Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 2007 Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 13, 2007 Page 1 Approved: 2/14/08 Clerk: 3/18/08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 13, 2007 7:30 P.M. ' CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL --' I. ROLL CALL - The meetingwas called to order b Chairman Burgess at 7:30 y g p.m. Chairman Burgess read;iine BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. — Present: B. Burgess A. Frederick E. Horne G. Swix B. McGrain G. Hilts M. Mayberry (Arrived at 7:45) Absent: None Staff: S. Stachowiak A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Frederick moved, seconded by E. Horne to approve the agenda with the additions of "Ordinance Change" & "Excused Absence" under new business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 6-0. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3920.07, 326 S. Foster Avenue This is a variance request by Rodolfo Gaytan to convert the building foundation on the northwest corner of Kalamazoo and Foster Avenue into a garage. Section 1248.03 of the Zoning Code permits one garage per parcel of land, requires a 60 foot front yard setback and requires that the size of a garage not exceed the floor area of the house. If approved, the subject property would be combined with the property to the north at 318 S. Foster which already has a 216 square foot garage and a house that is 748 square feet in area. The proposed garage would be approximately 818 square feet in area and would have a front yard setback of approximately 35 feet. Variances of 1 to the allowable number of garages, 25 feet to the required front yard setback and 70 square feet to the allowable size for a garage are therefore, being requested. Staff recommended denial of the requests on a finding that the variances would be inconsistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 13, 2007 Page 2 Belinda Fitzpatrick, 224 S. Holmes Street, spoke in support of the request. Ms. Fitzpatrick stated that she is helping her neighbor, Mr. Gaytan. She said that she took this matter on over a year ago and they have been before Judge Giddings on numerous occasions during that time. Most recently,thejudge suggested that Mr. Gaytan explore the possibility of converting the foundation to a garage. She stated that the house that was moved from Wood Street was deemed unfit by the Lansing Building Safety Office to place on the foundation that was constructed. She said that if the variances are not approved to allow the conversion to a garage, the foundation will sit at this location for another year. Ms. Fitzpatrick showed pictures of surrounding properties to the Board and stated that the proposed garage is not inconsistent with the surrounding area. Mr. Swix asked if Habitat for Humanity would be interested in building a house on the foundation. Ms. Fitzpatrick said that they have explored this possibility and no one is interested in building on this property because it would take approximately $60,000 to build the house and this is what houses are selling for in the area. Rudolfo Gaytan, 318 S. Foster Avenue,spoke in support of his request. He said that the property in question was a mess for many years. He purchased it and cleaned it up so that it would not be a safety hazard to his children. Mr. Gaytan said that he purchased a house on Wood Street approximately 3-4 years ago which the city later determined to be unsafe and required that it be demolished. He said that now the city wants the foundation removed also and he cannot afford to keep putting money into this project. Mr. McGrain asked about the intent of the garage. He said that the location, along with the size of the garage gives him cause for concern that it might be used for automobile repair at some time in the future. Mr. Gaytan said that he would only use the garage to park cars. Ms. Stachowiak stated that permits were issued for the foundation that is currently on the lot. She said that the structure that was moved from Wood Street sat on the lot for so long that by the time it was ready to be placed on the foundation, it was no longer in a safe condition. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that the structure sat on this lot for a very long time. He said that this is a fragile neighborhood and the matter of the relocated house and the current foundation has gone on long enough. Mr. Frederick said that there are planning principles that dictate why this request is not appropriate. Most notably, it is improper to have a large, detached garage occupying a corner lot in what is largely a residential neighborhood. Mr. Hilts stated that, other than financial issues, he has not heard anything that speaks to a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. He stated that without a demonstrated practical difficulty or non-financial hardship, the Board does not have the authority to approve the variances. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3920.07,variances of 1 to the allowable number of garages,25 feet to the required front yard setback and 70 square feet to the allowable size for a garage at 326 S. Foster Avenue, on a finding that the variances would be inconsistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by G. Hilts. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 13, 2007 Page 3 VOTE YEA NAY Burgess X McGrain X Swix X Mayberry X Hilts X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried, 5-2, BZA-3920.07, was denied. B. BZA-3915.07, 720 N. Seymour Street This is a variance request by Diane Sanborn to erect a ground sign at 720 N. Seymour St. that would be 6.49 square feet in area, 6 feet in height and have a setback of 5 feet from the front property line. The property at 720 N. Seymour St. has a lot area of 10,890 square feet. Section 1442.12(h)(2)of the Sign Code prohibits ground signs on parcels in the"DM- 4" Residential zoning district that contain less than 12,000 square feet of lot area. Variances of 1,110 square feet to the lot area requirement and 15 feet to the setback requirement to permit a ground sign at 720 N. Seymour Street are therefore, being requested.Staff recommended approval on a finding thatthe variances would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Diane Sanborn, 720 N. Seymour Street, spoke in support of her request. She said that the IKEA representatives stayed at her Bed and Breakfasts recently and the need for some identification became even more clear. Ms. Sanborn stated that the sign cannot be moved back any further on the lot or it will not be visible to traffic. She also said that the proposed sign is large enough that it will be visible but will not detract from the residential character of the neighborhood. Bob Johnson, 316 N. Capitol Avenue, spoke in support of the request. He said that Ms. Stachowiak and Ms. Sanborn have worked together to come up with a sign that is very appropriate for the proposed location. He said that it is appropriately scaled and will fit in nicely. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Ms. Horne stated that she supports the request but would like to see the motion restrict the sign to the Bed and Breakfasts only. Mr. Frederick said that the Planning Board has been dealing with the issue of home occupations and what is appropriate in residential neighborhoods. He said that it is a hardship for a bed and breakfast to be denied any type of identification. He also said that he is supportive of the variance but believes that the ordinance dealing with allowable signs in residential neighborhoods needs to be revisited. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 13, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Hilts stated that this type of business likely was not considered when the sign code was being written. Mr. McGrain stated that the sign is very appropriate and he is supportive of the variance. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3915.07,variances of 1,110 square feet to the lot area requirement and 15 feet to the setback requirement to permit a 6.49 square foot, 6 foot high ground sign at 720 N. Seymour Street, on a finding that the variances would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application,with the condition that the sign is only permitted for the bed and breakfast use. Seconded by B. McGrain. VOTE YEA NAY Swix X McGrain X Burgess X Hilts X Mayberry X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried, 7-0, BZA-3915.07, was approved. VI. OLD BUSINESS B. Rules of Procedure - No action B. BZA-3817.04, 1014 S. Pennsylvania Avenue - No action VII. PUBLIC COMMENT Vill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of Regular Meeting held November 8, 2007 A. Frederick moved, seconded by G. Swix to approve the minutes of November 8, 2007, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Ordinance Amendment Mr. Frederick stated that the Planning Board is working on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would require a minimum lot size of 60 feet in order to convert a structure to a duplex in the"C" Residential district. He said that the variance request that the Board denied a couple months ago for the lot area requirement to convert a single family home to a duplex is what precipitated the amendment. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 13, 2007 Page 5 B. Excused Absence Request A.Frederick moved,seconded by E.Horne to approve an excused absence for Mr.Hilts from the November 8, 2007 meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). X. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C'ee�/ A Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8, 2007 Page 1 Approved: 12/13/07 Clerk: 3/18/08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - NOVEMBER 8, 2007 7:30 P.M. _ CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL — I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Burgess readdhe BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. _ Present: B. Burgess A. Frederick E. Horne G. Swix B. McGrain Absent: F. Lain M. Mayberry G. Hilts Staff: S. Stachowiak A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Frederick moved, seconded by E. Horne to approve the agenda with the addition of "Excused Absences" under new business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 5-0. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3917.07, 500 Block, E. Michigan Avenue This is a variance request by Patrick Gillespie, Stadium District Partners, LLC. The applicant is proposing to construct the following signs at 500 E. Michigan Avenue: 1. 96 square feet for a building identification sign and 1.08 feet to the allowable projection, 2. 119 square feet to the sign area limitation for the Lansing Regional Chamber, 3. 1 to the allowable number of wall signs and 46 square feet to the sign area limitation for 2 of the retail businesses, 4. 12 square feet to the sign area limitation for 8 of the retail businesses, 5. 12 to the allowable number of projecting signs for the entire structure, 6. 170.1 square feet to the allowable sign area and 4 to the allowable number of wall signs for Fifth Third Bank, 7. 14 feet to the height limitation and 9 square foot to the sign area limitation for 4 general parking directional signs. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8, 2007 Page 2 Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variances would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Ms. Horne asked if the Lansing Regional Chamber would be vacating their current site on Allegan Street. David Farhat,Gillespie Group,500 E.Michigan Avenue,spoke in support of the request. He stated that the Regional Chamberwill be relocated from their current location,which has been temporary, to the Stadium District. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Burgess stated that the requested variances are very reasonable. He referred to several other cases where variances for more sign area has been approved based upon building size and other factors that are similar to this request. Mr. Frederick stated that he could support the request. He stated that if the project was located outside of the Central Business District, few, if any variances would be needed for this proposal. He also stated that a lot of the variances that are needed are a result of the parking being located behind the building. He said that rear parking is something that is being strongly encouraged by the Planning Board as it makes for a much more appealing streetscape and promotes a walkable atmosphere. Mr. McGrain stated that this is a signature building and is located on 3 major thoroughfares which also contributes to its uniqueness. G.Swix moved to approve BZA-3917.07,a variance of 96 square feet for a building identification sign and 1.08 feet to the allowable projection, 119 square feet to the sign area limitation for the Lansing Regional Chamber, 1 to the allowable number of wall signs and 46 square feet to the sign area limitation for 2 of the retail businesses, 12 square feet to the sign area limitation for 8 of the retail businesses, 12 to the allowable number of projecting signs for the entire structure,170.1 square feet to the allowable sign area and 4 to the allowable number of wall signs for Fifth Third Bank, 14 feet to the height limitation and 9 square foot to the sign area limitation for 4 general parking directional signs at 500 E. Michigan Avenue, on a finding that the variances would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by B. McGrain. VOTE YEA NAY Burgess X McGrain X Swix X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried, 5-0, BZA-3917.07, was approved. B. BZA-3918.07, 5525 S. ML King Blvd. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8, 2007 Page 3 This is a variance request by Goodall Construction on behalf of Jack Vanderjagt to construct an 18 foot by 53 foot addition to the building at 5525 S. ML King that would have a setback of 7.3 feet from the front property line along Haag Road. Section 1260.06 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a front yard setback of 20 feet in the "D-1" Professional Office district. A variance of 12.7 feet to the front yard setback requirement is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the variance on a finding that the variance would be consistentwith the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06(c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Doug Vanderjagt, 1687 Tuscay, spoke in support of the request. He said that they have a need to add more rooms to the building. He stated that this is the only medical office in the general area and they are experiencing an increased need for their services. Mr. Frederick asked where the nearest doctor's office was located. Mr. Vanderjagt stated that it is at Cedar and Jolly and has only 1 physician. Roger Donaldson, Architect, 4787 Tartan, stated that given the site constraints based upon its shape, there is no way to design an addition that would not encroach into the required setbacks. He said that he designed it so that the encroachment would be an minimal as possible. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that the practical difficulty is very evident based upon the site plan and the staff analysis. The other board members agreed. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3918.07, a variance of 12.7 feet to the front yard setback requirement to permit a building addition at 5525 S. ML King, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by G. Swix. VOTE YEA NAY Swix X McGrain X Burgess X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried, 5-0, BZA-3918.07, was approved. C. BZA-3919.07, 5725 S. Cedar Street This is a variance request by Marathon Domestic LLC to construct a 23 foot high, 71.4 square foot, ground pole sign at 5725 S. Cedar Street that would have a setback of zero (0)feet from the front property line. Section 1442.12(h)(5)(B)of the Sign Ordinance requires a 23 foot setback for a sign with these dimensions. A variance of 23 feet to the setback requirement is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8, 2007 Page 4 a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Kevin Mueller, 5725 S. Cedar Street, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the sign pole was completely bent to the ground during the storm in August. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that there is a clear practical difficulty involving the excess right-of-way. He also said that the board has looked favorably upon other variances where the sign or other structure was being brought further into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. In this case, the variance would also result in the removal of a right-of-way encroachment. B.McGrain moved to approve BZA-3919.07,a variance of 23 feet to the setback requirementto permit a ground sign at 5725 S. Cedar Street, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Burgess X McGrain X Swix X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried, 5-0, BZA-3919.07, was approved. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules of Procedure - No action B. BZA-3817.04, 1014 S. Pennsylvania Avenue - No action VII. PUBLIC COMMENT Vill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of Regular Meeting held October 11, 2007 A. Frederick moved, seconded by E. Horne to approve the minutes of October 11, 2007, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8, 2007 Page 5 IX. NEW BUSINESS Excused Absence Request Mr. McGrain moved,seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve an excused absence for Mr. Lain from this meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). X. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitt Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 11, 2007 Page 1 Approved: 1 1/8/07 Clerk: 3/18/08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS October 11, 2007 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Burgess read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: B. Burgess F. Lain A. Frederick G. Hilts M. Mayberry E. H&ihe c• G. Swix B. McGrain 1 Absent: None Staff: J. Hodges A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Frederick moved, seconded by E. Horne to approve the agenda as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried 8-0. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3915.07, 720 N. SeVmour Street This is a variance request by Diane Sanborn to erect a ground sign at 720 N. Seymour St. that would be 13.1 square feet in area, 4.75 feet in height and have a setback of 2 feet from the front property line. The property at 720 N. Seymour St. has a lot area of 10,890 square feet. Section 1442.12(h)(2)of the Sign Code prohibits ground signs on parcels in the"DM- 4" Residential zoning district that contain less than 12,000 square feet of lot area. A variance of 1,110 square feet to the lot area requirement to permit a ground sign at 720 N. Seymour Street is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended denial of the request on a finding that the variance would be inconsistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Mr. McGrain asked if there are any signage options available to the applicant. Mr. Hodges said that they are permitted to have a 1 square foot wall sign. Mr. Swix said that there are a lot of signs in residential areas. He asked if they are all illegal. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 11, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Hodges said that they are illegal. Diane Sanborn, 720 N. Seymour,spoke in support of her request. She said that she also owns the property at 714 N. Seymour so when the two properties are combined, she is well over the 12,000 square feet requirements. Ms. Sanborn said that the house at 720 N. Seymour was a doctor's office for many years. She stated that a 1 square foot sign is virtually unreadable. She said that her neighbor's are supportive of her variance request. Mr. Frederick asked Ms. Sanborn what makes her property unique over all other home based occupations. Ms. Sanborn said that her business(bed and breakfast)draws people from out of town and even out of the state and a sign is needed for identification purposes. Mr. Lain asked if Ms. Sanborn could split off some of the property at 714 N. Seymour and add it to the property at 720 N. Seymour to provide the additional square footage necessary to achieve the 12,000 square feet that is required for a sign. Mr. Hodges said that what Mr. Lain suggested may be a possibility but the sign would still have to meet setback requirements and it doesn't look like that is possible. Mr. McGrain said that this is a destination type business and it is the type of business that is being encouraged in Ms. Sanborn's neighborhood. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick said that this is a nice business, however, it is not unique from any other home based business and therefore, he cannot support the business. Mr. Hilts said that anyone going to the home based business knows where they are going and they will be looking for the address. He also said that if the sign is on the inside of the window, it is considered art and it is not regulated by the city. Mr. Mayberry said that Ms. Sanborn could ask for a variance to make the one square foot wall sign larger. Mr. Hodges said that the wall sign variance would probably be recommended for denial as well based upon the same rationale that was used to recommend denial of the ground sign variance. Mr. Lain stated that he cannot support the variance. He said that a home occupation sign for a day care business was required to be removed in his neighborhood last year. Mr. Lain said that if the variance is granted, it will set a negative precedent where signs in residential neighborhoods are concerned. Mr. McGrain said that he believes that this situation is unique because it is a destination business that draws people from out-of-town and therefore, he can support the variance request. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3915.07,a variance of 1,110 square feet to the lot area requirement Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 11, 2007 Page 3 to permit a ground sign at 720 N. Seymour Street, on a finding that the variance would be inconsistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE YEA NAY Mayberry X Lain X Hilts X Burgess X McGrain X Swix X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried, 7-1, BZA-3915.07, was denied. B. BZA-3916.07, 209 N. Walnut Street This is a variance request by Samina Shahabuddin to erect a ground sign at 209 N.Walnut Street that would have a setback of .75 feet from the front property line. Section 1442.12(h)(3)(2) of the Sign Code requires a setback of 15 feet for signs in the "D-1" Professional Office district,which is the designation of the property at 209 N.Walnut Street. A variance of 14.25 feet to the setback requirement for a ground sign is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of a variance of 8 feet to the setback requirement on a finding that the modified variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Mr. McGrain asked about the size of the sign. There was discussion about the proposed dimensions of the sign, possible reductions in size and the location of the sign on the property. Samina Shahabudden, 209 N.Walnut Street,spoke in support of her request. She said that there is a large crab apple tree on the property and if the sign were to be moved back any further than the .75 feet that she is requesting, it is would be obscured by the tree. Mr. Frederick stated that the sign could be moved away from the tree (closer to the front door). Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that the Planning Board has already recommended approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 11, 2007 Page 4 Special Land Use permit for the church. He said that this site is zoned office, is surrounding by other office/church uses and therefore, the sign will fit in with the area in which it is located. Mr. Lain said that he can support the variance. He stated that the rationale for approving the variance was described in the staff report. F. Lain moved to approve BZA-3916.07, a variance of 8 feet to the setback requirement to permit a 6 foot high,21 square foot ground sign at 209 N.Walnut Street, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by G. Swix. VOTE YEA NAY Mayberry X Lain X Hilts X Swix X McGrain X Burgess X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried, 8-0, BZA-3916.07, was approved. C. BZA-3912.07, 812 Prospect Street This is a variance request by Jeffrey Hicks. The applicant is requesting a variance to permit a duplex at 812 Prospect Street that would have one 1-bedroom unit and one 2-bedroom unit. Section 1250.06(b) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for a duplex with this number of bedrooms. The property at 812 Prospect Street contains 5,445 square feet. A variance of 555 square feet to the lot size requirement is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended denial of the request on a finding that the variance would be inconsistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06(c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Mr. Burgess stated that the applicant has listed several homes in the vicinity of 812 Prospect that have 2 units. He asked if they are illegal. Mr. Hodges stated that the city has no evidence that they are not grandfathered in. Jeff Hicks, 412 N. Walnut Street, spoke in support of the request. He said that he is representing the home owner. Mr. Hicks stated that this issue was not self-created. He said that there have been separate utility meters on the property for 71/2 years. There are separate doors, separate sidewalks,etc.. He said that the property is exactly the way it was Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 11, 2007 Page 5 when Mr. Soulliere purchased it in March of 2007 through a foreclosure. Mr. Hicks stated that, according to the Michigan Court of Appeals rulings on variances, the subject property does not have to be unique, in and of itself, to every other property in the zoning district. He said that it need only be unique such that it is not like every other property in the vicinity. In this case, it is not like every other property in the vicinity as other property owners in the area enjoy the ability to use their properties as duplexes. Mr. Hicks said that the intent of the "C" Residential district is to permit a 2-family dwelling, for construction or for the conversion of an existing home to a 2-family dwelling. He said that with the increasing rate of foreclosures in this are, we should be applauding Mr. Soulliere for bringing this property back on the tax roles, putting it into good use and generating income for the City of Lansing. He said that they are only seeking to do what is permitted by right in the "C" Residential zoning district. Mr. Frederick asked if Mr. Hicks was saying that, based upon the Court of Appeals rulings, every one of the lots in the Prospect neighborhood are unique. Mr. Hicks said that the Court of Appeals has opined that if the characteristics of one property are also shared by others in the neighborhood, it does not render the first property not unique. In other words, the property does not need to be "one-of-a-kind". Mr. Frederick said that Mr. Hicks argument renders the ordinance useless and invalid because any other property in the area could make the same argument for a duplex, regardless of the lot size. Mr. Hicks stated that by zoning this area "C" Residential, knowing that the lot sizes would not allow for duplexes, the city has essentially precluded the use of the properties in the area for duplexes. Mr. Frederick stated that the intent of a zoning ordinance is to permit certain uses in some area and prohibit them in others. Mr. Hicks stated that by zoning the area "C" Residential, the city was saying that they wanted duplexes. However, he said that the ordinance ignores the lot sizes because the properties in the area cannot meet the lot size requirements. He said that this particular lot would be the lease nonconforming duplex in the area. Mr. Frederick stated that Mr. Hicks is suggesting that the fact that this property was in foreclosure is evidence that it is not viable for anything other than a duplex. Mr. Hicks said that there are multiple properties in the area that are red-tagged, in foreclosure, etc. because the highest and best use of the properties in this area is not single family. Mr. Hilts stated that if what Mr. Hicks states is correct, then it would be up to the City Council to address the lot area requirements of the"C" Residential district. He said that this exceeds the authority of the BZA. Mr. Hicks stated that he agrees that the BZA cannot grant a variance based solely on the fact that the"C"Residential district is confiscatory for the simple fact that people cannot use their property as it is zoned. However, he said that they have made the argument to show what the practical effect is of the zoning in this area. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 11, 2007 Page 6 Cherryl Valleau, 226 S. Eighth Street,spoke in opposition to the variance. She said that she is the Chairperson of the Green Oaks Target Area Organization. She said that the goal of the plan is to reduce density. She said that this area was rezoned from "DM-3"to"C"for the sole purpose of reducing density in the area. Steven Cosper, 816 Prospect Street, spoke in opposition to the variance. He said that he lives right next door to the property and there is a shared drive that would serve both his house and the proposed duplex. He said that this will place an added burden on the driveway. He also said that over half of the back yard has been converted to parking. Mr. Lain asked Mr. Cosper if the house at 812 Prospect had been used as a duplex over the past 14 years that he has lived next door. Mr. Cosper said that the house has not been used for 2-units. He also said that he has been in the house and there was an open stairway to the second floor. Steve Soulliere, 812 Prosepct Street, spoke in support of the request. He said that it is not true that Mr. Cosper owns 90 percent of the shared driveway. He stated that the property lines goes down the center of the driveway. Mr. Soulliere said that he has never blocked Mr. Cosper driveway and does not intend to do so. Mr. Hicks said that"C" Residential is not the lowest density zoning district and the intent of the "C" district is to permit duplexes. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that the master plan aside, he is not convinced that there is a practical difficulty in the case and he is not convinced that the hardship is not self-created. He said that the owner should have checked with the city to determine if a duplex was permitted at this location before he purchased the property. Mr. Frederick also said that he is not convinced that the property went into foreclosure simply because it could not generate enough income as a single family dwelling. He stated that he cannot support the variance. Mr. Hilts stated that he agrees with Mr. Frederick in that there is no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that would warrant a variance. Mr. Lain agreed with Mr. Frederick and Mr. Hilts that no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship had been demonstrated. F. Lain moved to deny BZA-3912.07, a variance of 555 square feet to the lot area requirement to permit a duplex at 812 Prospect Street,on a finding that the variance would be inconsistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Mayberry X Lain X Hilts X Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 11, 2007 Page 7 VOTE YEA NAY Burgess X McGrain X Swix X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried, 8-0, BZA-3912.07, was denied. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules of Procedure - No action B. BZA-3817.04, 1014 S. Pennsylvania Avenue - No action VII. PUBLIC COMMENT Cherryl Valleau, 226 S. Eighth Street, stated that the city is looking at a new ordinance that may eliminate this type of situation in the future. Vill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of Regular Meeting held September 13, 2007 A. Frederick moved,seconded by M. Mayberry to approve the minutes of September 13, 2007, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). IX. NEW BUSINESS - None X. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 13, 2007 Page 1 Approved: 10/11/07 Clerk: 3/18/08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS September 13, 2007 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Burgess read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: B. Burgess F. Lain A. Frederick G. Hilts M. Mayberry E. Horne Absent: G. Swix B. McGrain Staff: J. Hodges ' A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hodges stated that the applicant for BZA 3912.07 has requested that it be postponed until the next meeting due to a change in the amount of square footage that needs to be included in the variance notification. A. Frederick moved, seconded by F. Lain to approve the agenda with the postponement of BZA 3912.07 until the October 11, 2007 meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried 6-0. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3912.07 - POSTPONED B. BZA-3913.07, 1439 N. Homer Street This is a variance request by Pinnacle Exterior Remodeling to construct a sun room on the back of the house at 1439 N. Homer Street that would have a rear yard setback of 15 feet. Section 1248.09 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 30 foot rear yard setback in the "A" Residential zoning district which is the designation of the property at 1439 N. Homer Street. A variance of 15 feet to the required rear yard setback is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variances would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Josh Nunez,2844 W.Townsend,St.Jones,representing Pinnacle Exterior Remodeling, Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 13, 2007 Page 2 spoke in support of the variance request. He provided the board with pictures of the proposed sun room. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that the staff report adequately describes the practical difficulty. He said that the placement of the house on the lot and the shape of the lot contribute to the difficulty in complying with the rear yard setback. Mr. Frederick stated that he could support the variance request. Mr. Lane also expressed support for the variance. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3913.07, a variance of 13 feet to the rear yard setback requirement to permit the construction of a 12' x 12' sun room on the back of the house at 1439 N. Homer Street,on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06(e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Mayberry X Lain X Hilts X Burgess X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried, 6-0, BZA-3913.07, was approval. C. BZA-3914.07, 3134 Tecumseh River Drive This is a variance request by Darren Tanner to permit the new house at 3134 Tecumseh River Road to have a side yard setback of 3.6 feet. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 6 foot side yard setback in the "A" Residential zoning district which is the designation of the property at 3134 Tecumseh River Road. A variance of 2.4 feet to the required side yard setback is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variances would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Mr. Frederick asked if the applicant moved the house, in order to avoid a tree, from what the approved site plan showed without approval from the Planning Office. Mr. Hodges stated that Mr. Frederick was correct. The applicant did not get permission from the Planning Office to change the layout of the site. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 13, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Lane asked if the hardship involves the tree on the lot (road right-of-way). Mr. Hodges stated that the tree is the hardship because the city will not allow the tree to be removed. He said that the difficulty involves a natural feature(tree)that makes it necessary to relocate the house further to the west. Darren Tanner, 8810 Columbia, Eaton Rapids, representing R.D. Tanner, spoke in support of the variance request. He said that Public Service would not approve the location of the driveway, as it was originally approved by the Planning Office during the building permit process, because it would have resulted in the removal of a tree. He said that he contacted Forestry and they would not allow the tree to be removed so he had to move the house further to the west in order to preserve and protect the tree in the road right-of-way. Mr. Frederick asked if Mr. Tanner understood the purpose of site plan approval and if he understood that he should have come to the BZA for approval before he moved the house. Mr. Tanner said that he does understand and he made a mistake in this case. Mr. Lane asked if the applicant obtained a stake survey before he started construction. Mr. Tanner said that he did not. Ryan Tanner, 1145 Linwood,Lansing,representing R.D. Tanner, spoke in support of the variance request. Mary Woodworth, 1906 Byrnes, Lansing, spoke in opposition to the variance request. She said that Mr. Tanner knew, when the trench was dug that it was off and it would encroach into the required side yard setback. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick said that he is bothered by the potential problems that this situation will cause because of its close proximity to the side lot line. He said that there will not be enough room to maintain the side of the house. He also said that this situation could have been avoided if the applicant had sought approval from the Planning Office before he started building. Mr. Frederick said that he cannot support a variance. He stated that the applicant should have taken the trees into consideration when he was developing the plans for the construction. Mr. Hilts stated that the situation is entirely self-created. He said that the tree could have come out if the applicant had been willing to spend the money on a replacement. Mr. Lane stated that the applicant should have planned around the tree(s)originally and he should have obtained a stake survey. He said that he cannot support the variance. A.Frederick moved to deny BZA-3914.07,a variance of 2.4 feet to the side yard setback requirement, on a finding that the variance would not be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) or the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by G. Hilts. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 13, 2007 Page 4 VOTE YEA NAY Mayberry X Lain X Hilts X Burgess X Horne X Frederick X Motion carried, 6-0, BZA-3914.07, was denied. VI. OLD BUSINESS D. Rules of Procedure - No action B. BZA-3817.04, 1014 S. Pennsylvania Avenue - No action VII. PUBLIC COMMENT - none Vill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of Regular Meeting held August 9, 2007 A. Frederick moved, seconded by G. Hilts to approve the minutes of August 9, 2007, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). IX. NEW BUSINESS - None X. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:30 p.m. Respectfully, submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 9, 2007 Page 1 Approved. 9/13/07 Clerks-3/18'l08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ` August 9, 2007 7:30 P.M. -= CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL *-i I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Burgess read th' BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: B. Burgess F. Lain A. Frederick G. Hilts B. McGrain G. Swix Absent: M. Mayberry E. Horne Staff: S. Stachowiak A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA B.McGrain moved,seconded by G.Swix to approve the agenda with the addition of"excused absences" under new business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 6-0. III. HEARINGS/ACTION 1. BZA-3910.07, 2720 Meadowlane Drive This is a variance request by Jack&Susan Pettit to permit the three(3)sheds that currently exist at 2720 Meadowlane Drive. Section 1248.03(5)of the Zoning Ordinance permits one (1)shed on each single family residential lot. A variance of two(2)to the allowable number of sheds is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended denial of the request on a finding that the variance would not be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) or the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Jack Pettit,2720 Meadowlane Drive, spoke in support of the request. Mr. Pettit said that one of the sheds is a changing room for the pool in the summer and storage of pool supplies in the winter. He said that one of the sheds is for lawn equipment and the third shed is for general storage. Mr. Pettit said that as he and his wife age, the need for ground floor level storage becomes more important and they felt that the individual sheds would be far more pleasing than having one large storage barn. Mr. Swix asked if Mr. Pettit had a contractor build the sheds and how long ago they were Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 9, 2007 Page 2 built. Mr. Pettit said that the sheds were built professionally and they were built at different times over the past 7 years. He said that the sheds are very nice with cedar siding and cedar shake roofs. Elizabeth Prince, 3622 Gleneden Drive, spoke in support of the request. She said that she lives 4 houses down from the Pettits and they have the nicest property in the neighborhood. She also said that the sheds are very nice looking and have no impact on the neighborhood. Ronald Turner,2633 Wyckham Drive,spoke in support of the request. He stated that the sheds have no negative impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Swix stated that the sheds are very nice but that approval of this variance could set a negative precedent for future requests of this nature. Mr. Frederick stated that the property on S. Washington Avenue,just south of Kensington Road, that has multiple sheds in the yard is the reason why the ordinance restricting the number of sheds was put into place. He said that the subject property is much different from the property on S. Washington but, in order to be fair and equitable, one request cannot be approved and the other denied. Mr. Lain stated that the applicant's property is the largest in its area. He also stated that if he had a pool, he would want a changing room in addition to his shed and garage. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant's lot is 10 times larger than a typical lot that is allowed to have 1 shed and therefore, the additional sheds in proportion to the lot size, would be reasonable. Mr. Burgess stated that this request is similar to the requests for larger signs on big box stores. He said that the Board has determined in the past that the larger buildings could have some additional wall signage since the signage would be proportionate to the building size. Mr. Frederick stated that it is also similar to the larger garages for the units in College Fields. He also stated that the uniqueness in this case appears to be the lot size. Mr. McGrain stated that he could support this request. F. Lain moved to approve BZA-3910.07, a variance of 2 to the allowable number of sheds at 2720 Meadowlane Drive, with the condition that the sheds remain in harmony with the character of the existing house in terms of design, color and materials, based on the following findings: 1. The variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06(c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06(e),as detailed in the staff report for this application; Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 9, 2007 Page 3 2. The number of sheds in proportion to the lot size is reasonable; 3. The total square footage of the sheds is less than what the applicant would be able to construct with one storage building; and 4. The variances would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by B. McGrain. VOTE YEA NAY McGrain X Swix X Hilts X Burgess X Lain X Frederick X Motion carried, 6-0, BZA-3910.07, was approved. B. BZA-3911.07, 1419 Linval Street This is a variance request by the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition to permit a new, attached garage at 1419 Linval Street that would have side and rear yard setbacks of 1 foot. Section 1250.08 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 3.3 foot side yard setback and Section 1250.09 requires a 30 foot rear yard setback in the"C" Residential zoning district which is the designation of the property at 1419 Linval Street. Variances of 2.3 feet to the required side yard setback and 29 feet to the required rear yard setback are therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variances would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06(c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Mikki Myszak, 1017 W. Lapeer, representing the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition, spoke in support of the variance request. Ms. Myszak stated that they are buying a red tagged property and spending approximately$110,000 to rehabilitate the structure and sell it to a low-moderate income family. She said that the City Development Office is requiring a garage as part of the project and the proposed location is the only possible location on the site for a garage. She said that the garage will be replacing an existing garage and will be located even slightly further in on the property from what currently exists. Mr. McGrain stated that for the record, he is friends with Ms. Myszak and she is on the Board that he works for. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 9, 2007 Page 4 moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that the practical difficulty is very evident since no garage could be constructed on the lot without a variance. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3911.07, a variance of 2.3 feet to the required side yard setback and 29 feet to the required rear yard setback to permit the construction of an attached garage at 1419 Linval Street, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06(e), as detailed in the staff report for this application, with the condition that the applicant try to secure a 3 foot easement from the adjoining property owners along the south and east sides of the garage for maintenance purposes. Seconded by G. Swix. VOTE YEA NAY Swix x Lain x Hilts x Burgess x McGrain x Frederick x Motion carried, 6-0, BZA-3911.07, was approval. VI. OLD BUSINESS E. Rules of Procedure - No action B. BZA-3817.04, 1014 S. Pennsylvania Avenue - No action VII. PUBLIC COMMENT - none Vill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of Regular Meeting held June 14, 2007 A. Frederick moved, seconded by B. McGrain to approve the minutes of June 14, 2007. Mr. McGrain stated that he was present at this meeting and the minutes list him as absent. On a voice vote,the motion carried unanimously(6-0),to approve the minutes of June Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 9, 2007 Page 5 14,2007 with the correction that Mr.McGrain be listed as having been presentforthis meeting. B. Minutes of Regular Meeting held July 26, 2007 A. Frederick moved,seconded by G. Hilts to approve the minutes of July 26,2007,as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absences B. McGrain moved, seconded by G. Hilts to approve an excused absence for Ms. Horne from this meeting (August 9, 2007). On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). G.Hilts moved,seconded by G.Swix to approve an excused absence for Mr.McGrain from the September 13, 2007 meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). X. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stac wiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 26, 2007 Page 1 Approved: 8/9/07 Clerk. 3/18/08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS July 26, 2007 7:30 P.M. G _ CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL r The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Burgess,read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: B. Burgess F. Lain A. Frederick G. Hilts M. Mayberry G. Swix Absent: B. McGrain E. Horne Staff: S. Stachowiak A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Frederick moved, seconded by G. Hilts to approve the agenda as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried 6-0. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3908.07, 725 American Road This is a variance request by Justin Schaefer on behalf of Menard, Inc. to permit a third wall sign on the Menard's building at 725 American Road that would be 30.25 square feet in area. Section 1442.13 of the Sign Ordinance permits 2 wall signs with a combined area of 200 square feet at this location. There are 2 wall signs currently on the building that have a combined area of 464.25 square feet. The additional square footage was approved by a previous variance. Variances of 30.25 square feet to the previously varied size limitation and 1 to the allowable number of wall signs at 725 American Road are therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Justin Schaefer, Menard Inc. (7/12/07), spoke in support of the request. Mr. Schaefer said that the additional sign is necessary to direct customer's to the newly constructed garden center. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. The Board members discussed the benefits of the proposed sign for directing customers Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 26, 2007 Page 2 in the parking area. Mr. Lain stated that the approval should mandate that the sign state "garden sign" only. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the motion could reference the drawing in the packet. F. Lain moved to approve BZA-3908.07,a variance of 30.25 square feet to the size limitation and 1 to the allowable number of wall signs at 725 American Road to permit the sign depicted on the drawing dated 5/4/04, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06(c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE YEA NAY Mayberry X Swix X Hilts X Burgess X Lain X Frederick X Motion carried, 6-0, BZA-3908.07, was approved. B. BZA-3900.07, Vacant Lot North of 3228 Everett Lane This is a variance request by Fredric McLaughlin. The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home on the vacant lot located directly north of 3228 Everett Lane that would have a front setback of 12 feet, 10 inches at its nearest point to the front lot line. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20 foot front yard setback. A variance of 7 feet, 2 inches to the required front yard setback is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variances would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the request has changed significantly since it was first submitted. She said that there is no longer a request to encroach into the rear yard setback and the front yard setback variance has been reduced as a result of reducing the size of the proposed house and moving it further to the south on the lot. She said that the house will not project into the drain easement. She also said that only a small corner of the house itself will project into the front yard setback, as depicted on the site plan. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the practical difficulty is the shape of the lot which narrows dramatically from south to north. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Ms. Horne, on behalf of her mother who owns a home in the area, objects to the request based upon its incompatible design with respect to the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she received a call from another neighbor in the area expressing the same concerns. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 26, 2007 Page 3 Fred McLaughlin, 222 W. Kalamazoo, spoke in support of his variance request. He thanked the staff for working with him over the past few weeks to arrive at a workable design. He also thanked the Board for its recommendations. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that the city does not have any architectural standards. He also said that the applicant has made the changes to the site that were suggested by the Board and the proposed architecture is a matter of preference that cannot be dictated by the Board. He also said that the practical difficulty involving the shape of the lot, as described by staff, is clear and certainly warrants the minimal variance that is being requested. G. Swix moved to approve BZA-3900.07, a variance of 7 feet, 2 inches to the required front yard setback to permit the construction of a new single family home on the vacant lot located immediately north of 3228 Everett Lane, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Swix X Lain X Hilts X Burgess X Mayberry X Frederick X Motion carried, 6-0, BZA-3900.07, was approval. C. BZA-3907.09, 1615 W. Ottawa Street This is a variance request by Larry Schaefer Inc. on behalf of Phil & Cheyrl Hecksel to construct a 6 foot by 10 foot covered front porch at 1615 W. Ottawa Street that would have a front yard setback of 27.5 feet. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a front yard setback of 31.25 feet at this location. A variance of 3.75 feet to the front yard setback requirement is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Clint Schaefer, on behalf of the property owners (7/12/07), spoke in support of the variance. He stated that the owners would like to construct a new porch that would match the architecture of the existing house. He said that the lot is relatively small for a corner lot and has an angled front property line that makes it difficult to meet the required front yard setback. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 26, 2007 Page 4 moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that the practical difficult, as described by staff, is very clear. A.Frederick moved to approve BZA-3909.07,a variance of 3.75 feetto the required frontyard setback to permit a new front porch at 1615 W. Ottawa Street, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06(c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by G. Swix. VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Swix X Lain X Burgess X Mayberry X Frederick X Motion carried, 6-0, BZA-3909.07, was approved. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules of Procedure - No action B. BZA-3817.04, 1014 S. Pennsylvania Avenue - No action VII. PUBLIC COMMENT - none Vill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - none IX. NEW BUSINESS - none X. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:52 p.m. Respectful submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes June 14, 2007 Page 1 Approved: 8/9/07 Clerk: 3/18/08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS June 14, 2007 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL = I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Burgess read ttre BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. s Present: B. Burgess E. Horne A. Frederick G. Hilts M. Mayberry (arrived at 7:40) B. McGrain Absent: F. Lain G. Swix Staff: S. Stachowiak A. A quorum of at five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA G. Hilts moved, seconded by E. Horne to approve the agenda with the addition of"excused absences" under new business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 5-0. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3905.07 SW Corner of Forest Road and Alliance Drive This is a variance request by Granger Construction Company on behalf of TechSmith Corporation. The applicant is proposing to construct a new building at the southwest corner of Forest Road and Alliance Drive that would be 69 feet in height at it's highest point. Section 1260.09 of the Zoning Ordinance permits a maximum height of 45 feet for buildings in the "D-V Professional Office district. A variance of 24 feet to the height limitation is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Barry Roney,Granger Construction,spoke in support of the request. Mr. Roney said that they will be preserving the majority of the existing vegetation and will adding more trees and berms to the site. Joel Smith, Neumann Smith Architects, stating that this will be an environmentally friendly project that will utilize the Leadership in Energy Efficient Design(LEED)standards, Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes June 14, 2007 Page 2 bio-swales, rain gardens and will preserve the existing natural features of the site. Mr. Smith said that in order to meet the LEED standards, they need to bring natural light into the building which is the purpose of the atrium. He said that the atrium will be 69 feet high whereas the remainder of the building will be 46 feet in height which is exceeds the city requirement by only 1 foot. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Hilts stated that he would like to watch the rain gardens being constructed. Mr. Smith said that Mr. Hilts should contact Granger Construction and they will arrange for him to see the construction of the rain gardens. Mr. McGrain stated that the ordinance may need to be reviewed to determine if changes are necessary in order to accommodate LEED certified buildings. Mr. Frederick stated that there is a substantial public interest in approving this variance since preserving natural features and conserving energy has a positive impact on the quality of life for everyone. He also said that the practical difficulty involves the woodlands and wetlands on the site which are natural features that the applicant did not create. Mr. Hilts stated that an eco-friendly site creates a good environment for employees. Mr. McGrain stated that the ordinance is outdated and wasn't the original intent of the ordinance to require a lower height to the detriment of natural site features. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3905.07, a variance of 24 feet to the height limitation for a new building at the southwest corner of Forest Road and Alliance Drive, as depicted on the plan dated 5-14-07, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by B. McGrain. VOTE YEA NAY Mayberry X Horne X Hilts X Burgess X McGrain X 11 Frederick X Motion carried, 6-0, BZA-3905.07, was approved. B. BZA 3906 07 3500 Block S. MIL King This is a variance request by Custom Sign Center Inc. on behalf of Tim Horton's. The Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes June 14, 2007 Page 3 applicant is proposing to erect a ground sign at the proposed Tim Horton's Restaurant in the 3500 Block of S. MIL King that would be 20 feet in height and would have a 5 foot setback from the front property line. The applicant is also proposing to erect 2 wall signs on the future building that would have a combined area of 86.22 square feet. Section 1442.12(h)(5)(B)of the Sign Ordinance requires a 20 foot setback for ground signs that are 20 feet in height. Section 1442.13(i) of the Sign Ordinance allows a maximum area of 50 square feet for two wall signs combined. Variances of 15 feet to the required setback for a ground sign and 36.22 square feet to the allowable wall sign area are therefore, being requested. Staff recommended denial of the requests on a finding that the variances would not be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) or the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Mark Kellenberger, Tim Horton's, spoke in support of the variance request. He stated that the practical difficulty involves the lower elevation of the site in comparison to the elevation of the street. He also said that it would look odd to the sign in the landscape island in front of the building as it would be setback approximately 50 feet from the road. Mr. Kellenberger said that as a compromise, the sign could be pushed further to the north so that the setback could be increased to 10 feet instead of 5 feet. Mr. McGrain asked why the wall sign on the side of the building is necessary if there is a ground sign for identification from the north and south. Mr. Kellenberger stated that the wall sign on the side of the building could be eliminated if the variance for the ground sign is approved. Mr. Horne asked if it is economically feasible to put in another fast food restaurant in this area. Mr. Kellenberger stated that Tim Horton's specializes in donuts and coffee and does most of its business in the mornings. He said that it is different from other fast food restaurants in the area. Mr. Burgess 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 agrees with the staff analysis. He said that the plan could have been modified to accommodate a greater setback for the sign. Mr. Frederick said that he cannot identify a practical difficulty that would warrant a variance since there is nothing unique about the site that sets it apart from any other site. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3906.07, a variance of 15 feet to the required setback for a ground sign and 36.22 square feet to the allowable wall sign area for a new Tim Horton's in the 3500 Block of S. ML King, on a finding that the variance would not be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) or the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY McGrain X Horne X Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes June 14, 2007 Page 4 VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X Burgess X Mayberry X Frederick X Motion carried, 6-0, BZA-3906.07, was denied. C. BZA-3907.07 1215 E. Michigan Avenue This is a variance request by RWL Sign Company on behalf of Sparrow Health System.The applicant is proposing to erect a 175 square footwall sign on the south elevation of the west wing addition of Sparrow Hospital at 1215 E. Michigan Avenue. Section 1442.17 of the Sign Ordinance allows a maximum area of 50 square feet for a wall sign at this location. A variance of 125 square feet to the allowable wall sign area is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Ira Ginsburg, Sparrow Health System, spoke in support of the variance. He stated that he met with the Eastside Neighborhood Organization and they did not have any concerns about the requested variance. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Hilts stated that thousands of people visit this facility and good signage is critical since a lot of these people are in a stressful situation when they have to go to the hospital. Mr. Burgess said that the sign will be beneficial to helicopters as well as drivers. He also said that the hospital is restricted, by agreement with the eastside neighborhood organizations, to the current site which allows them to only build vertically rather than horizontally. Mr. Frederick stated that this sign will be visible from a long distance and is necessary for people who may not be familiar with the area. He said that the staff report adequately described the practical difficulty in this situation. B. McGrain moved to approve BZA-3907.07, a variance of 125 square feet to the wall sign area limitation for a new wall sign at 1215 E. Michigan Avenue, on a finding that the variance would be consistentwith the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06(c)and the impactcriteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by M. Mayberry. VOTE YEA NAY McGrain X Horne X Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes June 14, 2007 Page 5 VOTE YEA L NAY Hilts X Burgess X Mayberry X Frederick X Motion carried, 6-0, BZA-3907.07, was approved. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules of Procedure - No action B. BZA-3817.04, 1014 S. Pennsylvania Avenue - No action C. BZA-3900.07, Vacant Lot, N. of 3228 Everett Lane - No action VII. PUBLIC COMMENT - none VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of Regular Meeting held May 10, 2007 A. Frederick moved, seconded by M. Mayberry to approve the minutes of May 10, 2007, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously, 6-0. IX. NEW BUSINESS A. BZA-3904.07, 1709 Moores River Drive - Request for reconsideration The applicant's for BZA 3904.07 are requesting, through their attorney, that the Board reconsider their case, based upon evidence not previously considered by the BZA. As background information, BZA 3904.07 is a request for a side yard setback variance to permit a 4.5 foot extension of a previously existing garage at 1709 Moore River Drive. This case involves an attached garage that is to be 2 stories in height and will maintain the existing side yard setback of 3 feet. Since the ordinance requires a 6 foot side yard setback, a variance of 3 feet for the 4.5 foot extension is being requested. The primary reasons for the applicant's request, as expressed by their attorney, are as follows: 1. The applicants were not represented by Council at the first hearing, believing that the variance was likely to be approved. 2. The BZA may not have been fully aware of the "nonconforming" regulations Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes June 14, 2007 Page 6 concerning the existing footprint of the house and the applicant's right to construct a 2"d story. 3. Constructing an addition on the back of the house as suggested by the BZA is impractical because of the sloping grade of the property immediately behind the current house. If the BZA determines that there is enough evidence to reconsider the variance request, a new public hearing will need to be held. The earliest this could occur is at the July 12, 2007 BZA meeting. Robert McCarthy, Attorney representing Byron & Gabrielle Haskins, stated that the Zoning Administrator's comments to the Haskins were appropriate and the Haskins relied on that information. Mr. McCarthy said that a building permit was issued and construction began before the variance was heard and now the Haskins have a serious situation to deal with. He said that when a Circuit Court reviews this case, the Haskins are likely to prevail because the decision of the Board was not based upon reasonable discretion. He stated that the Board appears to have based their decision, in large part, on the complaints from the adjoining neighbors. Mr. McCarthy said that the Haskins have an automatic right to build the second story and therefore, that portion of the project should never have been considered during the Board's deliberations. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did tell Mrs. Haskins that she thought the variance was likely to be approved and that it would be supported by the staff. However, the permit was issued at the request of Mrs. Haskins who said that if she did not get started on the project immediately, she would lose her excavator. Mr. Frederick said that the minutes from the May 10, 2007 meeting left out a lot of the discussion. He said that everything Mr. McCarthy mentioned in his written and oral presentation, including the shed and grade issues,were heard and considered by the Board at the May 101h meeting. Mr. Hilts said that without any new information, the board cannot reconsider the case. He also said that the shed behind the house does not present a practical difficulty. A. Frederick moved to determine that the Board of Zoning Appeals has not been presented with any new information that would allow the Board to reconsider the variance. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY McGrain X Mayberry X Horne X Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried, 6-0, request for reconsideration of BZA-3904.07, was denied. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes June 14 2007 Page 7 A. Excused Absences B.McGrain moved,seconded by A. Frederick to approve an excused absence for Mr. Swix from the June 14, 2007 meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0) G. Hilts moved, seconded by E. Horne to approve an excused absence for Mr. McGrain from the July 12, 2007 meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0) X. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submi d Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 10, 2007 Page 1 Approved: 6/14/07 Clerk: 3/18/08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS May 10, 2007 7:30 P.M. _ CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL _.._ I. ROLL CALL _ The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Burgess read:the;—r BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: B. Burgess G. Swix E. Horne A. Frederick G. Hilts Absent: F. Lain B. McGrain M. Mayberry Staff: S. Stachowiak A. A quorum of at five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Frederick moved, seconded by G. Swix to approve the agenda with the addition of "excused absences" under new business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 5-0. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3902.07 223 S. Washington Square This is a variance request by Stewart Powell of Linn & Owen Jewelers to remove the projecting sign from it's current location at 121 W. Washtenaw Street to it's new location at 223 S. Washington Square. The projecting sign is approximately 33 square feet in area and projects 11 feet from the wall of the building. Section 1442.24(d)of the Sign Ordinance permits a maximum projection of four (4) feet and a maximum sign area of sixteen (16) square feet. Variances of seven (7) feet to the allowable projection and seventeen (17) square feet to the allowable sign area are therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Stewart Powell, 121 W. Washtenaw, spoke in support of his request. Mr. Powell stated that the business is 90 years old this year and he purchased it in 1993. He said that the Accident Fund has purchased the building at 121 W.Washtenaw and they will not continue his lease which is why he has to relocate. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 10, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Frederick stated that the sign is in good shape. He asked if the sign has been rehabilitated through the years. Mr. Powell said that the sign has always been well maintained. He stated that it received a lot of work after some storm damage a few years ago. Tim Kaltenbach,512 Bartlett Street,stated that he is the council member for the 4`h Ward which includes downtown area. He spoke in support of the request and stated that he glad that Linn & Owen Jewelers in staying in the downtown. He also said that he is happy to see that the Sign Ordinance is being rewritten so that the type of sign that Linn & Owen Jewelers will be permitted in the downtown area. Monica Zuchowski, 320 N. Walnut Street, President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of the request. She said that she is very glad that Linn & Owen Jewelers will be staying in the downtown. Mr. Burgess 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 a nice sign and he would like to see it preserved in its new location. Mr. Frederick referred to an earlier case that was heard by the BZA regarding a unique projecting sign for a piano tuning business in Reo Town. He said that the Ordinance, as it is currently written, simply does not deal with these unique signs. Mr. Hilts stated that David Sheets changed the bowling pin to a wine bottle on top of the Cadillac Club which created a unique sign. Ms. Stachowiak said that the change Mr. Hilts referred to was just a re-face which is permitted, even on nonconforming signs. Mr. Frederick stated that there is a substantial public interest in approving this variance to allow the sign to be moved to its new location. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3902.07, a variance of 7 feet to the maximum allowable sign projection and 17 square feetto the allowable sign area limitation to permitthe existing Linn&Owen Jewelers sign to be relocated from 121 W.Washtenaw to 223 S.Washington Square,on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application, with the condition that the sign be preserved in its current design. Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA L NAY Swix X Horne X Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried, 5-0, BZA-3902.07, was approved. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 10, 2007 Page 3 B. BZA-3903.07, 324 Crest Street This is a variance request by Curtis Narragon to construct a 720 square foot, detached garage at 324 Crest Street. The garage would be located east of the house at 324 Crest Street and would have a front yard setback of thirty(30)feet. Section 1248.03(b)(6)of the Zoning Ordinance requires a sixty (60)foot front yard setback for detached garages in the "A" Residential zoning district. A variance of thirty (30) feet to the required front yard setback is therefore, being requested Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Mary Jo Narragon, 324 Crest Street, spoke in support of her request. Ms. Narragon stated that she and her husband have lived at 324 Crest Street for over 40 years and she is thrilled that they will be able to finally build a garage. She said that the want to have it as close to the house as possible. Ms. Horne asked about what would happen to the existing driveway. Ms. Narragon said that she would like to keep it. Ms. Stachowiak said that the ordinance will require that the existing driveway be removed. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick said that he could support the variance. He said that he is familiar with some of the circumstances surrounding Gordon Long's property in this area. He also said that the practical difficulty involving all of the grade changes is very evident in this case. He also said that the variance meets the intent of the ordinance which is to have the garage located behind the front wall of the house. E. Horne moved to approve BZA-3903.07,a variance of 30 feet to the required front yard setback for a detached garage at 324 Crest Street, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application, with the condition that the existing driveway on the west side of the house be removed and the garage be compatible with the house in terms of design, color and materials. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA NAY Swix X Horne X Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried, 5-0, BZA-3903.07, was approved. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 10, 2007 Page 4 C. BZA-3904.07, 1709 Moores River Drive This is a variance request by Byron&Gabrielle Haskins to construct an addition on the front of the house at 1709 Moores River Drive that would have a side yard setback of three (3) feet. Section 1248.08(b)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a six (6) foot side yard setback in the "A" Residential zoning district. A variance of three (3) feet to the required side yard setback is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variance would be consistentwith the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06(e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Mr. Frederick stated that the intent of a nonconformity is to eventually bring them into conformance with the ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the existing building, with the 3 foot side yard setback, is not nonconforming. She said that Chapter 1294 states that lots containing permitted uses in the"A","B"or"C" Residential districts,that do not meet the dimensional requirements of the ordinance shall have conforming status. She said that this applies to the applicant's property since it is a single family home (which is a permitted use) in the "A" Residential district. Therefore, the 3 foot setback is conforming and the applicant can build the second story over the existing footprint of the house, by right. She said that the only issue is the 4.5 foot extension off the front of the house. Ms. Stachowiak explained that the clause in Chapter 1294 only applies to the existing footprint of the house. New additions that expand the footprint must comply with the current ordinance which requires a 6 foot side yard setback. She added that she even called her predecessor, Jim Ruff, just to run it by him and make sure that he agreed with her interpretation of the ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the reason the ordinance allows an exception for single family uses in the single family districts is because most of the houses in Lansing do not meet one or more of the dimensional requirements under the current ordinance and if they were all to be considered nonconforming, it would hinder their ability to be bought, sold, repaired and rebuilt. Gabrielle Haskins, 1709 Moores River Drive, spoke in support of his request. She said that they intend to use the same brick on the new addition as what is currently on the house. She said that it will be a very nice project that will match the architecture of the existing house and therefore, it should increase the value of properties in the surrounding area; not decrease them. Byron Haskins, 1709 Moores River Drive, spoke in support of his request. Mr. Haskins provided three letters of support from neighbors in the area, including one from the neighbor directly across the street. He said that he also has support from the Moores Park Neighborhood Association. Mr. Haskins said that he spoke with his neighbors about the project before they even started and as far as he knew, there were no problems. He said that while the roof was off, it gave the neighbors a good view and they probably liked that. Rachel Warner, 1300 Pettis Street, spoke in opposition to the request. Ms. Warner said that the new addition will devalue her property by cutting off the view from her master bedroom. She said that this will impact their privacy, their view and will block sunlight. Ms. Warner said that she found out about the addition when she came home and found a hole where the applicants garage used to be. She said that this was the same day that the postcard about the variance hearing came in the mail. Kevin Kowalk, 1300 Pettis Street, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Kowalk said that the change of use from a garage to a bedroom should effect the nonconforming rights to the property. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 10, 2007 Page 5 Ms. Stachowiak stated that the use is single family and therefore, changing a garage to living space has no effect on nonconforming rights. Mr. Kowalk said that he never saw the plans for the construction and would have appreciated knowing what was happening before he got the postcard in the mail and saw the construction underway. He said that they chose this neighborhood because the houses were not right on top of each other and they had some privacy. He stated that now that privacy is being taken away. He also said that the variance would allow an addition that is not in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Swix stated that part of the criteria that the Board must consider is the impact of the project on surrounding property owners. He said that this project will have a negative impact on the adjoining property owner by impacting their view and cutting off sunlight. Ms. Horne stated that the Board gave a variance to a property owner on Lewton Place years ago to construct a garage and it has interfered with sunlight for the neighbors and diminished the enjoyment of their property. Mr. Hilts asked that Planning Board address the concept of air rights since the existing ordinances do not appear to do so. He also said that the applicant's do not have a practical difficulty since the addition is a matter of mere preference rather than a necessity. Ms. Stachowiak said that the same thing could potentially be said for any variance request, including the other two that were heard tonight. Mr. Hilts said that they could put the addition on the back of the house where it would have less of an impact on the next door neighbors. Mr. Frederick said that the variance does not meet the impact criteria. He said that it also does not meet the practical difficulty criteria since the applicant could have redesigned the construction to meet the required setback, particularly since the original structure was striped down to only 2 walls. G. Hilts moved to deny BZA-3904.07, a variance of 3 feet to the required side yard setback for a 4.5 foot addition on the front of the home at 1709 Moores River Drive, on a finding that the variance would be inconsistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e). Seconded by E. Horne. VOTE YEA NAY Swix X Horne X Hilts X Burgess X Frederick X Motion carried, 4-1, BZA-3904.07, was denied. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 10, 2007 Page 6 VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules of Procedure - No action B. BZA-3817.04, 1014 S. Pennsylvania Avenue - No action C. BZA-3900.07, Vacant Lot, N. of 3228 Everett Lane - No action VII. PUBLIC COMMENT Byron Haskins, 1709 Moores River Drive,said that he informed the neighbors about this project and was never told of any issues. He said that he may appeal the Board's decision to Circuit Court. Gabrielle Haskins, 1709 Moores River Drive, said that the neighbors were aware of the project and in fact, they have a family member that is on the construction team. Kevin Kowalk, 1300 Pettis Street, said that they were never told that the applicant would be building a second story. Mr. Frederick stated that the issue for the Board in making its decision was primarily one of practical difficulty. The Board could not find that the request met the practical difficulty that is established by ordinance to approve the request. Vill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of Regular Meeting held April 12, 2007 A. Frederick moved, seconded by G. Swix to approve the minutes of April 12, 2007, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously, 5-0. IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absence A.Frederick moved,seconded by G.Swix to excuse Brian McGrain from this meeting, May 10, 2007. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously, 5-0. X. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:50 p.m. Respectfully sub fitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes April 12, 2007 Page 1 Approved: 5/10/07 Clerk: 3/18/08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS April 12, 2007 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Burgess read the BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: B. Burgess M. Mayberry G. Swix B. McGrain A. Frederick G. Hilts Absent: F. Lain E. Horne Staff: S. Stachowiak A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. McGrain moved, seconded by A. Frederick to approve the agenda with the addition of "excused absences" under new business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 6-0. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3898.07 2004 S. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a variance request by Bruce Jones. The applicant has constructed a driveway that is 18 feet wide in the front yard at 2004 S. Pennsylvania Avenue. Section 1286.01 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts the width of a residential driveway to 12 feet for a home that has a one-care, 12 foot wide garage. A variance of 6 feet to the allowable driveway width is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended denial of the request on a finding that the variance would be inconsistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06(c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Bruce Jones, 5518 Bennington, stated that it was always his intent to have a 2-car driveway because the house is not marketable with a one-car driveway. Mr. Hilts asked if Mr. Jones has experience building houses in the City of Lansing. Mr. Jones stated that this is his first single family home and he did not find out about the violation until the driveway was already installed. He said that he made a phone call to ask if a permit was needed for the driveway and he was told "no". He said that the curb cut Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes April 12, 2007 Page 2 already existed. He also said that he had some problems with a contractor that did some of the utility work on the site. Mr. Frederick asked what the site plan showed that was submitted to the city? Mr. Jones stated that it showed a 12-foot wide driveway, but that he did not know thatwould be limited to 12-feet. Charlotte Byers, 2008 S. Pennsylvania, stated that she lives immediately south of Mr. Jones property. Ms. Byers stated that Mr. Jones should have made himself familiar with the city codes relative to driveway widths. She also said that she has had other problems with the condition of Mr. Jones's property as well. Mr. Burgess stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals is only dealing with the driveway issue. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick stated that there is a similar situation at 2614 Cavanaugh that needs to be corrected. He also said that this is a nice looking house but the driveway situation as it currently exists could be hazardous because the vehicles block the view of traffic when pulling out of the driveway. He said that it is not that much of an inconvenience to jockey cars around and since this is a front yard parking situation, he cannot support the variance. Mr. McGrain stated that the driveway/parking ordinance needs to be revisited by the Planning Board to determine if it is adequate or if changes are needed. Mr. Hilts asked that Ms. Stachowiak familiarize Mr. Jones and the contractor that installed the driveway with the city codes. A. Frederick moved to deny BZA-3898.07, a variance of 6 feet to the allowable driveway width for the property at 2004 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, on a finding that the variance would be inconsistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06(c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06(e),as detailed in the staff report for this application,with the condition that the curb cut be narrowed to 12 feet and driveway be brought into compliance with the ordinance before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the house. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE YEA L NAY Swix X Mayberry X Hilts X McGrain X Frederick X Bur ess X Motion carried, 6-0, BZA-3898.07, was denied. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes April 12, 2007 Page 3 B. BZA-3899.07, 2115 Harding Avenue -Withdrawn C. BZA-3900.07 Vacant Lot, North of 3228 Everett Lane This is a variance request by Fredric McLaughlin. The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home on the vacant lot located directly north of 3228 Everett Lane that would have an 18 foot setback at its nearest point to the front lot line and a14.5 foot setback at its nearest point to the rear lot line. Section 1248.07 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20 foot front yard setback and Section 1248.09 requires a 30 foot rear yard setback. Variances of 2 feet to the required front yard setback and 15.5 feet to the required rear yard setback are therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Fred McLaughlin, 222 W. Kalamazoo Street, spoke in support of his request. Mr. McLaughlin stated that he would like to have a unique, environmentally friendly design. He said that he would like to have the house situated further to the north in order to maintain privacy, not only for himself but for the neighbor to the south as well. Mr. McGrain asked about a garage? Mr. McLaughlin stated that he is not interested in building a garage at this time, but that he may want to construct a carport as some point in the future. Mr. McLaughlin said that the house will be in two parts so that it is not confining and to provide a screened area for him to sleep in the summer. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. McGrain stated asked Ms. Stachowiak if a house could be constructed on the subject property, without a variance. Ms. Stachowiak answered "yes". Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant has to except the conditions of the lot and modify his plans accordingly. He said that while Mr. McLaughlin may not be able to have the exact design that he wants, he can still construct a good sized single family home on the site in compliance with, or very close to the setback requirements. He said that if the variance were reduced, he may be willing to reconsider, but as it currently stands, he cannot support the variance. Mr. Hilts stated that it is a self-created hardship because the need for the variance is all based upon the particular design that the applicant wants. Mr. McGrain agreed stating that he would like to see a revised design that minimizes the variances needed. B. McGrain moved to table BZA-3900.07. Seconded by A. Frederick. On a voice vote, the motion carried, 6-0. BZA-3900.07, was tabled. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes April 12, 2007 Page 4 D. BZA-3901.07, 4613 N. Grand River Avenue This is a variance request by Signworks of Michigan, Inc. The applicant is proposing to erect an 18.2 square foot sign on the front wall of the building at 4613 N. Grand River Avenue. Section 1442.26(c) of the Sign Ordinance permits each business in a shopping center to have 1 wall sign, the area of which is determined by the linear footage of the portion of the building that the establishment occupies. The proposed sign will be associated with a business that already has one wall sign on the back of the building and occupies no portion of the front wall of the building. A variance to the allowable number, size and placement of a wall sign for the shopping center at 4613 N. Grand River Avenue is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Ann Frask, Signworks, Inc., spoke in support of her request. She said that not having a sign is a hardship for the business. She also said that the size of the sign is reasonable and it is necessary in order for traffic to be able to easily identify the business. Mr. Swix stated that the sign will be on the front of the building but the entrance to the business is on the back. He asked how customers will know where to go. Ms. Frask stated that there is a small identification sign on the back of the building near the entrance. She also said that the barber shop will direct people where to go. Mr. McGrain asked how long the business has been at this location. Ms. Frask said 8 months. Valerie Clevely, 431 Potter Street, Mulliken, owner of Staffing Inc., spoke in support of her request. Ms. Clevely said that the biggest issue right now is getting people to the site. She said that without a sign on the building, people have had a hard time finding it. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Hilts stated that this is first time that he has seen this situation in all the years he has been on the Board. Therefore, it is unique. Mr. McGrain said that he is surprised that a commercial building would have a suite that is entirely on the back of the building. He stated that he could support this variance. G. Hilts moved to approve BZA-3901.07, a variance to permit one, 18.2 square foot wall sign on the front of the building at 4613 N. Grand River Avenue, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06(c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by A. Frederick. VOTE YEA L NAY Swix X Mayberry X Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes April 12, 2007 Page 5 VOTE YEA NAY Hilts X McGrain X Frederick X Burgess X Motion carried, 5-1, BZA-3901.07, was approved. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules of Procedure - No action B. BZA-3817.04, 1014 S. Pennsylvania Avenue - No action VII. PUBLIC COMMENT Bruce Jones, 5518 Bennington,stated that there are no safety issues with the widened driveway. He said that there is plenty of room to see before back out onto the street. Mr. Hilts stated that the actual issue is the front yard parking. Mr. Burgess stated that the decision of the BZA can be appealed to the Circuit Court. Mr. Frederick stated that even if it is not a safety issue, he still could not support the variance because Mr. Jones went against the site plan that was submitted as part of the building permit application. Fred McLaughlin, 222 W. Kalamazoo Street, stated that while the house may be able to fit on the site without a variance, it would not make for the best situation as it would diminish the privacy for himself and the neighbor to the south. Mr. Burgess stated that the Board is bound by the law which requires a finding of practical difficulty before granting a variance. Mr. Swix stated that the Board has to treat everyone fairly. Mr. Frederick stated that the Planning Board will be working on architectural guidelines and there would be language included that dealt with site design as well. Vlll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of Regular Meeting held March 8, 2007 B. McGrain moved, seconded by A. Frederick to approve the minutes of March 8, 2007, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously, 6-0. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes April 12, 2007 Page 6 IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absences B. McGrain moved, seconded by G. Hilts to excuse Emly Horne from this meeting, April 12, 2007. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously, 6-0. A. Frederick moved, seconded by G. Hilts to excuse Frank Lain from this meeting, April 12, 2007. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously, 6-0. X. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:45 p.m. Respect Ily submitted Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 8, 2007 Page 1 Approved: 4/12/07 Clerk: 3/18/08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS March 8, 2007 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL ==1 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Burgesiread-fhe BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. Present: E B. Burgess E. Horne M. Mayberry G. Swix B. McGrain A. Frederick G. Hilts Absent: F. Lain Staff: S. Stachowiak A. A quorum of at least five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. McGrain moved, seconded by A. Frederick to approve the agenda as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried 7-0. III. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3896 07 SW Corner of Porter& N. Pennsylvania Avenue This is a variance request by the Ingham County Land Bank Fast Track Authority to construct a house on the vacant lot at the southwest corner of Porter Street and N. Pennsylvania Ave. that would have a front yard setback of 11 feet from the front lot line along Porter Street. Section 1250.07 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. A variance of 9 feet to the front yard setback requirement is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Eric Schertzing, Representing the Ingham County Land Bank, spoke in support of his request. He stated that the Land Bank has been working with the City to determine a design that would best fit with the surrounding neighborhood. He also said that the Land Bank has approximately 20 small parcels that have been identified for potential development. Mr. Swix asked why they are building a new home instead of rehabilitating a red tagged home. He said that the real estate market is not very good right now for new home sales. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 8, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Schertzing stated that they are trying to do both. He said that they work with the city on improving red tagged homes as well as building new homes. Mr. McGrain stated that he appreciates the work that the Land Bank is doing. He also said that he appreciates getting images of the proposed house. Mr. McGrain said that 2 sides of the house are devoid of windows. Mr. Schertzing said that they can talk about putting in more windows. Eric Hewitt, 901 E. Grand River Avenue, stated that is the representing the Northtown Neighborhood Association and they are supportive of the variance request. He said that they are excited.about this project. Mr. Hewitt said that they are not fond of the 1-story homes that are often constructed by Habitat for Humanity. He is pleased to see that the Land Bank will be constructed a 2-story home that will fit in with the neighborhood and improve the housing market in Northtown. Sandra Shelp, 1534 Massachusetts Avenue, spoke in support of the variance request. She said that she is also on the Northtown Neighborhood Association Board and is happy that the Land Bank is going to be constructing a 2-story home. Ms. Shelp said that she would prefer that the Land Bank take on the red tagged homes in the area but is still supportive of the project. She said that she would like to see more windows added on the south and west walls of the house. Sue Eareckson, 1403 Indiana Avenue, stated that she is also on the Northtown Neighborhood Association Board and is very supportive of this request. Ms. Eareckson said that empty lots are not good for the area and she is pleased that the Land Bank will be building a new, affordable, owner-occupied home in Northtown. Hikmath Alsaffar, 1101 S. Pennsylvania, stated that he lives directly north of the subject property. He expressed some concerns about the proposed construction. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. McGrain asked how the property will be marketed. Mr. Schertzing said that it will be marketed for $85,900. He said that it will not be limited to low to moderate income families but that is likely what it will attract. Mr. Schertzing said that there will be a 20 year covenant on the land requiring owner occupancy. Mr. Hilts stated that the Land Bank did a nice, quality job with the house at the corder of Cady and Pennsylvania. Mr. Mayberry stated that he was concerned about the size of the house being proposed,but is happy to know that the neighborhood is supportive of the proposal. Mr. Frederick stated that the practical difficulty is very clear. He said that the lot would be unbuildable without a setback variance and the applicant is requesting the minimum necessary to make this a buildable lot. A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3896.07, a variance of 9 feet to the front yard setback requirementto construct a single family home on the vacant lot atthe southwest corner of Porter and N. Pennsylvania Avenue, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 8, 2007 Page 3 the staff report for this application. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE YEA NAY Swix X Mayberry X Horne X Hilts X McGrain X Frederick X Burgess X Motion carried, 7-0, BZA-3896.07, was approved. B. BZA 3897 07 309 N. Washington Square This is a variance request by Lansing Community College to utilize a portion of the building at 309 N. Washington Square for classrooms. Section 1270.03(d)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance permits educational facilities in the"G-1"Business district, if the lot has frontage on a principal arterial. The subject property is zoned "G-1" Business district and has frontage on Washington Square and Ionia Street; both of which are classified as local roads. A variance to road frontage classification requirement is therefore, being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Eric Rosekrans&Catherine Fisher,Representing LCC,spoke in support of the request and stated that they did not have anything to add to what Ms. Stachowiak has already said but would be available for questions. Mr. Burgess 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 does not make sense to allow schools in neighborhoods and not in commercial areas. He said that this site would be perfect for LCC. Ms. Stachowiak stated that only elementary and middle schools are allowed in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Hilts stated that he would not want to see Washington Square become a principal arterial when it is opening to through traffic. He said that it should be kept to a pedestrian friendly level of traffic. Mr. McGrain stated that variance clearly meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance as described in the staff report. He stated that he could support the request. The other board members expressed their support for this request as well. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 8, 2007 Page 4 B.McGrain moved to approve BZA-3897.07,a variance to the requirement for frontage on a principal arterial to allow the building at 309 N. Washington Square to be used for classrooms for Lansing Community College, on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by G. Hilts. YEA NAY VOTE Swix X Mayberry X Horne X Hilts X McGrain X Frederick X Bur ess X Motion carried, 7-0, BZA-3897.07, was approved. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules of Procedure - No action B. BZA-3817.04, 1014 S. Pennsylvania Avenue - No action Vll. PUBLIC COMMENT - None Vill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of Regular Meeting held January 11 2007 G.Swix moved,seconded by A.Frederick to approve the minutes of January 11,2007, as printed. On a voice vote,the motion carried unanimously, 7-0. IX. NEW BUSINESS - None X. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator 5 IDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AN . . NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT v 316 N.CAPITOL AVENUE 0 LANSING,MI 48933-1236 0(517)483-4066 0 FAX:(517)483-6036 K I G..`' PLANNING OFFICE Virg Bernero,Mayor 316 N. CAPITOL AVE., SUITED-1 NOTICE c� Please be advised that the Board of Zoning Appeals , meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. has been canceled. BZA3895.07, 801 S. ML King Blvd. was withdrawn by the applicant on February 7, 2007. If you have any questions, please contact: Susan Stachowiak Zoning Administrator 517-483-4085 Please recycle "Equal Opportunity Employer" Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 11, 2007 Page 1 Approved: 3/8/07 Clerk: 3/18/08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS January 11, 2007 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10T" FLOOR CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL - The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burgess at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Burges8-read_he BZA introduction. Roll call was taken. _v J Present: [,s B. Burgess E. Horne M. Mayberry G. Swix B. McGraira..a F. Lain A. Frederick G. Hilts Absent: None T4� cs� Staff: S. Stachowiak A. A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGEND E. Horne moved, seconded by B. McGrain to approve the agenda as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried 8-0. Ill. HEARINGS/ACTION A. BZA-3894.06, 3027 Aurelius Road This is a variance request by Steve Harvey for a variance from the height requirement for a front yard fence. The applicant has constructed a six(6)foot high, wood privacy fence in his front yard. Section 1292.03(a)(1)of the Zoning Code states that no fence shall exceed a height of three (3) feet within a front yard. Therefore, a variance of three (3) feet to the height limit for a front yard fence is being requested. Staff recommended approval of the request on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06(c)and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06(e), as detailed in the staff report for this application, with the condition that the fence does not extend any closer to Aurelius Road than the deck/porch on the front of the house. Steve Harvey, 3027 Aurelius Road, spoke in support of his request. He stated that he would like to keep the fence in it's current location, but would comply with the decision of the Board. Mr. Harvey said that he did not realize that living on a corner lot meant that he had two front yards. He stated that he needs an area for his young daughter to play and he does not have a back yard at all. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 11, 2007 Page 2 Mr. McGrain asked if the deck on the front of the house was constructed with proper permits. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it was. Mr. Burgess stated that the side yard contains a large deck, thereby taking up most of the room that could be legally enclosed with a privacy fence. Mr. McGrain asked who constructed the fence. Mr. Harvey stated that he had a carpenter build the fence. He said that the carpenter does not normally build fences. Mr. Burgess asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing none, the Board moved into the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frederick asked about the width of the front porch. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not know how wide the porch is but that the fence would have to be moved back approximately 11-12 feet to bring it into compliance with her recommendation. Mr. Swix asked about the possibility of widening Aurelius Road and whether the fence will interfere with any future plans to do so. Mr. Frederick stated that Aurelius Road is not likely to be widened. He said that widening the road would increase the speed of traffic and would meet with a lot of opposition from the neighbors in the area. Mr. Lain stated that he could support the variance, to allow the fence in its current location, based upon the practical difficulty of not having a back yard, or even much side yard in which to legally construct a privacy fence. Mr. Frederick stated that he could support a variance, if the fence is moved even with the front of the porch, as recommended by staff. He stated that he would like to know the dimensions of the porch so that the motion for approval can specify exactly what is being approved. Mr. Burgess stated that the motion could be conditioned upon receiving this information so that the applicant does not have to come back to the board. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would meet with the applicant to obtain this information, write a letter confirming the approval with the property dimensions and provide a copy to the board members. Ms. Horne stated that she could support a variance as long as the fence is moved back, even with the front of the porch. She stated that privacy fences in front yards change the appearance of the corridors on which they are located and she would like to make sure that the impact of the fence is minimized. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 11, 2007 Page 3 A. Frederick moved to approve BZA-3894.06, a variance of 3 feet to the height limitation for a front yard fence at 3027 Aurelius Road, with the condition that the fence does not project any closer to Aurelius Road than the front of the porch,on a finding that the variance would be consistent with the practical difficulty criteria of Section 1244.06 (c) and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as detailed in the staff report for this application. Seconded by G. Hilts. VOTE YEA NAY Swix �::;X Mayberry X Horne X Hilts X LainEE X McGrain X Frederick X Burgess X Motion carried, 8-0, BZA-3894.06, was approved. F. Lain made a motion, seconded by A. Frederick to give the applicant six months from this date to bring the compliance with the approved variance. On a voice vote,the motion carried unanimously, 8-0. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules of Procedure - No action B. BZA-3817.04, 1014 S. Pennsylvania Avenue - No action VII. PUBLIC COMMENT - None Vill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of Regular Meeting held November 9, 2006 A. Frederick moved, seconded by B. McGrain to approve the minutes of November 9, 2006, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously, 8-0. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 11, 2007 Page 4 IX. NEW BUSINESS A. 2007 Meeting Schedule A. Frederick moved, seconded by F. Lain to approve the 2007 meeting schedule as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously, 8-0. X. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:55 p.m. Respectfu y submitte , Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator