Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 2018 Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 3, 2018 Page 1 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS December 3, 2018, 6:30 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center-600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Marcie Alling at 6:30 p.m, Roll call was taken. Present: M. Alling, J. Hovey, C. lannuzzi, K. Berryman, J. Leaming, M. Solak&W. Sanford Absent: M. Rice Staff: S. Stachowiak, J. Smiertka & H. Sumner A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Hovey,seconded by Mr. Learning to approve the agenda with the addition of "excused absence" under New Business. On a voice vote,the motion carried 7-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT Kathy Miles, 1128 Woodbine, spoke in opposition to the variances. She said that allowing a concentration of provisioning centers on S. MLK is contrary to the intent of the ordinance and would be unfair to south Lansing. Mike Morofsky, 1300 Woodbine, spoke in opposition to the variances. He said that the neighborhood organizations have worked hard to improve the area and allowing a clustering of dispensaries on S. MLK would be detrimental to the revitalization of the area in general and Logan Square in particular. He also said that there are two members of the Board that have a conflict of interest with regard to these variance requests. Marilyn Ebaugh, 2201 Pamela Place, spoke in opposition to the variances. She said that if approved, there would be five dispensaries in one small stretch of S. MLK which would not only be contrary to the intent of the ordinance but would negatively impact properties values in the area. John Miles, 1128 Woodbine, spoke in opposition to the variances. He said that the applicants are looking for loopholes to get around the ordinance. Jason Wilkes, 3218 Continental Drive, spoke in opposition to the variances. He said that he is President of the Averill Neighborhood Association and is involved with other neighborhood organizations in the area. Mr. Wilkes stated that the intent of the ordinance is to allow access to medical marijuana but to prevent clustering. He said that two dispensaries would be adequate but 5 is way too many. Jeremy Garza, 2"d Ward Council Member, spoke in opposition to the variances. He said that these requests should not even be considered since allowing dispensaries within 500 feet of each other would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Council Member Garza said that a clustering of dispensaries in the area could impact potential improvements to Logan Square. He said that the BZA and Planning Board are guardians of the Zoning Ordinance and are charged with ensuring that land use patterns make sense and do not have negative impacts on the City. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 3, 2018 Page 2 Enrique Mendoza, 3809 Kendalwood Drive, spoke in opposition to the variances. He said that he is a homeowner in south Lansing and is a supporter of Rejuvenating South Lansing. He also said that allowing a clustering of dispensaries is not fair to south Lansing. Mr. Mendoza asked the Board to deny the variance. Marilyn Irvine, 5211 Tulip Avenue, spoke in opposition to the variances. She said that the rules were put in place for a reason and they should be upheld, Ms. Irvine said that the area has been neglected and allowing a clustering of dispensaries would not help the situation. Elaine Womboldt, 4815 Tressa Drive, Facilitator of Rejuvenating South Lansing, spoke in opposition to the variances. She requested that Josh Hovey recuse himself from voting as he has a conflict of interest based on his association with "Regulating Marijuana like Alcohol", Ms. Womboldt said that she obtained a petition containing 59 signatures in opposition to the variances, She said that at the last meeting, a letter was submitted containing 8 signatures from individuals that were incorrectly represented as being area business owners, Ms, Womboldt said that one of them was from an employee of Shaheen Chevrolet but according to Ralph Shaheen, she does not represent his business and in fact, he does not support the variances. Claude Beavers, 3010 Boston Blvd., spoke in opposition to the variances. He said that he has lived in the Colonial Village neighborhood for 50 years and has two adult children in the area that are also opposed to the variances. He said that there is not good cause to approve the variances and inundating the area with dispensaries would undo efforts to improve the area. Anita Beavers, 3010 Boston Blvd., spoke in opposition to the variances. She said that she is a past president of the Colonial Village neighborhood association, Ms. Beavers said that the government is still not sure how to handle the laws surrounding marijuana and allowing variances just does not make sense, Joshua Weinberg, 22405 Chatsford Circuit Street, Southfield, MI stated that he is the attorney representing the applicant for the 3218 S. MLK variance and they are withdrawing their request at this time. Mr. Weinberg said that by doing so, a variance is not required for 3208 S. MLK as it is no longer within 500 feet of another site that is an applicant for a provisioning center license. He provided a written statement withdrawing the variance application for 3218 S. MLK Aaron Geyer, 32411 Mound Rd, Warren, MI, Attorney representing the applicant for 3208 S. MLK, stated that a variance for 3208 S. MLK is no longer needed. Carol Wood, At-Large Council Member, spoke in opposition to the variances. She said that approval of the variances would be detrimental to the businesses in the area and to the surrounding neighborhoods. Council Member Wood said that other businesses can occupy the sites that are the subject of these variances. They do not have to be dispensaries. She asked that the Board deny the variances. Mike Redding, 3522 Karen Street, spoke in opposition to the variances. He said that other request for similar variances have been denied and so should the requests being considered at this meeting. Mr. Redding said that the area does not need 5 dispensaries right next to each other. Robert Myers, Historical Society of Michigan, 5815 Executive Drive, spoke in opposition to the variances. Loretta Stanaway, 546 Armstrong Road, spoke in opposition to the variances. She said that these variances are just a way to circumvent the will of the public. Ms. Stanaway questioned the ethicalness of some of the Board members with regard to voting on issues where they have a conflict of interest. She also said that Ms. Stachowiak should not even be making recommendations to the Board. Ms. Stanaway said that allowing the variances would be contrary to the efforts to improve south Lansing. She also said that about 80% of medical marijuana card holders do not need marijuana for medicinal purposes. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 3, 2018 Page 3 Deborah Clawson, 2404 Wellington Road, spoke in opposition to the variances. She said that there are already dispensaries on S. MLK and allowing more would be detrimental to the area. Ms. Clawson asked that the Board deny the variances. Jan Fleck, 2300 Hampden Drive, spoke in opposition to the variances. Ms. Fleck said that she is a former school principal and expressed concerns about the impact of the dispensaries on the charter academy behind Logan Square. Charles Fleck, 2300 Hampden Drive, spoke in opposition to the variances. He said that he is opposed to clustering of dispensaries and it would destroy the area and diminish any hope for revitalizing the Logan Square shopping center. Adam Hussain, 31d Ward Council Member, spoke in opposition to the variances. Council member Hussain said that the City Council worked very hard on the ordinance and solicited a great deal of input from the public. He said that one of the primary concerns that was expressed was one area of the City being disproportionately affected by the clustering of dispensaries, particularly in south Lansing, which is why the 500 foot separation requirement was put into the ordinance, Council member Hussain stated that approval of the variances would be an egregious circumvention of the spirit of the ordinance itself and the process that was involved in its development. He also reiterated the comments made by Council member Garza with regard to the BZA and Planning Board being the guardians of the zoning ordinance and the responsibility of its members to fulfill the responsibility to the community with which they have been entrusted. He asked that the Board deny the requested variances. Ann Morrow-Maynard, 2400 Wellington Road, spoke in opposition to the variances. She said that the variances would result in too many dispensaries within such a small geographic area. Ms. Morrow- Maynard asked the Board to deny the variances. Bilky Joda-Miller, 6031 Rockingham Drive, spoke in opposition to the variances. She said that there are a lot of efforts to improve the area and allowing a clustering of dispensaries would be contrary to those efforts. Ms. Joda-Miller said that if the Board members think that it is a good idea, they should put them in their neighborhoods. Jody Washington, V Ward Council Member, spoke in opposition to the variances. She said that a group of Council members work very hard on an ordinance to regulate medical marijuana facilities and what was ultimately approved involved last minutes changes that were put forth by some Council members who are not present this evening. Council member Washington said that the applicants for these variances have no right to come into the City of Lansing and make millions off of the backs of its residents, She asked that the variances be denied. Donald Horton, 5747 Richwood Street, Apt. 42, representing Rejuvenating South Lansing, spoke in opposition the variances. He said that the City has been dealing with medical marijuana and now it will have to deal with recreational marijuana as well. Mr. Horton said that there are neighborhoods in the area and they do not want a clustering of dispensaries, He also said that approval of the variances will set a negative precedent for approving future requests of a similar nature. Mr. Horton asked that the variances be denied. Mike Stein, attorney representing the applicant for BZA-4046.18, 3330 S. MILK, stated that all 4 applicants scored in the top 20 of the pool of applicants and are now in a situation where if they are all denied, others who did not score as high will be issued licenses which is also contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Stein said that the applicants had no way of knowing when they selected their locations that there would be other applicants within 500 feet. He requested that the variance be conditionally approved for a period of 90 days to allow time for the applicant to find another location. Mr. Stein said that his client has provided a good plan and based on the scoring, deserves to be issued a license. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms, Ailing stated that the Board will move into a committee of the whole to deliberate on the variance requests. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 3, 2018 Page 4 IV. ACTION A. BZA4043.18, 3208 S. ML King, Variance to the separation requirement between medical marijuana provisioning centers B. BZA-4044.18, 3218 S. ML King, Variance to the separation requirement between medical marijuana provisioning centers C. BZA-4045.18, 3316 S. ML King, Variance to the separation requirement between medical marijuana provisioning centers D. BZA4046.18, 3330 S. ML King, Variance to the separation requirement between medical marijuana provisioning centers Ms. Stachowiak asked the applicant's attorney for 3208 S. MLK if they are withdrawing their variance request. Aaron Geyer, 32411 Mound Rd, Warren, MI, Attorney representing the applicant for 3208 S. MLK, stated that a variance is no longer needed, City Attorney Jim Smiertka stated that unless the request is withdrawn, it is an active request and the Board would need to vote on it. Mr. Geyer withdrew the variance request for 3208 S. MLK stating that because the request for 3218 S. MLK has been withdrawn, a variance for 3208 S. MLK is no longer necessary. Mr. Learning asked Mr.Weinberg if he is withdrawing the license application for 3218 S, MLK as well. Mr. Weinberg said that they want to seek a new location for the license. Mr. Leaming questioned how 4 applications made the top 20 when they violate the spacing provision of the ordinance. He said that the BZA did not chose to have these cases come before them. They were selected by the City Clerk's Office as 4 of the top 20 applications. Mr. Smiertka said that 10 applications have been conditionally approved, pending approval by the State of Michigan and 3316 S. MLK is one of them. Heather Sumner, Deputy City Attorney said that the 4 locations that are the subject of these variance requests did make the top 20 but even if the variances were to be approved, there is no guarantee that a license would be issued as there are still appeals that need to be settled before the final determinations can be made. Ms. Sumner said that during the application process, the applicants had no way of knowing if someone else would file an application within 500 feet so that cannot be held against them. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Board can vote the remaining variances up or down in one motion or can vote on them individually. She pointed out that the circumstances surrounding the 2 remaining variances are exactly the same. She also said that the decision needs to be made based solely on the 6 criteria set forth in the ordinance to be used for evaluating variance requests. Ms. Sumner provided the Board will sample language that would be appropriate for making a motion both to approve and to deny the variances. Mr. Leaming said that he is opposed to the variances as they are not consistent with the intent of the ordinance that was adopted. He also said that he does not believe that the BZA even has standing to act on the variances since no licenses have been issued at that time. Mr. Solak stated that he heard the full presentations by the applicants at the last meeting and for the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 3, 2018 Page 5 record, they have been put into a difficult position. He said that, in fact, the ordinance is not well-written and well though-out and has put everyone, including City staff and the BZA in a difficult position. Mr. Solak said that there have been some misrepresentations of the facts made at this meeting but the bottom line is that it is a poorly written ordinance and it needs to be changed. A. BZA-4043.18, 3208 S. ML King, Variance to the separation requirement between medical marijuana provisioning centers -WITHDRAWN B. BZA-4044.18, 3218 S. ML King, Variance to the separation requirement between medical marijuana provisioning centers—WITHDRAWN C. BZA-4045.18, 3316 S. ML King, Variance to the separation requirement between medical marijuana provisioning centers D. BZA-4046.18, 3330 S. ML King, Variance to the separation requirement between medical marijuana provisioning centers The following motion was made by Mr. Solak and seconded by Mr. Learning: "Having heard and considered the two pending requests for variance (BZA 4045.18 & BZA 4046.18) pursuant to Chapter 1300, including the amount of time, if any, that the applicant has been operating in compliance with this chapter at the present location; the extent to which the applicant has demonstrated a commitment to the land use and public nuisance concerns in the surrounding neighborhood; the distance between the applicant's location and any medical marihuana provisioning center that is within 500 feet of the applicant's location; the need for a provisioning center at the location in order to provide the safe and efficient access to medical marihuana within the City; the character of the structure and its surroundings; and the impact of the variance on the character of the structure's surroundings and owners of other properties in the vicinity; I would move that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator to grant the requested variances with respect to BZA 4045.18, 3316 S. ML King & BZA 4046.18, 3330 S. ML King. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). BZA 4045.18 & BZA 4046.18 are denied. Mr. Berryman said that, in the interest of full disclosure, Ralph Shaheen is a member of a Board that he staffs. Mr. Leaming agreed with Mr. Solak that the ordinance is very poorly written and has put the Board, staff and the applicants in a very bad position. He said that the ordinance needs to be changed. Mr. lannuzzi stated that he takes offense to some of the comments that were made during the meeting with regard to him and Mr. Hovey, City staff and the applicants. Ms. Ailing said that everyone is doing the best that they can with an ordinance that is less than perfect. She said that there are no conflicts of interest and while this whole situation has been unfortunate, attacking one another and making accusations is not helpful. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absence Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Solak to grant an excused absence for Mr. Rice. On a voice vote,the motion carried unanimously(7-0). Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 3,2018 Page 6 VI. PUBLIC COMMENT Council Member Wood stated that the ordinance that was adopted is not the ordinance that the Public Safety Committee spend 18 months working on. She said that another Council member got involved and presented a different ordinance to the Committee of the Whole which was adopted by split vote. Council Member Wood said that she, Jody Washington and Adam Hussain all voted against it. She also said that the licensing process was handled solely by the City Clerk. Mike Morofsky stated that the Board did the right thing by denying the variances. Loretta Stanaway stated that her faith in the Board has been restored. Elaine Womboldt stated that her comments about Mr. Hovey having a conflict of interest was her opinion. She said that the ordinance that was adopted was different from the one that that was worked on by the Committee and the public for more than 18 months. Karl Blasi, 2100 Pattengill Avenue, stated that he has worked well with Ms. Stachowiak in the past and this was an unfortunate situation as a result of the ordinance language. Council Member Hussain said that he has served the City in many capacities over the years and the ordinance that has been adopted is not what the Public Safety Committee developed but rather what was put forth to the City Council separately and approved by a vote of 5-3 with, Carol Wood and Jody Washington voting no. He said that Council Member Garza was not on the City Council at the time. Don Horton stated that by denying the variances this evening, the Board avoided setting a negative precedent for future requests to vary the terms of the ordinance. s VII. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:52 P.M. E Respectfully/u6mi pd, V an Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator i i i i i Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8, 2018 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS November 8, 2018, 6:30 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center-600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Marcie Alling at 6:30 p.m, Roll call was taken. Present: M. Ailing, M. Rice, C. lannuzzi, K. Berryman & M. Solak Absent: J. Hovey, J. Learning &W. Sanford Staff: S. Stachowiak, H. Sumner A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting, II APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Rice, seconded by Mr. Berryman to approve the agenda with the addition of "excused absences" under New Business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 5-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. ACTION A. BZA-4045.18, South side of the 600 Block of E. Michigan Avenue, Variance to the wall sign and projecting sign limitations Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request for variances to permit the following signs on the proposed mixed-use building that will be located on the south side of the 600 Block of E. Michigan Avenue: 5 projecting signs (perpendicular to the building wall): One 48 square foot projecting sign at the northeast corner of the building advertising the hotel Three 32 square foot projecting signs and one 13 square foot projecting sign advertising the grocery store Section 1442.24(d) of the Sign Ordinance permits one projecting sign for each business establishment and limits the size to 16 square feet. The applicant is requesting variances of 3 to the allowable number of projecting signs for the grocery store, 32 square feet to the allowable size for the hotel projecting sign and 16 square feet to the allowable size for 3 of the grocery store projecting signs. 21 wall signs totaling 3,360 square feet in area. 16 wall signs for the grocery store totaling 2,660 square feet in area 2 wall signs for the hotel totaling 357 square feet in area 3 wall signs for the apartments totaling 343 square feet in area Section 1442.24(b) permits one wall sign on each wall for each ground floor business establishments. The total allowable wall sign area for each ground floor establishment is 200 square feet. Wall signs must be placed at a maximum height of 15 feet on the wall. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8,2018 Page 2 Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant is requesting the following variances: 13 to the allowable number of wall signs and 2,460 square feet to the allowable sign area for the grocery store 157 square feet to the allowable sign area for the hotel 1 to the allowable number of wall signs and 143 square feet to the allowable sign area for the apartments 16 wall signs above a height of 15 feet in various locations on the building walls, as depicted on the plan sheet labeled SGN 02, dated October 15, 2018. Ms. Stachowiak stated that staff is recommending approval of the request, based on a finding that the variances are 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 proposed signs will not be contrary to the appropriate and orderly development of the area in which the subject property is located. She said that although the number of variances seems excessive, the signage will be properly scaled for the building, as evidenced by the renderings that are included in the packet. 11 of the wall signs totaling 1,167 square feet in area will be located on the rear/south fagade of the building and far enough to the east that most of them will not even be visible to traffic on S. Larch Street. There will only be 4 walls signs on the north elevation of the building along E. Michigan Avenue, While 3 of these signs are among the largest that are being proposed, the signs will cover less than 5% of the total north fagade area. Ms. Stachowiak said that the same is true for the proposed signs on the east and west elevations of the building. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant is severely limited in the amount of signage that is permitted because of the large size of the building, because it is just one building and only contains 3 uses. The majority of the blocks along E. Michigan Avenue are characterized by several buildings/businesses that share common walls but are on separate parcels of land. Each individual building/business is then permitted to have one wall sign (2 wall signs for corner lots) up to 15% of the area of the wall to which it is attached, to a maximum of 200 square feet in area. This standards allows for signage that is more than adequate for the overwhelming majority of the buildings/businesses along E. Michigan Avenue. The same signage regulations that apply to the smaller buildings along E. Michigan Avenue, however, also apply to the applicant's property. Each of the 3 occupants of the building is limited to one wall sign, not exceeding 200 square feet in area. Ms. Stachowiak said that given the size of the proposed building, 200 square feet for each occupant is completely inadequate and would not allow for signage that is proportionate to the size of the building, particularly in comparison to the amount of signage permitted for other, much smaller buildings along E. Michigan Avenue, Ms. Alling opened the public hearing. Pat Gillespie, 600 E. Michigan-Lansing, LLC, 330 Marshall Street, spoke in support of his request. He stated that the City has waited for years to get a grocery store and another hotel in the downtown. Mr. Gillespie said that Meijer is locating in downtown Grand Rapids, Detroit and Columbus, Ohio and needed variances from their sign code as well. He said that sign codes just do not allow for adequate signage for a major retailer in a downtown setting. Marc Criss, Lansing Rescue Mission, 607 E. Michigan Avenue, expressed his support for the project. Mr. Criss said that while the amount of signage seems excessive, it will be tasteful as evidenced by the renderings. He said that he came to the meeting to learn about the project and to make it clear that Pat Gillespie has not threatened him in any way. Mr. Gillespie said that Meijer is very philanthropic and given its location, the Rescue Mission would be a likely recipient of its excess food and possibly other items as well. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Alling closed the public hearing. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8,2018 Page 3 Ms, Ailing asked about the new billboard that will be located on the building. Ms, Stachowiak said that the new billboard does not need a variance as it merely replaces the billboard that has been located on the site for many years. She said that the billboard company has a lease that is still in effect, Ms. Stachowiak said that the billboard complies with all requirements of the sign ordinance and has been approved by the City. Jason Kildea, 600 E. Michigan-Lansing, LLC, 330 Marshall Street, stated that the new billboard has been approved by MDOT as well. Mr. Rice said that the reason that the applicant is so limited in the amount of permitted signage is because it is one large building consuming an entire block. He said that if it were several smaller buildings in the same blockface, each one would be permitted a projecting sign and a wall sign up to 15% of the area of the wall to which it would be attached, Mr. Rice said that this would result in far more signage than what the applicant is requesting. He said that the circumstances surrounding this request are sufficiently unique to the project in question to warrant relief from the ordinance. Mr. lannuzzi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Solak to approve BZA 4047.18, a request by 600 E. Michigan-Lansing, LLC for variances to Section 1442.24 of the Sign Ordinance for the property located on the south side of the 600 block of E. Michigan Avenue, as follows: * 3 to the allowable number of projecting signs for the grocery storelmarket * 16 square feet to the allowable size for 3 of the grocery store projecting signs. * 32 square feet to the allowable size for the hotel projecting sign * 13 to the allowable number of wall signs and 2,460 square feet to the allowable sign area for the grocery store/market * 157 square feet to the allowable sign area for the hotel * 1 to the allowable number of wall signs and 143 square feet to the allowable sign area for the apartments * 16 wall signs above a height of 15 feet in various locations on the building walls, as depicted on the plan sheet labeled SGN 02, dated October 15, 2018, on a finding that the variances are 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. On a roll call vote, the motion carried (5-0). Ms. Stachowiak said that the following communications have been received with regard to the medical marijuana variance requests: Elaine Womboldt, 4815 Tressa Drive, on behalf of Rejuvenating South Lansing, in opposition to the variances * Donald Horton, 5747 Richwood Street, Apt. 42, on behalf of Rejuvenating South Lansing, in opposition to the variances * Jeremy Garza, 2nd Ward Council Member, in opposition to the variances * Carol Wood, At-Large Council Member, in opposition to the variances * Adad Hussain, 31d Ward Council Member, in opposition to the variances * Jason Wilkes, President, Averill Woods Neighborhood Association, 3218 Continental Drive, in opposition to the variances * Robert McCormack, 10734 Sky Prairie Street, Fishers, Inc., part owner of group redeveloping the former EDS building at 930 W. Holmes Road, in opposition to the variances Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8,2018 Page 4 * Marylin Ebaugh, 2201 Pamela Place, in opposition to the variances * Nathan Hartley, 4254 Glenburne Blvd, in opposition to the variances * Suzanne Elms-Barclay, 1628 Lindbergh Drive, in opposition to the variances * Jordon Leaming, BZA member, in opposition to the variances ` Letter signed by 8 business owners in the area surrounding the subject properties in support of the variances * 142 letters in support of the variances * Lawrence Jaramillo, applicant for the 3316 S. MLK variance request asking that the BZA delay taking action on his request to permit time to examine all options (received during the meeting) B. BZA-4043.18, 3208 S. ML King,Variance to the separation requirement between medical marijuana provisioning centers Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a re quest uest b 3208 MLK Inc. for a variance to permit a medical q Y marijuana provisioning center at 3208 S. ML King that would be located approximately 360 feet from another proposed provisioning center at 3218 S. ML King. Section 1300.13(A)(2) of City Ordinance 1217 prohibits a medical marijuana dispensary within 500 feet of another medical marijuana dispensary. A variance to the required separation distance between the 2 provisioning centers is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Section 1300,13 of Ordinance No. 1217, which regulates medical marijuana facilities, requires a 500 foot separation between medical marijuana provisioning centers. She said that the distances are measured from nearest edge of building to nearest edge of building, along the centerline of the street as depicted on the diagram that is included in the meeting packet. Ms. Stachowiak said that Section 1300.18 of the Ordinance authorizes the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances from the separation distance requirements, based on the criteria listed in this Section to be used in evaluating such requests. Ms, Stachowiak stated that she is recommending approval of the variance requests on a finding that they are consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 1300.18(3) of Ordinance 1217, as detailed in the staff reports. Ms. Stachowiak said that the applicant for 3208 S. MLK and the other 3 applicants that have applied for variances scored in the top 20 of the 87 applications that were received for the first 20 provisioning center licenses. If the variances are approved, the applications will remain in consideration for issuance of one of the initial 20 licenses to be approved by the City. If denied, they could all be excluded from any further consideration. In the alternative, 2 of them that are separated by more than 500 feet could still be considered. Ms. Stachowiak said that approval of the variances does not guarantee that any of the applicants will be issued a license. Ms. Stachowiak said that if all of the requested variances are approved, 4 of the total 25 provisioning centers that will eventually be issued licenses in the City would be located within about 700 feet of each other. She said that the alternative is to spread the facilities out along the corridors. While this would eliminate a concentration of provisioning centers in one particular area, it would result in them being located in more geographic areas of the City, some of which may not be as appropriate and compatible with the surrounding areas as those that are the subject of the current variance requests, Ms. Stachowiak said that some of the benefits to allowing several provisioning centers in the 3200-3300 blocks of S. ML King is that none of them would adjoin any residential uses, the area is already characterized by high impact commercial uses and the transportation system is designed to accommodate the traffic generated by the centers. She said that S. ML King is one of the City's primary commercial corridors where businesses have a high level of exposure to some of the highest traffic volumes in the City. Ms. Stachowiak stated that from a planning standpoint, provisioning centers should be concentrated along major commercial corridors where there is easy access to public transportation and the roadway is designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8,2018 Page 5 Mr. Ailing asked about the next step in the process to actually issuing the licenses. Ms. Sumner stated that there are still some appeals pending and until they have been settled, no licenses can be issued. She said that approval of the variances would allow the four applicant's to remain in the running for issuance of a license. Ms. Sumner said that the City is hoping to complete the first round of issuing licenses in December. Once that is finalized, the licensees will be able to obtain approval from the State. She said that City approval does not guarantee State approval but an applicant cannot get State approval without first obtaining approval from the City. Ms. Alling stated that the Board received an email from one of its members, Jordan Learning, who was not able to attend the meeting but wanted to express his concerns: "First, the adopted code does not allow for provisioning centers to be this close to each other, In fact, the way I read the code is that the city envisioned placement of these businesses to be spread out around the city to have access to a wider range of residents in different areas of the city, not create a concentrated mile of dispensaries. Second, while these businesses may have been selected as being in the "top 20," none of them have a license and as such no standing to pursue a variance. Granting variances here undermines the entire adopted code as well as any future decision of the Zoning Board. I regrettably am not able to attend, but feel strongly this is a mistake to grant any variances in the information I reviewed. I also feel it necessary for the Board to have a meeting with the city attorney's office and city clerk's office to understand how these variances are appearing based on the concerns noted above. Jordan Learning." Mr, lannuzzi said that he agrees with Mr. Learning. Since no licenses have been issued, the applicants do not have standing to pursue variances and the BZA does not have standing to authorize variances. He said that the BZA has been put in a very difficult position of having to decide on variances when it hasn't even been decided if any of them will be issued licenses for the proposed locations. He also questioned why these locations were selected to be in the top 20 of the applications that were received when they violate the required 500 foot separation provision in the ordinance. Mr. lannuzzi said that they should all have been denied or two of them that are more than 500 feet apart, based on how they scored, should have been selected and then no variances would have been necessary. Ms. Sumner said that she disagrees with Mr. Leaming's assessment. She said that when the applicant's applied, they had no way of knowing if there would be another applicant within 500 feet of their site. In this case, 4 of the applicant's that scored in the top 20 happened to be within 500 feet of another applicant and the only way to determine which, if any of them, stay in the running for further consideration is if variances to the 500 foot separation requirement are approved. Mr, Berryman said that the process is seriously flawed when 4 applicants, all of whom violate the ordinance, scored in the top 20 of the 87 applications that were submitted. Mr, lannuzzi said that having 4 provisioning centers right next to each other violates the spirit of the ordinance. He said that the BZA should not be asked to decide whether there should be a concentration of provisioning centers in one area as opposed to spreading them out along the corridors, which was clearly the intent of the ordinance. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8, 2018 Page 6 Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. She stated that the Board will hear public comment on all 4 of the variance requests at this time rather have a separate public comment period for each case. Mike Stein, attorney representing the applicant for BZA-4046.18, 3330 S. MLK, stated that all 4 applicants scored in the top 20 of the pool of applicants and are now in a situation where if they are all denied, others who did not score as high will be issued licenses which is also contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Stein asked that the BZA table the requests to allow the board members more time to consider the issues surrounding the variances. Mike Morofsky, 1300 Woodbine, spoke in opposition to the variances. He said that the neighborhood has worked hard to improve the S. MLK corridor and allowing 4 dispensaries next to each other will be a hardship on the neighborhood. He also said that the applicants should have been aware that they would be located in such close proximity to each other and selected other locations that would be in compliance with the ordinance. Kathy Miles, 1128 Woodbine, spoke in opposition to the variances. She said that the ordinance is clear that provisioning centers are to be separated by at least 500 feet in order to prevent clustering. Ms. Miles stated that she is glad that Josh Hovey is not present as he has a conflict of interest and thus, should not be voting on the variances. She questioned Ms. Stachowiak's motivation with regard to her recommendation to approve the variances. Ms. Miles stated that it would not be fair to the neighborhood to approve the variances allowing 4 provisioning centers clustered together and asked that the Board vote no on the requests. Jon Miles, 1128 Woodbine, spoke in opposition to the variances. He asked if any of the applicants have also applied for grow or processing facility licenses. Mr. Miles said that he is opposed to clustering the provisioning centers. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she did not know the answer to Mr. Miles' question, Joshua Weinberg, 22405 Chatsford Circuit Street, Southfield, MI stated that he is the attorney representing the applicant for the 3218 S. MLK variance. He stated that the facility will give back to the City of Lansing_ They will be engaging professional athletes and it will be a 15, class facility. Mr. Weinberg said that approval of the variances will result in a clustering of provisioning centers but these types of facilities are unique to the extent that, unlike most retail businesses, they do not compete on the internet for business. He said that the product is stored in such a way that it is odorless. He said that the facility will have no negative impacts on the surrounding area. Mr. Weinberg said that the facilities will bring some economic vitality to the area which is characterized by many vacant buildings and asked that the Board approve the variances, Mr. Berryman asked Mr. Weinberg if his client owns the building at 3218 S. MLK. Mr. Weinberg said that they have the property under contract but do not own it at this time. He said that ownership is not a requirement for issuance of a license under the City ordinance. Donald Horton, 5747 Richwood Street, Apt.42, representing Rejuvenating South Lansing, spoke in opposition the request. He said that he is opposed to varying the ordinance that was adopted by the City Council. Mr. Horton stated that these applicants should not even be considered for licenses as they violate the separation requirement. He stated that the variances would create a clustering of provisioning centers that would negatively impact the surrounding area, both residents and businesses alike. Mr. Horton asked that the variances be denied. Anita Beavers, 3010 Boston Blvd., spoke in opposition to the variances. She said that she is a retired nurse and is concerned about the effects that marijuana has on people and how it will be distributed/sold for recreational use. Ms. Beavers said that there has been an uptick in reckless driving since medical marijuana has been permitted. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8,2018 Page 7 Claude Beavers, 3010 Boston Blvd., spoke in opposition to the variances. He said that he came here to learn more about what is being requested. Mr. Beavers asked that the Board delay action on the requests until it is determined how recreational use of marijuana will be handled and until something has been done with Logan Square. Paula Givens, PPI Consulting, 25535 Briar Drive, Oak Park, MI, attorney for 3330 S. MLK applicant, spoke in support of the variances. She said that the medical marijuana provisioning centers will not affect property values. Ms. Givens said that the Board should let the ordinance function the way the City Council intended by putting all of the applicants through the same process and selecting those that scored the highest. She said that denying all of the variances would not be acting in the spirt of the ordinance as it was intended as it will result in licenses being issued to applicants that did not score as high as those that are requesting variances at this time. Ms. Givens said that the provisioning centers will bring much needed economic development to an area that seems to be economically depressed at this time. Aaron Geyer, 32411 Mound Rd, Warren, MI, Attorney representing the applicant for 3208 S. MLK, spoke in support of the request. Mr. Geyer showed renderings of the proposed $700,000 worth of improvements to the building and the site that will occur if the variance is approved. He said that his client also owns 1520 E. Cavanaugh Road and has brought a significant amount of investment into the City of Lansing and intends to invest more, should a provisioning center license be issued. Mr, Geyer said that his client has purchased the building at 3208 S. MLK and is dedicated to ensuring that the property is attractive, well-maintained and the business is properly managed. He said that during the time that the center was in operation, there were no complaints or issues of any kind. Christopher Aiello, 32411 Mound Rd, Warren, MI, Attorney representing the applicant for 3208 S. MLK, spoke in support of the request. He said that his client has another store on S. Cedar, which also scored in the top 20 of the applications that were received. Mr. Aiello said that 3208 S. MLK is a good location for a provisioning center as the transportation system is in place to handle the traffic, He said that they selected the location because it more than complies with the separation requirements from churches, schools, day care centers, etc. and they had no way of knowing there would be other provisioning center applicants within 500 feet when they purchased the property. Todd Thomann, CHSM Services, LLC, spoke in support of his request for 3316 S. MLK. He said that this is the only one of the facilities of the 4 that are seeking variances that is currently in operation. Mr. Thomann said that the BZA has been put into a tough position of having to pick winners and losers in such a short amount of time. He asked that the Board delay action on the requests to provide more time for the Board members and the applicants to consider the issues. He also stated that, as a business that is currently operating, there are employees that will lose theirjobs if they are not issued a license, Lawrence Jaramillo, CHSM Services, 80 Wind N. Wood Drive, Okemos, MI 48864, submitted a letter to the Board asking that any decisions on the variance requests be postponed until a future meeting. Mr. Geyer stated that on behalf of all 4 applicants, he is requesting that the variance requests be tabled in order to give them time to consider all of their options. Mr. Solak expressed concerns about clustering these facilities in one small stretch of S. MLK. He said that requiring a 500 foot separation between facilities seems reasonable and fair. Mr. Solak said that he would not be supportive of any variances to this provision. He also said that he is prepared to vote on the variances at this time. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 8,2018 Page 8 Mr. lannuzzi said that the BZA does not have standing to make decisions on these requests when none of them have been issued a license through the City or been approved by the State. Ms. Alling stated that she is also prepared to vote on the requests. She said that while there are concerns about the ordinance, it is in effect and the BZA has an obligation to make a decision on variance requests to the 500 foot separation requirement. Ms. Alling stated that if the requests are to be tabled, it needs to be for a specific reason and that needs to be communicated to the City staff that are present at this meeting so that they can address it prior to the next meeting. Mr. lannuzzi said that he is in favor of tabling the variance requests until the Mayor, City Council and the City Attorney's Office provide more guidance as to how they should be handled and explain how the BZA has standing to even authorize variances from the ordinance standard. Mr. lannuzzi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Berryman to table BZA-4043.18, BZA- 4044.18, BZA-4045.18 and BZA-4046.18 until the next appropriate meeting. Roll call vote: Yes-lannuzzi, Berryman & Rice. No -Alling & Solak. Motion carried. V. OLD BUSINESS - None E VI, APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Regular Meeting, October 11, 2018 Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Berryman to approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on October 11, 2018, as presented. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously(5-0). VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absences s I Mr. Solak made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to grant excused absences for Mr. Hovey, Mr. Learning and Mr. Sanford. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. 2019 Meeting Schedule—was approved by unanimous consent t Vill. PUBLIC COMMENT i Vlll. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:46 P.M. Respectfully Subrr)itted,�' Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator t i i i I Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 11,2018 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS October 11, 2018, 6:30 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center-600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Marcie Alling at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Alling, M. Rice, C. lannuzzi, K. Berryman, W. Sanford & M. Solak Absent: J. Hovey & J. Learning Staff: S. Stachowiak A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Rice, seconded by Mr. Berryman to approve the agenda with the addition of "excused absences" under New Business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 6-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. ACTION A. BZA-4041.18, 1924 Remsing Drive Ms. Stachowiak stated that this variance request has been withdrawn by the applicant. Robbi Goodine, 1918 Remsing, expressed concerns about the applicants and their wellbeing. She said that she and her husband live next door to the applicants and have helped them out on numerous occasions as they are elderly people. Ms. Goodine said that the house seems to be full of a stuff and may be a serious fire hazards. She said that they have contacted the City's Code Enforcement Office and the Mayor's Office but nothing has been done and the living conditions are deplorable. Ms, Goodine said that these people need help and are not getting it. Thomas Goodine, 1918 Remsing, said that he and his wife have not seen David Arganian for some time and are concerned about his whereabouts, He said that the house is red tagged as there are multiple code violations and yet the owners are still living there, There are no working fire alarms and the house has not been inspected by the City in a very long time. Mr. Goodine stated that there are serious health and safety issues associated with the property and he is concerned for the owners and also the potential for damage to his house if there were to be a fire. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she would make sure that Code Compliance and Fire follow up on these concerns and that the Police perform a well-check on the couple that live there. B. BZA-4042.18, 628 Glendale Avenue Ms. Stachowiak said the applicant, Kevin Ohl, is appealing a decision by the City's Zoning Administrator that the mobile home located on the property at 628 Glendale Avenue, which is zoned "A" Residential, is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and must be removed. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the "A" Residential district permits one single family residential dwelling unit per parcel of land and that the mobile home constitutes a second dwelling unit as there is already a permanent house on the property. The applicant is appealing Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 11, 2018 Page 2 the decision that the mobile home is considered a dwelling unit as it is only used for sleeping purposes and is not connected to any utilities. The applicant also contends that the structure is considered a trailer as opposed to a mobile home and is therefore, permitted to be parked on the property. Ms. Stachowiak stated it is her determination that the structure that is the subject of this request is considered a mobile home, as that is the purpose for it was manufactured, and thus qualifies as a dwelling unit as defined by Section 1240.03 of the Zoning Ordinance. She said that by the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the definitions contained therein, a mobile home is a structure, just like a house, that is designed for permanent occupancy. A trailer, by contrast, is a vehicle, such as a motor home or pop-up camper that is used for temporary living or sleeping purposes. Trailers are only permitted in the "A" Residential district, which is the zoning designation of the subject property, in a designated and approved trailer camp. A trailer camp is permitted in the"A" Residential district, with a special land use permit, on a site that is at least 10 acres in size. The subject property contains 8,905 square feet. Ms. Stachowiak said that in the "A" Residential district, mobile homes are only permitted if they are firmly attached to a permanent foundation, have a core living space of at least 24 feet by 24 feet, an internal height of at least 7.5 feet and comply with the other design standards listed in Section 1240,03 of the Zoning Ordinance under the definition of "dwelling unit'. As evidenced by the photographs contained in the meeting packet, the structure that is the subject to this request does not comply with any of these requirements. Ms. Stachowiak said that Chapter 1248, Section 1248,02 of the Zoning Ordinance lists a "one- family dwelling" as a use permitted by right in the "A" Residential district. Chapter 1248 makes no provision for allowing more than one dwelling unit on a single parcel of land, except as a planned residential development which requires approval by the City Council, following a public hearing and a recommendation from the Planning Board. In order to be approved for a planned residential development, the site and the buildings located thereon would have to comply with numerous requirements for parking, lot size, setbacks, open space, distance between buildings, etc. The subject property is too small to accommodate the minimum requirements for approval of a planned residential development. For example, a minimum of 2 on-site parking spaces would be required for each unit, As evidenced by the attached photographs, the location of the trailer only leaves room for 2 parking spaces in the driveway. In addition, a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet would be required for a 2-unit planned residential development. The subject property is 8,905 square feet in area. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the mobile home cannot be considered a permissible vehicle as it is not drivable on its own, it is not incidental to the primary use of the property (single family dwelling) and it is clearly being stored on the lot as it has not moved in several weeks. In fact, the information provided by the appellant indicates that, if given the necessary approvals, he intends to leave the structure on the property and continue to use it for sleeping purposes indefinitely, Ms. Stachowiak said that in addition to the Zoning Ordinance issues, the mobile home cannot be occupied, especially for sleeping purposes, as it does not comply with minimum housing or building code requirements for such use. No structure may be used for sleeping/residential purposes that is not connected to the necessary electrical, mechanical and plumbing utilities required by code to may it a safe and sanitary environment for human occupancy. Therefore, even if the zoning issues are resolved by a ruling from the Board of Zoning Appeals in favor of the appellant, the structure would have to be brought into compliance will all applicable housing and building codes for residential occupancy. This will include properly connecting the structure to electrical, mechanical and plumbing utilities. Ms. Stachowiak said that it is her position that the structure that is the subject of this request is not permitted on the property at 628 Glendale Avenue for the following reasons: Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 11,2018 Page 3 The structure is considered a mobile home which, by Zoning Ordinance definition and by design is a"dwelling unit". * Since the subject property is zoned "A" Residential, one dwelling unit is permitted. The mobile home constitutes a second dwelling unit as there is also a permanent home on the property, The issue of whether the structure falls under the definition of a mobile home or a trailer is irrelevant as the structure would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance in either case. If it is a mobile home, it is a 2nd dwelling on a parcel zoned "A" Residential. If it is a trailer, it is only permitted to be parked in a designated trailer park. The structure, even though it may be classified as a vehicle by the State of Michigan, is not considered a vehicle permitted to be parked on a single family residential lot by the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The structure is not"incidental" to the principal use of the lot which is a single family residential home and it is clearly being stored rather than just parked on the lot. * The structure does not comply with Housing or Building Code requirements for human occupancy, even if it is used only for sleeping quarters. Kevin Ohl, 628 Glendale Avenue, stated that it is his position that he and his wife are only using the trailer for sleeping accommodations and therefore, it is not a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He said that the trailer is not connected to any utilities connections although he does plan to connect a free-standing certified 100# propane tank to the furnace of the trailer so that they will have heat in cold weather. Mr. Ohl said that he and his wife were forced to move and with their limited social security, their only option was to park the trailer in their daughter's driveway. He said that his daughter is a single mother with 5 kids and she does not have room in the house for them to sleep so they sleep in the trailer. He said that he has diabetes and Leukemia and he also saw this as an opportunity to spend more time with his daughter and grandchildren. Mr. Ohl stated that he contacted the City's Code Enforcement Office and it was his understanding that as long as the trailer is used only for sleeping, it would not be a problem. Mr. Ohl said that the State of Michigan titled the property as a trailer/coach as opposed to a mobile home. He said that his wife spoke with Brian McGrain, Director of Economic Development& Planning for the City and he indicated that the trailer was permitted as long as it was only being used for sleeping purposes. Mr. Ohl said that if the trailer needs to be hooked up to utilities, he could do that work himself. He said that he is requested that the Board find in his favor so that he and his wife can continue to stay in the trailer on his daughter's property and they cannot afford to rent a lot in a mobile home park. Mr. Solak stated that there are code restrictions that would prevent the trailer from being connected to propane, Mr. Rice said that he considers the structure to be a mobile home and thus, a second dwelling unit on a parcel of land zoned for single family residential use only. He said that the issue of whether the structure is connected to utilities or not is irrelevant. Mr. Rice said that he agrees with the Zoning Administrator's decision. Mr. Berryman asked Mr. Ohl if he intends to keep the structure on the property permanently. Mr. Ohl said that it would not be permanent but how long it would stay on the property depends on his long he has to live. Mr, Berryman said that he considers the structure to be more of a trailer than a mobile home. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 11,2018 Page 4 Mr. Ohl said that it will be problematic if he has to move the trailer to a park as he does not have the funds to do so. Mr. Rice made a motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator for the following reasons: * The structure is considered a mobile home which, by Zoning Ordinance definition and by design is a "dwelling unit". * Since the subject property is zoned "A" Residential, one dwelling unit is permitted. The mobile home constitutes a second dwelling unit as there is also a permanent home on the property. * The issue of whether the structure falls under the definition of a mobile home or a trailer is irrelevant as the structure would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance in either case. If it is a mobile home, it is a 2nd dwelling on a parcel zoned "A" Residential. If it is a trailer, it is only permitted to be parked In a designated trailer park. * The structure, even though it may be classified as a vehicle by the State of Michigan, is not considered a vehicle permitted to be parked on a single family residential lot by the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The structure is not "incidental" to the principal use of the lot which is a single family residential home and it is clearly being stored rather than just parked on the lot. * The structure does not comply with Housing or Building Code requirements for human occupancy, even if it is used only for sleeping quarters. Mr. Sanford seconded the motion. Mr. Solak said that he agrees with the Zoning Administrator's decision as well but does not agree with the fifth bullet point regarding Housing & Building Code requirements. He offered a friendly amendment to strike that bullet as a reason for upholding the decision. Mr. Rice and Mr. Sanford accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Sanford said that there is no practical difficulty or hardship associated with the request that would warrant approval to allow the structure to remain on the property. He also said that doing so would not be harmonious with the surrounding area which is one of the criteria that the Board must consider in making its determination. Mr. Rice said that the criteria that Mr. Sanford mentioned relates to variances as opposed to administrative appeals. Mr. Sanford said that the structure is a trailer rather than a mobile home and it is semi- permanent in nature. On a roll call vote, the motion carried 5-1. Mr. Berryman cast the dissenting vote. Mr. Solak asked that the City work with the applicant and be as flexible as possible in getting the violation corrected. Ms. Stachowiak assured the Board that she would proceed in that fashion. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 11, 2018 Page 5 V. OLD BUSINESS VI, APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Regular Meeting, September 13, 2018 Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Berryman to approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on September 13, 2018, as presented. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absences Mr. lannuzzi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Solak to grant excused absences for Mr. Hovey and Mr. Learning. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). i' B. Ms. Stachowiak said that the November meeting is going to be lengthy as there are four variances cases for medical marijuana dispensaries within 500 feet of each other on S. MLK, She said that there is at least one other variance case on the agenda as well for that evening. Ms. Stachowiek said that she will have one of the City Attorneys at the meeting. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:00 P.M. Respectfully Submi ef, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator s t f i i i Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 13, 2018 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS September 13, 2018, 6:30 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center-600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Marcie Alling at 6:35 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Alling, J. Learning, C. lannuzzi, M, Rice, K. Berryman & M. Solak Absent: J. Hovey & J. Quick Staff: S. Stachowiak A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Rice, seconded by Mr. Learning to approve the agenda as printed. On a voice vote,the motion carried 6-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. ACTION A. BZA4039.18, 2900 Collins Road Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by McLaren Greater Lansing to construct a new hospital on the property at 2900 Collins Road that would have a maximum building height of 178 feet and would have frontage on and be accessed via Forest Road and Collins Road, both of which are classified as collector roads. Section 1260.09 of the Zoning Ordinance limits the height of a building in the "D-1" Professional Office district, which is the zoning designation of the subject property, to 45 feet. Section 1260.03(b) requires the lot on which a hospital is located to have not less than one property line abutting a principal arterial. This Section also requires that each point of ingress and egress to the site must be directly from a principal or minor arterial. A variance of 133 feet to the building height limitation and variances to the road frontage classification for a hospital site and to the road classification requirement providing access to the site are therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that staff is recommending approval of the requests, based on a finding that the variances are 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 said that the 45 foot building height limitation is impractical for a hospital given its unique operations and needs in comparison to other uses permitted in the "D-1" Professional Office district. She also said that the proposed location is ideal for a hospital, despite it having its road frontage and only vehicular access from 2 collector roads. Ms. Stachowiak said that if the variance is denied, the applicant would have to build horizontally rather than vertically which would make the hospital operations inefficient to the extent that the project would not be viable. Building vertically allows the hospital staff to travel through the building by elevator and stairs which is much faster and far more efficient than traveling through hallways in a sprawled-out building. She said that in the case of a hospital, this is essential in comparison to a typical office building where the efficiency and speed with which its occupants can travel through the building is really just a matter of mere convenience. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 13,2018 Page 2 Ms, Stachowiak said that with respect to the road classification variances, the applicant has selected a location that is very appropriate for a hospital, despite being located on and accessed by collector road, particularly since there are no residential uses adjoining the subject property. She said that road classifications are based on traffic volumes and the uses that the roads serve. At this time, the uses on Collins Road and Forest Road do not generate enough traffic or serve the types of uses that would warrant being classified as principal or minor arterials. The traffic generated by the hospital, once in full operation, will likely result in the designation, as least for Collins Road, being reclassified as a minor arterial. Ms. Stachowiak stated that while Collins and Forest Roads are designated as collectors, both are designed to accommodate a fairly high volume of traffic and any necessary upgrades to the roads to accommodate traffic from the hospital will be installed as part of the overall project. She said that she received a phone call from Nancy Mahlow, president of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization in opposition to the height variance. Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Dan Rooney, KMG, representing McLaren Hospital, spoke in support of the request, He said that 178 feet is the height to the highest element. The maximum height of the building itself is 140 feet (9 stories) and the rest is technology. Mr. Rooney said that a traffic study has been conducted and improvements to the transportation system will need to be installed. He said that McLaren will be contributing to the costs of those improvements. Ms. Ailing stated that traffic is pretty heavy in the area during MSU football games. Mr. Rooney said that traffic for a hospital is steady rather than a lot of traffic all at one time. He said that football game traffic affects everything in the area but it is only 6 times each season. Mr. Rooney said that the traffic improvements will make things more efficient for football game traffic as well. Mr. Learning asked about the future use of the existing McLaren facilities. He also asked if the variances are the last step in obtaining the necessary approvals for the new hospital. Ms. Stachowiak said that they are zoned "DM-4" Residential, which district permits hospitals but that the sites may need to be rezoned in order to accommodate an appropriate reuse of the sites. She said that the site plan for the development is currently being processed at the staff level. She also said that the only remaining approval besides the variances and the administrative site plan review is final approval by the City Council of the request to vacate portions of Alliance Drive and Technology Blvd. John Shaski, 2911 Stoneleigh Drive, spoke in opposition to the variances. He said that he works for Sparrow but is only representing himself as a resident of the area and a member of the Forest View Neighborhood Association, Mr. Shaski said that he is also the ward 2 representative to the Planning Board. He stated that Ms. Stachowiak was incorrect in stating that there are no residences surrounding the subject property as there is a house located on the north side of Forest Road directly across from the proposed hospital site. Mr. Shaski asked that the BZA delay action on the variance requests until he and the other neighbors receive answers to the concerns about the project that have been expressed to McLaren. He said that McLaren's website about this project has not been updated since June and McLaren has not been responsive to the concerns regarding traffic and other matters that may affect the residents of the area. Elena Keller, 2718 Wabash Road, stated that she is not opposed to the project but is concerned about the increased traffic, particularly during MSU events. She said that Forest and Collins Roads are both in poor condition. Ms. Keller stated that Forest Road is a scenic corridor that would be destroyed it were to be widened, resulting in the loss of many trees along the roadway. She also expressed concerns about noise, lights, helicopters, exacerbating sewer Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 13,2018 Page 3 problems that already exist in the area, the disruption of wetlands and the destruction of as wildlife habitat. Ms. Keller said that McLaren has not been "transparent' where this project is concerned. Mindy Jones, 2724 Fireside Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. She said that football games are 7-8 times each season, not 6 as previously stated. Ms. Jones asked Ms. Stachowiak for clarification on the 3 variances that area being requested. Jean Herford, 2208 Robinson Road, expressed concerns about the cold way in which this project has been handled. She said that there is a lot of wildlife in the area that will be impacted by this development, not to mention its impact on peace and quiet of the area for its residents. She expressed concerns about noise, light and traffic that will be generated by the hospital, thus changing the character of the area as it currently exists. Kenneth Kerbyson, 2520 Forest Road, stated that traffic has increased a great deal on Forest Road over the past 3 years and the hospital will make it much worse. He said that motorists tend to speed, sometimes traveling at twice the speed limit. Mr. Kerbyson expressed concerns about the increase in traffic that will be generated by the hospital as well as other issues that could negatively impact the quality of life for residents in the area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Mr. Rice stated that a lot of issues have been raised with regard to noise, light glare and the responsiveness by the hospital to the concerns of the neighbors. He said that the BZA has very specific criteria that it must consider, and only consider, when evaluating requests for variances. Mr. Rice said that the BZA members are volunteers that are not compensated in any way and that they must look at these requests objectively in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. He said that in this case, the only issues before the Board are the height of the building and the road classification. Mr. Rice said that there is a concern amongst the neighbors that McLaren is not listening to their concerns and he hopes that changes but it is not an issue that the BZA can take into consideration when making its decision. He said that he is inclined to support the variances as the 45 foot building height limitation is not sufficient for a hospital. With regard to the road classification, he said that the reason that Collins Road is not classified as a minor arterial is being the traffic volumes do not warrant it at this time but will dramatically increase with the hospital to the extent that it could be reclassified once the hospital is in full operation. Mr. Learning said that the BZA needs to make a decision based on the criteria set for the in the Zoning Ordinance for evaluating variances, which he read aloud for the audience. He said that the only matters that the Board is considering are the building height and road classification and in his opinion, the requests satisfy the evaluating criteria. Mr. Leaming stated that the traffic concerns will be addressed by the City at the administrative level. Ms. Alling expressed support for the variances stating that site is zoned for a hospital but does not allow for a building height necessary to accommodate a hospital. She also said that the City will ensure that the necessary traffic controls/improvements are in place to properly manage the traffic. Ms. Ailing asked that the hospital work with the neighbors to address their concerns. Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Solak to approve BZA 4039.18 be approved for a variance of 133 feet to the 45 foot building height limitation and for variances to the requirement that hospitals be located on and have direct access to a principal or minor arterial, to permit a 178 foot high building and to permit a hospital that would have frontage on and its only access to collector roads, 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 request. On a roll call vote, the motion carried (5-1). Mr. Berryman cast the dissenting vote. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 13,2018 Page 4 B. BZA-4040.18, 1600 Block, East Kalamazoo Street Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by the Allen Neighborhood Center to permit the properties located at 317 Allen Street, 326 Shepard Street and the parcels located on the north side of the 1600 block of E. Kalamazoo Street to be used for a mixed residential/commercial building. The applicant is proposing a total of 40 residential units which requires 56,800 square feet of lot area in accordance with Section 1256.06 of the Zoning Ordinance. The site contains 49,248 square feet. Section 1284.13 of the Zoning Ordinance requires 160 parking spaces for the proposed project. 80 parking spaces can be accommodated on the site. Section 1268.06 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20 foot front yard setback in the "F" Commercial district, which is the zoning designation of the subject properties. The building will have a zero foot setback along E. Kalamazoo Street, an 8 foot setback along Allen Street and a 9.25 foot setback along Shepard Street. Variances of 7,552 square feet to the lot area requirement, 80 to the required number of parking spaces and 20, 12 and 10.75 feet to the required setbacks are therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that staff is recommending approval of the request, based on a finding that the variances are 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 practical difficulty in this case involves the limited amount of land necessary to accommodate the lot area requirement for enough residential units to make the development economically feasible and to accommodate the required number of parking spaces. She said that compliance with the zoning ordinance requirements would result in the applicant having to purchase adjoining residential properties, demolish the houses to create additional parking and constructing/relocating the building to the required 20 foot front yard setback along the street frontages, all of which would be contrary to the desired land use pattern for the area as described in the master plan and with proper planning and zoning principles in general for an urban neighborhood/low impact commercial environment. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she received a call from Emily Franklin and one other resident in the area in support of the request. She said that she received a phone call from the owner of 313 Allen Street expressing concerns about the close proximity of the parking lot to his property line and how snow storage will be handled. Ms. Alling opened the public hearing. Joan Nelson, Director, Allen Neighborhood Center (ANC), 1611 E. Kalamazoo Street, spoke in favor of the request. Ms. Nelson said that ANC recently purchased the property on the north side of the 1600 block of E. Kalamazoo Street, even though it has occupied the building for 19 years. She said that the complex is for the most part empty with the exception of ANC and one other business. The entire 2nd floor is vacant. Ms. Nelson said that the development will include 40 residential apartment units will likely be occupied in large part by older people who no longer wish to own a home but want to stay in the area. She said that they are working with MSHDA to make it an affordable place to live. Ms. Nelson said that the proposed amount of parking should be sufficient, given that many of the residents in the target population will likely only have 1 vehicle per unit and will take advantage of public transportation. She also said that there are options for leasing on-site parking from other sites in the area if necessary. Jonathan Lum, Chairman of the ANC Board, 1500 N. Fairview Avenue, spoke in favor of the request. He said that the type of development that is being proposed is appropriate for the area. Mr. Lum said that it is anticipated that there will be a decline in the need for parking in years to come as people become less reliant on private automobiles. He said that Neogen has always helped ANC with parking in their lot during special events. He also said that they will provide a buffer between the parking lots and the residential neighbors to the north. Rick Kibbey, 1614 Linbergh Drive, spoke in support of the request. He said that he has a strong background in urban planning and this proposal represents good planning for the area in Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 13,2018 Page 5 which it is located. Mr. Kibbey said that this type of development is consistent with the Master Plan and will be permitted as a matter of right in the proposed form-based code. Pat Harrington, 313 Allen Street, stated that he is happy about the proposed project but wants to ensure that there is a sufficient buffer/screen so that headlights do not shine into his windows. He also said that the parking lot will be about 3 feet from his house and thus, snow storage is a concern with regard to damaging or causing leakage in his basement, Ms. Nelson said that she and her team will work with Mr. Harrington to ensure that these matters are addressed. Darrly Taylor, 1710 E. Kalamazoo, spoke in support of the request. She said that this is a great project and may be the catalyst for other positive changes in the area as well, Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Alling closed the public hearing. Mr. Learning stated that the project is appropriate for the area, He said that they have addressed the parking and have done some community outreach. Mr. Leasing said that trying to retrofit a new development in an area such as the 1600 block of E. Kalamazoo is difficult and the requested variances seem reasonable. Mr, Rice stated that the request complies with the evaluation criteria set for the in the Zoning Ordinance, as described in the staff report, and he will be supporting the variances. He said that without variances, it would not be possible to develop the site in a manner consistent with the area in which it is located and with the City's master plan. Mr. Berryman agreed that the project is good for the area in which it will be located and he is able to support the variances. The other Board members agreed as well. Mr. lannuzzi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Berryman to approve BZA 4040.18 for variances of 7,552 square feet to the lot area requirement, 80 to the required number of parking spaces and 20, 12 and 10.75 feet to the required setbacks to permit a mixed use, 40 unit residential/commercial development on the properties located at 317 Allen Street, 326 Shepard Street and the parcels located on the north side of the 1600 block of E. Kalamazoo Street on a finding that the variances are 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. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). V. OLD BUSINESS Vl. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Special Meeting,July 26, 2018 Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve the minutes from the special meeting held on July 26, 2018, as presented. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Rules of Administrative Procedure Ms. Stachowiak said that all of the City Boards and Commissions are reviewing their rules of procedure to make sure that they are up-to-date. She said that the BZA Rules of Procedure have not been updated since the 1960's. Ms. Stachowiak said that the proposed Rules do not change the way the BZA currently conducts its meetings. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 13, 2018 Page 6 Mr. Berryman said that the issue at the last meeting had to do with what constitutes a quorum. He said that Section 5.0 states that five members of the person seating on the BZA shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and the taking of official actions. Section 11.0, however, states that any action is by majority votes of those present. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Section 11.0 is incorrect. She said that a majority of those members serving on the board must vote in favor of a variance in order for it to pass. Ms. Stachowiak said that she would make that correction to the proposed rules. Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. lannuzzi to approve the rules of administrative procedure dated July, 2018 with the correction to Section 11.0 regarding a the number of votes constituting a quorum being necessary to approve a variance. On a voice vote,the motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Excused Absences Mr. Learning made a motion,seconded by Mr. lannuzzi to grant excused absences for Mr. Hovey and Mr. Quick. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-0). VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:06 P.M. Respectfully Submitted L� Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator i I (1 t t1 k ft I f i a i 1 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 26, 2018 Page 1 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS July 26, 2018, 6:30 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center-600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Marcie Ailing at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Ailing, J. Quick, J. Learning, M. Rice & K. Berryman Absent: J. Hovey (excused), C. lannuzzi (excuse) & K. Litwiller Staff: S. Stachowiak A quorum of five members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. If APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Rice, seconded by Mr. Quick to approve the agenda as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried 6-0. Ill. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. ACTION A. BZA-4037.18, 230 S. Holmes Street Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by Unity Spiritual Center of Lansing for a variance to permit an addition on the west side of the building at 230 S. Holmes Street that would have a setback of 3 feet from the front property line along Prospect Street to the nearest point of the covered entrance the proposed addition. Section 1250.07 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a front yard setback of 20 feet in the "C" Residential district which is the zoning designation of the property at 230 S. Holmes Street. A variance of 17 feet to the front yard setback requirement is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that staff is recommending approval of the request, based on a finding that the variance is 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 said that the primary purpose of the proposed addition is to make the building handicap accessible. Like most neighborhood churches that have been in existence for several decades, the site is very small which makes it difficult to make changes to the building/site in order to bring it into compliance with current requirements for handicap accessibility without relief from setback requirements. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the proposed addition will not result in the loss of any parking spaces on the site and, except for the covered entranceway, the addition will be right in line with the wall of the existing building. She said that there are letters of support for the request in the packet from the P.L.A.C.E. and the Association for the Bingham Community neighborhood organizations. The public hearing was held at the July 12, 2018 meeting at which there was not a quorum to take action on the request. No comments were received at the public hearing. Nanette Podany, 322 John Street, Charlotte, MI, representing Unity Spiritual Church, spoke in support of the request. She said that the intent of the proposed addition is to accommodate a barrier-free restroom and to provide for a chair-lift and full barrier-free access to the building. Ms. Podany said that they hold neighborhood events and there are people that Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 26, 2018 Page 2 cannot get into the building because it is not accessible. Mr. Rice said that he is able to support the variance. He said that the addition is in line with the wall of the existing building and with the setbacks of other buildings in the area. Mr, Rice said that the small size of the lot creates a practical difficulty in making the building handicap accessible. He said that without a variance, there is no way to make the building accessible. Mr. Learning asked how the addition will impact the limited amount of parking on the site. Ms, Stachowiak said that the proposed addition will not take up any of the parking that currently exist on the site. She also said that parking for churches is based on seating in the sanctuary and since the proposed addition will not increase the seating capacity, no additional parking is required as part of this project. Mr. Quick said that he is able to support the request. He said that the new addition is consistent with the established setback pattern in the area. He also said that the variance is necessary to make the building, which was constructed prior to existing code regulations, handicap accessible so that it can be accessed by all individuals, regardless of physical limitations. Ms. Ailing expressed support for the request. She said that the church serves as a community center of sorts for the neighborhood and as such, it needs to be fully accessible. Mr. Learning and Mr. Berryman also stated their support for the variance based on the circumstances described in the staff report and as discussed at this meeting. Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve BZA 4037.18 for a variance of 17 feet to the 20 foot front yard setback requirement to permit an addition with a covered entrance to the west side of the building at 230 S. Holmes Street that would have a setback of 3 feet from the nearest edge of the covered entrance on the proposed addition to the Prospect Street front property line, on a finding that the variance is 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. On a roll call vote,the motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. BZA-4038.18, 3815 S. Cedar Street Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by Elaine Westhouse on behalf of Immaculate Heart of Mary Church for a variance to permit a new parking lot at the southwest corner of Rosemont Street and Hunter Blvd, that would have a setback of 8 feet from the front property line along Rosemont Street. Section 1284.03(a) of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits parking within the required 20 foot front yard setback in the "A" Residential district, which is the zoning designation of the subject property. A variance of 12 feet to the required parking lot setback is therefore, being requested. . Ms. Stachowiak stated that staff is recommending approval of the request, based on a finding that the variance is 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 parking lot will comply with the required setback along Hunter Blvd. and will have a setback of 8 feet from the front property line along Rosemont Street which is sufficient to provide an effective landscape buffer to soften its view from the street. She said that the other parking lots on the site do not have any setbacks or landscape buffers and thus, the proposed parking lot will not be disruptive to the setback pattern already established in the area. Ms. Stachowiak said that since the intent of setback requirements is to establish uniform development patterns along roadways, the requested variance will not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 26,2018 Page 3 Ms. Stachowiak said that the practical difficulty in this case that warrants relief from the ordinance is the irregular shape of the lot. She said that the applicant is in need of the proposed 28 parking spaces, not only for the existing church facilities but also to support the use of the proposed new building. The irregular shape of the lot makes it difficult to design a parking lot that would comply with all of the applicable dimensional requirements and still accommodate a reasonable number of parking spaces to make the project worthwhile. Denial of the variance to reduce the setback on the east side of the lot, however, will result in the loss of 7 of the 28 proposed parking spaces. The public hearing was held at the July 12, 2018 meeting at which there was not a quorum to take action on the request. No comments were received at the public hearing. Dave Swanson, 329 E. Cesar Chavez Avenue, representing Immaculate Heart of Mary Church, spoke in support of the request. He said the new building will be a physical education/gym facility for the school. Mr. Swanson said that the church already struggles to accommodate parking without burdening the neighborhood with excessive on-street parking. He said that they cannot maximize parking without a variance and based on the proposed layout, it will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. Learning asked about the landscaping. Ms. Stachowiak said that it will be located on the private side of the sidewalk as required by ordinance. She said that the new parking lot will be well landscaped, particularly in comparison to existing parking lots in the area. Mr. Rice said that there is a clear practical difficulty in this case as regards the small size and irregular shape of the lot, coupled with the need to provide parking and make use of the site, He said that parking is the most logical use of the property and without a variance, the site would essentially be rendered useless as it would not accommodate enough parking to make the project worthwhile. Mr. Quick expressed his support for the request. Mr. Quick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Leaming to approve BZA 4038.18 for a variance of 12 feet to the 20 foot front yard setback requirement to permit a parking lot at 3815 S. Cedar Street that would have a setback of 8 feet from the front property line along Rosemont street, on a finding that the variance is 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. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). V. OLD BUSINESS VI, APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting, May 10, 2018 Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Berryman to approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on May 10, 2018, as presented. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Rules of Administrative Procedure Ms. Stachowiak said that all of the City Boards and Commissions are reviewing their rules of procedure to make sure that they are up-to-date. She said that the BZA Rules of Procedure have not been updated since the 1960's. Ms. Stachowiak said that the proposed Rules do not change the way the BZA currently conducts its meetings. She said that this matter will be on the next meeting agenda for further discussion and approval. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 26, 2018 Page 4 Ms. Stachowiak was asked to provide the charter provision referred to on page 4. B. Excused Absences Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Berryman to grant excused absences for Mr. Hovey and Mr. lannuzzi. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously(5-0). VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT VIII. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:00 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, i i an Stachowiak, on/ Administrator {4 t ti f i I i i �Pt t 0 d i i I i Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 10, 2018 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS May 10, 2018, 6:30 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center-600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Marcie Ailing at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Ailing J. Quick J. Learning M. Rice K. Berryman Absent: J. Hovey K, Litwiller Staff: S. Stachowiak A quorum of four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Quick, seconded by Mr. Learning to approve the agenda as printed. On a voice vote,the motion carried 5-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT John Frazer, Grewal Law, PLLC, on behalf of the RODA Investments, LLC & Tru ReLeaf Collective, spoke in support of the request, He stated that he supplied the Board members with some supplemental information that should be included in the meeting packet. Mr. Frazer said that this is not a referendum on whether medical marijuana should be permitted. The issue is strictly the distance between the applicant's property at 4929 S. Cedar Street and Victory Clinical Services at 4902 S. Cedar Street. Mr. Frazer stated that Victory Clinical Services has not objected to the variance and in fact, there there have been a significant number of letters/emails submitted in support of the variance. He said that the request complies with all 6 of the criteria set forth in Ordinance No, 1217 for evaluating variances. Mr. Frazer said that there are 66 applications pending with the City for medical marijuana dispensary licenses. 19 have already been denied. 14 of the 66 are on S. Cedar Street. Mr. Frazer stated that there were originally 20 license applications for locations on S. Cedar Street. 6 of them have been denied and of the 66 total licenses pending, 46 are going to be denied which means that there will be a conservable reduction in the number of dispensaries throughout the City. Mary Fuhrman, 119 E. Syringa Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. She said that she is the neighborhood watch coordinator for the area in which the subject property is located. Ms. Fuhrman said that the variance request does not comply with the 15' and 3rd criterions listed in the ordinance, She said that the McQueen ruling prohibits dispensary medical marijuana from a storefront. Ms. Fuhrman said that Tru ReLeaf knew that they were within 500 feet of a substance abuse treatment facility and decided to located at 4929 S. Cedar anyway, thus creating their own conflict with the ordinance. She said that there is no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship in this case that would warrant a variance. Deb Parish, 526 Avon Street, stated that Tru ReLeaf opened illegally and now wants the BZA to grant a variance to make them legal. She said that the ordinance that was technically in effect at the time that Tru ReLeaf went into business at its current location required a 1,000 foot distance between dispensaries and substance abuse treatment facilities. Ms. Parish said that the decided to locate there anyway, knowing that there did not comply with the ordinance. She also said that there is no guarantee that Tru ReLeaf will even be one of the 20 licenses that will rank in the top 20, even if the variance is granted. She asked that the variance be denied. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 10, 2018 Page 2 Jeff Fuhrman, 119 E. Syringa Drive, spoke in opposition to the variance. He said that even with the licenses that have been denied so far, there are still too many of them on S. Cedar Street, Mr. Furhman stated that the request does not comply with the criteria that Ms. Stachowiak described in her staff report and therefore, the variance should be denied. Elaine Womboldt, 4815 Tressa Drive, Facilitator for Rejuvenating South Lansing, spoke in opposition to the variance. She said she was present at the February 271h meeting and expressed concerns about the variance at that time. Ms. Womboldt stated that the City Ordinance prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries within 500 feet of a substance abuse treatment facility because allowing them would negatively impact the treatment that the clients are receiving at those facilities. She said that there is another medical marijuana dispensary 300 feet away that does not violate any of the separation requirements set forth in the ordinance. She also said that there are letters of opposition from 3 Councilmembers, Darrel Slaughter of the Old Everett Neighborhood Association, Twin Oaks Condominiums, a petition containing multiple signatures in opposition to the variance and 26 additional emails/letters in opposition to the variance. Rachel White, 2027 Pleasant View, also representing the Southwest Action Group, spoke in opposition to the variance. She said that she owns a business just 2 blocks away, Ms. White said that there are taxes owing to the City for the property at 4929 S. Cedar Street and the dispensary has been a public nuisance. She said that approving there variance, particularly when it does not comply with the criteria listed in the ordinance for evaluating variances, will set a precedent for future requests to vary the ordinance at other locations. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BZA-4036.18, 6041 S. Pennsylvania Avenue The public hearing was held at the April 12, 2018 meeting at which there was not a quorum to take action on the request. No comments were received at the public hearing. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by Speedway, LLC to construct a new 165 square foot, 29.6 foot high, freestanding sign at 6041 S. Pennsylvania Avenue (Speedway Gas Station) that would have setbacks of 7.3 feet from the front property line along S. Pennsylvania Avenue and 6 feet from the front property line along E. Miller Road. Section 1442.12(h)(5)(b) of the Sign Code requires setbacks of 30 feet for a freestanding sign with this dimensions. Variances of 22.7 feet and 24 feet to the required setbacks are therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that staff is recommending approval of the variance based upon its consistency with the practical difficulty criteria listed in Section 1244.06 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance and the impact criteria of Section 1244.06 (e), as described in the staff report for this request, Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant is in the process of obtaining the necessary approvals to reconstruct the Speedway gas station at the northeast corner of S. Pennsylvania Avenue and E. Miller Road. As part of this project, the applicant would like to replace the existing ground sign with a new ground sign in the same location on the site. Ms. Stachowiak said that the existing sign has been in its current location for many years and has not been disruptive to the appropriate and orderly development of the area; nor has it created any issues with regard to visibility at the street intersection. She said that the practical difficulty involves the inability to construct a ground sign in a location on the site that would be visible to traffic from both directions without interfering with vehicular circulation on the site. Ms. Stachowiak said that she received supplemental information from Attorney John Frazer representing the applicant for 4929 S. Cedar Street that is included in the packet. She also received a letter and a petition from Elaine Womboldt containing 206 signatures in opposition to variance, 29 letters/emails in opposition to the variance and 41 letter/emails in support of the variance. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 10,2018 Page 3 Mr. Leaming asked if the new sign will be in the same location as the existing sign and if so, when was the variance for the existing sign granted. Ms. Stachowiak said that the new sign will be in the same location as the existing sign but the City's records do not go back far enough to determine when the variance was granted for the existing sign. She said that it has been there for decades. She also said that the applicant is permitted 2 ground signs under the ordinance because it is located at the corner of 2 major thoroughfares. She said that the applicant is only proposing the one sign. Mr. Leaming made a motion, seconded by Mr. Quick to approve BZA 4036.18 for variances of 22.7 feet and 24 feet to the requires setbacks to permit a 29.6 foot high, 165 square foot ground pole sign at 6041 S. Pennsylvania Avenue that would have setbacks of 7.3 feet from the front property line along S. Pennsylvania Avenue and 6 feet from the front property line along E. Miller Road, on a finding that the variances are 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. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. BZA-4034.18, 4929 S. Cedar Street This is a request by RODA Investments, LLC/Tru Releaf Collective to establish a medical marijuana dispensary at 4929 S. Cedar Street. Section 1300.13(A)(2) of City Ordinance 1217 prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries within 500 feet of a substance abuse treatment or rehabilitation facility. The medical marijuana dispensary at 4929 S. Cedar is located approximately 340 feet from a substance abuse treatment/rehabilitation facility at 4902 S. Cedar Street. A variance to the required separation distance between the 2 facilities is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the BZA held a public hearing and subsequently voted 3-1 to approve BZA-4034.18 at its February 27, 2018 meeting. Following the vote on this matter, it was announced by the Chair that based on the vote, the variance was approved. It was later determined that a majority of the members serving on the board, rather than a majority of those present at the meeting is required to approve a variance. She said that since 4 votes are required to approve a variance, the variance was not approved at the February meeting. Following the meeting, a court order was issued remanding this matter back to the BZA for reconsideration and a revote on the matter, Heather Sumner, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the court order is to ensure that the decision of the BZA does not violate any provisions of the Open Meetings Act since there was a conflict between what was announced at the February 27, 2018 meeting as to the Board's decision on the variance and what was later determined to be the true outcome. She said that the public hearing requirements have been fulfilled but the Board does need to revote on the matter. Mr. Leaming stated that there are 2 members present at this meeting that were not at the February meeting. He said that there are 6 factors listed in the ordinance that the Board is to use in determining whether to grant a variance to the separation requirements between medical marijuana dispensaries and various other uses such as churches, child care centers, substance abuse treatment facilities, etc. Mr. Leaming said that in this case, the dispensary is located less than 500 feet from a substance abuse treatment facility. He said that this is a very emotional issue and a lot of the concerns that have been expressed are not things that the BZA can take into consideration when making its decision such as unpaid taxes, enforcement proceedings by the City with regard to medical marijuana facilities and how one feels about medical marijuana facilities in general. Mr. Leaming said that some of the criteria set forth in the ordinance for evaluating these types of Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 10, 2018 Page 4 variances is very subjective and thus, puts the BZA in a difficult position of determining whether to a request should be approved, He said that criterion number 4 in particular is impossible to determine since the locations that will be approved by the City for dispensary licenses are not known at this time. Mr. Learning stated that there is a great deal of opposition to this request and he is not satisfied that the variance complies with the criteria and thus, will be voting no just as he did at the February meeting. Ms. Ailing said that there a lot of issues have been brought up that cannot be considered by the Board in making its decision. She said that the Board must only consider the 6 criteria listed in the Ordinance for evaluating these types of variances. She also said that a decision needs to be made on the variance so that the City knows whether to consider the applicant's request for a dispensary license. If the variance is not approved, the licenses application will be out of consideration for one of the 20 licenses that will ultimately be approved by the City. Mr. Quick stated that the Board cannot determine if criterion number 4 which is the "need for a provisioning center at the location in order to provide the safe and efficient access to medical marijuana with the City" can be met until such time as the City determines the 20 licenses that will be approved and this one may or may be one of them, regardless of whether the variance is approved or not. Mr. Berryman said that this is his first meeting and asked if there are any legal concerns with him voting on this matter, not having been at the February meeting when the hearing was held and the first vote was taken. Mr. Sumner stated that there is nothing legally preventing Mr. Berryman from voting on this matter. She said that he has been provided with all of the information and is may vote on the matter. Ms. Sumner said that the issue the first time was the result of not having enough members serving on the Board. Ms. Ailing said that the criteria traditionally used to evaluate variances do not apply in these cases. She said that the City did a good just of establishing the criteria and she is satisfied that it is met to the degree that it can be at this point and will be voted in favor of the variance just as she did at the February meeting. Mr. Learning asked is the only issue that has been called into question from the February meeting was the vote and if the reason that it was sent back to the BZA was to make sure that the variance was considered and voted upon in full compliance with the provisions of the Open Meetings Act. Ms. Sumner stated that the ordinance regulating medical marijuana went into effect on October 17, 2017. She said that issues occurring prior to that date are not relevant at this time. Ms. Sumner stated that the applicant for this request applied for his dispensary license in accordance with the ordinance requirements for doing so and prior to the deadline for such applications. She said that when the top 20 licenses are selected, if 2 of them are within 500 f feet of each other, the applicants for those licenses can seek variances to the 500 foot separation requirement between 2 dispensaries. She said that past practices/issues for medical marijuana dispensaries will be taken into consideration in the overall process of selecting the top 20 applications but are not relevant in determining whether to grant variances. Ms. Sumner said that if the variance for this request is denied, the license application will be denied and thus, not given any further consideration for one of the 20 licenses that will be granted. Mr. Berryman asked if there have been any complaints against the applicant's dispensary. Ms, Stachowiak stated that she has not received any complaints, Ms. Sumner said that there is no record of any complaints since 10/17/17, She also said that the existing facilities that applied for licenses prior to the deadline can continue operating temporarily while their applications are pending. Those that have been denied are required to Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 10, 2018 Page 5 cease and desists all operations. Mr. Learning said that most of the criteria are difficult if not impossible to determine compliance because everyone is in limbo right now while the determination is being made as to who will be approved for a license. He said that the second, fifth and sixth criterions have some relevance. Mr. Leaming stated that there has been a great deal of input from the public on this matter and most of it is in opposition to the request. Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Learning to reconsider BZA 4034.18 for a variance of 140 feet to the required 500 foot separation between a medical marijuana dispensary at 4929 S. Cedar Street and the substance abuse treatment facility at 4902 S. Cedar Street. On a roll call vote, the motion was approved (4-1). Mr. Learning cast the dissenting vote. I Mr. Quick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve BZA 4034.18 for a variance of 140 feet to the required 500 foot separation between a medical marijuana dispensary at 4929 S. Cedar Street and the substance abuse treatment facility at 4902 S. Cedar Street, on a finding that the variance is consistent with the variance evaluation i criteria set forth in Section 1300.18(3) of Ordinance 1217. On a roll call vote, the motion failed (3-2). Mr. Learning and Mr. Rice cast the dissenting votes. C. BZA-4035.18, 1106 N. Larch Street This is a request by Caleb Wilson to permit a medical marijuana dispensary at 1106 N. Larch Street. Section 1300,13(A)(2) of City Ordinance 1217 prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries within 500 feet of a substance abuse treatment or rehabilitation facility. The medical marijuana dispensary at 1106 N. Larch Street is located approximately 444 feet from a substance abuse treatment/rehabilitation facility at 610 E. Grand River Avenue. A variance to the required separation distance between the 2 facilities is therefore, being requested. Ms, Stachowiak stated that the circumstances surrounding this request and the one at 4929 S. Cedar Street are exactly the same with regard to it coming back to the BZA for reconsideration. Mr. Quick made a motion, seconded by Mr. Learning to reconsider BZA 4035.18 for a variance of 56 feet to the required 500 foot separation between the medical marijuana dispensary at 1106 N. Larch Street and the substance abuse treatment facility at 610 E. Grand River Avenue. On a roll call vote, the motion was approved (4-1). Mr. Learning cast the dissenting vote. Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Quick to approve BZA 4035.18 for a variance of 56 feet to the required 500 foot separation between the medical marijuana dispensary at 1106 N. Larch Street and the substance abuse treatment facility at 610 E. Grand River Avenue, on a finding that the variance is consistent with the variance evaluation criteria set forth in Section 1300.18(3) of Ordinance 1217. On a roll call vote, the motion failed (3-2). Mr. Learning and Mr. Rice cast the dissenting votes. V. PUBLIC COMMENT Elaine Womboldt, 4815 Tressa Drive, Facilitator for Rejuvenating South Lansing, stated that the decisions on the medical marijuana requests were difficult but the Board made the right decision. Mary Fuhrman, 119 E. Syringa, thanked the Board for its decision on the 4929 S. Cedar variance request. Marilyn Irvine, 5211 Tulip Avenue, stated that she appreciates the Board's decision to deny the variance at 4929 S. Cedar. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 10,2018 Page 6 Kat Tyler, 1106 Clark Street, Northtown Neighborhood Association, stated that Northtown is not opposed to the medical marijuana facilities but they need to be regulated and they need to comply with the ordinance requirements. Deb Parrish, 626 Avon, stated that the Board made the right decision on the medical marijuana cases as it is not a good idea to have such facilities in such close proximity to methadone clinics. She said that the applicant's knew that the clinics were there when the moved in, VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of special meeting held on February 27, 2018 Mr. Quick stated that the word "not" needs to be deleted from the third line of the fifth paragraph on page four. Mr. Leaming made a motion, seconded by Mr. Quick to approve the minutes from the special meeting held on February 27, 2018 meeting,with the change noted by Mr. Quick. On a voice vote (5-0),the motion carried unanimously. VII. NEW BUSINESS j Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Berryman to approve excused absences for Mr. Hovey j & Ms. Litwiller. On a voice vote,the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Vill. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:33 P.M. Respectfully bmitted, 9, i Susan Stachowiak, ZoniTTg Administrator F Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 27, 2018 Page 1 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 27, 2018, 6:30 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center-600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Marcie Alling at 7:18 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Alling J. Quick J. Hovey J. Leaming Absent: K. Litwiller M. Rice Staff: S. Stachowiak i A quorum of four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting, II APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Learning, seconded by Mr. Hovey to approve the agenda as printed. On a voice vote,the motion carried 4-0. 9 III. HEARINGSIACTION 1 A. BZA4034.18, 4929 S. Cedar Street Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by RODA Investments, LLC/Tru Releaf Collective to establish a medical marijuana dispensary at 4929 S. Cedar Street. Section 1300.13(A)(2) of City Ordinance 1217 prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries within 500 feet of a substance abuse treatment or rehabilitation facility. The medical marijuana dispensary at 4929 S. Cedar is located approximately 340 feet from a substance abuse treatment/rehabilitation facility at 4902 S. Cedar Street. A variance to the required separation distance between the 2 facilities is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Section 1300.13 of Ordinance No. 1217, which regulates medical marijuana facilities, requires a 500 foot separation between medical marijuana provisioning centers and churches, child care centers, playground equipment in a park and substance abuse treatment facilities. She said that the distances are measured from nearest edge of building to nearest edge of building, along the centerline of the street as depicted on the diagram that was included in the meeting packet. Ms. Stachowiak said that Section 1300.18 of the Ordinance authorizes the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances from the separation distance requirements, based on the criteria listed in this Section to be used in evaluating such requests. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is recommending approval of the variance based a finding that the request is consistent with the applicable evaluation criteria, as detailed in the staff report that was provided in the meeting packet. Ms. Stachowiak said that the following letters were received with regard to this request: * Nancy Mahlow, 430 N. Fairview, in opposition to the variance * Tim & Cyndi Terwilliger, 101 W. Syringa, in opposition to the variance * Jim & Elaine Jackinchuk, 106 E. Syringa, in opposition to the variance * Anonymous letter in support of the variance Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 27,2018 Page 2 * Jeremy Garza, 2nd Ward Council Member, in opposition to the variance * Rachelle White on behalf of the Southwest Action Group in opposition to the variance * Jan Patrick 328 E, Syringa, in opposition to the variance * Elaine Womboldt, 4815 Tressa Drive, on behalf of Rejuvenating South Lansing, in opposition to the variance * Darrell Slaughter, no address given, on behalf of the Old Everett Neighborhood Association, requesting a postponement of the BZA's decision on the variance * Rhonda Fuller, 6527 Hilliard Road, in opposition to the variance * Kathleen Miles, 1128 Woodbine, in opposition to the variance * Alice Florida, 4011 Alpha, in opposition to the variance * Elizabeth Lane, 503 S. Dexter, in opposition to the variance * Gwen & Larry Counseller, 307 Cloverland, in opposition to the variance * Rachelle White, 2227 W, Holmes Road, in opposition to the variance * Noel Harshmann, no address given, in opposition to the variance * Laurie Ruiz, no address given, in opposition to the variance Vicki Bellon, 3218 Stabler, in opposition to the variance * Robert Tetzlaff, no address given, in opposition to the variance * Marilyn Ebaugh, 2201 Pamela Place, in opposition to the variance * Damita J. Walker, 3216 Jerree Street, in opposition to the variance * Debra Smith, no address given, in opposition to the variance Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Jonathon Brown, Grewal Law, PLLC, on behalf of the RODA Investments, LLC & Tru ReLeaf Collective, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the request complies with all of the criteria set forth in Ordinance No. 1217 for evaluating variances and asked that the variance be approved. Mr. Brown said that the applicant has been operating a dispensary at 4929 S, Cedar Street since 2015 with zero complaints and zero violations. He said that the applicant desires to provide safe and efficient access to those members of the community that utilize medical marijuana. Ronnie Somo, RODA Investments, 4929 S. Cedar Street, spoke in support of his request. He stated that there is only 1 dispensary within 2 blocks of 4929 S. Cedar and it opened up after the moratorium was in effect. Mr. Somo said that most of the dispensaries on S. Cedar will be shut down for noncompliance with the City's licensing application requirements. Mr. Learning questioned whether the applicant would be able to pursue this matter in court as it would not meet the standard of ripeness. He said that even if the variance is approved, there is no guarantee that the applicant will be one of the 20 applicants that will ultimately be issued a license from the City. Mr. Learning said that you cannot argue that you lost out on something that has not even been decided upon yet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City Clerk's Office cannot even consider the applicant's license application unless the variance is approved. Mr. Learning asked the applicant if he is proposing any improvements to the building or site, Mr. Brown stated that the building and site are already in good shape and in compliance with all codes and ordinances so no changes are proposed. Mr. Learning said that several letters of objection have been received. He asked if the applicant has done any community outreach. Mr. Somo said that they have not done any formal outreach as they were not aware that there Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 27, 2018 Page 3 were any issues relative to the dispensary that needed to be addressed with the community. Mary Fuhrman, 119 E. Syringa Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. She said that she is the neighborhood watch coordinator for the area in which the subject property is located. Ms. Fuhrman said that with so many applications that comply with the criteria for separation between dispensaries and other uses such as substance abuse treatment facilities, why authorize a variance for one that does not meet that requirement. She said that Victory Clinical Services has been at its location for about 10 years and the applicant knew that it was there when he moved in. She also said that there are already numerous other dispensaries on S. Cedar Street. Jeff Fuhrman, 119 E. Syringa Drive, spoke in opposition to the variance. He stated that with so many dispensaries on S. Cedar Street, the City needs to start eliminating them rather that authorizing variances to allow them in conflict with the ordinance provisions. Mr. Fuhrman said that the dispensaries are devaluing property values and asked if the Board members if they would want to live in an area that has a proliferation of dispensaries. Elaine Womboldt, 4815 Tressa Drive, Facilitator for Rejuvenating South Lansing, spoke in opposition to the variance. She said that she heard that a lot of people, including Victory Clinical Services, were not notified of the rescheduled public hearing for this evening. Ms. Womboldt said that the notice that went out was misleading in that it said that the request was to establish a medical marijuana dispensary at 4929 S. Cedar Street, when in fact it is already in operation. She said that there is a dispute as to whether marijuana has any medicinal value but to place a medical marijuana dispensary within 500 feet of a substance abuse treatment facility is a disgrace and is a detriment to the recovery of those individuals who are in treatment. Ms. Womboldt said that there are 3 members of the current City Council that voted against the ordinance that is currently in effect. She said that there are more than enough dispensaries in Lansing to serve the patients in Lansing that utilize it. Jan Patrick, 328 E. Syringa Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. She said that she received a postcard for the first public hearing but not for the second one. Ms. Patrick said that the members of the Old Everett Neighborhood Organization have not had enough time to meet and discuss the variance. She said that there are already too many dispensaries in the area including one within very close proximity to the subject property. Ms. Patrick asked that the variance be denied. Mike Redding, 3522 Karen, spoke in opposition to the variance. He said that the rules were put in place for a reason and should not be varied just because someone makes a request to do so. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Alling closed the public hearing. Mr. Learning stated that there have been a lot of comments about the dispensaries going in long after the substance abuse facilities were in operation. He said that until the ordinance was adopted in 2017, the applicants could not know what would ultimately be the requirements for separation, if any, between dispensaries and other facilities such as substance abuse treatment clinics. Mr. Learning said that the criteria set forth in the ordinance for evaluating these types of variances is very subjective and thus, puts the BZA in a difficult position of determining whether to a request should be approved. Mr. Hovey stated that criterion number 4 (the need for a provisioning center at the location in order to provide the safe and efficient access to medical marijuana with the City) cannot possibly be determined because the locations that will be issued licenses to operate a dispensary have not been determined. Until that is determined, there is no way of knowing if the location being considered for a variance is necessary to provide safe and efficient access to Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 27, 2018 Page 4 medical marijuana. Mr. Hovey said that the City should determine the top 20 applications and if the ones that are requesting a variance are in the top 20, then the BZA can more accurately determine if they meet the ordinance criteria for issuance of a variance. He said that since the Board needs to decide on the variance before that occurs, he is leaning towards approving the variance as it complies with the criteria to the extent that the Board can make that determination at this time. Ms. Ailing said that she is also leaning towards approval as both facilities seem to have a very good track record of running their establishments, at least in terms of not violating city codes and ordinances since they have been in operation. She said that the staff has not been made aware of any complaints relative to either of the applicant's facilities. She said that with regard to 4929 S. Cedar Street, it is separated from Victory Clinical Services by a 5 lane road that is probably the busiest road in the City. Ms. Ailing said that the ordinance criteria is very subjective but the requests, nevertheless, seem to comply with the criteria and denying the variance would make the applicants ineligible for consideration in obtaining a license when they otherwise, may be one of the 20 applications that would get approved by the City. Mr. Quick stated that a lot of the concerns that have been expressed are not things that the BZA can consider in making its decision such as whether marijuana has medicinal value. He said that the Board has received a number of letters in opposition, but there are a lot of people and businesses in the areas surrounding these request that have remained silent on the issue. Mr. Leaming said that he is leaning towards denial of the variances as there has been a lot of opposition, particularly in regard to the variance request for 4929 S. Cedar Street. He said that this would indicate that criterion number 6 (the impact of the variance on the character of the structure's surroundings and owners of other properties in the vicinity) has not been satisfied. , Mr. Learning said that there are several other dispensaries in close proximity to 4929 S. Cedar. Mr. Learning said that until the City decides which of those locations will be issued a license, it cannot be determined if the applicant's location is necessary to provide "safe and efficient" access to medical marijuana which is one of the criteria that the BZA must consider in making its decision on the variance. Mr. Hovey stated that he is reluctantly going to vote in favor of the variance. He said that his reluctance involves placing the BZA in a position of having to determine whether or not to approve the variance based on criteria that is not very subjective and in some cases, cannot even be applied until it has been determined which of the 80+ applications for dispensary licenses are among the top 20 applications being considered for approval. Mr. Learning made a motion to deny BZA 4034.18 for a variance of 140 feet to the required 500 foot separation between a medical marijuana dispensary at 4929 S. Cedar Street and the substance abuse treatment facility at 4902 S. Cedar Street, on a finding that the variance is not consistent with the 4th and 61" variance evaluation criteria set forth in Section 1300.18(3) of Ordinance 1217. Motion fails for lack of support. Mr. Hovey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Quick to approve BZA 4034.18 for a variance of 140 feet to the required 500 foot separation between a medical marijuana dispensary at 4929 S. Cedar Street and the substance abuse treatment facility at 4902 S. Cedar Street, on a finding that the variance is consistent with the variance evaluation criteria set forth in Section 1300.18(3) of Ordinance 1217. Mr. Hovey, Mr. Quick and Ms. Alling voted yes. Mr. Learning voted no. Ms. Ailing stated that the variance has been approved. Ms. Stachowiak stated that since there are only 4 members present at this meeting, which is the minimum number needed for a quorum, the City Attorney's Office will need to determine Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 27,2018 Page 5 whether the variance is approved since it is a majority of those present rather than a majority of the total Board membership that voted in favor of the variance. She said that she will inform the applicant, in writing, as to whether the variance was approved based on the 3-1 vote. B. BZA-4035.18, 1106 N. Larch Street Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by Caleb Wilson to permit a medical marijuana dispensary at 1106 N. Larch Street, Section 1300.13(A)(2) of City Ordinance 1217 prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries within 500 feet of a substance abuse treatment or rehabilitation facility. The medical marijuana dispensary at 1106 N. Larch Street is located approximately 444 feet from a substance abuse treatment/rehabilitation facility at 610 E. Grand River Avenue. A variance to the required separation distance between the 2 facilities is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that Section 1300.13 of Ordinance No. 1217, which regulates medical marijuana facilities, requires a 500 foot separation between medical marijuana provisioning centers and churches, child care centers, playground equipment in a park and substance abuse treatment facilities. She said that the distances are measured from nearest edge of building to nearest edge of building, along the centerline of the street as depicted on the diagram that was included in the meeting packet. Ms. Stachowiak said that Section 1300.18 of the Ordinance authorizes the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances from the separation distance requirements, based on the criteria listed in this Section to be used in evaluating such requests. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is recommending approval of the variance based a finding that the request is consistent with the applicable evaluation criteria, as detailed in the staff report that was provided in the meeting packet. Ms. Stachowiak said that the following letters were received with regard to this request: Nancy Mahlow, 430 N. Fairview, in opposition to the variance Brenda L. Rayle, on behalf of Reality Counseling Services, 610 E. Grand River Avenue, in opposition to the variance Ms. Alling opened the public hearing. Caleb Wilson, Kola, 1106 N. Larch Street, spoke in support of his request. He said that Ms. Stachowiak received a phone call from the director of the Old Town Main Street Commercial Association in support of his request. He said that he has been an active member of the Old Town community including helping to sponsor several festivals. Mr. Wilson said that he has reached out to the community and attempted to reach out to Reality Counselling Services but was unable to get a response from them. He said that he has been in operation at 1106 N. Larch Street since prior to the moratorium and has applied for a license through the City Clerk's Office but cannot be considered for the license unless the variance is approved. Mr. Wilson said that Reality Counselling Services is not an active member of the Old Town area. He also said that he has had some of Reality Counselling Services patients become his patients as there is a molecule in medical marijuana that can assist with overcoming opioid addiction. Dave Nakfoor, Reality Counselling Services, 610 E. Grand River(Cesar Chavez), spoke in opposition to the variance. He said that he has been at 610 E. Grand River for more than 20 years and he has been doing substance abuse counselling for 30 years. Mr. Nakfoor stated that if his customers are leaving his establishment and going to the dispensary, that is a good reason in and of itself for denying the variance. He said that if his patients"drop dirty"when they go for testing, they could end up in jail. Mr. Nakfoor said that Mr. Wilson did not reach out to him until he needed the variance. He also said that he has experienced problems with the smell emanating from Kola and from customers of that establishment smoking marijuana in his Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 27, 2018 Page 6 parking lot. Jonathon Brown, Grewal Law, PLLC, on behalf of the RODA Investments, LLC & Tru ReLeaf Collective, stated that people cannot get medical marijuana without having a card authorizing them to do so. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Mr. Hovey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Quick to approve BZA 4035.18 for a variance of 56 feet to the required 500 foot separation between the medical marijuana dispensary at 1106 N. Larch Street and the substance abuse treatment facility at 610 E. Grand River Avenue, on a finding that the variance is consistent with the variance evaluation criteria set forth in Section 1300.18(3) of Ordinance 1217. Mr. Hovey, Mr. Quick and Ms. Ailing voted yes. Mr. Learning voted no. Ms. Stachowiak stated that, as with the previous variance request, she will notify the applicant in writing as to whether the variance was approved, based on the 3-1 vote. IV. NEW BUSINESS- None V. OLD BUSINESS- None VI. PUBLIC COMMENT Elaine Womboldt, 4815 Tressa Drive, Facilitator for Rejuvenating South Lansing, expressed concerns about how the outcome of this meeting will affect future applications for dispensaries that do not comply with the ordinance in terms of the separation requirements. Mark Fuhrman, 119 E. Syringa Drive, stated that he objects to Ms. Stachowiak speaking in favor of the variance requests. He also expressed concerns about authorizing variances when there are enough license applications to choose from that comply with the ordinance requirements. Mary Fuhrman, 119 E. Syringa, stated that Ms. Stachowiak should not be encouraging the Board to vote in favor of the variances. VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of special meeting held on January 17 2018 Mr. Hovey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Learning to approve the minutes from the special t meeting held on January 17, 2018 meeting, as printed. On a voice vote (4-0), the motion carried unanimously. Vill. NEW BUSINESS— None IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:39 P.M. Respectfully Su mitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zo ng Administrator f t i Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 17,2018 Page 1 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS January 17,2018,6:00 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center-600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Marcie Ailing at 6:37 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Ailing J. Quick J. Hovey J. Leaming Absent: K. Litwiller M. Rice Staff: S. Stachowiak H. Sumner B. Jackson D. Biehler A quorum of at least four members was present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. Mr. Hovey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Quick to grant an excused absence for Ms. Litwiller. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously(4-0). II APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Hovey, seconded by Mr. Learning to approve the agenda as printed. On a voice vote,the motion carried 4-0. Ill. HEARINGS/ACTION-None IV. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City recently adopted an ordinance regulating medical marijuana facilities. She said that with regard to dispensaries, the ordinance requires that they be separated by 500 feet from churches, child care centers, substance abuse treatment facilities, playground equipment in a park and from another dispensary. Ms. Stachowiak said that the dispensaries must be separated by 1000 feet from a school. She said that the distances are measured from the nearest edge of the dispensary building to the center line of the street, along the street centerline, then to the nearest edge of the building containing the church, school, etc. Ms. Stachowiak said that the ordinance authorizes the BZA to grant variances from these requirements based on certain criteria which is different from the criteria that the BZA would normally use to consider variances. She said that the standard that the BZA applies to dimensional variances is whether there is something unique about the subject property, such as irregular shape or uneven topography that makes strict application of the ordinance standard impractical or unreasonably difficult. Ms. Stachowiak said that Assistant City Attorney, Heather Sumner is present to review the criteria that the BZA will use to evaluate variances from the medical marijuana ordinance. She said that Deputy Clerk, Brian Jackson and Deb Biehler from the City Clerk's Office are also present. Assistant City Attorney, Heather Sumner, provided the Board with the information pertaining to variances, including a list of the criteria used to evaluate variance requests from the medical marijuana ordinance. She said that there are 6 criteria in the ordinance and the Board must consider all of them it determining whether or not to grant a variance. She also said that the Board can decide how much weight to apply to each of the 6 criteria. Ms. Sumner said that the first criterion is "The amount of time, if any, that the applicant has been operating in compliance with this chapter at the present location." Ms. Sumner said that if it is an existing facility, the Board would have to consider whether there have been any problems associated with the facility and if it was established legally to the extent that it could be prior to the adoption of the ordinance. The second criterion is"The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated a commitment Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 17,2018 Page 2 to the land use and public nuisance concerns in the surrounding neighborhood." Ms. Sumner said that the Board would consider, if there have been any concerns with the existing facility, how the applicant responded to those concerns. Mr. Hovey asked if"public nuisance' is defined in the ordinance. Ms. Sumner said that it is not defined in the medical marijuana ordinance but is defined elsewhere in the City's codified ordinances. She said that she will provide that information to Ms. Stachowiak so that she can pass it along to the Board. Ms. Sumner said that just because someone is annoyed or does not like the facility that does not make it a public nuisance. Ms. Sumner said that if someone operates without the required license, that would constitute a public nuisance. She said that at this time, none of the facilities in the City have a license and the City is not taking any enforcement action against those who have applied for licenses. Ms. Sumner said that the third criterion is "The distance between the applicant's location and any medical marijuana provisioning center that is within 500 feet of the applicant's location." Ms. Sumner said that 87applications for dispensary licenses have been received and of them, 20 will be approved. She said that when the 20 are initially selected, there may be instances where some of them are within 500 feet of each other and the Board may receive variance requests to the 500 foot separation requirement. Mr. Hovey asked who is responsible for doing the measurements. Ms. Stachowiak said that she is responsible for evaluating the license applications to ensure that the locations comply with all of the separation requirements in the ordinance. She said that she can do most of them on her GIS system. There are only a few that are too close to call and will need to be field measured. Ms. Sumner said that the 4th criterion is "The need for a provisioning center at the location in order to provide the safe and efficient access to medical marijuana within the City." Mr. Leaming asked about the number of licenses that will be approved. Brian Jackson, Deputy City Clerk, stated that 87 applications for dispensaries have been received. He said that the City is in the process of reviewing the applications to determine if they comply with the minimum standards such as being zoned properly, compliance with the separation requirements, no felony convictions by anyone associated with the business and no taxes or other fees owing to the City. He said that this step will take another week or 2 to complete. The second step will be to rank the applications to get it down to the top 20. Those will undergo a more extensive review including being vetted by an expert in the industry. If some of the top 20 are within 500 feet of each other, the BZA may be asked to approve variances to the separation requirement. Ms. Stachowiak asked if the BZA should be considering the 2 variance applications that have already been received. Mr. Jackson said that they can be reviewed. Ms. Sumner agreed. Mr. Leaming stated that it would seem to be premature to grant a variance for an application that hasn't been approved and may not even make the top 20. Ms. Stachowiak said that the way she was looking at it is that the variance clears the way for the application to be considered, Ms. Sumner said that the last 2 criteria are "The character of the structure and its surroundings" and "The impact of the variance on the character of the structure's surroundings and owners of other properties in the vicinity." Ms. Sumner said that these last 2 criteria are subjective and the Board can determine how much weight to give them in making its decision. She said that these criteria were put Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 17,2018 Page 3 in the ordinance at the behest of the neighborhood groups. Ms. Sumner said that the Board could consider how well the applicant has maintained the building and the site as well as its compliance with the sign ordinance and other city ordinances as well. Mr. Hovey said that the applicants may have been reluctant to invest much money into a building or site, not knowing if they are going to be able to permanently operate at the location. Deb Biehler, City Clerk's Office, stated that as part of the license application, the applicant has to submit a plan for the building and the site that shows the improvements to be made. The Board would be provided with a copy of the plan to consider as part of its deliberations. Mr. Learning said that the subjective nature of some of the criteria could make it difficult to defend any lawsuits that may result from denial of a variance or license application. Ms. Sumner said that if a license is denied, the applicant can appeal the denial to the City's Medical Marijuana Commission and an appeal of the Commission's decision would have to be through Circuit Court. She said that some of the applications will be disqualified in the first round of reviews that is taking place right now for felony convictions, zoning issues or unpaid taxes/fees. Ms. Stachowiak said that she has only disqualified 3 or 4 of them for not meeting the zoning requirements. Ms. Biehler asked Ms. Stachowiak to provide the Clerk's Office with a list of the ones that she has denied. Mr. Hovey asked if the sign ordinance addresses business signs. Ms. Sumner said that the ordinance does not address signs but that state law prohibits advertising for grow facilities. Ms. Stachowiak thanked Ms, Sumner, Mr. Jackson and Ms. Biehler for attending the meeting and provided very valuable information. V. OLD BUSINESS-None VI. PUBLIC COMMENT-None VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of special meetinq held on October 19 2017 Mr. Quick made a motion,seconded by Mr. Learning to approve the minutes from the October 17, 2017 meeting, as printed. On a voice vote(4-0),the motion carried unanimously. Vill. NEW BUSINESS—None IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:26 P.M. Respectfully Su fitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning dministrator