MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
WHICH TOOK PLACE
AT , IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
1. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Board Members - Green, Holthof, Higgins, Lichtenwald, and Pnacek
ABSENT: Board Members - Steele
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Green and supported by Pnacek to
approve the minutes of the
Page 1, under approval of minutes of the previous meeting, Higgins suggested the following clarifications: Fence is located on a retaining wall which varies in height from 2 feet to 8 feet in addition to the height of the existing fence which is 5 feet 9 inches in height.
The second one, page 5, 4th paragraph, 1200 and 1340 should have “sq. ft.” after them.
Page 3, top of the page, second paragraph, in response to Lichtenwald’s questions, should be on the bottom of page 2.
Page 1, public hearings, it states “currently under construction . . . “it should be more precise about the location.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Poprave showed a location map of the
subject property. The parcel is located
east of the US-10 freeway, west of
The petitioner is interested in installing a 160 sq. ft. ground sign, on which there would be a lot of writing. This is an “incubator” site and there will be a lot of writing on this sign. The petitioner states they would like to identify at least 20 businesses. They already have at least one 30 sq. ft. sign on this site. Footnote “f” of the ground sign table, states, although it does not fit the petitioner’s needs, one ground sign is allowed with a maximum of 100 sq. ft. and additional ground signage is permitted if the parcel has more than 600 feet of road frontage (this parcel has 854 feet of road frontage). However, additional ground signs must be spaced at least 200 feet apart.
They could have a 100 sq. ft. sign, which would be allowed by the ordinance, but they desire to have a larger sign than that. Due to the orientation of the existing drives, they cannot meet the distance between the signs. Therefore, they will need a variance from the Zoning Board.
Higgins asked why they need a 16’ x 20’ sign. He does not understand why they need such a large sign. They want to have 20 individual slats in the sign with 4” letters on each slat. Mr. Schutt stated right now, they have 20 tenants in the building. However, they have the potential for at least 8 additional tenants.
Higgins stated that it would appear that they
are at least 65 feet, and probably 100 feet from the sign that is on
Higgins stated he still is not convinced that they need a 160 sq. ft. sign. He asked the petitioner if he wanted to confer further with his sign person or if he would like the Board to make a decision tonight.
Lichtenwald stated the Board has an obligation to act on this tonight.
No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this request.
Findings of Fact:
1. Property is zoned LCMR.
is located physically east of
4. The facility neighbors are the Midland County Animal Facility and the City Landfill.
are two entrances to this property of off
6. There was a Dow Chemical letter received in favor of this variance.
7. The property houses a multi-incubator site to accommodate many businesses.
facility is located east of Rockwell, just east of the
existing, 30 sq. ft. ground sign is located within the State of
It is moved by Green, supported by
Holthof, to approve Petition No. 06-14 based on the findings of fact for a 160
square foot ground sign at
Higgins moved to put a condition on the motion that the maximum size of the sign should be 128 sq. ft. Pnacek seconded the amendment to the motion.
Voting on the amendment:
The original motion has been amended to allow for a maximum of a 128 sq. ft. sign, based on the findings of fact.
Higgins feels that there are a lot of people in the building and they need additional signage to advertise all the tenants in the building. He feels this property is unique and that all the criteria can be met.
Green stated this property is unique in that you have 40 mph traffic and there are two entryways into this property. The second lot appears to be one employees would turn into. They would need the additional signage for safety factors. The idea of that facility is to develop additional business for the community. He has no problem supporting this variance request.
Holthof concurs with what has already been said. He is comfortable with the criteria, as is Lichtenwald.
Voting on the motion:
The motion to approve the Petition 06-14 was approved 5 - 0.
06-15 – David Koepplinger on behalf
of Midland King’s Daughters Home for an area/dimension variance to reduce the
required rear yard setback at
Mr. Poprave showed a
location map of the site. It is located
on the corner of Rodd and Nelson Streets, and is adjacent to
Attachment #1 in the staff report shows the parking,
Higgins asked why they are adding nine beds but they are not increasing the facility size. Mr. Koepplinger stated they have a license for 30 assisted beds and they use fewer than that. The additional beds are in escrow. It is the same way with the rooms. They are utilizing licensed beds that they have always had, but that have not been used.
Green asked about the existing parking. It is behind the facility. Will the parking
currently located on city property be vacated?
Mr. Koepplinger stated they want to add some parking on
No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the petitioner’s request.
Findings of Fact:
1. Zoning is RB.
3. The setback of the rear property line has been changed with the new Zoning Ordinance.
4. The rear yard is adjacent to city property.
5. The Parks & Recreation Commission has indicated they have no objection to this request.
addition will be totally in the rear of the building and will not be seen on
7. There are two, existing nonconforming, building encroachments in the rear yard setback.
8. No communications from the public were received on this petition.
It is moved by Higgins, seconded by Green, to approve Petition No. 06-15 based on the findings of fact for a 13,600 square foot addition.
Higgins felt the petitioner did a good job relating to the criteria. He feels they have all been met. The property is unique due to the fact that it is next to a City park. He felt they did a good job with the design of the new facility.
Holthof concurred with Higgins.
Green stated that since the Parks & Recreation Board looked at this and they had no problem with it, it looks like a good addition.
Pnacek stated this addition is not detrimental to the use of the City park.
Voting on the motion:
The motion to approve the Petition 06-15 was approved 5 - 0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (not related to items on the agenda)
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
Green stated he was happy he had
the opportunity to attend the Michigan Association of
7. DECISION SHEET SIGNATURES
b. 06-05 recorded copy
c. 06-07 recorded copy
d. 06-09 recorded copy
e. 06-10 recorded copy
f. 06-11 recorded copy
Staff stated that there will be a Zoning Board of Appeals
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at
Acting Director of