Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 2001 Minutes BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 1 Draft to Clerk 12/28/01 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 13, 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL 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 E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts G. Swix F. Lain Absent: Staff: S. Stachowiak T. Masseau A. A quorum of at least four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3660.01, 340 E. Edgewood Blvd. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Sam's Real Estate Business Trust for a variance to the parking space requirements of Section 1284.13 of the Zoning Code. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the construction of a fueling station in a portion of the existing Sam's Club parking lot fronting on 340 E. Edgewood Blvd. Construction of the fueling station would reduce the number of parking spaces by 99 spaces from the 890 required under Section 1284.13. Mr. Tim Mason, spoke in favor of his request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3660.01, 340 E. Edgewood Blvd., a variance of 99 parking spaces from the required 890 spaces. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Swix X Lain X BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 2 VOTE YEA NAY Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3660.01, 340 E. Edgewood Blvd., has been approved. B. BZA-3661.01, 1008 S. Cedar Street Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Amor Sign Studios, Inc., on behalf of Admiral Petroleum Corporation to construct four wall signs at 1008 S. Cedar totaling 118 square feet in area. Section 1442.13(b) of the Sign Code allows two wall signs per building. In addition, Section 1442.13(i) permits a total of 35 square feet of wall signage for the subject property. Therefore, variances are requested for two additional wall signs and 83 square feet of sign area. Staff recommended denial of the request because the signage is to too much for the site. Mr. Tom Amor, Sr., President of Amor Sign Studios, spoke in favor of his request. Mr. Amor reviewed the reasons that Admiral would like the signage that is requested. He also showed an alternative plan for the signage. G. Hilts asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. The Board discussed the possibility of granting a variance for less signage than was is proposed. Mr. Hilts stated that he would not be in favor of granting a variance for more signs than the two that are allowed by ordinance. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3661.01, 1008 S. Cedar,a variance fortwo wall signs to have a combined area of not more than 62.5 square feet. Seconded by G. Swix. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Swix X Lain X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3661.01, 1008 S. Cedar Street has been approved. C. BZA-3662.01, 5819 Rockingham Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Kevin Dawson of R.S. Jones Builders for a rear yard setback variance at 5819 Rockingham. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the back of the house that would have a setback of 22 feet from the rear property line. Section 1248.09 requires a rear yard setback of 30 feet in the"A"Residential Zoning District. Therefore a rear yard setback variance of 8 feet is requested. Mr. Kevin Dawson of R.S. Jones Builders, representing the homeowners, spoke in favor of his request. G. Hilts asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3662.01, 5819 Rockingham, a rear yard setback variance of 8 feet. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 3 Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Swix X Lain X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3662.01, 5819 Rockingham has been approved. D. BZA-3663.01, 901-909 Vine Street Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property located at 901-909 Vine Street, which is located in the "Dm-3" Residential District. Section 1256.08 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 10% of the lot width which is 13.2 feet for the subject property. The existing building has a 7 foot side yard setback from the west property line and a 3 foot side yard setback from the east property line. Therefore,variances of 6.2 on the west and 10.2 respectively are requested for the side yard setbacks. Mr. Ron Van Zee, Construction Manager for Ferris Development, spoke in favor of his request. G. Hilts asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3663.01, 901-909 Vine Street for side yard setback variances of 6.2 and 10.2 feet. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Swix X Lain X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3663.01, 901-909 Vine Street has been approved. E. BZA-3664.01, 3509 Schlee Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Blake Khogali-Watson on behalf of the owners, Adrian and Marzia Woodside, for a side yard setback variance at 3509 Schlee Street. The applicant proposes to enclose a carport on the south side of the house that would have a setback of 3' 8" from the side property line. Section 1248.08 requires a side yard setback of 6 feet in the "A" Residential Zoning District. Therefore, a side yard setback variance of 2' 4" is requested. Mr. Blake Khogali-Watson, spoke in favor of his request. Mr. Reuben Waggoner, next door neighbor, spoke in favor of this request. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 4 G. Hilts asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3664.01, 3509 Schlee,for a side yard setback variance of 2'4". Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Swix X Lain X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3664.01, 3509 Schlee has been approved. F. BZA-3665.01, Parcel 20, Skye Road Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Brian Pointer for front and rear yard setback variances for Lot 20 on Skye Road. The property is currently vacant and is located between 2401 and 2415 Skye Road. The applicant proposes to construct a new house on the property that would have a 17 foot front yard setback and a 15 foot rear yard setback. Section 1248.07 requires a front yard setback of 22.8 feet and Section 1248.09 requires a rear yard setback of 30 feet in the "A" Residential Zoning District. Therefore,variances of 5.8 feet for the front yard setback and 15 feet for the rear yard setback are requested. Mr. Clarence Hebenstreet, Davis Construction, representing the owners, spoke in favor of his request. Mrs. Pam Leek, 2401 Skye Road, spoke, but was not for or against the variances. She lives next door to the subject property and expressed concerns about where her property lines actually were as they seem to be different then where she was told the lot lines were when she and her husband bought the property. They are going to court due to this disagreement. Mr. David Leek, 2401 Skye Road, also spoke, but was not for or against the variances. Mr. Leek expressed concerns about the lot line separating his property from the applicants property. He also expressed concern about heavy equipment on the applicants lot possibly damaging his property and his home. Ms. Patricia Beck, 2415 Skye Road, expressed concern about the size of the actual parcel. G. Hilts explained that the concerns about the lot lines are a private matter and that a survey would be needed to determined exactly where the lot lines are located. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3665.01, Parcel 20, Skye Road for a front yard variance of 5.8 feet and a rear yard variance of 15 feet setback. Seconded by B. Burgess. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 5 VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Swix X Lain X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3665.01, Parcel 20, Skye Road 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. Rules of Procedure (no action) E. Ordinance Amendments (no action) V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of November 8, 2001 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII. NEW BUSINESS Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING Mh jJTES NOVEMBER 8, 2001 PAGE 1 Draft to Clerk Approved 12/13/01 To Clerk 12/18/01 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVEMBER 8, 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL 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 E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts Absent: Staff: S. Stachowiak T. Masseau A. A quorum of at least three members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. If APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess requested that BZA 3658.01 and BZA 3659.01 be heard before BZA 3645.01, since those are residential cases. S. Stachowiak asked that the 2002 Meeting Schedule be added under new business. B. Burgess moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3658.01, 1814 W. Maple Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Randall L. Thompson for a front yard setback variance at 1814 W. Maple Street. The applicant proposes to construct a new 24'x 24' (576 sq. ft.) detached garage with a front yard setback of 13 feet from the property line along W. Maple Street. Section 1248.07(a) requires a front yard setback of 20 feet in the "B" Residential Zoning District. Therefore, a front yard setback variance of 7 feet is requested. Mr. Randall L. Thompson, spoke in favor of his request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3658.01, 1814 W. Maple, a variance for a front yard setback of 7-feet. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING h,...i-)TES NOVEMBER 8, 2001 PAGE 2 VOTE YEA NAY Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3658.01, 1814 W. Maple, has been approved. B. BZA-3659.01. 301 E. Mt. Hope Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by R.A. Cook Construction company, on behalf of Marion Mae Sandbrook, owner of 301 E. Mt. Hope. The applicant proposes to remove the existing rear 4'x 15' porch and construct a new 12'x 12' (144 sq. ft.) porch with a front yard setback of 16.5 feet from the property line along Maplewood Avenue. Section 1250.07 requires a front yard of not less than 20 feet in the"C"Residential Zoning District. Therefore, a front yard setback variance of 3.5 feet is requested. Mr. Rodney Cook, R.A. Cook Construction, spoke in favor of his request. G. Hilts asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3658.01, 301 E. Mt. Hope, for a front yard setback variance of 3.5 feet. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3659.01, 301 E. Mt. Hope has been approved. C. BZA-3645.01, 420 E. Elm Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by John Fifarek on behalf of Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc. regarding the existing billboard located at 420 E. Elm Street. Section 1442.22(f) of the Sign Code states that billboards are only allowed on major/principal arterials including interstate highways or freeways, and on minor arterials, as defined by the City's Master Plan, as amended from time to time. The billboard at 420 E. Elm is located on the corner of Cedar Street which is defined as a principal arterial, and E. Elm Street which is defined as a local street. In addition, Section 1442.22(h) states that in no case shall a billboard be permitted to be erected or constructed within 1,000 feet of any other billboard which may be viewed from the same road. The existing billboard at 420 E. Elm Street is located within 500 feet from another billboard to the south and within 300 feet of another billboard to the north. Therefore, variances are requested to permit a billboard on a local street and to permit a billboard within 1,000 feet of two other existing billboards. Mr. John Fifarek, Attorney on behalf of Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc., spoke in favor of his request. Mr. Fifareck stated that there are a couple preliminary points and those are that Adams is a part of this community and wants to work with this community and is standing before the Board asking for this variance today, even though they do not believe that we need to do so. He stated that they intend to comply with everything that the Board perceives is necessary in the ordinance. They are asking to be treated just like the folks who were before the Board earlier in the evening. He said that there is no necessity for somebody to have a bigger garage, anymore than there is a necessity to have a billboard. Mr. Fifarek explained that Adams leases the land so they are an owner, and are being deprived of a use of our ownership interest in that land. He stated that this is an industrial zoned BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING N._ _JTES NOVEMBER 8, 2001 PAGE 3 area every which way you look at it and they have a situation here where we have had a billboard on this location for decades, and but forthe fact that it got hit by lightening,we would still have a billboard there that nobody would be complaining about nor could they complain about. Mr. Fifarek continued that they have gone through the other process, were unsuccessful in front of this Board and they are in front of Judge Collette on this particular issue at this point in time. He told the Board that they have a practical difficulty resulting from the fact that there are existing signs which are prior nonconforming uses. He stated that they (billboards) are not something Adams put up after the City changed the ordinance and therefore, they did not create the situation. He said that the ordinance created the nonconformity with those other two signs and with this particular sign that we are dealing here with today. Adams may be the owners of those nearby properties, but they did not cause the problem that was created as a result of the amendment to the ordinance. He told the Board that they need to consider whether or not the billboard is going to have a detrimental effect upon this industrial zoned area. Mr. Fifarek pointed out an affidavit of Mr. Luckhurst,which, he said basically sets forth all of the factual information relating to the area and what Adams does or does not comply with in regards to the Ordinance. Mr. Fifarek stated that the billboard is on Cedar Street, it just happens to have an Elm Street address. He continued that it is over 300 feet away from Elm Street at the far south end of the property. Mr. Fifarek stated that the Board has listened to other folks on their various variances and one guy stated that he just wants to stay in Lansing. Mr. Fifarek also stated that that is a good reason and Adams financial interests in continuing to lease this property and to continue on with the business somehow is not as significant, but this billboard has a value to Adams of $87,000 based upon the appraisal they gave the Board. He said that variances, more often than not,deal with the value of the real estate. He stated that the other comment that is in the staff report, is that there is a negative impact because it is going to be inconsistent due to the nearby billboards. Again, that's no different than a residential setback variance request. Mr. Fifarek stated that they want to continue to do business in this community. They think they do a lot of good things for this community. They think this billboard is good for this community. They want to comply, to the extent that they can, with the ordinance, but they have a situation here because of the passage of the ordinance and at the time it was an existing billboard. It is now nonconforming, but before the destruction/damage as a result of the storm, we would not have been here two times earlier this year and again tonight. Mr. Fifarek asked that the Board grant them the variance that they have requested and that they will comply with the other requirements of the code. G. Hilts asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Seeing none,the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. The Board discussed the nonconforming status of the billboard and the issue of whether or not a practical difficulty exists in this case. E. Horne moved to deny BZA-3645.01,420 E. Elm, variance request to permit a billboard on a local street and to permit a billboard within 1,000 feet of two other existing billboards. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3645.01, 420 E. Elm has been denied. 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. Rules of Procedure (no action) E. Ordinance Amendments (no action) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2001 PAGE 4 V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of October 11, 2001 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. 2002 Meeting Schedule Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. voice vote to approve. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, I Z�zl " Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 1 Draft to Clerk 10/18/01 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 11, 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL 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 E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts Absent: Staff: S. Stachowiak T. Masseau A. A quorum of at least three members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess requested that BZA 3651.01 and BZA 3652.01 be heard immediately following BZA 3643.01 since they are all Ferris Development cases. He also asked that staff give one report, except for the specific variance requests, since all five cases by Ferris Development are very similar. A. Frederick asked that "New Board Members" be added under new business. B. Burgess moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3641.01, 303 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property located at 303 N. Pennsylvania which is located in the"DM-3" Residential District. Section 1256.07 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. The existing building has a zero setback from the front property line along Vine Street and a six foot setback from the property line along Pennsylvania. Section 1256.09 requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. The building will have a 13 foot rear yard setback. Section 1256.11 of the Zoning Code states that the maximum lot coverage shall not be more than 60% of the total lot area and the maximum amount of lot area that can be covered by structures is 40%. The proposed lot area coverage is approximately 76% of the total lot area and approximately 48% of the lot area is covered by structures. Section 1256.06 of the Zoning Code requires 2,200 square feet of lot area for a four bedroom dwelling unit. The subject property has approximately 1,865 square feet of lot area. Therefore,variances are requested for front yard setbacks of 20 feet and 14 feet, rear yard setback of 12 feet, 335 square feet of lot area and 16% of total lot coverage area and 8% of lot area that is covered by structures. Mr. Ron Van Zee, Construction Manager for Ferris Development, spoke in favor of his request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. DIUFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 2 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3641.01, 303 N. Pennsylvania Ave., a variance for front yard setbacks of 20 feet and 14 feet, rear yard setback of 12 feet, lot area of 335 square feet, 16% of total lot coverage and 8% of lot area covered by structures with the condition that Act-285 be approved. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3641.01, 303 N. Pennsylvania Ave., has been approved. B. BZA-3642.01, 819 Vine Street Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property located at 819 Vine Street which is located in the"DM-3" Residential District. Section 1256.07 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. The existing building has a 10 foot setback from the front property line along Haag Court and a five foot setback from the property line along Vine Street. Section 1256.08 requires a side yard setback of 10% of the lot width which is 5.9 feet for the subject property. The building will have a five foot side yard setback. Section 1256.11 of the Zoning Code states that the maximum lot coverage shall not be more than 60%of the total lot area and the maximum amount of lot area that can be covered by structures is 40%. The proposed lot area coverage including structures and pavement is approximately 63% of the total lot area. Therefore, variances are requested for front yard setbacks of 10 feet and 15feet, side yard setback of .9 feet, and 3% of total lot coverage area. G. Hilts asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. B.Burgess moved to approve BZA-3642.01,819 Vine Street fora front yard variance of 10 feet and 15 feet,side yard setback of.9 feet, and 3% of total lot coverage area. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3642.01, 819 Vine Street has been approved. C. BZA-3643.01, 833 Vine Street Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property located at 833 Vine Street which is located in the"DM-3" Residential District. Section 1256.07 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. The existing building has an 18 foot setback from the front property line. Therefore, a two foot variance is requested for the front yard setback. G. Hilts asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3643.01, 833 Vine Street to allow a two foot front yard setback variance. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 3 Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3643.01, 833 Vine Street has been approved. D. BZA-3651.01, 811 E. Shiawassee Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property located at 811 E. Shiawassee which is located in the"DM-3" Residential District. Section 1256.08 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 10% of the lot width which is 4.9 feet for the subject property. The existing building has a 3.5 foot side yard setback from the property line. Therefore, a 1.4 foot variance is requested for the side yard setback. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3651.01, 811 E. Shiawassee to allow a 1.4 foot variance for a side yard setback. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3651.01, 811 E. Shiawassee has been approved. E. BZA-3652.01, 820 E. Shiawassee Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property located at 820 E. Shiawassee which is located in the"DM-3"Residential District. Section 1256.07 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet.The existing building has a 13 foot setback from the front property line. Section 1256.11 of the Zoning Code states that the maximum lot coverage shall not be more than 60% of the total lot area and the maximum amount of lot area that can be covered by structures is 40%. The proposed lot area coverage including structures and pavement is approximately 83%of the total lot area. Therefore,variances are requested forfront yard setbacks of 7 feet and 23% of total lot coverage area. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. E.Horne moved to approve BZA-3652.01,820 E.Shiawassee to allow a 7 foot variance for a front yard setback. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 4 VOTE YEA NAY Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3652.01, 820 E. Shiawassee has been approved. F. BZA-3644.01, 1008 S. Cedar Street Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Amor Sign Studios, Inc., on behalf of Admiral Petroleum Corp. to remove the existing ground pole sign at 1008 S. Cedar Street and install a new, illuminated, 63 sq. ft., 19 ft. high ground pole sign with a front yard setback of 10ft. From the property line along S. Cedar Street and a one foot setback from the property line along Hazel Street. Section 1442.12(h)(5)(B)of the Sign Code states that ground pole signs are permitted in the"I"Heavy Industrial Zoning District and must conform to Chart II for area and setback. The minimum setback for a 63 sq. ft., 19ft. high sign is 19 ft. Therefore, a setback variances of 9 feet and 18 feet respectively, are requested. S. Stachowiak said that staff is recommending approval of the requested variance because if the applicant were to comply with the setback requirement, it would place the sign in the middle of the parking area which would interfere with the internal circulation on the site and would be a potential safety hazard. G. Hilts asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. The Board members expressed support for the requested variance. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3644.01, 1008 S. Cedar Street to allow a setback variances of 9 feet and 18 feet. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3644.01, 1008 S. Cedar Street has been approved. G. BZA-3648.01, 1739 Chester Road Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by A. Gregory Eaton to construct an addition onto his home at 1739 Chester Road, 26.50 feet from the rear lot line. Section 1248.0 of the Zoning Code requires the structure to meet a minimum 30 foot setback from the rear lot line. This is, therefore, a request for a variance of 3.5 feet from the rear yard setback requirement. Staff recommended approval of the variance request because it is a minimal encroachment and it is bordered on two sides by a park. Roger Peters submitted plans forMr.Eaton and also submitted a letterfrom the neighbors supporting the variance. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 5 G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3648.01, 1739 Chester Road to allow a rear yard setback variance of 3.5 feet. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3648.01, 1739 Chester Road has been approved. H. BZA-3653.01, 408 Kalamazoo Plaza Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Michael Mollitor of ACE Graphics&Signs, Inc., on behalf of the property owner,Christman Company,for a variance to permit two 38 square foot wall signs. Aground pole sign already exists at 408 Kalamazoo Plaza which is located in the Capitol Center District as defined by the Sign Code. Staff recommended denial of the request for lack of a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Staff also noted that construction of the two new signs would most likely involve removing some of the existing trees on the site. Michael Mollitor, ACE Graphics & Signs, spoke in favor of his request. Charles Holman, Vice President of Christman Company, spoke in favor of this variance also. Scott Sanford, Sign Inspector for the City of Lansing, spoke in support of this variance. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick expressed concern about the removal of trees. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3653.01,408 Kalamazoo Plaza to allow a variance to permit two 38 square foot wall signs, contingent upon a satisfactory agreement with the Parks Dept. to replace all trees that are removed. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3653.01, 408 Kalamazoo Plaza has been approved. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 6 I. BZA-3654.01, 222 N. Magnolia Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Roger and Nancy Heldt to allow front yard parking at 222 N. Magnolia. Section 1286.02 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits front yard parking; therefore, a variance is requested. Staff recommended denial of the request stating that there has been no demonstration of a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. She stated that there is room to access the back yard via a joint driveway. Ms. Stachowiak also stated that there have been letters of objection submitted by some of the area residents. Mr.&Mrs.Roger Heldt,spoke in favor of their request. Mrs. Heldt stated that she was unaware that some of her neighbors had concerns about their request. Mr. Heldt explained that the reason they need the front yard parking space is because they have five children and therefore, have two very large vehicles and it can be difficult negotiating the vehicles around the back of the house. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. The Board discussed the request in terms of having reasonable access to the back yard. In addition, the Board expressed concern about potentially setting a precedent if the variance were to be approved. A.Frederick moved to deny BZA-3654.01,222 N.Magnolia to allow front yard parking. Seconded by E.Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3654.01, 222 N. Magnolia has been denied. J. BZA-3655.01, SW corner of Turner& Frederick Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Denise Paquette, representing Habitat for Humanity,to construct a single family home on a vacant lot located at the southwest corner of Turner and Frederick Street, 32 feet from the front property line along Turner Street and 20 feet from the property line along Frederick. Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning code requires an established front yard setback of 33 feet from the property line along Frederick Street. This is,therefore, a request for a variance of 13 feet from the property line along Frederick Street. Staff recommended approval of the request stating that the size of the lot presents a practical difficulty. Ms. Paquette, spoke in favor of her request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that it is easy to see the practical difficulty that exists with this lot. He stated that if a front yard setback variance was not approved, the lot would not be buildable. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3655.01,SW corner of Turner& Frederick to allow a variance of 13 feet from the property line along Frederick Street. Seconded by A. Frederick. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 7 VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3655.01, SW corner of Turner& Frederick K. BZA-3656.01, 7045 S. Cedar Street Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Dan Schultz, owner of Innate Chiropractic Center at 7045 S. Cedar Street, for a variance to permit a 59 square foot wall sign and a 62 square foot wall sign, totaling 121 square feet of wall sign area for this building. Ms. Stachowiak explained that there was inaccurate information provided on the sign permit application and staff did not notice that it was incorrect. Staff recommended denial of the request for lack of a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Dan Schultz, spoke in favor of his request. Mr. Schultz said that the practical difficulty is the physical dimensions of the property. He said that the greatest length of his office space, and all of its windows face Willoughby Road. He stated that he is willing to place a door on Willoughby Road is this will allow his signs to remain as is. Mr. Schultz explained that he obtained several proposals from various sign contractors, all of whom proposed the same dimensions for the signage. He said that all of the sign contractors must have been given the same information bythe City as to how much signage he would be allowed for his building. Mr. Schultz said that he was issued a sign permit, and it was the responsibility of the City to verify the information on the permit application before it was issued. Mr. Bill Lamb, Prestige Awning, spoke in favor of this request. Scott Sanford,Sign Inspector with the City of Lansing, spoke against this request. Mr. Sanford stated that he was not aware of this situation until after the sign was already erected. He also stated that the sign is much too large for the building and extends beyond the wall of the applicants business. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that there does not appear to be a practical difficulty that would prevent the owner from compliance with the ordinance. He also said that it does not appear that an unnecessary hardship would result if the variance was not approved, beyond the applicant having to remove the existing sign. E. Horne moved to deny BZA-3656.01,7045 S.Cedar Street,to allow a variance to permit a 59 square foot wall sign and a 62 square foot wall sign totaling 121 square feet of wall sign area for this building. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 8 VOTE YEA NAY Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3656.01, 7045 S. Cedar Street has been denied. L. BZA-3657.01, 172 E. Edgewood Blvd. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Aver Sign Co.for a variance to allow the erection of two roof signs by "HOOTERS" at 172 E. Edgewood. Section 1442.21 (f) of the Zoning Code prohibits signs located on or above the roof. Staff recommended denial of the request for lack of a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Kerry DuPont, Aver Sign Co., spoke in favor of this request. Mr. Ron Dayssandro, Priority Sign, spoke in favor of this request. Scott Sanford,Sign Inspectorwith the City of Lansing,spoke in support of this request. He stated that there would be no where to locate the signs on the building where they would be visible, except in the locations that are proposed by the applicant. He also said that the signs are located above the roof, but not above the parapet which means that by the standards of the sign code, they would be legal. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick said that if the signs were not located on the parapet, there would not be a reasonable location for them on the building. He also said that he believes it is reasonable to orient one of the signs facing the expressway, as proposed by the applicant. G. Hilts stated that there were several other signs in the City that are on parapet walls. He asked about the signs at Finley's, K-Mart, etc. S. Stachowiak said that she was not familiar with any of the signs mentioned by Mr. Hilts. She also said that the Planning Office has consistently interpreted the Sign Code with regard to roof signs in the same manner that it is being interpreted with this case which means that a sign above the roof, even if it is on a parapet wall, is a roof sign. A.Frederick moved to approve BZA-3657.01,172 E.Edgewood Blvd.,to allow a variance to permit the erection of two signs be located on the parapet wall. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3657.01, 172 E. Edgewood Blvd. has been approved. IV OLD BUSINESS DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 9 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. Rules of Procedure (no action) E. Ordinance Amendments (no action) V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of September 13, 2001 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. New members A. Frederick stated that he received a call from the Mayor's Office indicating that a new Board member would be confirmed at the October 15, 2001 City Council meeting. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator DR4FT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 1 Draft to Clerk 10/18/01 Approved 11/08/01 To Clerk 11/13/01 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 11, 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL 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 E. Horne B. Burgess G. Hilts Absent: Staff: S. Stachowiak T. Masseau A. A quorum of at least three members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess requested that BZA 3651.01 and BZA 3652.01 be heard immediately following BZA 3643.01 since they are all Ferris Development cases. He also asked that staff give one report, except for the specific variance requests, since all five cases by Ferris Development are very similar. A. Frederick asked that "New Board Members" be added under new business. B. Burgess moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3641.01, 303 N. Pennsylvania Ave Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property located at 303 N. Pennsylvania which is located in the "DM-3" Residential District. Section 1256.07 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. The existing building has a zero setback from the front property line along Vine Street and a six foot setback from the property line along Pennsylvania. Section 1256.09 requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. The building will have a 13 foot rear yard setback. Section 1256.11 of the Zoning Code states that the maximum lot coverage shall not be more than 60% of the total lot area and the maximum amount of lot area that can be covered by structures is 40%. The proposed lot area coverage is approximately 76% of the total lot area and approximately 48% of the lot area is covered by structures. Section 1256.06 of the Zoning Code requires 2,200 square feet of lot area for a four bedroom dwelling unit. The subject property has approximately 1,865 square feet of lot area. Therefore,variances are requested forfront yard setbacks of 20 feet and 14 feet, rear yard setback of 12 feet,335 square feet of lot area and 16% of total lot coverage area and 8% of lot area that is covered by structures. Mr. Ron Van Zee, Construction Manager for Ferris Development, spoke in favor of his request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 2 Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3641.01, 303 N. Pennsylvania Ave.,a variance for front yard setbacks of 20 feet and 14 feet, rear yard setback of 12 feet, lot area of 335 square feet, 16% of total lot coverage and 8% of lot area covered by structures with the condition that Act-285 be approved. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3641.01, 303 N. Pennsylvania Ave., has been approved. B. BZA-3642.01, 819 Vine Street Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property located at 819 Vine Street which is located in the"DM-3" Residential District. Section 1256.07 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. The existing building has a 10 foot setback from the front property line along Haag Court and a five foot setback from the property line along Vine Street. Section 1256.08 requires a side yard setback of 10% of the lot width which is 5.9 feet for the subject property. The building will have a five foot side yard setback. Section 1256.11 of the Zoning Code states that the maximum lot coverage shall not be more than 60% of the total lot area and the maximum amount of lot area that can be covered by structures is 40%. The proposed lot area coverage including structures and pavement is approximately 63% of the total lot area. Therefore, variances are requested for front yard setbacks of 10 feet and 15feet, side yard setback of.9 feet, and 3% of total lot coverage area. G. Hilts asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. B.Burgess moved to approve BZA-3642.01,819 Vine Street fora front yard variance of 10 feet and 15 feet,side yard setback of.9 feet, and 3% of total lot coverage area. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3642.01, 819 Vine Street has been approved. C. BZA-3643.01, 833 Vine Street Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property located at 833 Vine Street which is located in the"DM-3" Residential District. Section 1256.07 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. The existing building has an 18 foot setback from the front property line. Therefore, a two foot variance is requested for the front yard setback. G. Hilts asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 3 E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3643.01, 833 Vine Street to allow a two foot front yard setback variance. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3643.01, 833 Vine Street has been approved. D. BZA-3651.01, 811 E. Shiawassee Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property located at 811 E. Shiawassee which is located in the"DM-3" Residential District. Section 1256.08 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 10% of the lot width which is 4.9 feet for the subject property. The existing building has a 3.5 foot side yard setback from the property line. Therefore, a 1.4 foot variance is requested for the side yard setback. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3651.01, 811 E. Shiawassee to allow a 1.4 foot variance for a side yard setback. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA 7 NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3651.01, 811 E. Shiawassee has been approved. E. BZA-3652.01, 820 E. Shiawassee Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property located at 820 E. Shiawassee which is located in the "DM-3" Residential District. Section 1256.07 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet.The existing building has a 13 foot setback from the front property line. Section 1256.11 of the Zoning Code states that the maximum lot coverage shall not be more than 60% of the total lot area and the maximum amount of lot area that can be covered by structures is 40%. The proposed lot area coverage including structures and pavement is approximately 83%of the total lot area. Therefore,variances are requested for front yard setbacks of 7 feet and 23% of total lot coverage area. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 4 E.Horne moved to approve BZA-3652.01,820 E.Shiawassee to allow a 7 foot variance fora front yard setback. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE F YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3652.01, 820 E. Shiawassee has been approved. F. BZA-3644.01, 1008 S. Cedar Street Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Amor Sign Studios, Inc., on behalf of Admiral Petroleum Corp. to remove the existing ground pole sign at 1008 S. Cedar Street and install a new, illuminated, 63 sq. ft., 19 ft. high ground pole sign with a front yard setback of 10ft. From the property line along S. Cedar Street and a one foot setback from the property line along Hazel Street. Section 1442.12(h)(5)(B)of the Sign Code states that ground pole signs are permitted in the"I"Heavy Industrial Zoning District and must conform to Chart II for area and setback. The minimum setback for a 63 sq. ft., 19ft. high sign is 19 ft. Therefore, a setback variances of 9 feet and 18 feet respectively, are requested. S. Stachowiak said that staff is recommending approval of the requested variance because if the applicant were to comply with the setback requirement, it would place the sign in the middle of the parking area which would interfere with the internal circulation on the site and would be a potential safety hazard. G. Hilts asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. The Board members expressed support for the requested variance. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3644.01, 1008 S. Cedar Street to allow a setback variances of 9 feet and 18 feet. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3644.01, 1008 S. Cedar Street has been approved. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 5 G. BZA-3648.01, 1739 Chester Road Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by A. Gregory Eaton to construct an addition onto his home at 1739 Chester Road, 26.50 feet from the rear lot line. Section 1248.0 of the Zoning Code requires the structure to meet a minimum 30 foot setback from the rear lot line. This is, therefore, a request for a variance of 3.5 feet from the rear yard setback requirement. Staff recommended approval of the variance request because it is a minimal encroachment and it is bordered on two sides by a park. Roger Peters submitted plans for Mr.Eaton and also submitted a letterfrom the neighbors supporting the variance. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3648.01, 1739 Chester Road to allow a rear yard setback variance of 3.5 feet. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3648.01, 1739 Chester Road has been approved. H. BZA-3653.01. 408 Kalamazoo Plaza Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Michael Mollitor of ACE Graphics&Signs, Inc., on behalf of the property owner,Christman Company,for a variance to permit two 38 square foot wall signs. A ground pole sign already exists at 408 Kalamazoo Plaza which is located in the Capitol Center District as defined by the Sign Code. Staff recommended denial of the request for lack of a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Staff also noted that construction of the two new signs would most likely involve removing some of the existing trees on the site. Michael Mollitor, ACE Graphics &Signs, spoke in favor of his request. Charles Holman, Vice President of Christman Company, spoke in favor of this variance also. Scott Sanford, Sign Inspector for the City of Lansing, spoke in support of this variance. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick expressed concern about the removal of trees. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 6 A.Frederick moved to approve BZA-3653.01,408 Kalamazoo Plaza to allow a variance to permit two 38 square foot wall signs, contingent upon a satisfactory agreement with the Parks Dept. to replace all trees that are removed. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3653.01, 408 Kalamazoo Plaza has been approved. I. BZA-3654.01, 222 N. Magnolia Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Roger and Nancy Heldt to allow front yard parking at 222 N. Magnolia. Section 1286.02 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits front yard parking; therefore, a variance is requested. Staff recommended denial of the request stating that there has been no demonstration of a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. She stated that there is room to access the back yard via a joint driveway. Ms. Stachowiak also stated that there have been letters of objection submitted by some of the area residents. Mr.&Mrs.Roger Heldt,spoke in favor of their request. Mrs. Heldt stated that she was unaware that some of her neighbors had concerns about their request. Mr. Heldt explained that the reason they need the front yard parking space is because they have five children and therefore, have two very large vehicles and it can be difficult negotiating the vehicles around the back of the house. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. The Board discussed the request in terms of having reasonable access to the back yard. In addition, the Board expressed concern about potentially setting a precedent if the variance were to be approved. A.Frederick moved to deny BZA-3654.01,222 N. Magnolia to allow front yard parking. Seconded by E.Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3654.01, 222 N. Magnolia has been denied. J. BZA-3655.01, SW corner of Turner& Frederick Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Denise Paquette, representing Habitat for Humanity,to construct a single family home on a vacant lot located at the southwest corner of Turner and Frederick Street, 32 feet from the front property line along Turner Street and 20 feet from the property line along Frederick. Section 1248.07(b) of the Zoning code requires an established front yard setback of 33 feet from the property line along Frederick Street. This is,therefore, a request for BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 7 a variance of 13 feet from the property line along Frederick Street. Staff recommended approval of the request stating that the size of the lot presents a practical difficulty. Ms. Paquette, spoke in favor of her request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that it is easy to seethe practical difficulty that exists with this lot. He stated that if a front yard setback variance was not approved, the lot would not be buildable. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3655.01,SW corner of Turner& Frederick to allow a variance of 13 feet from the property line along Frederick Street. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3655.01, SW corner of Turner& Frederick K. BZA-3656.01, 7045 S. Cedar Street Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Dan Schultz, owner of Innate Chiropractic Center at 7045 S. Cedar Street, for a variance to permit a 59 square foot wall sign and a 62 square foot wall sign, totaling 121 square feet of wall sign area for this building. Ms. Stachowiak explained that there was inaccurate information provided on the sign permit application and staff did not notice that it was incorrect. Staff recommended denial of the request for lack of a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Dan Schultz, spoke in favor of his request. Mr. Schultz said that the practical difficulty is the physical dimensions of the property. He said that the greatest length of his office space, and all of its windows face Willoughby Road. He stated that he is willing to place a door on Willoughby Road is this will allow his signs to remain as is. Mr. Schultz explained that he obtained several proposals from various sign contractors, all of whom proposed the same dimensions for the signage. He said that all of the sign contractors must have been given the same information by the City as to how much signage he would be allowed for his building. Mr. Schultz said that he was issued a sign permit, and it was the responsibility of the City to verify the information on the permit application before it was issued. Mr. Bill Lamb, Prestige Awning, spoke in favor of this request. Scott Sanford,Sign Inspector with the City of Lansing, spoke against this request. Mr. Sanford stated that he was not aware of this situation until after the sign was already erected. He also stated that the sign is much too large forthe building and extends beyond the wall of the applicants business. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 8 A. Frederick stated that there does not appearto be a practical difficulty that would prevent the owner from compliance with the ordinance. He also said that it does not appear that an unnecessary hardship would result if the variance was not approved, beyond the applicant having to remove the existing sign. E. Horne moved to deny BZA-3656.01,7046 S.Cedar Street,to allow a variance to permit a 59 square foot wall sign and a 62 square foot wall sign totaling 121 square feet of wall sign area for this building. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY LBurgess X X X X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3656.01, 7045 S. Cedar Street has been denied. L. BZA-3657 01, 172 E. Edgewood Blvd. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Aver Sign Co. for a variance to allow the erection of two roof signs by "HOOTERS" at 172 E. Edgewood. Section 1442.21 (f) of the Zoning Code prohibits signs located on or above the roof. Staff recommended denial of the request for lack of a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Kerry DuPont, Aver Sign Co., spoke in favor of this request. Mr. Ron Dayssandro, Priority Sign, spoke in favor of this request. Scott Sanford,Sign Inspectorwith the City of Lansing,spoke in support of this request. He stated that there would be no where to locate the signs on the building where they would be visible, except in the locations that are proposed by the applicant. He also said that the signs are located above the roof, but not above the parapet which means that by the standards of the sign code, they would be legal. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick said that if the signs were not located on the parapet, there would not be a reasonable location for them on the building. He also said that he believes it is reasonable to orient one of the signs facing the expressway, as proposed by the applicant. G. Hilts stated that there were several other signs in the City that are on parapet walls. He asked about the signs at Finley's, K-Mart, etc. S. Stachowiak said that she was not familiar with any of the signs mentioned by Mr. Hilts. She also said that the Planning Office has consistently interpreted the Sign Code with regard to roof signs in the same manner that it is being interpreted with this case which means that a sign above the roof, even if it is on a parapet wall, is a roof sign. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2001 PAGE 9 A.Frederick moved to approve BZA-3657.01,172 E.Edgewood Blvd.,to allow a variance to permit the erection of two signs located on the parapet wall. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE F YEA NAY Hilts X Horne X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3657.01, 172 E. Edgewood Blvd. 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. Rules of Procedure (no action) E. Ordinance Amendments (no action) V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of September 13, 2001 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. New members A. Frederick stated that he received a call from the Mayor's Office indicating that a new Board member would be confirmed at the October 15, 2001 City Council meeting. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:05 P.M. Respectfully sub i ted Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL.S ME.PING MINUTES SEPTEII►i..,cR I a, 2001 PAGE 1 Draft to Clerk 10/04/01 Approved 10/11/01 To Clerk 10/16/01 - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS SEPTEMBER 13, 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL 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 Absent: E. Horne has an excused absence Staff: S. Stachowiak J. Hodges T. Masseau A. A quorum of at least three 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 B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3638.01, 723 Samantha Ave. John Hodges presented the case. This is a request by Doris Andrews for variances to Section 1248.03 (n) (3) of the Zoning Code to allow the construction of a carport. Section 1248.03 (n) (3) states that a carport must be at least 3 feet from the property line and at least 6 feet from a structure on an adjoining lot. The applicant is requesting to construct a carport 2 feet 7 inches from the property line and 4 feet 7 inches from a structure on the adjoining lot,requiring variances of 5 inches and 1 foot 5 inches, respectively. The property is located at 723 Samantha Ave. and is zoned "A" Residential. Mr. Hodges recommended that the request be denied, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the Board that a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship exists. Ms. Doris Andrews,spoke in favor of her request as she needs the variance for convenience purposes. G.Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that the lots were a lot smaller back in the 50's when the house was built and that the standards were different then. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3638.01,723 Samantha Ave.,a variance of 5 inches from the property line and 1 foot 5 inches from the structure on the adjoining lot. Seconded by A. Frederick. BOARD OF ZONING APPE.__61 M. .i ING Ni,.wTES SEPTE6 aR ) 1001 PAGE 2 VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X 7 Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 3-0. BZA-3638.01, 723 Samantha Ave., has been approved. B. BZA-3639.01 208 Mifflin Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Lake View Windows to erect athree- season room in the front of the house on an existing deck at 208 S. Mifflin Street. The addition would be 7'from the front lot line and T from the side lot line. Section 1248.07 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance oning requires a minimum of 20' for the front yard setback and Section 1248.08 (b)(2)(o) of the Ordinance requires T.Y forthe side yard setback. Therefore,variances of 13'and 3"respectively are requested. Ms. Stachowiak recommended approval of the variance request stating that under the proposed code amendments, the applicant would not even need a variance to do this project. Mr. Frederick asked if this is one of those decks that is attached or not attached. Susan Stachowiak stated that the existing deck did not require a building permit because it is not attached, but when it is turned into a three season room then a building permit is required. Mr. Darin Hosmer of Lake View Windows, 208 Mifflin, spoke in support of the request. Mrs. Strom, the homeowner, 208 Mifflin, spoke in favor of this request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that this is another small lot and he knows that the zoning codes are going to be changing in a few months anyway. B. Burgess stated that all of the houses along that street except to the south, have this type of front setbacks, so this would not be blocking anyone's view. A.Frederick moved to approve BZA-3639.01,208 Mifflin for a variance a 13' from the front lot line and 3"from the side lot lines with the condition that Michigan DEQ determines that the construction of the addition will not adversely impact the flood plain and that they also issue a permit, if required. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 3-0. BZA-3639.01, 208 Mifflin has been approved. C. BZA 3640 01, 516 W. Saginaw Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ferris Development for the property located at 516 W. Saginaw Street, which is proposed to be rezoned from "F" Commercial and "J" Parking Districts to"DM-Y Residential District. Section 1256.06(b)of the Zoning Code states that for each one-bedroom dwelling unit in a "DM-Y District, there shall be 1,300 sq. ft. of lot area. The existing building contains 23,one-bedroom units which requires 29,900 sq.ft.of lot area. The property has 16,419.32 sq. ft. of lot area. In addition, Section 1256.07 requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 ft. The existing front yard setback is 19.2 ft. Section 1256.11 of the Zoning Code states the BOARD OF ZONING APPE_ _S Nh. ,FING Nk„.,UTES SEPTET, cR .,_, 2001 PAGE 3 maximum lot coverage shall not be more than 60% of the total lot area. Currently, the lot area coverage is 86%of the total lot area. Section 1284.13(2)(B)of the Zoning Code requires one and one- half parking spaces for each one-bedroom unit. There are 23 spaces on the subject property. Therefore, variances are requested for 13,480.68 sq. ft. of lot area, .8 ft. of front yard setback area, 26% of total lot coverage area, and 14 parking spaces. Mr. Ron VanZee, Construction Manager for Ferris Development, 516 W. Saginaw, spoke in support of the request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that he wanted to let the BZA know what the thoughts of the Zoning &Ordinance Committee were yesterday. The committee had seen this once before, but financing became an issue due to if the structure were to be destroyed it could not be rebuilt. The people providing financing want a guarantee that it could be rebuilt. Ferris Development was before the Planning Board requesting a rezoning and as it turns out, it is a down zone and not an up zoning, and as proposed, it would allow this building to be reconstructed if it were destroyed. The variances are contingent upon the rezoning being approved. There was a concern aboutthe parking. There is a lot in the north west corner which is a lot that could be purchased to provide more parking spaces. Ferris Development has made every attempt to purchase this property and they simply can not get it for a reasonable price. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3640.01,516 W.Saginaw to allow the variances of the lot area to 13,480.68 sq.ft. of lot area, .8 ft. of front yard setback area, 26% of total lot coverage area, and 14 parking spaces with the following conditions: the approval of the variances are contingent upon the approval of Z-13-01,a lease agreement restricts one parking space per unit per tenant,and a site plan is approved by the Planning Office and other appropriate departments for circulation, lighting, and landscape, screening and buffering. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 3-0. BZA-3640.01, 516 W. Saginaw 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. Rules of Procedure (no action) E. Ordinance Amendments (no action) V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of July 12, 2001 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve. B. Minutes of August 9, 2001 B.Burgesss moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by A.Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 4 VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absence for Emily Horne for September 2001 A. Frederick moved to excuse absence of E. Horne for September 2001. Seconded by B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator BOARD OF`ZONING APPEALS MEr-tING MINUTES AUGUST y, 200-1 PAGE 1 Draft to Clerk 08/24/01 Approved 09/1301 To Clerk 10/05/01 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AUGUST 9 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL 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: V. Earhart A. Frederick B. Burgess G. Hilts E. Horne Absent: R. McCloud has an excused absence Staff: S. Stachowiak 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-3635.01, 1201 Poxson Ave. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Gary and Diana Smythe regarding a variance to build a Tx 10'rear addition on an existing house that will line up with the existing exterior side wall at 1201 Poxson Avenue. The addition will encroach into the required side yard setback by 1.05 feet. The property is 40.5'wide and 115.5'deep. Section 1248.08(b)(2) requires the side yard setback in the "B" Residential District be not less than 10% of its lot width. In this case, the existing side yard setback is T and the Code requires a 4.05'side yard setback. Therefore, this is a variance request to encroach 1.05' into the side yard to build an addition to the house that will line up with the existing exterior wall. Mr. &Mrs. Smythe,1201 Poison Ave.,spoke in favor of their request. G.Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A.Frederick said he would support the variance of 1.05'to construct a Tx 10'addition to the rear of the house that will have a side yard setback of 3'at 1201 Poxson Ave. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3635.01, 1201 Poxson Ave.,a variance of 1.05 feet to construct a 70 spare foot addition. Seconded by B. Burgess. BOARD OF ZONING APPE. __S M. .fING MnmUTES August 2001 PAGE 2 VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Earhart X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3635.01, 1201 Poxson Ave., has been approved. B. BZA-3636.01. 2575 Oxford Road Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Charles J. Abraham to construct a detached 24'x 26' (624 sq.ft.)garage which will result in a second garage at 2575 Oxford Road in an "A" Residential District. The combined size of the two garages is 1071 sq. ft. which exceeds the maximum allowable garage area of 720 sq. ft. Section 1248.03(b)(3) of the Zoning Code states that not more than one accessory structure shall be a private garage in an"A"Residential District. Section 1248.03(b)(5) of the Zoning Code states the maximum floor area of a private garage located on a lot equal to or greater than 5,000 sq. ft. in size shall not exceed 720 sq. ft. in an "A" Residential District. Therefore,a variance is requested forthe second garage,and the additional 351 sq.ft.of garage area. Mr. Charles J. Abraham, 2575 Oxford Road, spoke in favor of his request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3636.01, 2575 Oxford Road for a variance to construct a second garage and for the additional 351 square feet of garage area. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Earhart X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3636.01, 2575 Oxford Road 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-3626.01, 420 E. Elm (action) E. Horne made a motion to remove BZA-3626.01, 420 E. Elm, and BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo from the table. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve. Susan Stachowiak stated that the City and the applicant presented their cases at the June 2001 meeting. She reminded the Board that BZA 3626.01 and BZA 3627.01are appeals, not variances. She pointed out that there is a letter written by the Planning Manager and the City Attorney which explains all of the information that the City has provided to the Board. BOARD OF ZONING APPE. __S M_ .i ING Mi,muTES August 2001 PAGE 3 Mr. Burgess stated that the two words that are important to this matter and have not been defined are "destroyed"and"damaged." Section 1442.09 of the Sign Code states that"No sign,or any substantial part thereof, which is destroyed shall be re-erected, reconstructed, rebuilt or relocated, unless the same is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter." He stated that the word "destroy" means to tear down or demolish;to break up or spoil completely; ruin; and to bring to a total defeat or trash. The word "damage" is described as injury or harm to a person or thing resulting in a loss in sumness and value. He stated that it is his position that the appeal should be denied. Mr. Frederick stated that he is more interested in the catastrophe provision. There was, in fact, a lot of damage in the area at that time, but this certainly was not declared a"catastrophe." He stated that the Lansing Emergency Coordination efforts were not activated and the weather was not out of the ordinary, so he does not believe that this was at the level of a catastrophe. He stated that he does not support the appeal. Ms. Earhart stated that Exhibit A was very amusing. She said that she is sure that Mr. Fifarek can tell us what it really says. When reading the article, it states that Lansing and most of the surrounding counties reported no serious wind damage. There were several reports of fallen trees and limbs. She stated that she didn't think the storm was that bad. Eaton Rapids lost power. A tree fell onto Park Lake Road. It seems to me that the weather reports of the storm prediction center which was exhibit 9, consists of all wind reports, but it also includes Wisconsin and Texas. When you get to Ingham County which is on the second page, two thirds of the way down, Eaton Rapids there were two large dead trees down and in Ingham County,there was a tree down on Francis Road. Basically,there are not any more reports. There were lots of storms that day in Michigan, but that is the only damage reported in the Ingham County area. She said that she agrees with the staff analysis. Ms. Horne stated that she looked at this as a real summer storm. She was interested in the analysis about the damage and also the locations of the billboards being on minor roads. She stated that she looked over all the information that was presented to the Board, and agrees with the staff analysis. The Board also discussed the amount of materials that were used to replace/rebuild the signs. E. Horne made a motion to allow John Fifarek to speak for five minutes. Seconded by B. Burgess. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Fifarek stated that the Board is looking for definitions for various words and phrases and he suggests that they are all contained within the ordinance itself. The ordinance talks about damage versus destruction. The ordinance addresses these definitions in the section on non-conforming uses which everyone has to agree that this issue falls under. The ordinance talks about the 50% cost of repair at 50% of fair market value. If the cost of repairs exceeds 50%that means that it is destroyed and it cannot continue. If it is less than 50% of fair market value, than you are allowed under the ordinance to continue with the sign. Mr. Fifarek stated that you do not need to go to the dictionary to interpret what is meant by the words"destroyed"or"damaged"because the ordinance is clear. He also stated that the issue with "catastrophe"was provided to the Board. He reminded the Board that this particularly sign was struck by lightening and that not only does Section 1294.07 talk about "catastrophe,"but also fire, explosion,flood, or erosion. Those are all "Act of God"type things which are not expected. Mr. Fifarek stated that in this situation, there is a documented storm, and there is documentation that the sign was in fact hit by lightening which is what caused it to be damaged and that it costs less than 50% of it's fair market value to restore. He said that this was not natural deterioration, but a sign that got struck by lightening. He stated that this is, in fact, a "catastrophe." Mr. Fifarek said that the ordinance states that it is a nonconformity and it has to be regulated by the nonconforming section and that is all that he is asking. A. Frederick made a motion to allow others to speak for five minutes. E. Horne seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Scott Sanford, City of Lansing Sign Inspector,stated that in both cases,they poured new footings and installed new sign faces. He stated that with one of the signs,they re-used the cat walk. Mr. Sanford said that basically, they completely rebuilt two signs. He also stated that there is nothing in any BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2001 PAGE 4 nonconforming section of the zoning ordinance,sign code or anywhere else that would alleviate them from having to apply for a sign permit. He said that even if you "repair" a billboard sign in the City of Lansing, you need to have a sign permit if it falls within certain parameters. If you are just replacing a sign face, you do not have to have a permit, however, if you are repairing it, then a permit is required. Ms. E. Horne stated that one of the letters from Adams stated that they did not apply for a sign permit. She also said that as a company/firm that has done business in the City of Lansing for as long as Adams has, they should be more familiar with the code requirements. V. Earhart moved to deny BZA-3626.01,420 E. Elm, stating that the sign violates Section 1294.07 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance and must be removed within 30 days. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Earhart X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3626.01, 420 Elm, has been denied. E. BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo (action) V. Earhart moved to deny BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo, stating that the sign violates Section 1294.07(a) of the Zoning Ordinance and must be removed within 30 days. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Earhart X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo, has been denied. F. Rules of Procedure (no action) G. Ordinance Amendments (no action) V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of July 12, 2001 The minutes were missing from the packet. VII. NEW BUSINESS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2001 PAGE 5 A. Resignation of V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to approve. B. Excused Absence for R. McCloud. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 11 Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 07/17/01 Approved 09/13/01 To Clerk 10/05/01 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMbERS,'100FLOOR CITY HALL 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 E. Horne R. McCloud Absent: V. Earhart has an excused absence Staff: S. Stachowiak 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. Ill. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3632.01, 2431 Moores River Dr. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by William and Suzanne Adcock of 2431 Moores River Dr. The variance is to construct a second 22'x 22' attached garage for a total garage area, including what is proposed and what is existing, of 900 sq. ft. The maximum square footage permitted by ordinance is 720 sq. ft., therefore, they are requesting a variance of 180 sq. ft. Ms. Stachowiak recommended approval of the request. Letters of support were received from Philip Venema and R.D. Musser. There are also four letters in the packet from neighbors in the area in support of the request. Staff is supportive of the request because it is a very large lot and because the proposed square footage would be in compliance the proposed ordinance standards on garage sizes. It is a very large lot, approximately 5 times the minimum lot size for a normal single family lot in the City of Lansing. In addition, the existing and proposed garage are both attached to the home. The entrance to the proposed garage will be in the back yard, therefore, the second garage will not be visible from the street. William Adcock, 2431 Moores River Drive, spoke in favor of his request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick said he would support the variance of the second garage and for the additional 180 sq. ft. since the only thing that is forcing this is that the proposed change to the ordinance has not gone through yet, and probably will not go through for a while, but he sees no reason to deny it simply because wheels of democratic justice are grinding slowly. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3632.01, 2431 Moores River Dr., a variance for a second garage and for an additional 180 sq. ft. of garage area. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X BOARD OF ZONING APPE. __S M_ _fING MiwdTES July 12, ,01 PAGE 2 Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3632.01, 2431 Moores River Dr., has been approved. B. BZA-3633.01, 622 E. Greenlawn Susan Stachowiak presented the case. She stated that the applicant is Mark Edward Behr representing the owner, Pam Stoneham. This is a request for a variance for a front yard setback requirement in the "A" Residential District. Since the average front yard setback is slightly less than 20 feet,the minimum for this property is 20 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance of 8 feet for the purpose of enclosing the section of the porch that is labeled "cupola" on the site plan. Staff recommended approval of the variance. She explained that the reason for the enclosure is so that the person who lives in this home can get some relief from the sun and can sit outside and enjoy the outdoors without being affected by mosquitos and bugs. Mark Edward Behr,J&E Properties,Inc.on behalf of the owner,Pam Stoneham. Mr.Behr stated that the porch, including the roof is totally detached from the house. The superstructure is what is commonly called post and beam construction. The rear end of the roof, closest to the house, has a pair of treated 2x6 timbers, which, according to my span tables, is more than adequate to bear the load, however, it is not attached to the house. Enclosing that porch would require no more contact with the superstructure and the house than inserting some expandable polyurethane foam between the two to make it seal, but at no point will the deck, landing or ramp be attached to the house itself. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. E. Horne stated that she had the opportunity to drive past this residence and look at that structure. She understands that the ramp and the landing are a necessity, but she is concerned about the other structure for the porch because it looks a little out of character for the neighborhood. G. Hilts said that this photo shows it quite well. It should not interfere with site lines or anything because of the tree. A. Frederick said it kind of brings to his mind a similar situation that the BZA had a few months ago. There was another porch that had existed for quite some time and since it was not touching the house, it was not considered attached and when it became attached to the house, because of some improvements,essentially there was not much difference from what was there, except that it fell under the building code. He said that he did not realize the load bearing aspect of the roof and he is glad that the applicant pointed this out. He said that he is not sure that adding a roof and shingles would change what it already looks like,which the applicant can have, by right. Mr. Frederick stated that it seems to be reasonable, maybe a bit out of character, but what is there now does not need a variance. He does not know that there can be a whole lot we can do to change the character of the structure as it currently exists. G. Hilts said agreed with Mr. Frederick and stated that the roof would definitely carry any snow load that we get. General discussion ensued about the roofing and the building inspector making sure it is take care of properly. B.Burgess said that he thinks the owner of the property has medical conditions that require the ramp and he expressed his support for the variance. A.Frederick moved to approve BZA-3633.01,622 E.Greenlawn for an 8 foot variance from the 20 foot required front yard setback to allow a screened and roofed front porch to extend out from the house to be 12 feet from the property line with the condition that any type of enclosure of the porch or ramp beyond what is proposed is prohibited. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote o - Greenlawn has been approved. C. BZA-3634.01, 348 Chilson Ave. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request from the owner,Alex Roberto Beltran, of 348 Chilson Ave. This is a variance request to allow front yard parking on a second, 20 foot wide ,01 PAGE 3 BOARD OF ZONING APPE. _S M_ i ING MksjUTES July 12, t the driveway. She said that the site plan dhow the seDd cond driveway fob of adedaout when it was copcant is ied. The although the line that was suppose to s is because the ordinance reason the applicant needs a variance for a 20 foot wide den opening to the garage, and there is no or as wide as the op specifically allows 12 foot wide driveways, ara e. The third issue is for front yard garage on the east eady side of the house. The leads to the existing 9 hisgs a second drive.park within hin th There is e area an 8 foot drive on the property, which that the applicant is going to pa parking because we are fairly safe in assuming Ms. Stachowiak recommended between the house and the city sidewalk on the new driveway. approval of the variance request and stated phsthat the shophotographs the gsteep grade change from the street,mecca with to pp articularly m the associated with this request. The photographs the existing garage. The problem that Mr. Beltran is having is that,p the ice and snow,the grade change makes it difficult for them to get in and out of that drive down and way. The other issues is that they are having some real serious draining issues with grade on thater e other side collecting in the driveway. What the applicant proposes to do is build up ark their vehicles. The can have 20 feet of level surface top earthatthere of the house, the east side, so they property is at the west end of the street riding neighborhood whatsoever.iirt and fr recommended approval would be any impact with the following conditions: 1. The driveway be hard surfaced. roved by the Public Service Department. 2. The location of the driveway be app royal date of the variance be engraved into the 3. The BZA case number(3634.01) and the app concrete/asphalt, near the front lot line, with letters/numbers at least 3" high. Department who issues Ms. she the permit should not rt a problem. The per its and e said thathfta varianceeis�gtranted naydriveway per Service ep permits and he date of the variance must be engraved into the BZA case number (3634.01) and the approval concrete or asphalt close enough to the road that a code compliance officer could see it and know that they are not in violation A. Frederick asked about the age of the house. Susan Stachowiak said she does not have that information, but possible the applicant who is in the audience could answer the question. Mr. Beltran (the applicant) said that he was not sure, he just purchased the house last summer and e dos not have that information. Alex Beltran, 348 Chilson Avenue, spoke in favor Boa r Seeing t. none,the Board moved into the G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the rd.Committee of the Whole. u have osite grade change. Yove to go up to get to her garage and it G. Hilts said this mother's house has just the opp ark in the garage. It gets to be a problem. is just fine except in the winter and sometimes she can't p and would support this variance request. A. Frederick said that he can certainly see the practical difficultya normal city lot, and therefore, lot coverage will not E. Horne said the only comment she has is that it is larger than be a problem. permit front yard parking on a E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3634.01, 348 Chils th ee conditions asnue, a ep printed in the staff report:rtment 3) the second, 20 foot wide driveway with the following the Public Service Department, driveway be hard surfaced, 2)Approval of the location of the driveway y number(3634.01)and the approval date of the variances be enRrlNcCloudthe concrete/asphalt, the BZA case NAY near the front lot line,with letters/numbers at least YEA gh Seconded y VOTE X Hilts X Burgess McCloud X X Horne Frederick X PAGE 4 July 12, 2001 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTE Chilson Avenue has been approved with conditions. Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3634.01, 348 has to be hard surfaced. He asked should not c a problem. She will research about the first condition. Ms.Stachowiak said that the driveway Mr.Beltran asked d . He said he would like to be able to back fill the area and let it se over if there was a time frame for the hard surfacing the winter so it is compacted and sett letter that she will send es more. Ms �to him that it and include that information i n the IV OLD BUSINESS 901 N. Larch (no action) A gZA-3511.98, an no action) B gZA-3553.99, 907 E. Saginaw (no action) C gZA-3554.99, 907 W. no action) D. gZA-3626.01, 420 E. Elm E. BZA-362 Proc 738 E.edure (no action)aon)zoo (no action) F. Rules of G. Ordinance Amendments (no action V PUBLIC COMMENT - none UTESg Burgess. Unanimous VI AP MAn Otes of June 14 2001 D. ederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by A.Fr voice vote to approve. VII NEW BUSINESS - None VIII ADJOURNMENT AT 8:05 •m- Respectfully submitted, Administrator Susan Stachowiak, Zoning BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2001 PAGE 1 Draft to Clerk 08/24/01 Approved To Clerk - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AUGUST 9 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL 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: V. Earhart A. Frederick B. Burgess G. Hilts E. Horne Absent: R. McCloud has an excused absence Staff: S. Stachowiak 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-3635.01, 1201 Poxson Ave. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Gary and Diana Smythe regarding a variance to build a Tx 10'rear addition on an existing house that will line up with the existing exterior side wall at 1201 Poxson Avenue. The addition will encroach into the required side yard setback by 1.05 feet. The property is 40.5'wide and 115.5'deep. Section 1248.08(b)(2) requires the side yard setback in the "B" Residential District be not less than 10% of its lot width. In this case, the existing side yard setback is T and the Code requires a 4.05'side yard setback. Therefore, this is a variance request to encroach 1.05' into the side yard to build an addition to the house that will line up with the existing exterior wall. Mr. & Mrs. Smythe, 1201 Poxson Ave.,spoke in favor of their request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A.Frederick said he would support the variance of 1.05'to construct a Tx 10'addition to the rear of the house that will have a side yard setback of 3'at 1201 Poxson Ave. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3635.01, 1201 Poxson Ave.,a variance of 1.05 feet to construct a 70 sgare foot addition. Seconded by B. Burgess. DR4FT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETIN,,. MINUTES August 9, 2001 PAGE 2 VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Earhart X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3635.01, 1201 Poxson Ave., has been approved. B. BZA-3636.01, 2575 Oxford Road Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Charles J. Abraham to construct a detached 24'x 26' (624 sq. ft.)garage which will result in a second garage at 2575 Oxford Road in an "A" Residential District. The combined size of the two garages is 1071 sq. ft. which exceeds the maximum allowable garage area of 720 sq. ft. Section 1248.03(b)(3) of the Zoning Code states that not more than one accessory structure shall be a private garage in an"A"Residential District. Section 1248.03(b)(5) of the Zoning Code states the maximum floor area of a private garage located on a lot equal to or greater than 5,000 sq. ft. in size shall not exceed 720 sq. ft. in an "A" Residential District. Therefore,a variance is requested for the second garage,and the additional 351 sq.ft.of garage area. Mr. Charles J. Abraham, 2575 Oxford Road, spoke in favor of his request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3636.01, 2575 Oxford Road for a variance to construct a second garage and for the additional 351 square feet of garage area. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Earhart X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3636.01, 2575 Oxford Road 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-3626.01, 420 E. Elm (action) E. Horne made a motion to remove BZA-3626.01, 420 E. Elm, and BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo from the table. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve. Susan Stachowiak stated that the City and the applicant presented their cases at the June 2001 meeting. She reminded the Board that BZA 3626.01 and BZA 3627.01are appeals, not variances. She pointed out that there is a letter written by the Planning Manager and the City Attorney which explains all of the information that the City has provided to the Board. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2001 PAGE 3 Mr. Burgess stated that the two words that are important to this matter and have not been defined are "destroyed"and"damaged." Section 1442.09 of the Sign Code states that"No sign,or any substantial part thereof, which is destroyed shall be re-erected, reconstructed, rebuilt or relocated, unless the same is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter." He stated that the word "destroy"means to tear down or demolish;to break up or spoil completely; ruin; and to bring to a total defeat or trash. The word "damage" is described as injury or harm to a person or thing resulting in a loss in sumness and value. He stated that it is his position that the appeal should be denied. Mr. Frederick stated that he is more interested in the catastrophe provision. There was, in fact, a lot of damage in the area at that time, but this certainly was not declared a"catastrophe." He stated that the Lansing Emergency Coordination efforts were not activated and the weather was not out of the ordinary, so he does not believe that this was at the level of a catastrophe. He stated that he does not support the appeal. Ms. Earhart stated that Exhibit A was very amusing. She said that she is sure that Mr. Fifarek can tell us what it really says. When reading the article, it states that Lansing and most of the surrounding counties reported no serious wind damage. There were several reports of fallen trees and limbs. She stated that she didn't think the storm was that bad. Eaton Rapids lost power. A tree fell onto Park Lake Road. It seems to me that the weather reports of the storm prediction center which was exhibit 9, consists of all wind reports, but it also includes Wisconsin and Texas. When you get to Ingham County which is on the second page,two thirds of the way down, Eaton Rapids there were two large dead trees down and in Ingham County,there was a tree down on Francis Road. Basically,there are not any more reports. There were lots of storms that day in Michigan, but that is the only damage reported in the Ingham County area. She said that she agrees with the staff analysis. Ms. Horne stated that she looked at this as a real summer storm. She was interested in the analysis about the damage and also the locations of the billboards being on minor roads. She stated that she looked over all the information that was presented to the Board, and agrees with the staff analysis. The Board also discussed the amount of materials that were used to replace/rebuild the signs. E. Horne made a motion to allow John Fifarek to speak for five minutes. Seconded by B. Burgess. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Fifarek stated that the Board is looking for definitions for various words and phrases and he suggests that they are all contained within the ordinance itself. The ordinance talks about damage versus destruction. The ordinance addresses these definitions in the section on non-conforming uses which everyone has to agree that this issue falls under. The ordinance talks about the 50% cost of repair at 50% of fair market value. If the cost of repairs exceeds 50%that means that it is destroyed and it cannot continue. If it is less than 50% of fair market value, than you are allowed under the ordinance to continue with the sign. Mr. Fifarek stated that you do not need to go to the dictionary to interpret what is meant by the words"destroyed"or"damaged" because the ordinance is clear. He also stated that the issue with "catastrophe"was provided to the Board. He reminded the Board that this particularly sign was struck by lightening and that not only does Section 1294.07 talk about "catastrophe,"but also fire, explosion,flood, or erosion. Those are all "Act of God"type things which are not expected. Mr. Fifarek stated that in this situation,there is a documented storm, and there is documentation that the sign was in fact hit by lightening which is what caused it to be damaged and that it costs less than 50% of it's fair market value to restore. He said that this was not natural deterioration, but a sign that got struck by lightening. He stated that this is, in fact, a "catastrophe." Mr. Fifarek said that the ordinance states that it is a nonconformity and it has to be regulated by the nonconforming section and that is all that he is asking. A. Frederick made a motion to allow others to speak for five minutes. E. Horne seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Scott Sanford, City of Lansing Sign Inspector,stated that in both cases,they poured new footings and installed new sign faces. He stated that with one of the signs,they re-used the cat walk. Mr. Sanford said that basically, they completely rebuilt two signs. He also stated that there is nothing in any DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2001 PAGE 4 nonconforming section of the zoning ordinance,sign code or anywhere else that would alleviate them from having to apply for a sign permit. He said that even if you "repair" a billboard sign in the City of Lansing, you need to have a sign permit if it falls within certain parameters. If you are just replacing a sign face, you do not have to have a permit, however, if you are repairing it, then a permit is required. Ms. E. Horne stated that one of the letters from Adams stated that they did not apply for a sign permit. She also said that as a company/firm that has done business in the City of Lansing for as long as Adams has, they should be more familiar with the code requirements. V. Earhart moved to deny BZA-3626.01,420 E. Elm, stating that the sign violates Section 1294.07 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance and must be removed within 30 days. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Earhart X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3626.01, 420 Elm, has been denied. E. BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo (action) V. Earhart moved to deny BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo, stating that the sign violates Section 1294.07 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance and must be removed within 30 days. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Earhart X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo, has been denied. F. Rules of Procedure (no action) G. Ordinance Amendments (no action) V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of July 12, 2001 The minutes were missing from the packet. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Resignation of V. Earhart. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2001 PAGE 5 Unanimous voice vote to approve. B. Excused Absence for R. McCloud. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 12, 2001 PAGE 1 I� Draft to Clerk 07/17/01 ® Approved To Clerk IDS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JULY 12, 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL - 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 E. Horne R. McCloud Absent: V. Earhart has an excused absence Staff: S. Stachowiak 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-3632.01, 2431 Moores River Dr. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by William and Suzanne Adcock of 2431 Moores River Dr. The variance is to construct a second 22'x 22' attached garage for a total garage area, including what is proposed and what is existing, of 900 sq. ft. The maximum square footage permitted by ordinance is 720 sq. ft., therefore, they are requesting a variance of 180 sq. ft. Ms. Stachowiak recommended approval of the request. Letters of support were received from Philip Venema and R.D. Musser. There are also four letters in the packet from neighbors in the area in support of the request. Staff is supportive of the request because it is a very large lot and because the proposed square footage would be in compliance the proposed ordinance standards on garage sizes. It is a very large lot, approximately 5 times the minimum lot size for a normal single family lot in the City of Lansing. In addition, the existing and proposed garage are both attached to the home. The entrance to the proposed garage will be in the back yard, therefore, the second garage will not be visible from the street. William Adcock, 2431 Moores River Drive, spoke in favor of his request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick said he would support the variance of the second garage and for the additional 180 sq. ft. since the only thing that is forcing this is that the proposed change to the ordinance has not gone through yet, and probably will not go through for a while, but he sees no reason to deny it simply because wheels of democratic justice are grinding slowly. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JULY 12, 2001 PAGE 2 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3632.01, 2431 Moores River Dr., a variance for a second garage and for an additional 180 sq.ft. of garage area. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3632.01, 2431 Moores River Dr., has been approved. B. BZA-3633.01, 622 E. Greenlawn Susan Stachowiak presented the case. She stated that the applicant is Mark Edward Behr representing the owner, Pam Stoneham. This is a request for a variance for a front yard setback requirement in the "A" Residential District. Since the average front yard setback is slightly less than 20 feet, the minimum for this property is 20 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance of 8 feet for the purpose of enclosing the section of the porch that is labeled "cupola" on the site plan. Staff recommended approval of the variance. She explained that the reason for the enclosure is so that the person who lives in this home can get some relief from the sun and can sit outside and enjoy the outdoors without being affected by mosquitos and bugs. Mark Edward Behr, J&E Properties, Inc. on behalf of the owner, Pam Stoneham. Mr. Behr stated that the porch, including the roof is totally detached from the house. The superstructure is what is commonly called post and beam construction. The rear end of the roof, closest to the house, has a pair of treated 2x6 timbers, which, according to my span tables, is more than adequate to bear the load, however, it is not attached to the house. Enclosing that porch would require no more contact with the superstructure and the house than inserting some expandable polyurethane foam between the two to make it seal, but at no point will the deck, landing or ramp be attached to the house itself. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. E. Horne stated that she had the opportunity to drive past this residence and look at that structure. She understands that the ramp and the landing are a necessity, but she is concerned about the other structure for the porch because it looks a little out of character for the neighborhood. G. Hilts said that this photo shows it quite well. It should not interfere with site lines or anything because of the tree. A. Frederick said it kind of brings to his mind a similar situation that the BZA has a few months ago. There was another porch that had existed for quite some time and since it was not touching the house, it was not considered attached and when it became attached to the house, because of some improvements, essentially there was not much difference from what was there, except that it fell under the building code. He said that he did not realize the load bearing aspect of the roof and he is glad that the applicant pointed this out. He said that he is not sure that adding a roof and shingles would change what it already looks like, which the applicant can have, by right. Mr. Frederick stated that it seems to be reasonable, maybe a bit out of character, but what is there now does not need a variance. He does not know that there can be a whole lot we can do to change the character of the structure as it currently exists. G. Hilts said agreed with Mr. Frederick and stated that the roof would definitely carry any snow load that we get. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETINU MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 3 General discussion ensued about the roofing and the building inspector making sure it is taken care of properly. B. Burgess said that he thinks the owner of the property has medical conditions that require the ramp and he expressed his support for the variance. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3633.01, 622 E. Greenlawn for an 8 foot variance from the 20 foot required front yard setback to allow a screened and roofed front porch to extend out from the house to be 12 feet from the property line with the condition that any type of enclosure of the porch or ramp beyond what is proposed is prohibited. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-1. BZA-3633.01, 622 E. Greenlawn has been approved. C. BZA-3634.01, 348 Chilson Ave. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request from the owner, Alex Roberto Beltran, of 348 Chilson Ave. This is a variance request to allow front yard parking on a second, 20 foot wide driveway. She said that the site plan does a good job of illustrating what the applicant is requesting, although the line that was suppose to show the second driveway faded out when it was copied. The reason the applicant needs a variance for a 20 foot wide driveway is because the ordinance specifically allows 12 foot wide driveways, or as wide as the opening to the garage, and there is no garage on the east side of the house. The other issue is that this is a second drive. There is already an 8 foot drive on the property, which leads to the existing garage. The third issue is for front yard parking because we are fairly safe in assuming that the applicant is going to park within the area between the house and the city sidewalk on the new driveway. Ms. Stachowiak recommended approval of the variance request and stated that the photographs demonstrate the practical difficulty associated with this request. The photographs show the steep grade change from the street, back to the existing garage. The problem that Mr. Beltran is having is that, particularly in the wintertime with the ice and snow, the grade change makes it difficult for them to get in and out of that driveway. The other issues is that they are having some real serious draining issues with water coming down and collecting in the driveway. What the applicant proposes to do is build up the grade on the other side of the house, the east side, so they can have 20 feet of level surface to park their vehicles. The property is at the west end of the street where it turns into a dirt road and it does not appear that there would be any impacts on the surrounding neighborhood whatsoever. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The driveway be hardsurfaced. 2. The location of the driveway be approved by the Public Service Department. 3. The BZA case number(3634.01) and the approval date of the variance be engraved into the cocrete/asphalt, near the front lot line, with letters/numbers at least 3" high. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she spoke with the engineer in Public Service Department who issues permits and he said that if a variance is granted, a driveway permit should not be a problem. The BZA case number(3634.01) and the approval date of the variance must be engraved into the concrete or asphalt close enough to the road that a code compliance officer could see it and know that they are not in violation. A. Frederick asked about the age of the house. S. Stachowiak said she does not have that information, but possibly the applicant who is in the audience could answer the question. DR4FT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 4 Mr. Beltran (the applicant) said that he was not sure, he just purchased the house last summer and do not have that information. Alex Beltran, 348 Chilson Avenue, spoke in favor of his request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts said that his mother's house has just the opposite grade change. You have to go up to get to her garage and it is just fine except in the winter and sometimes she can't park in the garage. It gets to be a problem. A. Frederick said that he can certainly see the practical difficulty and would support this variance request. E. Horne said the only comment she has is that it is larger than a normal city lot, and therefore, lot coverage will not be a problem. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3634.01, 348 Chilson Avenue, a variance to permit front yard parking on a second, 20 foot wide driveway with the following three conditions as printed in the staff report: 1) The driveway be hardsurfaced, 2) Approval of the location of the driveway by the Public Service Department, 3) The BZA case number(3634.01) and the approval date of the variances be engraved into the concrete/asphalt, near the front lot line, with letters/numbers at least 3" high. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3634.01, 248 Chilson Ave. has been approved with conditions. Mr. Beltran asked about the first condition. Ms. Stachowiak said that the driveway has to be hardsurfaced. He asked if there was a time frame for the hardsurfacing. He said he would like to be able to back fill the area and let it set over the winter so it is compacted and settles more. Ms. Stachowiak said that should not be a problem. She will research it and include that information in the letter that she will send to him. 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-3626.01, 420 E. Elm (no action) E. BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo (no action) F. Rules of Procedure (no action) G. Ordinance Amendments (no action) V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 5 VI APPROVAL OF MINUTES D. Minutes of June 14, 2001 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 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 07/05/01 Approved 07/12/01 To Clerk 07/13/01 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS J U N E 14, 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 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: A. Frederick B. Burgess G. Hilts E. Horne R. McCloud V. Earhart Absent: Staff: S. Stachowiak L. Davis A. A quorum of at least four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. This meeting was transcribed by a Court Reporter for the Cases regarding Adam's Outdoor Advertising. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess asked to have items B & C moved to after items D-G because they are quite lengthy. B. Burgess made a motion to move items B&C to after D-G. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve the motion. E. Horne moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3625.01, 909 W. Lenawee Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Gracie Ansley, owner of 909 W. Lenawee Street, for two front yard variances for a detached garage. The reason it is two front yard variances is because it is a corner lot. Ms. Stachowiak referred the Board to the survey that is in the packet which shows the proposed garage and its location to the lot lines as well as the house. It is 24 x 24 garage which is well within our maximum allowable square footage for garages. It is 6 feet from the house and 3 feet from the rear lot line, which complies with the code. The requirement in the ordinance is for a 60 foot setback from the front lot lines, the proposed setback along Butler Street is 54Y2 and along Lenawee Street is 39 feet. Therefore, the applicant is asking for variances of 5.5 feet and 21 feet for setbacks. Staff recommended approval of the requests because being a long, narrow corner lot, there is no way that a garage either detached or attached could fit on this lot and comply with setbacks. The applicant was not present. S. Stachowiak said that there are some conditions of the recommendation for this case. 1. The existing garage be removed as initially proposed by the applicant; 2. The curb cut for the existing garage be closed; 3. The design and materials of the proposed garage be consistent with the architectural character of the American Four-square style house (i.e. hipped roof, clapboard siding - which is original to the house and presumably still under current siding); 4. Driveway be hard surfaced and in compliance with code requirements; and 5. Public Service approves the curb cut relocation. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 2 G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart said she would like to comment on the condition that the existing garage and driveway be removed and the curb cut be closed. She said that there should be a time limit attached to this condition. For instance, within 6 months of construction. S. Stachowiak said she thought it was a good condition, maybe 6 months from when the building permit is approved is a good way to address it. If six months is not reasonable at the time of construction, maybe 9 months to a year. V. Earhart said she thinks this is a reasonable time because they will have someone prepping the new driveway and at that time they could remove the old one. S. Stachowiak said it was added to the end of sentences 1 and 2 that within one year of the construction of the new garage it would need to be removed. V. Earhart said you don't want them to not have a driveway to park their car. A. Frederick said these pictures in the report do not do it justice. The practical difficulties were clear when he drove by the house. V. Earhart moved to approve, with conditions as listed by the Staff and as amended, BZA-3625.01, a request for a front yard variance of 21 feet and 5.6 feet to construct a 24 x 24 detached garage at 909 W. Lenawee Street. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Earhart X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3625.01, 909 W. Lenawee, has been approved. D. BZA-3628.01, 231 N. Jenison Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a variance for a front yard setback. She referred the Board to the parcel map and site plan in the packet. There was a home on this lot that was burned down in 1992, was demolished and has been vacant ever since. The applicant would like to build a single family home on the lot. The site plan illustrates where they want to put the home. It is an approximately 1400 sq. ft. home, which is not all that large. They have positioned it on the lot in such a way that they have tried to not project any further into the setbacks than what they have to. They have maintained the required 30 foot rear yard setback as well as the 6 foot side yard setback, however, along Jenison Ave, the average front yard setback is approximately 19 feet. The required minimum is 20 feet and they want to go 17 feet, so they are asking for a three foot variance, but actually they will only extend out 2 feet further than the average setback of the other homes on the block. Along Ionia and Spenser Streets the average front yard setback is 25.4 feet and they are asking for a variance of approximately 10 feet. The house would have a 15 foot setback in that area. The variance request was recommended for approval. They have tried to situate it on the lot the best they could. It should not create any hardships for the neighborhood. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 3 Given that it is a corner lot and has limitations in terms of its size, it would be impossible to fit a decent size house on this lot and comply with all the required setbacks. With this in mind it is being recommended for approval. G. Hilts asked about the footprint of the proposed house in relation to what was there. S. Stachowiak said she is not sure. We do not have any record of what was there. A. Frederick asked if the setback requirement along Jenison Ave., would be permitted under the proposed changes to the Zoning Code? S. Stachowiak said they would still need a variance for this because the new code will eliminate the 20 foot requirement, but it will require building to be in line with the average setbacks within 180 feet. In this case the average is 19 feet and they want to go 17 feet so they are projecting 2 feet further than the averager. This should not be noticeable to the neighborhood, that it comes out an extra two feet, because they are a corner lot and they have so much street frontage because of how the lot raps around. We did receive a letter of objection from the property owner directly south of this lot at 227 N. Jenison Ave. That does not change our recommendation. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Yvonne Joseph, 1509 Spencer. She has owned her house on Spenser for 15 years. Ms. Joseph expressed a concern that the foundation is still buried in the lot. She said that the house is not going to be built on the old foundation, and would like to know if that foundation is going to be excavated completely prior to any new building? She has seen diagrams of the house, but has never seen any diagrams of how that home is going to fit on the lot. They are directly in back of the proposed building. She has not seen the actual layout of the building on the lot and would be interested in seeing it. We have maintained part of that property for many years because it was not maintained and we want to make sure that the lot lines are not encroaching on our property because our property does extend beyond the fencing that is currently there. She is not against this, but would like to have some of these questions answered before any approval is made. S. Stachowiak said that the house would not encroach on the neighbors property. The setbacks have to be measured from the applicants lot lines. S. Stachowiak showed Ms. Joseph the diagram of how the house will be laid out and said that we know that there is a foundation buried under on the lot and the new house will have to comply with building code and if they can't utilize what is underground, they will have to tear it out and build a new one. That is a building code issue and will be addressed when it gets to that point. Mary James, 303 N. Jenison, across the street. She has some points of clarification on how the staff makes these recommendations. She is concerned, because it is the impression of some in some of the low income housing areas that the Zoning Board has not been very favorably disposed towards zoning variances for some other rebuilds or new builds as far as setbacks. She does not know and would like to know if that is seen here? She would like to know the basis for recommendations and decisions. S. Stachowiak explained that in a case like this, with a setback issue, the staff looks at whether there a way that the property can comply with the ordinance without needing a variance. If there is, then we will recommend denial, in this case there is not. General discussion ensued regarding setbacks for this variance and general questions regarding recommendations. David Lieberman, applicant. He introduced himself and asked if there were any questions. He is a custom home builder. He does custom homes in Haslett, has been a builder for four years, has a Civil Engineering degree from Michigan State University. His family has been building for over BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 4 120 years. We only have good intentions for this project. He is doing it for Brian Huggler, purely because he feels it will improve the West Side Neighborhood and we are hoping to put the home in the west side home tour. It is with good intentions that we are doing this and it will be treated like any other home that is done by his company. If there are any questions he would like to answer them. A. Frederick said this is quite a nice area, the homes all look very nice and he wondered if the design is going to be in the same architectural setting as the rest of the homes, so it will fit in with the neighborhood rather than being something that will stick out. Mr. Lieberman said that Lori Wieble from the Design Group was hired to do the design work and he had her go to the neighborhood. Brian Huggler, who lives in the neighborhood, had a lot of input into the home. Our two concerns were fitting a home that was built today, into a neighborhood that was built yesterday, without sticking out and complimenting the nice neighborhood and also giving the home the amenities that home owners today require. We want the home to compliment the area. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart addressed the issues brought up by the neighbor in the letter sent to the Board. A. Frederick said the main thing that is looked for in a situation like this is practical difficulty or hardship that was not caused by the applicant or the owner of the property. This is in a residentially zoned neighborhood, it is an older neighborhood. The lots were laid out long before the present zoning ordinance was adopted by City Council and when there is a difficulty or hardship that is caused by the zoning ordinance that would prevent the property owner from achieving enjoyment out of his property through no fault of his own, which he believes is the situation here with this small lot, a variance seems appropriate. The original house was built here in the 1920's. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3628.01, 231 N. Jenison, a variance request of 10.33 feet along W. Ionia Street and 3 feet along N. Jenison Avenue. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3628.01, 231 N. Jenison has been approved. E. BZA-3629.01, 513 W. Kilborn Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by the owner, Belinda Lund, that involves variances from the rear yard and side yard setback requirements in order to construct a detached garage. The requirement is 3 feet. The property owner is asking to reduce it down to 2 feet at the south property line, which is the rear yard setback, and to reduce it down to 22 inches from the side/east property line. There are two reasons the owner brought this variance case to the board, one is that she wanted to utilize the existing slab that is there, however, building code will not allow BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 5 that because it is going to require a 12 inch rat wall around the perimeter of the garage. The second reason is because there is a joint driveway and it is very tight maneuvering around the steps on the back of the house. The applicant is trying to construct a two car garage. She has kept it very minimal, 20'x 22'. The garage that was approved a few minutes ago was 24'x 24' which is the standard. This is a very small lot, since it is only 30 feet wide, so she has several limitations here, one is that the lot is very small, and two, there is a house that sits very close to the lot lines and then there is the deck on the back that limits the ability to turn a car at the southeast corner of the house. The further she moves the garage to the west, the harder it is going to be to maneuver a car around the corner of the house to get a car in the garage. From that standpoint, we have no problem with the variances that are being requested, however, we have not been able to discuss the building code issues with her because she has been out of town. If she goes any closer than 3 feet, she is going to have to construct a one hour fire separation wall, which involves drywall on both the inside and outside of the wall. It is going to require a more expensive form of construction and the existing slab, from a building code standpoint, is not going to work. It is going to have to be torn up and a proper rat wall constructed around the perimeter of the garage. Ms. Stachowiak said that we have no problem with the variance, however, the applicant needs to know that if the variance is granted, and she constructs it as such, it will cost her some additional money than it would if she were to comply with the code. A. Frederick was glad that it was clarified about the existing concrete slab. General discussion ensued regarding the concrete slab and the cost of the construction. Belinda Lund, 513 W. Kilborn. She does understand the building code issues and would like to look into this for a couple more weeks and would like to have her case considered at a later date because she would like to address the building code issues. She explained that the closer the garage can be to the driveway, the more feasible it is to have a two car garage in the back of the house. General discussion ensued. S. Stachowiak said that we are still recommending approval of this. The building code is separate from this. We just wanted her to make sure she understood that she could not use the slab and would have to construct the one-hour fire separation wall. A. Frederick said,just for clarification, if we were to approve this and the applicant chose not to build the garage based on the variance we approved, but chose to meet the zoning, that would be permissible wouldn't it? S. Stachowiak said yes. G. Hilts addresses the board regarding a letter received and asked about parking on the street and getting an exception so they are not ticketed. S. Stachowiak said they could get an exception during construction. To park in the front of the drive or on the street. The applicant should make sure that the construction stays on their side of the parking so it does not prevent the neighbors from accessing their garage. General discussion ensued regarding parking. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 6 A. Frederick said that the lot size is tiny, which creates a practical difficulty, particularly since this is an older home and it was built before the current zoning ordinance. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3629.01, 513 W. Kilborn, the request for a variance of 1.17 feet from the required 3 foot side yard setback and a request for a 1 foot variance from the required 3 foot rear yard setback. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3629.01, 513 W. Kilborn has been approved. F. BZA-3631.01, 525 N. Pennsylvania Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Quality Child Care. The owner is the Salvation Army at 525 N. Pennsylvania. This is a request for an additional ground pole sign and for 26 square feet of additional sign area. Under the sign code, this parcel, because it is considered an institution, located in a residential district, and is less than 2 acres, is allowed 20 square feet of ground pole sign area. They already have an existing sign that is 28 square feet in area. The site has a lot of frontage on N. Pennsylvania and they have multiple uses in the building. The existing sign is located much further north on Pennsylvania than the proposed sign, which is located much closer to the intersection of Lindengrove and Pennsylvania. The additional ground pole sign is proposed to be 18 square feet in area, which is very minimal. That sign on its own would comply with the ordinance because there is an existing sign, that kicks in the variance. Staff recommended approval of the variance. She said it was felt that the practical difficulty was that there are multiple uses in the building and since the site has a lot of frontage, if there was an additional sign that identifies the child care center it would create less confusion for traffic going to and from the site. Lisa Lenard, 1843 Holt Rd., Williamston, Child Care Director. She has been with the Salvation Army for 10 years. She expressed her appreciation for the positive recommendation from the staff. She explained that the main concern is for the safety of the children, because we are a multi use building and because of the clientele that we serve. The Salvation Army is generally noted for its social services for people who are at risk. Ten years ago we saw another at risk area and that was with children so we started this child care program knowing that we would be sharing this space. Over time we have realized that we need additional signage, not only to let people who are coming to our building but also for the community at large. We work with the Lansing School District, the Office of Young Children and the Family Independence Agency to provide a service to the community. Also, we are one of the few Salvation Armies that provides child care. They had to look at this closely before we could get that sign. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 7 B. Burgess said he is supportive of approving this request. E. Horne said she is very supportive because if you would be on that premises and you were trying to find a particular service, you would need a specific sign for direction. A. Frederick said he can appreciate that the Salvation Army would have a lot of different services that they would provide, but to me this is no different than if they were in a commercial venture providing a lot different services in a large building and we might not necessarily be inclined to grant the variance. However, in thinking about the variances that we granted to Frandor shopping center because they have large buildings and they have multiple services and buildings, it was an issue of identifying various stores from the street and we did grant them minimal variances for identification purposes. The practical difficulty lies in the size of the building and the fact that multiple services are provided. E. Horne moved to approve BZA3631.01, 525 N. Pennsylvania, a request to erect a second ground pole sign and allow an additional 26 square feet of signage with the condition that visibility is not obstructed. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3631.01, 525 N. Pennsylvania, has been approved. V. Earhart moved to take BZA-3618.01, 6019 S. Cedar Street and BZA-3622.01, 4700 S. Cedar St. off the table. Seconded by B. Burgess. 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-3618.01, 6109 S. Cedar St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This was for a shell gas station sign and there was a letter stating the applicant would like to withdraw the request because they are just going to reface the existing sign rather than go ahead with the request to replace it with a taller sign. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 8 A. Frederick moved to accept the withdrawal from Blodgett Oil Co, BZA-3618.01, 6109 S. Cedar St. Seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Unanimous voice vote to accept the withdrawal of BZA-3618.01, 6109 S. Cedar St. E. BZA-3622.01, 4700 S. Cedar St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. The site is the McDonald's Restaurant at 4700 S. Cedar St. The applicant is City Sign Erectors and their representative, Tracy, is in the audience if there are any questions. The report was reviewed at the last meeting, however, if anyone has any questions or would like me to go over the report again we can do that. Essentially, it is a variance request for 24.24 square feet of ground pole sign area and a setback variance of 23 feet. Basically nothing is changing on the sign from what it is right now, other than McDonald's would like to take down the message board part of it and replace it with a digital board. This digital board will be smaller than the original massage board. The reason they need a variance is because the sign is nonconforming for setback and square footage. We would not let them just replace anything without coming through the board even though they are reducing the nonconfority in this case. The reason this was tabled last month is because a question came up as to whether the existing sign could be refaced. In this case, the whole sign of McDonald's was not refaced, but part of it was changed. There is a written policy included in the packet that allows sign faces to be repainted, or replaced without permit. It specifically states that the sign frames cannot be altered or repaired without a permit. They can pop in the plastic and pop it back out as often as they want, but they cannot change the height or the square footage of it and they cannot alter the frame or pole in any way, shape or form. In this case, they just changed some of the working on the sign. The sign inspector on the very next morning was well aware of what McDonald's had done and it was all in complete compliance with the code. We are still recommending approval of the variance. It brings the sign closer into conformance with the ordinance because it is reducing the square footage. A. Frederick said thank you for the research. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 9 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3622.01, 4700 S. Cedar St., a variance for an 18.24 square foot message board sign to replace the current message board sign on the existing pole; the variance is 24 x 24 square feet of sign area from the maximum permitted 170 feet and for a setback variance of 23 feet from the minimum required setback. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3622.01, 4700 S. Cedar St., has been approved. F. Rules of Procedure (no action) G. Ordinance Amendments (no action) A break was taken at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. II Reconvened New Business B. BZA-3626.01, 420 E. Elm Susan Stachowiak presented the case. The applicant is John Fifarek on behalf of Adams Outdoor Advertising. She pointed out that this is not a variance request but an appeal of an administrative decision. The staff in the Planning Department made a decision with regard to the billboard sign at at 420 E. Elm Street and the applicant disagrees with that decision. Ms. Stachowiak explained that there has been a billboard at this location, since 1973. There is some history in the packet. The sign was destroyed by wind on April 23, 2001. On April 24 and 25, 2001 the sign was replaced without a permit. On April 26, 2001, the city sent Adams Outdoor Advertising a letter regarding the illegal replacement of the sign and on April 28, 2001, the city issued them notice to stop work on the sign until all permits were issued. For clarification, no sign permit application has never been submitted on this request. On May 16, 2001, the city received an application for the appeal. Basically, the sign was completely brought down by wind and was replaced, in its entirety, since they used all new materials. It has new I-Beams, it has new signage, it is placed on new footings and we feel that since everything about it is brand new, it was replaced rather than repaired. There is a section in the Zoning Ordinance that talks about Class B Nonconformities and a sign that does not comply with the ordinance is considered a Class B Nonconformity. If it is damaged more than 50% it can not be restored. We feel that it was damaged more than 50% of the fair market value because it was completely replaced. The sign that is there now is in no way the same sign that was there before April 23, 2001 when it was blown down. The decision before the board tonight is whether the sign was replaced, rather than repaired. Section 1294.07 deals with restoration. Ms. Stachowiak referred the Board to Section 1442.09 of the Sign Code which specifically prohibits the applicant from replacing a structure that BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 10 has been destroyed. "No sign heretofore approved or erected shall be altered or relocated, either on the same or to other premises. No sign, or any substantial part thereof, which is destroyed shall be re-erected, reconstructed, rebuilt or relocated, unless the same is in the compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter." Ms. Stachowiak said that the reason the sign is nonconforming is because Elm Street is not a major or minor arterial. Elm Street is designated on the comprehensive plan as a local street. Margo Vroman clarified that what this particular appeal deals with is Sectionl294.07(c) of the Zoning Code, which states that: "A Class B Nonconformity damaged by fire, explosion, flood, erosion, or any other catastrophe may be restored if the cost of restoration is less than 50% of the precatastrophe fair market value. A structure damaged more than 50% shall not be restored except in conformity with the provisions of the district in which it is located." What the staff has determined is that the structure, both on Elm Street and Kalamazoo, have been damaged more than 50%. So, if you agree with the staff's conclusion that the structures have been damaged more than 50%, then you do not need to address the issue of whether the restoration was more than 50% of the precatastrophe value. That consideration would only come into play if the Board determined that the structure was been damaged less than 50%. General discussion ensued regarding the definition of 50%. Susan Stachowiak referred the Board to page 4 of the staff report which contains a quote from the applicant's attorney in a letter dated May 11, 2001, which states: "The cost to repair the sign was $6,610. This amount included $1,800 for I-beam supports, $1,610 for sign panels, $1,200 for concrete and $1,000 equipment rental and $1,000 of labor." She said that it states right there that the sign has new ]-beams, new sign panels, new concrete for the footings and so forth. That information, provided directly from the applicant, goes to confirm that the sign was replaced. General discussion ensued regarding the price of the sign. V. Earhart asked if there were color pictures. She also asked when you say existing, that means post damage, etc. Ms. Stachowiak said that existing means what is there today. Ms. Earhart asked if we have pictures from before. Ms. Stachowiak said that we do not have pictures of the sign prior to destruction because we would not have had any reason to take the pictures. General discussion ensued regarding pictures of the billboard. A. Frederick said he recalls from the Planning Board that there was some discussion about a sign survey done with video camera. Ms. Stachowiak said she was not familiar with this. Mr. Frederick said it kind of rings a bell and there may be a video of this particular sign. At least, he knows that the Planning staff was intending to do that, but whether they did or not it is an unknown. General discussion ensued regarding the video taping of signs. A. Frederick said he had a couple of questions for staff. Mr. Frederick looked through the ordinance a bit and got confused about the part where there was a certain period of time that an application to appeal a decision had to be made and then did not see it in other parts of the codes. He asked if that was an issue. Ms. Stachowiak said, to clarify, that he would like to know whether BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 11 their appeal came to late from the time that the city told them that they had a violation. Ms. Vroman said that there was some concern that the Kalamazoo Street appeal was untimely but we determined that it was 21 days from the day of the most recent decision regarding the sign. A. Frederick said that he had one more question. He is glad that it was clarified about the two 50% and if we do determine that more than 50% of the sign was destroyed, then we do not need to determine whether the costs that went into the sign exceed half of the fair market value. He said that he also believes that signs can fall down on their own, which would not be a catastrophe and so he is curious to know whether or not any investigation was made about whether this was a real catastrophe or if it was just wind that blew an old sign down. Ms. Stachowiak said the Planning Office is not aware of any other signs that were damaged on that day. This one was blown down by wind. This leads us to the conclusion that structurally it had to have some deficiencies in order for wind to have taken this down. She said that as far as the one on Kalamazoo, we were told that there were severe high winds on the day that was blown down, but again, we are not aware of any other signs that were destroyed on that date, other than this one. John Fifarek, 200 Washington Square, Attorney for Adams Outdoor Advertising. For the record here, there are a few people from Adams Outdoor in attendence and if the Board has questions specifically for them, they will try to answer them. He introduced Melissa Rant, Real Estate Manager; James Aulguire, General Manager; and William Luckhurst, Operations Manager for Adams Outdoor. He has the petition for consideration that follows the format of the city dated May 11, 2001, a letter submitted with that petition dated May 11, 2001, a letter dated May 16, 2001, then there was a June 11, 2001 that had six exhibits pertaining to 420 E. Elm and that includes exhibit one, "Summary of the Ordinance"; exhibit two, "Summary of Facts"; exhibit three, "The Description of Nonconformity"; exhibit four, "The Fair Market Value Appraisal by Cooper Nesbit"; exhibit five, "The Affidavid of William Luckhurst"; and exhibit six, "The affidavit of James Aulguire". There are many things of which we could agree here, such as when the sign was put in place in 1973 and when it was damaged by the storm and when it was repaired and that it was repaired without seeking a permit. That is because we believe that under the ordinances, no permit is required. The fact that was missing from the report by the staff is that this sign, and as evidenced by the affidavit of Mr. Aulguire, Exhibit 6, was hit by lightening on that date and that is why it collapsed. Mr. Luckhurst could offer further evidence or testimony as to how this sign, as well as the Kalamazoo sign had been maintained and inspected on a regular basis to calm any concerns that it simply fell over. He said that what we disagree on is the interpretation of Section 1294.07(c). He also said that one thing that was not clear, as far as the staff and attorney's presentation, is whether or not what the city attorney provided as far as an interpretation of subsection (c) was in the nature of a legal opinion or an explanation as to what staff has done in this matter and in the other matter. Mr. Fifarek said that he is presenting his legal interpretation. Mr. Fifarek continued by saying that it is absolutely unbelievable that anyone would take a look at subsection (c) of Section 1294.07 and say that there is a two step process there. That there is a step that first requires that you determine whether or not the property was damaged by more than 50% without considering value in light of the fact that the sentence before tells you that when you are addressing the damage and the cost of repair, you look at 50% of the precatastrophic fair market value. It cannot be read any other way, the ordinance is set up that if you are going to make a determination that this sign has been damaged or destroyed to the extent that it cannot be rebuilt as a nonconformity as allowed by the zoning ordinance, you have to take a look at the value. There is another section that talks about the fair market value of a nonconformity. Section 1294.08, basically says that you need to look at an appraisal. What is provided to the board and the city, originally it was documentation and information as far as the cost of this particular sign. That number was $17,822. When one looks at fair market value he is going to look at income BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 12 more than anything else. That is basically what Section 1294.08 is all about. We presented an appraisal, prepared by a certified appraiser that says the fair market value of this sign is $87,000. Whether it is looked at as the cost of the sign or the more appropriate fair market value evaluation of its income, costs of the repairs as supported by the affidavit submitted as Exhibit 5 is far less than 50% than the value of the sign. A. Frederick asked whether the 50% is of the fair market value or the 50% is just the total damage of the structure. He said that it clearly states that it has to be restored in conformity with the provisions of the district in which it is located. Mr. Fifarek said he is not sure he understands the questions but will try to answer the best he can. What you need to look at when you look at whether it has been damaged more than 50% is based upon value. A. Frederick said that last sentence says that it shall not be restored unless it is in conformity with the provisions of the district in which is located, so what you are saying is that since it is less than 50% of the fair market value that it does not have to be restored with the provisions of the district it is located? Mr. Fifarek said that is correct. That is what a nonconformity is. General discussion ensued regarding restoration of the sign, nonconformities, and conforming to the provisions of the district as stated in the ordinance. Mr. Fifarek continued and said that an affidavit was submitted by James Aulguire pertaining to the damage of this particular sign. His affidavit attesting to the fact that this sign was hit by lightening and what he observed with regard to the sign. Mr. Luckhurst said that there were two posts on the sign and that they go up on the sign once a month and sometimes twice a month, and if there is anything wrong with the signs there are maintenance reports that are filled out. This is a constant ongoing thing. Mr. Fifarek said with the sign at 420 E. Elm, is there any reason to believe that the sign was loose or rocking or suffered from some kind of defect. Mr. Luckhurst said he had no report of this. Mr. Luckhurst asked if there were any other questions. A. Frederick said that it affirmed some questions about the condition of the sign at that time. V. Earhart asked a question referencing Exhibit 4, entitled "Sign Site", it has present advertising income, income with two faces, estimated expenses, etc. The question is regarding the bottom line of a loss to Adams Outdoor Advertising of$87,000. How long was this sign down. Mr. Fifarek said that the approach to evaluation is to look at the income, which is $1,450 month times 12 is $17,400. Ms. Earhart said she understands how the figure was calculated but was wondering what was the actual loss? Mr. Fifarek said the loss is equivalent to the issue of value. In essence, if this sign was condemned today or on the date of valuation, the fair market value of this sign is $87,000, which would be the loss to Adams if you are not allowing this sign to remain. A. Frederick stated that what is being said is that it is a loss of future income to Adams Outdoor BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 13 Advertising. Mr. Fifarek said future income is taken and then capitalized under this approach. Take a look at what it would net on an annualized basis, which is$87,000. What would someone pay today for a sign, the fair market value, that nets $87,000 today? You capitalize that, which is what Mr. Cooper did and he is saying that if someone was to go and buy that sign, he would pay $87,000 for it. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. S. Stachowiak said she wanted to just point out once again that Section 1294.07, deals with restoration, it specifically says a Class B Nonconformity damaged by fire, explosion, flood erosion or any other catastrophe may be "restored". It does not say that it may be "replaced". What we are saying is that the sign was replaced. There is a separate section of the ordinance, Section 1242.09 directly out of the sign code which states that: "No sign heretofore approved and erected shall be altered or relocated, either on the same or to other premises. No sign, or any substantial part thereof, which is destroyed shall be re-erected, reconstructed, rebuilt or relocated, unless the same is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter." Section 1294.07(c) provides an exception in instances where a catastrophe occurs and provides an exception for doing some restoration based on certain circumstances when the damage was less than 50% and less than 50% of the fair market value. We are saying that the sign was replaced. We are going by not only the photographs that were provided, as well as on site visits and information provided by the sign inspector, but as well as the own information that was provided by the applicant's attorney which states that they used new steel I-beams, new signs, new footings, etc. There is nothing about this sign that is an example of restoration. She said that building a new house from the footings on up is a new house, not a restored house. The definitions have been quoted also. Section 1294.07 specifically says that it may be restored, not replaced, reconstructed, rebuilt, substituted or resumed. J. Fifarek said that Section 1442.09 of the sign ordinance does not use the word replace anywhere, nor is the word replaced defined in any of the ordinances. Section 1442.09 talks about signs, but 1442.10 says that the nonconforming requirements of the zoning code apply, and not the sign code references to billboards. Also, this may be incorrect, but the word restored is not defined here either. It is not defined in the sign code. Ms. Stachowiak said it is defined in the Zoning Code. Mr. Fifarek said he does not have that, however, it is not defined in the sign code. Ms. Stachowiak said the definition of restoration is to put back into original or historic condition. This is taken straight out of the zoning ordinance. General discussion ensued regarding the definition of"restored" in the ordinance and how it pertains to this case. B. Burgess said he is uncomfortable with this entire process because there is an appeal before us and it is very different from the matters that they normally handle. The city attorney needs to present their case and then we need to decide what perspective we will agree with, because that is what a hearing is about. The city attorney is representing the city and this attorney is representing Adams. Therefore, the city attorney would respond to what is being said and then the Board should go into Committee of the Whole to make a decision based on what has been said on both sides. He made a request to have the city attorney respond to the issues that have been raised by the applicants attorney. J. Fifarek said that unless there are other questions he has nothing further to say but would like to have the opportunity to respond to the city attorney's comments. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 14 M Vroman said that obviously she and Mr. Fifarek do not agree on the interpretation of the city ordinance here. The position of the city with regard to subsection (c) of 1294.07 is not ambiguous or incongruous. The position of the city is that the first sentence of Section 1294.07 applies to those situations that a determination has been made that less than 50% of the structure has been damaged and then, if you make that determination, you go into the fair market value issue. Also, to address the whole issue of fair market value, since Mr. Fifarek has, and when we were talking about the statutory or ordinance construction, one of the cardinal rules is that you use common sense. Common sense, if you look at this and say the cost of restoration is less than 50% of the precatastrophe fair market value, looking at Mr. Fifarek's point of view, because the cost of restoration is obviously the physical cost of putting up new I-beams and panels, then never, in any circumstance, is it going to be more than the fair market value if the cost analysis approach is used, as he is urging. His appraiser also admits that there are different ways for estimating fair market value. Therefore, we have a disagreement as to how fair market value is used. Obviously, as he pointed out, if you adopt his position, there would be no nonconforming billboards. They would always be able to be replaced if that interpretation is taken. Also, if you take his interpretation, the sentence that comes after that which states that a structure damaged more than 50% shall not be restored except in conformity with the ordinance, is superfluous. Why would that sentence even be in there if the cost of restoration verses the fair market value is the issue being dealt with. Again, if his approach is adopted there would not be an instance where they would not be allowed under that analysis to replace an existing sign. Ms. Vroman stated that she would agree with the planning department that if you replace every component of an existing sign, that is not a restoration, restoration is to put back into original condition. Restoration would be if a panel fell off of the sign and you picked it up and put it back on. If it was put back to the way it was "yesterday", that is a restoration. The replacement of all the I-beams and all the other components is not restoration. Restoration is when you put it back to its original condition. She stated that there is no big difficulty with Subsection (c). She said it is clear to them that you have to make a determination as to how much of the structure was damaged. If it is decided that Mr. Fifarek's analysis is correct, then there is no need for that second sentence to be in this subsection because whether a structure was damaged more than 50% would not matter. There is a logical reason for that to be there. She said that it is because there are two different analyses to make here. What this ordinance subsection is directing is, if it is determined that it has been damaged less than 50%, then the fair market value would be done and if that is decided then we need to find out how that fair market value is determined because if you are going to compare the cost of the physical restoration with the fair market value that takes in the consideration future profits and there is no way that this ordinance could ever have any meaning. She said that the point is that it is not as difficult to deal with as Mr. Fifarek would have you believe. She says to look at the facts, and then apply the analysis that makes the most sense in this situation. Unanimous voice vote to allow Mr. Fifarek to again address the board. J. Fifarek responded and said that they are not standing before the board and stating that every nonconforming sign has this special protection where it never has to comply with the ordinance. All they are saying is that this subsection (c), which deals with a catastrophe or something by no fault of the owner, gives them the right to rebuild. That is the protection to a nonconforming owner provided by the city's law. If it were a situation in which it was abandoned, not used, not maintained or falling down, and they wanted to come in and put it back together, restore it, replace it, put in the steel compared to wood or anything of that nature, one would not be able to do that. This is a situation, or an act of God if you want to call it that, where it has knocked the sign down and this ordinance provides us with certain rights. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 15 G. Hilts said he is uncomfortable making a decision tonight. A. Frederick agreed with Mr. Hilts. He received the last two packets yesterday at the beginning of the 4:00 Zoning and Ordinance Committee Meeting of the Planning Board and he had the opportunity to go over them that night, but he does not feel comfortable having absorbed all of this either. He also has another issue to raise. We have had quite a bit of discussion regarding this particular issue of the ordinance that addresses signs destroyed by catastrophe and he accepts that the city's position is that consideration of this would not be an issue if it is decided that it should not have been restored in the first place. He said that he looked up catastrophe in his dictionary and the definition was a "sudden and widespread disaster". He then looked up disaster and it said "any unfortunate event, especially a sudden or great misfortune". Now getting hit by lightening is pretty sudden. Then he looked up widespread and it said "spread over or occupying a wide space". Now, he can understand a wide disaster of a lot of lightening strikes that would occur or some other inclement weather, but he does know that lightening does sometimes single out particular things and do pretty great damage as evidence on this sign. He is not going to trust his memory to know if this particular inclement weather was widespread or just happened to be an isolated incident and if so, he would have to address whether that is a catastrophe, assuming we get to that issue. He would like to see some research about what the weather was like, on or about that particular date and any other damage that may have occurred from that weather in the city to see if it was widespread. V. Earhart said she agrees completely with what Mr. Frederick's definition, but that she has experienced a micro burst that took her roof off but did not do any damage for the next three blocks. A micro burst is like a tiny tornado, so she thinks the information that Mr. Frederick is looking for is good, but keep in mind that a micro burst, like a tornado that only touches down on one house, is still included in a catastrophe definition. At least it was for her. General discussion ensued regarding "catastrophes". B. Burgess moved to table BZA-3626.01, 420 E. Elm to gather more information. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to table BZA-3626.01, 420 E. Elm to gather more information. J. Fifarek asked that it be tabled until August because he is unavailable for the July meeting. He asked if he could table the second case also. G. Hilts said that they still need to go through with the other public hearing. V. Earhart said the facts are different, but the argument is the same. Mr. Fifarek said yes. Ms. Earhart said why don't we do it the same as we have in the past and then we can stipulate that the law and the arguments are the same on the second case. C. BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo Susan Stachowiak presented the case. Factually, this is similar to the last appeal. There are a couple differences to point out. One, is that this was replaced in 1999. It was destroyed and replaced in 1999. When this was first replaced, Jim Ruff as well as a building inspector sent Adams Outdoor Advertising a letter that basically stated that they replaced this sign and it is not in conformance with the ordinance and therefore they needed to come and get a sign permit or the sign needed to be removed. Adams Outdoor responded with a letter that is included in the boards packet. It was written by Melissa Randt and dated May 25, 1999. It states: "Adams Outdoor is submitting an application to replace an existing Outdoor Advertising sign at 738 E. Kalamazoo. . ." and then it goes on to say that ". . .the replacement structure has been rebuilt in the same configuration, size, and at the same location on the property." Actually, we have pictures that BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 16 demonstrate that it was placed in front of the old steel I-beams. We also have pictures that were taken from that time that show how the steel I-beams were bent and so forth. It goes on to talk about how they were poured on new footings and it ends with saying that they were able to save the catwalks. It also quotes the amount of repairs for the work that they did as a result of the damage as to being $4,180. They conclude in the letter by actually apologizing for not first obtaining permission from the building department before starting the work. That is one of the differences with regard to this. We have documentation saying that they saved the catwalks and also indicating that they replaced everything but that. The situation is basically the same, except that they were subsequently put on notice when they did file the permit that the permit was denied because it is in conflict with the ordinance for the same reason the sign on Elm St. was, which is because Hosmer Street, which is the cross street there by Kalamazoo is not a major or a principal arterial, therefore it is nonconforming by the standards of the ordinance and could not be replaced. A letter was sent to that affect, but the billboard was not removed, so when the one on Elm Street came up, this one was revisited. Other than that, our position with regard to the various sections of the Zoning Ordinance on the 50% damage to the structure, as well as replacement versus restored are all identical with what they were with 420 Elm St. There is no need to repeat any of that unless the board has any questions. A. Frederick has a question regarding the facts of this case. His question for the city attorney was regarding timeliness and his problem is that when he looked at the Zoning Code he saw a statement that a decision by the director can be appealed and then it mentioned that the appeal had to be submitted within 30 days of the decision. Based on the letters and correspondence that are in the packet between Adams Outdoor and the city, that on June 16, 1999, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Wadsworth ordered Adams Outdoor to remove the sign and denied their permit. That really sounds like a decision, however, no request for an appeal came until, at least as far as these documents are concerned, until May 2, 2001. He would like the issue of timeliness addressed in more detail. J. Fifarek stated that he would not go over all the legal items again if the board will accept them as if they are presented at this time. (The Board agreed) He said that he has the letter that was referenced, where it suggests that they are apologizing for not obtaining a permit and therefore, they are admitting that there should be a permit or permit application. It was a simple human courtesy and political spin, so to speak, that when someone tells you that something was not done right, and when it is the government that is telling you this, you are going to say, I am sorry we did not do it that way and that we will follow what you want us to do. It ca not be held against them somewhere along the lines with what that statute means. On the timeliness issue, so it is part of the record, when that was going on in 1999, there was an understanding between the city and the attorney for Adams Outdoor Adverting, Mr. Perry at the time, in which it was agreed that if the city was going to pursue the removal or pursue the fines and penalties and things of that nature, that he would be given notice of that so that they could proceed accordingly. A year goes by and nothing happens. To make the record clear again as to who is here, Melissa Rant, William Luckhurst and James Aulguire to answer questions. There is an affidavit that is submitted on this as well. The record that is submitted includes the May 11, 2001 petition, the May 11, 2001 letter outlining the appeal, the May 16, 2001 letter with the site plans and other information and the June 11, 2001 letter that was hand delivered that had 5 Exhibits referenced as Exhibit One: Summary of the Ordinance; Exhibit Two: Summary of the facts; Exhibit Three: Description of Nonconformity; Exhibit Four: Income Approach/Fair Market Appraisal by Cooper Nesbit; and Exhibit Five: Affidavit from William Luckhurst. He said that the facts in general are that this sign has been there since 1989. The sign was damaged as a result of wind on May 17, 1999. The staff indicated that they had photographs that showed how it was bent as a result of the wind. Prepared 1999 without a permit, they don't believe that a permit is necessary. It is a nonconforming use by definition, everyone agrees there. Again, their position is that it is less than 50% of the fair market value of BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 17 that sign and the cost of repairs were less than 50% of the fair market value of that sign and they are entitled to proceed in this fashion. The fair market value of this sign based upon Exhibit Four, the Cooper Nesbit Appraisal is $75,000 and Exhibit Five, the Affidavit of Mr. Luckhurst establishes that the cost of repairs were $4,180.49 and that the cost approach value of that sign was $14,814. Other than that, he can bring up Mr. Luckhurst to let you know that the sign was maintained if you care to hear that from him. It went through the same process that someone is out there once or twice a month and if there was a problem it would be taken care of. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick said he had the same issue regarding the lateness with which he received the packets and Exhibits and would also like to see some information about whether or not the weather was widespread. A. Frederick moved to table BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo to gather more information. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to table BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo to gather more information. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI APPROVAL OF MINUTES C. Minutes of May 10, 2001 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absence for Victoria Earhart for July 2001 A. Frederick moved to change excuse absence V. Earhart from June 2001 to July 2001. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. B. Procedure on Appeals B. Burgess stated that he is really bothered by the process for this. It is a very different process than what they normally deal with and what we seem to have is a very adversarial process in which the board, or the staff, is one of the adversaries. Can we have the city attorney or someone look at the procedures for this kind of thing, where we are taking an appeal of a decision of a department and maybe it needs to be approached a little differently than what we do our other things. It seems to him, just off the top of his head, that the attorney for the city and the attorney for the challenger would be the primary discussion and it would not be the burden of the staff to present the case. It puts them in an awkward position, when we have the attorneys and when it is a legal matter there should be some kind of procedure where we are listening to the attorneys for both sides and then doing what we are doing. The normal process is quite awkward. General discussion ensued regarding the procedures of handling the appeals. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 07/05/01 Approved To Clerk ®RAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS J U N E 14, 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 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: A. Frederick B. Burgess G. Hilts E. Horne R. McCloud V. Earhart Absent: Staff: S. Stachowiak L. Davis A. A quorum of at least four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at-,the meeting. B. This meeting was transcribed by a Court Reporter for the Cases regarding Adam's Outdoor Advertising. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess asked to have items B &C moved to after items D-G because they are quite lengthy. B. Burgess made a motion to move items B&C to after D-G. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve the motion. E. Horne moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3625.01, 909 W. Lenawee Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Gracie Ansley, owner of 909 W. Lenawee Street, for two front yard variances for a detached garage. The reason it is two front yard variances is because it is a corner lot. Ms. Stachowiak referred the Board to the survey that is in the packet which shows the proposed garage and its location to the lot lines as well as the house. It is 24 x 24 garage which is well within our maximum allowable square footage for garages. It is 6 feet from the house and 3 feet from the rear lot line, which complies with the code. The requirement in the ordinance is for a 60 foot setback from the front lot lines, the proposed setback along Butler Street is 54'/Z and along Lenawee Street is 39 feet. Therefore, the applicant is asking for variances of 5.5 feet and 21 feet for setbacks. Staff recommended approval of the requests because being a long, narrow corner lot, there is no way that a garage either detached or attached could fit on this lot and comply with setbacks. The applicant was not present. S. Stachowiak said that there are some conditions of the recommendation for this case. 1. The existing garage be removed as initially proposed by the applicant; 2. The curb cut for the existing garage be closed; 3. The design and materials of the proposed garage be consistent with the architectural character of the American Four-square style house (i.e. hipped roof, clapboard siding - which is original to the house and presumably still under current siding); 4. Driveway be hard surfaced and in compliance with code requirements; and 5. Public Service approves the curb cut relocation. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 2 G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart said she would like to comment on the condition that the existing garage and driveway be removed and the curb cut be closed. She said that there should be a time limit attached to this condition. For instance, within 6 months of construction. S. Stachowiak said she thought it was a good condition, maybe 6 months from when the building permit is approved is a good way to address it. If six months is not reasonable at the time of construction, maybe 9 months to a year. V. Earhart said she thinks this is a reasonable time because they will have someone prepping the new driveway and at that time they could remove the old one. S. Stachowiak said it was added to the end of sentences 1 and 2 that within one year of the construction of the new garage it would need to be removed. V. Earhart said you don't want them to not have a driveway to park their car. A. Frederick said these pictures in the report do not do it justice. The practical difficulties were clear when he drove by the house. V. Earhart moved to approve, with conditions as listed by the Staff and as amended, BZA-3625.01, a request for a front yard variance of 21 feet and 5.5 feet to construct a 24 x 24 detached garage at 909 W. Lenawee Street. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Earhart X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3625.01, 909 W. Lenawee, has been approved. D. BZA-3628.01, 231 N. Jenison Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a variance for a front yard setback. She referred the Board to the parcel map and site plan in the packet. There was a home on this lot that was burned down in 1992, was demolished and has been vacant ever since. The applicant would like to build a single family home on the lot. The site plan illustrates where they want to put the home. It is an approximately 1400 sq. ft. home, which is not all that large. They have positioned it on the lot in such a way that they have tried to not project any further into the setbacks than what they have to. They have maintained the required 30 foot rear yard setback as well as the 6 foot side yard setback, however, along Jenison Ave, the average front yard setback is approximately 19 feet. The required minimum is 20 feet and they want to go 17 feet, so they are asking for a three foot variance, but actually they will only extend out 2 feet further than the average setback of the other homes on the block. Along Ionia and Spenser Streets the average front yard setback is 25.4 feet and they are asking for a variance of approximately 10 feet. The house would have a 15 foot setback in that area. The variance request was recommended for approval. They have tried to situate it on the lot the best they could. It should not create any hardships for the neighborhood. Given that it is a corner lot and has limitations in terms of its size, it would be impossible to fit a DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 3 decent size house on this lot and comply with all the required setbacks. With this in mind it is being recommended for approval. G. Hilts asked about the footprint of the proposed house in relation to what was there. S. Stachowiak said she is not sure. We do not have any record of what was there. A. Frederick asked if the setback requirement along Jenison Ave., would be permitted under the proposed changes to the Zoning Code? S. Stachowiak said they would still need a variance for this because the new code will eliminate the 20 foot requirement, but it will require building to be in line with the average setbacks within 180 feet. In this case the average is 19 feet and they want to go 17 feet so they are projecting 2 feet further than the averager. This should not be noticeable to the neighborhood, that it comes out an extra two feet, because they are a corner lot and they have so much street frontage because of how the lot raps around. We did receive a letter of objection from the property owner directly south of this lot at 227 N. Jenison Ave. That does not change our recommendation. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Yvonne Joseph, 1509 Spencer. She has owned her house on Spenser for 15 years. Ms. Joseph expressed a concern that the foundation is still buried in the lot. She said that the house is not going to be built on the old foundation, and would like to know if that foundation is going to be excavated completely prior to any new building? She has seen diagrams of the house, but has never seen any diagrams of how that home is going to fit on the lot. They are directly in back of the proposed building. She has not seen the actual layout of the building on the lot and would be interested in seeing it. We have maintained part of that property for many years because it was not maintained and we want to make sure that the lot lines are not encroaching on our property because our property does extend beyond the fencing that is currently there. She is not against this, but would like to have some of these questions answered before any approval is made. S. Stachowiak said that the house would not encroach on the neighbors property. The setbacks have to be measured from the applicants lot lines. S. Stachowiak showed Ms. Joseph the diagram of how the house will be laid out and said that we know that there is a foundation buried under on the lot and the new house will have to comply with building code and if they can't utilize what is underground, they will have to tear it out and build a new one. That is a building code issue and will be addressed when it gets to that point. Mary James, 303 N. Jenison, across the street. She has some points of clarification on how the staff makes these recommendations. She is concerned, because it is the impression of some in some of the low income housing areas that the Zoning Board has not been very favorably disposed towards zoning variances for some other rebuilds or new builds as far as setbacks. She does not know and would like to know if that is seen here? She would like to know the basis for recommendations and decisions. S. Stachowiak explained that in a case like this, with a setback issue, the staff looks at whether there a way that the property can comply with the ordinance without needing a variance. If there is, then we will recommend denial, in this case there is not. General discussion ensued regarding setbacks for this variance and general questions regarding recommendations. David Lieberman, applicant. He introduced himself and asked if there were any questions. He is a custom home builder. He does custom homes in Haslett, has been a builder for four years, has a Civil Engineering degree from Michigan State University. His family has been building for over 120 years. We only have good intentions for this project. He is doing it for Brian Huggler, purely DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 4 because he feels it will improve the West Side Neighborhood and we are hoping to put the home in the west side home tour. It is with good intentions that we are doing this and it will be treated like any other home that is done by his company. If there are any questions he would like to answer them. A. Frederick said this is quite a nice area, the homes all look very nice and he wondered if the design is going to be in the same architectural setting as the rest of the homes, so it will fit in with the neighborhood rather than being something that will stick out. Mr. Lieberman said that Lori Wieble from the Design Group was hired to do the design work and he had her go to the neighborhood. Brian Huggler, who lives in the neighborhood, had a lot of input into the home. Our two concerns were fitting a home that was built today, into a neighborhood that was built yesterday, without sticking out and complimenting the nice neighborhood and also giving the home the amenities that home owners today require. We want the home to compliment the area. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. V. Earhart addressed the issues brought up by the neighbor in the letter sent to the Board. A. Frederick said the main thing that is looked for in a situation like this is practical difficulty or hardship that was not caused by the applicant or the owner of the property. This is in a residentially zoned neighborhood, it is an older neighborhood. The lots were laid out long before the present zoning ordinance was adopted by City Council and when there is a difficulty or hardship that is caused by the zoning ordinance that would prevent the property owner from achieving enjoyment out of his property through no fault of his own, which he believes is the situation here with this small lot, a variance seems appropriate. The original house was built here in the 1920's. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA-3628.01, 231 N. Jenison, a variance request of 10.33 feet along W. Ionia Street and 3 feet along N. Jenison Avenue. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3628.01, 231 N. Jenison has been approved. E. BZA-3629.01, 513 W. Kilborn Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by the owner, Belinda Lund, that involves variances from the rear yard and side yard setback requirements in order to construct a detached garage. The requirement is 3 feet. The property owner is asking to reduce it down to 2 feet at the south property line, which is the rear yard setback, and to reduce it down to 22 inches from the side/east property line. There are two reasons the owner brought this variance case to the board, one is that she wanted to utilize the existing slab that is there, however, building code will not allow that because it is going to require a 12 inch rat wall around the perimeter of the garage. The DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 5 second reason is because there is a joint driveway and it is very tight maneuvering around the steps on the back of the house. The applicant is trying to construct a two car garage. She has kept it very minimal, 20' x 22'. The garage that was approved a few minutes ago was 24' x 24' which is the standard. This is a very small lot, since it is only 30 feet wide, so she has several limitations here, one is that the lot is very small, and two, there is a house that sits very close to the lot lines and then there is the deck on the back that limits the ability to turn a car at the southeast corner of the house. The further she moves the garage to the west, the harder it is going to be to maneuver a car around the corner of the house to get a car in the garage. From that standpoint, we have no problem with the variances that are being requested, however, we have not been able to discuss the building code issues with her because she has been out of town. If she goes any closer than 3 feet, she is going to have to construct a one hour fire separation wall, which involves drywall on both the inside and outside of the wall. It is going to require a more expensive form of construction and the existing slab, from a building code standpoint, is not going to work. It is going to have to be torn up and a proper rat wall constructed around the perimeter of the garage. Ms. Stachowiak said that we have no problem with the variance, however, the applicant needs to know that if the variance is granted, and she constructs it as such, it will cost her some additional money than it would if she were to comply with the code. A. Frederick was glad that it was clarified about the existing concrete slab. General discussion ensued regarding the concrete slab and the cost of the construction. Belinda Lund, 513 W. Kilborn. She does understand the building code issues and would like to look into this for a couple more weeks and would like to have her case considered at a later date because she would like to address the building code issues. She explained that the closer the garage can be to the driveway, the more feasible it is to have a two car garage in the back of the house. General discussion ensued. S. Stachowiak said that we are still recommending approval of this. The building code is separate from this. We just wanted her to make sure she understood that she could not use the slab and would have to construct the one-hour fire separation wall. A. Frederick said,just for clarification, if we were to approve this and the applicant chose not to build the garage based on the variance we approved, but chose to meet the zoning, that would be permissible wouldn't it? S. Stachowiak said yes. G. Hilts addresses the board regarding a letter received and asked about parking on the street and getting an exception so they are not ticketed. S. Stachowiak said they could get an exception during construction. To park in the front of the drive or on the street. The applicant should make sure that the construction stays on their side of the parking so it does not prevent the neighbors from accessing their garage. General discussion ensued regarding parking. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 6 A. Frederick said that the lot size is tiny, which creates a practical difficulty, particularly since this is an older home and it was built before the current zoning ordinance. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3629.01, 513 W. Kilborn,the request for a variance of 1.17 feet from the required 3 foot side yard setback and a request for a 1 foot variance from the required 3 foot rear yard setback. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3629.01, 513 W. Kilborn has been approved. F. BZA-3631.01, 525 N. Pennsylvania Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Quality Child Care. The owner is the Salvation Army at 525 N. Pennsylvania. This is a request for an additional ground pole sign and for 26 square feet of additional sign area. Under the sign code, this parcel, because it is considered an institution, located in a residential district, and is less than 2 acres, is allowed 20 square feet of ground pole sign area. They already have an existing sign that is 28 square feet in area. The site has a lot of frontage on N. Pennsylvania and they have multiple uses in the building. The existing sign is located much further north on Pennsylvania than the proposed sign, which is located much closer to the intersection of Lindengrove and Pennsylvania. The additional ground pole sign is proposed to be 18 square feet in area, which is very minimal. That sign on its own would comply with the ordinance because there is an existing sign, that kicks in the variance. Staff recommended approval of the variance. She said it was felt that the practical difficulty was that there are multiple uses in the building and since the site has a lot of frontage, if there was an additional sign that identifies the child care center it would create less confusion for traffic going to and from the site. Lisa Lenard, 1843 Holt Rd., Williamston, Child Care Director. She has been with the Salvation Army for 10 years. She expressed her appreciation for the positive recommendation from the staff. She explained that the main concern is for the safety of the children, because we are a multi use building and because of the clientele that we serve. The Salvation Army is generally noted for its social services for people who are at risk. Ten years ago we saw another at risk area and that was with children so we started this child care program knowing that we would be sharing this space. Over time we have realized that we need additional signage, not only to let people who are coming to our building but also for the community at large. We work with the Lansing School District, the Office of Young Children and the Family Independence Agency to provide a service to the community. Also, we are one of the few Salvation Armies that provides child care. They had to look at this closely before we could get that sign. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. B. Burgess said he is supportive of approving this request. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 7 E. Horne said she is very supportive because if you would be on that premises and you were trying to find a particular service, you would need a specific sign for direction. A. Frederick said he can appreciate that the Salvation Army would have a lot of different services that they would provide, but to me this is no different than if they were in a commercial venture providing a lot different services in a large building and we might not necessarily be inclined to grant the variance. However, in thinking about the variances that we granted to Frandor shopping center because they have large buildings and they have multiple services and buildings, it was an issue of identifying various stores from the street and we did grant them minimal variances for identification purposes. The practical difficulty lies in the size of the building and the fact that multiple services are provided. E. Horne moved to approve BZA3631.01, 525 N. Pennsylvania, a request to erect a second ground pole sign and allow an additional 26 square feet of signage with the condition that visibility is not obstructed. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3631.01, 525 N. Pennsylvania, has been approved. V. Earhart moved to take BZA-3618.01, 6019 S. Cedar Street and BZA-3622.01, 4700 S. Cedar St. off the table. Seconded by B. Burgess. 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-3618.01, 6109 S. Cedar St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This was for a shell gas station sign and there was a letter stating the applicant would like to withdraw the request because they are just going to reface the existing sign rather than go ahead with the request to replace it with a taller sign. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 8 A. Frederick moved to accept the withdrawal from Blodgett Oil Co, BZA-3618.01, 6109 S. Cedar St. Seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Unanimous voice vote to accept the withdrawal of BZA-3618.01, 6109 S. Cedar St. E. BZA-3622.01, 4700 S. Cedar St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. The site is the McDonald's Restaurant at 4700 S. Cedar St. The applicant is City Sign Erectors and their representative, Tracy, is in the audience if there are any questions. The report was reviewed at the last meeting, however, if anyone has any questions or would like me to go over the report again we can do that. Essentially, it is a variance request for 24.24 square feet of ground pole sign area and a setback variance of 23 feet. Basically nothing is changing on the sign from what it is right now, other than McDonald's would like to take down the message board part of it and replace it with a digital board. This digital board will be smaller than the original massage board. The reason they need a variance is because the sign is nonconforming for setback and square footage. We would not let them just replace anything without coming through the board even though they are reducing the nonconfority in this case. The reason this was tabled last month is because a question came up as to whether the existing sign could be refaced. In this case, the whole sign of McDonald's was not refaced, but part of it was changed. There is a written policy included in the packet that allows sign faces to be repainted, or replaced without permit. It specifically states that the sign frames cannot be altered or repaired without a permit. They can pop in the plastic and pop it back out as often as they want, but they cannot change the height or the square footage of it and they cannot alter the frame or pole in any way, shape or form. In this case, they just changed some of the working on the sign. The sign inspector on the very next morning was well aware of what McDonald's had done and it was all in complete compliance with the code. We are still recommending approval of the variance. It brings the sign closer into conformance with the ordinance because it is reducing the square footage. A. Frederick said thank you for the research. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 9 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3622.01, 4700 S. Cedar St., a variance for an 18.24 square foot message board sign to replace the current message board sign on the existing pole; the variance is 24 x 24 square feet of sign area from the maximum permitted 170 feet and for a setback variance of 23 feet from the minimum required setback. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Earhart X Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. BZA-3622.01, 4700 S. Cedar St., has been approved. F. Rules of Procedure (no action) G. Ordinance Amendments (no action) A break was taken at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. II Reconvened New Business B. BZA-3626.01, 420 E. Elm Susan Stachowiak presented the case. The applicant is John Fifarek on behalf of Adams Outdoor Advertising. She pointed out that this is not a variance request but an appeal of an administrative decision. The staff in the Planning Department made a decision with regard to the billboard sign at at 420 E. Elm Street and the applicant disagrees with that decision. Ms. Stachowiak explained that there has been a billboard at this location, since 1973. There is some history in the packet. The sign was destroyed by wind on April 23, 2001. On April 24 and 25, 2001 the sign was replaced without a permit. On April 26, 2001, the city sent Adams Outdoor Advertising a letter regarding the illegal replacement of the sign and on April 28, 2001, the city issued them notice to stop work on the sign until all permits were issued. For clarification, no sign permit application has never been submitted on this request. On May 16, 2001, the city received an application for the appeal. Basically, the sign was completely brought down by wind and was replaced, in its entirety, since they used all new materials. It has new I-Beams, it has new signage, it is placed on new footings and we feel that since everything about it is brand new, it was replaced rather than repaired. There is a section in the Zoning Ordinance that talks about Class B Nonconformities and a sign that does not comply with the ordinance is considered a Class B Nonconformity. If it is damaged more than 50% it can not be restored. We feel that it was damaged more than 50% of the fair market value because it was completely replaced. The sign that is there now is in no way the same sign that was there before April 23, 2001 when it was blown down. The decision before the board tonight is whether the sign was replaced, rather than repaired. Section 1294.07 deals with restoration. Ms. Stachowiak referred the Board to Section 1442.09 of the Sign Code which specifically prohibits the applicant from replacing a structure that has been destroyed. DR4FT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 10 "No sign heretofore approved or erected shall be altered or relocated, either on the same or to other premises. No sign, or any substantial part thereof, which is destroyed shall be re-erected, reconstructed, rebuilt or relocated, unless the same is in the compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter." Ms. Stachowiak said that the reason the sign is nonconforming is because Elm Street is not a major or minor arterial. Elm Street is designated on the comprehensive plan as a local street. Margo Vroman clarified that what this particular appeal deals with is Section1294.07(c) of the Zoning Code, which states that: "A Class B Nonconformity damaged by fire, explosion, flood, erosion, or any other catastrophe may be restored if the cost of restoration is less than 50% of the precatastrophe fair market value. A structure damaged more than 50% shall not be restored except in conformity with the provisions of the district in which it is located." What the staff has determined is that the structure, both on Elm Street and Kalamazoo, have been damaged more than 50%. So, if you agree with the staff's conclusion that the structures have been damaged more than 50%, then you do not need to address the issue of whether the restoration was more than 50% of the precatastrophe value. That consideration would only come into play if the Board determined that the structure was been damaged less than 50%. General discussion ensued regarding the definition of 50%. Susan Stachowiak referred the Board to page 4 of the staff report which contains a quote from the applicant's attorney in a letter dated May 11, 2001, which states: "The cost to repair the sign was $6,610. This amount included $1,800 for I-beam supports, $1,610 for sign panels, $1,200 for concrete and $1,000 equipment rental and $1,000 of labor." She said that it states right there that the sign has new I-beams, new sign panels, new concrete for the footings and so forth. That information, provided directly from the applicant, goes to confirm that the sign was replaced. General discussion ensued regarding the price of the sign. V. Earhart asked if there were color pictures. She also asked when you say existing, that means post damage, etc. Ms. Stachowiak said that existing means what is there today. Ms. Earhart asked if we have pictures from before. Ms. Stachowiak said that we do not have pictures of the sign prior to destruction because we would not have had any reason to take the pictures. General discussion ensued regarding pictures of the billboard. A. Frederick said he recalls from the Planning Board that there was some discussion about a sign survey done with video camera. Ms. Stachowiak said she was not familiar with this. Mr. Frederick said it kind of rings a bell and there may be a video of this particular sign. At least, he knows that the Planning staff was intending to do that, but whether they did or not it is an unknown. General discussion ensued regarding the video taping of signs. A. Frederick said he had a couple of questions for staff. Mr. Frederick looked through the ordinance a bit and got confused about the part where there was a certain period of time that an application to appeal a decision had to be made and then did not see it in other parts of the codes. He asked if that was an issue. Ms. Stachowiak said, to clarify, that he would like to know whether their appeal came to late from the time that the city told them that they had a violation. Ms. Vroman said that there was some concern that the Kalamazoo Street appeal was untimely but we determined that it was 21 days from the day of the most recent decision regarding the sign. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 11 A. Frederick said that he had one more question. He is glad that it was clarified about the two 50% and if we do determine that more than 50% of the sign was destroyed, then we do not need to determine whether the costs that went into the sign exceed half of the fair market value. He said that he also believes that signs can fall down on their own, which would not be a catastrophe and so he is curious to know whether or not any investigation was made about whether this was a real catastrophe or if it was just wind that blew an old sign down. Ms. Stachowiak said the Planning Office is not aware of any other signs that were damaged on that day. This one was blown down by wind. This leads us to the conclusion that structurally it had to have some deficiencies in order for wind to have taken this down. She said that as far as the one on Kalamazoo, we were told that there were severe high winds on the day that was blown down, but again, we are not aware of any other signs that were destroyed on that date, other than this one. John Fifarek, 200 Washington Square,Attorney for Adams Outdoor Advertising. For the record here, there are a few people from Adams Outdoor in attendence and if the Board has questions specifically for them, they will try to answer them. He introduced Melissa Rant, Real Estate Manager; James Aulguire, General Manager; and William Luckhurst, Operations Manager for Adams Outdoor. He has the petition for consideration that follows the format of the city dated May 11, 2001, a letter submitted with that petition dated May 11, 2001, a letter dated May 16, 2001, then there was a June 11, 2001 that had six exhibits pertaining to 420 E. Elm and that includes exhibit one, "Summary of the Ordinance"; exhibit two, "Summary of Facts"; exhibit three, "The Description of Nonconformity"; exhibit four, "The Fair Market Value Appraisal by Cooper Nesbit"; exhibit five, "The Affidavid of William Luckhurst"; and exhibit six, "The affidavit of James Aulguire". There are many things of which we could agree here, such as when the sign was put in place in 1973 and when it was damaged by the storm and when it was repaired and that it was repaired without seeking a permit. That is because we believe that under the ordinances, no permit is required. The fact that was missing from the report by the staff is that this sign, and as evidenced by the affidavit of Mr. Aulguire, Exhibit 6, was hit by lightening on that date and that is why it collapsed. Mr. Luckhurst could offer further evidence or testimony as to how this sign, as well as the Kalamazoo sign had been maintained and inspected on a regular basis to calm any concerns that it simply fell over. He said that what we disagree on is the interpretation of Section 1294.07(c). He also said that one thing that was not clear, as far as the staff and attorney's presentation, is whether or not what the city attorney provided as far as an interpretation of subsection (c) was in the nature of a legal opinion or an explanation as to what staff has done in this matter and in the other matter. Mr. Fifarek said that he is presenting his legal interpretation. Mr. Fifarek continued by saying that it is absolutely unbelievable that anyone would take a look at subsection (c) of Section 1294.07 and say that there is a two step process there. That there is a step that first requires that you determine whether or not the property was damaged by more than 50% without considering value in light of the fact that the sentence before tells you that when you are addressing the damage and the cost of repair, you look at 50% of the precatastrophic fair market value. It cannot be read any other way, the ordinance is set up that if you are going to make a determination that this sign has been damaged or destroyed to the extent that it cannot be rebuilt as a nonconformity as allowed by the zoning ordinance, you have to take a look at the value. There is another section that talks about the fair market value of a nonconformity. Section 1294.08, basically says that you need to look at an appraisal. What is provided to the board and the city, originally it was documentation and information as far as the cost of this particular sign. That number was$17,822. When one looks at fair market value he is going to look at income more than anything else. That is basically what Section 1294.08 is all about. We presented an appraisal, prepared by a certified appraiser that says the fair market value of this sign is $87,000. Whether it is looked at as the cost of the sign or the more appropriate fair market value evaluation of its income, costs of the repairs as supported by the affidavit submitted as Exhibit 5 is far less than 50% than the value of the sign. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 12 A. Frederick asked whether the 50% is of the fair market value or the 50% is just the total damage of the structure. He said that it clearly states that it has to be restored in conformity with the provisions of the district in which it is located. Mr. Fifarek said he is not sure he understands the questions but will try to answer the best he can. What you need to look at when you look at whether it has been damaged more than 50% is based upon value. A. Frederick said that last sentence says that it shall not be restored unless it is in conformity with the provisions of the district in which is located, so what you are saying is that since it is less than 50% of the fair market value that it does not have to be restored with the provisions of the district it is located? Mr. Fifarek said that is correct. That is what a nonconformity is. General discussion ensued regarding restoration of the sign, nonconformities, and conforming to the provisions of the district as stated in the ordinance. Mr. Fifarek continued and said that an affidavit was submitted by James Aulguire pertaining to the damage of this particular sign. His affidavit attesting to the fact that this sign was hit by lightening and what he observed with regard to the sign. Mr. Luckhurst said that there were two posts on the sign and that they go up on the sign once a month and sometimes twice a month, and if there is anything wrong with the signs there are maintenance reports that are filled out. This is a constant ongoing thing. Mr. Fifarek said with the sign at 420 E. Elm, is there any reason to believe that the sign was loose or rocking or suffered from some kind of defect. Mr. Luckhurst said he had no report of this. Mr. Luckhurst asked if there were any other questions. A. Frederick said that it affirmed some questions about the condition of the sign at that time. V. Earhart asked a question referencing Exhibit 4, entitled "Sign Site", it has present advertising income, income with two faces, estimated expenses, etc. The question is regarding the bottom line of a loss to Adams Outdoor Advertising of$87,000. How long was this sign down. Mr. Fifarek said that the approach to evaluation is to look at the income, which is $1,450 month times 12 is $17,400. Ms. Earhart said she understands how the figure was calculated but was wondering what was the actual loss? Mr. Fifarek said the loss is equivalent to the issue of value. In essence, if this sign was condemned today or on the date of valuation,the fair market value of this sign is $87,000, which would be the loss to Adams if you are not allowing this sign to remain. A. Frederick stated that what is being said is that it is a loss of future income to Adams Outdoor Advertising. Mr. Fifarek said future income is taken and then capitalized under this approach. Take a look at what it would net on an annualized basis, which is $87,000. What would someone pay today for a sign, the fair market value, that nets $87,000 today? You capitalize that, which is what Mr. Cooper did and he is saying that if someone was to go and buy that sign, he would pay $87,000 for it. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 13 G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. S. Stachowiak said she wanted to just point out once again that Section 1294.07, deals with restoration, it specifically says a Class B Nonconformity damaged by fire, explosion, flood erosion or any other catastrophe may be "restored". It does not say that it may be "replaced". What we are saying is that the sign was replaced. There is a separate section of the ordinance, Section 1242.09 directly out of the sign code which states that: "No sign heretofore approved and erected shall be altered or relocated, either on the same or to other premises. No sign, or any substantial part thereof, which is destroyed shall be re-erected, reconstructed, rebuilt or relocated, unless the same is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter." Section 1294.07(c) provides an exception in instances where a catastrophe occurs and provides an exception for doing some restoration based on certain circumstances when the damage was less than 50% and less than 50% of the fair market value. We are saying that the sign was replaced. We are going by not only the photographs that were provided, as well as on site visits and information provided by the sign inspector, but as well as the own information that was provided by the applicant's attorney which states that they used new steel 1-beams, new signs, new footings, etc. There is nothing about this sign that is an example of restoration. She said that building a new house from the footings on up is a new house, not a restored house. The definitions have been quoted also. Section 1294.07 specifically says that it may be restored, not replaced, reconstructed, rebuilt, substituted or resumed. J. Fifarek said that Section 1442.09 of the sign ordinance does not use the word replace anywhere, nor is the word replaced defined in any of the ordinances. Section 1442.09 talks about signs, but 1442.10 says that the nonconforming requirements of the zoning code apply, and not the sign code references to billboards. Also, this may be incorrect, but the word restored is not defined here either. It is not defined in the sign code. Ms. Stachowiak said it is defined in the Zoning Code. Mr. Fifarek said he does not have that, however, it is not defined in the sign code. Ms. Stachowiak said the definition of restoration is to put back into original or historic condition. This is taken straight out of the zoning ordinance. General discussion ensued regarding the definition of"restored" in the ordinance and how it pertains to this case. B. Burgess said he is uncomfortable with this entire process because there is an appeal before us and it is very different from the matters that they normally handle. The city attorney needs to present their case and then we need to decide what perspective we will agree with, because that is what a hearing is about. The city attorney is representing the city and this attorney is representing Adams. Therefore, the city attorney would respond to what is being said and then the Board should go into Committee of the Whole to make a decision based on what has been said on both sides. He made a request to have the city attorney respond to the issues that have been raised by the applicants attorney. J. Fifarek said that unless there are other questions he has nothing further to say but would like to have the opportunity to respond to the city attorney's comments. M Vroman said that obviously she and Mr. Fifarek do not agree on the interpretation of the city ordinance here. The position of the city with regard to subsection (c) of 1294.07 is not ambiguous or incongruous. The position of the city is that the first sentence of Section 1294.07 applies to those situations that a determination has been made that less than 50% of the structure has been damaged and then, if you make that determination, you go into the fair market value issue. Also, to address the whole issue of fair market value, since Mr. Fifarek has, and when we were talking about the statutory or ordinance construction, one of the cardinal rules is that you use common sense. Common sense, if you look at this and say the cost of restoration is less than 50% of the DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 14 precatastrophe fair market value, looking at Mr. Fifarek's point of view, because the cost of restoration is obviously the physical cost of putting up new 1-beams and panels, then never, in any circumstance, is it going to be more than the fair market value if the cost analysis approach is used, as he is urging. His appraiser also admits that there are different ways for estimating fair market value. Therefore, we have a disagreement as to how fair market value is used. Obviously, as he pointed out, if you adopt his position, there would be no nonconforming billboards. They would always be able to be replaced if that interpretation is taken. Also, if you take his interpretation, the sentence that comes after that which states that a structure damaged more than 50% shall not be restored except in conformity with the ordinance, is superfluous. Why would that sentence even be in there if the cost of restoration verses the fair market value is the issue being dealt with. Again, if his approach is adopted there would not be an instance where they would not be allowed under that analysis to replace an existing sign. Ms. Vroman stated that she would agree with the planning department that if you replace every component of an existing sign, that is not a restoration, restoration is to put back into original condition. Restoration would be if a panel fell off of the sign and you picked it up and put it back on. If it was put back to the way it was"yesterday", that is a restoration. The replacement of all the 1-beams and all the other components is not restoration. Restoration is when you put it back to its original condition. She stated that there is no big difficulty with Subsection (c). She said it is clear to them that you have to make a determination as to how much of the structure was damaged. If it is decided that Mr. Fifarek's analysis is correct, then there is no need for that second sentence to be in this subsection because whether a structure was damaged more than 50%would not matter. There is a logical reason for that to be there. She said that it is because there are two different analyses to make here. What this ordinance subsection is directing is, if it is determined that it has been damaged less than 50%, then the fair market value would be done and if that is decided then we need to find out how that fair market value is determined because if you are going to compare the cost of the physical restoration with the fair market value that takes in the consideration future profits and there is no way that this ordinance could ever have any meaning. She said that the point is that it is not as difficult to deal with as Mr. Fifarek would have you believe. She says to look at the facts, and then apply the analysis that makes the most sense in this situation. Unanimous voice vote to allow Mr. Fifarek to again address the board. J. Fifarek responded and said that they are not standing before the board and stating that every nonconforming sign has this special protection where it never has to comply with the ordinance. All they are saying is that this subsection (c), which deals with a catastrophe or something by no fault of the owner, gives them the right to rebuild. That is the protection to a nonconforming owner provided by the city's law. If it were a situation in which it was abandoned, not used, not maintained or failing down, and they wanted to come in and put it back together, restore it, replace it, put in the steel compared to wood or anything of that nature, one would not be able to do that. This is a situation, or an act of God if you want to call it that, where it has knocked the sign down and this ordinance provides us with certain rights. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts said he is uncomfortable making a decision tonight. A. Frederick agreed with Mr. Hilts. He received the last two packets yesterday at the beginning of the 4:00 Zoning and Ordinance Committee Meeting of the Planning Board and he had the opportunity to go over them that night, but he does not feel comfortable having absorbed all of this either. He also has another issue to raise. We have had quite a bit of discussion regarding this particular issue of the ordinance that addresses signs destroyed by catastrophe and he accepts that the city's position is that consideration of this would not be an issue if it is decided that it should not have been restored in the first place. He said that he looked up catastrophe in his dictionary and DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 15 the definition was a "sudden and widespread disaster". He then looked up disaster and it said "any unfortunate event, especially a sudden or great misfortune". Now getting hit by lightening is pretty sudden. Then he looked up widespread and it said "spread over or occupying a wide space". Now, he can understand a wide disaster of a lot of lightening strikes that would occur or some other inclement weather, but he does know that lightening does sometimes single out particular things and do pretty great damage as evidence on this sign. He is not going to trust his memory to know if this particular inclement weather was widespread or just happened to be an isolated incident and if so, he would have to address whether that is a catastrophe, assuming we get to that issue. He would like to see some research about what the weather was like, on or about that particular date and any other damage that may have occurred from that weather in the city to see if it was widespread. V. Earhart said she agrees completely with what Mr. Frederick's definition, but that she has experienced a micro burst that took her roof off but did not do any damage for the next three blocks. A micro burst is like a tiny tornado, so she thinks the information that Mr. Frederick is looking for is good, but keep in mind that a micro burst, like a tornado that only touches down on one house, is still included in a catastrophe definition. At least it was for her. General discussion ensued regarding "catastrophes". B. Burgess moved to table BZA-3626.01, 420 E. Elm to gather more information. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to table BZA-3626.01, 420 E. Elm to gather more information. J. Fifarek asked that it be tabled until August because he is unavailable for the July meeting. He asked if he could table the second case also. G. Hilts said that they still need to go through with the other public hearing. V. Earhart said the facts are different, but the argument is the same. Mr. Fifarek said yes. Ms. Earhart said why don't we do it the same as we have in the past and then we can stipulate that the law and the arguments are the same on the second case. C. BZA-3627.01 738 E. Kalamazoo Susan Stachowiak presented the case. Factually, this is similar to the last appeal. There are a couple differences to point out. One, is that this was replaced in 1999. It was destroyed and replaced in 1999. When this was first replaced, Jim Ruff as well as a building inspector sent Adams Outdoor Advertising a letter that basically stated that they replaced this sign and it is not in conformance with the ordinance and therefore they needed to come and get a sign permit or the sign needed to be removed. Adams Outdoor responded with a letter that is included in the boards packet. It was written by Melissa Randt and dated May 25, 1999. It states: "Adams Outdoor is submitting an application to replace an existing Outdoor Advertising sign at 738 E. Kalamazoo. . ." and then it goes on to say that". . .the replacement structure has been rebuilt in the same configuration, size, and at the same location on the property." Actually, we have pictures that demonstrate that it was placed in front of the old steel I-beams. We also have pictures that were taken from that time that show how the steel I-beams were bent and so forth. It goes on to talk about how they were poured on new footings and it ends with saying that they were able to save the catwalks. It also quotes the amount of repairs for the work that they did as a result of the damage as to being $4,180. They conclude in the letter by actually apologizing for not first obtaining permission from the building department before starting the work. That is one of the differences with regard to this. We have documentation saying that they saved the catwalks and also indicating that they replaced everything but that. The situation is basically the same, except that they were subsequently put on notice when they did file the permit that the permit was denied DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 16 because it is in conflict with the ordinance for the same reason the sign on Elm St. was, which is because Hosmer Street, which is the cross street there by Kalamazoo is not a major or a principal arterial, therefore it is nonconforming by the standards of the ordinance and could not be replaced. A letter was sent to that affect, but the billboard was not removed, so when the one on Elm Street came up, this one was revisited. Other than that, our position with regard to the various sections of the Zoning Ordinance on the 50% damage to the structure, as well as replacement versus restored are all identical with what they were with 420 Elm St. There is no need to repeat any of that unless the board has any questions. A. Frederick has a question regarding the facts of this case. His question for the city attorney was regarding timeliness and his problem is that when he looked at the Zoning Code he saw a statement that a decision by the director can be appealed and then it mentioned that the appeal had to be submitted within 30 days of the decision. Based on the letters and correspondence that are in the packet between Adams Outdoor and the city, that on June 16, 1999, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Wadsworth ordered Adams Outdoor to remove the sign and denied their permit. That really sounds like a decision, however, no request for an appeal came until, at least as far as these documents are concerned, until May 2, 2001. He would like the issue of timeliness addressed in more detail. J. Fifarek stated that he would not go over all the legal items again if the board will accept them as if they are presented at this time. (The Board agreed) He said that he has the letter that was referenced, where it suggests that they are apologizing for not obtaining a permit and therefore, they are admitting that there should be a permit or permit application. It was a simple human courtesy and political spin, so to speak,that when someone tells you that something was not done right, and when it is the government that is telling you this, you are going to say, I am sorry we did not do it that way and that we will follow what you want us to do. It ca not be held against them somewhere along the lines with what that statute means. On the timeliness issue, so it is part of the record, when that was going on in 1999, there was an understanding between the city and the attorney for Adams Outdoor Adverting, Mr. Perry at the time, in which it was agreed that if the city was going to pursue the removal or pursue the fines and penalties and things of that nature, that he would be given notice of that so that they could proceed accordingly. A year goes by and nothing happens. To make the record clear again as to who is here, Melissa Rant, William Luckhurst and James Aulguire to answer questions. There is an affidavit that is submitted on this as well. The record that is submitted includes the May 11, 2001 petition, the May 11, 2001 letter outlining the appeal, the May 16, 2001 letter with the site plans and other information and the June 11, 2001 letter that was hand delivered that had 5 Exhibits referenced as Exhibit One: Summary of the Ordinance; Exhibit Two: Summary of the facts; Exhibit Three: Description of Nonconformity; Exhibit Four: Income Approach/Fair Market Appraisal by Cooper Nesbit; and Exhibit Five: Affidavit from William Luckhurst. He said that the facts in general are that this sign has been there since 1989. The sign was damaged as a result of wind on May 17, 1999. The staff indicated that they had photographs that showed how it was bent as a result of the wind. Prepared 1999 without a permit, they don't believe that a permit is necessary. It is a nonconforming use by definition, everyone agrees there. Again, their position is that it is less than 50% of the fair market value of that sign and the cost of repairs were less than 50% of the fair market value of that sign and they are entitled to proceed in this fashion. The fair market value of this sign based upon Exhibit Four, the Cooper Nesbit Appraisal is $75,000 and Exhibit Five, the Affidavit of Mr. Luckhurst establishes that the cost of repairs were $4,180.49 and that the cost approach value of that sign was $14,814. Other than that, he can bring up Mr. Luckhurst to let you know that the sign was maintained if you care to hear that from him. It went through the same process that someone is out there once or twice a month and if there was a problem it would be taken care of. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 17 A. Frederick said he had the same issue regarding about the lateness whetherwhether or notlth which he th weather waslved the widesprea packets and Exhibits and would also like to see some inform A. Frederick moved to table BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo to gather more information. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to table BZA-3627.01, 738 E. Kalamazoo to gather more information. V. PUBLIC COMMENT - none VI APPROVAL OF MINUTES C. Minutes of May 10 2001 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absence for Victoria Earhart for July 2001 A. Frederick moved to charge excuse Unanimous vo ce vote toappr Ve from June 2001 to July 2001. Seconded by E. Horne B. procedure on Appeals B. Burgess stated that he is really bothered by the process for this. It is a very different process than what they normally deal with and what we seem to have is a very adversarial process in which the board, or the staff, is one of the adversaries. Can we have the city attorney or someone look at the procedures for this kind of thing, where we are taking an appeal of a decision of a department and maybe it needs to be approached a little differently than what we do our other things. It seems to him, just off the top of his head, that the attorney for the city and the attorney for the challenger would be the primary discussion and it would not be the burden of the staff to present the case. It puts them in an awkward position, when we have the attorneys and when it is a legal matter there should be some kind of procedure where we are listening to the attorneys for both sides and then doing what we are doing. The normal process is quite awkward. General discussion ensued regarding the procedures of handling the appeals. VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 5/21/01 Approved 06/14/01 To Clerk 06/18/01 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY 10, 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 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: A. Frederick B. Burgess G. Hilts E. Horne R. McCloud Absent: V. Earhart Staff: S. Stachowiak L. Davis A. A quorum of at least four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at-the meeting. B. V. Earhart has requested an excused absence for May &June 2001. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess asked to add "BZA Training" to New Business. V. Earhart's request for an excused absence for May &June 2001 was also added to New Business. A. Frederick moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3616.01 - 1826 S. Cedar St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Blodgett Oil Co., Inc. for the property at 1826 S. Cedar Street, to construct a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign with a 7-foot setback from the lot line along Cedar Street and a 10-foot setback from the lot line along Mt. Hope Avenue. Section 1442.12(5)(B) of the City Sign Code requires a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign to be setback 21 feet from the property lines. Therefore, this is a variance request of 11 feet and 14 feet. Staff is recommending approval of this request. A. Frederick asked about the history of the sign. S. Stachowiak stated that the sign has been there for quite some time. However, there was no sign permit that could be found. Roger Merrill, 1415 Victor, who owns the house at 1805 Herbert St., addressed the board. He stated that he is opposed to this request. They have not been a good neighbor or citizen and should not be granted any variance. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that he drives by that location often. The sign is in need of improvement. He is glad to see that the sign is going to be improved and made smaller as well. E. Horne agrees with this statement. She supports the sign being smaller. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 2 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3616.01, 1826 S. Cedar St.,to construct a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign with a 7 foot setback from the lot line along Cedar Street and a 10 foot setback from the lot line along Mt. Hope Avenue. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3616.01, 1826 S. Cedar St., has been approved. B. BZA-3617.01 -3333 M.L. King Jr. Blvd. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Blodgett Oil Co., Inc. for the property at 3333 S. ML King Jr. Blvd., to construct a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign with a 3- foot setback from the front property lines. Section 1442.12(5)(B) of the City Sign Code requires a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign to be setback 21 feet from the property lines. Therefore, this is a variance request of 18 feet. She stated that this is similar to the previous case. Staff also recommends approval for this request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. E. Horne stated that there needs to be some upkeep of the property with landscaping. A. Frederick stated that it is nice to see the improvement. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3617.01, 3333 M.L. King Jr. Blvd.,to construct a 20 foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign; a variance request of 18 feet. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3617.01, 3333 M.L. King Jr. Blvd., has been approved. C. BZA-3618.01 -6109 S. Cedar St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Blodgett Oil Co., Inc. for the property at 6109 S. Cedar Street, to construct a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign with a 17- foot setback from the lot line along Cedar Street and a 14-foot setback from the lot line along Miller Road. Section 1442.12(5)(B) of the City Sign Code requires a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign to be setback 21 feet from the property lines. Therefore, this is a variance request of 4 feet and 6 feet. Staff is recommending denial of this request. There is no practical difficulty or hardship. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 12, 2001 PAGE 3 Mr. Larry Blodgett, Blodgett Oil Company, addressed the Board. He asked the Board, if the case is not approved, can the sign be refaced? S. Stachowiak stated that it could not. Mr. Blodgett stated that they want to improve the sign and dress it up with a new face. A. Frederick asked if the applicant moved the sign into compliance, what would the height be? S. Stachowiak stated that it would be 21 feet. General discussion ensued regarding refacing the sign, moving the sign and the code requirements for this. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. E. Horne moved to table BZA-3618.01, 6109 S. Cedar St. Seconded by R. McCloud. Unanimous voice vote to approve. D. BZA-3619.01 - 1904 Hillcrest St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Orville & Helen Wright, 1904 Hillcrest, to construct a 6' deep x 14'wide, covered porch on the front of the house that would have a 23.7 foot front yard setback. The established front yard setback in the "A" Residential District, required by Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Ordinance for this property is 25.4 feet. Therefore, this is a variance request for 1.75 feet. Staff is recommending approval of this request. Mr. Orville Wright addressed the Board. He questioned the footage on his property which was rectified with S. Stachowiak. Mr. Alan Wood addressed the Board. He supports this request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick asked if this would fit in with the proposed amendment changes? S. Stachowiak stated that it would. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3619.01, 1904 Hillcrest St.,to construct a 6' deep x 14'wide, covered porch on the front of the house that would have a 23.7 foot front yard setback. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3619.01, 1904 Hillcrest St., has been approved. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 4 E. BZA-3620.01 -3101 E. Saginaw St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Sam Medawar, owner of Medawar Jewelers at 3101 e. Saginaw Street, for a variance to permit a third wall sign, 50.6 square feet in area, totaling approximately 191 square feet of wall sign area for this building. Staff is recommending denial of this request. There does not appear to be any practical difficulty or hardship. General discussion ensued regarding the old clock sign, permit for such, other similar cases, etc. Sam Medawar addressed the Board. He explained the importance of being able to display the "Rolex" sign and showed pictures to the Board of how it would look. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. General discussion ensued regarding the area of signage available, the importance of the sign and how it looks on the front of the building, etc. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3620.01, 3101 E. Saginaw St., a variance to permit a third wall sign, and a variance of 41 square feet. This motion is predicated on the uniqueness of the design of the building and that it detracts from the aesthetic design of the building as it currently exists. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3620.01, 3101 E. Saginaw St., has been approved. F. BZA-3621.01 -5400 S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by the Immanuel's Temple Community Church at 5400 S. ML King Jr. Blvd., to construct a 74.32 square foot ground sign. Section 1442.12(7)(A) of the City Sign Code states that institutions located on two acres or more of land area, which parcels are located on a major or minor arterial street, shall be allowed a maximum of fifty (50) square feet of ground pole sign area. Therefore, this is a variance request of 24.32 square feet of sign area. Staff is recommending approval of this request. Douglas Fulk, Douglas Signs, addressed the Board. He passed out a picture of what the sign would look like on the wall. John Boles addressed the Board. He stated that the larger size of the sign will make it easier for people to recognize the location of the church. He explained the use of the wall, etc. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 12, 2001 PAGE 5 G. Hilts put the letter into record. A. Frederick asked about the practical difficulty. General discussion ensued. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3621.01, 5400 S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd.for a variance request of 24.32 square feet of sign area. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3621.01, 5400 S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd., has been approved. G. BZA-3622.01 -4700 S. Cedar St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by City Sign Erectors of West Michigan, on behalf of McDonald's Restaurant at 4700 S. Cedar Street, to remove the 24 square foot message board sign on the existing ground pole sign, and replace it with a 18.24 square foot sign in the same location. The existing sign, including the message board, is approximately 200 square feet in area, 35' in height and has a 7' setback. Section 1442.12(5)(B) of the City Sign Code permits a maximum height of 30', maximum square footage of 170' and minimum setback of 30' for ground pole signs of these dimensions in the"F" Commercial District. Therefore, this is a variance request for 24.24 square feet of sign area from the maximum permitted 170', and for a setback variance of 23' from the minimum required 30' setback. Staff is recommending approval of this request. General discussion ensued regarding the sign, permit, changeability, etc. Tracy Rogers, City Sign, addressed the Board. She explained the message board and the changes to it. She cannot address the changeability issue. General discussion ensued regarding signage changeability, permanent sign, etc. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts put the letter into the record. E. Horne moved to table BZA-3622.01,4700 S. Cedar St.for further information. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 6 H. BZA-3623.01 -808 Kendon Dr. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ronald J. Premo to construct a carport, 16' x 26' (416 sq. ft.) in addition to a detached 1'/z car garage at 808 Kendon Drive in the "A" Residential District. Section 1248.03(b)(3) of the Zoning Code states that not more than one accessory structure shall be a private garage or carport in the"A" Residential District. Therefore, a variance is requested to construct the 416 sq. ft. carport. Staff is recommending approval of this request. B. Burgess asked about a long 2-car garage. Ron Premo addressed the Board. He stated that this carport would be very nice and a great enhancement to the property. G. Hilts put the letter into record. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that the ordinance is obsolete in regards to garages. General discussion ensued regarding the ordinance for garages, individual needs, carports, etc. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3623.01, 808 Kendon Dr.,to construct a carport, 16' x 26'. Seconded bV B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3623.01, 808 Kendon Dr., has been approved. I. BZA-3624.01 -4613 Donald St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by David N. Glenn for variances to construct a 24' x 24' attached garage onto the south side of the house, 7.5 feet from the rear (east) lot line, and a 2' x 29' addition onto the south side of the house, 11' from the front(west) lot line. Sections 1248.07 and .09 of the Zoning Code requires a front yard setback of 20' and a rear yard setback of 30'. Therefore, this is a request for front yard setback of 9 ' and a rear yard setback of 22.5'. There was a prior BZA case on this property. Staff is recommending approval of this request. There is a practical difficulty. David Glenn addressed the Board. He explained the delay on the project initially and what his intentions are at this point. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 7 A. Frederick stated that he supports this request. B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3624.01,4613 Donald St., a front yard setback of 9' and a rear yard setback of 22.5'. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3624.01,4613 Donald St., 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. Rules of Procedure (no action) E. Ordinance Amendments (no action) V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of April 12, 2001 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absence for Victoria Earhart for May 2001 &June 2001 A. Frederick moved to excuse V. Earhart for May 2001 &June 2001. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. B. BZA Training B. Burgess stated that he was interested in attending the Advanced BZA Training that was being offered through information in his packet. Also interested in attending are E. Horne, A. Frederick & R. McCloud. L. Davis stated that education funds for the fiscal year 2000/2001 have been exhausted. However, she would forward the request to the Planning Manager, Jim Ruff for consideration. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted,, ice/ �i-L Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 5/21/01 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY 10, 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 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: A. Frederick B. Burgess G. Hilts E. Horne R. McCloud ' Absent: V. Earhart j Staff: S. Stachowiak L. Davis A. A quorum of at least four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. V. Earhart has requested an excused absence for May & June 2001. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. Burgess asked to add "BZA Training"to New Business. V. Earhart's request for an excused absence for May& June 2001 was also added to New Business. A. Frederick moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3616.01 -1826 S. Cedar St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Blodgett Oil Co., Inc. for the property at 1826 S. Cedar Street, to construct a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign with a 7-foot setback from the lot line along Cedar Street and a 10-foot setback from the lot line along Mt. Hope Avenue. Section 1442.12(5)(B) of the City Sign Code requires a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign to be setback 21 feet from the property lines. Therefore, this is a variance request of 11 feet and 14 feet. Staff is recommending approval of this request. A. Frederick asked about the history of the sign. S. Stachowiak stated that the sign has been there for quite some time. However, there was no sign permit that could be found. Roger Merrill, 1415 Victor, who owns the house at 1805 Herbert St., addressed the board. He stated that he is opposed to this request. They have not been a good neighbor or citizen and should not be granted any variance. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that he drives by that location often. The sign is in need of improvement. He is glad to see that the sign is going to be improved and made smaller as well. E. Horne agrees with this statement. She supports the sign being smaller. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 2 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3616.01, 1826 S. Cedar St., to construct a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign with a 7 foot setback from the lot line along Cedar Street and a 10 foot setback from the lot line along Mt. Hope Avenue. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3616.01, 1826 S. Cedar St., has been approved. B. BZA-3617.01 -3333 M.L. King Jr. Blvd. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Blodgett Oil Co., Inc. for the property at 3333 S. ML King Jr. Blvd., to construct a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign with a 3- foot setback from the front property lines. Section 1442.12(5)(B) of the City Sign Code requires a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign to be setback 21 feet from the property lines. Therefore, this is a variance request of 18 feet. She stated that this is similar to the previous case. Staff also recommends approval for this request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. E. Horne stated that there needs to be some upkeep of the property with landscaping. A. Frederick stated that it is nice to see the improvement. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3617.01, 3333 M.L. King Jr. Blvd., to construct a 20 foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign; a variance request of 18 feet. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3617.01, 3333 M.L. King Jr. Blvd., has been approved. C. BZA-3618.01 -6109 S. Cedar St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Blodgett Oil Co., Inc. for the property at 6109 S. Cedar Street, to construct a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign with a 17-foot setback from the lot line along Cedar Street and a 14-foot setback from the lot line along Miller Road. Section 1442.12(5)(B) of the City Sign Code requires a 20-foot high, 84 square foot ground pole sign to be setback 21 feet from the property lines. Therefore, this is a variance request of 4 feet and 6 feet. Staff is recommending denial of this request. There is no practical difficulty or hardship. Mr. Larry Blodgett, Blodgett Oil Company, addressed the Board. He asked the Board, if the case is not approved, can the sign be refaced? DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 12, 2001 PAGE 3 S. Stachowiak stated that it could not. Mr. Blodgett stated that they want to improve the sign and dress it up with a new face. A. Frederick asked if the applicant moved the sign into compliance, what would the height be? S. Stachowiak stated that it would be 21 feet. General discussion ensued regarding refacing the sign, moving the sign and the code requirements for this. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. E. Horne moved to table BZA-3618.01, 6109 S. Cedar St. Seconded by R. McCloud. Unanimous voice vote to approve. D. BZA-3619.01 - 1904 Hillcrest St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Orville & Helen Wright, 1904 Hillcrest, to construct a 6' deep x 14'wide, covered porch on the front of the house that would have a 23.7 foot front yard setback. The established front yard setback in the "A" Residential District, required by Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Ordinance for this property is 25.4 feet. Therefore, this is a variance request for 1.75 feet. Staff is recommending approval of this request. Mr. Orville Wright addressed the Board. He questioned the footage on his property which was rectified with S. Stachowiak. Mr. Alan Wood addressed the Board. He supports this request. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick asked if this would fit in with the proposed amendment changes? S. Stachowiak stated that it would. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3619.01, 1904 Hillcrest St., to construct a 6' deep x 14' wide, covered porch on the front of the house that would have a 23.7 foot front yard setback. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3619.01, 1904 Hillcrest St., has been approved. E. BZA-3620.01 -3101 E. Saginaw St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Sam Medawar, owner of Medawar Jewelers at 3101 e. Saginaw Street, for a variance to permit a third wall sign, 50.6 square feet in area, totaling approximately 191 square feet of wall sign area for this building. Staff is recommending denial of this request. There does not appear to be any practical difficulty or hardship. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 4 General discussion ensued regarding the old clock sign, permit for such, other similar cases, etc. Sam Medawar addressed the Board. He explained the importance of being able to display the "Rolex" sign and showed pictures to the Board of how it would look. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. General discussion ensued regarding the area of signage available, the importance of the sign and how it looks on the front of the building, etc. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3620.01, 3101 E. Saginaw St., a variance to permit a third wall sign, and a variance of 41 square feet. This motion is predicated on the uniqueness of the design of the building and that it detracts from the aesthetic design of the building as it currently exists. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3620.01, 3101 E. Saginaw St., has been approved. F. BZA-3621.01 -5400 S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by the Immanuel's Temple Community Church at 5400 S. ML King Jr. Blvd., to construct a 74.32 square foot ground sign. Section 1442.12(7)(A) of the City Sign Code states that institutions located on two acres or more of land area, which parcels are located on a major or minor arterial street, shall be allowed a maximum of fifty (50) square feet of ground pole sign area. Therefore, this is a variance request of 24.32 square feet of sign area. Staff is recommending approval of this request. Douglas Fulk, Douglas Signs, addressed the Board. He passed out a picture of what the sign would look like on the wall. John Boles addressed the Board. He stated that the larger size of the sign will make it easier for people to recognize the location of the church. He explained the use of the wall, etc. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts put the letter into record. A. Frederick asked about the practical difficulty. General discussion ensued. DR4FT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 12, 2001 PAGE 5 E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3621.01, 5400 S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd. for a variance request of 24.32 square feet of sign area. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3621.01, 5400 S. M.L. King Jr. Blvd., has been approved. G. BZA-3622.01 -4700 S. Cedar St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by City Sign Erectors of West Michigan, on behalf of McDonald's Restaurant at 4700 S. Cedar Street, to remove the 24 square foot message board sign on the existing ground pole sign, and replace it with a 18.24 square foot sign in the same location. The existing sign, including the message board, is approximately 200 square feet in area, 35' in height and has a 7' setback. Section 1442.12(5)(B) of the City Sign Code permits a maximum height of 30', maximum square footage of 170' and minimum setback of 30'for ground pole signs of these dimensions in the "F" Commercial District. Therefore, this is a variance request for 24.24 square feet of sign area from the maximum permitted 170', and for a setback variance of 23'from the minimum required 30' setback. Staff is recommending approval of this request. General discussion ensued regarding the sign, permit, changeability, etc. Tracy Rogers, City Sign, addressed the Board. She explained the message board and the changes to it. She cannot address the changeability issue. General discussion ensued regarding signage changeability, permanent sign, etc. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. G. Hilts put the letter into the record. E. Horne moved to table BZA-3622.01, 4700 S. Cedar St.for further information. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve. H. BZA-3623.01 -808 Kendon Dr. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Ronald J. Premo to construct a carport, 16'x 26' (416 sq. ft.) in addition to a detached 1'/2 car garage at 808 Kendon Drive in the "A" Residential District. Section 1248.03(b)(3) of the Zoning Code states that not more than one accessory structure shall be a private garage or carport in the "A" Residential District. Therefore, a variance is requested to construct the 416 sq. ft. carport. Staff is recommending approval of this request. B. Burgess asked about a long 2-car garage. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 6 Ron Premo addressed the Board. He stated that this carport would be very nice and a great enhancement to the property. G. Hilts put the letter into record. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that the ordinance is obsolete in regards to garages. General discussion ensued regarding the ordinance for garages, individual needs, carports, etc. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3623.01, 808 Kendon Dr., to construct a carport, 16' x 26'. Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3623.01, 808 Kendon Dr., has been approved. I. BZA-3624.01 -4613 Donald St. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by David N. Glenn for variances to construct a 24'x 24' attached garage onto the south side of the house, 7.5 feet from the rear(east) lot line, and a 2'x 29' addition onto the south side of the house, 11' from the front (west) lot line. Sections 1248.07 and .09 of the Zoning Code requires a front yard setback of 20 ' and a rear yard setback of 30'. Therefore, this is a request for front yard setback of 9 ' and a rear yard setback of 22.5'. There was a prior BZA case on this property. Staff is recommending approval of this request. There is a practical difficulty. David Glenn addressed the Board. He explained the delay on the project initially and what his intentions are at this point. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. A. Frederick stated that he supports this request. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2001 PAGE 7 B. Burgess moved to approve BZA-3624.01, 4613 Donald St., a front yard setback of 9' and a rear yard setback of 22.5'. Seconded by R. McCloud. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X McCloud X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3624.01, 4613 Donald St., 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. Rules of Procedure (no action) E. Ordinance Amendments (no action) V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of April 12, 2001 A. Frederick moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by B. Burgess. Unanimous voice vote to approve. Vll NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absence for Victoria Earhart for May 2001 & June 2001 A. Frederick moved to excuse V. Earhart for May 2001 & June 2001. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. B. BZA Training B. Burgess stated that he was interested in attending the Advanced BZA Training that was being offered through information in his packet. Also interested in attending are E. Horne, A. Frederick & R. McCloud. L. Davis stated that education funds for the fiscal year 2000/2001 have been exhausted. However, she would forward the request to the Planning Manager, Jim Ruff for consideration. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 4/17/01 Approved 5/10/01 To Clerk 5/10/01 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 12, 2001, 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 V. Earhart R. McCloud has an excused absence. E. Horne has 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 V. Earhart moved to approve the agenda as written. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3615.01 - 1850 W. Mt. Hope Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Dr. Mark M. Johnston D.D.S. regarding a variance to erect a ground pole sign that is 16 square feet in area, 6 feet high, and setback 0 feet from the property line at 1850 W. Mt. Hope Avenue. Currently, the property has an existing ground pole sign that is in the public Right-of-Way, which will be removed. Section 1442.12(3) of the Zoning Code requires a minimum setback of 15 feet from the property line. Therefore, this is a variance request of 15 feet to build a sign with a zero setback from the property line. Staff recommended approval of this request due to the fact that it is an improvement to the property and that it is the best location for the sign. Dr. Mark Johnston, D.D.S., addressed the Board. He stated that he has made several improvements in the area. He wants to change the signage because of the safety hazards where it is now as well as making it more visible to passing traffic. He wants to keep the same style in the area. Michelle Hicks, 1834 W. Mt. Hope, addressed the Board. She stated that the sign would be directly next to her driveway and she just wanted to see what the sign was going to look like. She didn't have any information on it. After seeing what the sign would look like, she stated that she liked it. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. General discussion ensued regarding the fact that this is an improvement to a non-conforming property. It was also stated that the safety concerns were real. There is a practical difficulty illustrated and the applicant is trying to make the situation better. ��Z_R 2001PAGE 2 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES �rope`rtyfine for V. Earhart moved to approve a variance of 15,to build a sign with a zro setback from the BZA-3615.01, 1850 W. Mt. Hope. Seconded by NAY YEA VOTE X Hilts X Burgess X Earhart X Frederick a has been approved. Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3615.01, 1850 W. Mt. Hop IV OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-3511.98, 901 N. Larch (no action) B. BZA-3553.99, 735 E. Michigan (no action) -3554.99, 907 W. Saginaw(no action) C. BZA D. Rules of Procedure (no action) E. Ordinance Amendments garages with the Board. S. Stachowiak reviewed the ordinance amendments regards tated that the code is unfair in the way General discussion ensued regarding garage sizes. It was s it is set up now for the size of garages as it pertains to lot size. S. Stachowiak then reviewed the ordinance amendments regarding front yard setbacks with the Board. rd setbacks, averages of such setbacks, and General discussion ensued regarding front at hanges are wanted which would encourage ce changes that will be made. It was stated that anding the ordinance improvement to properties. The Board stated that it was in favor of exp amendment to include existing buildings in the multiple family districts. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES B. Burgess. A. Frederick m A. Minutes of March 8 2001 oved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Unanimous voice vote to approve. VIl NEW BUSINESS - none Vlll. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 4/17/01 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 12, 2001, 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 V. Earhart R. McCloud has an excused absence. E. Horne has 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 V. Earhart moved to approve the agenda as written. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3615.01 - 1850 W. Mt. Hope Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Dr. Mark M. Johnston D.D.S. regarding a variance to erect a ground pole sign that is 16 square feet in area, 6 feet high, and setback 0 feet from the property line at 1850 W. Mt. Hope Avenue. Currently,the property has an existing ground pole sign that is in the public Right-of-Way,which will be removed. Section 1442.12(3) of the Zoning Code requires a minimum setback of 15 feet from the property line. Therefore, this is a variance request of 15 feet to build a sign with a zero setback from the property line. Staff recommended approval of this request due to the fact that it is an improvement to the property and that it is the best location for the sign. Dr. Mark Johnston, D.D.S., addressed the Board. He stated that he has made several improvements in the area. He wants to change the signage because of the safety hazards where it is now as well as making it more visible to passing traffic. He wants to keep the same style in the area. Michelle Hicks, 1834 W. Mt. Hope, addressed the Board. She stated that the sign would be directly next to her driveway and she just wanted to see what the sign was going to look like. She didn't have any information on it. After seeing what the sign would look like, she stated that she liked it. G. Hilts asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none,the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. General discussion ensued regarding the fact that this is an improvement to a non-conforming property. It was also stated that the safety concerns were real. There is a practical difficulty illustrated and the applicant is trying to make the situation better. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES APRIL 12, 2001 PAGE 2 V. Earhart moved to approve a variance of 15'to build a sign with a zero setback from the property line for BZA-3615.01, 1850 W. Mt. Hope. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Ear art X Frederick X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3615.01, 1850 W. Mt. Hope, 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. Rules of Procedure (no action) E. Ordinance Amendments S. Stachowiak reviewed the ordinance amendments regarding garages with the Board. General discussion ensued regarding garage sizes. It was stated that the code is unfair in the way it is set up now for the size of garages as it pertains to lot size. S. Stachowiak then reviewed the ordinance amendments regarding front yard setbacks with the Board. General discussion ensued regarding front yard setbacks, averages of such setbacks, and changes that will be made. It was stated that changes are wanted which would encourage improvement to properties. The Board stated that it was in favor of expanding the ordinance amendment to include existing buildings in the multiple family districts. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of March 8, 2001 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 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 3/13/01 Approved 4/12/01 To Clerk 4/17/01 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MARCH 8, 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, 10T" 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: B. Burgess A. Frederick E. Horne V. Earhart Absent: G. Hilts R. McCloud has an excused absence. Staff: S. Stachowiak D. Wynant A. A quorum of at least four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. G. Hilts called to request an excused absence from tonight's meeting due to illness. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. Earhart moved to approve the agenda with said additions: 1) discussion of Zoning Ordinance Amendments; 2) request for excused absence for G. Hilts. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3613.01, 833 E. North St. S. Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Thomas Morris, 1300 Brogan Road, Stockbridge, MI 49285, to construct an 8-foot deep x 14-foot wide, covered porch on the front of the house at 833 E. North Street that would have a 17-foot front yard setback. Section 1250.07 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot minimum front yard setback. Therefore, this is a variance request for 3 feet. She referred to the pictures in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of this request. A. Frederick requested clarification on the issue of a porch vs. a roof. S. Stachowiak stated that if the structure is not attached to the building, it is not considered part of the building. The setback goes to the building. Tom Morris, 1300 Brogan Road, addressed the board. He stated that this is his first project. It needs a porch and he wanted to make sure that it conforms. E. Horne asked the applicant if this is going to be a rental property. T. Morris stated that he bought it as a rental property and it is registered as a rental property. He would rather sell it to a 1 st time home buyer. 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 MEEThmtS MINUTES APRIL 14, 2001 PAGE 2 A. Frederick referred to a previous BZA case very similar to this one. The structure looked like a porch, but it was not attached to the house. The board approved the previous variance. Since the porch in this request is not extending beyond the other porches in the same block, he can support it. E. Horne asked the applicant if the roof will be vinyl or will it be in character with the rest of the house? T. Morris stated that it will be shingled and will conform with the rest of the house. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA3613.01, 833 E. North St. with the condition recommended in the staff report being that any type of enclosure of the porch beyond what is proposed be prohibited. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Burgess X Earhart X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3613.01, 833 E. North St., has been approved. B. BZA-3614.01, 319 & 319'/z S. Hayford St. S. Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Christopher Garno of 1812 Lyons Avenue to allow front yard parking at 319 & 319'/z S. Hayford. Section 1286.02 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits front yard parking; therefore, a variance from this requirement is requested. She also referred to the history which was included in the board packet. She explained the parking requirement for this particular property. Due to the fact that there is not enough room to meet this parking requirement, staff recommends approval of this request also due to only 3 vehicles being there. There was a suggestion given to the applicant to check with their neighbor about removing the fence along the property line and getting consent to park in that area. The applicant pursued this to no avail. Staff recommended approval with stated conditions in the staff report. Mr. Christopher Garno, 1812 Lyons Avenue, addressed the Board. He distributed several pictures and reports to the board regarding his request. He stated that parking has always been an issue at that address. There is no parking on the street and the cars cannot fit along the side of the house between the house and the fence of the neighbor. He stated that he has several rentals in the area and has put a lot of work into this property. He also stated that the front house needs 2 parking spaces while the back house only needs one parking space. He attempted to work with the neighbors, but the neighbors were not willing to share parking. E. Horne asked the applicant who owns the fence. C. Garno stated that the neighbor owns the fence. It is right on the property line. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. General discussion ensued regarding the placement of the home on the lot as well as the possibilities of removing the fence and buying the adjacent property. A. Frederick clarified that it was 2 residences and 4 parking spaces is what is required. S. Stachowiak stated that was correct. The property will remain non-conforming even with approval of this request. V. Earhart stated that this property has been here a while and will not change. General discussion ensued regarding hardship for this property as it relates to parking. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEEThmG MINUTES APRIL 14, 2001 PAGE 3 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3614.01, 319 & 319'/z S. Hayford as recommended with the following conditions: 1)the driveway/parking areas must be hard-surfaced with Portland concrete or Bituminous Asphalt; 2)the BZA case #3614.01 and the approval date of the variance should be engraved into the concrete/asphalt, directly east of the sidewalk, with letters/numbers at least 3" long; 3)the driveway should be separated from the sidewalk and the walkway leading to the front of the house with a maximum width of 16' beginning from the side (south) property line. Seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE YEA NAY Burgess X Earhart X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3614.01, 319 & 319'/z S. Hayford St., 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) V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of January 11, 2001 A. Frederick moved to approve minutes of January 11, 2001 as written. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII NEW BUSINESS A. Excused absence for G. Hilts A. Frederick moved to accept excused absence for G. Hilts. Seconded by S. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. B. Ordinance Amendments S. Stachowiak passed out draft ordinance revisions. She explained the changes and stated that she wants input from the Board of Zoning Appeals. She wanted to pass this information out now so the board would have some time to look at it. Then they would put it on the agenda for next month's meeting. General discussion ensued regarding ordinances. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 3/13/01 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MARCH 8, 2001, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, 10T" 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: B. Burgess A. Frederick E. Horne V. Earhart Absent: G. Hilts R. McCloud has an excused absence. Staff: S. Stachowiak D. Wynant A. A quorum of at least four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. B. G. Hilts called to request an excused absence from tonight's meeting due to illness. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. Earhart moved to approve the agenda with said additions: 1) discussion of Zoning Ordinance Amendments; 2) request for excused absence for G. Hilts. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3613.01, 833 E. North St. S. Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Thomas Morris, 1300 Brogan Road, Stockbridge, MI 49285, to construct an 8-foot deep x 14-foot wide, covered porch on the front of the house at 833 E. North Street that would have a 17-foot front yard setback. Section 1250.07 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot minimum front yard setback. Therefore, this is a variance request for 3 feet. She referred to the pictures in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of this request. A. Frederick requested clarification on the issue of a porch vs. a roof. S. Stachowiak stated that if the structure is not attached to the building, it is not considered part of the building. The setback goes to the building. Tom Morris, 1300 Brogan Road, addressed the board. He stated that this is his first project. It needs a porch and he wanted to make sure that it conforms. E. Horne asked the applicant if this is going to be a rental property. T. Morris stated that he bought it as a rental property and it is registered as a rental property. He would rather sell it to a 1 st time home buyer. B. Burgess 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 MARCH 8, 2001 Page 2 A. Frederick referred to a previous BZA case very similar to this one. The structure looked like a porch, but it was not attached to the house. The board approved the previous variance. Since the porch in this request is not extending beyond the other porches in the same block, he can support it. E. Horne asked the applicant if the roof will be vinyl or will it be in character with the rest of the house? T. Morris stated that it will be shingled and will conform with the rest of the house. V. Earhart moved to approve BZA3613.01, 833 E. North St. with the condition recommended in the staff report being that any type of enclosure of the porch beyond what is proposed be prohibited. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Burgess X Earhart X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3613.01, 833 E. North St., has been approved. B. BZA-3614.01, 319 & 319'/2 S. Hayford St. S. Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Christopher Garno of 1812 Lyons Avenue to allow front yard parking at 319 & 319'h S. Hayford. Section 1286.02 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits front yard parking; therefore, a variance from this requirement is requested. She also referred to the history which was included in the board packet. She explained the parking requirement for this particular property. Due to the fact that there is not enough room to meet this parking requirement, staff recommends approval of this request also due to only 3 vehicles being there. There was a suggestion given to the applicant to check with their neighbor about removing the fence along the property line and getting consent to park in that area. The applicant pursued this to no avail. Staff recommended approval with stated conditions in the staff report. Mr. Christopher Garno, 1812 Lyons Avenue, addressed the Board. He distributed several pictures and reports to the board regarding his request. He stated that parking has always been an issue at that address. There is no parking on the street and the cars cannot fit along the side of the house between the house and the fence of the neighbor. He stated that he has several rentals in the area and has put a lot of work into this property. He also stated that the front house needs 2 parking spaces while the back house only needs one parking space. He attempted to work with the neighbors, but the neighbors were not willing to share parking. E. Horne asked the applicant who owns the fence. C. Garno stated that the neighbor owns the fence. It is right on the property line. B. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, they moved into the Committee of the Whole. General discussion ensued regarding the placement of the home on the lot as well as the possibilities of removing the fence and buying the adjacent property. A. Frederick clarified that it was 2 residences and 4 parking spaces is what is required. S. Stachowiak stated that was correct. The property will remain non-conforming even with approval of this request. V. Earhart stated that this property has been here a while and will not change. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MARCH 8, 2001 Page 3 General discussion ensued regarding hardship for this property as it relates to parking. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3614.01, 319 & 319'/z S. Hayford as recommended with the following conditions: 1)the driveway/parking areas must be hard-surfaced with Portland concrete or Bituminous Asphalt; 2)the BZA case #3614.01 and the approval date of the variance should be engraved into the concrete/asphalt, directly east of the sidewalk, with letters/numbers at least 3" long; 3)the driveway should be separated from the sidewalk and the walkway leading to the front of the house with a maximum width of 16' beginning from the side (south) property line. Seconded by V. Earhart. VOTE YEA NAY Burgess X Earhart X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-0. BZA-3614.01, 319 & 319'/2 S. Hayford St., 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) V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of January 11, 2001 A. Frederick moved to approve minutes of January 11, 2001 as written. Seconded by V. Earhart. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII NEW BUSINESS A. Excused absence for G. Hilts A. Frederick moved to accept excused absence for G. Hilts. Seconded by S. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. B. Ordinance Amendments S. Stachowiak passed out draft ordinance revisions. She explained the changes and stated that she wants input from the Board of Zoning Appeals. She wanted to pass this information out now so the board would have some time to look at it. Then they would put it on the agenda for next month's meeting. General discussion ensued regarding ordinances. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator DRAFT Draft to Clerk 01/23/01 Approved 3/8/01 To Clerk 3/13/01 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 11, 2001, 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 V. Earhart R. McCloud has an excused absence. Staff: S. Stachowiak D. Wynant = A. A quorum of at least four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at;the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. Earhart moved to approve the agenda as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3612.01 -1801 Bassett Ave. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Atmosphere Annealing on behalf of B.C.G. W. Inc. to retain two sections of fence, 12 ft. high running approximately 132 ft. and 152 ft. along the east side of the building at 1801 Bassett Street in the "I" Heavy Industrial District. Section 1290.08(2) of the Zoning Code states that no fence shall be constructed which is less than 5 ft. nor more than 10 ft. in height. Therefore, a variance of 2 ft. is requested. Earnest Farkas, 1801 Bassett Ave., addressed the board. He presented his case and stated that he would keep the fence in good condition. 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 terrain differences are a practical difficulty or hardship as far as he could see. A. Frederick stated that he was wondering whether or not when the code was originally written for fences, if it was considered that fences like this would be an appropriate sound barrier and that generally being tall enough makes it a much more effective sound barrier. He doesn't think that the Zoning Code takes into account that there can be terrain changes. He can understand why the neighbors want the fence to stay there. General discussion ensued regarding these types of fences, effective sound abatement, etc. E. Horne stated that this property needs some trees. She stated that trees help in eliminating noise. She does not like great big fences. She would like to see something that looks a little better. She does not support the request. B. Burgess stated that this request makes sense. It seems to be a win-win situation for the players involved. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2001 PAGE 2 V. Earhart moved to approve a variance of 2'to allow for a 12' high fence for BZA-3612.01, 1801 Bassett Ave. provisioning that the applicant/owner will maintain the fence and keep it in good condition. Seconded by B. Burgess. A. Frederick requested that the applicant/owner put in landscaping & buffering in the area. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Earhart X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-1. BZA-3612.01, 1801 Bassett Ave., 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(action) B. Burgess moved to remove BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar St., from the table. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. D. Wynant presented the case. This was originally proposed over a year ago. The first public hearing that was called on the variance was January 2000. Since that time, the original proposal has significantly changed. Several other properties have been acquired for additional parking. The difference in the proposal is the parking ramp. It has been reduced from 4 levels to 3 levels meaning one on the ground level and two parking decks above ground. The development is essentially surrounded by commercial office development to the north and east. There was a Master Plan amendment (MPA-1-99) that examined some of the zoning changes. That has been passed by the Planning Board and by City Council. Several rezoning cases have gone forth and been approved. This has gone through quite a few changes and a lengthy process partly because of the additional acquisition of the properties. The Board of Zoning Appeals has this request tabled for additional information including a parking analysis which has been done and is part of the report as well as a traffic analysis. She reviewed the history of the request and the property referred to in the staff report. She also reviewed the chart and the variances being requested, in detail. General discussion ensued regarding parking and overlap of parking demand for the various uses in the development. Lori Hammond, 2111 University Park, Oak Park Village, addressed the Board. She stated that she is very excited about the hotel development. However, she is concerned about parking being right up to the property line of the townhouses. S. Stachowiak stated that landscape, screening and buffering will be required for the subject property. She explained that the Planning Staff would address these matters during the site plan review stage. It was decided by the Board to hear from the applicant. Gordon Long spoke supporting the request. He showed pictures of the future development to the Board. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2001 PAGE 3 requests for BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar St., as stated in the staff A. Frederick moved to approve variance req osed extended stay hotel; a setback report: a height variance of pert°lines alon hotel g just -Mere,to for allow the overhead p edestrian bridge,to be variance of 20' from the property parking variance of 650 parking spaces from the required 2,790 spaces up to (and over)the street; and a p Seconded by B. Burgess. required (2,140 spaces proposed). NAY YEA VOTE X Hilts X Burgess X Earhart Frederick X X Horne Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar St., has been approved. V. PUBLIC COMMENT - none V1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ows: on e 2, last paragraph, chan B. Burgess requested that ge to A. Minutes of December 14 2000 an ad elsted bhat theere be a as lback up system in case the tape doesn't "add to was built". He also suggested work. V. Earhart moved to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII NEW BUSINESS April 2001. A. Excused absence for Regina McCloud G. Hilts explained that R. McCloud has a class and needs an excused absence through p A. Frederick moved to grant an excused absence voice vote De embere4m 2001. Seconded by E. Horn meeting through April e. Unanimous vo Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Draft to Clerk 01/23/01 Approved To Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 11, 2001, 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 V. Earhart R. McCloud has an excused absence. Staff: S. Stachowiak D. Wynant A. A quorum of at least four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. Earhart moved to approve the agenda as written. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve the agenda. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3612.01 - 1801 Bassett Ave. Susan Stachowiak presented the case. This is a request by Atmosphere Annealing on behalf of B.C.G. W. Inc. to retain two sections of fence, 12 ft. high running approximately 132 ft. and 152 ft. along the east side of the building at 1801 Bassett Street in the "I" Heavy Industrial District. Section 1290.08(2) of the Zoning Code states that no fence shall be constructed which is less than 5 ft. nor more than 10 ft. in height. Therefore, a variance of 2 ft, is requested. Earnest Farkas, 1801 Bassett Ave., addressed the board. He presented his case and stated that he would keep the fence in good condition. 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 terrain differences are a practical difficulty or hardship as far as he could see. A. Frederick stated that he was wondering whether or not when the code was originally written for fences, if it was considered that fences like this would be an appropriate sound barrier and that generally being tall enough makes it a much more effective sound barrier. He doesn't think that the Zoning Code takes into account that there can be terrain changes. He can understand why the neighbors want the fence to stay there. General discussion ensued regarding these types of fences, effective sound abatement, etc. E. Horne stated that this property needs some trees. She stated that trees help in eliminating noise. She does not like great big fences. She would like to see something that looks a little better. She does not support the request. B. Burgess stated that this request makes sense. It seems to be a win-win situation for the players involved. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2001 PAGE 2 V. Earhart moved to approve a variance of 2'to allow for a 12' high fence for BZA-3612.01, 1801 Bassett Ave. provisioning that the applicant/owner will maintain the fence and keep it in good condition. Seconded by B. Burgess. A. Frederick requested that the applicant/owner put in landscaping & buffering in the area. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Earhart X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 4-1. BZA-3612.01, 1801 Bassett Ave., 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(action) B. Burgess moved to remove BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar St., from the table. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. D. Wynant presented the case. This was originally proposed over a year ago. The first public hearing that was called on the variance was January 2000. Since that time, the original proposal has significantly changed. Several other properties have been acquired for additional parking. The difference in the proposal is the parking ramp. It has been reduced from 4 levels to 3 levels meaning one on the ground level and two parking decks above ground. The development is essentially surrounded by commercial office development to the north and east. There was a Master Plan amendment (MPA-1-99) that examined some of the zoning changes. That has been passed by the Planning Board and by City Council. Several rezoning cases have gone forth and been approved. This has gone through quite a few changes and a lengthy process partly because of the additional acquisition of the properties. The Board of Zoning Appeals has this request tabled for additional information including a parking analysis which has been done and is part of the report as well as a traffic analysis. She reviewed the history of the request and the property referred to in the staff report. She also reviewed the chart and the variances being requested, in detail. General discussion ensued regarding parking and overlap of parking demand for the various uses in the development. Lori Hammond, 2111 University Park, Oak Park Village, addressed the Board. She stated that she is very excited about the hotel development. However, she is concerned about parking being right up to the property line of the townhouses. S. Stachowiak stated that landscape, screening and buffering will be required for the subject property. She explained that the Planning Staff would address these matters during the site plan review stage. It was decided by the Board to hear from the applicant. Gordon Long spoke supporting the request. He showed pictures of the future development to the Board. DRAFT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2001 PAGE 3 A. Frederick moved to approve variance requests for BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar St., as stated in the staff report: a height variance of 65'for the hotel addition & 17'for the proposed extended stay hotel; a setback variance of 20'from the property lines along Just-A-Mere to allow the overhead pedestrian bridge, to be up to (and over) the street; and a parking variance of 650 parking spaces from the required 2,790 spaces required (2,140 spaces proposed). Seconded by B. Burgess. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Earhart X Frederick X Horne X Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. BZA-3564.99, 6820 S. Cedar St., has been approved. V. PUBLIC COMMENT- none Vl. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of December 14, 2000 B. Burgess requested that an addition be made as follows: on page 2, last paragraph, change to "add to was built". He also suggested that there be a back up system in case the tape doesn't work. V. Earhart moved to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by A. Frederick. Unanimous voice vote to approve. VII NEW BUSINESS A. Excused absence for Regina McCloud G. Hilts explained that R. McCloud has a class and needs an excused absence through April 2001. A. Frederick moved to grant an excused absence for December 14th meeting through April 2001. Seconded by E. Horne. Unanimous voice vote to approve. Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator DRAFT