Zoning Board of Appeals

STERLING HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL June 22, 2017 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held June 22, 2017. Mr. Graef called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present at roll call: Derek D’Angelo, Dale Deming, David Graef, Junina Jean, Stefano Militello, Pashko Ujkic, and Ray Washburn Members absent at roll call: None Also in attendance: Chris McLeod, City Planner Don DeNault, City Attorney APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to APPROVE the Agenda. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE None PZBA17-0009 – Kemp Building and Development Requesting board approval for a ten (10) foot variance to the required twenty (20) foot setback requirement for a parking lot in the TRO Technical Research Office District that abuts a residential property - West side of Mound Road, north of Metropolitan Parkway in Section 20. Property address: 37641 Mound Road Mr. Graef asked if the petitioner was present. The petitioner did not come forward. Motion by Mr. D’Angelo, supported by Mr. Militello, to POSTPONE case PZBA17-0009 to the second item on the agenda. Ayes: D’Angelo, Militello, Deming, Graef, Jean, Ujkic, Washburn Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. PZBA17-0010 – Michael DiCicco Requesting board approval for a modification of an existing nonconforming sign to allow for a thirty-two (32) square foot electronic message board to be installed - East side of Schoenherr Road, between Canal Road and Hall Road in Section 01. Property address: 43632 Schoenherr Road Mr. Graef asked Mr. McLeod to give an overview of the case. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow for the modification of an existing freestanding sign located at the Lakeview Square shopping center. The application, if approved, would allow for the bottom four panels of the sign to be removed and replaced with an equal sized electronic message board sign. Mr. Graef asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 22, 2017 Page 2 Mike DiCicco, one of the owners of the property, came forward to the podium. He explained replacing the bottom four panels of the current sign with an electronic message board would give his tenants’ business names more visibility. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. D’Angelo asked the petitioner if there was a brick base on the current sign. Mr. DiCicco stated it is something like aluminum. Mr. D’Angelo then asked if he would be willing to bring the base up to conform with current standards. Mr. DiCicco stated yes. Mr. D’Angelo asked if the ordinance allowed multiple panels to be used for a business more than once on the same sign. Mr. McLeod and Mr. DeNault stated there are no restrictions regarding that. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any further questions. Being none, he asked for any public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any other questions. Mr. Washburn asked the petitioner how long he has owned the center. Mr. DiCicco stated since 2011. Mr. Washburn asked Mr. McLeod if there was any prior action from the ZBA for the sign. Mr. McLeod stated he was not aware of any prior action but does not know for certain. Mr. D’Angelo asked if the Kroger gas station has an LED sign. Mr. Graef stated no, there is a “gas price” sign. Mr. Graef asked for any further questions. Being none, he asked for a motion. Motion by Mr. D’Angelo, supported by Mr. Militello, in the case of PZBA17-0010, Michael DiCicco, 43632 Schoenherr Road, I move to APPROVE the requested variance to allow the modification of an existing nonconforming sign to allow for the installation of a thirty- two (32) square foot electronic message board, for the following reasons: 1. First, the physical size of the overall sign is not being increased as a part of the requested variance. 2. Second, the actual sign area of the sign is not being increased as a part of the requested variance. 3. Third, the area which is proposed to be constructed with the electronic message board already contains four (4) individual tenant panels that will be removed. 4. Fourth, the subject freestanding sign is the only freestanding sign for the shopping center. The center has two frontages, one on Schoenherr Road and the other on Canal Road. 5. Fifth, the electronic message board, as proposed, would otherwise comply with the City’s requirements. 6. Sixth, all of the other requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variance will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Seventh, allowing the continuation of the nonconforming sign by allowing a modification for an electronic message board will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Eighth, the nonconforming sign as modified is not likely to significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 9. Ninth, the nonconforming sign was lawful at the time of its installation. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 22, 2017 Page 3 10. Tenth, no useful purpose would be served by strict application of the height requirement. 11. Eleventh, the modified sign will not have an adverse impact on adjoining property. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the information provided to the Board must remain accurate, and the approval of the variance and a Hold Harmless Agreement in favor of the City must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. These requirements will be provided to the petitioner in writing. Failure to follow these requirements will be grounds to revoke the variances. 2. Second, the petitioner must comply with the following conditions requested by the Office of Planning: a. The variances shall expire, without the need for any action by this Board, if the appropriate approvals are not sought and obtained within one (1) year. b. The approval of this variance shall not be a rationale for any future variance requests. c. Any additional variance requests may be grounds for the revocation or revision of the current variance application. 3. Third, the petitioner must comply with the following additional conditions: a. The petitioner would bring the sign into compliance with the two-foot brick base requirement. Mr. Graef asked for any discussion on the motion. Mr. Washburn asked Mr. McLeod if the current sign meets the twelve-foot setback. Mr. McLeod stated yes. Mr. Graef asked for any further questions/discussions. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: D’Angelo, Militello, Deming, Graef, Jean, Ujkic, Washburn Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. PZBA17-0009 – Kemp Building and Development Requesting board approval for a ten (10) foot variance to the required twenty (20) foot setback requirement for a parking lot in the TRO (Technical Research Office) District that abuts a residential property - West side of Mound Road, north of Metropolitan Parkway in Section 20. Property address: 37641 Mound Road Mr. Graef asked Mr. McLeod to give an overview of the case. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow for the construction of a 43,400 square foot light industrial office building on the existing 2.28 acre site. The intended use is for a high tech industrial user that should not have a significant amount of typically industrial impacts. The site will be used primarily for the programming and development of robotic devices. Mr. Graef asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 22, 2017 Page 4 Tom Kemp came forward to the podium. He explained they are asking for a reduction from a 20 feet greenbelt to a 10 feet greenbelt. When they started the process of laying out the site, there was an initial review (with Don) before Mr. McLeod reviewed it. After reviewing the site with Mr. McLeod, they realized they had gone down a path thinking their design met all the criteria. Since then, they have a tenant that meets the TRO District requirements. He stated they had conflicting reviews. He then stated with all the landscaping in the rear-yard, he doesn’t think it will be an issue. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. Militello asked Mr. McLeod if the separation wall should be 8 feet instead of 6 feet because this will be a big industrial building. He also asked if the sides of the building should be brick instead of metal. Mr. McLeod stated the requirement for separation walls is a maximum of 6 feet for a standard type development. He also explained the ordinance states the front façade of the building has to be brick then the remaining total of the building has to be 50 percent brick, block, or other masonry unit. He stated it is the right of the ZBA to require brick (or other) as a condition. Mr. D’Angelo asked if this facility will be producing robotics. He also asked approximately how many employees will be at the facility. Mr. Kemp stated the company produces an autonomous cart that is used in automotive assembly plants. He also stated there may be about 30 employees making up the entire staff. Mr. D’Angelo asked Mr. McLeod if the site would require 104 parking spaces with approximately 30 employees. Mr. McLeod explained the parking calculations for an industrial building. Mr. D’Angelo and Mr. McLeod discussed the possibility of “banking” parking spaces in the rear of the property. Mr. Deming asked Mr. Kemp the hours of operation. He stated if they would work on Sundays or have a second shift, it would be unreasonable to be next to residential. Mr. Kemp stated he believed it is a 9-5 type operation. He does not think they operate a second shift. Mr. McLeod explained how the tenant will be operating at this location. He stated after seeing the tenant’s main facility and talking with them, it will be a high tech, laboratory type setting and fits within the TRO District. Mr. D’Angelo stated he would propose not to build the back row of parking and asked if it were needed in the future, would that be done administratively or have to come before the Board again. Mr. McLeod stated it would be done administratively but if the ZBA wanted to see it, it could be added to the conditions of the motion. He explained if a new user went into the building, they would have to go through the use permit process administratively and the Planning Department would make sure the use complies. There was much discussion regarding how the current variance request would work and what the conditions would be if any were added. It was stated if the current variance was approved, parking spaces could be “banked” administratively. Mr. Militello again expressed concern for the material being used on the building. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 22, 2017 Page 5 Mr. McLeod stated he and Mr. Kemp had discussed making revisions to the materials being used. Mr. Kemp stated with all the landscaping going in, the residents would not be able to see the building. Mr. Ujkic asked Mr. DeNault if the ZBA is allowed to ask for modifications to the building at this time. Mr. DeNault stated yes, because reducing the greenbelt increases visibility. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any further questions. Being none, he asked for public participation. Michelle Clemens, 37727 Chase Run Dr., Sterling Heights came forward to the podium. She is concerned about the noise level since all the trees have been removed. Mr. Graef asked if there were any other public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any further comments, questions. Mr. McLeod explained where the masonry wall will be going up as well as all the landscaping. He also explained the noises are probably more right now because everything is wide open and once the sites are built and the landscaping goes in, the noises should lessen. Mr. Washburn asked Mr. McLeod to explain to the resident specifically how the landscaping and homes going in will buffer the noise. Mr. McLeod explained. There was discussion among the Board and Mr. McLeod regarding zoning and the surrounding area. Mr. Ujkic asked Mr. Kemp his intention of “banking” the rear parking spaces. Mr. Kemp stated if the variance was granted he would then go to the Planning Department and request to “bank” the rear parking spaces. Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. D’Angelo, in the case of PZBA17-0009, Kemp Building Development, 37641 Mound Road, I move to APPROVE the requested variance of 10 feet to allow parking within the required twenty (20) foot wide greenbelt against residential properties, for the following reasons: 1. First, the applicant has proposed a total of eighteen (18) deciduous and evergreen trees to be planted along the western property line, 2. Second, the applicant is providing the required six (6) foot tall screen wall along the western property line, 3. Third, the building as proposed will be a minimum of sixty-eight (68) feet from the western property line. 4. Fourth, the site to the west, Fox Pointe Site Condominiums, has an approved site plan which requires a total of twenty-three (23) trees to be planted along the mutual property line of the developments. 5. Fifth, the TRO Technical Research Office District does not permit the outdoor storage of materials. 6. Sixth, all of the other requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variance will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the information provided to the Board must remain accurate, and the approval of the variance and a Hold Harmless Agreement in favor of the City must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. These requirements will be provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 22, 2017 Page 6 petitioner in writing. Failure to follow these requirements will be grounds to revoke the variances. 2. Second, the petitioner must comply with the following conditions requested by the Office of Planning: a. The variances shall expire, without the need for any action by this Board, if the appropriate approvals are not sought and obtained within one (1) year. b. The approval of this variance shall not be a rationale for any future variance requests. c. Any additional variance requests may be grounds for the revocation or revision of the current variance application. 3. Third, the doors along the western facade shall remain closed, with the exception of times that deliveries are being made (The Zoning Board of Appeals may also wish to determine acceptable hours of operation for deliveries). 4. Fourth, no deliveries shall be made after 9 p.m. 5. Fifth, prior to site plan approval the petitioner will submit, administratively, to the Planning Department a request to “bank” the parking spaces along the western property line. In its place, the new site plan will depict a greenbelt, to be approved administratively, in a similar fashion to what is already being proposed with the understanding that any revisions to that must be re-evaluated by a petition to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Graef asked for any discussion on the motion. Mr. Washburn asked Mr. Kemp about the loading and unloading that will take place in the back of the building. Mr. Kemp stated regular delivery type trucks like a semi-truck. Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. D’Angelo, to AMEND by adding #4 to the conditions. There was discussion regarding the process of banking the parking spaces between the Board and Mr. DeNault. Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. D’Angelo, to AMEND by adding #5 to the conditions. Mr. Graef asked for any further discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Ujkic, D’Angelo, Washburn, Deming, Graef, Jean, Militello Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. D’Angelo, to APPROVE minutes for the March 23, 2017 meeting. Ayes: Ujkic, D’Angelo, Deming, Jean, Militello Nays: None Absent: None Abstained: Graef and Washburn Motion Carried Motion by Mr. Deming, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to APPROVE minutes for the April 27, 2017 meeting. Ayes: Deming, Ujkic, Graef, Jean, Washburn, D’Angelo Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of June 22, 2017 Page 7 Nays: None Absent: None Abstained: Militello Motion Carried NEW BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to ADJOURN . Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, D’Angelo, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: None Motion Carried Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. David Graef, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals