The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988 Various Boards Meeting MInutes Part 4 FINAL This is a request by Brian Nesbitt to retain a 6 x 24 foot porch ex- tension attached to the existing garage at 6835 South Washington A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to allow the continuance of a roof extended over the porch/patio attached to the new 24 x 30 foot garage. Holmes - Is the extended area part of the structure? Fountain - Yes. Brian Nesbitt, 6835 S . Washington. I 'm just a homeowner, not a con- tractor, and I built the building myself. I 'm not familiar with the zoning . Its actual designed to be a porch and patio area. I have a lot of property, close to an acre. I brought some photos. I also have a petition from my neighbors to find out their feelings- on it. (Petition as nine signatures stating no objection) . I 'm not going to expand the building. I want to be able to enjoy the yard. The house is close to the road. Communication Sterling & Ruth Lantrip, 6836 S . Washington, live across the street, he has improved his property a great deal, which improves our neigh- borhood. No objection. Fountain - Recommend to table the request for 30 days for further in- formation. Clark made a motion to table appeal #2941 . Second by Steele. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal 1#2941 TABLED The request was tabled for further information regarding the property line dispute with the neighbor to the north. Appeal #2942 - 6916 Vernson This is a request by Jaclynn Cunningham to have equipment approved that will allow for the operation of a one chair beauty salon as a home occupation in her home located at 6916 Vernson. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Jaclynn Cunninghan, 6916 Vernson. No additional information. I just want to run a small business out of my home, on Saturdays early af- ternoon, by appointment only. Wright - Are you aware of the recommendations. Cunningham - Yes . Communication access through the back where the patio is . My wife doesn' t feel safe with no where to take the kids in case of a tornado. I just recently hooked up our sewer that ' s why I had them go ahead and dig for the addition as well because I didn' t want them to cover up half of what I was going to need. Curran - You ' re going to put in rooms and a basement . Sawaya - Its going to be a bi-level addition. Robert Van Ness, 6401 Rosedale, across the street. All the houses are in line on that street, and I think it would be bad to have this one sit out 36 ' off the sidewalk. Mrs . Maxine Kiter, I sent a letter to the Planning Division in regards to this. The houses are all in alignment on the west side of the road. If request is granted would be setting a precedent. George Sawaya - Most of the houses on the street are about 20 ft from the front property line. Our house happened to be one of the first built on that street, they were put in line but not parallel to the street. We all gradually get further back . Communication A letter from Mrs. Maxine Kiter, owner 6342 Rosedale Road, object to the variance request. A telephone message from Gary Hult, 6400 Rosedale, object, will cut property values, would block view of street. Wright - What is the width of the street right-of-way in this loca- tion? Fountain - 50 ft. Hilts made a motion to deny appeal #2943 , no hardship. Second by Clark. Yeas: Clark, Curran, Hilts, Holmes Nays: Christy, Steele, Wright Motion to deny did not pass . Christy made a motion to approve appeal #2943 . Second by Wright. Yeas: Christy, Steele, Wright Nays: Curran, Hilts, Clark, Holmes Appeal #2943 DENIED Section 1244 .07 of the Zoning Code requires that the concurring vote of a majority of the members serving on the board shall be necessary to reverse an order, requirement, decision or determination of the Planning Division or to decide in favor of the applicant a matter upon which it is required to pass under an ordinance, or to effect a vari- ance of such ordinance. There are a total of nine members serving on the board of appeals, thus requiring at least five affirmative votes for approval. PAGE 5 Those members voting in favor of th e request did not believe the change would adversely affect the adjacent properties and that the interior layout of the structure, as indicated by the applicant pre- sents a practical difficulty. Those members voting in opposition to the change do not believe there is a hardship or practical difficulty and were satisfied that reason- able expansion could occur in accord with the minimum code require- ments, Appeal #2944 - 4316 South Pennsylvania This is a. request by Central Advertising Company for a variance at 4316 South Pennsylvania Avenue. The Capital Area School Employees Credit Union wishes to have a sign and retaining wall base constructed within 5 feet of the front property line. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Wright - What is the sign code in regard to permanent portable signs? Fountain - Most are illegal. The sign meets the requirements of the sign code but not the set back requirements of the zoning code. Central Advertising, the new sign will be basically the same as the old one except moved 20 ft. to the south, set up on the brick wall. Communication A letter from Institute for the Advancement of Prosthetics, 4424 South Pennsylvania, no objection to the variance request. A letter from Lansing Community Credit Union, 4510 South Pennsylvania, support the request for a variance. A letter from Michigan Retail Hardware Association, Inc. 4414 South Pennsylvania, no objection to the request. Clark made a motion to deny appeal #2944, there are other options . Second by Hilts. Yeas : Hilts, Curran, Clark, Wright, Holmes Nays: Steele, Christy. Appeal 7#2944 DENIED The board does not believe there is a hardship associated with this request and that there are other options for identifying the credit union building which can meet minimum code requirements . Appeal #2945 - 2107 South Cedar This is a request by Mark Blum to allow construction of an addition to the north side of the building at the property known as 2107 South Cedar to be located 5 feet from the front property line and 13 feet from the rear property line. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Clark - Would they have other options that would meet the setback re- quirements? Fountain - No, their options are limited. Wright - Will there be any curb cuts on Cedar? Fountain - No access off Cedar. Wright - What type of screening and buffering would be acceptable? Fountain - Fencing and plant material. Philip Vilella, attorney, represent Mr. Blum. Mr. Blum is here, I prepared the petition on his behalf. I have additional pictures. Also I have a copy of the deed for the property at 2101 South Cedar. The building was built in 1952 and has been kept up very well, build- ing in excellent condition. Only 600 square feet in building. He has operated there for 13 years and does not want to move. He only has 20 foot setback, the State is going to take 17 feet. Mr. Blum owns all three lots. Mr. Blum wants to expand. The expansion will cost about $80 ,000 to $100,000 . The entire front will be redone. It will look like one new building. Maxine Kiter, Rosedale Road, I dont ' t live in the vicinity of Walter French or Woodrow or Cedar Street, but when the State comes through and widens that, would it be smart to build there . Wright made a motion to approve appeal #2945 with the provision of a landscape, screening and buffering plan. Second by Curran. Yeas: Clark, Curran, Hilts, Christy, Steele, Wright, Holmes Nays : none Appeal #2945 APPROVED The board found based on testimony and evidence that site is identi- fied as commercial on the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan. The board further found that the lot on which the existing structure is located will be reduced in size with the future widening of Cedar Street. However, it will not cause for the removal of the existing building. The board believes that reduction of lot size will limit reasonable expansion of the building and therefore creates a hardship. The board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that there will not be an adverse impact on the adjacent properties . Appeal #2946 - 3713 Malibu Drive This is a request by Timothy Malatinsky of 3713 Malibu Drive to erect a 10 '4" x 24 ' open carport two feet from the side property line. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Timothy Malatinsky, 3713 Malibu Drive, I 'm proposing to put up the carport and have the roof peaked right along with the house. In order to bring it to the edge of the existing concrete I have to have the variance, and I ' ll still have 2 ft and a patch of grass by the fence and 2 ft over there to keep the lawn maintained. Wright - How does the neighbor to the east feel about it? Malatinsky - He has no objection, he had to work tonight or he would have been here. He and I each paid half for the fence so the fence is directly on the lot line. Christy made a motion to approve appeal #2946 . Second by Wright. Yeas: Clark, Curran, Christy, Hilts, Wright, Holmes Nays: Steele Appeal #2946 APPROVED The board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the change would not adversely impact the abutting property. Meeting Schedule Clark made a motion to approve the board meeting schedule for 1989 . Second by Curran. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes Steele made a motion to approve the minutes of the November meeting. Second by Hilts. Motion carried unanimously. Excuse Absence Pat Curran requests an excused absence for the January 1989 meeting. Old Business Signs - Cedar and Mt. Hope. The board was advised that the code enforcement division will respond to the issue. Satellite dishes on Pennsylvania. They are associated with sales of- fice. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 10 p.m. The next meeting will be January 12 , 1989 . Vernon C. Fou to n Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals April 14, 1987 - 7 : 30 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers . 10th floor The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jack Morgan at 7 :30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present �' z t� r' Mary Clark W Bernard Christy p Christopher Steele = m Edward Spink c» v Priscilla Holmes c4 Patricia Curran Tom Kane Grant Hilts Jack Morgan Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Emil Winnicker, Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter, Recording Secretary Appeal #2890 - 800 E. St. Joseph A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Holmes - Is the upper portion residential? DeLuca - Its all commercial. Clark - Was the property rezoned? Winnicker - Clark - What is the property to the east zoned? Winnicker - ' C' Residential. Spink - Has the applicant combined this property into one parcel? Winnicker - I don' t know. Peter DeLuca - The building is strictly for storage use. I need ap- proval of this variance to keep the business . Clark - The staff recommended to eliminate the east door,' why do you want it? DeLuca - Because there are usually several trucks unloading at the same time, it would take less time. PA17F i A letter was received from Dave Card from the Public Service Depart- ment. Approval of a variance woild promote illegal parking in the right-of-way. A letter from Henry Lambracht Sr. for Katherine Lambracht who owns a house at 805 E. St. Joseph. We feel approval should not be granted to allow more buildings on the property. A motion by Christy to approve the variance with staff recommenda- tions . No second. Motion did not carry for lack of support. Steele made a motion to deny the request because the building will be too large for the lot. It will create overcrowding. Second by Holmes . Yeas: Clark, Curran, Spink, Hilts, Holmes, Kane, Steele Nays: Christy, Morgan Appeal #2890 DENIED. The board believes that the proposed change will promote overdevelopment of the property, which is not in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Code. Appeal #2891 - 722 Hunter Boulevard This is a request by Penelope Swiger for a variance to enclose an ex- isting deck located in the rear yard on the premise know as 722 Hunter Boulevard. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Holmes - Does the existing deck meet the required set back? Fountain - Should be 6 ' it is 3 ' . Clark - Will a portion of it be enclosed? Fountain - yes Penelope Swiger - I propose to enclose a portion of the deck, the balance will remain open. A letter from Sherill Peak, 727 Hunter Blvd, no problem, it will im- prove the home and it will be an asset. Holmes made a motion to approve the request, there is a hardship be- cause of the shape of the lot, and there will be no negative impact. Second by Kane. Yeas: Spink, Clark, Curran, Christy, Hilts, Holmes, Steele, Kane, Morgan Nays: none Appeal #2891 APPROVED T)7Tr_c 7 The board found based on testimony and evidence that there is a hard- ship due to the irregular shape of the lot. The board was satisfied that the change would not have a negative impact on the adjacent properties . Appeal #2892 - 201 East Fenton This is a request by Mark Stanley for a waiver to construct a two bedroom addition to the front of the house within 3 ' 7" of the side lot line on the premise of 201 E. Fenton. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The proposed addition will permit reasonable expansion of an existing single family dwelling consistant with surrounding development without creating negative im- pacts on adjacent properties. Mark Stanley of 201 E. Fenton, had no comments. No one spoke in opposition. Steele made a motion to approve the request because it is a reasonable appeal and it will not have an adverse impact on the other adjacent houses. Second by Holmes . Yeas: Hilts, Holmes, Curran, Clark, Spink, Steele, Christy, Kane, Morgan Nays: none Appeal #2892 APPROVED The board believes that there is a practical difficulty due to the size of the lot and the placement of the existing structure. . The board does not believe that the proposed addition will have a negative impact on the adjacent properties, since the existing building line will be extended and no further encroachment into the side yard will occur than what already exists. Appeal #2893 - 1126 Parkdale Avenue This is a .request by William & Doriann Rushcamp for a variance to al- low construction of an attached garage 3 ' 2 " from the east lot line and an attached deck with a built in hot tub 1 ' 1" from the west lot line. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Bill Rushcamp, 1126 Parkdale - I get along well with my neighbors, the hot tub will be nearest the neighbor' s garage. The architect who de- signed it lives across the street. Holmes - Will the addition be a single story? Rushcamp - yes P A G P 74 No one spoke in opposition. Kane made a motion to approve the variances because of the support of the neighbors and there will not be any encroachment to the neighbors . Second by Steele. Yeas : Clark, Christy, Curran, Kane, Steele Nays: Spink, Hilts, Holmes, Morgan Appeal #2893 APPROVED The board found based on testimony and evidence that there will be no further encroachments to the neighbors on the east and the proposed deck encroachment on the west will be minimal. It was also found that the proposed additions will extend behind the rear line of the exist- ing structures on either side, therefore no negative impact is antic- ipated. The property owners on both sides have submitted written en- dorsement to the proposal. Appeal 02894 - 3419 Jewel This is a request by Chris Azelborn for a variance to construct an attached garage in the rear yard on the premises of 3419 Jewel. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Chris Azelborn, 3419 Jewel - The rear yard is the only area I can put the garage because of the configuration of the lot. I want to get rid of the old building. It will be in the same place as the old garage, but I want to attach it. f A letter from Public Service Department, no objection. No one spoke in opposition. Clark made a motion to approve the vari- ance because no further intrusion to the current setback and it will be an improvement to the lot. The hardship is the configuration of the lot. Second by Holmes. Yeas: Curran, Hilts, Clark, Christy, Spink, Kane, Steele, Holmes, Morgan Nays: none Appeal #2894 APPROVED The board found based on testimony and evidence that there is a hard- ship due to the configuration of the lot, and the placement of the existing house. The board believes that this will be a positive im- provement to the property and it will not have any negative impact on the adjacent residential development. Appeal #2895 - 1827 Stirling PAGF d This is a request by James Hinman for a variance to allow the con- struction of a garage 672 sq ft in size, 30" from the side lot line on the premise of 1827 Stirling. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The variance is for the size of the garage. James Hinman, 1827 Stirling - I want to replace the existing garage with a two car garage. The extra addition will be toward the rear of the yard. My neighbor thought it would be too close to the lot line. Christy - What is the size of the existing garage? Hinman - 14 ' x 181 . A letter from William Kalushka, owner of 1823 Stirling, much too large garage for the size lot. Steele made a motion to deny the request because there is no hardship and it will cause overdevelopment. Second by Spink. Yeas: Hilts, Curran, Kane, Clark, Spink, Steele, Christy, Holmes, Morgan Nays: none Appeal #2895 DENIED The board does not believe there is a hardship associated with this request, and that the requirements of the Zoning Code allow reasonable use of the property. Appeal #2896 - 1004 N. Cedar This is a request by Gloria Fleming for a front yard variance of 8 ' to allow for the placement of a residential structure on a vacant lot of record 12 ' from the front lot line upon the premises known as 1004 N. Cedar. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant desires to relocate an existing home to the site. The structure would otherwise be demolished. The structure would be placed within 12 ' of the Ash Street front property line. Two bedroom units are desired if the property is not rezoned. A variance of 790 sq ft in the lot size would be necessary to accommodate the (2) two bedroom units. Holmes - If a house is moved does it have to meet new code require- ments? Fountain - yes Steele - Does the parking area come to the side lot line? Fountain - Very close to the lot line, VAr_F Steele - How close is the adjacent house to the east to the lot line? Fountain - 3-4 feet. Gloria Fleming, the house is a 3 unit structure and I am attempting to have the property changed to DM-2 residential zoning. Ron Sickle, 2815 Glenbrook Dr. , I own the house east of the subject property. I think it will decrease the value of my house and it will block the view. Mike Otto, N. Cedar, it is too large of a house for that property, parking will be a problem and it will be an obstruction of view. Robert Griffith, 513 Ash Street, the lot size is inadequate for the structure. A petition from the residents near 1004 N. Cedar strongly oppose the request. Property too small, would be too close to adjacent proper- ties . Clark made a motion to deny the request because it is not in keeping with the intent of the development in that neighborhood, also there is no hardship. Yeas: Clark, Curran, Spink, Hilts, Chrsity, Holmes, Kane, Morgan Nays: Steele Appeal #2896 DENIED The request was denied because there was no defined hardship. And it . was determined that the variances is not in keeping with the general intent of the Zoning Code. Appeal #2897 - Northeast corner of Center and Monroe Streets This is a request by Gloria Fleming for a variance to move a house onto the lot at the northeast corner of Center and Monroe Streets. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner proposes to move a two family dwelling to this loca- tion. The dimensions of the existing lot and the house necessitate a variance. The petitioner has requested a 3 ' rear yard variance. Holmes - Is it a single family house? Fountain - Two family. Gloria Fleming - I intend to move a house to this site and use it as a two family residence. However, if it is possible to rezone the prop- erty I would be able to establish a third unit. Doris Louis, 808 Center St. opposes the request. PAGR 6 Gerald Bump, owns two houses north of the property. House is very large and very old. Steele made a motion to approve the request on the basis that the 3 ' variance is reasonable. The hardship is in moving the house. Second by Christy. Yeas: Spink, Curran, Christy, Holmes, Steele, Kane, Morgan Nays: Clark, Hilts Appeal #2897 APPROVED The board believes that the request is reasonable and the variance will promote development of a lot that may otherwise remain vacant. It was also found that the house proposed for this site is of the same vintage as the other homes in the vicinity. It is further pointed out that the lot is located within the 100 year flood plain of the Grand River, therefore all improvements to the property shall meet the requirements of the flood plain ordinance which includes, but is not limited to: 1 ) The main floor elevation including the basement being elevated at or above the 100 year flood elevation. 2 ) Approval by the City of Lansing and the Michigan De- partment of Natural Resources to develop in the flood plain prior to the issuance of building permits. Minutes Curran made a motion to approve the January 14th minutes. Second by Steele. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made to adjourn. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. _ aZVern Fount Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals pArF 7 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals 1988May 12 , p City Hall, Council Chambers . 10th floor The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jack Morgan at 7 :30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Mary Clark Grant Hilts Edward Spink Bernard Christy Unexcused Absence Priscilla Holmes H. P. Curran Christopher Steele Tom Kane Jack Morgan Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Jim Ruff, Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter, Recording Secretary Appeal #2898 - NE corner E. Hillsdale & S . Washington This is a request by Kenneth Ellis for four variances; height, rear yard, parking, and distance. To allow construction of an office building with associated warehouse on the NE corner of E. Hillsdale and the 500 block of S . Washington. The petitioner proposes to con- struct a 4 story above grade office building plus mechanical penthouse 76 ' high, to the rear property line with limited parking. A presentation was given by J . Ruff. Slides were shown of the sub- ject property and surrounding land use. The height variance request is 25 ' (half of this is for the elevator penthouse) ; the rear yard variance request is 25 ' to allow a portion of the building to be built to the rear property line; and the parking variance is for 16 spaces . Holmes - What is the total height of the building? Ruff - The total height of the building in the revised plans including the penthouse is 65 ' or less . Holmes - How much of that is penthouse? Ruff - Half of the 25 ' variance about 13 ' -12 1/2 ' . Holmes - How many floors is that? Ruff - 4 floors above ground plus the penthouse, the warehouse section is 2 floors . Clark - In the summary you refer to Lot A and Lot B, as satisfying part of the parking, how does the code address that? PAGE 1 Ruff - The lots are owned by Mr. Ellis. Lot A is approximately 200 ' away and Lot B is approximately 420 ' away. The code address off-site parking lots if they are zoned similarly and if they are within 300 ' . Paul LeBlanc, 50 Monroe, Grand Rapids, Architect, representing Ken Ellis . (Approached the front and presented drawings and gave a sum- mary of the project) .Technically we are lacking 16 spaces. We are required to have 1 space per 200 square feet of usable floor area whereas we are proposing to have between 110 and 120 employees in the building. So the employees amount to half the number of spaces that are required by the ordinance. We do have a commitment from Mr. Ellis to provide parking at his two nearby lots and also have on- street parking on both Hillsdale and Washington and the State has in- dicated spaces in their lots can be made available with shuttle ser- vice. Concerning the rear yard set back, because we are abutting an alley way, it is an extenuating circumstance, the alley is 20 ' wide, we ' re required to have a 25 ' rear yard abutting property lines, so we feel the alley helps to serve that purpose and mitigate the need for a more generous rear yard. Finally, the height variance, it is very similar to the State Journal building. There is a seven story office building across the street. The building we ' re showing would cer- tainly be in scale with the surrounding area. A general comment, the zoning district just to the north of us is G-1 would permit this building with no parking and would permit any height on that site. Judy Gardi, president of Cherry Hill Association. I 'm disappointed that I didn' t learn about this until today. It makes it very diffi- cult for us as a neighborhood group to study the issue to look at all the little intricacies that are involved and to come to you with a position. I live in the Cherry Hill neighborhood and I ' m surrounded every day from 7 :00 am till 6 :00 pm by on street parking. Our neigh- borhood is full of cars. Davenport people park in our neighborhood, MSHDA people park there, Cooley people park there, people who work in the Central Business District park in our neighborhood . You can' t park your car at River park and enjoy the park during the day because the parking at River park is full of people who work downtown and park in the neighborhood. I can' t believe that a building would be pro- posed at that corner with 21 parking places that would house 120 em- ployees. Mr. Ellis says they will park in his parking lots, his parking lots are full . His parking lots are expensive. Parking in my neighborhood is free, 600 ' away. It just doesn' t make sense, we can' t afford to have any additional people who work on Washington park in our neighborhood. I think there are some alternatives that need to be considered. Perhaps he should put underground parking under the building. I don' t think we can stand to have any more of our green space taken away for parking. If your going to build a parking lot you have to landscape it, you have to drain it. I cannot support the construction of any more parking facilities in the city that are not built properly. Parking is a critical problem, but its an issue that really needs to be dealt with in some kind of legitimate way with some criteria and to have those people park in my neighborhood, I oppose that. PAGE 2 Greg Wade, I ' ve been active in the Cherry Hill neighborhood for the last ten years, my wife and I bought our house there 10 ' years ago and during that period of time we have been told consistently by Mr. Tubbs and other members of the Development Division that they wanted to form a compact with us in our neighborhood association that they only wanted to see in Cherry Hill what we the residents want there. It strikes me a little bit strange that we just found out about the meeting tonight, someone in Development has not been keeping their good faith with us . Penny Ruff, 814 Bates Street, I 'm also a state employee . When I first came down here I was totally dead set against having this building going in. After talking to Mr. Ellis I feel that he has feasibly addressed the parking issue. I think the State need to address the parking issue also. Maybe a joint effort can go into that when con- sidering buildings, that we bring the State in and actually have them sit down and say we have a two year waiting list for our parking ramps what can you do for your employees. The Cherry Hill residential area needs to be concerned, people are parking in their areas. And it doesn' t seem to be going anywhere to get that changed. With all due respect I am still for this development I still think we need to keep the parking issue right up front in our minds and to see if we can nudge the alternative of a two year waiting list for public parking or employee parking ahead through the State of Michigan. I think Mr. Ellis ' s team has done a very good job and I suggest that you would vote positively for it. Marion Taylor, 2628 Wabash, former board member, also executive man- ager of State Employees Credit Union. As to the proposed structure, I do not have any problems with the height variance and also I do not have any problems to the setback variances on it because there is an alley there, I do not see those two particular items as any major problem. As to parking, I think we should pursue this in depth, I do not think we should take and consider adjacent lots as part of the solution to this problem, because adjacent lots can always be sold off in the future . We should be looking at the single piece of property that is before us as to what is the question as to any variance, not using any other piece of real estate. I am amazed that only 21 park- ing spaces are proposed on this lot. I would think that there would be a larger need for 120 employees . I do know the parking is needed in the area because of the parking lots that we have. The parking in that parcel is a major need in the City of Lansing. There is a major need for parking. I think the parking is the single major concern of this whole question, its not the height or the setback . Ken Ellis, I am not familiar with the Cherry Hill district but I can understand the concerns of the residents in the area, because parking is a vital issue. To suggest underground parking is economically im- possible, underground parking is prohibitly expensive. Ramp parking is expensive. The parking lot on the corner of Hillsdale and Washington we have owned for a year and there has never been a lot full sign on it, we are running 40-45% occupancy. We have committed the parking lot called the First Michigan Bank property 200 ' away which holds on the south parking lot base 95 cars, we can put 140 cars on that lot if we wanted to have an attendant and we wouldn' t even PAGE 3 have to ask for a variance. I think this is an opportunity to develop a blighted corner. I think the development on this corner which would bring about $175 ,000 into the tax coffers, would be a tremendous plus . I don' t think this building with 110 employees, approximately 25-30% clerical help car pool, depending on the type of public transportation you have 10-15% use that. I can understand Cherry Hill ' s concerns . There is parking and there is free parking, now if the city is allow- ing people to park free in this residential area that should be a concern of the area, either restricting it and allowing the residents to have their own jurisdiction over the parking. I think this build- ing would be a plus for that corner. Morgan - You do not have the guarantee parking to the State of Michigan as part of your contract with the other lots? Ellis - There is no guarantee. The State of Michigan, the bids do not require any parking. I am developing this parking to offset this variance on my own. I 'm committing the parking lots to this project on my own to get the development going. I own other real estate in downtown Lansing. The revitalization of downtown Lansing is very im- portant to me. Clark - What kind of arrangements do you have on the parking lot? Do you have a 20 year lease with the State? Ellis - That will be a paid parking lot operated by Ellis parking company, it will be a parking lot while we have the lease on this building. Clark - For State Employees or anyone? Ellis - The State Lottery employees will have first choice, but if they don ' t use it, it will be open to the public. Clark - These lots are developable lots, are you committing to keeping them as parking lots? Ellis - I 'm not committing the one behind the library, that is avail- able, for parking, the one on 433 Washington, it has a 125 car capac- ity. We will be tearing the building down to coincide with the open- ing of the proposed building. We will resurface the lot and sprucing it up, its a very unsightly parking lot, its not black topped. It will be an improved parking lot. Kane - Have you entered into an agreement with the State of Michigan? Ellis - ( see letter) A letter from the Bureau of State Lottery. The procedure is as follows: We go through this procedure first, then next Thursday we have to appear before the Joint Capitol Outlay Com- mittee of the State Legislature, that will be another review of the lease and the lease arrangements, etc. Then after that we enter into a lease arrangement. I do not have a lease with the State Lottery, we are low bid and we have been designated to negotiate with and develop and we have spent a lot of time and money and effort in trying to bring it to a resolution. I can understand your concerns and I think we have done a pretty good job. I do think it would be a big plus for the area. Spink - On these parking lots do you currently have any other lease arrangements for parking spaces with other agencies or businesses? PAGE 4 Ellis - I bought it with an arrangement with a company from Detroit, it was a 9 month or year lease that has expired. But there are no leases now. Kane - In your proposed agreement with the State of Michigan parking is not a part of that. Has the State expressed any concern about that? Ellis - (see letter) Yes there ' s a letter from the State about their shuttle bus and capitol commons complex. Morgan - I serve as Vice Chair of the Governors Task Force for revi- talization. We are actively working with several state agencies and CATA and the City of Lansing, in hopes of developing a shuttle ser- vice. We have taken a survey of interest of state employees and CATA is presently tabulating the results of that survey so a formal pro- posal can be developed. Ellis - The State said that you should contact the City of Lansing to address what the future plans are for additional municipal parking. Which we did do. As to my understanding, they are going to expand the Radisson ramp, this next year by 350 cars. And they are contemplating on building a parking ramp (behind (one block down from this site on Grand behind the law offices that were remodeled) , a 1 ,000 car ramp there. It is my understanding that they are in the process of hiring a consultant to decide which location is the most favorable. Morgan - It is my understanding that the City has contracted with Barton Ashman to do a parking study to see where an additional struc- ture can be placed. The State does have some preliminary proposals to build a 4200 space parking structure on Pine & Washtenaw. Morgan - The State Dept. of Management and Budget, and the unions are working with CATA. Recently there has been an agreement to move sec- tions of the Department of Natural Resources into the old Knapp ' s building, and as part of that we are trying to work out where we can operate a shuttle from the State parking lot. A letter from David McKeague of Foster, Swift, Collins & Coey, P .C . , 313 S. Washington, support the variance request, we believe it would be good for the city and the S . Washington business district. A letter from Thomas Kirkconnell, this will help property values in this area and add to the city tax base. A letter from Philip J . May, 608 S . Washington, opposed to any variance on parking as there are no ramps in this area, and lack of parking could cause trouble for nearby owners. A letter from Patrick Berardo, 501 S. Capitol, support the request. I have also given Mr. Ellis the option to purchase an additional 28,000 sq ft of property located at the NW corner of Washington & St. Joseph Street for parking purposes in connection with the proposed new building. PAGE 5 The building project will not only improve the appearance of the neighborhood immediately but should act as an incentive for other fa- vorable development. Holmes - I will not be supporting the variance for a variety of rea- sons: If this building were to occur in the northern part of the block there would be no variance required. There is already extreme parking stress in that area, it is not fair to the existing businesses or the residents to create a larger problem. Kane - I will be supporting this appeal from the design standpoint. I don' t see it causing as great a problem in regards to parking in that part of the city. Considering the development of the extra lot there . Spink - I feel uncomfortable with the parking. We should allow Cherry Hill to have time to discuss it and have an input. Morgan - I would like to see this approved. The State has made a commitment, the Governor has personally made a commitment that the State of Michigan is going to do everything as possible to assist in downtown revitalization. And as part of that we have asked depart- ments to not renew leases in the outlying areas in an effort to get more state employees downtown. We have enforced that with the Bureau of Lottery and that' s one of the reasons the State took bids for a new building in the downtown area to assist the downtown. I think there are ways to control the additional parking that concerns of the park- ing that have been proposed by Mr. Ellis that someday he may wish to develop them. He does need a permit to do that, from the City of Lansing, and I think there would be mechanism that you can make a condition that if those parking places that are committed to this are to be removed for a building then that building permit could not be granted until he did develop alternatives as part of the agreement for these waivers. I think the parking in the Cherry Hill area could be better addressed by better parking enforcement and perhaps working through the traffic board to change parking there to one hour, 2 hour time zones, whatever it takes to force those cars not to be the all day employee parking. There are ways that we can control it. If it were rezoned we would lose all control over additional parking. Curran - I like the idea that we put some kind of restriction in the motion that ties some of the parking spaces to this building, so that we address the concerns of the neighborhood. Clark - This kind of development would certainly be an asset for the South Washington area, the activity certainly exists there and any kind of positive development in that area is a plus . But I think if we are going to grant this variance we have to be realistic, that to expect state employees to park in the distant lots is not very real- istic. Fountain - The variance requested here is for 16 spaces, when the building permit is issued they have to show the number of parking spaces . PAGE 6 Spink made a motion to table appeal #2898 until the next regular meeting of the board. Second by Clark. Yeas : Clark, Spink, Holmes Nays: Curran, Christy, Kane, Morgan Motion does not pass . More discussion regarding dividing the variance requests . A motion by Curran to grant the height variance. Second by Holmes Yeas: Spink, Clark, Curran, Christy, Holmes, Kane, Morgan Nays: none Height variance approved. A motion by Curran to grant the rear yard variance. Second by Clark . Yeas: Spink, Clark, Curran Christy, Holmes, Kane, Morgan Nays: none Rear yard variance approved. A motion by Spink to deny the parking variance. Second by Holmes . Yeas: Spink, Holmes Nays: Clark, Curran, Christy, Kane, Morgan Motion does not carry. Clark made a motion to allow a variance to the distance requirement for Lot B 500 block S. Washington. Second by Holmes. Yeas : Clark, Curran, Christy, Holmes, Kane, Morgan Nays: Spink Clark made a motion to deny the variance request for 16 spaces . Sec- ond by Holmes. Yeas : Spink, Clark, Holmes Nays: Curran, Christy, Kane, Morgan Motion does not carry. Curran made a motion to grant a variance of 16 parking spaces. Second by Christy. Yeas : Curran, Christy, Kane, Morgan Nays: Holmes, Clark, Spink Motion does carry. The variance request for 16 parking spaces is denied. The concurring vote of a majority of the members serving on the board of zoning appeals shall be necessary to reverse an order requirement decision on determination of the Planning Division or to decide in favor of the applicant a matter upon which it is required to pass under an ordinance or to effect a variance of such ordinance. PAGE. 7 The board approved a 25 ' height variance allowing the proposed office building to be constructed 65 ' high. The board approved a 25 ' rear yard variance to allow the construction of the building, to the east property line as illustrated in the plans. The board also approved the use of both parking lots to meet the parking requirements for the proposed building. One parking lot located in the 400 block of South Washington Avenue, 400+ feet from the site required the board ' s ap- proval. The board denied the revised 16 car parking variance. The board' s denial of this parking variance does not restrict you from construc- ting the building. To comply, the usable square footage of the building can be reduced or the parking can be redesigned to accommo- date the 6 cars . Appeal #2899 - 1900 South Cedar This is a request by the Eyde Company for a variance to allow for two wall signs each greater than 20 sq ft in the D-1 Professional Office District, at 1900 South Cedar. A presentation was given by Vern Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner proposes to attach two wall tenant identification signs greater than 20 sq ft in size near two entrances to the building. Holmes - You just described 3 signs? Fountain - One on the corner of Mt. Hope and Cedar and the second one on the building where the entryway fronts Mt. Hope will face both ways. Spink - The write up states that the signs will not be in direct view of residential property. The one on Mt. Hope will be. Fountain - Yes it will . Morgan - What is the hardship for granting the larger signs? Fountain - The size of the building and the multiple uses in the building. Dan Johnson, with Johnson Sign Co. , consultant for the Eyde Company, and we are asking for a variance of 34 sq ft for signage allowed at the Walter French Center. The signs that we want to put up is 4 x 6 single face on the south side of the building with the 12 tenants . The signs are purposely for directional to tell the customers what entry to use. The other sign would be the 4 ' x 7 ' 6 double side on the north side, it has 8 tenants . That one has the bigger tenant panels to show what entry to use. That one is closer to the road. Its for direction and identification, for customers to be able to find the business . There are two different entrys. Two different parking areas . The hardship would be that the business would lose customers from not being able to find them or identify them. Eyde would not be able to fill the tenant spaces up. Its a quality looking sign, alu- minum no paint, vinyl lettering. And it will also help the flow of traffic. If the variance is passed, before we put up the signs that PAGE 8 all other signs on the property will be taken down. Eyde will regu- late with the tenants that they are not able to put up their own signs, they will have to go on the ones being installed. Robert Stanaway, 320 Riley Street. Three fourths of the traffic in that place comes out into my driveway. These signs are not going to help people coming out of that place. His flood lights light up my house . There' s a lot of traffic on my street. We in the neighborhood are tires of his .variances. He' s had one for every year he ' s been there . He doesn' t keep up what he has now. He wants to add more to deteriorate our neighborhood. I am not in favor of these signs, re- gardless . Robert V oight, 311 Riley. On general principal I am not for this variance When he first got the property he had to have variances and there were stipulations attached. Like screening and buffering, curb installed, lighting would be put up, and an access road would be cut Off onto Riley Street. I 'm not in favor of this variance. Dave Eyde with Eyde Co. I 'm asking for a variance at Walter French basically for consolidation for the signs that are out. A letter from George and Beatrice Whitmore, 308 Riley, against allow- ing the variance. A letter from Josephine Fitzpatrick, 225 Riley. Not in favor of al- lowing variance. Not good neighbors. Larry Mei sner, 401 Riley Street. Oppose the variance request based on the past lack of compliance by the owners of the property. Linda Wi iliams, 1917 Teel Avenue. Oppose placement of signs . Eydes have exhibited a flagrant disregard for the safety and comfort of those who share the block with him. Ade l ade McFarlane, 2011 Teel Ave. Oppose the sign request. Committee of the Whole: The signs are the issue here now. The landscape, screening ad buffering , the lights, the trash problem, the curb cuts are another issue . Code enforcement will have to look into those issues . Clark made a motion to approve two signs, each not greater than 20 sq ft i n size, non illuminating, and removal of the other signs. Because of to e si Ze and location of the building. Second by Holmes . Kane made an amendment to the motion that the signs be removed before the pe rmi-ts are issued. Second by Clark. Yeas : C l ark, Curran, Spink, Christy, Holmes , Kane, Morgan Nays : nolne Motion ca tries . Vote cn motion as amended: PAGE 9 Yeas: Spink, Clark, Curran, Christy, Holmes, Kane, Morgan Nays : none Motion carries . Appeal #2899 Approved. Curran made a motion that the letters received and information from the neighbors be referred to the code enforcement division and that they look at the issue of the lighting and why Riley Street has not been closed yet . Kane second. Motion carried. The board believes that two signs as recommended is reasonable based on the si Z e of the building and its multiple use. Further that the practical difficulty can be associated with the building size and its multiple use . Appeal 12901 , 1222 Center Street This is a request by John Ruge for a zoning variance to rehabilitate 1222 Cent a r Street for use as a two family dwelling with one four bedroom un 1 t and one five bedroom unit. This property was previously used for two family purposes with non conforming status. It has since lost its non conforming status because it has been vacant for more than 365 days. A present a-tion was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject pr pperty and surrounding land use. Jim Vandebtunte, John Ruge was my partner in this project. After meeting w i th the neighbors he decided to bow out. It was originally it has built as a commercial building. And for its recent history been a twp family unit. The building has been trashed, its been vacant for quite a while. When I came in to get permits to renovate I was told i--t lost its non conforming use, We are asking to restore a nonconfornli ng use, the two family use. It will be two four bedroom units if w e lre granted it. There is limited parking. We were told we could re c p ristruct it as a single family, that would be terribly uneconomic , It will cost at least $7 ,000 + to rehab it. No reusable as a sing e family. The code requires 4 parking spaces . We have two possibly -t---hree. Its surrounded by commercial, light industry, ' c' resi denti a Z , F-1 commercial, its a mixed area. I don' t think it would be out of character to restore it as a two family. If you deny this variance i-t- will remove two low income housing units . Holmes - H a ve you purchased the property? Vandebunt e - No we have an option to buy it. Altha LaP ointe of North Lansing Community Association. That building has been where for quite a while. There isn' t a decent place for children 'Co play, or places to park and we have different zoning laws now. be. The building could be moved to another location and it should etter and petition sent in from North Lansing Community As- sociation ) PAGE 10 Richard LaPointe, there is no parking places available. There is no room between the two lots . The building has been burned, it should be demolished or moved. Cleo Wright and Chester Wright, 1214 Center Street, there have always been problems with that building. I remove the snow all winter, cut grass, I kept it up. No one pays me. Spink made a motion that the request be denied on the basis of lack of open space, inadequate parking, neighborhood opposition, the intent of the code to upgrade nonconforming property and reduce overcrowding. Second by Holmes . Yeas: Clark, Spink, Christy, Curran, Kane, Holmes, Morgan Nays: none Appeal #2901 DENIED. The board denied this request because of its lack of open space and the small lot lines. The board also took into consideration neigh- borhood opposition and the intent of the code to discourage over de- velopment of the property. Other Communication In regards to Action Auto and Foster Drug, chain link fence. They both have agreed in writing that neither one wants a fence. Old Business Peter Deluca, Appeal #2890 requesting to refile. Minutes Holmes made a motion to approve the March 10 , 1988 minutes. Second by Clark. Spink made a motion to approve April 14, 1988 minutes . Second by Clark. (page 2 correction appeal denied) Holmes made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second by Curran. Meeting adjourned at 10 :40 p.m. There being no further business the meeting adjourned. The next meeting will be June 9 , 1988 . e n Fount n Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals PAGE 11 A G E N D A Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting June 9 , 1988 - 7 :30 pm City Hall, 10th floor, Council Chambers 1 . Roll Call a. Excused Absence 2 . Hearings and Decisions : Appeal #2902 To construct an attached green- 3503 Parkway Drive house/sun room addition to the Donald Stouffer rear of house 18 .5 ' from the rear lot line. The code requires 30 ' . Variance request of 11 .5 ' Appeal #2903 To enclose a third side of the 3810 Schlee existing carport as a garage which Roberta Reisner is 4 ' from the side lot line. Code requires 6 ' . Variance request of 2 ' . Appeal #2904 Withdrawn Appeal #2905 To allow a sign 55 ' in height to be 900 American Road erected in connection with develop- Dan Johnson ment of the site. Zoning code allows a height of 40 ' . Variance request of 15 ' . Appeal #2906 To construct a second accessory 2212 Pembroke structure 20 ' x24 ' in the rear Dillon & Penny Blair yard. The existing garage and proposed building will total 1248 sq ft. Code allows up to 1000 sq ft. Variance request of 248 feet. 3 . Other Communication 4 . Approval of Minutes - May 12 , 1988 5 . Old Business 6 . New Business 7 . Adjourn Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals June 9 , 1988 - 7 :30 pm City Hall, Council Chambers, 10th floor The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jack Morgan at 7 :30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present Mary Clark Bernard Christy Christopher Steele Edward Spink Priscilla Holmes Patricia Curran Tom Kane Grant Hilts Jack Morgan Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Bill Acheson, Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter, Recording Secretary Appeal #2902 , 3503 Parkway Drive This is a request by Donald Stouffer to construct an attached greenhouse/sun room addition to the rear of the house located at 3503 Parkway Drive. The addition will be 18 .5 feet from the rear lot line. A presentation was given by Bill Acheson. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Morgan - How far does the deck go back? Acheson - About 2 ' past the greenhouse. Donald Stouffer - It will not create an eyesore. I just want to add some value to the house. Its just going to be a recreational addi- tion. The deck extends 12 ' back from the house. Holmes - How high will the greenhouse be? Stouffer - It will slope from the top, of the house it' ll be about 12 ' tall. Spink made a motion that appeal #2902 be granted based on the fact that the greenhouse is essentially an enclosed rear porch, since it is not connected to the interior of the house at this time, and that the lot is irregularly shaped creating hardships to maintain all the re- quired setbacks and that no negative impact is anticipated. Second by Holmes. PAGE 1 Yeas : Clark, Spink, Hilts, Chirsty, Holmes, Kane, Steele, Morgan Nays: none Appeal #2902 APPROVED. The board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the greenhouse will essentially be an enclosed rear porch and it is not proposed to be connected to the interior of the house. The board found that the lot is irregularly shaped making it difficult to main- tain all the required setbacks . The board does not believe the change will adversely impact the adjacent property. Appeal #2903 , 3810 Schlee This is a request by Roberta Reisner at 3810 Schlee Street to enclose a third side of the existing carport, which will then by definition become a garage. A presentation was given by Bill Acheson. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. A garage can be no closer than 6 ' from the side lot line. The existing carport is 4 ' from the side lot line. Holmes - Is there an existing fire wall between the house and the carport? Acheson - Yes if it was built to code at that time. Holmes - Will there be a difference in the fire wall rating if you enclose the rear? Acheson - It will essentially be a garage. It will have to meet all the codes for a garage. Roberta Reisner - I don' t want a garage, I just want to close in the third side. I have no intentions of putting a door on. I 'm doing it to keep it a little quieter for the different hours that I go to work at night. Especially in the winter my car is out there running, it does make a little noise for my neighbors bedroom. I think it will look a lot nicer. The house to the south of me is 20 ' away. A letter from William Shashaguay, 3816 Schlee, in favor of approving the variance. Ms. Reisner is a shift worker, it will be to my ad- vantage in respect to less noise from her auto and side door at late hours. A letter from Roger & Alice Leonard, 3809 Schlee, no objection to the request. A telephone call from Sophia B. Harris, 3713 Lowcroft, no objection. A telephone call from Wayne Grossman, 3810 Lowcroft, no objection. Kane made a motion that appeal #2903 be approved. Second by Christy. When we changed the code it caused a hardship on existing conditions. No negative impact on surrounding neighbor. Yeas: Spink, Clark, Curran, Christy, Hilts, Holmes, Steele, Kane PAGE 2 Nays: Morgan Appeal #2903 APPROVED The board found based on testimony and evidence that when the code was changed it caused a hardship on the existing conditions. Also, no negative impact is anticipated on the surrounding neighbor. Appeal #2905 , 900 American Road This is a request by Dan Johnson to receive a variance to the zoning code that will allow for a sign 55 ' in height to be erected in con- nection with development of a Super 8 Motel on the site located south of 900 American Road, behind the Bob Evans Restaurant. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The height of any struc- ture located in the ' F' Commercial District is 40 feet. Morgan - Is the Bob Evans sign and the proposed sign on the same lot? Fountain - yes . Morgan - Aren' t you limited to one sign per property? Fountain - Bob Evans retained an easement for their existing sign. Holmes - Did Bob Evans and the Clarion have variances granted to them? Fountain - None that I know of. Kane - What is the condition that allows two signs on one property? Fountain - It is our position that the existing Bob Evans sign is their advertising and no other will be allowed. No representation. Clark made a motion that appeal #2905 be denied. On the basis that there are alternatives and there is no practical difficulty. Second by Holmes . Yeas: Hilts, Holmes, . Curran, Clark, Spink, Steele, Christy, Kane, Morgan Nays: none Appeal #2905 DENIED The board does not believe there is a hardship associated with this request, since their are alternatives to reasonable advertising for the property. 1 ) Attach a sign to the existing Bob Evans poles . 2) Erect a sign that meets the minimum requirements of the code. Appeal #2906 , 2212 Pembroke This is a request by Dillon and Penny Blair for a zoning variance to construct a 20 ' x 24 ' accessory storage building in the rear yard of their property at 2212 Pembroke. PAGE 3 A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Code restricts accessory building area to 1000 square feet or less . Curran - How are they going to get things in and out of that garage? Are they going to extend their driveway? Fountain - They intend to use it strictly for storage. To my knowl- edge they do not intend to extend their driveway. Holmes - Is the existing garage larger than what code allows? How? Fountain - Yes, at the time it was built it was allowed. Dillon Blair - My driveway is very steep, I need place to turn around and go out forward. I have quite a bit of lawn equipment and a small workshop, I can only fit one car in my garage. So in the winter I have to park a car in the turnaround area because we both work and we both drive to work. In lieu of putting up one of those temporary metal buildings on the back of my lot I would like a two car garage to store my lawn equipment and a small boat. I also have a motor home that I rent a place for storage and I would like to store that myself. Especially since the lot is real large and you won' t be able to see it from the street and I 'm not going to put a driveway out there . I ' ll just drive the equipment across the yard. Morgan - Is that a two car garage you have now? Blair - Yes it is. Dennis Hill, 2232 Pembroke - The general idea of what our yards look like they' re very deep, there are no fences. Everyone really works at their yards . I brought three letters from the neighbors, they' re re- tired now they are very involved in their back yards . A letter from Gail Springer, 2224 Pembroke, opposed, it would inter- fere with the beauty of the neighborhood landscape. A letter from Nile Vermillion, 2243 Pembroke Road, opposes the re- quest. A letter from Marie Smith, 2250 Pembroke, opposed, would interfere with the landscaping. Spink made a motion that appeal #2906 be denied. Second by Clark. Neighbor objection, should not go over 1 ,000 ' for accessory struc- tures, no hardship demonstrated Yeas : Clark, Spink, Curran, Hilts, Kane, Holmes, Steele, Morgan Nays: Christy Appeal #2906 DENIED . The board believes that the requirements of the code allow reasonable use of the property and there was no hardship shown to justify modi- fying the code requirements . Old Business PAGE 4 In regards to Walter French property, 1900 S . Cedar Street. Riley Street not required to be closed. There has not been much litter. Landscaping needs taking care of New Business Election of officers. Steele - Concerned about the legality of more than one sign per prop- erty as it relates to the Bob Evans restaurant and Super 8 motel. Requests city attorney opinion. Second by Hilts . Motion passed unanimously. Dan Johnson from sign company arrived late, he had a flat tire. He would like to speak. Mr. Morgan advised Mr. Johnson that the public hearing was held and the board took action and denied the request. Dan Johnson - The reason for the 55 ' variance in height is so that the drivers on 96 can see the sign before they come up to the exit. I don' t think a sign 40 ' in height can be seen coming from the west. A lot of gas stations and restaurants use the high rise sign to get people ' s attention. I know there are a lot of signs in the area that use high rise signs, Bob Evans, Standard Oil, Shell, Clarion, Rax Restaurant. I dont ' t think it will hurt the area. I don' t think it will cause a traffic problem. Morgan - The ordinance indicates that there can only be one on premise sign per property, can you explain to us how the Bob Evans and Super 8 can both be on the same property? Johnson - I thought they were different properties . I 'm just dealing through the sign company. I know they had a separate address . The board decided there was no evidence to change their vote. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9 :00 p.m. The next meeting will be July 14, 1988 at 7 :30 p.m. Vernon C. Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals PAGE 5 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals July 14, 1988 - 7 :30 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers . 10th floor The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jack Morgan at 7 :30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Mary Clark Grant Hilts Christopher Steele Edward Spink Priscilla Holmes Patricia Curran Tom Kane Bernard Christy Jack Morgan Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Eleanor Love, Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter, Recording Secretary Chairman Morgan announced that Appeal #2911 , 400 S . Pine had been withdrawn. Holmes made a motion that due to the length of the agenda, election of officers be held at the end of the meeting. Second by Curran. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #2907 - 800 E. St. Joseph This is a request by Peter DeLuca to receive a variance from the Zoning Code that will allow for the construction of a storage building 40 ' x 32 ' in size on the vacant land east of his business located at 800 E. St. Joseph. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant wishes to construct a storage building addition for his cabinet business for security purposes. A variance of 25 ' is requested for the rear yard and 18 ' for the front yard. Holmes - How much has the size been reduced? Peter DeLuca - Before it was 28 x 60 . Mr. Winnicker came out to the shop and said if we turn the building all the way around you wouldn' t interfere with anything . We abolished one door, instead of three doors we ' ll have two. There won' t be any traffic on St. Joseph PAGE 1 Spink - The car care located there, what is that business? DeLuca - That' s my son-in-law. He got laid off from Oldsmobile, and to make ends meet, he repaired a few cars, he' s licensed by the State and we got permission, but now he ' s back to work . A telephone call from Gary Every of 831 E. St. Joseph, has no ob- jection to the appeal . A letter from Henry Lambracht, writing for his mother Katherine Lambracht, who owns a house at 805 E. St. Joseph, allowing added construction of proposed enormous dimensions would again open the way for future encroachments and further deevaluate our property. Spink - With an 18 ' variance on St. Joseph, how far will that bring it from the curb? Fountain - Approximately 12 feet. Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #2907 because of the shape of the property, subject to the following conditions: 1 ) openings to the west and 2 ) accessory structure for the cabinet business at 800 East St. Joseph only. Second by Curran. Yeas : Clark, Curran, Christy, Holmes, Kane, Morgan Nays: Spink, Steele Appeal #2907 APPROVED. The board approved the construction of a storage building 40 ' x 32 ' in size 2 ' from the front lot line and up to the rear lot line, subject to the following conditions: 1 ) that the accessory storage structure be used as an accessory use to the principal use at 800 E. St. Joseph; and 2 ) that the ingress and egress to the building be from the west. The board found based on testimony and evidence that due to the shape and use of the property, expansion is limited. The board believes that the use and location of the structures will be in keeping with the general intent of the zoning code. Appeal #2908, 428 West Lenawee This is a request by Les Linsemier to receive variances related to parking that will allow for conversion of a residence into office space on property located at 428 West Lenawee. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Applicant proposes to reconstruct the building for 825 sq t of usable office space utilizing the two existing driveways with 4 total parking spaces. Two of the spaces would not be accessible. Two of the spaces in the driveways would also be in the front yard. Holmes - What are the variances? Fountain - For non accessible parking. PAGE 2 Les Linsemier - About 3 years ago I was here before you for much the same reason. I purchased the structure which is east of the structure in mind here and renovated that for my office . That structure was built in 1887 . . I ' ve been in there for approximately 2 years now. During that time we have seen the building next to us deteriorate. Fortunately we were in a position to purchase it and perhaps renovate it, and to lease it. This particular structure was built in 1885 . It is a small corner lot, it has two drives that have served it in the past and are there presently. We can' t get any more land for parking. So we are here tonight petitioning the accessibility of parking for the site. Kane - I do not belive that this change will adversely affect the im- mediate area and is consistent with the development of the immediate area I move that appeal #2908 be approved. Second by Holmes . Yeas: Spink, Clark, Curran, Christy, Holmes, Steele, Kane, Morgan Nays : none Appeal #2908 APPROVED. The board found based on testimony and evidence that the proposed use of the property is in keeping with the Master Plan and the approved variance for off-street parking will facilitate implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The board does not believe the change will adversely impact the adja- cent development. Appeal #2909 , 5914 Ellendale This is a request by Jim and Nancy Blomfield to receive a variance to construct an attached garage 3 ' from the north side lot line upon the premises known as 5914 Ellendale. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to construct a 19 ' wide two car garage 3 ' from the side lot line. Code requires a side yard setback of 6 ' . A 3 ' variance is requested. Kane - There ' s an indication of a utility easement a garage would probably be 2 feet onto that utility easement what kind of problems does that represent. Fountain - A letter from the utility company' s indicate that they do not have problem with the encroachment. Spink - Could the abutting property owners construct a 2 car garage on their property? Fountain - There should not be a problem. I ' m Jim Blomfield of 5914 Ellendale, I understand there was a question about the utility easement. You have a copy of the letter from Michigan Bell, I have a copy of the letter from Consumer Power and I 'm PAGE 3 expecting a letter from Board of Water and Light, they said there ' s no problem. (Pictures presented) Kane made a motion that appeal #2909, 5914 Ellendale be approved, subject to approval by all utility companies which occupy or have use for the 5 ' easement along the north lot line. Hardship, topography of the land forces a hardship distance between the house and the existing property line, and the proposed garage does leave 3 ' from the property line to the garage for maintenance. Second by Curran. Yeas : Holmes, Curran, Clark, Spink, Steele, Christy, Kane, Morgan Nays: none Appeal #2909 APPROVED The board found based on testimony and evidence that the topography change on the lot creates a hardship if a garage were proposed in the rear yard, and further existing vegetation would have to be removed. The board believes the change is in keeping with the general intent of the code, and a garage at the proposed location, should not adversely impact adjacent properties. Appeal #2910, 300 North Street This is a request by Action Auto Inc . to erect a canopy four (4 ' ) feet from the front property line over the existing gas pump island on property located at 300 North Street. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to construct a 36 ' x 52 ' canopy over the gas island 4 ' from the front property line (along North Street) . A mini- mum front yard setback of 12 ' is required for a canopy. This is a request for an 8 ' front yard variance. Kane - Would a sign be allowed on that canopy? Fountain - yes Steele - How large a sign? Fountain - They' re entitled to one free standing sign, there ' s one there now. Morgan - How far back does that have to set? Fountain - Code requires 20 ' . However, the existing sign has existed and may be non-conforming if closer than 20 feet. Kane - If we are to grant this variance, then we are essentially granting a sign variance. Fountain - No it is for the canopy. Al Borders, construction supervisor for Action Auto. There are no obstructions on the canopy which would be 16 ' back from the property line. There is 15 ' of grass between our property line and the side- walk. Our property line is approximately 30 ' from the curb. This is PAGE 4 16 1/2 ' high. Actually from the curb to the first obstruction would be like 44 ' which is the support of the canopy and the gas pumps. Morgan - Do you intend to have a sign on the canopy? Borders - Whatever is allowed by the sign ordinance. Steele made a motion to deny appeal #2910 on the basis that it repre- sents no hardship or practical difficulty. Second by Clark. Yeas: Clark, Spink, Christy, Curran, Kane, Holmes, Steele, Morgan Nays: none Appeal #2910 DENIED. The board found based on testimony and evidence that there was no demonstratable hardship or practical difficulty. The board believes that denial of this request will be consistent with previous decisions on similar requests. The board wishes to insure against setting a precedent along the Grand River corridor into the City from the air- port which would be detrimental to the visual appearance and aesthetic quality of the area. Appeal #2911 , 400 S . Pine A letter from Fred Dawe on behalf of appellant asking that the appeal be withdrawn. Withdrawal accepted by the board unanimously. Appeal #2912 , 4131 N. Grand River This is a request by S .S . Bhugra for a variance that will allow parking to be established in the front yard of the property located at 4131 N . Grand River. A Presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to add parking in the front of the building. only 12 spaces exist on a parking lot to the rear. Holmes - Would they be allowed to pave right up to Grand River? Fountain - no. Curran - Is there going to be something set up so cars don' t go from the grocery store up through all the parking lots? Fountain - There can be. S . S . Bhugra - There are only 12 parking spaces behind the building which has been a real problem for me. They have been parking by the party store and there has been some complaints . Sometimes they park in front of the dumpster and the garbage trucks go by and don' t pick up the trash and I have to call them back. I get calls that there ' s no pla ce to park. So I 'm requesting 12 parking spaces for 12 units . A let ter from Thomas Kuschinski, DTN Management Co. , manage 4119 & 4 129 N _ Grand River, no objection to the variance being granted. PAGE 5 Holmes made a motion to approve appeal #2912 providing that barricades are installed, landscaping strip provided in front; rental units reg- istered. Second by Curran. Yeas: Curran, Kane, Clark, Christy, Holmes, Morgan Nays : Spirlk, Steele Appeal 02912 APPROVED The board approved the parking with the following conditions: 1 ) barricades be installed along the east lot iine to eliminate possi- bility of adjacent parking lots being used as a service drive or cut through; 2 ) a site plan including landscaping along the front lot line be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to construc- tion of the parking lot. The board further requested that the Build- ing Division be directed to inspect the rental units on this property for code compliance. The board found based on testimony and evidence that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, and will have no impact on ad- jacent property. Appeal #2913 , 5200 Pleasant Grove This is a request by Wardell Watson Jr. for Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church at 5200 Pleasant Grove Road to construct a steeple addition to the e xistirlg church which will extend to 52 feet in height. A Presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the sub je c t p r-operty and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to erect a 2 5 ' tall steeple and cross on top of an existing church. A variance of 17 ' is requested. Holmes - D p we have any idea what the dimensions of the steeple are? Fountain — yes . Arti c e Bar nes - The steeple is one we ordered some time back that we thought was in compliance with the old prints we had. This church was built in 1 977 and we are just now getting the steeple and trying to finish i t _ The measurements on this is 25 ' and at the base is 4 ' x 41 . We c a n't see where it would block anybody' s view, the closest business i s the 7-11 which is more than 300 ' away and J D Waterbeds on the corner and everything else is behind use. Spink made a motion that appeal #2913 be approved based on the fact that the building is below the permitted height, that there are no immed i ate structures around it and the proposed spira is in the ar- chitectural plans of the building . Second by Clark. Yeas: Clark, Curran, Spink, Christy, Holmes, Kane, Steele, Morgan Nays: none Appea 1 #2 9 Z 3 APPROVED The board found based on testimony and evidence that the steeple was initi a 1 ly included in the church construction plans but was never PAGE 6 built. The board believes that the addition will not be obtrusive nor adversely impact the surrounding area. Appeal #2914, 1509 Sunnyside This is a request by A.F. Eallonardo Jr. to allow the existing driveway at 1509 Sunnyside to remain 15 ' wide. A presentation was given by E. Love. Slides were shown of the sub- ject property and surrounding land use. The applicant wishes to maintain the additional three feet of width for his driveway beyond the 12 ' permitted by ordinance. Clark - Is parking on that kind of drive configuration considered front yard parking? Love - yes . Steele - How does this relate to the side lot requirement? Love - It does not conflict with the side yard requirements . Anthony Eallonardo, 1509 Sunnyside - The reason that the driveway is there is that my wife and I both work. I work afternoons and by wife works days . The driveway as it existed did not permit the parking of two vehicles in line without one vehicle extending over the sidewalk. Sometimes we ' d have to park in the street overnight. I drive a 4 wheel drive pick up and my wife isn' t able to drive it. I formed up the driveway and a man named Steve Maloney from Code Compliance Office from Building Safety Division came out and measured it and told me that the zoning ordinance limited the driveway to 12 feet. So I asked him if that meant I couldn' t pour it and he asked me when I planned on pouring it and I said today. That was on Monday and he said wait till I call my boss and he tried to call John Salmons wasn' t available. As we went out the door he told me that if I poured my driveway I would have to get a variance and this is the first time I ' ve done anything like this so I didn ' t know what was involved in getting a variance. We poured the driveway as the concrete was ordered and my brother and I did the work. We used good concrete, we poured it 8" deep at the sidewalk and used expansion joints, it does abut the current founda- tion of the garage by 1 ' . The job is well done and it does permit us to park two vehicles side by side and no more switching of vehicles or parking across the sidewalk. I spoke with my neighbors that were on my side of the street prior to pouring of the concrete, especially Mrs. Bailey right next door to me and she had no objections . I talked to the neighbor on the other side and she had no objection. If you look at the plat map all the drives on my side of the street ex- cept two have garages in the rear and long driveways, my driveway is approximately 25 ' long. Curran - You don' t use the garage? Eallonardo - I use it, I have a motorcycle, 3 bicycles, a lawn mower, grass seeder, edger. Thom Higiribotham, 1500 Sunnyside - I have a letter here from a resi- dent of Surnyside. Also have some pictures . ( see attachment) PAGE 7 Statement of Thomas Higinbotham 1500 Sunnyside Appeal # 2914 1509 Sunnyside ----------------------------------------------- Statement in Opposition to appeal: I am against the appeal requesting a variance to section - -- - --- - -- The following are my reasons : I ) The proposal is not in keeping with the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code establishes standards and restrictions for the good of the public . The Zoning Code acts therefore, as a protection for the average citizen, guaranteeing a certain quality of life. To waive a Zoning requirement is to change the rules that others have complied with . According to the Lansing Planning Department staff , the 12 ft . width limitation set forth in the Zoning Code is there specifically to deter front yard parking . II ) How much parking is enough? Q: Is there a minimum amount of parking required under the zoning ordinance for this zoning district? A: Yes, two spaces . Q: Does a garage constitute a parking space? A: Yes . Q: Does the drive constitute parking spaces? A: Yes . Q: How many spaces are there in the applicant 's drive? A: Two . Q: How many spaces existed on the lot prior to the expansion? A: A total of three. Q: What is a reasonable amount of parking per home? A: ? The real issue here has nothing to do with a one car garage versus a two car garage. The issue is, does the applicant have a parking hardship? Does the applicant need a fourth parking space? Is there a hardship reason which justifies a violation of the Zoning Code? Statement of Thomas Higinbotham (cont . page 2) ------------------------------------------------- III ) The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Most driveways in the Sycamore Park Subdivision are eight foot wide, single lanes. A 15 ft drive is close to double the typical size. The applicant has submitted photographs of 13 dwellings which he maintains have non-conforming double-wide drives. However , only five of these are located within the Sycamore Park Subdivision. The others are located in adjacent subdivisions of differing character . There are appproximately 171 homes in the Sycamore Park Subdivision. There are 5 homes with double wide drives with a single garage. All look as if they have been in for a very long time. Alfreda Schmidt , 1414 Lindbergh , maintains that her double wide drive has been in for nineteen years. Could this have been legal at the time under a different ordinance. Out of the five dwellings in our neighborhood , four are located on Lindbergh Drive. Of the four on Lindbergh : 1414 Lindbergh is a double lot (130 ft front. ) , 1430 Lindbergh is a lot and a half (90 ft. front. ) , 1500 Lindbergh is a lot and a half (90 ft. front. ) , 1504 Lindbergh has 60 ft. of frontage. The fifth home in our neighborhood is 1321 Pershing which is a corner lot so it fronts two streets. The double drive is accessible on the property side which has a frontage of 116 ft. ( Clifton Ave. access ) . My point is that in four of the five cases these double wide drives are located on properties with unusually large frontages . This greatly reduces their visual impact and thus preserves the character of the neighborhood . The one home which doesn ' t have a large frontage has a unique characteristic in that the double wide drive is considerably below grade of the adjacent lawns . The double wide drive in this case is cut into a hill . This also greatly reduces the negative visual impact of a double wide drive. The applicant 's home has a frontage of 55 ft_ The double wide drive extends toward the neighbor ' s house at 1515 Sunnyside. The drive is 15 ft. wide, then there' s approximately a 4 ft . strip of grass before we reach the neighbor ' s drive which appears to be 8 ft wide. This creates Statement of Thomas Higinbotham ( coast . ,. Page 3) -------------------------------------------------------- 23 feet of parking area within an expanse of 27 feet . When there is a car in each driveway lane (3 cars , 3 lanes ) , the appearance is that of a small parking lot . The effect of the grass strip in minimal . I don ' t know of any other situation in this subdivision where there are three driveway lanes that are this close together . This is another way this appeal varies from the five other homes with double-wide drives . The other five homes drives are seperated by their lawns , many of these quite large. There are 20 homes on our block of Sunnyside with driveways accessing Sunnyside. There are none with double wide drives and a single car garage. There are 50 homes on Sunnyside within the Sycamore Park Subdivision that have driveways accessing Sunnyside. There are none with double drives and a single car garage. As one drives down Sunnyside this double wide drive with single car garage is obviously not in keeping with the other homes. This appeal sets a precedent for the area. A precedence which could totally alter the character of the neighborhood and the value of the homes . IV) Impact on Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation. With three lanes ❑f parked cars so close together there is a sight limitation when backing out of the drives . This could be hazardous to both pedestrians and vehicular traffic . V) Goes against the Comprehensive Plan. The Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan lists Sycamore Park Subdivision as a potential site of historic significance (Page 37, Map 23) . In regards to historic preservation the Plan calls for strategies to designate areas , restore homes as they were, and preserve the character of these historic areas. The widening of driveways is counter to this strategy. In c 1_o_s i_ng _I _w i_s_h to reiterate _my 2222 s i t i o_n to this _a p p e a 1 a n d r e sp e c t f u l l y s u b m i t these facts _f o_r _your _c_o_n_s i_d_e_r_a_t i_o_n. Thank you for the oppurtunity to share my concerns. Respectfully Thomas Higinbotham , 1500 Sunnyside, Lansing , MI (484-3907) Mary Eallonardo, 1509 Sunnyside - A lot of what Mr. Higinbotham says is true the 5 photos however, do not represent Sycamore Park, they merely represent an area approximately 300 ' around our property, which is what we were told to be concerned with. As far as other driveways, most of these drives are to the back lot so its not necessary for anyone to have additional parking in front of the house. I believe that the narrowest front yard was 60 ' , our lot is 55 ' . It was not our intention to deface or in anyway downgrade our neighborhood which is why we immediately put rose bushes placed there. We spoke with sev- eral of our neighbors who see the need, have brought to our attention the hanging over the sidewalk and that was a big concern of theirs . So we found a way to accommodate everyone and ourselves, our need for additional parking, we took into consideration as much as we possibly could our neighbors. A year ago we spoke to the lady whose driveway is right next to us, she rarely ' parks her car near the front of her house, so the sense that it may create the look of a parking lot are not founded. We have the support of our neighbors, we have done an excellent job in meeting our needs. We have not heard of any com- plaints. Martha Rusesky, 1430 Sunnyside - We have neighbors that work the night shift and they solved the problem by parking in the garage. When we moved here we chose the neighborhood for the beauty of it, I think it looks like an eyesore. A letter from Doris A. Bailey, 1515 Sunnyside, I am definitely in favor of granting the request. Mr. Eallonardo consulted with me, we share a property line and the driveway abuts by property. Letters from Marguerette Nequette, 1503 Sunnyside; Konnie & Roger Serr, 1433 Sunnyside; Mrs. Howard A. Kane, 1521 Sunnyside; Tom and Kathleen Giddings, 1518 Sunnyside; Eldora G . Rahe, 1531 Sunnyside; Marc Cory, 1601 Sunnyside; Jack Claeys 1506 Sunnyside; George and Marcella Stochwick, 1525 Sunnyside; all in support of the request. A letter from Donald R. Come, 1425 Sunnyside oppose the request. Committee of Whole: Spink - I firmly believe that nothing starts to deteriorate a neighborhood than front yard parking. The garage could be used. No hardship created by the code. Steele - The pictures of the double wide driveways highly objectionable. Kane made a motion that appeal #2914 be denied. Second by Clark. No hardship caused by code which would justify grating the appeal . Yeas: Spink, Clark, Curran, Holmes, Steele, Kane, Morgan Nays: Christy Appeal #2914 DENIED The board found based on testimony and evidence that no hardship ex- ists and that any practical difficulty is a self created inconve- nience. The board believes that even though other similar appeals were granted by the Front Yard Parking Appeal Board these were for wider lots better able to accommodate wider drives . The board be- PAGE 8 lieves that granting this appeal would set a precedent for smaller lots in this area which would be detrimental to the overall appear- ances and character of the area. It will therefore be necessary to remove all concrete in the front yard in excess of the permitted width of twelve feet. Appeal #2915 , 3816 Schlee This is a request by William Shashaguay to construct an open front porch into the established front yard at 3816 Schlee. The applicant wishes to replace his 4 ' x 4 ' stoop with a 19 ' wide porch that extends 9 ' in front the house. The established front yard setback is 35 ' . The proposed 9 ' porch would be 22 ' from the front property line. A presentation was given by E. Love. Slides were shown of the sub- ject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner wishes to construct an open 9 x 19 front porch which will extend 13 ' into the required front yard. Also the petitioner contemplates eventually roofing and possibly screening in the porch. William Shashaguay, 3816 Schlee - My original intention was to put a porch out there since my original porch is deteriorating and I was told I could come out no closer than 15 ' from my property line. Then when I applied for my permit I was told I couldn' t go closer than 30 ' . My house sits 31 ' so I ' m already in violation and so is my entire neighborhood. Holmes - Do you plan on putting on a roof? Shashaguay - Possibly some time in the future. Holmes - Is you goal to eventually enclose it? Shashaguay - no. Curran made a motion that appeal #2915 be granted for a deck and roof not an enclosure. Second by Holmes. Yeas : Holmes , Curran, Clark, Spink, Steele, Christv, Kane, Morgan Nays: none Appeal #2915 APPROVED The board of found based on testimony and evidence that the proposed porch will be similar to the adjacent existing front porch and will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. The board further found that the porch would still be 2 feet further back than the standard minimum front yard requirement. The board believes that eventually placing a roof over the porch would also have no impact. However, enclosure of the porch would have to be reviewed by the board of zoning appeals when and if it is requested. Appeal #2916 , 1524 Glenrose PAGE 9 This is a request by Jon L. Vance to retain an existing carport that has been enclosed to become a garage 1 .5 feet from the south side lot line upon the premises known as 1524 Glenrose. A presentation was given by E. Love. Slides were shown of the sub- ject property and surrounding land use. J on Vance, 1524 Glenrose - I bought this property about 2 months ago, as you can see by the pictures the house is very small and there' s no basement, and I needed some place for storage. I thought about building a garage in the back yard, I called to find the requirements for that and they told me and I told them I was ready to move in and I needed the storage space, would there be a problem with closing in the carport until I could build a garage. They said there would be no Problem with that, so I started it, the minute I found out I was in violation I stopped and there' s been nothing done since. What I 'm requesting is for this to remain for 6 months to a year until I can build a garage for storage. Kane - Is your intent to remove the entire carport? Vance - My understanding is that if I put a detached garage in the back I can leave the roof over it, I just have to take down what I put UP - I also have a note here from the neighbor on that side stating he has no objection to it. A letter from Timothy & Elizabeth Francis, 1518 Glenrose, they do not mind the current structure being built on the lot line. Sp ink made a motion to deny appeal #2916 , the applicant has not dem- on strated a practical difficulty or hardship. Second by Holmes . Yeas: Clark, Spink, Christy, Curran, Kane, Holmes, Steele, Morgan Nays: none Appeal #2916 DENIED The board found that the existing carport has been enclosed which is not in conformance with building and zoning code requirements. The board further found that other alternatives are available for provid- i ng storage and parking including space for a detached garage in the rear yard which would conform with code requirements . Appeal #2917 , 1914 East Michigan Th is is a request by Joseph Cudnik to receive a parking variance for a Pr oposed restaurant at 1914 East Michigan Avenue. Code requires 12 Parking spaces . No parking is available on site. A presentation was given by E. Love. Slides were shown of the sub- J e ct property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to co evert the first floor of the structure to an establishment selling fo od for consumption only on the premise, and retain the residential un it on the second floor. Mo rcan - What is the distance from this property to the city parking 1 mot? PAGE 10 Love - 100 ' - 150 ' Clark - Do the 12 spaces, include the 2 spaces for the residential unit? Love - yes Dave Wyant, a friend - hardship due to the parking code. The use will not be as intense as thought by the board. Useable space of 315 sq ft after we put in another bathroom, a section for food preparation, a steam table and a vegetable salad bar, that cuts considerably into the useable space. So this would indicate that we only need 5 spaces for patron parking. (Sketch of floor plan) Took a survey of the busi- nesses . Sent a letter to all the businesses in the area. The owners will be residing in the apartment upstairs . They only have 1 car. The 2 workers will only have 1 car. No dumpsters, we' re going to use barrels with covers and enclose the barrels. And take the garbage out to an organic farm where we are reseeding organic vegetables right now. Neighboring businesses were canvassed and a wide margin were very positive about the restaurant opening in the neighborhood. Two businesses offered the use of their parking lots. Mr. Berger did offer the use of his parking lot, so that could be a solution to the off-street parking. Being a health food restaurant many patrons will walk or jog to lunch or dinner, I recommend approval of the parking variance or substitution. Holmes - How many people do you expect to get in there? What will be the hours of operation? Wyant - We can get 4 tables in there, 4-6 people at each table. Hours of operation will be 11 :30-2 : 30 and 4:30-8 : 30, closed Wednesday and Sunday. Mary Lee Roberts, own and operate the Smart Stork Shop - Ask that the board not approve the parking variance. I maintain a parking lot for my customers. In the past no matter what has been there I have a terrible problem keeping vehicles out of my lot that frequent the establishments west of me. I don' t have that much parking . When my customers who are pregnant can' t park there they must use the lot across the street and this is a hardship to them. So if this is granted it will be a hardship to my business and my customers. William Kelly, own and operate Computer Concepts at 1912 E. Michigan - I 'm here to ask that you deny the parking request. Not enough parking now for the businesses that are already there. Kate Young, 301 Allen Street, president of Eastside Neighborhood Or- ganization - A committee was appointed to look at the situation and the recommendations from that committee is in support of the variance. This site has been vacant for several years and we like to encourage its use. Any commercial use would require a variance. We see this as being low key, it is a restaurant but it does not have a liquor li- cense, and it has restricted hours of operations. We feel there will be a lot of walk ins . While there is no on site parking we feel that the city lots would provide sufficient parking for this use. Commu- nity Development Block Grant funds were used to develop that parking PAGE 11 lot to provide parking for commercial uses in this area. Its not used to capacity at the current time. Carol Tonnos, 346 Marshall, East Lansing, realtor for Tommie Raines Inc. and I have been assisting Paul and Kathleen Darling in search for a restaurant for the past year, and this has culminated with the purchase of 1914 E. Michigan Ave. They do intend to reside in the upper apartment, that' s evidence of their committment to the restau- rant, and sense of stability. The questionnaires came back so posi- tive. Mr. Berger will have available his parking lot. Paul Darling, owner of the restaurant, I just want to present this survey taken of the parking lot, dates times, and number of cars that parked there. I also have some pictures. The parking lot would be ample room for overflow parking. It will be a small restaurant and there won' t be much traffic. A letter from Ross Rapaport, land contract holder of the property, supports the proposed parking variance. A letter from Ralph and Carol Opper, owners of 1910 E. Michigan are opposed to the parking variance. Robert Sepeter, 7310 W. Mt. Hope, oppose any parking variance be- cause of no parking now. Holmes made a motion to table appeal #2917 . Second by Curran. Motion carried unanimously. The board tabled the request until written agreements to minimumly assure two residential parking spaces and possibly to provide suffi- cient parking within 300 ' which would satisfy code requirements for the restaurant. Appeal #2918, 5420 Sunrose This is a request by Harvey R. Baker to receive a variance to con- struct an attached garage 2 ' from the side property line on property at 5420 Sunrose Avenue. The garage is proposed to be 16 ' wide. A presentation was given by E. Love. Slides were shown of the sub- ject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to construct a 16 ' x 22 ' attached garage onto the north side of the house 2 ' from north property line. Harvey Baker, everythings been basically covered. Spink made a motion to approve appeal #2918 for a 4 ' variance to per- mit construction of a garage attached to the north side of the single family home no closer than 2 ' from the side property line subject to the following conditions: 1 ) removal and reseeding of the existing driveway from the curb to the building foundation including the in- stallation of the new curb; 2 ) securing of the necessary curb cur and building permits prior to initiation of construction; and 3 ) contact- PAGE 12 ing the Board of Water and Light to make arrangements for the reloca- tion of the street light. Second by Clark. Yeas : Curran, Kane, Clark, Spink, Steele, Christy, Holmes, Morgan. Nays : none Appeal #2918 AAPROVED. The board found based on evidence and testimony that a hardship exists because the topography of the land and an 80 ' drain easement makes the Construction of a detached garage in the rear yard very difficult. The board further found that no other residential units would be directly impacted because the Consumer Power right-of-way is directly north of the subject property on which no structures can be built. M irlutes: Spink made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 12 , 1 9 8 8 meeting. Second by Clark. Motion carried unanimously. Spink mad e a motion to approve the minutes of the June 9, 1988 meeting. S e cord by Curran. N� Business : Open Meetings Act indicates that requiring someone to I3-gri in as a condition to speaking at an open meeting is not allowed. suggest our staff contact the city attorney. (Section 15 .261 M1Chigan Compiled Law) Clark - Regarding Ferguson property on Pine and Kalamazoo our approval Of that variance was that the State was going to provide for parking for all of the occupants of that building, rumor has it that it is not lo e i rig done, what did we get in writing from the State? What exactly d i d we require? How are we going to monitor it? S t e ale - Request to city attorney regarding signs with easements . Fc�'uritain - No response at this time. Election of Officers S P-L rik made a motion that Priscilla Holmes be nominated Chairperson and M a z y Clark, vice chairperson and that all nominations be closed. S e c and by Curran. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10 : 50 . Vernon C. Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals PAGE 13 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals August 11 , 1988 - 7 :30 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers . 10th floor The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Priscilla Holmes at 7 :30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Bernard Christy Mary Clark Christopher Steele Edward Spink Grant Hilts Jack Morgan Patricia Curran Tom Kane Priscilla Holmes Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Bill Acheson, Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter, Recording Secretary Kane made a motion to remove Appeal #2917 , 1914 E. Michigan from the table . Second by Curran. Motion carried unanimously . Fountain - A meeting was held with Paul Darling, Carol Tonnes and David Wyant and Planning staff regarding the requested parking vari- ance. A more detailed floor plan shows 310 .5 sq ft of useable floor area. Required parking would be 5 .2 spaces for floor area, plus 2 spaces for employees parking and 2 spaces for residential unit on second floor. Dave Wyant - Public relations director for Govinda' s Restaurant. Govinda' s restaurant has secured extra off-street parking. Mr. Berger has leased three spaces in the H.C . Berger parking lot. The register of deeds supplied a copy of the parking easement which allows residential parking for at least two or more cars . The remaining spaces we would need are in front of the building, two spaces, one hour, metered parking. Mrs. Roberts - Since the easement has been, the only part that has ever operated for parking between the two buildings is directly beside the two buildings, which is no more than two spaces . One for them one for us and those are stack parking. There is no exit on that easement. Holmes - Do you currently use that space? Roberts - I do not currently use that space. Holmes - Would you be in agreement for them to use both spaces? Roberts - I don' t see that it would be in my best interest. Christy made a motion to approve the appeal #2917 with the condition that they provide a lease agreement for the extra spaces . Second by Kane . Yeas : Curran, Hilts, Christy, Kane, Steele, Holmes Nays: none Appeal #2917 APPROVED The board found based on testimony and evidence that the proposed use requires nine off-street parking spaces none of which will be provided on site . A variance of six spaces was approved with the understanding that three additional spaces will be leased and available within 300 ' of 1914 East Michigan for the proposed land use. Appeal #2919 - 2000 block Greenwich Court This is a request by Wayne Magee for a zoning variance to allow con- struction of two four unit condominium structures on Greenwich Court. A presentation was given by B. Acheson. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to construct 2-4 unit condominium structures on the property to within 17 ' of the north property line to lot 6 Manhattan Subdivision. Holmes - There are no sidewalks on the north side of Greenwich at this time, are the sidewalks on the plat plan? Acheson - Yes they are in the plan to build sidewalks on the north side. Wayne Magee, 2015 Palmer Lane, East Lansing. When we ' re finished with the north side, we will be putting in a sidewalk. Renato Leone, president, board of directors, Manhattan Condominium Association. I responded to the board with a letter. We have a some concerns, the first is that the unit is being represented as part of Manhattan Condominium Association and according to the master deeds the developer has already expanded the unit to the maximum amount of 40 units. To expand it further would require two-thirds vote by the co-owners that has not been obtained. The question of frontage there is some concern with how far from the curb this meant. Also the question of sidewalks for pedestrian traffic. Further there is no sidewalk on the north side of Greenwich now, and with no street lighting there it would be a problem for pedestrians. Bernadine Young, 2018 Provincial House Drive - I like the idea of ad- ditional condominiums . I ' m concerned about the parking in the area. A letter from Renato D. Leone, president, board of directors, Manhattan Condominium Association. A letter from Harold Orr, 2023 Greenwich Court, objects to the vari- ance request. If granted, would leave very little if any at all room for a sidewalk on the southside of Greenwich Court. Steele made a motion to approve appeal #2919 for a 3 ' variance setback on the north property line with the condition that a fence be placed on the south property line. There is adequate space and no traffic problem. Second by Kane. Yeas : Curran, Christy, Hilts, Steele, Kane, Holmes Nays: none Appeal #2919 APPROVED The board found that there is a utility easement in the rear yard which forces the shifting of the structures toward the front property line . Required parking can be provided without difficulty if the di- mensions between the structure and sidewalk is greater than 18 .5 ' . In addition, the rear yard area provided will be greatly enhanced by the preservation of as many trees as possible. Appeal #2920 - 2510 North Logan This is a request by Bruce Hartwick for a variance to front yard set- back requirement, to allow for construction of a greenhouse addition to the restaurant within 5 ' of the front yard property line. A presentation was given by B. Acheson. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Bruce Hartwick - The 50 ' strip use to be a very high hill and when Logan Street was put through additional land had to be purchased be- cause of the hill in order to get a slope. After that was done they were going to build a gas station and restaurant, we tore the hill down and put it along the river, so that 50 ' strip was not necessary for a bank anymore. Curran - Why did you decide to put the greenhouse on the west side? Hartwick - Its the most logical place from the interior layout of the building also from the perspective view of the building. It will look nice there, it will be on the southwest corner. Zig Kowalski, 2519 N. Grand River, I own the property directly to the north of subject property. I think this is the only property in Lansing surrounded by roads . Across the street is not residential, one is a car repair and wrecker service and the other is office. We have a right of way of 90 ' to the center of the road, 63 ' from the curb to the property line, we do not have any objections to a green- house going out 40 ' if he wants to. Christy made a motion to approve appeal #2920 for reason of the dif- ficulty of the interior of the building. Second by Hilts. Yeas: Hilts, Curran Steele, Christy, Kane, Holmes Nays: none Appeal #2920 APPROVED The board found based on testimony and evidence placing the new con- struction on the south or east is impractical, due to the layout of the kitchen and the parking area. Also, there is insufficient space on the north side of the building for any expansion. It was also found that 50 ' of excess right-of-way for Logan Street abuts the sub- ject yard area, leaving more than adequate distance from Logan Street. Appeal #2921 - Claremore Drive This is a request by Geert Mulder & Sons for a front yard setback variance to construct a new single family dwelling 20 ' from the front property line on Claremore. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner proposes to construct a new single family dwelling 20 ' from the front property line on Claremore. The established front yard is 25 .5 ' . Therefore a variance of 5 .5 ' is requested. Holmes - How will it compare sitting back from the street with the rest of the houses? Fountain - About the same. Todd McMillan, 249 Milford, East Lansing - Everything about the site that the home buyers want is on that corner and want no other lot but that one. G .D. Mulder and Sons would like this variance granted. James Gordon, 111 W. Claremore - I was curious to know if this will be a different style of house that' s been built in there. How will it look from the street, is it one of the standard models. Which way will the garage face, which end will the driveway be at? Towards my side. I thought it would look better to have one next door to me the same distance. Not in favor of it. Curran made a motion to approve appeal #2921 . Second by Kane. Yeas : Christy, Curran, Hilts , Kane, Steele, Kane. Nays: none Appeal #2921 APPROVED The board found based on testimony nd evidence that this front yard variance request of 5 .5 ' is necessary to allow a 30 ' rear yard. The board found that the corner lot set back requirements limit the extent of development that can occur and makes it difficult to construct a home on the property that is compatible with development in the vi- cinity. The board does not believe the change will have any negative impact on adjacent property owners. Appeal #2922 - 6222 Gardenia This is a request by Joseph Bates for a variance of 118 sq ft of ac- cessory structure from maximum of 1 ,000 sq ft permitted, to allow a PAGE 4 storage structure and a carport each 26 ' x 21 ' ' 6" for a total of 1 , 118 sq ft at 6220 Gardenia. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner proposes to reconstruct an existing garage and carport to both measure 26 ' x 22 ' 6" for a total of 1 , 118 sq ft of accessory structure. Pat Bates, 6220 Gardenia, this is the third time we ' ve been here. We have a lot of articles that need to be stored in the garage. We are continually having things stolen out of our yard. Currently the ga- rage does not have garage doors on it because we have been waiting to do that to see what happens here. Just tonight again, our moped was stolen out of our garage. If we dont' get a storage area, all of our things will continually be stolen, we are constantly calling the po- lice for reports and nothing gets done, its real frustrating. I have brought in some pictures to show the size of our property and garage and the articles we store. Communication: Marvella and Albert Witt, 6259 Coulson Court, I see no objection in view of the fact that the lot size is very large. Mrs . Clare Van Riper, 6221 Gardenia, no objection, the building looks very well with the size of his house. Mrs. Mary Adams, 6230 Gardenia, the structure as it stands now is not in anyway offensive nor an eye sore to my property or the neighbor- hood. There are other properties in this area with large accessory structures on them. Hilts made a motion to deny appeal 02922 for the reason there is no hardship or practical difficulty Second by Curran. Yeas : Curran, Hilts, Kane, Steele, Holmes Nays: Christy Appeal #2922 DENIED The board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that there is not a practical difficulty or hardship in this request, and the re- quirements of the code allow reasonable use of the property. Minutes: Christy made a motion to approve the July 14, 1988 minutes. Second by Kane. Motion approved unanimously. Old Business: Still waiting for City Attorney reply in regards to sign easement. New Business: There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8 :50 pm. ernalh ,C:'l�Foo� PAGE 5 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals October 13 , 1988 - 7 :30 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers . 10th floor The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Priscilla Holmes at 7 : 30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Mary Clark Edward Spink Christopher Steele Bernard CIZz.isty Priscilla li olmes Patricia Curran Tom Kane Grant Hilts Jack Morgan Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Emil Winni_cker, Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter, Recording Secretary Appeal #29 28 _ 2518 Marion This is a request by Jamie Charlie to erect a 6 ' high opaque fence partially in the front yard on the premises of 2518 Marion. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Ms. Char Z 1e proposes to erect a 6 ' high opaque fence partially in the front yar(a Where opaque fences may only be 3 ' tall. Jamie Charlie - I filed an appeal to put up a fence when I purchased my house _ = was unaware that you had just passed an ordinance. I want to do all = can to enchance the beauty of my house and also to protect all my be longings and anything inside my home and my garage. I feel the only `way I can do so is to put up a fence due to the fact that my patio ana side door are right on a very busy intersection. There are also v.isib le from Logan Street, a very heavily traveled highway. I ' ve cons id er e czf�:L relocating my back door but I have two bedrooms and a bathroom located in the back of my house, therefore to relocate my back doo-%= would be impossible. And the patio being located on the side if Z wanted to use a barbeque grill or lawn furniture or picnic table or weave any of my belongings outside it really wouldn' t be very secure be pause of the visibility in the neighborhood. With the garage being si 4c:--aeways on my lot I can' t see the window on the west side I can ' t see that from my house therefore anyone can go in and out of my window getting anything in my garage. Christy - Why do you want the fence 6 ' high? Charlie - I feel a 6 ' fence would be more secure than a 3 ' high fence because if I were to leave my back door open or anything sit out in my yard you can see it over a 3 ' high fence. Christy - How large is the garage? Charlie - Its a 1 1/2 car garage. Morgan - What style of fence are you proposing? Charlie - Stockade type fence, treated wood. Morgan - Would a fence that went from the garage to the house solve most of your problems? Charlie - No because of the location of my side door and my cement slab to the side of my house would be part of my side yard I would be most likely to use for entertaining or just outdoor enjoyment. Christy - Do you have any dogs? Charlie - I do have two pets but that ' s not why I 'm asking for this. I have a pen built for my animals. I 'm more concerned with my secu- rity and the security of my belongings. Wayne Brown, 2512 Marion, house immediately north of this property. I think a 6 ' fence is too high. This fence is primarily for two dogs they have and I know if they had the fence up the dogs wouldn' t be able to see the street and would do a lot less barking. But its too close to the corner and a lower fence would be just as much advantage. Lois Stanley, 1314 Loraine, immediately to the side where her lot ends. If the 6 ' fence were put next to our house we would not get air when we opened the windows to our bedroom. The fence is mainly for her dogs. And they do bark, but I can' t believe that a 6 ' fence will keep them from barking. Communications: Ronald and Lois Stanley, 1314 Loraine, lived here for 30 years and have never had a problem of this nature. A 6 ' fence would block our view & any circulation of air on the east side of our home. Also, she has two barking dogs in a pen behind her garage and a fence would give them more room to run. Thelma Taylor, 1400 Loraine and Athena Lincicome, 1405 Loraine, a 6 ' fence should not be erected. Sue Schroeder, 2501 Marion, opposed to the 6 ' fence out to the side- walk. Jill & Bob Kenney, 2606 Marion, being a corner lot makes this property highly visible to the neighborhood and in our opinion an environmental detraction. William and Jennifer Lang, 2511 Marion, against the request. A 6 ' opaque fence could cause a safety hazard when driving by, obstructing the view of oncoming cars. A 6 ' fence would break up the esthetic affect of the neighborhood. The house at 2518 Marion is already out of line with the rest of the houses on Loraine, a 6 ' fence would just make the appearances worse. Committee of Whole: Morgan - The ordinance that is proposed to be varied to was passed by the Planning Board and City Council, because of the concern for the impact on fences in the front yard. And also the safety that was may be involved. Hilts made a motion to deny the request. Second by Clark . Yeas: Clark, Curran, Hilts, Christy, Morgan Kane, Steele, Holmes Nays: none Appeal #2928 DENIED The board does not believe that there is a hardship relating to this proposal. The board further believes that the code requirements allow reasonable use of the property. The board found based on evidence and testimony, that the fence would obstruct the vision of other residential homes along Lorraine Street and potentially cause vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. The board believes there are other alternatives which would meet code requirements that will allow the installation of a fence that will allow you to accomplish your stated goals of privacy and protection of property. Appeal #2829 - 2923 Andrea Drive This is a request by Van Robert Reid to receive a variance to the side and rear yard setback requirement at his residence located at 2923 Andrea Drive. A presentation was given by E. Winnicker. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to construct an attached garage on the west side of the property to the rear of the house three feet from the side property line and four feet from the rear property line. Kane - Would this conform if it were a detached garage? Winnicker - If it were detached it would conform? Holmes - If they were not proposing the dining room, then the place- ment of the garage would be in compliance with the code? Winnicker - Yes if it were detached. Van Robert Reid - Our home is a smaller home that we would like to place a garage back in the corner lot, like many of the other homes in the area, we would like to attach the garage, with a dining area be- cause of the small home and it would meet our need of a growing fam- ily. Also, we find it difficult to have guests and have an adequate area for seating and eating, so we would like a 10 ' x 12 ' area between the back of the kitchen to connect up to the garage so we can go from the garage to the house without going outside. I have a letter from one of my neighbors stating that they have no problem with what we ' re proposing. Morgan - Would this be a brick structure similar to the house? Reid - The kitchen extension would be brick and the garage would be siding. Stan Mathed, we own property on Lafayette, no objection. Andy Zess, 2919 Andrea, my house is on the other side of his. I am not in support of request. A letter from Henry & Ellen Gowman, 3005 Andrea Drive, there is no problem as far as we are concerned. Kane made a motion to approve appeal #2929 because its a practical difficulty caused by the code and it won' t have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. Second by Steele. Yeas: Clark, Curran, Christy, Hilts, Morgan, Steele, Kane, Holmes Nays: none Appeal #2929 APPROVED. The board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that a prac- tical difficulty is created by the ordinance when taking into consid- eration the proposed size and placement of the garage and the method of attaching it to the home, i. e. if the garage were detached it would be allowed in the proposed location. The board does not believe the proposed construction will have any negative impact on adjacent properties . Appeal #2930 - 225 East Miller Road This is a request by Todd Hoover to construct a 30 ' x 48 ' storage building on his property, 225 E. Miller Road. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner proposes to construct the 30 ' x 48 ' building, demolish the existing garage and then store miscellaneous vehicles and equip- ment in the new building. Todd Hoover, 225 E. Miller Road. The reason I am here tonight is that I would like to build this pole building in my backyard. I do not intend to operate any type of business out of it, I know its a rather large building. The building that exists now is totally un- usable. I bought the property less than a year ago and the reason I chose this property was because it was in a nice neighborhood and it has a large yard and it would accommodate the building I have proposed to build. The reason I need such a large structure is I have quite a few vehicles, I have a Class A motor home that is 27 ' long and I really don' t feel comfortable with it sitting in the side yard which is the only place I have available to put it. Its a large investment to leave sitting outside and its a public eyesore sitting outside. The building I want to construct will match the house, it' ll enhance the beauty of the property. The parking space that the motor home and the other vehicles I have take up the entire driveway. If I were to build the structure the motor home would fit inside it along with several other recreational vehicles that I have; two snowmobiles, two motorcycles, and an off road vehicle. The building that is there now is an eyesore. I have not received any negative comments from my neighbors, I do not want to do something to cause waves in the neigh- borhood. I think that the size of the lot is accommodating to the building. Jesse Gonzales, 6025 LaPorte Drive, I 'm a member of a group that sent in a petition. We see no reason why the City should allow a structure of this size. The area is single family oriented, with a modern school in it. We feel that a building of this size could eventually become an auto repair facility and will begin to create additional traffic problems, noise pollution to the school and to the neighbor- hood. We feel a building of this size could set a precedent. Holmes - We have a petition with 19 signatures, strongly oppose any change that could lower the value of the existing homes . David Hoover, l318 Prospect. The neighbors are all opposed to this structure thinking it will be used as an auto repair. I know my brother needs the room for his motorhome, it will not be used for auto repair. Clark made a motion that appeal #2930 be denied on the basis that there is no hardship. Second by Kane. Yeas : Hilts, Morgan, Curran, Clark, Steele, Christy, Kane, Holmes Nays: none Appeal #2930 DENIED. The board believes that the proposed storage building will promote over development of the site. The board does not believe there is a hardship related to this request and further believe that if this request is approved it will establish precedent for other proposals . In summary the board believes that the code requirements allow rea- sonable use of the property. Appeal #2931 - 2219 Sunnyside This is a request by Pamela Rae to operate a beauty salon in her home at 2219 Sunnyside. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner wishes to operate a one chair beauty salon from the basement of her residence. Holmes - Is there room to park in the rear of the property? Fountain - Very little, the rear area might accommodate one car. Pamela Rae Champagne. It will be a one chair salon. There is no room for any other person to work down there. I have two children, a 2 1/2 year old and a 2 month old. My husband works nights, so there is no reason why there won ' t be enough parking in our parking area itself. I will not be scheduling appointments every half hour. I will have maybe 0-5 people a day, but they will be scheduled a half hour to two hours or three hours apart. They will go through our back door. The reason I 'm opening the salon is for my children, I prefer to stay at home instead of going out to work. I don' t have a very big clientele. The driveway is long enough to have three cars Christy - Have you been notified of all the restrictions by the City? Champagne - No I haven' t been told. Kane - Does the operation require a license by the State? Champagne - Yes, they have to come in and inspect it and everything has to be under code before I can open up. It has to be inspected every year. Alfred Champagne, husband of Pamela. As far as parking, we can' t see any problem. I work at night and sleep during the day. There won ' t be any need for our car to be going in or out of our driveway. We have met with the people in the Building Department. A letter from Mary Henslee, 2215 Sunnyside, in support of the request. Andrea T. Funk, 2101 Clifton, opposes the request. Kane brought up the issue of barrier free law. Clark made a motion to approve appeal #2931 . Second by Christy. Yeas: Clark, Christy, Curran, Hilts, Kane, Morgan, Steele Nays: Holmes Appeal #2931 APPROVED . The board approved the request to operate a one chair beauty salon subject to the following conditions: 1 . No person, other than a member of the family residing in the dwelling unit, engages in the home occupation. 2 . The use of the dwelling unit as a home occupation is clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes. 3 . Not more than 20% of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit is used in any way for the home occupation. . 4 . No change occurs in the outside appearance of the dwellings. 5 . Not more than 1 sign exists, which does not exceed 1 square foot in area, is not illuminated, and is mounted flat against the wall of the dwelling. 6 . The sale of goods does not occur in the dwelling unit or on the lot on which the dwelling unit is located. 7 . No equipment is used except equipment which is normally used for purely domestic or household purposes. Equipment not normally used for purely domestic or household purposes maybe instead if the Board of Zoning Appeals approve such use. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall approve of such use if it is satisfied that the in- tensity of use will not be increased to a level that will ad- versely impact any lot within 300 ' of the lot seeking Board of Zoning Appeals approval. 8 . The business shall be conducted only in the 11 ' x 11 ' room indi- cated by the applicant. 9 . Not more than one styling type chair shall be installed. 10 . Not more than one customer at a time shall be served. 11 . All parking shall be in the driveway. 12 . Approval of this variance shall be specific to the applicant, Mrs. Pamela Rae Champagne, to the site: 2219 Sunnyside Avenue. The board believes that if the above conditions are complied with there should not be any adverse impact on the adjacent residential area. Appeal #2232 - 533 South Grand This is a request by James Cash to restore the structure utilizing the second floor of the structure for his residence and the ground floor for office space upon the premises known as 533 S . Grand Avenue. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner proposes to convert the building for residential/office use. Mr. Cash will live on the upper floor and offer office space on the lower floor. This will require additional parking area. The ga- rage will be for the use of the petitioner. Holmes - Are there two front yards? Fountain - yes . Holmes - Is it zoned 4 Family or D-1 Professional? Fountain - D-1 Office District. Curran - What does the State Register property have to do with the proposal? Fountain - If the structure is placed on the historical record im- provement will have to coform to the requirements. James Cash - I brought in a site plan to view. This house is a 111 years old, you have a letter from the Michigan Historical Commission that states this house has architectural significance and it has his- torical significance. Over the years it has only been owned by three people besides myself. I want to restore the property to its original condition, using standards by the National Historical Commission which is administered by the Parks Department. This particular house is situated to the inner rear portion of the lot. Its very impressive, it sits way back off the street, its visu- ally appealing, well groomed front yard. I live in the house right now in the upstairs. The variance I 'm seeking is going to make no difference at all in the way the space is currently used. The area I have designated for parking is currently being used for parking . The only thing I 'm going to do is pave it and strip it. Holmes - I see you allowed for a 3 ' green strip between you and the adjoining property on Hillsdale. Do you have any plans for screening and buffering? Cash - I 'm working with the city staff on the selection of plants and landscaping. Jeanne Blair, 214 E . Hillsdale, this is connecting with the Cash' s property. There is a chain link fence 3 ' , I haven' t seen the plans but I was interested in seeing what the parking would be like. I was interested in how this would be separated from my property because it is a different elevation, and if they should put there paving right up to the chain link it would be very bad, that would all come down into my yard, and also I wanted to be sure it wasn' t an opaque or wooden fence, it would cut all the air and the sun from my side yard, because its a very small side yard about 8 ' . Mary Ellen Getts, 221 E. Hillsdale. I 'm mainly interested in the traffic flow and if the businesses that is proposed to go into this building is going to create any more traffic in our neighborhood. With the lottery building going in, I 'm concerned about the traffic issue. Kenton Getts, 221 E. Hillsdale. The traffic problem in that neigh- borhood is very excessive. With the addition of the lottery center and with the Eydes project going in, and Dr. Schiessler right across the road who has a dentist office with 3 parking spaces, he rents his upstairs. Our concern is we don' t know what type of business there going to have there, we dont ' known what type of increased traffic there ' s going to be. Parking is not the concern, the amount of traf- fic is. Robert Boles, I own two houses, one on the corner of E. Hillsdale and Cherry and the other one west of that house. Both of these could be classified as historical buildings . We have been restoring both of them now for period of 2-3 years, particularly the one on the corner which is a gothic structure which is very similar to the Cash' s house. We are concerned that they maintain the historical character and also that it is maintained as a dwelling rather than a business enterprise. I have equal concerns with the flow of the traffic, because Hutchinson' s office has a very substantial flow of people, and there is congestion of traffic there. My suggestion to the board is that this be tabled until further investigation can be taken as to the im- pact of traffic and if Kalamazoo Street is made two way that will help the traffic situation. But the Cherry Hill Neighborhood Association has been endeavoring to have this take place for 5 years now. Lacy Cash, 533 S . Grand. We are planning on staying in the house. We are not going to rent out the entire building as an office. We are reducing the density of the unit because when we purchased it, it was a 4 unit apartment building and we ' re reducing it to two units. A letter from Dr. Schiessler, 210 E. Hillsdale, I support the im- provements. A letter from Michigan Department of State and a letter from Michigan Historical Commission. A letter from Planning Division, Historic District Commission. Clark made a motion to approve appeal #2932 at 533 S. Grand. Second by Hilts. Yeas : Curran, Hilts, Clark, Christy, Kane, Steele, Morgan, Holmes Nays: none Appeal #2932 APPROVED. This approval was given subject to the following conditions: 1 . The provision of screening and buffering approved and referred by the Planning Division. 2 . The exterior historical integrity of the building being main- tained. The board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the pro- posed garage location would not adversely impact the adjacent property which is used as a commercial parking lot. It was further determined that this proposal will promote a less in- tense use of the property, which should compliment the residential neighborhood. Minutes Hilts made a motion to approve the September 8, 1988 minutes, second by Morgan. Motion approved unanimously. Old Business Fountain gave update on past questions from the board. New Business Kane to contact barrier free design division. There being no further business the meetin as adjou t 9 : 0 pm. Vernon C. Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals September 8, 1988 - 7 :30 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers. loth floor The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Priscilla Holmes at 7 : 30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Mary Clark Christopher Steele Bernard Christy Edward Spink Priscilla Holmes Patricia Curran Tom Kane Grant Hilts Jack Morgan Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Donna Wynant, Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter, Recording Secretary Appeal #2924 - 4822 S. Pennsylvania This is a request by Linda Lou Goodknecht to allow the operation of a one chair beauty shop as a home occupation on the premise of 4822 S . Pennsylvania. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Fred Goodknecht - This whole situation started before we purchased this property. My wife called zoning and planning to find out what the zoning was for the house, and we were told the zoning for that house was commercial. I can ' t prove it, I accepted what they said as being true. And by reasonable right of assumption we therefore pro- ceeded and acquired a State license to operate cosmetology business. Therefore we were in total dismay when an officer came to our house about the parking in the front because we also made a phone call about the fence. You also noticed that on the inside perimeter of that fence are trees, we did not go to all this bother if we didn' t know that this is what we could do. This is what we were told we could do. Morgan - When did you acquire the house? Goodknecht - March 1987 Morgan - When were you notified about the parking? Goodknecht - About two months ago. Morgan - Can you operate the beauty shop without the front yard park- ing? Goodknecht - Yes we can. The only reason we did it was that the day I moved into this property my neighbor came over to me and asked me if we could work out an agreement for parking and sharing the driveways. Our driveways are side by side. He said on weekends he might have a party and he don ' t have the room to park any cars. I. said I don ' t have a problem with it. He also mentioned that it is extremely dif- ficult to get out of here because the speed limit is 40 mph. As it turned out the additional space really helped that is why I put it there. Spink - When did the fence go in? Goodknecht - April 1988 Kane made a motion that appeal #2924 be approved subject to the fol- lowing conditions: Second by Christy. Yeas : Clark, Curran, Hilts, Christy, Morgan, Kane, Holmes Nays: Spink Appeal #2924 APPROVED. The board approved the request subject to the following conditions: 1 . The shop is operated on an appointment only basis and not more than on customer or family time. of customers is on site at any one 2 . That front yard parking be eliminated on site and the fence en- closing the front yard be relocated to prevent front and that this be completed within thirty (30 days . yard Parking 3 . All parking will be in the existing driveway. 4. The owner shall not employ anyone but a member of the immediate family. 5 . No commodity shall be sold from the premises. 6 . Not more than 20% of the gross area of the home shall be utilized in the operation of the business . 7 . Not more than one (1 ) styling chair shall be installed. 8 . Not more than one (1 ) non-illuminated sign not to exceed one (1 ) square foot in size will be allowed. 9 . Approval as given is specific to the applicant and site and is not transferable. The board does not believe the change will have any negative impact on the adjacent properties. Appeal #2925 - 3023 North East Street This is a request by Gary Stowe to construct a storage addition to the existing structure on the premises of 3023 North East Street. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The proposed addition would be constructed in line with the existing structure 10 ' from the north ( front) lot line and 20 ' from the west (rear) lot line. This is a request for variances of 10 ' for the front yard and 5 ' for the rear yard. Holmes - Given the expanded area are they going to be able to meet their requirements? Fountain - Yes A communication from Mr. & Mrs. Eric Wolanski, in opposition of the change. Its a quiet street now and would like to keep it that way. Clark - If they put the delivery doors on the east side is that going to take away the parking that is required? Fountain - They will lose some in the front but there is more in the rear. Clark made a motion that the variance for a 10 ' front yard and 5 ' rear yard setback be granted with the condition that the delivery doors be placed on the east side of the building and that the dumpster in the rear be appropriately screened and buffered. Second by Christy. Yeas : Clark, Curran, Christy, Hilts, Morgan, Holmes Nays: Spink, Kane Appeal #2925 APPROVED The board believes that the proposed addition will improve the over all land use of the subject property by discouraging vehicle traffic around the existing building and outside storage from occurring. The board further believes that if the primary ingress and egress to the site is from the east the adjacent residential area will be pro- tected. Appeal #2926 - 603 S . Washington This is a request by Eyde Construction Co. for a variance to office on site parking requirements for property located at 603 S . Washington. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. Eyde Construction Co. wishes to add to the building resulting in an increase in the on site parking requirement to 73 spaces . Clark - Is there going to be an addition to the building? Fountain - No, they are not adding to the building. Clark - The report indicates that there are 65 metered sites within a reasonable walking distance? What determined that? Fountain - Within two blocks. Kane - What brought this to our attention? There is some work going on in that building that probably requires building permits? ermits were issued with the understanding Parking m ountain -Building rpor to occupancy• as started and is then `^Tottld be Provi that the 1 renovation to provide for the parking► C l ark - Does 1 ted and now they re 'having r et ically comp e it? fo, be fore they can utiliz ect manager I n, pro j men F ountain - yes - goad, okemos• this develop of th chronology de Co• purchased as 1750 Hamiltona brief The Ey and a Allen Russell► perhaps uestions • t• Tr Company• o f the ci about a year 1 little b i at de divaries Would help clarify SO of i subsi condens things the pro,erty is e a pl; under one plans tO vation on Pr operty ment P do rend time we present-- w.he and began redevelop s taken out to pt that t- on the property o riginal permit ercial usage• of parking comes in, the into comet 21 spaces aces high, had `onvert It additional The additional ddout 18 1 want that showed previously- it was ed nobody hli ere had been riOoom in the building,ess for handibesP use of the spy d ballr It had no and add a second fa. Was an o1 e and etc. we felt that the usa wised stagballroom or a anaget n engineering study, adding to that -to rent ead, after enogt the stage an adding the par vary was to go ah area taking The issue were required tc in that the building • ermit as we it, level of second p and the first perm of square f otWee`j7ent in for the work bey point we g u additionally And at that Phe options w came P we were doing ermit• and what Club, b because for a second on par'kinq, Womens lication were the old Lansing whatsoever made aPP over where we this is It had no parking down f discussions ou are aware, olds • its been run As most of y from vion, lot of building in 1913 and donated by R•E• o asiwith a land for par. d the building oval i abandoned, misused► no additi and leveled we resurrecte aban there' s number of years, and front Yard a $100 ,0 have parking d bermedepense of about You he didn' t any P landscaped an the anyone that W e took out a rade considerably at as well as thousanc aware spent several hundred 111 changed the g We are done, we 21 spaces • s• s put in the these day Wmoney before we reWe need the have some p arking to spend more on renovation* of the steps lar s, we' re going million dollars thought that one understandin probably a 'half obviously, the floor in, tY second stated. I investor to put the code as on the on the investment was didn' t meet 54 spaces based turn the 21 spaces We City towards the a required w rkfwith the nu� ev en with looking at to we exceeded the were roughly We agreed .ocupancy once We have not re able square foataghe time of ble• area i arking ava: r in that b le resolution for the P the parking lot acr square feet some of e namely the occupied q oint► usage rOperties becomf at this P commercial will solution arking to ve been other P sold and from P There ha has been thinK we converted o the north- on the corner lot and I street the banK a small room for buil the area, usage, itsY ou don' t have in old party store, vented to commercial there• door, the We had the same The roperty next commercial usage' to pi-jr( seeing both• The P parking converted t o opt, to for ourselves still urchased and as an P do that, ,einq P both of thOSe not able to ~eertdtoinarking • We Were other options within the neighborhood that would be feasible for housing that may be substandard that one could buy and demolish. We feel that if the city is going to allow commercial extension done through that area that they are going to have to make some accommoda- tions for existing buildings and small lots, but the fact of life is that is going to be a commercial district all the way done to the freeway, it is now. Its unfortunate that the 0 parking, requirement stops in the middle of the block at the 500 block at the bus station. That ' s where the zoning changes . Judy Gardi, 306 E. Lenawee, president of Cherry Hill Neighborhood Association I request a denial. Employees of this building will park free in the Cherry Hill Neighborhood and walk two blocks to work, ob- structing our driveways, overloading our streets, reducing the safety to our children and increasing the traffic dramatically in my neigh- borhood. The city must be responsible for parking and they must make developers responsible to provide parking. I don ' t feel that contin- uing to give these developers variances is the answer. Phil Baldino, I have an office at 610 S. Grand. I am opposed to it for a couple of reasons. When I bought my office I had to buy two lots instead of one to make enough parking. The pressure between the two buildings going in is going to put on my parking lot is going to take me a full time policeman and wrecker to keep them out of there. Its a lot of pressure. I think there is land available I ' ve been ap- proached by every house in that block, they want to sell . Patrick Borado, attorney, my office is in the State Employees Credit Union building. I had a history of owning properties in the S . Washington area. I support the Eyde ' s renovation of this building because I think its a good project and something should be done to resolve the parking problem. There is a shortage of parking on S . Washington. Whatever happens, I think the City of Lansing has an ob- ligation to treat all the property owners in that area fairly and consistantly. And either grant variances to everyone and have the City build another ramp, provide adequate parking for the commercial users or amend the ordinance so that the parking restriction can be lifted for everyone equally or deny the variances. But whatever hap- pens I think you owe it to the people in the area. I urge you to be consistent and be fair to all the property owners Weldon Burchell, 117 E. Hillsdale, I have a dental office there. I moved there in the 60 ' s, there was on street parking, there were no parking lots . Since I ' ve been there they put in parking meters. The lot I 'm on there is only room enough for people to park in the back who use the building. In the back there are about 3 parking spots . The other occupant of the building is a foot doctor and many of his patients find it difficult to get around in the winter time, so its necessary they have parking very close by. If we allow these things to happen our parking spots, which we depend on in front will be com- pletely used by all of there other people. For as long as I ' ve been in the area, I feel that I should get a variance to, and they should set aside 3 or 4 parking spots for me. Communication: A letter from Albert Gentilozzi, I recommend on behalf of my clients that the variance be rejected. Jim Cash of 533 S . Grand objects to the granting of request at 603 S . Washington. A letter from Greg and Diane Wade, home in Cherry Hill since 1978 . Object to the variance request. Morgan - This area is changing, this is not the first and it won' t be the last request and I think the Planning Department and the Planning Board perhaps relook at the Master Plan in this area and see if in fact that line that defines the downtown CBD should or should not be changed. Curran made a motion that appeal #2926 be denied. Second by Kane. There is not sufficient parking. Yeas: Hilts, Morgan, Curran, Clark, Spink, Christy, Kane, Holmes. Nays: None Appeal #2926 DENIED. The board found based on testimony and evidence that the proposed use of the property at 603 S. Washington Avenue is consistent with the overall development plan for the area. However, the board also re- cognized that available off-street parking for existing residential and non-resdential use in this vicinity is critical and expansion needs to be encouraged. The board believes that parking variances will only compound the problem that now exists and place additional pressures on existing development in the vicinity. The board further believes that granting a variance will establish precedent for other requests, and is therefore not in keeping with the general intent of the code. Appeal #2927 , 1506 Robertson This is a request by Northern Home Improvements who represent the owners of 1506 Robertson for a variance for front yard setback. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner proposes to construct an enclosed full width addition which will replace a partial width enclosed porch. Holmes - What are the dimensions of the new porch? Fountain - 7 ' x 23 ' . Mrs. House, 1506 Robertson, what we plan on doing was across the house adding out so we can have some room in my living room and the bedroom which is very small . I need some room to get around. Its not coming out any further towards the road, we just want to put it across the front, so we can have some additional room. Holmes - This is not an enclosed porch, is it an addition? House - Its an addition. Holmes - Will it be an expansion or is there going to be a door ac- cess? House - It' ll be an expansion. Charlie Creamer - I reside at 615 Moores River Drive, I own at house at 1525 Robertson Avenue, which was our first home so I 'm familiar with this neighborhood. In fact, Mrs. House use to babysit our children. From what I understand the expansion won' t have any greater obstruction than the front porch that was there before. As a neighbor and property owner I don't have a problem nor have a heard of any neighbors immediately adjacent to us that are concerned about it. Steve Whitaker, 1785 W. Edgewood Blvd. We are contracted to do the work on the house. The proposed addition also includes an archway, I believe its 6 ' or 7 ' wide that opens into the house itself. We ' re not asking for any more of a setback from the road. The enclosed addition is 23 ' wide and 7 1/2 ' from the existing house. And its still 20 1/2 ' setback from the property line. Clark - What kind of an entrance is there going to be to this expan- sion to the front of the house? Whitaker - There will be no porch, there will be just the steps on the driveway side of the house. Morgan - Can you describe the addition, what are the looks of it? Whitaker - It ' ll be a shed type roof running straight across the front of the house, sloping down that will cover the entire addition. Morgan - Will there just be windows in front facing the street? Whitaker - Yes . Morgan made a motion to approve the request for the variance, it will have no impact on the neighborhood. Second by Clark. Yeas : Clark, Spink, Christy, Curran, Hilts, Kane, Morgan, Holmes Nays: none Appeal #2927 APPROVED The board was satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the ad- dition would not have a negative impact on adjacent development. Other Communication Allen Russel, 1715 Hamilton Road, Okemos, Project Manager with Eyde Company. Clarification of how permit was issued. Minutes Page 4, 2nd paragraph, state beginning of appeal #2921 . Kane made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Curran. Motion carried unanimously. old Business Still waiting for reply from City Attorney regarding sign at Motel 8 on S. Cedar. Signs at Walter French. New Business Front yard parking on South Pennsylvania, make contact or enforce. Fountain will notify the Enforcement Division. For sale signs in front yard on South Pennsylvania - Enforcement Di- vision will be notified. Jolly -near Pleasant Grove - pole barn. Pennsylvania and Cavanaugh, 7-11 , put in footings and left junk there, nothing done since. Health Dept. making investigations . There being no further business the meetkng adj, ed at 9 :30 p.m. Ve n Foun ain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Zoning Appeals November 10 , 1988 - 7 :30 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers. 10th floor The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Priscilla Holmes at 7 :30 p.m. Roll call was taken. Present Excused Absence Mary Clark Grant Hilts Christopher Steele Patricia Curran Edward Spink Jack Morgan Bernard Christy Tom Kane Priscilla Holmes Staff Vern Fountain, Zoning Administrator Eleanor Love, Senior Planner Elizabeth Gunter, Recording Secretary Appeal #2933 - 1611 Victor This is a request by Harriet Jones for a variance to convert the ex- isting carport into a garage at 1611 Victor. A presentation was given by E. Love. Slides were shown of the sub- ject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner proposes to convert the existing 14 ' x 20 ' carport into a garage of the same dimensions. The existing carport is 3 .7 ' +/- from the east side property line. Code requires a side yard setback of 5 .35 ' . A variance of approximately 1 .65 ' is requested. Harriet Jones - I think it is self explanatory. I need the extra width so it will look better with the house. If it were 2 ' narrower it would really be too small. Its the appearance and the room I 'm requesting. A letter from Mrs. Earl Shirtum, 1617 Victor, next door, no objec- tion. A letter from John and Vera Jones, 1511 Victor, approve request. A letter from Larry Maison, 1607 Victor, support request. Charlene Hornbeck, 1602 Victor, does not object to appeal . Morgan made a motion to approve appeal #2933 because it will not cause any additional impact to the neighborhood. Second by Christy. Yeas : Clark, Christy, Morgan, Kane, Steele, Holmes Nays: Spink Appeal #2233 APPROVED. The board was satisfied based on evidence and testimony that no addi- tional impact would result from the enclosure. The board found that the carport when constructed conformed to the code. The board be- lieves that the width requested will provide sufficient space to ma- neuver around the existing porch steps and railing-The enclosure will have to conform to Building Division regulations for construction of garages . Appeal #2934 - 2708 LaSalle Gardens This is a request by Kenneth Woodward for a waiver to construct a covered front porch 7 ' into the required front yard at 2708 LaSalle Gardens. A presentation was given by E. Love. Slides were shown of the sub- ject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner proposes to construct a covered open front porch which will extend 7 ' into the required front yard. J . Morgan - Are there other front porches that come within 22 ' of the front property line? Love - On this side of the street no, on the other side the houses are closer to the street. Ray Waldmiller, I 'm with Raven Enterprises, if the variance is granted we will be building the porch. The Woodward ' s are on a planned vaca- tion. This is the primary access . The other door that has access to the house is a rear door. Almost everyone that comes to the house comes to the front door. They are retired and one concern they had was that their friends are getting older, it is dangerous to have an open front porch. The reason they are going down to the drive on the east side is so they have a walkway from their car to have access into the house. Gladys Murphy, 2630 LaSalle Gardens, in favor. Gladys Hornung, in favor. Mr. Adcock, 2614 LaSalle Gardens, no objection. Christy made a motion to approve appeal #2934. Second by Morgan. Yeas : Spink, Clark, Christy, Morgan, Steele, Kane, Holmes Nays: none Appeal #2934 APPROVED The board found based on evidence and testimony that the porch would be compatible with surrounding uses, would not obstruct the vision of adjacent properties and would generally enhance the appearances of the structure. The board further found that the porch would still be twenty-three feet from the property line. Appeal #2935 - 2700 North East Street This is a request by Margery Scherschlight of The Flower Shoppe Inc. for a variance to allow for a freestanding sign 2 ' from the front property line at 2700 North East Street. A presentation was given by E . Love. Slides were shown of the sub- ject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to install a 4 ' x 8 ' portable sign permanently in the front yard of the property. Steele - What does a permanently mean? Love - The portable ssgn will be mounted on a pole. Holmes - Can a temporary sign remain forever? Love - By definition, a temporary sign should remain no more than 30 days at a time, four times a year. Spink - Is the variance request for a front yard setback and a size variance? Love - Just for the setback. O .J . Scherschlight and my wife Margery, who is the proprietor of the business. I would like to point out to the board that unless a vari- ance is given we have no opportunity for a sign to be placed for this business. Unless we go on the north side of the building. Staff recommended placing sign on other side of building, which would not make much sense, because it cannot be seen from the south which is where a bulk of our business comes . Most of the businesses that al- ready exist already have existing signs. We purchased property 3 years ago and there is a remnant of a sign post. The sign is very important to the business. Nina Hartman, 733 Bates, approves. Morgan made a motion to deny appeal #2935 . Second by Steele. Yeas: Morgan, Clark, Spink, Kane, Holmes Nays: Christy Appeal #2935 DENIED. The board does not believe there is a hardship associated with this request. The board believes that there are other alternatives for advertising the business that would meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. For example, a permanent sign could be attached to the building, or the use of a temporary sign for special occasions could be used. The board further found that there are several signs along N. East Street that do not conform to the code i. e. they are nonconforming . Approval of this request would only compound the existing situation and contribute to the sign proliferation problem. The board' s denial of this request is consistant with its policy of reducing sign proliferation where other alternatives exist. Appeal #2936 - 2819 Leon This is a request by Nancy Bohil for a variance to allow for con- struction of a dining area to the rear of house and to allow existing trellis to remain on the south lot line at 2819 Leon. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The applicant proposes to construct a dining room to the rear of the house within 25 ' of the rear property line. It is also requested that an existing trellis be allowed to continue to be located on the side property line. Holmes - Does the trellis require a variance? Fountain - It does require a variance. Its considered an accessory structure. Nancy Bohil - We want to add a dining area to the kitchen, currently there is no dining area in the kitchen. The trellis which currently exists is on the property line on one side and in the back we wanted to move it up 3 feet. It protects the water garden that we eventually want to keep fish in. Mr. Bohil - I think there is confusion what the purpose of the trellis is. There is a goldfish pond underneath the trellis and it is really a rather elaborate thing, it has a filtration system, and some fairly expensive fish in there. The trellis was built because leaves were falling into the pond and they were toxic to the fish and conse- quently they were dying. Those are pets and I don' t believe in abusing animals like that. The trellis was put up to protect the pond from pollution. Mr. Coffey, neighbor next door, no objection, owners have improved the property, no adverse effect. Isabel Joseph, 2917 Leon, no objection to proposal. Steele made a motion to approve appeal #2936, reasonable request and hardship in the code. Second by Kane. Yeas: Clark, Spink, Christy, Kane, Morgan, Steele, Holmes Nays: none Appeal #2936 APPROVED The board is satisfied based on testimony and evidence that the trellis structure will not cause any adverse impacts if it remains located on the south property line. The board further found that construction of the dining room addition five feet into the required rear yard will allow for reasonable expansion of the existing single family dwelling while leaving sufficient outdoor yard space. Appeal #2937 - 214 Harris This is a request by Robert Irvin for a variance to allow a 10 x 12 shed to remain within 1 ' of the side property line at 214 Harris. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slide were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioner wishes to retain the 10 ' x 12 ' shed in its present lo- cation. Robert Irvin - The structure was built by a carpenter. I asked him if a building permit was required, how far from the property lines, etc. He said no permit was required. I redesigned the underground irriga- tion system, I have several raised flower beds, perennial beds, trees, etc. I didn' t think it bothered anyone. I know one neighbor com- plained. Most of the others support me. If I did have to remove the shed I would have to dig up all the raised beds, and the irrigation system will havae to be relocated. Holmes - Is the shed on a slab? Irvin - No, its on a 6 ' x 6 ' timbers with limestone on it. Morgan - How do you maintain the 1 ' behind the shed. Irvin - I have limestone there. Donald Dexter, 218 Harris, adjacent to the property. The biggest complaint my wife had on the shed is that the gravel that he put along the edges of the shed is over on our property. He knew about the law being 3 ' off the line. We had a shed and he said it was too close and called the city. Mark Supela, 222 Harris Street - I walk out my back door every day and I can see the shed, I don' t see it causing problems to anyone. Oscar Senpot, 213 Harris, across the street. We have no objection to the shed being there. Its well maintained all around and the property is well maintained. A letter from Arthur and Sandra Lopes, 212 Harris - The shed should be allowed to remain. The people adjoining have caused problems as long as they have been there. They don' t take care of their trash, lawn, keep junk cars, fight, loud music. Trying to get even for complaints made on them. A letter from Mr. & Mrs. Florian Belligan, 227 Harris - We see no reason for the shed to be moved. The neighbors that are complaining are trying to get back for complaints made on them. Kane made a motion to approve appeal #2937 , there is a hardship. Second by Christy. Yeas : Christy, Kane, Steele, Holmes Nays: Clark, Spink, Morgan Appeal #2937 DENIED. There was a motion to approve this request which received a vote of 4 yeas - 3 nays. However, Section 1244 .07 of the Zoning Code requires that the concurring vote of a majority of the members serving on the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be necessary to reverse an order, re- quirement, decision or determination of the Planning Division or to decide in favor of the applicant a matter upon which it is required to pass under an ordinance, or to effect a variance of such ordi- nance.There are a total of nine members serving on the board of ap- peals, thus requiring at leas five affirmative votes for approval. Those voting in favor of the request felt that a hardship was created by not requiring a building permit for this size of structure. The property owner may not always be aware of the setback requiremeets prior to construction. Those voting aganst the change did not agree that there is a hardship, and that anyone developing land should check with local authorities for any requirements prior to construction. Appeal #2938 - 723 North Sycamore This is a request by Carol McKowen for a variance to allow the con- tinuation of a second unit in the structure at 723 North Sycamore. There is a request from staff that this appeal be tabled because there is new information. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The new information will be used to determine if the property can be grandfathered in as a two family. Carol McKowen, I reside on the bottom level of the house at 723 N. Sycamore. I assumed the mortgage on the house from a couple who had bought it in 1986 and owned it for six months and moved out of town. I was currently renting it at the time and I became the owner. Since that time I have made a lot of improvements . I put new storm windows on the second and third stories. I ' ve recarpeted 2 of the 3 bedrooms and the living and dining rooms upstairs . I put in a new driveway. Had new tile installed in the kitchen, laundry room and entrance way. All the interior has been repainted. I replaced wooden steps outside with concrete steps for the entranceway that leads to the upper level. All this came about when I got involved with the rental rehabilitation program because I am interested in putting siding on the house. The wood is in very bad state that its impossible to paint it. And that' s when I found out that the lot size was too small for a two family dwelling. In 1969 is when they changed the lot size requirements. I talked with several of the neighbors to see if any could recollect when the conversion was done. I had located the women' s son who had owned the house prior between 1959 and 1986 . I got a copy of the deed that' s recorded in 1959, which is stated that it is a two units. I called Register of Deeds and their copy says the same thing . I feel I should be allowed this variance because there is adequate parking, the new driveway is the length of the property over 115 ' . There is room for six cars with access from front and rear. We never have to switch cars for each other. There ' s 1800 square feet in the house itself. I intend to live there and upgrade and maintain the property. There are several other two dwelling homes in the neighborhood. If I am forced to convert this back to a one family dwelling I would have to sell it. I couldn' t afford to keep it up without relying on the income from the second story. I would probably take a loss on the house because I would have to inform the future buyer that it cannot be used for a two unit dwelling. The house was not illegally converted. Louis Decker, 11476 West River Drive, Dewitt. That was my parents home and it was converted in 1959 and used as a two family until 1986 . Doris Lyon, 725 N. Sycamore, no objection to the variance request, Clark made a motion that the appeal be tabled. Second by Morgan. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Division has reviewed the additional information that was submitted following the filing of a Board of Zoning Appeals applica- tion. The staff has concluded that the above described property has been and may be continued to be used as a two family dwelling having not more than a one bedroom unit on the first floor and not more than a two bedroom unit on the second floor. The additional information that was used to determine the above status is a letter dated November 3 , 1988 signed by Louis Decker, a copy of the recorded deed with a hand written not indicating a two unit, the inspection of the property conducted by Donna Wynant on November 9 , 1988 and the testimony given by Louis Decker at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on November 10, 1988 stating that his parents lived there from 1959 to 1986 . Appeal #2939 - 819 N. Washington This is a request by Karole White for Michigan Association of Broad- casters for a variance to allow for the installation of an identifi- cation sign 15 ' from the front property line at 819 N. Washington. A presentation was given by V. Fountain. Slides were shown of the subject property and surrounding land use. The petitioners proposes to install a free standing identification sign 15 ' from the front property line. The code requires a front yard setback of 20 ' . This is a request for a variance of 5 feet. Holmes - Was there a sign on the building with the former use? Fountain - yes Karole White, executive director of Michigan Association of Broad- casters I have brought a handout which includes a letter of recommen- dation from the Michigan Press Association and a proposed size of the sign. We have down sized the sign from our original plans so it would be smaller and more discreet.We have completely remodeled and followed all the codes and regulations of this city. There was an existing sign that former owner had, and that sign was an eyesore and it was in the middle of the yard. I was warned not to remove it just to paint over it but we chose not to do that. So we are here for a small variance, to put the sign on the north side where we want it to put it within the rules, it would leave that sign about 1 ' from the front of the building, we wouldn' t be able to maintain the sign from the rear. It is a lighted sign (interior light) so it must be maintained properly. The only other place would be to the south but the neigh- bors to the south are at a higher level . Our sign would never be seen. We do not want it in the middle of the yard. People need to find us but we don' t want it to be obtrusive. A letter from Warren Hoyt, Executive Director of Michigan Press Asso- ciation, 827 N. Washington, adjacent to Broadcasters, support re- quest. Proposal is reasonable and necessary and enhances the overall remodeling. Clark made a motion to deny appeal #2939 there is no hardship and there are options for placing the sign that would not require a vari- ance. Second by Spink . Yeas : Clark, Spink, Morgan, Kane, Steele, Holmes Nays: Christy Appeal n2939 DENIED The board believes, based on evidence and testimony that no hardship exists since other offices in the immediate vicinity advertise their location with signs attached to the building or on signs located fur- ther than 20 feet back from the front property line. As a result there is no visual blockage or other rationale which could reasonably be applied to justify this sign within the required front yard. The board believes that the establishment of this sign in the re- quired front yard would set a precedent which could ultimately con- tribute to sign proliferation in an area where sign control has been established and is effective. A sign no larger than 20 square feet set back at least 20 feet and designed into the ladnscaping plan would be appropriate as would identification on the building itself. Minutes Amend on page 6 - Holmes voted nay. Kane made a motion to approve the minutes of October 13 , 1988 with the amendment. Second by Clark. Motion carried unanimously. Old Business Kane - Barrier Free Law: Attorney General has rendered an opinion that home occupations are exempt. Eyde property on Mt. Hope & Cedar - Signs were approved with condi- tion that other signs were to be removed prior to new ones being put up. They have not complied and the new signs are up. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9 :30 p.m. The next meeting will be December 8, 1988 at 7 :30 p.m Vern Fountain Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals A G E N D A Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting December 8 , 1988 - 7 : 30 p.m. City Hall, 10th floor, Council Chambers 1 . Roll Call a. Excused Absence 2 . Tabled Appeal: Appeal #2938 Withdrawn 723 N. Sycamore Carol McKowen 3 . Hearings and Decisions: Appeal #2940 To construct an 11 ' x 46 ' 928 S . Pennsylvania addition to the rear of the Ralph Goodrich building, 4 .5 ' from the west property line. A variance of 20 .5 ' is requested. Appeal #2941 To retain a 6 ' x 24 ' porch 6835 S . Washington extension attached to the Brian Nesbitt existing garage. A variance of 144 sq ft is requested. Appeal #2942 To operate a one chair beauty 6916 Vernson salon as a home occupation. Jaclynn Cunningham Appeal #2943 To construct an 18 ' x 15 ' addition 6348 Rosedale onto the front 36 ' from front George Sawaya property line. A variance of 14 ' is requested. Appeal #2944 To construct a sign and 4316 S . Pennsylvania retaining wall base within 5 ' Capital Area School of the front property line. Employees Credit Union A variance of 15 ' is requested. Appeal #2945 To construct an addition to the 2107 S . Cedar north side of the building 5 ' Mark Blum from the front property line and 13 ' from rear property line. A variance of 15 ' and 13 ' is requested. Appeal #2946 To erect a 10 ' 4" x 24 ' open car 3713 Malibu port 2 ' from side property line. Timothy Malatinsky A variance of 1 ' is requested. 4 . Other Communication 5 . Approval of Minutes: November 10, 1988 6 . Old Business 7 . New Business 8 . Adjourn