Zoning Board of Appeals

STERLING HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL MARCH 27, 2014 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI. SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held March 27, 2014. Chairwoman Szpont called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Members present at roll call: Derek D’Angelo, Bruce Kremhelmer, Stefano Militello, Nick Najjar, Laura Szpont, Ray Washburn Members absent at roll call: David Graef (excused) Also in attendance: Mike Viazanko, Building Official Don DeNault, City Attorney Renee Bayer, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Militello, supported by Kremhelmer, to approve the agenda. Ayes: Militello, Kremhelmer, Najjar, Szpont, Washburn, D’Angelo Nays: None Absent: Graef Motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. 1. PZBA14-0011 – MRJ Sign Company LLC/Mark R. Johnson Requesting Board approval for a: 1) 9 foot height variance to allow sign to remain at 24’; 2) 61 square foot area variance to allow sign to remain at 126 square feet. Property address: 38190 Van Dyke The petitioner, Mark R. Johnson, MRJ Sign Company, LLC, 256 Narrin St., Ortonville, MI 48462, was present. Mr. Johnson stated that the sign in question has been on the property since the building was originally built. The last use was for Magic Carpet and is under the present ordinance. It had four non-conformities to it in comparison to the ordinance, the height of the sign, the square footage, exposed or visible polls and the fact that it lacked any decorative or masonry base treatment at grade to soften the appearance. In meeting with Mr. Mende, we were able to revise our plan in a manner that closes the poles and do a masonry base. Unfortunately, when it comes to the height and square footage, it becomes quite the hardship based on that the sign height and square footage are proportionate to the size of the building. The business has to have visibility for northbound Van Dyke since it’s a little bit different than the standard Belle Tire and Discount Tire that is across the street. This company sells used tires at a very good value so he draws customers from far and wide. So with this as a destination site he has a little more different signage need. With the multiple lanes of traffic northbound and the free standing signs directly to the south of the property down to the party store and fireworks sign, those are all above the height compared to the sq. footage for those buildings. They are 40 feet wide verses this building that is much wider, it’s actually proportional. The problem is that without that sign when you are heading northbound and you are in the left lane, by the time anyone would see that building, they would need to get over multiple lanes in order to get into the building entrance. Most of the clients will be coming from the south on northbound Van Dyke and that is part of the hardship. This was the reason for the print in our package to show the traffic flow. When we first met, we had four non-conformities. We were able to resolve two of them. All we are asking is that the other two be approved by the Board so that the sign can remain and be reutilized. The sign that currently exists has a translucent face with fluorescent lamps throughout and the entire panel lights up. Instead, what we are proposing is LED illuminating channel letters. Channel letters are the same type of signs you see on building for your nicer malls. The benefit is that at night instead of the full panel lighting up, just the message lights up. The other benefit of this is much less glare and it’s not as intrusive as some of the other signs in the area. This is more of a cost to the business tenant but the benefit is a nicer look and improves upon the building and his business. Mr. Washburn asked if the only part of the sign that will be lit up is the moving part of it? Mr. Johnson stated that the only parts that will light up are the channel letters that say Michigan Auto Wheel and Tire and the actual tire. The electronic message center will also light up and that will change within the requirement. In fact if you calculate it at night, it actually meets the sq. footage because almost half of any sign is background and if the background doesn’t illuminate and it’s just the actual copy and box off those entities and you add it that way, it actually meets the square footage. Mr. Kremhelmer asked what is stopping you from putting in a conforming sign? What would the cost be? Do you have an estimate as to taking the down the sign and putting up one that meets our code? Mr. Johnson replied that the cost involved in making the sign conforming would be a solid $20,000.00. The negative in putting up a new conforming sign would be the cost along with when traveling northbound you would not have sufficient time to safely turn into that property. Mr. Kremhelmer stated that this sign in the largest in the area and again wanted to know what other hardship is there other than financial. There is availability to put in a conforming sign correct? Mr. Johnson answered correct. Mr. Kremhelmer stated that basically it comes down to financial to not make the sign conforming. Mr. Johnson stated not only cost but safety due to the customers coming from far and wide are not familiar with the area so they can see where they need to pull in. Mr. Kremhelmer asked if a sign 9 feet taller is a safer sign? Mr. Johnson said yes, since it’s visible from further down the road. Mr. Kremhelmer agreed that a larger sign would be more visible but the question he has is that a conforming sign is available but it’s just a matter of money. Mr. Johnson disagrees with that. He stated that yes cost is a part of it but not the only reason. Mr. Kremhelmer again asked that Mr. Johnson does have the choice of putting in an conforming sign? Mr. Johnson stated yes. Mr. Kremhelmer asked how big is the portion of the sign that will be electronic? Mr. Johnson stated that portion is 2’5” tall by 12’3” long. Mr. Kremhelmer asked if it’s within the parameters of a sign this big or a conforming sign? Mr. Johnson replied that he thinks our ratio is half and if it were a conforming sign, it would have to be smaller. Mr. Kremhelmer asked the board if this is actually the only chance we have of getting this sign to conform to our ordinance at this point. If we grant this ordinance, we will not be able to go back correct. Mr. DeNault stated that was correct. The only other time we could go back would be change of ownership or if the sign would deteriorate and need to be replaced. Mr. Kremhelmer stated that on variances he feels that if there are other options, you explore them first before you come to us and if you have an option to put in a conforming sign then that is what should go in there. Mr. D’Angelo stated that he doesn’t agree with the fact of asking for this variance based on the sign needs to be bigger so it can be safer for people to locate the business. If this were the case, every business on Van Dyke would want a bigger sign for that reason. That isn’t something we can use to grant you this variance so what I want to look at is a little bit of the cost and a little bit on the history of Van Dyke and it’s expansion and why do we have so many signs so close to the road and other signs that might be in the way of yours. It looks like the American Legion building has a brick sign that is about 7 feet and that sign is close to the road on Van Dyke. This sign could be a hardship as to seeing the sign in question if it were lowered. Mr. D’Angelo asked if the sign could be just cut and brought down? Mr. Johnson answered that if that were done, it would cause a safety issue for customers coming from far away that are not familiar with the area having to cut over 3 lanes to get over the business entrance. Mr. D’Angelo did not agree with that stating that now with GPS and that all the businesses are on the right side of Van Dyke, that should not be an issue. Mr. D’Angelo asked what the cost would be to come down to 15 feet leaving the cabinet the way it is? Mr. Johnson replied the cost would be a couple thousand dollars on top of the cost of the sign. His current cost of the sign is $30,000.00. Mr. D’Angelo stated then if you do that you will be meeting 3 out of the 4 conformities and then at night you would be conforming. I’m just looking at reasons we can stay a little more conforming. Mr. Chris Aiello, owner of the property, stated that if he shaved down the poles, the sign would be shorter than the building and it is not going to look right and that would make it a hardship. I could see Mr. Kremhelmer and Mr. D’Angelo’s point if there were some of the neighbors or supporting businesses complaining that the sign was too high or didn’t like the sign. I just don’t want to spend any more money. I bought this building partially because of the sign for what it could do for my tenant. I feel it’s unnecessary to do this. If I have to shave this down I’m not sure how it will affect the electrical, the cost and the time to do this. This building has been vacant for four years and we are putting $100,000 into it. This a great benefit to the city. I do agree, and I drive by this all the time myself, that this building is difficult to see. Also, if I have to shave down the poles, the sign would not look proportionate to the building. Mr. D’Angelo stated that he personally doesn’t have a problem with the sign but we need to have a good record as to why we are granting the variance. Mr. Washburn asked Mr. Aiello that since he has other buildings in the city, does he have any other situations as to where the sign is that much higher than the building itself? Mr. Aiello stated no. Mr. Washburn stated that Mr. Aiello made a comment as to if the sign were lowered, it would be aesthetically displeasing to the eye, something along that line. Mr. Aiello stated that the sign supports that building and property. Mr. Kremhelmer asked that if the sign was lowered, it wouldn’t work? Mr. Aiello stated that he did not say that but feels it will be aesthetically displeasing to the eye. Mr. Washburn stated that Mr. Kremhelmer hit the nail on the head that this would be the time for us to bring that sign into compliance with our ordinance. Mr. Kremhelmer asked how tall is your building? Mr. Aiello replied 18 feet. Mr. Washburn was then questioning the size of the sign. This sign right now as it sits, the top of the sign is 24 feet from grade and the bottom of the sign is now 17 feet and the building is 18 feet. So right now the sign is below the building, the site line. So to make this sign conforming, we need to drop this down 9 feet. The bottom of the existing sign would be 8 feet off the ground. This is why I’m asking if there is any other conforming sign you could put up there to be in compliance. I know this is hardcore, and I say this is the cost of doing business. I can appreciate all your costs and that stuff. Mr. Aiello stated if I understand your question I could take the whole sign down and build one that is conforming if that’s what your asking. Mr. Kremhelmer said yes that is what he was going to ask but can you do anything with this sign to get it conforming. Mr. Aiello stated it not about the economics, but the hardship to the building. I bought this building partially because of that sign. Mr. Kremhelmer stated you purchased a building with a nonconforming sign and as soon as you took ownership it became nonconforming. Mr. Aiello stated he understands that and that is why he is here. Mr. Kremhelmer stated that this is the only chance we have to bring this into our ordinances. As Mr. D’Angelo stated we have a criteria to follow and I have not heard that yet. Mr. D’Angelo asked if the petitioner planned on putting signage on the front of the building? Mr. Johnson answered no but there would be something over the door on the south side of the building. Mr. D’Angelo said by looking at this coming down 9 feet, the electronic message board view may be blocked by the American Legion sign and I feel that would be a hardship. Mr. Kremhelmer asked Mr. DeNault what is the code that the masonry base has to be? Mr. DeNault answered the minimum is 24 inches. Mr. Kremhelmer stated to Mr. D’Angelo to consider that if the bottom is 2 feet and the top is 8 feet, that is only a 6 feet window for a site line for people pulling out and that could be hardship too. But then again, I go back to they can put another sign on there to be conforming. Mr. Johnson wanted to offer a little bit more clarification. The sign is basically at the top of the building more or less. If you were to take the sign down to 15 feet, the top of the sign would actually be half way down the upper brick area that means that the bottom two thirds of the sign which is about 5 feet would be blocking the windows and the building itself. He stated it could be possible to drop the sign down 4 feet but that was without talking to the property owner first. Mr. Kremhelmer wanted to clarify that Mr. Johnson was stating they would drop the sign down 4 feet instead of the 9 feet. Mr. Aiello stated no. It’s not necessary. He understands what Mr. Johnson is saying but no. Instead of spending $4000.00 a month to advertise, this sign is what he has to do it. This is part of his business and his income. If you take that sign it just doesn’t work. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Viazanko if he knew why this sign is so close to the building as compared to other signs north and south of property closer to Van Dyke? Mr. Viazanko answered that he did not know since this sign has been around since the late 70’s. You will see that Kopke Home Improvement did do a modification to their existing nonconforming sign by installing the brick base and the other ones in the adjoining areas have been brought up to code as much as they can. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Washburn if he knew why that might be. Mr. Washburn replied that he didn’t know about that one individual sign but he did know that when Van Dyke was widened that there was a number of signs impacted, the car dealers for example. There was one dealer that did bring his sign down to 15 feet but because of the location of the cars and parking, as it was adjacent to Van Dyke it did create a problem there. But from what I’m hearing from the petitioner tonight is that this sign can only work if it’s 61 square feet bigger and 9 feet higher than what our existing ordinance is and I just don’t see it. Chairwoman Szpont opened the public hearing. There was no audience participation. Motion by Mr. Militello, support by Mr. Najjar, In the case of PZBA14-0011, MRJ Sign Company, 38190 Van Dyke Ave, I move to APPROVE the requested variances subject to the following conditions: 1) That the decision of the Board will remain valid and in force 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 forever maintained as presented to the Board. The petitioner agrees to abide by and comply with all the ordinances of the City of Sterling Heights and the regulations of every lawful agency or governing authority now or hereafter in force; 2) Notice of the approval of the variance shall be delivered to the City Clerk’s office within 60 days after the approval date of the applicable meeting minutes for recording with the Macomb County Register of Deeds. Failure to file this notice shall serve as grounds to revoke the variance; 3) A Hold Harmless Agreement, in favor of the City of Sterling Heights, shall be delivered to the City Clerk’s office within 60 days after the approval date of the applicable meeting minutes for recording with the Macomb County Register of Deeds. Failure to file this agreement shall serve as grounds to revoke the variance. Findings of Fact: 1. The site lines for the sign are blocked by existing ground signs to the south. 2. The location of the entrance drive is placed in such a way that, if a customer passes the business, they must travel north to the next turnaround, drive south to the second turnaround, then north again to the business, nearly one mile in distance. Ayes: D’Angelo, Militello, Najjar, Szpont Nays: Kremhelmer, Washburn Absent: Graef Motion Carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 27, 2014 Motion by Mr. Kremhelmer, supported by Mr. Militello to approve the minutes as presented. Ayes: Kremhelmer, Militello, D’Angelo, Najjar, Szpont, Washburn Nays: None Abstain: None Absent: Graef Motion Carried. NEW BUSINESS There was no New Business OLD BUSINESS There was no Old Business PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There was no public participation ADJOURNMENT Moved by Militello, supported by D’Angelo, to adjourn at 7:51 p.m. Ayes: Militello, D’Angelo, Kremhelmer, Najjar, Szpont, Washburn Nays: None Absent: Graef Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Szpont, Chairwoman Zoning Board of Appeals