Zoning Board of Appeals

STERLING HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL February 22, 2018 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held February 22, 2018. Mr. Graef called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present at roll call: Dale Deming, David Graef, Junina Jean, Stefano Militello, Pashko Ujkic, and Ray Washburn Members absent at roll call: Derek D’Angelo - Excused 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, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE None PZBA17-0030 – Phillips Sign & Lighting, Inc. – Beaumont Hospital Requesting board approval for the following variances: 1) to allow a temporary sign of approximately two hundred (200) square feet, 2) a variance of approximately one hundred and twelve (112) square feet for additional wall signage, 3) a modification of an existing variance BZ08-019 which would result in less square footage of site signage, and 4) a variance to allow four (4) additional directional signs within the parking lot area. Current Zoning: O-3 – High-Rise Commercial Service Location: East side of Dequindre Road, north of Nineteen Mile Road in Section 6 Property address: 44250, 44300, 44344 and 44378 Dequindre 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 four variances. This includes modifications to the existing permanent freestanding signs, additional wall signs on the columns supporting the crosswalk, and modifications to existing directional signage. The applicant has also requested a 200 sq. foot temporary sign to be displayed for two weeks in May. Mr. Graef asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Jake Meadows from Beaumont Hospital 44201 Dequindre Rd, Marley Dryer from Beaumont Hospital Corporate, and Ed Phillips from Phillips Sign & Lighting came to the podium. Mr. Meadows stated as part of the branding effort they are updating their signage and this will also be beneficial to help direct people around the campus. Ms. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 2 Dryer stated the temporary pink heart sign is a sign that is traveling to all the different Beaumont campuses as a campaign to raise awareness for women’s heart health. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. Deming asked Mr. McLeod if the wall signs will be illuminated. Mr. McLeod answered yes. Mr. Graef asked for any further questions from the Board. Being none, he asked for public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any questions or a motion. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Deming, in the case of PZBA17-0030 Beaumont Hospital, Phillips Sign and Lighting Inc., 44300 Dequindre, I move to APPROVE each of the following requests submitted by the petitioner: 1) a variance to allow a temporary sign of approximately two hundred (200) square feet, 2) a variance of approximately one hundred and twelve (112) square feet for two (2) additional permanent wall signs, 3) a modification of an existing variance BZ08-019 which would result in less square footage of site signage, and 4) a variance to allow modifications to the existing directional signs within the parking lot area. For the following reasons: 1. All of the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variances will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. For Variance #1: 2. Increasing the temporary sign area requirements in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the sign will only be located onsite for a period of two (2) weeks, the site has approximately 2,000 feet of frontage, and the proposed location of the sign is in front of a building that is over three (3) stories in height. 3. The increase in the temporary sign area requirements will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4. No useful purpose would be served by strict application of this size requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The temporary sign will not have an immediate adverse impact on any adjoining property. 6. The sign will face the Beaumont Hospital property located on the west side of Dequindre Road and the site has no other neighbors proximate to the sign. For Variance #2: 7. Allowing the additional wall signage in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the site is utilized for medical and/or emergency purposes and will help provide direction to a major medical facility, and that currently there are no wall signs that specifically depict the building as being a Beaumont building. 8. The increased allowance in the wall signage will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 9. No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the area requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 3 10. The increase in wall signage will not have an adverse impact on any adjoining property. 11. The site only has two wall signs that face the public roadway, one on the north end of the building and one on the south end, and neither indicate the building as being a Beaumont building. 12. The overall size and height of the building is unique within the City. For Variance #3: 13. Decreasing the overall square footage as permitted in the previous variance decision will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the overall sign area for the signage will come closer to complying with Zoning Ordinance requirements, the signs will be more clearly understood and easily identifiable, and the two (2) signs represent the only freestanding signs for over 2,000 feet along the Dequindre Road frontage. 14. The decrease in the overall square footage of signage as permitted in the previous variance decision will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 15. No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the previously approved maximum size granted by the variance in 2008. 16. The decrease in the overall square footage as permitted in the previous variance decision will not have an immediate adverse impact on any adjoining property. For Variance #4: 17. A variance to allow modifications to the existing directional parking lot signs in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the signs will serve a medical purpose that is important to the operations at the site. 18. The modifications to the directional parking lot signs will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 19. No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the requirements governing the proposed directional parking lot signs. 20. The modification to the existing directional parking lot signs will not have an adverse impact on any adjoining property. 21. The signs are not visible to the general public along Dequindre Road, do not contain any advertising, and only consist of a modification of the lighting of the signs and changes to color, text, and font size. 22. The size and configuration of Dequindre Road is also justification for the variances. This motion includes the following conditions: 1) First, the Conditions of Approval, which were signed by the petitioner and submitted with the application, must be followed. Failure to follow these requirements will be grounds to revoke the variance. 2) Second, the petitioner must comply with the following conditions requested by the Office of Planning. a. The variances and variance modifications 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 these variances and modifications 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 variances and modifications granted here. d. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the Zoning Board of Appeals decision could be grounds for the revocation of the variances. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 4 e. The applicant must work with the Office of Planning to provide additional plantings at the base of the columns supporting the covered crosswalk. f. The applicant must work with the Office of Planning to provide replacement trees at a rate of one to one for any trees that are removed to accommodate the installation of the wall signs. g. All appropriate permits for the permanent, as well as, temporary signs must be applied for and obtained prior to installation. This shall also include compliance with all typical conditions and requirements of such permits. Mr. Graef asked for any discussion on the motion. Mr. McLeod suggested adding reason #22. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Deming to AMEND motion by adding reason #22. Mr. Graef asked for any further discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Deming, Ujkic, Washburn, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion carried. PZBA18-0001 – United Methodist Church Requesting board approval for the following variances: 1) a variance of six (6) feet which if grant would allow for a permanent freestanding sign to be located six (6) feet from the front property line, 2) a variance of five (5) inches which if granted would allow a freestanding sign that is a total of 7.4 feet in height in a residential district, 3) a variance of twenty (20) percent which if granted would allow an electronic message board that is fifty three (53) percent of the sign area, 4) a variance of eleven (11) feet which if granted would allow a freestanding sign of approximately forty-three (43) square feet in size. Current Zoning: R-60 One Family Residential Location: Southwest side of Canal Road, northwest of Leslie Drive in Section 3 Property address: 8650 Canal Road Mr. Graef asked Mr. McLeod to give an overview of the case. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicants are proposing the construction of a freestanding sign for their place of worship. The proposed sign has a total height of approximately 7 ½ feet and is slightly less than 43 square feet in area. The sign is proposed to include a static message as well as a LED message display. This request includes four variances. Mr. Graef asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Haitham Sitto, Engineer for Sitto Industries and Max Light LED Signs, came to the podium. He stated he was accompanied by neighboring people of the church. He explained they can reduce the height of the sign to bring into compliance of seven 7 feet. He also explained the LED sign will be equipped with a photo sensor. He stated this will keep the sign within 3% of the ambient light so there will not be any glaring light. The sign will be static, which means there will be no motion, flashing, or scrolling of any sort. He also explained the sign purchased by the church has extremely high resolution which will make any image look like a picture instead of a group of dots. The church wants to be a good neighbor and does not want the sign to be an issue for the neighbors in any way. They are also willing to turn the sign off at a particular time. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. Washburn stated there is an existing reader board sign that will taken down. He also asked the petitioner to explain the history of the church. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 5 Alan Laity, President of the Board at Utica United Methodist Church, explained the history of the church and the reason for the sign is to help them reach out to the community. There was discussion whether the sign needed to be so close to the road. The applicant explained there are many big trees and it would actually be easier to read the sign if it were closer to the road, essentially in front of the trees. Mr. Ujkic asked Mr. McLeod if having the sign with a six-foot variance would impact any future expansion of Canal Road. Mr. McLeod did not think it would have any impact. After much discussion regarding how late the sign could stay on, Mr. McLeod stated there is an ordinance that dictates the regulations of illuminated signs. . Mr. Graef asked for any further questions from the Board. Being none, he asked for public participation. Mike Padgett, 8743 Leslie, stated when talking with Al there was mention of possibly putting in a couple of trees to block any light. He also stated the church has been excellent neighbors. Joseppi, a member of the church, came to the podium. He stated it would be safer with the new sign as the old one is hard to spot when driving up to the church. Mr. Graef asked for any other public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any questions or a motion. Mr. Washburn asked about the reduction in height of the sign. Mr. Sitto stated the reason for the height was to allow for landscaping or even snow and still maintain visibility of the sign. Mr. McLeod stated the ordinance requires at least a two-foot base. Motion by Mr. Washburn, supported by Mr. Militello, in the case of PZBA18-0001 Utica United Methodist Church, 8650 Canal Road, 8650 Canal Road, I move to APPROVE each of the following variances requested by the petitioner: 1) A variance of six (6) feet to the required twelve (12) foot setback for permanent freestanding signs; 2) a variance of five (5) inches to the overall seven (7) foot maximum height requirement of a permanent freestanding sign in a residential district; 3) a variance of twenty (20) percent to the maximum 33 percent requirement for electronic message displays as a part of a permanent freestanding sign; and 4) a variance of eleven (11) square feet to the maximum permanent freestanding sign area within a residential zoning district of thirty-two (32) square feet. For the following reasons: All of the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variances will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. For Variance #1: 1) Decreasing the required permanent freestanding sign setback requirement in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 6 the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the sign is limited in size and the site has significant mature landscape along the Canal Road frontage. 2) The decrease in the required permanent freestanding sign setback requirement will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 3) The proposed location reasonably serves the purposed intended or the purposes intended by the property owner to increase visibility and the ability for drivers to locate the site. 4) The decreased setback from the roadway will not have an adverse impact on any adjoining properties. 5) No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the sign requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. For Variance #2: 1) Increasing the maximum permissible height of a permanent freestanding sign in a residential district in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the permanent freestanding sign will be in proportion to the overall development of the site. 2) The increase in the height of the permanent freestanding sign will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties or have an adverse impact on any adjoining property. 3) No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the sign height requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 4) The additional five (5) inches in height properly balances the dimensions and proportions of the width and depth of the sign. For Variance #3: 1) Increasing the percentage of the sign for the electronic message display in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the electronic message display will only be approximately twenty-three (23) square feet in area. 2) The increase in the percentage of the sign for an electronic message display, in this particular application, will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties or have an immediate adverse impact on any adjoining property. 3) No useful purpose would be served by strict application of this percentage requirement in the Zoning Ordinance as the increase is only about 20% of the permitted display size. 4) The additional twenty-three (23) square feet of display area properly balances the dimensions and proportion of the display area within the overall sign. For Variance #4: 1) Increasing the overall area of a permanent freestanding sign in a residential district in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the overall sign will only be approximately forty-three (43) square feet in size. 2) The increase in the size of a permanent freestanding sign from thirty-two (32) to forty-three (43) square feet in size in a residential district will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties or have an adverse impact on any adjoining property. 3) No useful purpose would be served by strict application of this size requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 4) The increase in the overall area of the sign will not be created by width not height which has little impact on the surrounding area due to the current configuration in this site and on the roadway frontage. This motion includes the following conditions: Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 7 1) First, the Conditions of Approval, which were signed by the petitioner and submitted with the application, must be followed. Failure to follow these requirements will be grounds to revoke the variance. 2) Second, the petitioner must comply with the following conditions requested by the Office of Planning: a. The variance 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 these variances shall not be a rationale for any future variance requests. c. Any additional variance requests may be grounds for the revocation or revision variances that were granted. d. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the Zoning Board of Appeals decision or of any requirements of the City’s Ordinances could be grounds for the revocation of the variances. e. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the Office of Planning for the base of the sign. f. That the existing signs be removed prior to the completion of the new sign. g. That the appropriate permits be applied for and obtained prior to the installation of the sign. h. That the proposed sign will be programmed to be within three (3) percent of the ambient light or not be more than .3-foot candles over ambient light from 150 feet away, whichever is dimmer. i. That the existing sign is approximately fifty (50) square feet and will be removed. j. Both sign currently on sight will be removed and replaced with one singular sign. Mr. Graef asked for any questions on the motion. Mr. McLeod suggested adding conditions h, i, and j. Mr. DeNault suggested rephrasing condition h. Motion by Mr. Washburn, supported by Mr. Militello, to AMEND motion by adding conditions “h, i, and j”. Mr. Graef asked for any further questions on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Washburn, Militello, Deming, Graef, Jean, Ujkic Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion carried. Mr. Graef called a short recess. Mr. Graef called the meeting back to order at 8:23 p.m. PZBA18-0002 – Casadei Steel, Inc. Requesting board approval for the following variances: 1) a variance of twenty-three (23) feet which if granted would allow a rear yard setback of twenty-seven (27) feet, 2) a variance of up to six (6) feet which if granted would allow parking and maneuvering to encroach into the required frontage greenbelt, 3) a variance to not require parking islands at the end of parking rows, 4) a variance of two (2) parking lot trees, 5) a variance to the required building materials for a front façade, 6) a variance to not require foundation plantings along the front façade, 7) a variance to not require an enhanced landscape feature, 8) a variance to allow outdoor storage within the front yard, Current Zoning: M-1 Light Industrial District Location: West side of Mound Road, south of Eight Mile Road in Section 17 Property address: 40675 Mound Road Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 8 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 eight variances and proposing to construct a major expansion to the site to provide for additional production capacity as well as increased efficiency in the overall production of materials at the site. The proposed addition will bring the overall building size to approximately 150,595 square feet and cover essentially the entire property with either building, parking, maneuvering or storage area. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. Washburn asked why the buildings (along Mound Rd.) were initially set so far back. Mr. McLeod explained it was because of secured right of way by the city. Ms. Jean asked if the proposed expansion at the rear of the building would impact the adjacent business. Mr. McLeod stated it would not impact the adjacent building. Mr. Ujkic asked Mr. McLeod what the right of way is on the east side of Mound Rd. Mr. McLeod stated it is 102 feet from centerline and is the same on the west side. Mr. Graef asked for any further questions for Mr. McLeod. Being none, he asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Bruno Casadei, President of Casadei Steel, and Chris Bosserd from Wade Trim came to the podium. Mr. Casadei went through a slide show giving an overview of Casadei Steel and described their plans for the expansion. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. Ujkic asked if the storage area and the parking area between the building could be swapped. Mr. Casadei explained because of the length of the steel and being able to stack the racks, swapping the two would not work. Mr. Deming asked if they plan to hire more employees. Mr. Casadei stated they have 40 employees currently and could potentially add 20 to 40 more positions. He also explained their erection company has 45 employees and employment would also be increased. Mr. Washburn asked how much distance is between the back of the building and the adjacent building. He also asked why they are requesting to use different building materials than what is stated in the ordinance. Mr. Casadei stated the closest point is about 32 feet from the adjacent building. He explained they asking to use different materials because they would like their building to look industrial but still have an aesthetically pleasing façade. He also stated he is willing to build up the landscaping to cover as much of the front of the building as possible. Mr. Graef asked for any further questions from the Board. Being none, he asked for public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any questions or a motion. Variance #1 Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. Militello, in the case of PZBA18-0002 Casadei Steel, 40675 Mound, I move to APPROVE The requested variance of twenty-three (23) feet to the required fifty (50) foot rear yard setback within the M-1 Light Industrial District, for the following reasons: Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 9 1) All of the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variances will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) Decreasing the required rear yard setback in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the abutting land uses are all industrial in nature, some of which have similar or even lesser setbacks. 3) The decrease in the required rear yard setback will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4) No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the rear yard setback requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 5) The decrease in the required rear yard will not have an immediate adverse impact on any adjoining property. 6) The variance will allow the applicant to more efficiently and economically utilize their property and make the existing use more viable. Mr. Graef asked for any questions on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Ujkic, Militello, Washburn, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion carried. Variance #2 Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. Militello, in the case of PZBA18-0002 Casadei Steel, 40675 Mound, I move to APPROVE the requested variance of six (6) feet to the required thirty-five (35) foot greenbelt requirement to allow a parking encroachment, for the following reasons: 1) All of the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variances will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) Decreasing the required front yard greenbelt in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the abutting land uses are all industrial in nature, some of which have similar or even lesser setbacks and the applicant has provided extensive berming and landscape. 3) The decrease in the required greenbelt area will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4) No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the greenbelt requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 5) The decrease in the required greenbelt area will not have an immediate adverse impact on any adjoining property. 6) The variance will allow the applicant to more efficiently and economically utilize their property and make the existing use more viable by allowing materials to be maneuvered through the site. Mr. Graef asked for any questions on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Ujkic, Militello, Washburn, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion carried Variance #3 Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 10 Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. Militello, in the case of PZBA18-0002 Casadei Steel, 40675 Mound, I move to APPROVE the requested variance to not require parking islands at the end of parking rows, for the following reasons: 1) All of the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variances will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) Eliminating the need for parking islands in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the abutting land uses are all industrial in nature, some of which have similar parking areas where no parking islands are constructed. 3) The elimination of parking islands will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4) No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the parking island requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 5) The elimination of the parking islands will not have an immediate adverse impact on any adjoining property. Mr. Graef asked for any questions on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Ujkic, Militello, Washburn, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion carried Variance #4 Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. Militello, in the case of PZBA18-0002 Casadei Steel, 40675 Mound, I move to APPROVE the requested variance to not require parking lot trees, for the following reasons: 1) All of the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variances will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) Eliminating the need for parking lot trees in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the abutting land uses are all industrial in nature, the vast amount of parking and maneuvering on the site is not conducive to trees being planted. 3) The elimination of parking lot trees will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4) No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the parking lot trees requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 5) The elimination of the parking lot trees will not have an immediate adverse impact on any adjoining property. Mr. Graef asked for any questions on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Ujkic, Militello, Washburn, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion carried Variance #5 Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 11 Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. Militello, in the case of PZBA18-0002 Casadei Steel, 40675 Mound, I move to APPROVE the requested variance to the required building materials on the front façade, for the following reasons: 1) All of the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variances will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) Eliminating the need for building materials required in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the abutting land uses are all industrial in nature, the large amount of landscaping along the front of the site will visually buffer the building and the applicant has provided a variety of building materials and colors to create visual interest in the building. 3) The elimination of the building material requirements will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4) No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the building material requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 5) The elimination of the building material requirement will not have an immediate adverse impact on any adjoining property. Mr. Graef asked for any questions on the motion. Mr. Washburn suggested adding the word “required” in reference to the building materials in reason #2. Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. Militello, to AMEND motion by adding “required” in reason #2. Mr. Graef asked for any further discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Ujkic, Militello, Washburn, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion carried Variance #6 Motion by Mr. Ujkic, supported by Mr. Militello, in the case of PZBA18-0002 Casadei Steel, 40675 Mound, I move to APPROVE the requested variance to not require foundation plantings along the front façade, for the following reasons: 1) All of the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variances will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) Allowing the elimination of foundation plantings along the front façade in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the abutting land uses are all industrial in nature, the large amount of landscaping along the front of the site that will obscure the foundation plantings, and the amount of storage and truck maneuvering onsite will make for limit the benefit and viability of foundation plantings along the front facade. 3) The elimination of the foundation plantings along the front façade will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4) No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the requirement for foundation plantings along the front façade in the Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 12 5) The elimination of the requirement for foundation plantings along the front façade will not have an immediate adverse impact on any adjoining property. Mr. Graef asked for any questions on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Ujkic, Militello, Washburn, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion carried Variance #7 Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, in the case of PZBA18-0002 Casadei Steel, 40675 Mound, I move to APPROVE the requested variance to not require an enhanced landscape feature, for the following reasons: 1) All of the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variances will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) Allowing the elimination of an enhanced landscape feature in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the abutting land uses are all industrial in nature, the large amount of landscaping along the front of the site, and the amount of storage and truck maneuvering onsite will make for limit the benefit of an enhanced landscape feature. 3) The elimination of an enhanced landscape feature will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4) No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the requirement for an enhanced landscape feature in the Zoning Ordinance. 5) The elimination of the requirement for an enhanced landscape feature will not have an immediate adverse impact on any adjoining property. Mr. Graef asked for any questions on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion carried Variance #8 Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, in the case of PZBA18-0002 Casadei Steel, 40675 Mound, I move to APPROVE the requested variance to allow storage within the front yard, for the following reasons: 1) All of the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variances will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) Allowing outdoor storage in the front yard in this particular application will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because the abutting land uses are all industrial in nature, the large amount of landscaping along the front of the site will visually buffer the building and the proposed outdoor storage will not exceed ten (10) feet in height. 3) The allowance of outdoor storage in the front yard will not likely significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 4) No useful purpose would be served by strict application of the requirement to not permit outdoor storage in the front yard requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 5) The elimination of the requirement to not allow outdoor storage in the front yard will not have an immediate adverse impact on any adjoining property. Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 13 Mr. Graef asked for any questions on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion carried Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, in the case of PZBA18-0002 Casadei Steel, 40675 Mound, that the following conditions shall be applicable to all motions for approval: 1) First, the Conditions of Approval, which were signed by the petitioner and submitted with the application, must be followed. Failure to follow these requirements will be grounds to revoke the variance. 2) Second, the petitioner must comply with the following conditions requested by the Office of Planning: a. Each variance 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 any 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 any variances granted here. d. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the Zoning Board of Appeals decision could be grounds for the revocation of any variances granted here. e. The applicant shall work with the Office of Planning to increase the number of plantings and the size of plantings at the time of planting to the greatest extent possible. f. The applicant shall work with the Office of Planning to continually refine the building materials to be utilized on the front façade to increase the aesthetic of the building. Mr. Graef asked for any questions on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Deming, to APPROVE approval of the minutes for the January 25, 2018 meeting. Mr. Deming asked to add “sale or transfer of” to page ten in the fourth paragraph. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Deming to AMEND the January 25, 2018 minutes by adding the verbiage “sale or transfer of” to page ten in the fourth paragraph so the sentence reads: Mr. Deming and Mr. Shultz talked through the process of how the sale or transfer of a gun could be transacted. Ayes: Militello, Deming, Ujkic, Washburn, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Abstained: None Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of February 22, 2018 Page 14 None OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to ADJOURN . Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, Deming, Graef, Jean Nays: None Absent: D’Angelo Motion Carried Meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Graef, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals