Zoning Board of Appeals

STERLING HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL May 28, 2015 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held May 28, 2015. Mr. D’Angelo called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present at roll call: Derek D’Angelo, David Graef, Stefano Militello, Nick Najjar, Aaron Wawrzyniak Members absent at roll call: Bruce Kremhelmer, Excused Raymond Washburn, Excused Also in attendance: Donald Mende, City Planner Don DeNault, City Attorney Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende if Mr. Bruce Kremhelmer is being marked as excused or if his resignation has been accepted. Mr. Mende stated that Mr. Bruce Kremhelmer’s resignation has been accepted and City Council has nominated a replacement for him at his last meeting so we will just remove him from the roll call. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Militello, supported by Najjar, to approve the agenda. Ayes: Militello, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE None PZBA15-0008 – JOHN DAMRATH, DAMRATH GROUP, LLC Requesting Board approval for a variance to allow a second ground sign. East side of Schoenherr Road between Canal Road and Southcove Drive in Section 1. Property Address: 43632 Schoenherr Road. Mr. D’Angelo opened the case for Mr. Mende to provide background on this case. Mr. Mende stated that the request from Mr. John Damrath representing Kroger Corporation is to allow a second ground sign on the property located at Schoenherr Road just north of Canal Road. The petitioner has been approved by the Planning Commission for the approval of a new Kroger Gas facility and this is in concert with their expansion currently underway. The Zoning Ordinance does permit one ground sign per legal description and on the site plan the existing shopping center owner is spitting off and selling a portion of the property to Kroger. As a result, the existing shopping center, ground sign will now be technically on Kroger’s property, therefore a variance is required to allow a second ground sign on one lot. The shopping center is allowed two ground signs because they do have two road frontages Canal and Schoenherr Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of May 28, 2015 Page 2 Road. They are only proposing to have the one ground sign and not intending to add another ground sign on Canal Road so they still will be within their limits of two signs for this corner. Mr. D’Angelo opened the case for the Petitioner associated with this case. Mr. John Damrath, Damrath Group LLC, representing Kroger Corporation asked the Commissioners if they had any questions because Mr. Mende stated exactly what this request is for. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Damrath if he could give some information on the sign that they would like to put up. Mr. Damrath stated that the sign is approximately 30 square feet in size, the overall height is a little over 8 feet and the width being 7 feet. Mr. Damrath also presented a exhibit of the sign. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende if there was a second sign on Canal Road, how many square feet can that sign be in size. Mr. Mende stated that the square footage for the sign is based on the amount of frontage. You’re allowed one square foot of sign for every two foot of road frontage and an example is if there is 150 foot of road frontage, a 75 square foot road sign is allowed. Mr. D’Angelo stated that it looks as if they have roughly 200 feet on Canal. Mr. Mende stated that at a 216 dimension, they would be allowed 108 square foot of sign. Mr. D’Angelo opened up for any questions from the commissioners. Mr. DeNault, City Attorney, asked who is going to own the existing Lakeview Plaza going forward, Lakeview Plaza or Kroger? Chris Rogers, Real Estate Manager for Kroger, stated that once the property is closed on, there is going to be a reciprocal easement agreement in place between the shopping center property and the Kroger Fuel Station. There will be cross easements for utilities and cross access, so even though the properties are separate ownerships, they still will be tied together as one integrated shopping center. He also stated that under this reciprocal easement agreement, the sign will be the shopping centers and maintained by the shopping center owner. Mr. DeNault stated the reason he raised the question was that Mr. Mende mentioned that the shopping center is entitled to two ground signs but if this is not going to be on the shopping center’s property after the closing, are they still going to be entitled to two? Mr. Mende stated the shopping center will no longer have frontage along Schoenherr Road but will have their frontage along Canal Road. The Kroger facility will have the frontage on Schoenherr. Mr. Militello mentioned that if he remembers correctly, that one of the Planning Commission’s conditions were that the shopping center was to be brought up to code. Mr. Mende stated that bringing the shopping center up to code was one of the conditions placed by the Planning Commission, which is currently underway. Mr. D’Angelo asked that if this request was to be approved, would the still be able to put up a sign on Canal Road. Mr. Mende stated that they cannot. They have indicated that they will forego the any signage along Canal Road. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of May 28, 2015 Page 3 Mr. D’Angelo stated that would be a matter of record tonight that would go along with variance if it is granted. Mr. DeNault asked if the existing sign is abandoned in the future, does it then become owned by Kroger. Who is going to own the existing monument sign at the plaza? Mr. Rogers stated that the existing monument sign for the shopping center is and will continue to be owned by the shopping center owner. Mr. DeNault stated that for the record, if the existing sign is ever abandoned, it will not be Kroger’s right to use and maintain for an additional Kroger sign. Mr. Rogers stated that is correct and that Kroger has no rights to the sign per the agreement and Kroger’s is just looking for a sign for the pricing of their fuel. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. DeNault if he is satisfied with these statements as just a matter of record and they wouldn’t need to be a condition to the variance. Mr. DeNault stated that he is satisfied that the record has now been clarified as to the facts presented. Mr. D’Angelo opened the case for any public questions. None. Mr. D’Angelo asked if any further questions from the Board or a motion. Motion by Militello, supported by Najjar, in the case of PZBA15-0008, John Damrath, Damrath Group LLC, 43632-43738 Schoenherr Road, to approve a variance to allow a second ground sign, with the following conditions: 1. 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 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. The Notice shall be filed for both the existing parent parcel and the parcel ultimately created for the fuel center; 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 Agreement shall be filed for both the existing parent parcel and the parcel ultimately created for the fuel center; 4. That the petitioner shall develop, maintain, and operate 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 finding of facts is noted: 1. The total square footage of ground signage is less than what is permitted under the ordinance; Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of May 28, 2015 Page 4 2. The total number of ground signs does not exceed ordinance standards. Ayes: Militello, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion Carried. PZBA15-0009 – CUETER-RYAN PROPERTIES, LLC Requesting Board approval: 1) to allow detached housing units in an RM-2 (Multiple Family Low Rise) zoning district; 2) a Use Variance to allow an RM-2 use in a C-1 (Local Convenience Business) zoning district; 3) to waive public sidewalks within the public street right-of-way. Southwest corner of Ryan Road and Dobry in Section 6. Property Address: 3500-3700 Dobry Drive & 44531-44697 Ryan Road. Mr. D’Angelo opened the case for Mr. Mende to provide background on this case. Mr. Mende stated that this property, for the most part, is zoned RM-2 (Multiple Family Low Rise) and located on the west side of Ryan Road just south of Dobry Drive. The petitioner is looking for 3 variances. The first one is to allow detached housing units in an RM-2 zoning district. The ordinance did not contemplate detached housing units in a multiple family zoning district. The multiple family specifically discusses attached units and typically developers will want to maximize density. In this case, the petitioner would like to do a detached site condominium development proposing 53 units while the zoning would permit upwards of 110 units. The second variance being requested is a Use Variance and would require 5 affirmative votes from the Board. The request is to allow an RM-2 use in a C-1 zoning district. This request is due to the fact that a small sliver of C-1 zoned property, which is owned by the petitioner, extends into the condominium proposal. This odd shaped piece simply followed old property lines when the City Council approved a zoning change in 2001. The third variance relates to public sidewalks. The zoning ordinance does permit a variety of instances where public walks/sidewalks can be waived throughout developments but because this is just a traditional RM-2 zoning district the flexibility is not there. Therefore the petitioner is looking to waive that sidewalk requirement as well. Mr. Mende stated that he did receive one phone call regarding the third variance from a property owner who lives in the condominium complex located to the south. The owners concern is that there will be sidewalks along Ryan Road. Mr. Mende stated that there will be sidewalks installed along Ryan Road continuing the major street system walkway. Mr. Mende did talk with the property owner and explaining the situation and stated the property owner is fine with his explanation. Mr. D’Angelo opened the case for the Petitioner associated with this case. Petitioner, Mr. Cueter, 43181 Schoenherr Road in Sterling Heights, stated that he would like to give a detailed description on where the property is located. The petitioner’s drawings for parcel shape, dimensions, and building location and site plan have been submitted. Existing zoning and land uses nearby include RM-2 zoning to the south which is development with The Preserves Apartments/Condominiums. To the north, the property is zoned C-1 and is vacant. To the east across Ryan Road, the property is zoned Rm-2 and developed with the Arbors North Condominiums and the Aberdeen Gardens Condominiums. Mr. Cueter stated that they own the property in question, which is in the RM-2 zoning district, and as Mr. Mende explained, it is setup for higher density uses, up to about 11 units per acre and they are contemplated about 5 units per acre. What they are proposing is somewhat similar to the existing surrounding sites. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of May 28, 2015 Page 5 Mr. Cueter also touched base on the variance to waive public sidewalks, and stated that the zoning ordinances in the city allow developments to waive the sidewalk requirement but for the RM-2 it’s not contemplated here. Mr. D’Angelo opened up for any questions from the commissioners. Mr. Militello asked Mr. Cueter if he will be building these sites or selling off to another builder. Mr. Cueter stated he will be building it. Mr. Najjar asked Mr. Mende that if the Board does approve the waiving of the public sidewalks, in the future, who will be responsible to build the sidewalk. Mr. Mende stated that Mr. Cueter did discuss this and Mr. Cueter will be adding a deed restriction or they can have that in the deed restrictions, that there will be no sidewalks and all property owners that buy in this development will be on notice right up front that sidewalks are not intended for this development. Mr. Wawrzyniak asked Mr. Cueter if the other roads, in the other 2 properties examples are public or private roads. Mr. Cueter stated that one has public roads and the other has private roads. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Cueter why he is doing such a smaller less dense development in the RM-2 when what is allowed is much greater. Mr. Cueter stated it gets complicated but the primary reason is that there is a market for smaller homes and in the last few years, the lending laws have changed and so today, in order to get financing on an attached condominium project, there are certain thresholds that need to be achieved of completion of the project. Under the law, in order to get a conventional loan, the project has to be 80% complete. The next is a FHA approval which takes time and ends up having to achieve other certain thresholds of completion. Mr. Cueter stated that the lending side just gets completed on attached condominiums. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Cueter, pertaining to the other vacant property around the proposed development owned by Mr. Cueter, if there are going to be any connections into this proposed property right now and what are the intentions for the other vacant areas. He is asking this regarding the sidewalks on whether they will be needed or not. Mr. Cueter stated the property is zoned RM-2 and so there are several options available and there is no set plan yet for the vacant areas. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende when sidewalks would not be required in developments in the city and also if there have been any issues with any developments that sidewalks do not exist. Mr. Mende stated that there are a number of instances. In a platted subdivision, with lots on a cul-de-sac that does not exceed 500 feet and in a one-family cluster development, those are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mende also stated that there have not been any issues. Mr. Militello stated that from what Mr. Cueter is saying is true and himself and Mr. Najjar can attest to that being in real estate. Mr. Militello feels that the market will be a huge market for detached condos with that square footage along with people having ownership and also feels that the sidewalks would not make a difference. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Cueter about the market and what he has found pertaining to the market. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of May 28, 2015 Page 6 Mr. Cueter showed a map of the area and stated all the projects surrounding have sidewalks. What he has found there is not a particular need for the sidewalks since this is a condominium and they take care of all the maintenance and it is also the appearance. Mr. D’Angelo opened the case for any public discussion. Ms. Janice Paradise lives in The Preserve complex and is wondering if it is an apartment complex being built. Mr. Mende stated that the discussion of a new apartment complex is not part of the proposal this evening. This proposal is strictly for detached condominium units. The developer of The Preserves complex, which is where Mr. Paradise lives however, is proposing a 3rd phase that will be located at the north end with the access off of Dobry Drive. Mr. Graef asked if each variance being requested will be voted on or as a whole. Mr. Mende stated that he would recommend voting on each separately since item #2 is a Use Variance and requires five affirmative votes. Mr. Militello asked if each motion has to be gone through. Mr. Mende stated that as for the conditions of approval you can read the motion the first time and make reference to it in subsequent motions. Motion by Militello, supported by Najjar, in Case PZBA15-0009 - Cueter-Ryan Properties, LLC, 3500-3700 Dobry Drive and 44531-44697 Ryan Road, approve variance #1 with the following conditions: 1. 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 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 and comply with the site plan review requirements and develop, maintain and operate 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 finding of facts is noted: 1. The area impacted by the Use Variance is approximately 0.22 acres in size; 2. The total number of residential housing units does not exceed ordinance standards, and is actually half of what could be developed as RM-2; Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of May 28, 2015 Page 7 3. The density is more in keeping with an R-60 (One Family Residential) development. Ayes: Militello, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion Carried. Motion by Militello, supported by Graef, in Case PZBA15-0009 - Cueter-Ryan Properties, LLC, 3500-3700 Dobry Drive and 44531-44697 Ryan Road, approve variance #2 with the following conditions and findings in fact as read in the last motion. Ayes: Militello, Graef, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo Nays: None Absent: Washburn, Excused. Motion Carried. Motion by Militello, supported by Najjar, in Case PZBA15-0009 - Cueter-Ryan Properties, LLC, 3500-3700 Dobry Drive and 44531-44697 Ryan Road, approve variance #3 with the following conditions and findings in fact as read in the last motion. Ayes: Militello, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion Carried. PZBA15-0011 – MICHAEL ANTOON YALDO Requesting Board approval for a 20’ front yard variance. Northeast corner of Ryan Road and Seventeen Mile Roads in Section 7. Property Address: 4043 Seventeen Mile Road. Mr. D’Angelo opened the case for Mr. Mende to provide background on this case. Mr. Mende stated that this shopping center, Kato Plaza, is located on the Northeast corner of Ryan Road. The plaza was built in the early 1980s and does conform with all the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance however, the petitioner is the new owner of the building and there are no vacancies in the plaza and even though it meets the parking requirements, there has been a large demand based on the tenant mix. The petitioner has approached the City requesting additional parking be added and that parking is located on the north side of Seventeen Mile Road and does encroach into the minimum front yard set back by the distance of 20 feet. If approved by the Board, it would still need to go to through the Administrative Site Plan review process and reviewed by the Engineering Department and additional landscaping is proposed to increase the aesthetics of the front yard setback areas. Mr. Mende stated that this has been a Code Enforcement issue as well because of the demand for parking and traffic on the property. There have been some code issues where patrons have been driving on the grass and the additional parking would eliminate this. Mr. D’Angelo opened the case for the Petitioner associated with this case. Frank Salama, Architect for the petitioner, presented the drawing for parcel shape, dimensions, and building location. Mr. Najjar stated that he shops at this plaza and is aware of the visitors at that plaza. He has noticed that there is a problem entering from Seventeen Mile Road and backing up. He stated that the grass is indeed damaged and he is in favor of this proposal. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of May 28, 2015 Page 8 Mr. Graef asked Mr. Mende about the Code Enforcement issues. He would like to know if the issues are with the landscaping or with the traffic. He would also like to know if there are any plans for a ‘No Left Turn” sign coming into the parking lot because he is familiar with the intersection and it’s a big problem with people crossing over the double yellow lines to make their left hand turn onto Ryan Road from Seventeen Mile Road. Mr. Mende stated the Code Enforcement issues thus far have not been related to vehicles turning into the shopping center. They have been more towards the landscaping. If there were to be any traffic signage, that would need to go thru a 2 step process with the City Council. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende about the other plaza east of this. Has this been looked at for a reciprocal parking agreement with that owner? Mr. Salama, stated that he has not. Mr. Najjar commented that opening that up to the other plaza east would be a problem since their parking is minimum as well. Mr. Mende stated that connecting these two parking lots would not do anything for this proposal and its parking issue. Mr. D’Angelo stated that his question was actually referring to Mr. Graef’s question and not looking as an alternative to this proposal just an addition to this to help eliminate some of the crowding in this area. Mr. Mende stated that this will still need to go for site plan approval and could definitely be looked at during that stage of the review process. Mr. Wawrzyniak stated that his concern with adding the additional parking is the headlights that would shine onto Seventeen Mile Road and feels that the landscaping is not the correct kind of landscaping to shield the headlights from Seventeen Mile Road. Mr. Mende stated that they would require a landscaping plan to be submitted with the parking lot site plan. Certainly a low hedge/shrub would be ideal here. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende that this would be looked at if passed. Mr. Mende stated yes. Mr. D’Angelo opened for public discussion. Mr. Lombardini, resident of Sterling Heights, is in favor of this proposal and wanted to note that he seems to recall that the parking lot next to this plaza is a different altitude and would only create a steep incline. Mr. D’Angelo opened up for any additional questions from the commissioners. None Motion by Najjar, supported by Militello, in Case PZBA15-0011 – Michael Antoon Yaldo, 4043 Seventeen Mile Road, to approve a 20’ variance to the front yard setback, with the following conditions: 1. 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 Regular Meeting of May 28, 2015 Page 9 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 and comply with the site plan review requirements and develop, maintain and operate 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 finding of facts is noted: 1. The center is fully leased and limited parking creates on site congestion. 2. The landscaping will be increased and improved in the front yard areas. Ayes: Najjar, Militello, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion Carried. PZBA15-0014 – CHRISTOPHER P. STEPHENS Requesting Board approval for a Use Variance to permit a boat dealership in the PCD (Planned Center District) zone. Northwest corner of Van Dyke and 14 Mile Road in Section 33. Property Address: 33631 Van Dyke Avenue. Mr. D’Angelo opened the case for Mr. Mende to provide background on this case. Mr. Mende stated this is a Use Variance to permit a boat dealership in the PCD (Planned Center District). PCDs are typically the much larger shopping centers located on high traffic thoroughfare approved by the Planning Commission and then ultimately City Council. This property has gone through a couple of ownership/tenant changes and this particular building is approximately 26,000 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance has some specific uses that are allowed and some prohibited in the PCD zone. The Petitioner is proposing a boat dealership and this does fall into one of those prohibited uses however, there will be no boats stored outside outdoor storage and all sales will be done indoors. Mr. D’Angelo opened the case for the Petitioner associated with this case. Phil Ruggeri, 43241 Schoenherr Road in Sterling Heights also has with him Mr. Stevens, the petitioner and the principle of the boat company and the owner of the property for the Grace Christian Church, Pastor Jerry Wienzierl. Mr. Ruggeri stated as Mr. Mende outlined, the ordinance is not meant to prohibit this type of use, they were contemplating the outdoor storage and display of the vehicles, in this instance, boats. Everything will be contained within the building itself the business has been around for 47 years and are located in the Lansing area and would like to expand into the Greater Detroit area. Mr. D’Angelo opened up for any questions from the commissioners. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of May 28, 2015 Page 10 Mr. Graef would like to know how many boats will be kept on site and if display models will be onsite. He would also like to know where the inventory will be stored when the consumers buy a boat and they get delivered. Where will these boats be stored until the owner picks it up? Mr. Ruggeri turned it over to the petitioner, Mr. Christopher Stevens. Mr. Stevens stated that the majority of their boats are stored in Lansing and this facility will house about 50 – 60 boats and the delivery/storage will still all be done from Lansing. Mr. Wawrzyniak asked the petitioner if there will be any type of boat maintenance or repair shop onsite and if any used boats will be sold. Mr. Stevens stated that there will be no repair or maintenance done at this facility and yes that used boats will be sold. Mr. Militello asked Mr. Mende if they would be able to use the fenced in area on the side of the building to store boats. Mr. Mende stated that they would not if the fenced in area is outside the building. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende or Mr. DeNault if it would be possible for this dealership to hold outdoor events with a display of boats outside, such as a boat show, where it would attract people to the community. Mr. D’Angelo would hate to restrict this but at the same time, can’t give carte blanch to do it whenever they want. Mr. Mende stated that the zoning ordinance does have a section regarding temporary uses, where property owners are allowed through a temporary use permit through the planning office to have special sales and special events throughout the year. If the Board does not want to restrict a special event we could add that. The intent here was permanent outdoor storage and we don’t want to preclude him from taking advantage of the ordinance that allows all businesses to apply for and receive a temporary use permit as long as they are in conformance with all the other provisions of the ordinance. These special events are also limited to specific time periods. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. DeNault for the wording on this for the findings in facts. Mr. DeNault stated that he suggests if this is the intention, there are two ways to go about it. First, they would have to come back in front of the Board if they had an event in mind or, he would use language to the effect of “motion to approve the Use Variance subject to an exception for an approved special event as provided by City’s Zoning Ordinance and all other City’s approvals pursuant to that process”. Mr. Najjar asked Mr. DeNault if there can be a limit placed on the approvals for special events. Mr. DeNault stated yes if they wanted to do that. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. Mende if there are any Administrative limits on this. Mr. Mende stated the Zoning Ordinance does limit temporary uses to a maximum of 6 months in a calendar year however, each individual event is reviewed on its own merits and decision is made on whether that duration is reasonable and acceptable for the use being proposed. Mr. D’Angelo opened the case for any public discussion. None and called for motion. Motion by Militello, supported by Najjar, in Case PZBA15-001 – Christopher P. Stevens, 33631 Van Dyke, to approve a Use Variance with the following conditions: Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of May 28, 2015 Page 11 1. 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 develop, maintain and operate 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 finding of facts is noted: 1. There will be no outdoor displays or storage of boats/equipment with the exception of granting them approval through administrative channels. The intent of the approval is not to preclude them from taking advantage of what the ordinance already allows. 2. The intent of this zoning district is to promote high intensity, multi-purpose centers. Mr. D’Angelo asked for any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion and Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. DeNault if he was satisfied with the wording. Mr. DeNault answered that he is. Ayes: Militello, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Graef Nays: None Absent: Washburn Motion Carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Militello, supported by Wawrzyniak, to approve the minutes of the March 26, 2015 Ayes: Militello, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo, Najjar Nays: None Abstained: Graef, was absent at the March 26, 2015 meeting. Absent: Washburn, Excused. Motion Carried. NEW BUSINESS Mr. D’Angelo stated there was no new business but would like to make sure that everyone received Mr. Kremhelmer’s letter of resignation and would personally like to thank him for his services. The Zoning Board members all wished Mr. Kremhelmer luck. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of May 28, 2015 Page 12 OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mr. Lombardini, resident of Sterling Heights, would like to know the criteria on which the Board can grant variances and are these rules imposed by City Council or does the Board impose these on themselves. Mr. D’Angelo stated it can become complicated but it really comes down to the State. A lot of the criteria that allows the Board to use to grant or not grant a variance in each case has to be judged on its own merit and asked Mr. DeNault for his comments. Mr. DeNault stated that this is a lengthy subject but the general principal is supposed to be that City Council has zoned the city a certain way with a zoning map and it has been adopted in the Zoning Ordinance criteria which the Board is to evaluate in determining whether or not to deviate from the zoning conditions or that zoning map. There are several variances that the Board can issue and a number of different powers, most of which are set by the State, but the City’s ordinance govern them more directly and the Board brings their experiences to the table. In addition, they base their decision on their own interpretations as well as the presentation made to them. They ultimately make their decision as to whether or not the record presented supports the criteria that are in the ordinance. Mr. DeNault encourages anyone to look it up in the City Ordinance which is all on the City’s website in the Zoning Ordinance section. Mr. D’Angelo asked for any other public discussion. None. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Militello, supported by Graef, to adjourn. Ayes: Militello, Graef, Najjar, Wawrzyniak, D’Angelo Nays: None. Absent: Washburn Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:23 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Derek B. D’Angelo, Vice Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals