Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, August 11, 2020 – Regular Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Remote Meeting on Zoom CALL TO ORDER Chair W. Darbee called the meeting to order with a quorum at 7:00 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS & ROLL CALL Present: W. Darbee, J. Rise, C. Greenleaf, C. Congdon, L. Elliott Absent: Excused: L Dowd Others: Staff Liaison, Scott McKillop APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by C. Greenleaf, seconded by J. Rise, to approve the minutes from December 10, 2019 with the addition of L. Elliott’s name to reflect being present for the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT - NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS S 20-01 – Sign Works – Representing Rair Systems – 3772 Wilder Rd. Present: Todd and Ann Frass from Sign Works, Patrick Frakes, Chief Operating Officer and Molly McFadden, Director of Retail Operations, of Rair Systems The appellant is requesting relief from the sign regulation that monument signs be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the side lot line. The appellant wishes to erect a sign within two feet of the property’s east side lot line. A presentation using screen share was given by Ann Frass. She explained they were requesting a variance to place their sign two feet from the front lot line in addition to two feet from the east side lot line while showing pictures and views of the property from different perspectives. She stated the 10-foot setback ordinance creates a hardship because of a conflict caused by a manhole cover by the sidewalk and sewer lines. The sign would need to be placed to miss the sewer line and could not be moved to the west because it would block vehicular traffic entering and exiting the park lot. In addition, because of the sewer line, the sign would need to be set 10 to 15 feet from the front right-of-way and would not be able to be seen by passing traffic. Ms. Frass said she had never seen a successful sign placement being in a parking area and felt it was not a safe situation for drivers. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 1  Tuesday, August 11, 2020 – Regular Meeting During the presentation, Ms. Frass shared a letter which was given to her from Steve Shepard, the owner of Cambron Engineering which is a neighboring property located east to Rair Systems. Mr. Shepard stated within the letter that he was in favor of the variance; an adjustment of eight feet would have no ill effect on his business, and a monument sign erected close to the lot line would not affect his business in any way. Ms. Frass went on to say Rair has invested over $2 million in the property and the community needs to be able to see easily identifiable signage that reflects professionalism. She showed illustrations by day and night of what the sign would look like. It was felt the two-foot setback would not impede the business of any neighboring business and that it would be consistent in appearance with established neighboring signs which were all on the same side of the street and are set very close to their own side lot lines. Ms. Frass named The Golden Tree Pawnshop, McDonald’s, and the billboard by Speedway as examples. Ms. Frass explained Harbor Freight, a store to the west of Rair, had constructed an entire wall of their building only 22 inches from Rair’s building foundation after Rair had purchased their property. She stated they do recognize the board will grant exceptions in cases where unique circumstances can be shown and so are asking for a two-foot side-line property setback. S. McKillop said the board members asked to indicate the owners of Harbor Freight had not requested any variances from either the Zoning or Sign Board of Appeals. Patrick Frakes described their business practice and policy and explained they planned to give back to the community through charitable efforts. He mentioned their sign did not have the usual green cross or marijuana leaf indicated in their logo or branding. He hoped the variance would be approved as it was vital to them as a new start-up business and were striving to be known as an upscale commercial business that would be a benefit to the community. W. Darbee asked how far the sewer pipe was from the property line. Ms. Frass indicated the placement on a drawing using screen share. She explained the manhole cover was on the sidewalk and showed where the property would be next to the sidewalk closest to the parking lot. She said a 10-foot setback would place the sign in line with the manhole cover. Todd Frass said the manhole cover straddles the sidewalk and the sewer line is on a diagonal orientation going all the way up to the building. W. Darbee said he wanted to know the distance from the end of the pavement to the sewer. Ms. Frass answered there were four feet between the side lot-line and the edge of the asphalt and then six feet from that edge to the sewer. W. Darbee asked if the size of the sewer line was known. S. McKillop replied it didn’t pertain to the request. He said it appeared to be 10 or 15 feet west of the edge of the asphalt and the sign would be placed two feet east of the asphalt, 10 feet back from the front lot-line or 11 feet south of the edge of the sidewalk. W. Darbee asked for confirmation that the sign would be in the grassy area. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 2  Tuesday, August 11, 2020 – Regular Meeting S. McKillop said he was correct. Ms. Frass indicated where the sign would be mounted at the edge of the asphalt using an illustration of a cardboard cut-out on screen share. W. Darbee asked if what the illustration showed was a full-scale rendition or if it would be placed on a pedestal. Mr. Frass replied a full-scale model was portrayed with a bottom base. C. Greenleaf asked if a study had been done regarding the visibility of the sign when cars are pulling out if the sign was to be so close to the side lot-line. S. McKillop answered the setback was adequate and there were no concerns. J. Rise asked S. McKillop if the construction was new or existing and if the planning commission needed to review for a site plan. S. McKillop answered it was existing and did not need site plan review. L. Elliott asked if the sign would potentially be over the sewer line if the variance was not granted. S. McKillop said we did not know for sure. He explained the sign would end up in the middle of the parking area if the variance is not granted. It would eliminate at least required two parking spots. C. Greenleaf asked if they had two spots over or under the required number. He commented if they were over, then perhaps they could give up two spaces in order to be compliant. S. McKillop said he did not know. Mr. Frass said there were tight with spaces in there with what they have right now. Mr. Frakes said they were at the approved number of spaces according to the site plan but not significantly above. He added they would probably be eliminating the completion of the sign overall if the variance was not granted because Harbor Freight is so large from the west that no one would be able to see the sign from their cars and it could create a driving hazard within the parking lot. C. Greenleaf asked where the sign was previously on the building. Mr. Frakes said there had not been a sign and when they designed everything Harbor Freight had not been built yet. They were not aware that the building was going to be so prohibitive for their visibility from the west and that is the reason why the variance was being requested. W. Darbee inquired about the dimensions of the sign. Mr. Frakes answered the sign would be eight feet from the grade to the top of the sign; the cabinet is 54 inches high with a 16-inch cultured stone base which would mimic the building. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 3  Tuesday, August 11, 2020 – Regular Meeting W. Darbee asked how it was going to be seen it if a SUV parks in front of it? Ms. Frass said it may happen occasionally but was not going to happen 24/7 and would be no different than any other retailer with a monument sign. W. Darbee further questioned the possibility of vehicles parking and blocking the sign to which staff explained his speculation was irrelevant to the case. W. Darbee asked if the sign was closer than 10 feet to the side lot-line if the parking space would remain. S. McKillop answered if it was closer to the street it would still have to be 10 feet from the side lot-line in order not to sacrifice parking spaces and it would end up in the middle of the parking area. He added that the parking situation and what vehicles might park in front of the sign during business hours was irrelevant. He reminded the request was to install the sign two feet from the east lot-line. W. Darbee wondered if a distance greater than two feet but less than ten from the lot-line was feasible. S. McKillop said they were requesting two feet specifically. J. Rise called the question to close the public hearing, seconded by C. Greenleaf. L. Elliott asked for confirmation that issues, A, B, C, & D in the staff report needed to be decided upon. S. McKillop confirmed they did. L. Elliott stated his findings: A) The alleged circumstances were peculiar to the property because of the way the property was designed and built prior to the purchase with the building sitting close to the east and west side lot lines with the parking lot in the way. B) There is a great inconvenience if the sign will have to be placed in the middle of the parking lot potentially over a sewer line if the variance is not granted. C) It will result in a substantial justice being done considering the public benefits with the other signs in the area that also sit within 10 feet, and the neighbor to the east has indicated they had no objection. It will also allow them to place the sign where it will benefit their business. D) He stated he wasn’t sure. J. Rise disagreed with L. Elliott. She said the property’s layout was existing when the property was purchased. She did not find it to be a unique situation and it is unknown if the sewer is in the way. C. Greenleaf agreed with J. Rise. Motion to approve made by L. Elliott based on his findings of fact that he stated, seconded by C. Congdon. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 4  Tuesday, August 11, 2020 – Regular Meeting W. Darbee stated the motion was to allow the request as stated based upon the facts set forth on L. Elliot’s comments. Roll Call: J. Rise – No; C. Greenleaf – No; L. Elliott – Yes; W. Darbee – No; C. Congdon – Yes Request failed. Z 20-01–1121 28th St. – Mr. Ingle Requesting a variance from the ordinance limiting fences located in side street yards to a maximum height of four feet. The appellant had not signed into the Zoom meeting and the benefit of the doubt was given that they may have been having technical difficulties. A decision was made to postpone the case. OLD BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Motion made by W. Darbee, seconded by J. Rise, to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Meeting adjourned. Prepared by: Lisa Griffiths, Planning & Zoning Administrative Assistant Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 5