Board of Ordinance Appeals I

CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Ordinance Board of Appeals held a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Monday December 14, 2015 at the Sterling Heights Municipal Center, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI in the Council Chambers, 586-446-2360. At this meeting the Board (1) considered variance requests of petitioners and (2) conducted hearings on abatement of nuisances relating to the property and property owners itemized on the following agenda. AGENDA 1. Chairman Pitrone called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm 2. Roll Call John Pitrone - Chairman, Joseph DiGaetano – Secretary, Robert Ervin, Kathryn Jiles (excused), Juli Sala, Denice Gerstenberg - City Development Director, Paul Geiger - Code Enforcement Officer, Dana Vietto – Recording Secretary 3. Report from City Liaison – Denice Gerstenberg a. All petitioners were notified by first class mail about tonight’s meeting. Remove the following items from the consent agenda as they have been cleaned up prior to the meeting – G15- 0334, G15-0335, G15-0336, G15-0337, G15-0338, G15-0339 & G15-0340 4. Removal of Consent Items to New Business a. Moved item 9 to New Business 9a. G15-0341 C & N Land Development LLC – 38190 Van Dyke 5. Approval of Agenda Motion by Ervin, supported by DiGaetano, to approve agenda Yes: All. Motion carried. 6. Consent Agenda Moved by Ervin, supported by DiGaetano, RESOLVED, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended: 1. To approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 9, 2015, as presented. 7. Public Hearing a. G15-0333 Zak Essak – 42300 Van Dyke Road Fence Variance – Asking Board to allow a 6 foot simulated wrought iron fence with decorative stone columns located within the required front yard setback. Zak Essak, owner, was present. Mr. Essak gave the Board members a revised plot plan regarding where the fence will be. Mr. Essak stated that his plans were approved two years ago. His property has had a lot of vandalism and he wants to protect his property with a fence. He stated he has no objection with bringing the fence down to four feet on the west side. Mr. Pitrone asked if there is a fence around the property now. Mr. Essak explained that there is only a construction fence around the property. He submitted a plan two years ago to put up a 6 foot fence. Now he wants to put the 6 foot fence on the west and north part of the property. Mr. Pitrone stated that he is asking for a variance to allow a fence within the required front yard setback. The Board can impose certain regulations. Mr. Essak stated that there will be a single panel gate that will lift up. The gate will only be closed when the facility is not open. The gate to the roadway will be 48 feet. Mr. Pitrone stated that the fire department will need to approve that. Mr. Essak stated he does not need approval from the fire department. Ms. Gerstenberg stated that regardless of what was submitted two years ago nothing was built. Mr. Essak was required to resubmit his plans which he just submitted the revised preliminary. It will still have to be reviewed by all departments. The Board is not approving the gate that will have to go through the fire department. Mr. Essak stated that his plans have already been approved subject to conditions. Ms. Gerstenberg stated that his plans have not been approved because he has just resubmitted the plans. This board will be deciding if they will allow him to put a fence up in the front yard setback, how high the fence can be and if he is meeting the Corridor Improvement Authority Streetscape Design Guidelines. Ordinance Board of Appeals December 14, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mr. Ervin asked Ms. Gerstenberg if the Streetscape Design Plan requires the he put in decorative columns and wrought iron fencing. Ms. Gerstenberg stated that a wrought iron fence and brick pillars does meet the requirements of the Streetscape Design Plan. He has proposed spacing of 125 ft which is farther than it requires. There are specific landscaping requirements which will continue to be addressed after the meeting with the planning department. Mr. Pitrone stated that this Board is not approving the gate. That will be done by the fire department. Mr. Essak stated that he has increased his landscaping plan by 20%. He will have short shrubs so it does not block driver’s views. Ms. Gerstenberg clarified that the fence will be 4 feet in front and 6 feet on sides. Mr. Essak stated that the columns/fence would be18 inches from easement walk per city ordinance. Mr. Sala stated that security reasons are not a hardship for a variance. Mr. Essak stated if he does not get the variance then he will not put the decorative benches, fountains or anything else. He will just put grass there instead. Mr. Ervin stated that he would be more inclined to allow a 4 foot fence to the building. Mr. Essak stated that he does not like the look of that. Mr. Ervin stated that the idea of the Corridor is the buildings need to blend with the other buildings in the area. Mr. Essak stated that there will not be another building that looks as nice as his. Mr. Pitrone stated that he is leaning towards allowing a four foot fence as indicated on the plans in red with the decorative brick columns. Mr. Ervin stated that if the fence is four foot it will have a nicer view of the building from Van Dyke. Mr. Essak stated that the design will not look good and if he can’t have the four foot fence along Vandyke only then he is not putting landscaping in the front. Mr. Pitrone asked Mr. Essak what material the fence will be made out of. Mr. Essak stated it might be aluminum or wrought iron and it will be a dark color. Mr. Essak stated the front yard setback is 31 feet from the property line. He plans on putting lights on top of each column. Mr. Pitrone stated that whatever the motion is today the gate is not part of it and it must be approved by the fire department. RESOLVED, to approve case G15-0333 at 42300 Van Dyke Road with the following conditions: 1 – that the petitioner agrees to abide by and comply with all applicable rules and regulations and orders of every lawful agency or governing authority having jurisdiction, 2 – that the decision of the Board will remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Board in public hearing are found to be correct and that the conditions upon which the motion is based are maintained as presented to the Board, 3 – the fence must meet all the requirements of the Corridor Improvement Authority Streetscape Design Guidelines including the material and space of the columns, 4 – the fence and radius per plan along Van Dyke must be no more than four feet in height, 5- fence must be a simulated wrought iron/aluminum fence with flat tops. Yes: DiGaetano, Ervin, Pitrone, Sala No: None. Absent: Jiles. Motion carried. 8. Old Business 9. New Business a. G15-0341 C & N Land Development LLC – 38190 Van Dyke Code Enforcement Officer, Paul Geiger, stated as of today there were some changes to the property. There is no outdoor storage allowed. A fence permit was not approved and the trailers on the property used for storage are not allowed. Pictures were shown at this time. Mr. Pitrone asked Mr. Geiger if all the tires outside are a fire hazard and would be difficult to put out. Mr. Geiger stated “yes”. The fire department has cited them for too much storage inside a building without a sprinkler system. The building official stated in an email that there is no certificate of occupancy obtained. Mr. Pitrone stated that there are tires in the trucks, along the fence and on the ground which is facing a residential area and when people look out that is what they see. Mr. Youkana, business owner, was present. Mr. Mark Uwata, lawyer, was present and the owner of the building was present. Mr. Uwata stated that the City has a valid point about the semi trucks being on the grass but they are not long term storage. The semis are Ordinance Board of Appeals December 14, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 3 loaded up with tires daily and then taken off of the property once they are full. It is not long term storage at all. He stated that the fence company was supposed to pull a permit and the client did not know it was not approved. He wants to table the fence issue until they can apply for a variance. C & N Land Development was present and is aware of the property and will make sure all the proper permits are pulled. Ms. Gerstenberg stated that absolutely no outdoor storage is allowed at that location. There are tires and debris lying on the grass along the residential side. All those violations should be cleaned up immediately. Ms. Gerstenberg would not suggest any type of postponement. Regarding the fence variance there is no outdoor storage allowed at that location without approval from the fire marshal or the zoning board. The fire marshal is not pleased with the situation here. There are no trailers allowed for storage without the proper permits. The owner could speak to the planning department for a type of variance or a permit. That is probably unlikely to occur. They do not have a certificate of occupancy and should not be operating a business out of the building. The building department could possibly write a ticket. The owner of the property stated that he does not understand why there is no certificate of occupancy and they will take care of it. Mr. Geiger restated that there is no outdoor storage allowed at that property. Mr. Sala asked how long before a trailer is taken off of the property. Mr. Youkana stated that the trailers are picked up after about a week for $1200 each time. Mr. Sala stated that it appears that the building has out grown the business. The City does not allow outside storage. If other businesses are doing the same thing then they have approval to do so. Mr. Geiger stated that in a C-3 district there is no outdoor storage allowed unless approved through the planning department. Moved by DiGaetano, supported by Sala, RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 42300 Van Dyke Road and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding after December 28, 2015. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. Yes: DiGaetano, Ervin, Pitrone, Sala No: None. Absent: Jiles. Motion carried. 11. Adjournment Motion by DiGaetano, supported by Ervin to adjourn the meeting. Yes: All. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm Respectfully submitted. John Pitrone Joseph DiGaetano John Pitrone, Chairman Joseph DiGaetano, Secretary Ordinance Board of Appeals Ordinance Board of Appeals