Zoning Board of Appeals

STERLING HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL AUGUST 28, 2014 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI. SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held August 28, 2014. Mr. Kremhelmer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present at roll call: Derek D’Angelo, David Graef, Bruce Kremhelmer, Stefano Militello, Nick Najjar, Aaron Wawrzyniak Members absent at roll call: Ray Washburn (excused) Also in attendance: Donald Mende, City Planner Don DeNault, City Attorney Renee Bayer, Recording Secretary Mr. Kremhelmer welcomed new board member, Aaron Wawrzyniak. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Militello, supported by Najjar, to approve the agenda. Ayes: Militello, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef, Kremhelmer Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE There is no correspondence. PZBA14-0016 – Thomas K. Kovak Requesting Board approval to allow a body art facility in a consolidated shopping center of less than 100,000 square feet. Property address: 13432 Fifteen Mile Road See petitioner's drawing for tenant space, dimensions, and building location. The body art facility is proposed for the 20,540 sq. ft. Red Run Plaza and the use intends to occupy approximately 1300 sq. ft. tenant space. Mr. Mende explained that, for multitude of reasons, body art facilities are proliferating in popularity throughout communities nationwide and the City has experienced an increase in the number of inquiries made to locate in Sterling Heights. The City regulates these uses through the issuance of licenses or permits as authorized by state law. Body art facilities (tattoo and piercing) were recently provided for in the zoning ordinance via a text amendment that was adopted by City Council in 2008. It is further noted that restricting the location to planned shopping centers helps minimize potential negative impacts by de-emphasizing their visibility and their impact on the nearby residential neighborhood. State law does not authorize local communities to license body art facilities, or “tattoo parlors,” but it does allow local communities to require that such facilities obtain a local permit to operate within the community. Licensing will, however, be handled by the Michigan Department of Community Health and effective January 1, 2009, a fee is charged by the State for an initial 3-year license. The City Clerk may issue a local permit upon proper application. This will be required in this instance. All body art facilities are required to comply with all of the obligations set Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of August 28, 2014 Page 2 forth in state law, including all sanitation and record keeping requirements. State law requires the County Health Department to annually inspect all body art facilities. Local ordinance also limits hours of operation to 11:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. As it relates to the required Special Approval Land Use conditions as listed in Section 12.02 I., this proposal meets all but one, specifically: All body art facilities shall be located in a consolidated shopping center with gross floor area exceeding 100,000 sq. ft. Such uses shall be an integral part of the center and shall not be located within a freestanding building. The intent of this requirement recognizes the larger geographic draw that a business of this type may have. While this plaza is less than 100,000 sq. ft., it does meet all other locational standards. The area is a commercial shopping district, surrounded by non- residential zoning, located on two major thoroughfares, and this use has no difficulty meeting the locational requirements of the zoning ordinance. Parking for the center is in compliance with all requirements. Body art facilities are not dependent upon the surrounding neighborhood for their market. In fact, the use can be classified as a comparison shopping facility whose market extends far beyond the immediately adjacent neighborhood. Restricting these uses to the C-2 Planned Comparison District recognizes this market draw. The petitioner, Tom Kovak, 39614 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI stated he grew up in Sterling Heights and he currently owns Nona’s Pizza on Dodge Park. He has owned a tattoo shop in Rochester Hills for 14 years and would like to bring one to Sterling Heights. There is no residential housing right around the area we would like to put the shop, it’s a little smaller than what is needed, but the crossroads would be perfect for the shop. Mr. Kremhelmer asked petitioner what the hours of business would be. The Petitioner stated they would be 12:00 PM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Thursday and then 12:00 PM to 9:00 PM on Friday and Saturday. Sunday the hours will be 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Mr. D’Angelo stated the ordinance limits the hours of operation only until 8:00 PM so staying open until 9:00 PM on Friday and Saturday night will not be allowed. Mr. Militello asked City Attorney Don DeNault if petitioner wanted to extend his hours until 9:00 PM, would he have to come before the board again for approval. City Attorney, Don DeNault, stated that it’s a regulatory ordinance and that the city has an entire chapter on body art facilities that were imposed a few ago. Being regulatory and not zoning in nature there is no variance. Mr. D’Angelo asked petitioner how many different sites did he look at and why 15 Mile and Schoenherr. Petitioner stated he met with Don Mende who gave him the zoning maps and he drove around looking at the sites. There were only two or three locations of the zoned C-2 that had vacancies. Some were really bad complexes and this one had three vacancies in it and it fit the sq. footage we were looking for and the complex seems to be kept up. Mr. D’Angelo why petitioner couldn’t be in an existing C-2 zoned area.The petitioner stated that it is a C-2 property it’s just the building is 34,000 sq. ft. instead of the 100,000 sq. ft. Mr. Kremhelmer asked Mr. Mende if the two entities, the church across 15 Mile and the park, are within the requirement of 1000 ft. spacing? Mr. Mende stated they are not. This location does meet the ordinance requirements. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of August 28, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Kremhelmer asked the petitioner to give a brief explanation as to what the building will look like on the inside. The Petitioner stated that when you walk in the door, there will be a 14 ft. lobby with some leather chairs and end tables for seating. There will be a hallway down the center of the building with six tattoo rooms that are closed off to the lobby. Mr. Kremhelmer stated that basically all the improvements to the building are the rooms and furniture. Petitioner stated yes, they will build out the six rooms and build in the back a sterile room that holds our autoclave and ultrasonic’s to sterilize all the equipment. We have medical waste pickup every 90 days. All employees are first aid and CPR trained/certified and licensed by the state. Mr. Kremhelmer asked what they do with the medical waste until the 90 day pickup. Petitioner stated it is contained in a lockbox. Mr. Kremhelmer opened the public hearing. Paul Smith, Sterling Heights, he feels that if they want to open up another tattoo parlor in the city, they have the right to do so as long as they comply with the law. Mr. Kremhelmer closed the public hearing. Mr. Kremhelmer asked petitioner how many employees will be working at the facility and if he has had any complaints, complaints online or contact with the Rochester Hills Police where the other business is located. Petitioner stated that there will be three employees. He also stated that he has had no complaints or contact with the Rochester Hills Police Department. He said he has been voted #1 on Yelp and best tattoo shop two years in a row. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende if there are any other tattoo shops in the city that do not meet the current ordinance as it stands perhaps in buildings that are less 100.000 sq. ft. or not in areas zoned as C-2. If so, have there been any issues? Mr. Mende stated that there are two that are not in C-2 zoned areas. One is at 14 ½ and VanDyke and one at Riverland and VanDyke. Both have been in business for a number of years and to the best of his knowledge, there have been no issues. Mr. Kremhelmer wanted to remind the petitioner that the board was missing one member and he will need four out of five votes and did he want to proceed. Petitioner did want to proceed with the vote. Motion by Militello, supported by Najjar, In the case of PZBA14-0016, Thomas K. Kovak, 13432 Fifteen Mile Road, I move to APPROVE a variance to allow a body art facility in a consolidated shopping center of less than 100,000 sq. ft., with 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; Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of August 28, 2014 Page 4 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 follow this agreement shall serve as grounds to revoke the variance; 4) That the proprietor must obtain and maintain all required local and state licenses; 5) That the petitioner shall develop, maintain and operate the facility in compliance with all pertinent codes, ordinances and standards of the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb and the State of Michigan. The following findings of facts are noted: 1) There are no schools or residential uses surrounding the shopping center; 2) The location is an intensive commercial zone; 3) The shopping center is designed and located to accommodate comparison shopping and high traffic volumes; Ayes: Militello, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef, Kremhelmer, Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion Carried. PZBA14-0017 – Michael Boggio Associates Requesting Board approval for: 1) a 10’ front yard setback; 2) a 35’ rear yard setback; 3) a drive through lane within 300’ of multiple family residential zoning. Property address: 14860 Hall Road See petitioner's drawing for tenant space, dimensions, and building location. The retail development is proposed for the existing Flower Barn Nursery located on the south side of Hall Road. The Flower Barn Nursery has been in this location for many years as a non-conforming use. A few years ago, City Council approved a rezoning of this remnant multiple family zoned parcel to commercial in order to accommodate the future development of retail uses. The parcel has 570’ of frontage on Hall Road and a depth of 190’. The petitioner intends to construct three buildings on this site; a bank, Panda Express, and a multi-tenant retail. Due to the shallow depth of this parcel, the petitioner is in need of a front and rear yard variance. As it relates to the front yard, the ordinance requires a 35’ front setback, 25’ if it is in a platted subdivision. All the abutting parcels are within the Lakeside Subdivision and only require a 25’ front yard. Because this was an old farm originally, it was never included in the plat. If it were, no variance would be necessary. Regarding the rear yard, the ordinance requires a 75’ rear setback abutting the apartments. Moving the buildings north to meet this setback would place all of the parking in the rear and adjacent to the apartments, impractical for the design and functionality of the retail users. As shown in the petitioner’s plan, the apartments in this location side to the commercial zone, lessening any negative impact. The combined distance between the apartments and the proposed retail meets or exceeds 75’. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of August 28, 2014 Page 5 The drive through for Panda Express is approximately 100’ from the closest corner of an apartment building. This separation standard between a drive through and any residential has been in place for over 25 years. A recent amendment to the zoning ordinance, however, now restricts the volume of drive through speakers to 50 decibels four feet between the vehicle and speaker, and in no case audible at the property line. This drastically reduces the need of separation and, quite likely, the ambient road noise from Hall Road traffic would exceed any menu order speaker volume. The petitioner, Michael Boggio, the architect of the project, along with Mr. Mansour and Mr. Calvis, who are the future owners of the building, are present. Mr. Boggio stated that this site is now a nursery but comparing this site to many sites is very shallow, it’s only 190 ft. deep from Hall Road to the back property line. If we comply with these setbacks, which is 35 ft. from Hall Road and 75 ft. from setback from residential this leaves only 80 ft., which is pretty much undevelopable. So what we are asking for is a 10 ft. greenbelt variance in the front which would be 25 ft. which is the same as the greenbelt on Eastgate Village, which is 25 ft. along Hall Road. So this can be developed and landscaped very nicely. In the back there is the 75 ft. residential setback. This is a multiple residential. Pretty much all the buildings are sitting back 35- 38 ft. from the property line and as you can see on the site plan, the exits for most of the buildings faces the properties so there are no windows that could look into these properties. The impact of this property of being developed will be minimal. There is currently a row of arborvitaes along the property line. We will be building a masonry wall along the property line and will have a 10 ft. greenbelt off that masonry wall that will be set by the row of arborvitaes. This will provide protection from noise and lights for the multiple residential. We are also asking to have a drive up facility less than 300 ft. from residential. In terms of impact, the residential is less than 300 ft. from Hall Road so they are very used to a lot of noise from the major commercial business on Hall Road. We also feel that this will help cut down the noise for the residential because the buildings will have additional landscaping along Hall Road that will help muffle the noise. We feel that in order to develop this property in a very intense commercial area and that the depth of the property if very minimal to most properties on Hall Road that this is a reasonable request. We have studied this plan a lot trying to minimize the impact on the multiple residential and that’s how we came up with 40 ft. off the property line and the set back from the building to building will be 75-78 ft. There is still a considerable amount of distance from the buildings. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende if 63 parking spaces were going to be enough when this is fully developed. Mr. Mende stated that it meets all the parking requirements per the ordinance. Mr. Kremhelmer asked petitioner if Panda Express and Jersey Mikes were committed leases. Petitioner stated that Panda Express was and not yet sure for Jersey Mikes. Mr. Kremhelmer and Mr. Mende wanted petitioner to understand that according to the site plans there is a drive-thru for a financial institution. If petitioner changes this drive- thru to a fast food establishment, that would have to come before the ZBA for approval. Petitioner stated he understood that. Mr. Kremhelmer wanted to verify that the masonry wall will not be on the west side and that side would be open. Petitioner stated that is correct. Mr. Wawrzyniak asked petitioner if he were to make these buildings comply, would that put him out of the parking requirement. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of August 28, 2014 Page 6 Petitioner stated that we only have a buildable area of 80 ft. and yes they would be out of the parking requirement without this variance. Mr. D’Angelo wanted to clarify that petitioner would not be encroaching anymore to the rear of the property that is already there for the Flower Barn Nursery. Petitioner stated there is no change to the encroachment to the rear side. Mr. D’Angelo also wanted to clarify that the frontage of the 25 ft. greenbelt between the parking and existing concrete walkway will be in line with what would carry east to Hayes Road with the setbacks we have now. Petitioner stated that it is 25 ft. or less at CVS over at Hayes Road and it’s exactly 25 ft. here so we do have the same greenbelt as at Hayes Road. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende if the ZBA approved that variance for CVS and Mr. Mende answered yes. Mr. Kremhelmer asked Mr. Mende if there is a typical size or depth of lots along M59 because this is such an odd shaped lot. Mr. Mende answered that there is really not a typical size but you will see there are a lot of the commercial sites that extend from 200-250 ft. in depth along Hall Road. This lot is a remnant parcel of the old farm that was there. The rear portion of this property was sold off to the Lakeside Mall development, and in this instance, to the Lakeside Terrace Apartment complex. Mr. Kremhelmer asked if this property is being sold? Mr. Mende said it is being sold. Mr. Kremhelmer asked if the property is being sold based on the approval of the variance. Petitioner stated yes. Mr. D’Angelo wanted to clarify that the noise of the speakers from the drive-thru cannot be audible at the property line and if this will still remain if we approve this. Mr. Mende stated that is correct and that it cannot exceed 50 decibels. Mr. Wawrzyniak asked what the hours will be for Panda Express. The petitioner stated that he really wasn’t sure of the exact hours of operation. Mr. Kremhelmer opened for public hearing. Mr. Phil Ruggeri, 4321 Schoenherr, Sterling Heights., 48313, is here on behalf of the owner of the property, Mr. John Spatafore. We have negotiated a sales agreement for the developers and all of these requested variances are necessary to develop the site. If they choose not to proceed under the due diligence, my client or any other developer would have the same issues, as far as, the property being very tight and the depth is limited for development. The development presented is a very nice one. I would encourage that we grant the variance. Paul Smith, Sterling Heights, stated that we have these ordinance and restrictions in place to protect homeowners and businesses and is opposed to the request. who live there. I believe the current business is a good business and should remain. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of August 28, 2014 Page 7 Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende if the widening of Hall Road negatively impacted this site reducing the buildable area and the cause for the need of this variance. Mr. Mende stated that he couldn’t give any specific details that he would have to refer to the Engineering Department but that it is true that Hall Road has been widened immensely over time and is sure that some of the property had been taken but could not say how much. Motion by D’Angelo, support by Militello, In the case of PZBA14-0017, Michael Boggio Associates, 14860 Hall Road, I move to APPROVE 1) A 10’ front yard setback variance; 2) A 35’ rear yard setback variance; and 3) To permit a drive-through lane within 300’ of multiple family residential zoning, with 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 follow this agreement shall serve as grounds to revoke the variance; 4. That the petitioner shall complete the site plan approval process and develop, maintain and operate the facility in compliance with all pertinent codes, ordinances and standards of the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb and the State of Michigan. The following findings of facts are noted: 1) The property was recently rezoned by City Council to accommodate retail uses; 2) The location is an intensive commercial zone where platted lots are permitted to have a reduced setback; 3) The parcel provides screening via a 6’ high separation of districts wall, plus a row of evergreens, in addition to the extensive existing landscape buffer. Mr. Kremhelmer asked the motion maker, Mr. D’Angelo, if we should consider adding the fact that this is not self- created and due to the odd lot size, it supports the fact that the setbacks are necessary. Mr. D’Angelo said absolutely, because the narrow buildable area because of the shallow size of the property is part of the reason for the variance. Mr. Militello stated he will amend his support. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of August 28, 2014 Page 8 Mr. Kremhelmer stated that we have an amended motion and support. Ayes: D’ Angelo, Militello, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, Graef, Kremhelmer, Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion Carried. PZBA14-0018 – The Pawn Shoppe, LLC Requesting Board approval for a Use Variance to allow a pawn shop in a C-3 (General Business) zoning district. Property address: 37804 Van Dyke See petitioner's drawing for tenant space, dimensions, and building location. The pawn shop is proposed for the 120,000 sq. ft. Sterling Place Shopping Center and the use intends to occupy approximately 2750 sq. ft. tenant space. For a multitude of reasons, pawn shops are proliferating in popularity throughout communities nationwide and the City has experienced an increase in the number of inquiries made to locate in Sterling Heights. The City regulates these uses through the issuance of licenses or permits as authorized by state law. Pawnbrokers were recently provided for in the zoning ordinance via a text amendment that was adopted by City Council in 2008. Pawnbrokers are not dependent upon the surrounding neighborhood for their market. In fact, the use can be classified as a comparison shopping facility whose market extends far beyond the immediately adjacent neighborhood. Restricting these uses to the C-2 Planned Comparison District recognizes this market draw. C-2 districts are typically larger parcels with larger shopping centers on major thoroughfares. It is further noted that restricting the location to planned shopping centers helps minimize potential negative impacts by de-emphasizing their visibility and their impact on any nearby residential neighborhoods. The City Clerk may issue a local permit upon proper application. This will be required in this instance. As it relates to the required Special Approval Land Use conditions as listed in Section 12.02 I., this proposal meets all of them, specifically: K. Pawnbrokers, subject to the following: 1) All pawnbrokers shall be located in a consolidated shopping center with a gross floor area exceeding 100,000 square feet. Such uses shall be an integral part of the center and shall not be located within a freestanding building. 2) A pawnbroker shall not be located closer than 1,000 feet to an adult entertainment use, body art facility, resale shop, or other pawnbroker measured by the shortest walking distance between the customer entrance of each use. 3) All customer entrances to a pawnbroker facility (or retail/customer service area if there is no distinct customer entrance) shall be located at least 1,000 feet from any church, school, playground, or public park and at least 500 feet from any residential zoning district, measured by the shortest walking distance between the customer entrance (or retail/customer service area if there is no distinct customer entrance) and the property line of the church, school, playground or public park or the nearest residential zoning district line. 4) Pawnbrokers shall obtain and maintain any licenses required by local or State law and shall operate the facility or business in full compliance with any local, State, or federal regulatory ordinances or statutes, rules, or regulations. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of August 28, 2014 Page 9 The intent of this requirement recognizes the larger geographic draw that a business of this type may have. This plaza exceeds 100,000 sq. ft., and does meet all other locational standards. The area is in an intense commercial shopping district, located on a major thoroughfare, and this use has no difficulty meeting the locational and parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Phil Ruggeri, 4321 Schoenherr, Sterling Heights, 48313 is here on behalf of the petitioner, The Pawn Shoppe, LLC and Mr. Ray Bianchini, the proprietor of the operation. We have complied with all the requirements under the proposed special land use requirement but under the ordinance, the pawn license has to be contained within a C-2 zoning. The property happens to be C-3 but it’s 20,000 sq. ft. larger than the C-2 and it’s an ideal location for it. It sits on a major thoroughfare and the current landlord of the property just infused over a million dollars into the center. He redid the entire parking lot, extended the sidewalks and put in outdoor cafes. This is a high level pawn shop, it’s very sophisticated. Mr. Kremhelmer wanted to remind Mr. Ruggeri that they were down one board member and he will need five votes and wanted to know if he would like to continue. Mr. Ruggeri stated he would like to continue. Mr. Ruggeri continued to say that this type of use expands behind the local area. This will generate people from all over the area. It’s more of a large shopping type draw and this is what it is designed to do. In this particular site we find it to be ideal but, the fact that it’s a C-3 is the only hurdle we have to overcome. A C-2 use certainly fits into a C-3 use so we are asking for that variance. Mr. Graef asked Mr. Mende if there are any kind of restrictions for a pawn shop to be located anywhere close to residential. Mr. Mende stated that the customer entrance of a pawn shop needs to be at least 500 ft. from any residential zoning district and that is measured by the shortest walking distance between the customer entrance and that property line. Mr. Graef that stated then the retaining wall behind it would make it a longer walk. Mr. Mende stated that is correct. Mr. Kremhelmer asked City Attorney Don DeNault, if there was an issue with the property owner not signing the application. Mr. Mende stated that the lease agreement between the property owner and The Pawn Shoppe, LLC. had been provided with the application. It was signed by the owner of the shopping center, Tony Gallo. City Attorney, Don DeNault, wanted to clarify that there are no external modifications being made to the property. This isn’t the case where the property owner isn’t present to see what the board is about to do or grant to his/her property. This is strictly the ability to have a use in the center as exists. The lease agreement should suffice to show a property interest. Mr. Ruggeri stated that the lease agreement is contingent upon approval of the variance and the permit for the pawn license. City Attorney, Don DeNault, asked Mr. Ruggeri that when he said the lease was contingent, assuming the use variance is granted, the lease is in effect and there is no backing out correct. Mr. Ruggeri stated yes, that is correct. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of August 28, 2014 Page 10 Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende to discuss the difference between C-2 and C-3 zoning classifications, for matter of record, and why this case would fit into the location they are proposing. Mr. Mende stated that the ordinance requires pawn brokers to be located in a C-2 zoned shopping center with a minimum of 100,000 sq. ft. This does meet that requirement of the 100,000 sq. ft. it’s just that it’s in the C-3 General Business instead of the C-2 Planned Business district. Both the C-2 and the C-3 are intended to be on major thoroughfare, draw from a larger trade area and may have customers from coming from a larger geographical region. That is why we were targeting them into the C-2, which typically has the larger shopping centers. You can have a C-3 that has a smaller strip mall like 5,000-6,000 sq. ft., but that really wouldn’t be able to accommodate this type of use. Mr. Kremhelmer opened the public hearing. Paul Smith, Sterling Heights, stated that at 16 ½ Mile Road and Vandyke there is an existing a pawn shop. Is this a relocation of the other pawn shop, a second branch or a competitor? Mr. Kremhelmer asked Mr. Mende if the pawn shops are the same owner. Mr. Mende stated they are not the same owner. Motion by Militello, support by Najjar, In the case of PZBA14-0018, The Pawn Shoppe, LLC 37804 Van Dyke, I move to APPROVE a use variance to allow a pawnbroker facility in a C-3 (General Business) zone, with 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 follow this agreement shall serve as grounds to revoke the variance; 4) That the proprietor must obtain and maintain all required local and state licenses; 5) That the petitioner shall develop, maintain and operate the facility in compliance with all pertinent codes, ordinances and standards of the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb and the State of Michigan. The following findings of facts are noted: 1) The location meets all Special Land Use requirements for pawnbrokers; 2) The location is an intensive commercial zone; 3) The shopping center is designed and located to accommodate comparison shopping and high traffic volumes; Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of August 28, 2014 Page 11 Ayes: Militello, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef, Kremhelmer Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion Carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JULY 17, 2014 Motion by Graef, support by Militello, to approve the minutes as presented. Ayes: Graef, Militello, Najjar, Kremhelmer Nays: None Abstain: D’Angelo, Wawrzyniak Absent: Washburn 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, support by Graef, to adjourn at 7:53 p.m. Ayes: Militello, Graef, Kremhelmer, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bruce Kremhelmer, Vice Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals