerous. Georgia Ave. and JustAMere are shortcuts that people use. He stated that if the Board gives Mr. Long the "green light" on this project, he hopes that he will not have to go through the same episodes that he went through in the past. Ward Rykman, 7015 Georgia Ave., Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. He stated that just recently he tried to put a front porch on his house. He said that he came down to the office and fought with them all day and was told that he couldn't put his front porch on because it was 3 inches over the line. He asked why would he get something like this where he couldn't do it, yet Mr. Long comes along with all of these variances and he can be able to do it. Something isn't right. He stated that he was told he could put his porch on the side of the house, but he had to drop back 4'from the side of the house. Maybe money talks. A lot of people around this area don't have the money to do things, yet they have to put up with something like this. He doesn't think that it is right and he doesn't want it. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess stated that he wished to recognize a letter from the Concerned Citizens of JustAMere Farms. M. Clark stated that she is very impressed with the Long proposal. She thinks that a lot of thought has gone into the various components of it and she thinks that it looks like a beautiful structure. The problem comes from the fact that it is adjacent to this residential neighborhood. Interestingly, in the last week or so, there have been all kinds of articles in the paper about the City of Lansing and people fleeing the City of Lansing because their residential neighborhoods are not compatible with the lifestyles of today. She thinks that this is a classic example of a neighborhood that has been a quiet residential area and through our actions, the Board may be creating some very negative impacts on the viability of this neighborhood. There is also the problem of residential neighborhoods becoming too small to continue to be a viable residential neighborhood. At what point in this neighborhood's history is the Board going to make it too small for it to continue as a residential area, and if so, what is the impact on the property owners that are left there? A. Frederick stated that he has had the advantage of hearing the proposal at the Planning Board and then driving around in the neighborhood. Because of that, it was easier for him to imagine how that whole project is going to look if it were allowed to be built in that neighborhood. It helped him to consider some of the problems that could arise. One of the big issues, which some of the neighbors have raised directly and indirectly, is traffic up and down the residential part of JustAMere and Georgia Ave. He can't see that parking structure, if it is allowed to have ingress or egress onto Georgia or to have access to Georgia, for the traffic to do nothing but cause a lot more traffic problems. He believes that is an issue of public safety for him. One of the things that he noticed in his packet that was presented at the Planning Board meeting was that the Traffic Engineer hasn't had an opportunity yet to make up his mind on what kind of traffic considerations there are and recommend that a study be done. Before A. Frederick can feel comfortable about making any kind of decision, he would like to see the results of that traffic BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2000 PAGE 5 study and see if there might be any recommended changes or modifications to the plan that would alleviate some of the traffic problems that could potentially arise in the neighborhood. After having driven around out there, he doesn't really feel like he has enough information from what he has been presented both Tuesday night and tonight to really make an informed decision. So he would not be comfortable voting yes or no on this proposal tonight and would like to see more information before the Board proceeds on it. E. Horne agrees with A. Frederick. She believes that the Board needs to have all of the studies completely done. She also thinks that the Board needs to be working on the Master Plan to give them some direction as to what the Board is going to be doing in the southeast section of the city. She stated that she is concerned because she knows from experience what a parking ramp can do to a neighborhood because it has happened in her neighborhood. Therefore, the Board will have to take all these things into consideration and know what direction they are going to go in as far as the neighborhood is concerned. They have lost over 3,000 homes in the Lansing area over a period of time. Families support schools and businesses. She can see the need for the convention center. But before she can make any kind of recommendation or vote, she believes that all of this information should be given to the Board. E. Horne moved that BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar, variances for height and setback requirements for the Holiday Inn expansion project, be tabled until the time that the Board has all of the studies necessary. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to table. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that he has not received a response to a letter sent out regarding this case. B. BZA-3553.99 735 E. Michigan J. Ruff stated that there was no action. D. BZA-3554.99 907 W. Saginaw J. Ruff stated that he has not received a response on this case. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of December 9, 1999 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by R. McCloud. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Temporary Vice Chair M. Clark stated that in the past the previous chair has taken over. It was agreed by the Board that the past chair will serve as temporary vice chair when needed. B. Development for the City of Lansing E. Horne stated that this meeting tonight has brought up some things that are not BZA, but are still part of the overall development for the City of Lansing. She knows that the Planning Department is overworked. She believes that at the pace that they are going, staffing needs to be doubled. As they are developing so fast in the southeast section of the City of Lansing - she stated several examples-the time has come that they need to sit down with the residents and the community leaders and see what direction they are going to go. E. Horne is imploring the Planning Board and the Planning Department if they could do something as far as the Master Plan in the southeast section of the city. B. Burgess stated that these issues can be brought up at the Board Chairs meetings. If it was put in the form of a motion, he can bring it up at the next meeting. M. Clark asked what is happening with the Master Plan in general. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2000 PAGE 6 J. Ruff stated that the Planning Board has, in this past year, completed the Central Lansing Plan as an update to a portion of the River Island Plan as well as the North East Area Plan. They have been doing work on the more citywide activities common to the city. One of those was the Housing Study- Council paid for it and the Planning Office had to manage it. Donna Wynant, Senior Planner, is also doing research on community facilities so that when they go into the neighborhood areas, they will have a lot of the citywide backbone information all ready to discuss the neighborhood portions of the Master Plan. He is not aware that a system has been developed and nailed down yet as to which section is going to begin first or whether they are going to be looking at going back to smaller district areas. Planners will be assigned to those district areas and they will be looking at those issues. The city is broken into 4 master plans. They want to develop a more comprehensive plan where each section of the city has a portion of it, but then there are all the general items of the city. He is not exactly sure how they will build the neighborhood portion yet-whether it is going to strictly be a neighborhood portion or whether it is going to be in 4 sections broken down into neighborhood portions. M. Clark asked if there was a particular order that they went in? J. Ruff stated that out of the 4 plans, River Island was first and North East was last. Each one of those areas had a set of districts to it that the planners worked on. General discussion ensued regarding sections of the Master Plan and how to incorporate the neighborhoods into them. E. Horne made a motion to direct B. Burgess to bring this matter of the Master Plan up at the next Board Chairs meeting and see if something can be done as far as the southeast area. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote. B. Burgess also mentioned that to him there is another variable as well - multiple decisions being made at multiple levels. It will be interesting to see how the Board fits in and what the possibilities are. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, AL Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 01/28/00 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 13, 2000, 7:30 P.M. Cl:DidITYNCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10TH FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by B. Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Vice Chairman Burgess read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E. Horne M. Clark A. Frederick B. Burgess R. McCloud Staff: J. Ruff A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. V. Earhart requested an excused absence due to illness. A. Frederick made motion to accept excused absence. Seconded by E. Horne. Carried unanimously by voice vote. G. Hilts has an excused absence, previously approved. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess wants to add to New Business choosing someone to chair the meetings if B. Burgess is not present, since G. Hilts will be absent from the BZA meetings for a few months. E. Horne made motion to approve agenda with the above stated addition. Seconded by A. Frederick. Carried unanimously by voice vote. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar, 1000 Block JustAMere,and 1209 through 1301 E.Willoughby J. Ruff stated that Donna Wynant will present the case. He stated that for the benefit of the Board, the applicant would appreciate an extended time in order to present all of the features of the proposal. This appeal is a portion of actions that are in front of both the Planning Board and City Council as well as the Board of Zoning Appeals. J. Ruff stated that the Planning Board is considering a re-zoning request as well as an ACT 285 which is a request for a pedway over the public right-of-way of JustAMere so there would be some air rights easements to JustAMere. Thirdly, because this would involve changes to the Master Plan, the Planning Board is also looking at a Master Plan amendment. Their hearing was Tuesday night. They don't anticipate any actions on their behalf at least until sometime in February. The Board of Zoning Appeals will hear the entire proposal tonight, but the Board's responsibility is to look specifically at the height variances involved. Since that is a dimensional characteristic of a plan that has not yet been approved, the Planning Office's recommendation will be to table it after the hearing tonight. D. Wynant presented the case. She referred to the beginning of the staff report which listed the various actions to be taken. The Board of Zoning Appeals, on this development, will focus on height and setback variances. The location is in the 6800 block of S. Cedar St.just south of Long Blvd. at JustAMere. The expansion of this development will be west to the rear of the existing development with a hotel expansion and an expansion of the convention center. There will also be a proposed extended stay DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2000 PAGE 2 suites which would be to the south closer to Willoughby. The existing development in the area consists primarily, to the north, of office and commercial development; to the east is additional commercial development; to the west are some single family homes as well as an apartment development, Oak Park Village; to the south is additional office and commercial development. Willoughby marks Delhi Township. D. Wynant also referred to maps in the staff report that highlight the various types of developments in the area. She stated that the development will feature the hotel which will be 99'tall. The maximum height in that zoning district, which is F-Commercial is 40'. That would require a 59' variance on that portion of structure. She referred to the site plan. The second variance to look at would be the parking ramp to the south of the development. It would be a 3-story parking deck. The maximum height that would have with the stair towers would be 55'. In that zoning district which is J-Parking District, that has a maximum height of 45'. In that case, they are looking at a 10' variance request to allow that to go up to 55'. The extended stay suites, which is the development closer to Willoughby Rd. is proposed to be at a height of 55'. They are requesting that to be zoned F Commercial District. It is currently zoned residentially. The height restriction in that zoning district is 40' and the maximum building height requested there is 55'. That is, therefore, a 15' height variance. Those are the structural variances requested. As also part of this development, there will be a pedestrian overpass. In that case, since it goes up to and over the property lines, in those zoning districts there is a minimum setback requirement of 20'. The request there is for a 20' front yard variance to allow for that pedestrian overpass to go up to those property lines and over. She referred again to the proposal packet given to the Board. She summarized that the variances are on the height of the expanded hotel, the height of the parking ramp which is really due to the stairs, the maximum height is exceeded on the extended stay suites, and then the setback variance that is requested on the pedestrian overpass. J. Ruff stated that when this was prepared for advertisement, the applicant's architect gave the Planning Office a best guess maximum height. The Planning Office advertised what was thought to be the absolute maximum that those would be at that time. At Tuesday night's meeting, Mr. Long presented some additional data which gave the Planning Board more accurate height of those portions of structure because they are continuing to refine the design work. As such, there are some differences in the numbers that are presented tonight. But the advertisement was for the numbers that are in the staff report. The applicant will give you numbers that are less than that tonight due to the refinement that has been done in the drawing. A. Frederick moved to allow applicant 20 minutes maximum. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous by voice vote. Mr. Gordon Long, 6910 S. Cedar St., Lansing MI, addressed the Board. He also introduced Mr. Kevin Luchetti, an executive with the Holiday Inn. He then passed to the Board their proposal packets. He stated that this is an expansion of an existing business. He stated that he has been a developer/builder/real estate broker in the Greater Lansing area since 1951. They started the Long's Convention Center 27 years ago. They added the hotel to it 14 years ago. They are asking to expand those facilities by adding to the hotel, adding to the existing convention center and meeting areas and adding a new Extended Stay Facility. It is a hotel and is similar to Residence Inn Suites. They have been operating as a full service group hotel ever since the hotel was established. They know the market and what they are missing in that market. Their purpose in asking for this expansion is that they are convinced that they need to add additional meeting space to reach 90% of the business that is available. This will not shift rooms from one side of town to the other, but will bring new business to Lansing. They currently have 300 rooms in the existing hotel including the convention center. He referred to the proposal packet that was given to the board. He stated that they want to add 161 rooms. In addition to that, they will add 32,000 square feet of exhibit space and 25,000 square of meeting space. Total added area would be approximately 320,000 square feet of expansion. They have about 250,000 square feet now. The Staybridge DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2000 PAGE 3 Suites will have 152 rooms, a combination of efficiencies, 1 & 2 bedrooms with their own parking. There is a 13,000 square foot single story office building. Staybridge has its own parking. He referred to maps for the Board. The pedway is 18'to the bottom. He described the location and the plans for the buildings. He also described the air photos of the location. He referred to maps and photos of area from different views. He further explained the entire area with the expansions and referred to drawings. Using these drawings, he explained each floor of the hotel expansion. He showed and explained the height variances requested for the building and stairway. J. Ruff clarified that in the J District, the ramp height can be up to 45'. G. Long explained and showed on drawings the height of the ramp and the variance requested. He then explained in detail the Staybridge Suites building referring to drawings and floor plans. There is a significant gable - 54'to top of the roof- flat roof doesn't look as good. He stated that zoning does need to be changed. E. Horne asked what the height of the bottom of the pedway was? G. Long stated that it is 18' high above the street. E. Horne asked J. Ruff if one of the emergency fire engines with the boomers go underneath the pedway? J. Ruff stated that it could go underneath the pedway. The minimum height allowance that the Fire Marshall already informed him of is 13 '/2 feet. The Fire Marshall gave him a specific response to that. Ken Kruger, 920 JustAMere, Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. He stated that what Mr. Long is not telling the Board is that he is displacing a few people by doing this. Mr. Long is also pushing his hotel into residential area which is already encroached by the hotel, and he is pushing it even deeper into it. K. Kruger stated that Mr. Long said that the area is mostly zoned "F Commercial" at this time - it is not. It is zoned "J Parking" and "A Residential". Mr. Long is trying to change all of that into "F Commercial" and "J Parking". Mr. Long will tear down 13 structures to do so. Mr. Kruger stated that if the hotel is built, it will be even closer and even higher and he will not be able to watch the sun come up until it is high in the sky. The structure will be approximately 200'from his house. He feels that the whole project is not necessary. He feels that perhaps it is needed in the city but not in his residential neighborhood. He doesn't believe that the overpass should be constructed over a residential street. He thinks that the parking ramp has no purpose other than to entice people to come to Mr. Long's hotel perhaps- 2500 parking spots in a residential neighborhood - he doesn't see it. The whole project is basically "noosing" his neighborhood more. Mr. Long has developed everything around it so far and he will continue to do so until he pushes everyone out of there. He referred to the letters in the board packets. Mr. Kruger constructed both of those letters and had people sign it. Everyone who signed those letters are people who will have to live with his project. They don't want it. They don't think that any of it should be allowed. Mr. Kruger stated that he was talking about height variances and crossing the street variances. He stated that he believes this case should be tabled until such time as any of the changes of the zoning are completed - not in process- all of that should be absolute and fact before any variances are granted for buildings that may never be built. Francis Sutton, 908 JustAMere Ave., Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. He stated that he has been there at the end of the street for 33 years. He is retired. He stated that with this structure going in, he does not know if his property will be any good to anybody else but him and his wife. First of all, he is opposed to this. They don't need it in south Lansing. They don't need this kind of business there. The interchange of 1-96, South Cedar and South Pennsylvania is already saturated with hotels. That is his opinion. Now if he and his wife decides to sit outdoors on a hot summer night, what are they DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2000 PAGE 4 going to have to look at? The birds are gone, the trees are gone. This is a residential area. Houses are being torn down and taken out to the Granger dump. He stated that there is a big convention center right down the road that can be used. They don't need it. It is not feasible. He doesn't want to look up the street and see a parking ramp or a pedway across the street. It would look like Las Vegas. He stated that some people might think all this will be pretty. It might be for someone who comes in for an hour or so. But it won't be pretty to the people who have to live there. That's the way he feels about it. He will have to be the one who lives with this. Joe Garza, 7021 Georgia Ave., Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. He stated that he wants to go back to when the Clarion was built by Mr. Long. Back at that time, there was a lot of pollution. There were trucks all over Georgia Ave. and all kinds of construction work. There were picket lines from union and non-union members. There was some crime there also - one of the truck drivers ran over one of the members of the picket line. There were a lot of episodes in that area at that time. Now that Mr. Long is trying to come back and expand his hotel, if they are going to go through the same episodes again, somebody is going to be liable. He also stated that there have been shootings and robberies at the townhouses. It was a nice street. Now it is dangerous. Georgia Ave. and JustAMere are shortcuts that people use. He stated that if the Board gives Mr. Long the "green light" on this project, he hopes that he will not have to go through the same episodes that he went through in the past. Ward Rykman, 7015 Georgia Ave., Lansing, MI, addressed the Board. He stated that just recently he tried to put a front porch on his house. He said that he came down to the office and fought with them all day and was told that he couldn't put his front porch on because it was 3 inches over the line. He asked why would he get something like this where he couldn't do it, yet Mr. Long comes along with all of these variances and he can be able to do it. Something isn't right. He stated that he was told he could put his porch on the side of the house, but he had to drop back 4'from the side of the house. Maybe money talks. A lot of people around this area don't have the money to do things, yet they have to put up with something like this. He doesn't think that it is right and he doesn't want it. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess stated that he wished to recognize a letter from the Concerned Citizens of JustAMere Farms. M. Clark stated that she is very impressed with the Long proposal. She thinks that a lot of thought has gone into the various components of it and she thinks that it looks like a beautiful structure. The problem comes from the fact that it is adjacent to this residential neighborhood. Interestingly, in the last week or so, there have been all kinds of articles in the paper about the City of Lansing and people fleeing the City of Lansing because their residential neighborhoods are not compatible with the lifestyles of today. She thinks that this is a classic example of a neighborhood that has been a quiet residential area and through our actions, the Board may be creating some very negative impacts on the viability of this neighborhood. There is also the problem of residential neighborhoods becoming too small to continue to be a viable residential neighborhood. At what point in this neighborhood's history is the Board going to make it too small for it to continue as a residential area, and if so, what is the impact on the property owners that are left there? A. Frederick stated that he has had the advantage of hearing the proposal at the Planning Board and then driving around in the neighborhood. Because of that, it was easier for him to imagine how that whole project is going to look if it were allowed to be built in that neighborhood. It helped him to consider some of the problems that could arise. One of the big issues, which some of the neighbors have raised directly and indirectly, is traffic up and down the residential part of JustAMere and Georgia Ave. He can't see that parking structure, if it is allowed to have DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2000 PAGE 5 ingress or egress onto Georgia or to have access to Georgia, for the traffic to do nothing but cause a lot more traffic problems. He believes that is an issue of public safety for him. One of the things that he noticed in his packet that was presented at the Planning Board meeting was that the Traffic Engineer hasn't had an opportunity yet to make up his mind on what kind of traffic considerations there are and recommend that a study be done. Before A. Frederick can feel comfortable about making any kind of decision, he would like to see the results of that traffic study and see if there might be any recommended changes or modifications to the plan that would alleviate some of the traffic problems that could potentially arise in the neighborhood. After having driven around out there, he doesn't really feel like he has enough information from what he has been presented both Tuesday night and tonight to really make an informed decision. So he would not be comfortable voting yes or no on this proposal tonight and would like to see more information before the Board proceeds on it. E. Horne agrees with A. Frederick. She believes that the Board needs to have all of the studies completely done. She also thinks that the Board needs to be working on the Master Plan to give them some direction as to what the Board is going to be doing in the southeast section of the city. She stated that she is concerned because she knows from experience what a parking ramp can do to a neighborhood because it has happened in her neighborhood. Therefore, the Board will have to take all these things into consideration and know what direction they are going to go in as far as the neighborhood is concerned. They have lost over 3,000 homes in the Lansing area over a period of time. Families support schools and businesses. She can see the need for the convention center. But before she can make any kind of recommendation or vote, she believes that all of this information should be given to the Board. E. Horne moved that BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar, variances for height and setback requirements for the Holiday Inn expansion project, be tabled until the time that the Board has all of the studies necessary. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to table. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch J. Ruff stated that he has not received a response to a letter sent out regarding this case. B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan J. Ruff stated that there was no action. D. BZA-3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw J. Ruff stated that he has not received a response on this case. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of December 9, 1999 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by R. McCloud. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Temporary Vice Chair M. Clark stated that in the past the previous chair has taken over. It was agreed by the Board that the past chair will serve as temporary vice chair when needed. B. Development for the City of Lansing E. Horne stated that this meeting tonight has brought up some things that are not BZA, but are still part of the overall development for the City of Lansing. She knows that the Planning Department is overworked. She believes that at the pace that they are going, staffing needs to be doubled. As they are developing so fast in the southeast section of the City of Lansing - she stated several examples-the time has come that they need to sit down with the residents and the community leaders and see what direction they are DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2000 PAGE 6 going to go. E. Horne is imploring the Planning Board and the Planning Department if they could do something as far as the Master Plan in the southeast section of the city. B. Burgess stated that these issues can be brought up at the Board Chairs meetings. If it was put in the form of a motion, he can bring it up at the next meeting. M. Clark asked what is happening with the Master Plan in general. J. Ruff stated that the Planning Board has, in this past year, completed the Central Lansing Plan as an update to a portion of the River Island Plan as well as the North East Area Plan. They have been doing work on the more citywide activities common to the city. One of those was the Housing Study- Council paid for it and the Planning Office had to manage it. Donna Wynant, Senior Planner, is also doing research on community facilities so that when they go into the neighborhood areas, they will have a lot of the citywide backbone information all ready to discuss the neighborhood portions of the Master Plan. He is not aware that a system has been developed and nailed down yet as to which section is going to begin first or whether they are going to be looking at going back to smaller district areas. Planners will be assigned to those district areas and they will be looking at those issues. The city is broken into 4 master plans. They want to develop a more comprehensive plan where each section of the city has a portion of it, but then there are all the general items of the city. He is not exactly sure how they will build the neighborhood portion yet-whether it is going to strictly be a neighborhood portion or whether it is going to be in 4 sections broken down into neighborhood portions. M. Clark asked if there was a particular order that they went in? J. Ruff stated that out of the 4 plans, River Island was first and North East was last. Each one of those areas had a set of districts to it that the planners worked on. General discussion ensued regarding sections of the Master Plan and how to incorporate the neighborhoods into them. E. Horne made a motion to direct B. Burgess to bring this matter of the Master Plan up at the next Board Chairs meeting and see if something can be done as far as the southeast area. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote. B. Burgess also mentioned that to him there is another variable as well - multiple decisions being made at multiple levels. It will be interesting to see how the Board fits in and what the possibilities are. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ruff, Zoning Administrator DRAFT