Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, September 15, 2020 – Regular Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Remote Meeting by 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, L. Elliott Absent: Excused: L. Dowd Others: Staff Liaison, Scott McKillop; Terry Moultane, Planning & Zoning Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion made by J. Rise, seconded by C. Greenleaf, to approve the minutes from August 11, 2020 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT - NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS Z 20-02 – 101 Picard, Wilkinson Minerals, LLC The appellant is requesting variances from the following Sections of the Bay City Zoning Ordinance: 1. Section 122-305 limits buildings in the M-2 General Industrial zoning district to a maximum height of 75 feet. The appellants wish to erect portions of process buildings having eave heights of 103 and 135 feet, respectively. 2. Section 122-383 requires that the Wilkinson Minerals facility provide 184 off-street parking spaces. The appellants wish to provide 94 off-street parking spaces. 3. Section 122-403(2) requires a five-foot-wide landscaped buffer at the perimeter of off-street parking areas. The appellant wishes to construct an off-street parking area without the required landscaped buffer. Present: Christopher Thoms & Bill Sohne from Wilkinson Minerals, Scott Hemeyer from Rowe, and Tom Petrick, from KFI Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 1  Tuesday, September 15, 2020 – Regular Meeting W. Darbee asked for confirmation the Planning Commission had approved site plans subject to conditions to be completed prior to applying for a building permit. Terry Moultane confirmed approval had been obtained with the conditions listed in the meeting minutes provided along with obtaining variances from the Zoning Board. Terry explained Special Use requests must be approved by the Planning Commission first before a variance request is heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Thoms stated Wilkinson Minerals is a calcium chloride production facility. Drawings were presented as a visual aide. Mr. Thoms gave an overview of the site plan describing the layout of the proposed facility, including items such as office buildings, process buildings, packaging area, storage tanks, wells, entrances, and traffic patterns. He explained how the facility would operate and outlined the steps in producing calcium chloride out of the brine along with the different types of product that would be produced for use in various industries. He said shipping would be by both rail and truck; liquid calcium chloride products would be shipped by barge from their Essexville site. Mr. Thoms explained the height variance was needed to enclose specialized evaporation equipment in the process building. Mr. Sohne pointed out that while the equipment could be built outdoors, they chose to enclose it for environmental and noise control, so the height of the building was critical to encapsulate all the process equipment. W. Darbee asked why a section of the height difference was needed. Mr. Hemeyer explained the height was needed for a cyclone that was part of the air emissions equipment to remove particles from the air that was needed to comply with the state’s requirements to operate. Mr. Petrick described how the air flowed across the equipment and why the stack needed to be so tall. W. Darbee asked for clarification of the process beginning after the brine was brought up. Mr. Sohne answered two product types are made, dry calcium chloride and concentrated liquid. The product starts out as natural brine that is about 20% calcium chloride and is processed to remove impurities and then concentrated by boiling off water. The concentrated liquid is sold as concentrated liquid. As part of the process, water is continued to be evaporated requiring high elevations by tall dryers that use hot air to strip out the remaining moisture to make a solid form of the product. Mr. Hemeyer explained they had several challenges regarding parking including site constraints, hard surface maintenance and drainage issues, and wetland areas. A parking lot analysis had been performed and at peak time they anticipate 55 employees onsite; with 10 visitor spaces; five spaces for outside services; and 20 for maintenance vehicles for a total of 90 needed spaces but would be providing 94 off- street spaces. He stated there wasn’t a use in the ordinance that really lined up with what they are and felt 184 spaces was rather aggressive. They are confident 94 spaces would be sufficient. J. Rise asked how many employees were expected on any shift and if there was any possibility of adding employees. Mr. Hemeyer answered 55 were expected at peak time. He said a headcount of their staff was expected to about 70, but with shifts there wouldn’t be that many employees onsite at any one time. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 2  Tuesday, September 15, 2020 – Regular Meeting J. Rise asked for confirmation the size of the property is why the ordinance requires 184 parking spaces and the size of the facility is because of the process, not because of the number of employees that would need to park. Mr. Hemeyer agreed. S. McKillop commented that the ordinance states how the number is calculated for each required space on the site but is unreasonable for that facility. He said the ordinance had not been changed in a very long time and other studies are recommending spaces be dependent on the number of employees and visitors than on actual floor area. L. Elliott stated there were only two or three docks for large vehicles such as semi-trucks and wondered where additional trucks would be parked. Mr. Thoms replied the facility is set up to process and stage trucks quickly through the site. Trucks would be scheduled and staggered. They are staffed and able to accommodate trucks 24 hours, seven days a week as needed. He said most of the packaged calcium chloride product would be leaving the site mostly by boxcar with some trucking of bulk calcium chloride. Part of the facility management would be to move trucks - load them and send them back out on the road. Mr. Sohne added that the focus would be on rail and barge shipments. W. Darbee asked if some transportation would be by water. Mr. Thoms answered they were planning on refurbishing an existing dock on their Essexville property to the east, in order to ship all over the great lakes region. Mr. Hemeyer said the property had the river on one side and an industrial site on another. He stated 128 shrubs and 18 trees were required for Parking Lot A; Parking Lot C required 112 shrubs and 14 trees. He said they proposed to provide 70 shrubs and 17 trees in Parking Lot C that is across from some residential property, and nine trees in Parking Lot A. They felt the landscaping was too aggressive for an industrial site with trucks moving in and out needing clear sight lines. They also want to be able to keep everything as clear as possible for security cameras because it will be a homeland security site. It was mentioned that it was heavily wooded along the tracks with a natural landscaping buffer also. Motion to close the public section and go into discussion made by C. Greenleaf, seconded by J. Rise. Motion carried unanimously. W. Darbee felt a nice job had been done on outlining the issues for a determination. He said the site is kind of an odd-shaped site being long and narrow but seems to flow quite well for their process and is a unique parcel. He stated they needed the height for physical and chemical processes to properly process the calcium chloride and other minerals and the manufacturing process requires a height variation. It was felt the parking was set up for traditional manufacturing facilities with a lot of manpower while their manpower flow seems to be only about 55 people on site other than some additional maintenance or visitors and that 94 parking spots would be adequate while 184 would be excess in hard surfacing that would cause more drainage issues than it would solve. He said L. Elliott’s truck question was a good one and stated it had been indicated shipping was mostly going to be by rail with trucks being used for local or short distance hauling. He felt if it was done well, the trucks would be going in and out if scheduled accordingly. W. Darbee said the property was setting back from the travelled road portions and only residential area seems that amount of shrubbery and trees may interfere with the security cameras required by homeland security. He felt unobscured security cameras were of more value than landscaping. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 3  Tuesday, September 15, 2020 – Regular Meeting J. Rise felt the physical characteristics of the property were unique enough to allow for the variance on the height of the building because it was needed to conduct their manufacturing, therefore would be burdensome without it. She stated the property was unique because they would be extracting what they need from the property which isn’t available elsewhere on property in Bay City without the same characteristic. Regarding the parking space issue, J. Rise felt it was antiquated that updates had not been made to reflect more modern uses and said the proposed parking would be adequate to their need and would be unnecessarily burdensome to have to put in more parking than what is needed, as would the landscaping. She said the property doesn’t have enough room for more parking spaces and is unique from that standpoint. She also said she agreed with what W. Darbee had stated. L. Elliott added the additional height would allow it to be done efficiently and environmentally safe. He said adding parking would lead to problems with wetland mitigation and felt the proposed parking was adequate especially with the circumstances of the building. With the river on one side, industrial site on the other, and with some existing landscaping on the southern side, he didn’t see the need of additional shrubbery. What they had proposed is adequate for the space they have and the processes they are going to be using. L. Elliott said requiring them to follow the ordinance would be burdensome on any manufacturing spot. W. Darbee added a lesser variance for any of the three issues would be of no use. Requiring a lesser amount of parking spaces such as 120 versus 184 would still leave 30 open spaces at any given point. A lesser height would not allow the product to be processed. The shrubbery is a nice ordinance in what it looks to accomplish but puts a big burden when trying to meet federal, state, and local guidelines. W. Darbee said it will enhance where it is put but won’t be very visible from over in the corner of the site and anything more than what they are requesting would be burdensome. J. Rise asked if self-created had been addressed. W. Darbee replied nothing had been done to have a self- created issue. S. McKillop stated no comments had been received regarding the three variance requests. He asked if anyone was in attendance wishing to speak for or against the variances. No one came forward. Motion made by C. Greenleaf to grant the variances based on the discussion on the three different zoning ordinances they are requesting variances, seconded by J. Rise. W. Darbee asked C. Greenleaf if he would accept including the presentation into the motion. C. Greenleaf accepted. J. Rise asked S. McKillop if the three variances should be mentioned individually in the motion. Motion made by C. Greenleaf, seconded by J. Rise, to grant the variances based on the presentation and discussion, from zoning regulations covering building height, parking spaces and landscaping as requested by the appellant. Roll call vote: Yes vote in favor for the variance requests. Four “Yes” votes. Motion carried. Request is approved. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 4  Tuesday, September 15, 2020 – Regular Meeting Motion made by L. Elliott to deny the variance based on the evidence presented at the meeting on November 10th and the motion made by Jan Rise, seconded by J. Rise. Z 20-03 – 228 Washington, Brad Gohr, James Dean & Bill St. Peter (Midtown Storage) The appellant is requesting a use variance from C-3 zoning district regulations to establish a self-service storage facility in the C-3 Central Business District zoning district. Self-service storage facilities are permitted in the city’s industrial zoning districts. Present: Brad Gohr, James Dean and Bill St. Peter, applicants Mr. Gohr explained the building was owned by a family member. A restaurant sports bar was originally planned but never happened. The building has sat vacant for several years and they are now requesting a use variance to open a modern indoor climate-controlled self-serve storage facility. A slide show illustrating their proposed plans was presented by Mr. Dean. He described the changes and renovations that were planned for the project. He explained there would be a one-way entrance into the facility on the north side of the building because of the width and parking issues. A loading and unloading zone would be created on the north side with one-way parking that would exit on Adams Street. The two front doors on Washington Ave. would remain as entry points, but the north side would be the main entry into the facility. He stated there were 15 parking spaces behind the building that were adjacent to the property so customers would not have to back out onto the street. Pictures were shared of their two outdoor storage facilities located in older buildings in Auburn that they had improved which are doing very well, but it was made clear only climate controlled indoor storage would be provided at this location. Mr. Dean said he had consulted with Collier Real Estate where he received information about indoor storage and conversion. They were proposing to take an older building, make it user friendly and nice in a way that would support the surrounding community and provide storage for local businesses, new town homes and apartments in the area such as the 96 proposed apartments soon to be constructed on the river by Shaheen Development, the Mill End Lofts, The Times Building, The Legacy, and The Boathouse. He went on to show examples of other indoor storage facilities located in converted buildings in downtown areas and included some pictures of interiors displaying wide well-lit hallways. He explained security cameras would be installed inside and out. Alternative entry and window scenarios for the building were provided. The building would be painted gray with awnings over the two front doors on Washington Ave. It would yield up to 78 units. Units would typically be 5’x5’s 5’x10’s, 10’x10’s in size. J. Rise asked how long they owned the building. Mr. Gohr said his brother-in-law owned it for about four years and he wanted to buy it for the storage facility. J. Rise asked if there had been any thought of leasing or selling the building. Mr. Gohr said it has been on the market since it was purchased. He said a marijuana facility was denied for there but other than that there had not been any interest. He said the interior is gutted down to the block wall. He believes it is going to take someone like themselves with an idea to do something with it or it will just sit forever more. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 5  Tuesday, September 15, 2020 – Regular Meeting W. Darbee recognized it had been vacant for four or more years but was thinking about what would be viable for the future. He said downtown is slowly migrating from Center Ave down to that area and it seems like it would be good for office space, small retail, etc. Mr. Gohr said there is potential to do that, however, he said it sat empty for many years waiting for office or retail use, but to no avail. He said he thought of it but decided against it. He added Mike Loomis who owns the former PNC Bank building on Center has tons of retail space that is sitting empty. He said he just didn’t think it would work or he would have done that. Mr. Dean asked W. Darbee if he was concerned the building would not be able to be converted back if what they wanted to do didn’t work out? W. Darbee said no and explained one of the requirements for the variance is that it cannot be used for any other uses permitted in the zoning district and he could not come up with why it could not be used for other purposes allowed in the district. He said they wanted to use it for something that isn’t allowed and he thinks there are a bunch of uses that are allowed even if outside influences such as the economy, big box stores, and Amazon may be making it difficult. Mr. Dean inquired if W. Darbee thought that type of storage facility would be an asset to the city. He stated it could also bring out-of-town clients into the city. He said there probably are other uses for the building but stated time has proven it hasn’t been successful to do that since it has been sitting for 10 years. He felt Bay City is a growing area and would have thought someone would have come in and snatched the building up. W. Darbee answered the property was on a main street in Bay City and a use of this type might be very good but may be better on a street that isn’t as visible as Washington Ave. L. Elliott agreed with W. Darbee but felt that there may not be any economic return without turning it into something like this because it has been vacant so long; but he couldn’t see how he would justify the requirement of unique circumstances being peculiar to the property such as shape, extreme narrowness etc. L. Elliott asked S. McKillop to confirm if the case would need to go before the Planning Commission even if it was zoned as M-1. S. McKillop replied that it would be subject to a Site Plan Review and Special Use Approval. W. Darbee recounted where a developer came in and built condos and apartments in an area where an old dilapidated production building that was falling down near the river had sat useless for 25 to 30 years. He said a mere vacancy was not necessarily a useless premise. There is a zoning ordinance that says a storage unit shouldn’t be there and said he couldn’t come up with a good reason why it should be changed. W. Darbee asked if any comments had been received. S. McKillop replied there had been none. W. Darbee asked if Mr. Dean had anything further to add. Mr. Dean said he felt he had pled his case to the best of his ability. W. Darbee told him it was a very nice presentation and that Mr. Dean had opened his eyes a lot. However, he still had an issue with why they should go against the zoning ordinance. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 6  Tuesday, September 15, 2020 – Regular Meeting Motion made by J. Rise, seconded by C. Greenleaf, to close public session and go into deliberations. Motion carried unanimously. W. Darbee said he had stated his concerns and asked for any other comments. L. Elliott didn’t think granting the variance would alter the surrounding area but felt they couldn’t justify requirements one and two. He felt it was a needed service, he just didn’t see how it met the requirements. J. Rise agreed. She felt there were other uses for the building. She said there would be opportunities in the future with how nearby and adjacent properties have taken off but that it could be used for many other uses now. Motion made by L. Elliott, seconded by J. Rise, to deny the variance based on the facts. Roll call vote – Yes vote in favor in denying the request. Four “Yes” votes. Motion carried. Request is denied. OLD BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS S. McKillop relayed there would be one case for October. ADJOURN Motion made by J. Rise, seconded by C. Greenleaf, to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 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 7