Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning 2021 Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 1 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING —APPROVED 1/13/22 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WEDNESDAY, November 17, 2021, 6:30 P.M. 600 W. Maple Street, Lansing, MI 48915 The meeting was also accessible to members of the public via online teleconference in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, as amended. I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Marcie Alling at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Alling, E. Jefferson, J. Hovey, J. Learning & B. Fryling Absent: M. Solak, K. Berryman, C. lannuzzi & M. Rice Staff: S. Stachowiak & A. Fedewa A quorum of at five members were present, allowing voting action to be taken at the meeting. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Ms. Jefferson, seconded by Mr. Learning 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. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4074.21, 3101 Technology Blvd. - Variance to the setback requirement for a ground sign Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by McLaren Greater Lansing to permit a 14-foot high, 131.37 square foot ground sign at 3101 Technology Blvd., (site of the future McLaren Hospital facilities) that would have a setback of 7 feet from the property line along Forest Road. Section 1442.12(h)(3)(A)(3) of the City of Lansing Sign Ordinance requires a setback of 26 feet for a ground sign of these dimensions. A variance of 19 feet to the required setback is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to approve the variance on a finding that the request complies with the variance evaluation criteria listed in Sections 1274.06 (c) & (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the new hospital includes several buildings, various uses within the buildings and designated parking lots in a campus-like setting. She said that unlike most signs that are just intended to advertise a particular business, the hospital signs are important so that visitors are directed to the appropriate location within the site. Ms. Stachowiak said that visitors to hospitals depend on signage at the entrances and it is essential that it is in a very visible location for motorists. Ms. Stachowiak said that the reason for the reduced setback is that if the sign were to be moved any further back from the property line along Forest Road, it would be Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 2 located directly above underground electrical units which would not be permitted by the Lansing Board of Water & Light. She said that the underground electric service presents a true practical difficulty for the applicant in complying with the setback requirement for the proposed sign. The electrical service cannot be relocated, and a sign cannot be placed within the area of the site that it consumes. Ms. Stachowiak said that since this practical difficulty is unique to the area of the site where it is essential for a sign to be located, the relief to the setback requirement as requested by the applicant is warranted. Ms. Alling opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Alling closed the public hearing. Mr. Learning and Mr. Fryling questioned why the hospital needs such a large sign. Mr. Leaming stated that this appears to be a self-created hardship since the applicant had control over the development of the site and thus, should have planned for an appropriate sign location and location for the electrical service. Ms. Alling stated that she sees a need for the sign and does not believe that the applicant had much if any control over the location of the electrical service since that would have been dictated by the Board of Water& Light. Mr. Fryling questioned whether the location of the sign will result in a vision obstruction when exiting the driveway where it will be located. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it has been verified by the City that the proposed sign will be far enough back that it will not interfere with vision at the intersection. Ms. Jefferson and Mr. Hovey spoke in support of the request citing the uniqueness of hospital operations with regard to signs that direct visitors to their intended location. Mr. Learning & Mr. Frying expressed general support for the variance but with some reluctance since the sign seems to be much larger and taller than what is necessary. Mr. Hovey made a motion, seconded by Ms. Jefferson to approve BZA 4074.21 for a variance of 19 feet to the required 26 foot setback for a 14-foot high, 131.37 square foot ground sign at the intersection of Forest Road and the driveway to the property at 3101 Technology Boulevard, on a finding that the request complies with the variance evaluation criteria listed in Sections 1274.06 (c) & (e) of the Ordinance. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absences Ms. Jefferson made a motion, seconded by Mr. Learning to approve excused absences for Mr. Solak, Mr. Berryman, Mr. lannuzzi & Mr. Rice. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 3 VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, October 14, 2021 Mr. Hovey6 made a motion, seconded by Ms. Jefferson to approve the October 14, 2021 meeting minutes, as presented. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Vill. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 14,2021 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING —Approved 11117121 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS THURSDAY, October 14, 2021, 6:30 P.M. 600 W. Maple Street, Lansing, MI 48915 The meeting was also accessible to members of the public via online teleconference in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, as amended. I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Marcie Ailing at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Ailing, K. Berryman, C. lannuzzi, M. Rice & B. Fryling Absent: M. Solak, J. Leaming, E. Jefferson & J. Hovey Staff: S. Stachowiak &A. Fedewa A quorum of at 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. Fryling 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. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4073.21, 736 N. Larch Street - Variance to the clear vision requirements for a fence Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by John Berry to permit a 6-foot-high chain-link fence with screening slats around the perimeter of the property at 736 N. Larch Street. Sections 1250.03.03 (a) & (b) of the City of Lansing Zoning Ordinance prohibit fences above a height of 3 feet that materially obstruct vision within a 25-foot corner clearance area at a street intersection and within a 10-foot corner clearance area at the intersection of driveways and property lines. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the newly erected 6-foot-high screen fence that projects into the clear visions areas to remain on the property at 736 N. Larch Street. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to deny the variance on a finding that the request does not comply with the variance evaluation criteria described in Sections 1274.06 (c) & (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. She said that there is nothing unique about the subject property that would warrant approval of the requested variance. She also said that this is a safety issue because the slats in the fence impede visibility for motorists in the area, particularly at the N. Larch/May Street intersection. Ms. Stachowiak stated that In February 2021, the applicant applied for and was denied a variance to allow barbed wire on the fence at 736 N. Larch. She said that it was made clear at the meeting that a 6-foot-high chain-link fence around the perimeter of the property would be permitted. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the new zoning ordinance Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 14, 2021 Page 2 that went into effect on May 1, 2021, does not allow chain-link fences in front yards, even on industrially zoned parcels of land. The applicant's chain-link fence, however, is considered legally nonconforming (grandfathered-in) under the previous ordinance. She said that the slats that were installed on the fence, however, are not grandfathered-in as they would not have been permitted under the previous ordinance. She also said that there was no mention of installing the slats at the February meeting and the applicant did not inquire with the City as to whether the slats would be permitted before installing them on the fence. Ms. Alling opened the public hearing. Jake Berry, Denver, Colorado, addressed the Board remotely via Zoom Conferencing. Mr. Berry said that the fence was finally installed after multiple delays involving Covid and a shortage of fence materials/supplies. He said that the intent was always to add shading material to the fence to dissuade break-ins/muggings and other issues that have been experienced in the area. Mr. Berry said that recently spoke with an employee of the Department of Economic Development & Planning and was told that he could not have the shading because the ordinance prohibiting it has recently changed. Ms. Stachowiak responded that the ordinance did not change with regard to obstructions within the corner clearance areas. She said that the only change was prohibiting chain-link fences in front yards but that is not at issue in this case since the City is permitting the 6-foot-high chain-link fence around the perimeter of the site as agreed to the February meeting. Ms. Stachowiak said that the only issue is the slats in the fence and they would not have been permitted under the previous ordinance either because it is a safety matter. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Alling closed the public hearing. Ms. Stachowiak reviewed the areas outlined on the aerial photograph included in the packet showing the corner clearance/clear vision areas on the site. She said that the fence either needs to be moved out of these areas or the applicant can lower the height of the slats to 3 feet. She explained that the ordinance prohibits anything above a height of 3 feet within the corner clearance/clear visions area. Mr. Berryman asked what constitutes "opaqueness". Ms. Stachowiak said that it must be a see-through fence such as chain-link without the screening slats. She said that the ordinance prohibits any obstruction to vision above a height of 3 feet within a corner clearance/clear vision area. Mr. Rice stated that there is nothing unique about the property that would warrant approval of the variance and thus, he cannot support the variance. Mr. Berryman made mention of the sign located near the northwest corner of the site and the obstruction that it causes. Ms. Alling stated that she noticed the sign as well but bringing the fence into compliance with the ordinance will allow motorists to see around the sign. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 14, 2021 Page 3 Mr. lannuzzi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to deny BZA 4073.21 for a variance to permit the screening slats in the 6-foot-high chain-link fence at 736 N. Larch Street within the corner clearance and clear vision areas described in Sections 1250.03.03 (a) & (b) of the Zoning Ordinance, on a finding that the request does not comply with the variance evaluation criteria listed in Sections 1274.06 (c) & (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Berryman asked that Ms. Stachowiak work with Mr. Berry on what needs to be done to the fence to bring the fence into compliance with the ordinance and on the time frame to do so. Ms. Stachowiak assured the Board that she will work with the owner to resolve this matter. V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absences Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. lannuzzi to approve excused absences for Mr. Solak, Ms. Jefferson & Mr. Learning. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. 2022 Meeting Schedule Mr. lannuzzi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Berryman to approve the 2022 BZA meeting schedule as presented. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, August 12, 2021 Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Berryman to approve the August 12, 2021 meeting minutes, as presented. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Vill. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:02 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 12, 2021 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING —Approved 1019121 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS THURSDAY, August 12, 2021, 6:30 P.M. 600 W. Maple Street, Lansing, MI 48915 The meeting was also accessible to members of the public via online teleconference in compliance with the Open Meetings Act,as amended. I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Marcie Alling at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Alling, K. Berryman, J. Learning, E. Jefferson & B. Fryling Absent: M. Solak, M. Rice, C. lannuzzi & J. Hovey Staff: S. Stachowiak & A. Fedewa A quorum of at 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 5-0. Ill. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4071.21, 1218 Theodore Street - Variance to permit artificial turf in the front yard Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by the owner of 1218 Theodore Street for a variance to permit the front yard at this location to be covered with synthetic turf. Section 1252.05 of the City of Lansing Zoning Ordinance requires those areas of a lot that are not covered by buildings or pavement to be covered by grass or other natural (growing) ground covers. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to deny the variance on a finding that the request does not comply with the variance evaluation criteria described in Sections 1274.06 (c) & (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that In April of this year, it was brought to her attention that the applicant covered the front yard, including the public right-of way at 1218 Theodore Street with gravel. In response, she sent a letter notifying the applicant that the gravel violates the Zoning Ordinance and the gravel in the public right-of-way violates the provisions of City Ordinance 1020.03 & 1020.04, which prohibit the placement of any plant or other material, other than natural grass, in the public right-of-way. In response to the letter, the applicant covered the front yard with artificial grass rugs and was then notified that artificial grass does not satisfy the ordinance requirements for covering a yard/public right-of-way with grass. Ms. Stachowiak said that there is nothing unique about the applicant's property that warrants relief from the ordinance. She said that the basis for the applicant's request is that the artificial grass would be low maintenance, will look good all of the time and will not require the use of pesticides or fertilizers. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 12, 2021 Page 2 Ms. Stachowiak pointed out that the Board of Zoning Appeals does not have the authority to grant a variance to allow gravel, artificial grass or anything else in the public right-of-way. She said that Ordinance 1020 grants the City's Public Service department sole authority over use of or placement of anything in the public right-of- way. Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Jose Lopez, 1218 Theodore Street, addressed the Board remotely via Zoom Conferencing. Mr. Lopez explained that 1218 Theodore is his second home and the artificial turf ensures that is will always look nice since he is not there much of the time to perform maintenance. He said that he did not realize that the artificial turf would be an issue and he asked that the Board grant the requested variance so that it can remain as is. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Mr. Learning stated that he went by the property to look at it and it appears that grass is growing up through the rug. He said that since there is nothing unique about the property itself that makes compliance with the ordinance impractical or unreasonably difficult, the Board is not in a position to approve the variance. Ms. Stachowiak assured Mr. Lopez that he would be given ample time to remove the artificial turf and the gravel and plant the area with grass. Ms. Jefferson made a motion, seconded by Mr. Learning to deny BZA 4071.21 for a variance of 16 feet to the allowable width for a driveway in the front yard at 409 W. Sheridan Road, on a finding that the request does not comply with the variance evaluation criteria described in Sections 1274.06 (c) & (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. BZA-4072.21 —804 W. Shiawassee Street -Variance to permit covering the front and side yard with mulch Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by the owner of 804 W. Shiawassee Street for a variance to permit the front yard and part of the side yard at this location to be covered with mulch. Section 1252.05 of the City of Lansing Zoning Ordinance requires those areas of a lot that are not covered by buildings or pavement to be covered by grass or other natural (growing) ground covers. This Section also limits the area of a yard that can be covered by mulch to 25%. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to deny the variance on a finding that the request does not comply with the variance evaluation criteria described in Sections 1274.06 (c) & (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that In June of this year, it was brought to her attention that the applicant covered the front yard, part of the side yard and the public right-of way at 804 W. Shiawassee Street with mulch. In response, she sent a letter notifying the applicant that the mulch violates the Zoning Ordinance and the mulch in the public right-of-way violates the provisions of City Ordinance 1020.03 & 1020.04, which prohibit the placement of any material, other than natural grass, in the public right-of-way. Ms. Stachowiak said that the applicant has removed the vast majority of the mulch and at this point, she considers the property to be in compliance with the ordinances. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 12, 2021 Page 3 Ms. Stachowiak said that the applicant does not seem disagree that the mulch is a violation of the City Ordinances but does not feel that the City should be taking enforcement action against her because (1) she was not aware of the ordinance, (2) the time frame that was given to correct the violation (21 days) was not sufficient, (3) there has historically been mulch beds in the front yard and public right-of-way at 804 W. Shiawassee, (4) trash that collects in her yard from littering in the area does not have to be picked up to mow the yard as long as it is covered with mulch; and (5) the City is only pursing this matter because her next door neighbor, who is a former City employee, contacted the City about the mulch. Ms. Stachowiak said that none of these issues are sufficient justification for issuance of a variance. She said that there is nothing unique about the applicant's property that warrants relief from the ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that aerial photographs from 2015 and 2020 do not show that there was mulch in the public right-of-way at 804 W. Shiawassee Street. The aerials do show that there have been mulch beds in the front yard at this location. This was considered a legal nonconformity (grandfathered-in) and allowed to continue as it has existed for many years. As a nonconformity, however, the area covered by mulch could not be increased which is what has occurred and why it became a violation of the ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak again pointed out that the Board of Zoning Appeals does not have the authority to grant a variance to allow mulch or anything else in the public right-of-way. She said that Ordinance 1020 grants the City's Public Service department sole authority over use of or placement of anything in the public right-of-way. Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Ms. M. Cherry, 804 W. Shiawassee Street, stated that her purpose for bringing this matter before the Board was to explain the situation that resulted in a need to add additional mulch to areas where it has already existed for quite some time. She said that the situation with her next door neighbor has been very difficult and the mulch prevents her from having to spend as much time in the yard doing maintenance which is less time that she has to interact with the neighbor. Ms. Cherry said that if she cannot have the mulch, she would like to have some other type of ground cover that serves the same purpose of less maintenance. She also said that she naturally assumed that there would not be an issue with the mulch since it was given to her by the City or one of its contractors. Jeffrey Rogers, 804 W. Shiawassee Street, reiterated the concerns expressed by Ms. Cherry with respect to trash in the yard, the tense situation with the next door neighbor, the prior existence of mulch on the property and the need for some type of ground cover that would not require as much maintenance as standard grass. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Ms. Jefferson informed Ms. Cherry that the Board does not have the authority to authorize the placement of mulch or anything else in the public right-of-way but that Ms. Stachowiak can provide her with the information she needs to request an exception from the City's Public Service Department. Mr. Learning asked Ms. Stachowiak about adding mulch to areas where it already existed. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes August 12, 2021 Page 4 Ms. Stachowiak said that if the applicant had just put some mulch over the area in the front yard where it previously existed just to give it a clean and fresh look, there would not have been an issue. She said that the problem occurred when the area was expanded, particularly into the public right-of-way. Mr. Learning explained that the request does not comply with the evaluation criteria to authorize a variance. Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Ms. Jefferson to deny BZA 4072.21 for a variance to permit the front yard and part of the side yard at 804 W. Shiawassee Street to be covered with mulch, on a finding that the request does not comply with the variance evaluation criteria listed in Sections 1274.06 (c) & (e) of the Zoning Ordinance, and to confirm that the applicant will be permitted to maintain the current level and placement of mulch/mulch beds that have historically existed on the property, as shown in the photographs provided in the meeting packet. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absences Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Ms. Jefferson to approve excused absences for Mr. Solak, Mr. lannuzzi and Mr. Rice. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Ms. Stachowiak stated that a new zoning ordinance went into effect on May 1, 2021. She said that as staff works with the ordinance, they are finding a lot of conflicts, unclear language and things that just need to be tweaked so there are already a number of amendments in the works. VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, June 10, 2021 Ms. Jefferson made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fryling to approve the June 10, 2021 meeting minutes, as presented. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Vill. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:41 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes June 10, 2021 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING —Approved 8112121 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS THURSDAY, June 10, 2021, 6:30 P.M. The meeting was conducted as an online teleconference in compliance with the Open Meetings Act,as amended,and to follow recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and other public health agencies concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Marcie Ailing at 6:35 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Ailing, M. Rice, K. Berryman, Chris lannuzzi & E. Jefferson Absent: M. Solak, B. Fryling, J. Hovey & J. Learning Staff: S. Stachowiak & A. Fedewa A quorum of at 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 Ms. Jefferson 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. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4069.21, 409 W. Sheridan Road -Variance to the allowable width of a driveway in a residential front yard Ms. Stachowiak stated that this is a request by John Walker for a variance to permit a parking space in the front yard at 409 W. Sheridan Road that would result in the driveway at this location being approximately 28 feet wide within the front yard. Section 1254.01.17(b) of the City of Lansing Zoning Ordinance restricts the width of residential driveways in front yards to 12 feet, or to the width of a garage (there is no garage on the subject property). A variance of 16 feet to the allowable width for a driveway within a front yard is therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to deny the variance on a finding that the request does not comply with the variance evaluation criteria described in Sections 1274.06 (c) & (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the parking area in the front yard at 409 W. Sheridan Road is contrary to the intent and purpose of the ordinance and thus, approval of the variance would set a negative precedent for future requests of a similar nature. She explained that the basis for the applicant having installed the concrete in the front yard is to provide better access to the front door for a disabled relative that lives in the house. Ms. Stachowiak said that a photograph of the property taken by the Assessor's Office shows a handicap ramp leading from the front door to the sidewalk and a gravel landscape area in front of the house. In a recent photograph of the property, the handicap ramp has been removed and the area where it was along with the gravel area have been paved with concrete. She said that there does not appear to Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes June 10, 2021 Page 2 be a sufficient basis for approval of the variance since the distance from the paved driveway along the west side of the house to the front porch is approximately 15 feet and there is a concrete walkway between the 2 points. Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Mr. Rice asked how the ramp was able to be constructed and the gravel placed in the front yard. Ms. Stachowiak said that the ramp was not legal to extent that it emptied onto the public sidewalk but she is not sure how that was able to be constructed. She said that the recently repealed zoning ordinance allowed the gravel, although not for parking. Mr. Berryman asked is the pavement would have to be removed if the variance is denied. Ms. Stachowiak said that it would have to be removed. Mr. Rice stated that the request does not comply with the criteria that is used to evaluate variances and thus, it should not be approved. He also said that the applicant already has a driveway that is of sufficient size and since there is nothing unique about the property to warrant the variance, approval may set a negative precedent for future requests to permit parking in a front yard. Ms. Ailing agreed with Mr. Rice. She said that the situation is unfortunate but there just is not any justification for granting the variance. She also said that perhaps the applicant could construct a new ramp that provides better access to the home for the person who is disabled. Ms. Jefferson made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to deny BZA 4069.21 for a variance of 16 feet to the allowable width for a driveway in the front yard at 409 W. Sheridan Road, on a finding that the request does not comply with the variance evaluation criteria described in Sections 1274.06 (c) & (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. BZA-4070.21 —815 Jessop Avenue -Variances to the side and rear yard setbacks to permit the construction of a single family residential house Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by Raymundo Garcia for variances to permit the construction of a new single family dwelling at 815 Jessop Avenue that would have a setback of 4.7 feet from the side/east property line and a setback of 22.6 feet at its nearest point to the rear lot line. Section 1244.08.03(b) of the City of Lansing Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard setback of 30 feet and a side yard setback of 10 feet. Variances of 7.4 feet to the rear yard setback requirement and 5.3 feet to the side yard setback requirement 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 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 uniqueness in this case involves the uncommonly small Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes June 10, 2021 Page 3 size and irregular shape of the lot which prevents it from being reasonably developed for the intended single family residential use without variances to the setback requirements. She said that the proposed house is 28 feet wide by 38 feet deep (1,064 square feet) which is a very reasonable size. She also said that, as evidenced by the parcel map in the packet, there are a few other lots in the area that are smaller and have an irregular shape. The majority of the lots, however, are rectangular and have a depth of 105 feet. Ms. Stachowiak said that if the subject property had the same shape and dimensions/size, no variances would be necessary in this case. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the lots along Jessop Avenue were platted in the 1920's when setback requirements and minimum lots sizes were much less restrictive. Under the current City ordinances, a new single family residential lot would have to be at least 60 feet wide at the 20 foot front yard setback line and the entire lot must be at least 100 feet in depth. Ms. Stachowiak said that if the subject property complied with current lot size requirements, no variances would be necessary in this case. Ms Stachowiak said that the setbacks are measured from the nearest point of the house to the nearest point on the lot line(s). She said that, as depicted on the site layout, the majority of the proposed house will comply with the required setbacks. It is only the areas highlighted in red that encroach into the setbacks and that is a direct result of the irregular shape of the lot. Ms. Stachowiak said that the encroachments are minimal and without setback variances, the lot would be rendered virtually unbuildable. Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Patrick Lee, 821 Jessop Avenue, spoke in opposition to the variances. Mr. Lee said that he owns the property directly adjacent to 815 Jessop and when he purchased the property, he was told that the property was not buildable. He said that the variances would allow for a house to be squeezed in on the property which will negatively change the character of the area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Ms. Ailing asked Ms. Stachowiak if the City sold the property to the current owner. Mr. Fedewa said that he looked it up on the Assessor's records and it was sold to the current owner by Ingham County in May of this year. Mr. Rice stated that the request seems to comply with the criteria used to evaluate variances. He said that the owner of a property has a right to develop it in a reasonable manner and the reason for variances is when that cannot occur because of a unique feature of the site such as irregular shape. He also said that the lot was platted along time ago, so the current owner did not create the situation that warrants the variances. Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Ms. Jefferson to approve BZA 4070.21 for variances of 7.4 feet to the rear yard setback requirement and 5.3 feet to the side yard setback requirement to permit the construction of a single family residential home on the property at 815 Jessop Avenue, on a finding that the request complies the variance evaluation criteria described in Sections 1274.06 (c) & (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5- 0). Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes June 10, 2021 Page 4 V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absences Mr. lannuzzi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve excused absences for Mr. Solak & Mr. Fryling. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Return to in-person meetings Ms. Stachowiak stated that beginning July 12, 2021, the City will return to in-person meetings. She said that July BZA meeting is on the 8th so the first in-person meeting will be in August. Ms. Stachowiak said that the meetings will be held at the Neighborhood Empowerment Center and she will try to book them in the training room so there is more space for everyone to spread out. VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, February 11, 2021 Ms. Stachowiak said that the minutes need to be corrected to reflect that Mr. Berryman was granted an excused absence. Mr. lannuzzi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to amend the minutes to reflect that Mr. Berryman was granted an excused absence. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Berryman to approve the February 11, 2021 meeting minutes, as amended. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Vill. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:07 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 Ailing at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present: M. Ailing, 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 1.2, 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. Learning 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 shrubberylbushes 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. Alling 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 1.2, 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. Learning 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. Learning 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. Learning 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. Learning stated that he does not find anything egregious with regard to the Zoning Administrator's decision. Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Learning 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. Learning 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). Vill. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:43 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 11, 2021 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING - Approved 6110121 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS THURSDAY, February 11, 2021, 6:30 P.M. The meeting was conducted as an online teleconference in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, as amended,and to follow recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and other public health agencies concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 & R. Fryling Absent: K. Berryman, Chris lannuzzi, M. Solak & E. Jefferson 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 with the addition of "Excused Absences" under New Business. On a voice vote, the motion carried 5-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4067.21, North & West of 1100 W. Saginaw — Variances to the allowable density for a proposed 67 unit apartment building —WITHDRAWN B. BZA-4068.21 —Variances to permit barbed wire on a 6 foot high fence that would be within 30 feet of residential parcels of land Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request by Loud Labs of Michigan to permit a 6 foot high chain-link fence topped with 3 strands of barbed wire around the perimeter of the property at 736 N. Larch Street which directly adjoins 2 residential properties to its south. Section 1290.08(a)(3)(B) of the City of Lansing Zoning Ordinance prohibits barbed wire on fences that are 6 feet or less in height and located within 30 feet of a residential parcel of land. Variances to permit barbed wire on a 6 foot high fence that would be located on the common property lines of 736 N. Larch Street and the adjoining residential parcels of land at 607 & 620 May Street are therefore, being requested. Ms. Stachowiak stated that the staff recommendation is to deny the variances based on a finding that the requests do not comply with 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 applicant selected a property as a site for a marijuana processing facility that adjoins residential uses, thus disqualifying it from having a barbed wire fence. She said that the ordinance regulating barbed wire fences has not changed and the adjoining residential uses existed long before the subject property Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 11, 2021 Page 2 was converted to a processing facility. Ms. Stachowiak said that the adjoining residents should not have the character of their properties altered and their safety potentially compromised because a new business has determined that it needs the additional security of a barbed wire fence. Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. John Berry, 736 N. Larch Street, spoke in support of his request. Mr. Berry stated that there are not many options when it comes to finding properties that are zoned for marijuana processing facilities. He said that the barbed wire fence is needed to provide adequate safety for him and his employees and to secure the property to prevent against theft and vandalism. Mr. Berry said that he has had problems with vagrants loitering and has found heroin needles and crack pipes on his property. He said that he was told that he could only have a 3 foot high fence on the property. Ms. Stachowiak said that they fence could be surrounded by a 6 foot high chain-link fence. She said that the issue is the barbed wire. Mr. Hovey asked Mr. Berry if he would be satisfied with a 6 foot high fence, without barbed wire. Mr. Berry said that while he would prefer to have the added protection of barbed wire, a 6 foot high fence would be acceptable. Jason Kildea, Gillespie Group, representing the owner of the residential properties to the south and east of 736 N. Larch Street, stated that he appreciates the investment that the applicant has made into his property and understands the need for security but that a barbed wire fence would not be appropriate in such close proximity to residential properties. Mr. Kildea said that having a barbed wire fence on the common property line may discourage potential tenants from wanting to pay $1,200-$1,500 monthly rent to live in their buildings. He said that the applicant knew that there were adjoining residential properties when he selected his site for a processing center. Mr. Kildea said that he is not opposed to a fence on the property line but would ask that it be of a style that is appropriate for adjoining residential uses. Kristi Marciniac, Monroe Street, stated that she can see the property from her home and is opposed to the barbed wire fence as it would send a negative message about the neighborhood. She asked if there is a security guard on the property. Mr. Berry said that the business has been operating on the site since September of 2020. He said that they do not have a security guard on the property but they do work with the police to address security issues. Mr. Berry said that they are not open to the public. He also said that there is a junk yard in the area and a property that is surrounded by a barbed wire just a short distance down the street. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Mr. Leaming said that this is an unfortunate circumstance with there being limited areas in the City to locate a marijuana processing facility. He said that he supports the staff recommendation to deny the variance as it was incumbent on the applicant to take into consideration that establishing the facility on a site with adjoining residential properties would likely come with restrictions on barbed wire fencing. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 11, 2021 Page 3 Mr. Rice stated that he also supports the staff recommendation. He said that the applicant, by located his business next to residential properties, created the hardship that is being used as a basis for the variance. Mr. Hovey agreed. He said that the applicant will still be able to surround the property with a fence but without barbed wire. Mr. Hovey encouraged the applicant to consider a fence that would fit in with adjoining residential properties. Mr. Fryling stated that he cannot support the use of barbed wire on a fence that would be located on the common property line of adjacent residential properties. Ms. Ailing agreed. She also encouraged the applicant to consider a better looking fence then 6 foot high chain-link so that it would fit in better with the residential area. Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hovey to deny BZA 4068.21 for variances to permit a 6 foot high fence topped with barbed wire on the property at 736 N. Larch Street which directly adjoins two residential properties to its south, on a finding that the requested variances do not comply with the practical difficulty criteria outlined in Section 1244.06(c) or the impact criteria outlined in Section 1244.06(e) of the Zoning Ordinance. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Excused Absences Mr. Hovey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rice to approve excused absences for Mr. lannuzzi, Mr. Solak & Ms. Jefferson.. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, January 14, 2021 Mr. Learning made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hovey to approve the minutes from the January 14, 2021 meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Vill. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 7:09 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator �NS �N ti C Department of Economic Planning and Zoning Office Development and Planning 316 N. Capitol Avenue, Suite D-1 Brian McGrain, Director Lansing, Michigan 48933 P� PH: 517.483.4066 www.lansin mi, ov/ lannin Andy Schor,Mayor g g p g PUBLIC NOTICE Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting The Regular Board of Zoning Appeals meeting that was scheduled for Thursday February 10, 2021, 6:30pm has been cancelled. The next regular meeting is scheduled for: Thursday March 10, 2021, 6:30pm Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 14, 2021 Page 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING —Approved 2111121 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS THURSDAY, January 14, 2021, 6:30 P.M. The meeting was conducted as an online teleconference in compliance with State of Michigan 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. Learning, M. Rice, K. Berryman, Chris lannuzzi, R. Fryling, M. Solak & E. Jefferson Absent: None 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. Learning, seconded by Mr. Fryling to approve the agenda as presented. On a voice vote, the motion carried 9-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION A. BZA-4066.20, Variance to the setback requirement for a ground sign at 516 W. Saginaw Street Ms. Stachowiak said that this is a request to permit a 6 foot high, 20 square foot ground sign at 516 W. Saginaw Street (Walnut Manor Apartments) that would have a setback of 7 feet from the front property line. Section 1442.12(h)(2)(B)(2) of the City of Lansing Sign Ordinance requires a 20 foot front yard setback for ground signs in multiple family residential zoning districts. A variance of 13 feet to the setback requirement for a ground sign 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 of 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 no location on the site where the sign could be located in compliance with the 20 foot setback where it would be visible to eastbound traffic. She said that the site was constructed several decades before the applicant took possession of the property and thus, the applicant had no control over the layout of the site and could not plan for a location that would accommodate a sign in compliance with current sign ordinance requirements. She also said that the site is unique in that it is zoned residential but is located on a major thoroughfare where most of the properties are zoned commercial. Ms. Stachowiak stated if the subject property was zoned commercial, the proposed setback would be adequate to comply with the ordinance requirement for the dimensions of the proposed sign. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 14, 2021 Page 2 Ms. Ailing opened the public hearing. Kevin Carney, Rohde Construction Company, Inc., contractor for the rehabilitation project at 516 W. Saginaw, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Carney said that the sign will be angled to provide adequate exposure to eastbound traffic on Saginaw Street. He also said that a wall sign would not be sufficient to identify the building because it would be obscured by a tree during the growing season. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Ms. Ailing closed the public hearing. Mr. Berryman asked about the existing sign on the site. Ms. Stachowiak stated that it is just a temporary sign identifying the entities/agencies that participated in rehabilitation project. She said that it will be removed when the new sign is erected. Mr. Rice stated that he is supportive of the variance. He said that the site is unique in that there is not adequate room on the lot to accommodate a sign in compliance with the setback requirement. He said that it is also unique by being subject to a greater setback than the most other properties along W. Saginaw because of its residential zoning. Mr. Learning agreed with Mr. Rice that the layout of the site presents a practical difficulty for the applicant with regard to installation of a sign in compliance with the 20 foot setback requirement. Mr. Hovey made a motion, seconded by Ms. Jefferson to approve BZA 4066.20 for a variance of 13 feet to the setback requirement to permit a 6 foot high, 20 square foot ground sign at 516 W. Saginaw Street that would have a setback of 7 feet from the 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 described in the staff report for this application. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously (9-0). V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS — None VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, September 10, 2020 Mr. Rice made a motion, seconded by Mr. Learning to approve the minutes from the September 10, 2020 meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously (9-0). Vill. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT AT 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Stachowiak, Zoning Administrator