Zoning Board of Appeals

STERLING HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL JANUARY 22, 2015 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held January 22, 2015 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: Raymond Washburn, Excused. Also in attendance: Donald Mende, City Planner Don DeNault, City Attorney 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 None PZBA14-0022 – ORAS ZUHAIR Petitioner requesting approval for: 1. Use Variance to allow a C-2 use in a C-1 zone (Children’s Recreation Facility); 2. Use Variance to allow a C-2 use in a C-1 Zone (Banquet Facility); 3. A 45 parking space variance. Property Address: 3995 14 Mile Road. This case was postponed from the December 18, 2014 regular meeting as the petitioner was re- evaluating the intended use for the property. As a result, and since this application was filed, the original variances have been amended or eliminated. Mr. Kremhelmer opened case for anyone associated with information on this case. Petitioner, Oras Zuhair, was present. Mr. Zuhair stated he has settled on a restaurant with ancillary private meeting room and a children’s recreation facility, similar to a Chuck E. Cheese franchise. As a result the original request for a 45 parking space is amended to a 23 parking space variance. Mr. Kremhelmer reminded the petitioner that variance requires five affirmative votes and only six Commissioners are present. If he would like to postpone, he can or he can choose to continue. Petitioner agreed to continue. Mr. Graef questioned petitioner on how many patrons would fit into the banquet hall, roughly the capacity of the restaurant, and how many parking spaces are currently available on site. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 2 Mr. Zuhair stated that the banquet hall room would be an accessory to the restaurant and children’s recreational area. Petitioner stated this will not be marketed as a banquet hall but will be intended to serve the restaurant and the children’s recreational area. . This area could fit roughly around 100 patrons and the restaurant roughly 70 – 80 patrons. Currently there are 201 parking spaces. Mr. D’Angelo questioned the petitioner as the actual use of this building. According to the plans submitted, the area is setup as a banquet hall, with a bar, then there is a children’s facility that is setup right to the side of it. Mr. D’Angelo would like further explanation on how an event may take place here and how the rental of these facilities may work. Petitioner explained that the accessory room (banquet hall) is set in the middle to serve as a multi-purpose room to the restaurant and to the children’s area. This could be rented out for an adult party or children’s party. Each room is separate and could be closed off yet each room does have access to the accessory room. Mr. Kremhelmer questioned the petitioner that the blueprints show 3 areas, 3 separate entities because each is walled off. Where will children go and eat if the banquet hall, set in the middle of the building, is rented out? Petitioner stated that the blueprints are a concept, not the finalization of what the area should be. Depending on the size of the party, the banquet room could be separated as well to accommodate and serve the banquet event and the children’s eating area. This area is flexible. Mr. Kremhelmer questioned the petitioner on the 2 stages and also the 2 bars within. What is the stage for in the restaurant and do they have liquor licenses. Petitioner stated a liquor license will be secured. The stage is in the restaurant could be used for a band or speeches. Mr. Kremhelmer to Mr. Mende. This property, a few years ago, was presented for a variance regarding the sign. Variance was denied and the sign was to be torn down. The sign still stands and what is the plan for this sign. Also, if Mr. Mende could explain the discrepancy with the Approval for Use Variance to allow a C-2 use in a C-1 Zone (Banquet Facility) that is listed on the application and now is being presented as a restaurant and a children’s facility. Mr. Mende stated that the previous case was with a previous owner and the property now has a new owner and will be removing the sign in its entirety and building a new conforming ground sign. Mr. Mende also stated this case this case was postponed from the December 18, 2018 regular meeting as the petitioner was re-evaluating the intended use for the property. Because it was originally advertised at the December meeting for the approval for Use Variance to allow a C-2 use in a C-1 Zone (Banquet Facility), they were obligated to continue to have this listed on the agenda because of its postponement. Since then, the petitioner revised his plans and these requests have been revised as well since being broke down to 3 components and the banquet area being served as a multi-purpose area instead. The use of this multi-purpose meeting room can accommodate with collapsing walls for the banquet event and children’s eating area, depending on the size of the parties. The revision to the 45 parking space variance is because of the revision from all banquet to the 3 separate components, which changes and reduces the parking calculations to 23. Mr. Kremhelmer questioned the petitioner how the children will be separated from the banquet and what will the hours of operation be for the children’s arcade, any age requirements, and will there be staff to monitor this area. Petitioner stated there will be removable walls to accommodate what is needed by either party . Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 3 Mr. Zuhair stated the hours of operation will go from 10:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M with no age limitations. Mr. Zuhair stated this area, depending on if this area will be franchised to another company or not, will be monitored by that company or themselves with roughly 10-12 staff depending on what is needed. Mr. Kremhelmer explained his question again to Mr. Zuhair if he anticipates that there are going to be any unaccompanied minors coming here. Mr. Zuhair said no, it will not be a hangout and he misunderstood the original question regarding unaccompanied minors. Mr. Kremhelmer opened to the public discussion. Linda Dickow, 38703 Pinebrook, Sterling Heights, also a business owner at 4104 15 Mile Road. Ms. Dickow is concerned with the traffic in this area and asking if the City has done a traffic study at 14 Mile and Ryan Road. She is also concerned with patrolling of this area, the construction during this time, and also on the liquor license, bar atmosphere, with minors in the same facility since this plan is very unclear on what the establishment is actually going to be. Terri Jarema, resident, is concerned on the curb cuts in this area which are confusing to many. She feels items may have been missed or concealed with the city on this case with the Use really not being known. She is also concern with the unclear explanation of this establishment. Jeffrey Norgrove, 4628 Rockham Way, thanks the developer on already being a Sterling Heights tax payer and for redoing a blighted building. On the liquor issue with children present, there are already other establishments, such as theatres, Chuck E. Cheese, Zap Zones, etc., that are doing it with no known major problems and feels the city will handle what is already spelled out for liquor licenses. Mr. Norgrove also apologized to the people for intimidating robo phone calls made, either by a competitor or someone trying to put this gentleman out of business, on emergency response times and other unfounded allegations. He believes the police chief was called on this and would like to know his response. Mr. Norgrove is for this development and of any blighted property within the city. Tom Zager, resident, is against this. He is unclear on all issues addressed earlier on liquor license and children, parking, and traffic congestion. He is especially concerned that the board does not know exactly what this plan is and what is being approved. He also questioned if the agenda writing was correct. Mr. Mende did address the revisions made to the agenda and why, and Mr. Kremhelmer confirmed to Mr. Zager on what a Use Variance to allow a C-2 use in a C-1 zone (Children’s Recreation Facility) and a 23 parking space, were being addressed in this meeting. Susan Marin, resident, feels this is an intense use, and this and other areas surrounding are accident prone intersections. Concerned of traffic, safety, and unclear explanation of business. Mr. Kremhelmer addressed that the traffic issue is to be brought up with Macomb County and have nothing to do with this man’s business and remember to not put all this issues of traffic on this gentleman. The traffic studies will however, be taken into consideration. Ed Hakim, 4183 Vera Court, applauds the builder on doing a great job on building a sharp beautiful building and thinks it’s great for the city compared to the blighted building. Stephanie Buson, 48083 April Lane, if the variance is approved for the parking, would they meet the criteria to then make this into a banquet hall. She feels they are coming in to add up to get what they originally want, a banquet hall. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 4 Mr. Kremhelmer explained that if the board grants a variance for any business, regardless of what it is, that business has to adhere to that variance. If they change that variance at all, that variance becomes null and void and that business will no longer exist and the city can come in and take care of that. Alan Burbary, 34128 Ryan Road, is thrilled about the renovations but against the variance. Bill Froling, 3715 15 Mile Road, stated that he has known Mr. Zuhair for the past four years and Mr. Zuhair has been a tenant in the shopping center that he currently owns at 15 Mile and Ryan Road. Mr. Froling states Mr. Zuhair is an upstanding citizen, has quite an investment in the community, and is a first class businessman and feels this operation will be run the same way as his other businesses, even if plans are not as detailed as some would want. Mr. Froling provided pictures of the site before and after to show the development. Paul Smith, resident, opposed. Mr. Kremhelmer closed public discussion. No other participation and turned over to Mr. Mende to address the issues. Mr. Mende stated that the traffic crash data for over the last ten years shows no fatalities in this intersection and the past five years, the annual crash data shows an average of 32 accidents which comes to 2.5 per month with the two major categories being rear-enders and left turn crashes. SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) publishes bottleneck locations and 14 Mile Road and Ryan did not make that list. Regarding the emergency and response time, he has spoken to the police and fire chiefs and a business occupying this vacant building will have no impact on their response time. More calls have actually been made to code enforcement and police/fire enforcements responding to many nuisance conditions on it being vacant. Mr. Mende stated the liquor license is a separate issue where an application would be filed with the City Clerk’s office, reviewed by City Council and the Liquor Control Commission. Mr. Mende confirmed that permits were issued and the applicant did file all of his paperwork and the proper plans with the building department. The applicant’s original plan was to relocate one of his existing businesses but with the expansion of his current location, it shifted to this new business plan. Regarding the publishing of the variance, because of the postponement, the same variance must be carried over which then can be amended, it can be a reduction in variance, as in this case but if an increase, it would require a new publication. Mr. Mende also commented on the question if the parking variance is approved, will they meet criteria for a banquet hall. He answered no, the banquet hall is an accessory use to the principle use of the variance use that’s in consideration which is the children’s recreational facility. Mr. Mende also followed up on the parking variance for 23 spaces. Back in the 1960’s it was developed as a grocery store, and a grocery store under that ordinance was permitted in the C-2 zone and this property was always zoned a C-1. That grocery store was built as a C-2 use in a C-1 zone and the parking at that time was deficient by 18 spaces. Mr. Mende also stated the difference between the C-1, which is the local convenience, intended to meet shopping and commercial needs and service the need for the local neighborhood where C-2 also provides similar retail and commercial services needs but may serve patrons from a larger area, or several neighboring areas. Both zoning districts encourage compatible and physical settings and to utilize shared drive approaches. Applicant is not increasing the curb cuts and would like to see a unified architectural and landscaping treatment which will be a requirement of site plan approval. Mr. Kremhelmer asked Mr. Zuhair to step back up to the podium and asked what the hours of operation for all three entities will be without a liquor license at this time. Mr. Zuhair stated from 10:00 A.M. to Midnight for the restaurant. The hall would be 7:00 P.M. to Midnight and the arcade area will be from 9:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. If a liquor license is obtained, the restaurant and hall will stay open until 1:00 A.M. and arcade will stay the same. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 5 Mr. D’Angelo asked what the primary use for this development will be. His concern is there is no great plan in place and needs more concrete details. He is looking for a more solid plan. The layout plan is very vague to him and shows a lot of mixed use. Mr. Zuhair stated he wants to bring in something new to the city and his idea is a restaurant and a children’s recreation with the accessory banquet hall for parties. Mr. Zuhair showed his layout on the TV screen to explain more about the separating wall for the kids eating area, which all depends on the size of the parties. Motion by Militello, supported by Najjar, In the case of PZBA14-0022 - Oras Zuhair, 3995 Fourteen Mile Road, I move to APPROVE a use variance to permit a C-2 use in a C-1 Zoning District and a 23 parking space variance 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 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. The following findings of fact are noted: 1. The structure has been vacant and a code enforcement problem for several years. 2. The existing structure and property are being renovated and brought up to current standards as much as possible. 3. The property has frontage on two major thoroughfares. 4. The city has made a priority of the adaptive reuse of obsolete commercial centers. Mr. DeNault, city attorney, asked Mr. Militello, if the children’s facility concept was to go away, would Mr. Militello still want the 23 parking space variance. Mr. Militello stated yes, he would still want petitioner to have the 23 parking space. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. DeNault if the children’s facility did not succeed, would the restaurant and hall still be able to operate. Mr. DeNault answered yes. It would still be able to operate. Mr. Kremhelmer has some concerns for the maker and supporter of the motion that if the children’s facility fails, then the hall would be expanded and turned into a larger banquet hall and what can be done to prevent this from happening. Mr. DeNault explained Mr. Kremhelmer’s concern and asked Mr. Militello and Mr. Najjar if the applicant tried to use the space for something different than what is being approved, would Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 6 they agree that the variance for the children’s facility be revoked if the applicant did try to expand into this area. Would Mr. Militello agree and amend to his motion. Mr. Militello said yes, he will accept that amendment to his motion. Mr. Najjar supported the amended motion. Mr. Kremhelmer asked if any further discussion. None Ayes: Militello, Najjar, Graef, Kremhelmer Nays: D’Angelo, Wawrzyniak Absent: Washburn Motion to approve failed. PZBA14-0023 – SAIF HERMEZ Requesting approval for 1) a Use Variance to permit a C-2 use in a C-1 (Amusement Device Center) zoning district; 2) to waive the requirement for on-site prepared food service; 3) to waive the requirement that food service seating area exceed area devoted to amusement devises - Northeast corner of Metropolitan Parkway and Dequindre Road in Section 19. Property Address: 2071 Metropolitan Parkway Mr. Kremhelmer opened case for anyone associated with information on this case. Mr. Saif Hermez, petitioner, stated he would like to open and operate an arcade-like amusement device center but the zoning in the area is listed as a C-1 . Mr. Kremhelmer reminded the petitioner that variance requires five affirmative votes and only six commissioners are present. If he would like to postpone, he can or he can choose to continue. Petitioner, Mr. Hermez , agreed to continue. Mr. Najjar asked Mr. Hermez if this operation will be where a game is played, tickets are received, and then turned in for the prize. Mr. Hermez stated yes. Mr. Kremhelmer asked Mr. Hermez what the hours of operation would be and what the anticipated clientele and any age requirements would be. Mr. Hermez stated that the hours of operation would be 11:00 A.M. to midnight. The anticipated clientele would be 18 and over unless accompanied by an adult. There also will be a staff member at the door to check IDs. Mr. Kremhelmer opened to public discussion. No participation. Motion by Najjar, supported by Militello, In the case PZBA14-0023 – Saif Hermez, 2071 Metropolitan Parkway, I move to APPROVE : 1) a use variance to permit a C-2 use in a C-1 (Amusement Device Center) zoning district; 2) to waive the requirement for on-site prepared food service; 3) to waive the requirement that food service seating area exceed area devoted to amusement devises 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 ordinances of the City Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 7 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 with 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. The following findings of fact are noted: 1. The use caters to customers over 18 years of age, and is not an arcade in the traditional use. 2. The tenant space is relatively small, totaling 870 square feet. 3. There are four existing food service tenants in the shopping center to adequately provide food services. Mr. Kremhelmer questioned if any there were any restrictions on the service of food/food delivery. Mr. Mende stated that there were no restrictions on food delivery. Mr. Kremhelmer opened for any other discussion on the motion. None Ayes: Najjar, Militello, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef, Kremhelmer Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion Approved. PZBA14-0024 – RICHARD E. VOGEL Variance requested to waive the 75% glass requirement for a sunroom which permits a 27’ rear yard setback. Southside of Brookings Drive between Avinger Dr and Saal Rd in Section 13. Property Address: 14356 Brookings Drive. Mr. Kremhelmer opened case for anyone associated with information on this case. Mr. Richard Vogel, petitioner – present, stated that he was unaware that a building permit was needed because of the already existing deck with a trellis. They started the building of the sunroom in September 2014. By the time it was in progress that is when he became aware permits were necessary. The glass installation that has been already completed does allow his wife, who has lupus, the ability to come outside and sit in a shaded area and anymore sunlight could prevent her from doing this. Mr. Kremhelmer did comment that a report has been provided by an engineering firm on the stability of sunroom. The report shows that the windows come down to a certain point and cannot come down any lower due to the way it was constructed and supported. Also, there are support beams in between the windows and the larger areas. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende why this sunroom is not looked at as an addition to the home. Mr. Mende stated this could be looked at either way. It could be as a variance to the sunroom glass requirements, as a variance for the rear yard setback. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 8 Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Vogel why the company building the sunroom didn’t know to pull permits, and to Mr. Mende if he was comfortable and satisfied with the reports submitted by the engineering company. Mr. Vogel stated the builder is a family friend. Mr. Mende stated that once it was known that permits were needed, Mr. Vogel was in touch with the building department immediately and also has a copy of the engineering structural report as well. Mr. Mende stated that he is satisfied with the report submitted. Mr. Kremhelmer asked Mr. Mende to explain a statement had the home been constructed as a mirror image no variance would be needed. Mr. Mende stated that the home is at the end of a cul-de-sac so if the home was reversed, the sunroom would be on the longer side of the lot line. Mr. Kremhelmer opened to public discussion. None Motion by Militello, supported by Wawrzyniak, In the case of PZBA14-0024 – Richard E. Vogel, 14356 Brookings, I move to APPROVE a variance to waive the 75% glass requirement for a sunroom 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 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 with 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. The following findings of fact are noted: 1. The sunroom extends no further than the previous deck. 2. The yard has an average depth of 134’. Had the home been constructed as a mirror image, no variance would be needed. Mr. Militello would also like to add to the following findings, a #3 that a medical condition is attached to this as well. Mr. Kremhelmer opened for discussion on the motion. None Ayes: Militello, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef, Kremhelmer, Najjar Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion Approved. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 9 PZBA14-0025 – NEW PAR dba VERIZON WIRELESS Request for a Use Variance to permit a cellular tower in an R-80 (One Family Residential) zoning district. Northwest corner of Dodge Park Road between Anna Lisa Dr. and 16 ½ Mile Rd. in Section 22. Property Address: 37535 Dodge Park Road Mr. Kremhelmer opened case for anyone associated with information on this case. Ben Varney, petitioner representing Verizon Wireless – present, 4700 Hunt Street Cassidy Michigan. Verizon Wireless is required by the FCC to provide coverage in all its territory so this is a coverage issue and this territory does not provide the adequate coverage. Mr. Varney also stated that he does have his attorney, Robert Labelle, with him and they have looked at anything in the residential area along with Utica School Systems and Imus Park to no avail. The location presented, Parkside Community Church, would have an 80’ tall monopole designed as a cross for the cellular antennas which provide no outside extending wires/antennas. Mr. Robert Labelle, representative for Verizon Wireless, 24242 Northwestern Highway Southfield. Mr. Labelle stated they are asking for this variance to place cellular service in this residential area, as this is the most non-residentially used property area in this residential zone. On this church property, they could install a tower on the site as a “stealth” application, a disguise, as a cross and in the provided information, a photo simulation of what the cross would exactly look like. The circumstance here is that to serve a residential area we have to place the tower somewhere in the vicinity. As a result, that creates a hardship on trying to find that location. Generally, cellular towers are regulated, along with requirements, from a number of sources including Federal Telecommunications Act, Federal Sequestration Act, and Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. Christopher Wilcox, Design Engineer for Verizon Wireless, explained the mapping, provided, with the proposed site and Verizon’s already existing signal coverage sites. He also explained the areas in color, red being bad coverage to green being good coverage. The mapping shows where the challenged sites are. Mr. Kremhelmer stated that they are not trying to affect / prohibit any coverage here but asked Mr. Labelle what the unique circumstances are and in this area, what is the radius they can go and provide the coverage they want. Mr. Labelle stated they have requirement under substantial law to provide coverage in an area and the search range is about a ¼ mile wide. He also stated that’s why it difficult to place these towers without causing other issues. He does understand the use variance and the unique characteristics to that property. The unique characteristic about this case is the Telecommunications Act that creates the circumstance. Mr. D’Angelo stated that the school district would have been financially compensated for this tower going up and they still didn’t want that revenue and then to Mr. Mende, if the church wanted to build an 80’ foot cross, would they need to appear in front of any board to do this. Mr. Labelle confirmed the school would have been compensated. Mr. D’Angelo was wondering if Mr. Mende could look up what the height variance might be. Mr. Graef asked Mr. Labelle how many other stealth towers have been put up, such as a cross. Mr. Labelle stated that several of these type towers exist, including a cross tower at I-275 and 8 Mile at the First Church of the Nazerne which is actually a lot taller than 80’. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 10 Mr. Mende stated that the information found and for the 80’ cross, forgetting about the cellular service, you would be looking at a 90’ front yard at a 100’ rear yard and a 100’ side yard. There are no dimensions brought forth by Verizon. Mr. D’Angelo stated so they could have an 80’ cross but would have to meet the setback requirements which answers his previous question on the height requirement, non-cellular cross. Mr. D’Angelo asked if they do know what the setbacks would be for the property lines. Mr. Labelle stated that all he knows is that all the setbacks are more than 80’. Mr. Kremhelmer stated that they are at the very rear back of the church property so they wouldn’t meet the rear setback requirement and doesn’t think they will meet the side requirement because they are right at the side of the park. Mr. D’Angelo stated that Verizon is 100’ from the rear of the property line per the paperwork submitted. Mr. Kremhelmer has concerns regarding the fence, propane tank, and barbwire around the tower and being so close to the park. Mr. Labelle mentioned that they are not at site approval stage yet so nothing has been considered, but definitely would look into something as 6’ tall evergreen trees around the area as well, as they have done before. Mr. Wawrzyniak to Mr. Labelle, for this use variance to allow a cell tower, if approved they could basically put anything up, any shape, or any size. And with technology changes, could there be any changes to this structure. Mr. Labelle stated that if approved with the condition that it had to be a cross, that would be fine with them and with the changes in technology, generally things get smaller not bigger and no visual changes would be made externally. If for some reason the cell tower becomes obsolete, they would be required to remove. Mr. Kremhelmer, talking with Mr. Mende, asked if the church has been approached with moving the cross closer to the church. Paster Doug Conley, 13135 Plumbrook, stated they originally had it further to the east, near the parking lot. When we approached the neighbors on that side to see how they felt about this, there were some objections to being so close to their backyards so they moved it further back. Mr. Kremhelmer opened up for any public discussion. Jeffrey Norgrove asked if they have to share with AT&T or any other companies and also on the generator, how often does this run and how loud will it be. Ralph Buganelli, 11538 Creekside Court, along with the entire Parkview Estates Complex, oppose the erection of a cell phone tower. He also submitted a signed petition of the residents opposing and also a diagram of actually how close this tower will be to their residence. Paul Smith asked if the money between the church and Verizon could be disclosed and the name of the church. Mr. Kremhelmer stated the amount of money cannot be disclosed. That would be between the church and Verizon and the name of the church is Parkside Community Church. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 11 Greg Hayes, 11502 Creekside Court, a Verizon customer who has also signed the petition Mr. Buganelli presented, is glad Verizon has done this study and he lives right in the red zone area and has never had dropped calls. Emily Pirozzo, resident, opposed and is concerned about the safety of the barriers around the tower. Erin Pepper, 11551 Creekside Ct, opposed. Mary Zimmerman, 11563 Creekside Court, asked the Board to take into consideration the children with special needs in this neighborhood. Doug Reith, 37396 Mario Drive, does not oppose having a cell tower in the area but asks the applicants what the closest distance from the tower to residence and if there have been any issues with that. If so, what are they are is there any recourse, such as sound problems and/or reception problems. Mr. Labelle addressed public’s questions. 1) They would have obligations to allow any of the other colocations, if asked, to go on their towers and vice versa. 2) They will have someone at site 1 -2 times per month to inspect the equipment and will run the generator every other month for about 15 or so minutes and would sound equivalent to an air conditioner. 3) Verizon is required to respond to complaints and they have to do what needs to be done. These towers cost approximately $400,000.00. We put them up because we are required to maintain for our license. 4) Suggestion of other sites were mentioned and Mr. Labelle stated that moving the sites closer to existing tower will cause interference or provide a permanent gap if they abut each other. This would only damage the signal structure. The sites are limited due to this. Mr. Wilcox, Design Engineer for 16 years with a degree in Electrical Engineering, stated they are required to run a study that is an FCC created document. The design submitted today showing the pinpointed area is derived by measured data and is a prediction plot. Mr. Varney stated on the suggestion of other sites, the engineers provide them with a search ring and ask to find a site within this ring. Once they work within that search ring and have candidates, they provide this information back to the engineers who then pinpoint the area we need based off maps such as the one submitted. Mr. Kremhelmer stated that it is then safe to say they have an optimum pinpointed site and work within that parameter where you can move, so within this perimeter, how many viable entities were there to talk to and did they talk to them all. Mr. Varney stated they talked to the school system, the city, the church and there were a few other churches that were not talked to. Mr. Najjar, even though he know that health issues are not the case here, but is wondering if there are any studies out there about health issues. Mr. Labelle stated that yes there are. The American Cancer Society has lots of them and also does the FCC website. Mr. Kremhelmer asked if any other discussion. No other discussions. Call to motion. Motion by Graef, supported by Militello, In the case of PZBA14-0025 – NEW PAR dba Verizon Wireless, 37535 Dodge Park Road, I move to APPROVE a cellular tower in an R-80 (One Family Residential) zoning district 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 Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 12 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. The following finding of fact is noted. 1. That based on the information, particularly the engineering study and search ring, there are limited options and we are in full support of it. Ayes: Graef, Militello, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion carried. PZBA14-0026 – ALLIED SIGNS Requesting Board approval to allow a variance to permit a second wall sign of 73 square feet - Northwest corner of 17 Mile and Van Dyke in Section 16. Property Address: 39333 Van Dyke. Mr. Kremhelmer opened case for anyone associated with information on this case. Don McPallazollo, representing Allied Signs for Concentra, 33650 Giftos Drive, stated that Concentra just recently moved to this location and they have a lack of identification at this time. They currently have a pylon sign but due to the setbacks, the sign needed to be moved back and does not give much visibility from the road. Concentra does have a wall sign but with the large apartment complex and the tree lines, it causes bad visibility spot. They are proposing a new cabinet wall sign to be placed with the other signage on the front of the building. Mr. Kremhelmer was by the property and doesn’t think this sign will do any good. He does not see the need for the extra sign for he spotted this company immediately. Mr. D’Angelo also stated he had no problem finding this business Mr. McPallazollo stated there are other businesses within the ½ mile with the same signage as what they are asking for and the business right across the street as well. Mr. Kremhelmer opened for public discussion. None Motion by Wawrzyniak, supported by Militello, to deny the requested variance for the following reasons: 1. Strict compliance would not unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose; 2. There are no unique circumstances of the property that would render conformity unnecessarily burdensome. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 13 Mr. Kremhelmer opened for any discussion on the motion. None Mr. Kremhelmer also opened up to Mr. McPallazollo if he wanted to postpone due to one member of the board not present. Mr. McPallozollo stated he would postpone and bring back the information Concentra and see what they wanted to do from here. Mr. Kremhelmer called for the motioner to withdraw the motion. Mr. Wawrzyniak withdrew his motion and Mr. Militello withdrew his support. Mr. Kremhelmer called for a motion to postpone to the February 26th meeting. Motion by Militello, supported by Najjar, In the case of PZBA14-0026 – Allied Signs, 39333 Van Dyke, I move to POSTPONE the request until the February 26th meeting. Ayes: Militello, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef, Kremhelmer Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion carried to postpone. PZBA14-0027 – ARLENE ARTIKIAN / ATCO INDUSTRIES, INC Requesting approval to allow a variance to permit a second ground sign of 25 square feet. Southwest corner of 15 Mile and Van Dyke in Section 33. Property Address: 7200 Fifteen Mile Road. Petitioner, Arlene Artikian, stated there is one existing sign which identifies the building in the rear and there is no sign to identify the new construction building. Mr. Kremhelmer stated he was by the property and there is a second sign there. Ms. Artikian stated that the second sign there now is not finished and they put the sign there thinking that the city wanted it but the city was requesting an address sign in the ground by the door. Mr. Kremhelmer asked if the city didn’t want it there, then why they didn’t remove it. He also asked if the 7200 sign is the sign that is not completed and if so, why can’t they place 7200 & 7300 on the same sign and be done with it. And then wouldn’t the one sign identify both properties. Mr. Artikian stated the sign was not removed since this just happened and yes the second sign is the 7200 sign. She also stated that these are 2 separate buildings and 2 separate locations and would not find it sensible to place both addresses on the same sign, but it could be done. Mr. D’Angelo asked petitioner if the new building is a part of the same business. He also asked Mr. Mende that no matter how many buildings they have on one property, they can only have one sign for this legal description correct and if so, could they share one sign and what would the size requirement be. Ms. Artikian stated that right now the businesses share the same name but do different things. Mr. Mende stated that is correct. Ordinance states there is only one ground sign per legal description. This is one lot, even though there are 2 building on one lot, it’s still one legal description therefore only one ground sign permitted and the buildings could share the same sign. The size is based on the amount of road frontage therefore, 150 square feet of ground sign would be allowed per the plot plan with a 15’ maximum height and setback 12 ft. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 14 Mr. Militello to Mr. Mende asked if she could put one sign on top of a sign. Mr. Mende stated yes she could as long as she doesn’t exceed the requirements for this sign. Mr. Kremhelmer asked Mr. Mende if the 150 square feet is the sign alone or with a base. Mr. Mende stated it would be just the sign itself. Mr. Kremhelmer opened for public discussion. None Mr. Kremhelmer offered the petitioner’s right to postpone to next month with a full board. Ms. Artikian stated no but did have drawings and explained them for the board which are in their packet as well. Mr. Kremhelmer asked why she didn’t get a permit for this second sign that was put in when she received one for the first one. Ms. Artikian stated the sign is all about design and she didn’t know about the variance and didn’t remember about the permit needed. Motion by Najjar, supported by D’Angelo, in the case of PZB14-0027, Arlene Artikian/ATCO Industries, 7200 Fifteen Mile Road, I move to DENY a variance to permit a second ground sign of 25 square feet for the following reasons: 1. Strict compliance would not unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted use; 2. There are no unique circumstances of the property that would render conformity unnecessarily burdensome. Mr. Kremhelmer opened up for any discussion on the motion. None Ayes: Najjar, D’Angelo, Kremhelmer, Wawrzyniak, Nays: Graef, Militello Absent: Washburn Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Militello, supported by Kremhelmer, to approve the minutes November 20, 2014. Ayes: Militello, Washburn, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef, Kremhelmer Nays: None Absent: Washburn Abstained: Mr. Najjar Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS Approval of the December 18, 2014 minutes. Motion by Militello, supported by Graef, to approve the minutes of December 18, 2014. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of January 22. 2015 Page 15 Ayes: Militello, Graef, Kremhelmer, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion carried. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Paul Smith, resident, discussed City Council rules and procedures. Mr. Kremhelmer asked for any other public discussion. None MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Militello, supported by Najjar, to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Ayes: Militello, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef, Kremhelmer Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Bruce Kremhelmer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals