Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 2020 Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 10, 2020 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER, 2020, 6:30 P.M. The meeting was conducted as an online teleconference in compliance with State of Mich igan Executive Order No. 2020-154 , to allow for the continued operation of the City while complying with Executive Order No. 2020-160 . I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Marcie Ailing at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Ailing, J. Hovey, J. Leaming, M. Rice, K. Berryman, Chris lannuzzi, R. Fryling & E. Jefferson Absent: M. Solak Staff: S. Stachowiak &A. Fedewa A quorum of at least 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. Hovey to approve the agenda as presented. On a voice vote, the motion carried 8-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4061.20, Variance to the height limitation for a front yard fence at 4001 Sheffield Boulevard Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by Aaron Mitchell for a variance to erect a 6 foot high privacy fence in the Bayview Drive front yard of the corner property at 4001 Sheffield Blvd. Section 1292.03 of the Zoning Ordinance limits the height of fences in a front yard to 3 feet. A variance of three (3) feet to the height limit for a front yard fence is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to deny the variance based on a finding that the request does comply with all the applicable criteria of Sections 1244.06 (c) and 1244.06 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, as described in the staff report for this request. Ms. Stachowiak said that there is nothing unique about the subject property that sets it apart from any other corner property that may be the subject of a request to vary the fence height limitation. The subject property is a typical size for a corner lot, is not irregularly shaped and there is no uneven topography or other physical feature that makes it unique and warrants relief from the ordinance. She said that since the uniqueness criterion cannot be satisfied in this case, approval 'of the requested variance would set a negative precedent for future requests of a similar nature. She also said that while the fence would not likely obstruct visibility for motorists in the area, Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 10, 2020 Page 2 its appearance will be contrary to the intent of the ordinance which is to preserve open vistas along roadways. Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Mr. Berryman asked about the existing fence on the site and what would be permitted in the Bayview front yard on the subject property. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the existing 4 foot high chain-link fence is in full compliance with the ordinance as it is at least 75% visually open. She said that fences that are less than 75% visually open cannot exceed a height of 3 feet within a front yard. Mr. Rice stated that he is unable to support the variance as there is nothing unique about the subject property that would justify its approval. He said that there is still room on the property that could be enclosed with a privacy fence. He also said that approval of the variance, in the absence of a practical difficulty, will open up the ordinance for approval of other variances to construct a privacy fence in a front yard. Mr. Leaming, Ms. Jefferson, Mr. Hovey and Mr. lannuzzi agreed with Mr. Rice's assessment of the variance request. Ms. Jefferson made a motion, seconded by Mr. Learning to deny the request for a variance to allow a 6 foot high privacy fence to extend into the Bayview Drive front yard of the corner property at 4001 Sheffield Blvd., based on the findings of fact as detailed in the staff report. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). B. BZA-4062.20, Variances to the setback requirements for a ground sign at 404 S. Pennsylvania Avenue Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by Metro Signs & Lighting for variances to the setback requirement for a new, 20 foot high, 93.8 square foot free-standing sign at 404 S. Pennsylvania Avenue that would have be setback 2 feet from the property line along Pennsylvania Avenue and 12 feet from the property line along E. Kalamazoo Street. Section 1442.12(h)(5)(b) of the Sign Ordinance requires a setback of 23 feet for a freestanding sign with this dimensions. Variances of 21 feet and 11 feet to the required setback are therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to approve the variances based on a finding that the request complies with all the applicable criteria of Sections 1244.06 (c) and 1244.06 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, as described in the staff report. Ms. Stachowiak said that, as with the other 3 locations listed on the agenda, the layout of the property at 404 S. Pennsylvania Avenue creates a practical difficulty for the applicant that is unique in comparison to most other sites in the City with regard to the placement of a ground sign. She said that as evidenced by the aerial photograph, the only location on the site where a ground sign could be constructed where it would be visible to traffic along both streets in the grassy area at the northeast corner where the existing signs are located. Ms. Stachowiak said that the proposed sign will be located in the same location as the existing sign which is as far back on the site as possible, thus minimizing the variances necessary to the maximum extent possible. Ms. Stachowiak also said that the proposed ground signs will be of comparable size to the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 10, 2020 Page 3 existing ground signs at all 4 locations and will have a more modern and aesthetically pleasing appearance which will be an improvement to the area in which it is located. Ms. Stachowiak said that all 4 of the sign variance requests that are on the agenda are to permit new ground signs on the Quality Dairy sites in the City of Lansing that include gas stations. She said that QD is branding its gasoline service to Mobile Exxon and is in need of new signs for that purpose. Ms. Stachowiak said with the exception of the specific setback dimensions, all 4 cases are the same in terms of the size of the new signs, the reasons for why the variances are necessary and the reasons why they are being recommended for approval by staff. Ms. Stachowiak said that in all 4 cases, the layout of the properties prevents the construction of new signs that would be of a reasonable size for a gasoline station in compliance with setback requirements, as evidenced by the aerial photographs provided in the meeting packet. Ms. Stachowiak said that with regard to the Dunckel Road, Waverly Road and S. ML King locations, the variances will actually result in reducing the number of ground signs that could be erected on those sites. She said that since those 3 sites are located at the corner of 2 major and a minor thoroughfares, 2 ground signs are permitted as long as only one sign is oriented towards each thoroughfare. In lieu of constructing two ground signs, the applicant is seeking variances to permit one ground sign at those locations that would be visible to traffic along both streets that they have frontage along. Ms. Stachowiak said that the proposed signs resulting from approval of the variances will therefore, be consistent with the primary intent of the Sign Ordinance which is to minimize visual clutter that can be caused by too much signage. Ms. Alling opened the public hearing. Paul Deters, Metro Signs and Lighting, spoke in support of the variances. Mr. Deters said that the signs will be a tremendous improvement to the 4 sites. He also said that the intent was to use the existing sign foundations but understands the City's position with regard to moving the signs a little further in on the sites at the Dunckel and Waverly locations to preserve the integrity of the ordinance. Jesse Martin, Quality Dairy Co., spoke in support of the variances. He said that QD is rebranding its gasoline service which has provided the opportunity to improve the signs at the 4 locations listed on the agenda. Mr. Martin said that QD is working with the City to obtain grants for fagade improvements at 3 locations and the new signs will further enhance the appearance of those sites. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Alling closed the public hearing. Mr. Leaming expressed his support for the variances. Mr. Rice stated that is clear that there is definite practical difficulty with respect to the placement of ground signs at the 4 locations. He said that the sites are small and the layouts simply do not allow for compliance with the setback requirements. Mr. Hovey expressed his support for the variances. Mr. Hovey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Leaming to approve BZA 4062.20 for variances to replace the existing ground sign on the property at 404 S. Pennsylvania Avenue with a new, 20 foot high, 93.8 square foot ground sign that would have setbacks of 2 feet from the property line along S. Pennsylvania Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 10, 2020 Page 4 Avenue and 12 feet from the property line along E. Kalamazoo Street, based on a finding that the requested variances comply with the applicable criteria listed in Sections 1244.06 (c) and 1244.06 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). C. BZA-4063.20, Variances to the setback requirements for a ground sign at 5100 S. Waverly Road Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by Metro Signs & Lighting for variances to the setback requirement to permit a new, 20 foot high, 93.8 square foot free-standing sign at 5100 S. Waverly Road that would have a setback of 2 feet from the property line along S. Waverly Road and 5 feet from the property line along W. Jolly Road. Section 1442.12(h)(5)(b) of the Sign Ordinance requires a setback of 23 feet for a freestanding sign with this dimensions. Variances of 21 feet and 18 feet to the required setbacks are therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak said that since there is room to move the sign further back on the property, the staff recommendation is for variances of 14 feet to the setback requirement along S. Waverly Road and 11 feet to the setback requirement along W. Jolly Road. Mr. lannuzzi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve BZA 4063.20 for variances to replace the existing ground sign on the property at 5100 S. Waverly Road with a new, 20 foot high, 93.8 square foot ground sign that would have setbacks of 9 feet from the property line along S. Waverly Road and 12 feet from the property line along W. Jolly Road, based on a finding that the variances comply with the applicable criteria listed in Sections 1244.06 (c) and 1244.06 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). D. BZA-4064.20, Variances to the setback requirements for a ground sign at 5000 Dunckel Road Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by Metro Signs & Lighting for variances to the setback requirement for a new, 20 foot high, 96.5 square foot free-standing sign at 5100 S. Waverly Road that would have a setback of 2 feet from the property line along S. Waverly Road and 5 feet from the property line along W. Jolly Road. Section 1442.12(h)(5)(b) of the Sign Ordinance requires a setback of 23 feet for a freestanding sign with this dimensions. Variances of 21 feet and 18 feet to the required setbacks are therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that since there is room to move the sign further back on the property, the staff recommendation is for variances of 11 feet to the setback requirement along Dunckel Road and 8 feet to the setback requirement along W. Jolly Road. Mr. Hovey made a motion, seconded by Ms. Jefferson to approve BZA 4064.20 for variances to replace the existing ground sign on the property at 5000 Dunckel Road with a new, 20 foot high, 96.5 square foot ground sign that would have setbacks of 12 feet from the property line along Dunckel Road and 15 feet from the property line along E. Jolly Road, based on a finding that the variances comply with the applicable criteria listed in Sections 1244.06 (c) and 1244.06 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). E. BZA-4065.20, Variances to the setback requirements for a ground sign at 6099 S. ML King Jr. Blvd. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by Metro Signs & Lighting for variances to Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 10, 2020 Page 5 the setback requirement for a new, 20 foot high, 93.8 square foot free-standing sign at 6099 S. M.L. King that would have a setback of 8 feet from the property line along S. ML King and 22 feet from the property line along W. Miller Road. Section 1442.12(h)(5)(b) of the Sign Ordinance requires a setback of 23 feet for a freestanding sign with this dimensions. Variances of 15 feet and 1 foot to the required setback are therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that staff is recommending approval of the variances, as requested. Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Learning to approve BZA 4065.20 for variances to replace the existing ground sign on the property at 6099 S. ML King Jr. Blvd. with a new, 20 foot high, 93.8 square foot ground sign that would have setbacks of 8 feet from the property line along S. M L King and 22 feet from the property line along W. Miller Road, based on a finding that the requested variances comply with the applicable criteria listed in Sections 1244.06 (c) and 1244.06 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absence Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hovey to approve an excused absence for Matt Solak. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, July 22 2020 Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hovey to approve the minutes from the special meeting held on July 22, 2020, with the following correction: page 4, paragraph 11, line 6 — delete "unanimously" and change the vote from (8-1) to (7-1). On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-0). Vlll. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:02 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 22, 2020 Page 1 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING —Approved 9110120 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2020, 6:30 P.M. The meeting was conducted as an online teleconference in compliance with State of Michigan Executive Order No. 2020-75, to allow for the continued operation of the City while complying with Executive Order No. 2020-92. I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Marcie Ailing at 6:33 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Ailing, J. Hovey, J. Learning, M. Rice, K. Berryman, Chris lannuzzi, R. Fryling, E. Jefferson & M. Solak Absent: None Staff: S. Stachowiak & A. Fedewa 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. Learning, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve the agenda as presented. On a voice vote, the motion carried 9-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4059.20, Variances to the allowable number and square footage of wall signs for the building at 1100 W. Saginaw Street Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by Care Free Medical to permit 3, 30 square foot signs on the entrance canopies and 4, 120 square foot signs on the crown/uppermost wall of the building at 1110 W. Saginaw Street. Sections 1442.13 (b) and (i) of the City of Lansing Sign Ordinance permit 4 wall signs with a maximum allowable area of 150 square feet for all 4 signs combined. The applicant is requesting variances to permit 7 wall signs with a total combined area of 570 square feet. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to approve the variances based on a finding that the request complies with all the applicable criteria of Sections 1244.06 (c) and 1244.06 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, as described in the staff report for this request. Ms. Stachowiak said that the basis for the applicant's request is to provide adequate identification for Care Free Medical so it will be easier to locate for members of the community in need of its services. She said that Care Free Medical provides medical, dental and optometry care to disadvantaged members of the community that are either uninsured or underinsured. Ms. Stachowiak said that in the downtown area, in addition to 1st floor wall signs, the Sign Ordinance permits building identification signs on the walls of the top floors of building that are at least 4 stories in height. The Ordinance, however, makes no such provision for 4+ story buildings outside of the downtown area. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 22, 2020 Page 2 She explained that there are very few buildings outside of the downtown area that are 6 feet or more in height and most of them are hospitals, all of which have been granted variances over the years to permit signs on the upper floors of the building so that they can be easily identified. This includes the hospital immediately west of the subject property. Care Free Medical is similar to hospitals in that it provides essential and emergency services to members of the community and thus, it has a similar need for additional signage to adequately identify its location. Ms. Stachowiak said that the proposed sign will be proportionate to the size and scale of the building and thus, consistent with the intent of the ordinance which is to allow adequate signage while limiting it to avoid signs becoming a dominant features of the streetscape and building architecture. Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Paul Kennedy, representing Care Free Medical, spoke in support of the request. He said that there are other tenants in the building, including a pharmacy on the 1st floor, but Care Free Medical is the anchor tenant and occupies the entire 5th and 61h floors. Mr. Kennedy said that Care Free Medical serves the uninsured and underinsured for the entire region and thus, it is important that it is identified from all 4 directions, given the one-way traffic pattern in the area. Amber Moe, Care Free Medical Director of Development, introduced herself and spoke in support of the variances. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Ms. Ailing asked about signage for the other tenants in the building. Ms. Stachowiak stated that there is a low-profile multi-tenant ground sign at the southeast corner of the property that advertises the various tenants in the building. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Mr. Learning asked if Care Free Medical has support from the other tenants for the signs. Mr. Kennedy responded that Care Free Medical has made substantial improvements to the building that benefit all of its tenants. He said that while the other tenants may not be aware of the specifics of the proposed signs, they are supportive of everything that Care Free has done to the building. Mr. Rice stated that the height and location of the building makes it unique in that it is one of the rare 6 story buildings outside of the downtown area and the traffic pattern in the area is comprised of heavily traveled, 1-way major thoroughfares. He said that the use of the building as a community health facility makes it unique also in terms of needed adequate identification through signage. Ms. Ailing agreed. She said that the basis for the variances makes sense, especially given the location and size/scale of the building. Mr. Leaming made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fryling to approve BZA 4059.20 to permit 7 wall signs totaling 570 square feet in area on the building at 1100 W. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 22, 2020 Page 3 Saginaw Street, on a finding that the variance requests comply with the applicable practical difficulty/unnecessary hardship criteria listed in Sections 1244.06(c) 1244.06(e) of the Zoning Ordinance, as described in the staff report for this application. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (9-0). B. BZA-4060.20, Variances to the allowable number, square footage and height for ground signs at 632 American Road Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by Shaheen Properties, LLC to permit 2 free-standing signs on the Cadillac dealership property at 632 American Road. The sign proposed to be located at the southeast corner of the site is 35 feet high and 176 square feet in area. The City of Lansing Sign Ordinance permits 1 free-standing sign for the subject property with a maximum height of 30 feet and a maximum size of 170 square feet in area. Variances of 1 to the allowable number of signs, 5 feet to the height limitation and 6 square feet to the size limitation and therefore, being requested. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to approve the variances based on a finding that the request complies with all the applicable criteria of Sections 1244.06 (c) and 1244.06 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, as described in the staff report for this request. Ms. Stachowiak said that the basis for the applicant's request is not one of a practical difficulty as there is nothing physically unique about the subject property that warrants relief from the ordinance. The determination to be made in this case is whether denial of the variances would cause an unnecessary hardship for the owner/applicant. She said that the subject property is one of just a few commercial properties within the City of Lansing that is adjacent to 1-96. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the adjoining property to the east is vacant with the exception of a large sign that advertises several of the businesses in Edgewood Towne Centre to the north. She explained that the applicant asserts that denial of his variance to permit a ground sign that would be visible from I- 96 puts him at a disadvantage in terms of advertising in comparison to the businesses that have advertising on the sign to the east, which was permitted by variance in the 1980's. Ms. Stachowiak said that since a variance has already been granted to permit other businesses in the area to have signage along 1-96, denial of the request would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. She said that in other words, approval of the requested variance to permit a 2nd ground sign would not diminish the integrity of the ordinance or set a negative precedent for future requests of a similar nature as that has already occurred with the granting of the variance for the sign to the east. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she is not recommending approval of the size variances as there does not seem to be any basis for doing so. Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Ralph Shaheen, Shaheen Properties, LLC, spoke in support of the variances. He said that he is the 5th owner of a Cadillac dealership in Lansing and the sign exposure from 1-96 is essential in ensuring that the dealership is successful. Mr. Shaheen said that the signage along American Road does not adequately advertise the business and provides no identification to traffic along 1-96. Jim Niestroy, Sign Contractor, stated that the additional height and square footage is necessary because of the tall, mature trees on the freeway property that limit visibility of the sign. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 22, 2020 Page 4 Mr. Berryman questioned how the size and height variances being requested are different than the sign size variances for the 600 block of E. Michigan project. Ms. Stachowiak said that the 600 block project involved walls signs that were proportionate in scale to the multi-tenant building at that location and was similar in certain ways to the variance that was just approved for 1100 W. Saginaw Highway. Mr. Solak asked about Ms. Stachowiak's statement that there are few other properties along 1-96 that would be able to make a case for a sign variance similar to the one in question. Ms. Stachowiak said that most of the commercial properties that adjoin the 1-96 right- of-way are either very small or are not of a nature that would need that level of identification to draw a customer base. Mr. Learning said that the vegetation between the sign and the freeway is a sufficient basis for approval of the size and height variances being requested. . Mr. Solak agreed. He said that given the circumstances, approval of all of the requested variances can be justified and will not set a negative precedent for future requests of a similar nature. Mr. Rice said that he is not supportive of the size and height variances since there is no basis for doing do, particularly given that most people purchase vehicles in large part, on the internet these days. He also expressed concerns that it will open up the ordinance for future variances to the allowable size and height for ground signs. Mr. lannuzzi agreed with Mr. Learning and Mr. Solak and expressed his support for the variances, as requested by the applicant. Mr. Hovey expressed his support for the variances as requested as well. Ms. Stachowiak said that given the new information about the trees obscuring the sign, she is recommending approval of the size and height variances. Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Solak to approve the request for a variance to permit a second ground pole sign at 632 American Road and to approve the request for variances of 5 feet to the allowable height and 6 square feet to the allowable size for the sign, based on the findings of fact as detailed in this staff report and as discussed at this meeting. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (8-1). M. Rice cast the dissenting vote. V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS - None VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, May 14, 2020 Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on May 14, 2020, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (9-0). Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 22, 2020 Page 5 VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:21 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 14, 2020 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING —Approved 7/22/20 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS May 14, 2020, 6:30 P.M. The meeting was conducted as an online teleconference in compliance with State of Michigan Executive Order No. 2020-75, to allow for the continued operation of the City while complying with Executive Order No. 2020-92. I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Marcie Ailing at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Ailing, J. Hovey, J. Leaming, M. Rice, K. Berryman, Chris lannuzzi, R. Fryling, E. Jefferson & M. Solak Absent: None 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. Leaming to approve the agenda as presented. On a voice vote, the motion carried 9-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. PUBLIC HEARINGIACTION A. BZA-4057.20, N. Homer Street, Variance to the height limitation for a telecommunications tower Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by Metro Fibernet to construct an 85 foot high telecommunications tower at the southeast corner of the Board of Water & Light property (Parcel No. 33-01-01-11-251-281) located between 1220 and 1306 N. Homer Street. Section 1248.10 limits the height of structures in the "A" Residential district, which is the zoning designation of the subject property, to 35 feet. A variance of 120 feet to the height limitation is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to approve the variance based on a finding that the request complies with all the applicable criteria of Sections 1244.06 (c) and 1244.06 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, as described in the staff report for this request. Ms. Stachowiak said that telecommunication towers are inherently unique in that they simply cannot function at a height of 35 feet. As with all communication towers, the proposed tower must be of sufficient height to transmit and receive signals. At 35 feet, the tower would be lower than most mature trees in the area and several buildings that separate it from towers in the area that transmit television, radio, internet and telephone services. Since the purpose of the applicant's tower is to receive those signals in order to provide the same services to its customers, denial of the variance would render the proposed project unfeasible. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 14, 2020 Page 2 Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Jim Rood, representing Metro Fibernet, LLC explained that the company is a provider of fiber optic telecommunication services, including high-speed Fiber Internet, full-featured Fiber Phone, Fiber-based streaming television and a wide variety of programming and products. He stated that the purpose of the antenna pole is to receive over the air digital television broadcasts from local television stations in order to provide those same program choices to MetroNet customers. Mr. Rood stated that the antennae on the antenna pole are for reception of existing signals only; no broadcasting antennae are used. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a condition of the special land use permit to allow the tower on Board of Water& Light property is that the applicant will be required to install a row of evergreen trees along the entire length of the south property line to buffer the tower/compound area from the residential property to the south, which is really the only property that will be impacted by the project. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this can also be a condition of the variance approval. Mr. Rice asked why the N. Homer Street location was selected. Mr. Rood said that MetroNet has another tower in Lansing and with the addition of this one, they will be able to provide services to all customers in Lansing. Ms. Jefferson asked about the City's proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for higher towers as mentioned by Ms. Stachowiak so that they do not need to come before the BZA for height variances. Ms. Stachowiak said that the recommendation is to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit towers up to 120 feet. Mr. Learning expressed support for the request by acknowledging that the tower is not functional at a height of 35 feet. Mr. Rick also expressed his support for the request based on the practical difficulty associated with constructing a tower without approval of a height variance. Mr. Leaming made a motion, seconded by Ms. Jefferson to approve BZA 4057.20 for a variance of 50 feet to the height limitation to permit an 85 foot high telecommunications tower at the southeast corner of the Board of Water & Light property (Parcel No. 33-01-01-11-251-281) located between 1220 and 1306 N. Homer Street, on a finding that the variance is consistent with criteria listed in Sections 1244.06(c) 1244.06(e) of the Zoning Ordinance, as described in the staff report for this application. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (9-0). B. BZA-4058.20, 1015 Westmoreland Avenue, Variance to permit a home occupation that involves the outdoor storage/display and sale of bicycles Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant does not possess the necessary technology to participate in a remote meeting and therefore, is requesting that his case be tabled until such time as he is able to meet with the Board in person. She said that the Board Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 14, 2020 Page 3 must hold the public hearing because the notices were sent out to the owners, taxpayers and occupants of all real property within 300 feet of the.site, as required. Ms. Stachowiak said that following the public hearing, she recommends that the Board table the case. She also explained that when it comes back up on a future agenda, the Board will not need to hold another public hearing. Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by Aaron Wallace to permit the outdoor storage/display of bicycles for sale at 1015 Westmoreland Avenue. Section 1248.03(e) of the City of Lansing Zoning Ordinance permits home occupations in single family residential zoning districts that are conducted entirely within the confines of a dwelling unit and do not involve the sale of goods on the property. The applicant repairs and sells bicycles at 1015 Westmoreland Avenue, a significant amount of which are being stored/displayed outside on the property. Ms. Stachowiak said that the unlike a variance to a dimensional requirement (setback, height, lot size), the applicant's request does not involve establishing a practical difficulty that prevents or makes compliance with the ordinance unreasonable difficult due to a condition (irregular shape, uneven topography, small size) of the lot that is unique in comparison to most other lots to which the ordinance standard applies. In this case, the standard that must be satisfied is a determination as to whether denial of the variances would create an "unnecessary hardship" on the applicant if authorizing the requested variances to allow the sale and outdoor display/storage of bicycles would be consistent with the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak said that the outdoor storage of bicycles on the property is contrary to the intent and purpose of the ordinance which is to permit home occupations that do not change the residential character of the property/neighborhood. Mr. Berryman stated that if the request is tabled, the applicant should reserve him comments until the meeting where it is to be considered rather than being allowed to speak at this meeting and then again at a future meeting. Mr. Leaming expressed concerns about tabling the request indefinitely and stated that when the request does appear on a future agenda, if the public hearing has already been held, the applicant technically will not have an opportunity to address the Board as the matter will move right into Committee of the Whole deliberations. Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Zona Viruet 3833 Wilson Street, spoke in support of the variances. She said that the applicant's business is good for the neighborhood. Ms. Viruet said that the applicant helps the children in the neighborhood with their bikes and she does not understand why the City would not want to allow Mr. Wallace to continue as he has been doing right along. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Mr. Hovey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to table BZA 4058.20 until such time as the BZA is able to meet in person. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (9-0). V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS - None Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes May 14, 2020 Page 4 VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, March 12, 2020 Mr. Leaming made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hovey to approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on March 12, 2020, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (9-0). Vlll. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:02 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 12,2020 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS March 12, 6:30 P.M. Neighborhood Empowerment Center - 600 W. Maple Street I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Marcie Alling at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken, Present: M. Alling, J. Learning, M. Rice, K. Berryman, Chris lannuzzi, R. Fryling & E. Jefferson Absent: J. Hovey & M. Solak 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. Learning, seconded by Ms. Jefferson to approve the agenda with the addition of "excused absences" under New Business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 7-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4056.20, 230 S. Holmes Street, Request to permit the restoration/reconstruction of a nonconforming fire damaged church building Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by Unity Spiritual Center of Lansing to permit the fire damaged church building at 230 S. Holmes Street to be restored/repaired at a cost exceeding 50% of its value prior to the damage. She said that the site is considered nonconforming because it does not comply with the minimum 2 acre lot size and does not have access to a major or minor arterial as required for churches on a residentially zoned parcel of land. As a "Class A" nonconformity, the building cannot be restored/repaired following damaged caused by a fire where the restoration/repair work exceeds 50% of the value of the building prior to the damage, unless approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals following approval by the Planning Board of a Class A nonconforming status request. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the Planning Board has granted the request for Class A nonconforming status. Ms. Stachowiak stated that she received a petition with 109 signatures in support of the churches request, 13 letters/emails in support of the request and letters/emails from 5 individuals in opposition to the request. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the estimate from the church's insurance company to restore the building exceeds $400,000 and while the exact value of the church building prior to the damage is unknown, it would not even come close to $800,000 and thus, there is no question as to the need for approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals to Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 12, 2020 Page 2 allow its restoration/reconstruction. Ms. Stachowiak said that the staff recommendation is to approve the restoration/reconstruction of the church on a finding that the request complies with the three criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance for evaluating these types of requests. She said that there is no evidence that the church has caused any negative impacts on the transportation system in the area or caused any type of nuisances such as noise, excessive traffic, light glare, etc. that would negatively impact the surrounding residential neighborhood. Ms. Stachowiak said that it is the determination of the Planning Division that the available parking is sufficient to meet the demand for parking during the peak hour of the churches highest intensity of use. The church holds one service on Sunday mornings where, for a period of 2-3 hours, it is operating at its highest intensity level. The remainder of the week, with the exception of the occasional funeral or special event, the level of activity is much lower and is generally able to be accommodated by the existing, roughly 12-16 on-site parking spaces. She said that the church is permitted to use the Sparrow Hospital 100+ space parking lot located one block to the north, which is not in use during peak hour parking demand for the church on Sunday mornings, and there are more than 50 on-street parking spaces within 1 block of the church along both Holmes and Prospect Streets. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the applicant has provided a plan showing that the site is capable of accommodating parking for 24 vehicles. She explained that expanding the existing parking lot would bring the parking much closer to the adjoining houses which could negatively impact those residents in terms of noise and light glare and from an appearance/aesthetic standpoint (views from windows). Ms. Stachowiak said that in order to protect the adjoining residents from the effects of adding additional parking and since the available parking in the area has historically proven to be adequate to support the church during its peak hour parking demand, any expansion of the on-site parking lot is not recommended. Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Dan Maynard, 2237 Luwanna Street, spoke in favor of the request as a representative of Unity Spiritual Church. He said that the value of the church building was fairly low prior to the damage and thus, there would be no way to restore it or to construct a new church without exceeding.50% of its pre-damage value. He said that they have already received the necessary approvals to make the church handicap accessible. Belinda Fitzpatrick, 224 S. Holmes Street, spoke in opposition to the request. She stated that she lives adjacent to the church and her house is 9 feet away from the church building. Ms. Fitzpatrick expressed concerns about the potential for the church to expand the parking lot, thus bringing it much closer to her property which would result in increased noise and light glare. She spoke about issues that have occurred with excessive use of the on-street parking by the church which has been even worse since The Fledge came into the area, one block from the church. Ms. Fitzpatrick said that the church property needs to be used for residential purposes so that it is compatible with the residential area in which it is located. Christine Clements, 1219 Prospect Street, spoke in support of the request. She said that she is the owner of the other property that directly adjoins the church property and she does not object to expanding the on-site parking lot. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Mr. Learning asked about the ability of the church to expand the parking lot to the north Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 12, 2020 Page 3 where it would be very close to the adjoining property/house. Ms. Stachowiak said that the church could do so to a certain extent but that would not be desirable given its impact on the adjoining neighbor. She said that the approval could be conditioned upon prohibiting any expansion of the parking lot. She also said that the Planning Board approval of the Class A status request included a condition that the church is to install shrubbery/bushes around the perimeter of the parking lot to soften its view from the adjoining properties and from the street. Mr. Rice said that the issue seems to primarily involve concerns about expanding the parking lot. He expressed support for the church's request, with the same condition that the Planning Board included in its approval regarding planting shrubs/bushes around the perimeter of the site and with the condition that there is no expansion of the on-site parking area. Ms. Stachowiak described the variances that have already been approved to allow for an addition to the existing church to make it handicap accessible. Mr. Leaming expressed support for the request as well, subject to the same conditions described by Mr. Rice. Mr. Leaming made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve BZA 4056.19 a request to permit the restoration/repair of the fire damaged church building at 230 S. Holmes Street at a cost that exceeds 50% of its value prior to the damage, with the following conditions: • The necessary permits are obtained and the work to restore/repair the fire damage to the building at this location commences within one (1) year from the date of this approval, • The church plants shrubbery/bushes around the perimeter of the parking lot to soften its view from the street and from the adjoining properties; and • No expansion of the existing on-street parking area is permitted. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). B. BZA-4055.19, 1215 River Street, Appeal of administrative decision to permit a new telecommunications tower that would have a reduced setback and a reduced separation distance between telecommunication towers Ms. Ailing stated that Ms. Stachowiak would be given 10 minutes to present her position on this matter, after which the appellant will be given the same amount of time to make a presentation to the Board, Ms. Stachowiak stated that SBA Communications is appealing her decision to authorize the setback and separation distance waivers necessary to permit a new Verizon wireless telecommunications tower at 1215 River Street, in accordance with the authority granted to her under Section 1298.05 (A) (4) of the Zoning Ordinance. Setbacks of 85 feet from the tower to the east and west side property lines (90 foot setbacks required) and separation distances of 1,396 feet (disputed) from an existing tower at 209 Baker Street and 1,481 feet (disputed) from an existing tower at 910 River Street (1,500 foot separation distance between towers is required) were approved by the Zoning Administrator as part of the site plan review and approval process. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 12, 2020 Page 4 Ms. Stachowiak said that the appellant asserts that she should not have granted waivers to Verizon for the construction of a new tower at 1215 River Street since there is an existing SBA tower at 209 Baker Street upon which Verizon could lease space to collocate an antenna. The appellant also contends that, in lieu of constructing a new tower, Verizon could simply upgrade its existing antenna on the tower at 910 River Street in order to improve its service in the area. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the decision to authorize the reduced setbacks was based on the following: There is no way to situate the tower on the site in compliance with the setback requirements from all 4 property lines. The reduced setbacks will have no negative impacts on the adjoining property owners, both of which are currently being used for open storage yards/parking lots. Since the property is zoned industrial and surrounded by industrial zoning and land uses, any construction on the property other than a tower would not be subject to any setback requirements (see setback requirements listed in Chapter 1276 of the Zoning Ordinance). The nearest property being used for residential purposes is located approximately 800 feet to the northwest of the proposed tower. The location is therefore, consistent with one of the primary goals of the wireless communication tower ordinance which is to locate towers on sites that do not adjoin or are located in close proximity to residential uses. The setback waivers are very minimal (5 feet) and denial would prohibit the tower, despite it being an appropriate location given the heavy industrial area in which it would be located. Ms. Stachowiak said that her decision to authorize the reduced separation requirements was based on the following: The site plan for the proposed Verizon tower at 1215 River Street was submitted to the City for approval in September of 2019. At the time that the site plan and the setback/separation distance waivers were approved by the Zoning Administrator, there were no antennas on the tower at 209 Baker Street. The only antenna that is currently on that tower was installed by Sprint in October of 2019. To the best of our knowledge (not disputed by SBA), the tower at 209 Baker Street had not been in use for more than a year prior to October of 2019, thus making it an "abandoned" tower by the standards of Section 1298.09 of the Zoning Ordinance. As such, the City could have and should have required the appellant to remove its tower at 209 Baker Street but failed to do so. Instead, the City allowed the tower to remain and even be put back into use by authorizing a permit for installation of the Sprint antenna. Had the City required the removal of that tower, the separation distance from it to the proposed tower would not be an issue. Given these circumstances, it is unreasonable for the appellant to Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 12, 2020 Page 5 challenge the decision of the Zoning Administrator to authorize a slight waiver to the separation distance requirement between the two towers when the appellant's tower at 209 Baker Street should not even exist at this time. The only tool available to the Zoning Administrator to measure distances is with the City's GIS system which shows that the existing tower at 910 River Street is located more than 1,500 feet from the proposed tower. This is not a 100% accurate means of measurement, however, and thus, the Zoning Administrator cannot state with absolute certainty that it exceeds the separation requirement. At most, the separation distance is 1,481 feet which is a waiver of 19 feet (1.2%). Denial of the tower for such a slight reduction in separation, particularly when there is a fair chance that it may actually comply with the requirement, is not reasonable. Ms. Stachowiak said that she would like to share her remaining time with the representatives from Verizon. Robert LaBelle, Attorney representing Verizon Wireless, stated that the SBA tower located at 209 Baker Street was not in use for at least 3 years and thus, the City should have required it to be removed in which case, it would not even be an issue. He said that denial of the reduced setbacks and separation distances would result in the need for the company to seek an alternate location that it needs in order to optimize and prevent gaps in its coverage to serve the needs of its customers. Mr. LaBelle said that Verizon already has an antenna on the tower at 910 River Street and is still experiencing issues with its coverage in the area. He stated that the separation distance and setback waivers are very minimal and denial would prohibit the tower, despite it being in a location that meets the intent and purpose of the City's Ordinance regulating the placement of towers. He asked that the Board uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator stating that she acted in accordance with the authority provided to her under the ordinance. Ronald Redick, attorney representing the appellant, SBA Communications, stated that the Zoning Administrator exceeded her authority in granting the waivers to allow the tower at 1215 River Street and thus, her decision should be overturned. He said that this is all about economics because Verizon does not want to keep paying SBA to lease space on its towers. Mr. Redick stated that there is no technical justifications for allowing towers within 1500 feet of each other and in fact, that is contrary to the goal of the ordinance which is to reduce the number of towers by encouraging co-locations on existing towers of which, there are 2 in the area that are owned by SBA and can serve the needs of Verizon with regard to coverage. Mr. Redick said that in order for the waivers to be granted, the Zoning Administrator has to find that the waivers are necessary to encourage shared use and to reduce the proliferation of towers, He said that the waivers granted by the Zoning Administrator have the opposite effect. Mr. Redick stated that Verizon has not submitted any technical information to demonstrate that their needs cannot be served by the existing towers within 1500 feet of the property tower. He said that Verizon has not even provided a rebuttal to the technical information that SBA provided which shows that its towers are sufficient. Mr. Redick stated that with regard to the tower at 209 Baker, SBA was in negotiations with Sprint, which now has an antenna on that tower, but they delayed making the decision until 2018 which is why it was vacant for some time. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 12, 2020 Page 6 Robert LaBelle spoke in response to the comments made by Mr. Redick. He stated that it is telling that the tower at 209 Baker Street was vacant for 3 years. He also said that the new tower will be half way between the two existing towers which fills a gap in coverage. Mr. LaBelle said that under Mr. Redick's interpretation of the ordinance, no waivers could ever be granted and thus, there would be no reason to provide for doing so in the ordinance. He said that the only cause for overturning the Zoning Administrator's decision would be if there had been an abuse of power and that is not case where this matter is concerned. Ms. Alling opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Alling closed the public hearing. Mr. Leaming asked if there is any dispute as to whether the tower at 209 Baker Street should have been removed, given the amount of time that it was not in use. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the City should have required the tower to be removed but did not do so. Mr. lannuzzi asked what happens if the appeal is upheld. Mr. LaBelle said that Verizon will have to find another location which will be difficult because the search ring to fill the coverage gap is so small. He said that Verizon has no desire to build new towers where it is not necessary as it is very expensive to do so. He said that co-locating is the preferred course of action. Mr. Leaming asked if all of the towers shown on the map that SBA provided are owned by SBA. Mr. Redick said that they are all owned by SBA. Mr. Fryling asked Mr. LaBelle why there is a need for a new tower when there are other towers in the area. Mr. LaBelle said that it is not just a matter of coverage but a matter of capacity and their needs simply cannot be met by collocating on an existing tower in the area. Mr. Rice stated that the BZA is charged with determining if the Zoning Administrator position was appropriate and in keeping with the ordinance standard and with the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Mr. Rice stated that the waivers that were granted by the Zoning Administrator were minimal and the result was to allow a tower in a location consistent with the intent and purpose of the ordinance regulating towers. He said that he is not inclined to overturn the decision that is being appealed. Mr. Leaming stated that both parties have monetary interest in this matter. He said that the tower that is the subject of the appeal is intended to achieve more capacity in the service area and only needed very minimal waivers in order to allow the tower in the proposed location so that it can fulfill that objective. Mr. Leaming stated that he does not find anything egregious with regard to the Zoning Administrator's decision. Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Leaming to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to waive the setback Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes March 12, 2020 Page 7 requirement and the required separation distance between towers in order to locate a new tower on the property at 1215 River Street. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (6-1). Mr. Berryman cast the dissenting vote. V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absences Mr. Leaming made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to grant excused absences for Mr. Hovey and Mr. Solak. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, October 10, 2019 Mr. Leaming made a motion, seconded by Ms. Jefferson to approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on October 10, 2019, as printed. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (7-0). VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:43 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator