MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
WHICH TOOK
PLACE ON
AT
1.
PRESENT: Board
Members – Green. Holthof, Lichtenwald,
Pelton and Sutton
ABSENT: Higgins (excused)
OTHERS
PRESENT: Mark Ostgarden, secretary and four
people in the audience
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES.
The
minutes of
The last sentence of the last paragraph on page one should read:
She was concerned about the encroachment and thought an attached garage could be constructed at an angle or a detached two car garage in the rear yard and not encroach into the side yard.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 03-02 – Wolgast
Corporation for Central Warehouse for a parking variance to reduce the number
of required parking spaces from 55 to 15 at
Central
Warehouse has received site plan approval to construct a 54,825 sf warehouse addition at its facility on
There were
no letters in support or in opposition to the request.
Doug Mazany of Wolgast Corporation and
John Strobel, owner of Central Warehouse, spoke to
the Board, Mr. Mazany
distributed a letter to the Board that addressed the four criteria for an
area/dimension variance. Mr. Mazany explained that the area where the striping would be
provided is maneuvering area for truck traffic.
Mr. Strobel reiterated the point that there
would only be a maximum of eight employees.
No one else spoke in support of or
in opposition to the request.
FINDINGS OF
1.
The property is zoned Industrial A
2.
No communications were received in
support or in opposition of the request.
3.
No one spoke in opposition.
4.
The proposed construction is for
warehouse use only.
5.
Attachment 3 is the site plan approved
by the city Council
6.
The addition will be 55,000 (54,825) sf.
7.
The “In” drive is located between lots
7 and 8 and the “Exit” drive is located to the east of the new addition. This will provide a safe traffic flow on the
site.
8.
Attachment 3 depicts 15 parking spots
will be provided.
9.
The petitioner explained that the paved
area will be for both parking and truck maneuvering.
10. Eight
will be the maximum number of employees working in the addition.
11. One
parking space /1000 sf of floor area is the Zoning Ordinance parking requirement.
12. Forty
spaces would not be striped.
It
was moved by Sally Sutton, seconded by Hank Holthof
to approve the request based on the Findings of Fact
Hank
Holthof began the Board deliberation by stating he
thought the variance would do justice to the applicant because of the limited
number of employees, there are unique circumstances due to site drainage, and
the problem is not self created in that the Zoning Ordinance does not
adequately address uses with a limited number of employees.
Roy
Green cited that the area will be surfaced and the number of cars is not a
concern to him.
Tim
Lichtenwald and Sally Sutton agreed. The issue is only one of providing striping.
Woody
Pelton also agreed.
He cited that there may be a safety problem in striping the spaces. There could be a conflict between trucks and
parked vehicles.
The
Board was concerned about a use change which could affect the number of
employees or if a warehouse operation needs more spaces than the 15 that are
striped.
To
address these concerns, Sally Sutton suggested the following condition and Hank
Holthof agreed to add it to the motion on the floor:
1.
If the warehouse operation changes to
include any retail or wholesale activity or use, the required parking with
striping will be evaluated by the City of
2.
If the number of employees exceeds the
15 parking spaces being provided, the parking spaces shall be equal to the
number of warehouse employees plus five additional spaces.
Vote on the motion:
YEAS:
Green, Holthof, Lichtenwald,
Pelton, Sutton
NAYS:
None
The variance was approved.
4. Public comments before the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
There were no public comments.
5. Old/New Business.
The secretary gave a brief report on the Zoning Ordinance update process.
Sally Sutton would like to attend the Scenic Michigan Workshop in
The secretary reported on the discussion he had with the City Attorney
regarding variances. He reported the
opinion of the City Attorney is that although a variance runs with the land, it
is for the use described to the Board as part of a particular request. If a use changes that affects an approved
variance, the variance may be no longer valid.
If for example, the use at Midland Animal Clinic (petition 02-16)
changes, so that additional parking is required, the new use would need to
provide the additional parking or seek a new variance.
6. ADJOURN.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Ostgarden,
AICP, CFM
THESE MINUTES