MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2012
6:30 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Board
Members - Green, Higgins, Lichtenwald,
and Steele
ABSENT: Board Members – Siemer
OTHERS
PRESENT: Cindy Winland,
Consulting Planner, Cheri King, Community Development Specialist and 5 others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Higgins
and supported by Green to approve the minutes of the June 19, 2012 meeting. Motion was unanimously approved as presented.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Chairman explained the
public hearing procedures and how the Board decides if the variance request is
approved based on the five Zoning Board of Appeals criteria in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Steele reinforced that the variance is legally
recorded with the property, is not transferrable, and does not change, despite
the ownership of the property. Mr.
Steele offered the petitioners the opportunity to move forward tonight with a
Board of four members or wait until next month when we will most likely have a
full Board of five members. Approval of
the petition will still require three votes of the Board.
a.
No. 12-06
– McDonalds Corporation for a variance to the required number of parking spaces for a fast food
restaurant. The applicant is asking for
a variance of 23 stalls to permit operation with 64 stalls instead of the
required 87 stalls for a restaurant of this size. The property is zoned Regional Commercial and
is located at 1711 South Saginaw Road.
This variance has been rescheduled from the June 19, 2012 meeting.
Background:
Justin Boulinger, 631
Hubert, Grand Rapids, MI stated Michael Kazarian is the petitioner but he is
representing the architect. Mr.
Boulinger stated they wish to proceed with hearing the case tonight.
Cindy Winland showed an
aerial photograph of the subject property.
The subject property is 1711 S. Saginaw Road. The area of the site is has a secondary
access onto Haley Street and a primary access onto South Saginaw Road. This McDonald’s has been here quite some
time. It was built prior to requiring
site plan review. There are
approximately 1,137 sq. ft. in the original building. Parking spaces are based upon usable square
footage, not actual square footage. The
site currently has 71 stalls and one drive-thru window. The drive-thru is in the back of the
structure. The proposal is to add an
additional drive-thru. Seven spaces will
be lost as a result of this. They are
requesting a 23 stall reduction in the amount of required parking. They are asking to permit operating with 64
stalls instead of the required 87 stalls.
The site currently has 71 stalls, which was permitted under a previous
zoning ordinance. The play space is
roughly half of the square footage.
Criteria for granting a variance:
(1) Will strict compliance with
restrictions governing area, setback, frontage, height, bulk, density or other
non-use matters unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a
permitted purpose or render conformity unnecessarily burdensome?
Petitioner: Yes,
however, McDonald’s would like to improve the existing drive-thru efficiency by
adding a side-by-side (SBS) drive-thru.
This improved drive-thru has historically reduced the in-store foot
traffic. In turn, less on-site parking
is needed.
Staff: This parcel
will continue to be able to be used for a retail or restaurant use even if the
variance is not granted.
(2) The variance will do substantial justice to the applicant as well
as to other property owners.
Petitioner: One
of their objectives is to correct their barrier free compliance and conform to
the American’s with Disabilities Act.
Staff: If the ADA
requirements necessitate moving and thereby reducing parking stalls, then staff
would consider the modifications to do this as both necessary and providing
substantial justice to the applicant and other property owners in a similar
situation. The loss of parking spaces
due to adding another drive-thru lane would only provide justice if the number
of spaces required is considered excessive by the Board of Appeals and a
recommendation to reduce the required parking spaces is sent to the Planning
Commission.
(3) The variance requested is the minimum variance to provide
substantial relief to the applicant and/or be consistent with justice to other
property owners.
Petitioner: Typically
the drive-thru traffic counts for 72-75% of the total store volume. There is
increasingly less need for parking.
Staff: Parking
standards in many communities are substantially less than one space per 30
square feet of usable floor area for similar uses, indicating that it may be
possible for a drive-thru restaurant to function with fewer spaces, but an
exact number will need to be justified by the applicant.
(4) The need for the variance is due to the unique characteristics of
the property not generally applicable in the area or to other properties in the
same zoning district.
Petitioner: There
is a shifting paradigm in the business model for drive-thru restaurants. The focus now is to satisfy the customers. This would be true for other drive-thru
situations.
Staff: The unique
aspect of this request is not based on the property per se, but on the change
in the behavior of customer, per the applicant’s statement. If it is true that customer behaviors have
changed and do not require parking at the required rate, the Board of Appeals
may grant a variance and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission to
reduce the required parking spaces.
(5) The problem and resulting need for the variance has been created by
strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and not the applicant.
Petitioner: No. McDonald’s is attempting to improve the
customer experience by improving the drive-thru speed (reduce waiting). The
loss of seven stalls is required to make the site ADA compliant while also
improving/modernizing the drive-thru.
Also, the site currently operates with 71 stalls. The area of the existing play place skews the
usable floor area and thus the ordinance requires more parking spaces than we
feel is necessary.
Staff: Once
again, if the reduction in the number of spaces is necessary to meet ADA
requirements, the need for the variance is not self created. If the reduction in parking is as a result of
the request to add an additional drive through, it is a self created situation.
Mr. Green stated there is another McDonald’s in town that now
has a double drive-thru. The one on
Eastman Avenue did this without changing their parking. Would federal ADA laws supersede local zoning
regulations?
Mr. Higgins asked about the age of the regulations in Table 5.3,
the parking regulations. Ms. Winland
stated the entire ordinance was updated in 2005, however, she does not know
when it was last changed prior to that.
The current number of parking spaces makes the parking a legal
nonconforming use. A variance is
necessary because they are requesting to reduce the number of parking spaces so
they are making the property more non-conforming.
Justin Boulinger, 1601 Boulander, Grand Rapids, spoke on behalf
of the petitioner. Typically, when they
add the drive-thrus, it reduces the number of parking spaces needed on site because
it moves cars through the drive thru more quickly. It helps the traffic flows.
Mr. Higgins asked why do they have to eliminate the seven
parking places to add the additional drive thru lane? Mr. Boulinger stated part of their five
stacking spaces will be in the area where there are now seven parking spaces.
They would still have the required number of spaces for handicap parking.
Carl Brady, 1954 Autumn Glen Drive, Howell, Michigan, McDonald’s
Corporation employee. There are about 16
staff at peak hours. The seating in that
store is approximately 88 seats. They do
not own any extra land that is not currently being used for the building or for
parking. Mr. Brady stated they do not
currently use all their parking spaces.
At lunch time, the traffic backs up to the street and McDonald’s loses
business. About 75 percent of their customers
go through the drive-thru. They will be
able to handle 20 or 30 more cars per hour with the second drive through lane
at peak times.
Mr. Lichtenwald asked about their ADA spaces. Has anyone filed a complaint? Mr. Boulinger stated the slope is inadequate
for their existing ADA spaces. The drive-thru
is their main concern but the ADA compliance was something they decided to add
into the plan.
No one else spoke either in favor of or in opposition to this
request.
Findings of
Fact:
1. It is zoned RC.
2. The original building was
1137 sq. ft.
3. In 1995 a play scape
addition was added.
4. The maximum staff, according
to the petitioner is 16.
5. The number of seats in the
restaurant is 88, according to the petitioner.
6. Seven of the parking stalls
will be eliminated.
7. No comments were received.
8. The property has two exits,
one on S. Saginaw Road and the other from Haley Street, to the north.
9. The drive-thru is designed
for traffic to exit onto S. Saginaw Road.
10. The ten spaces for stacking are
from the entry onto the site to the pick-up window.
11. The petitioner determined
that 87 parking spaces are required, based upon gross square footage.
It was moved by Higgins and
supported by Lichtenwald to approve Petition No. 12-06 based on the findings of
fact for an area/dimension variance at 1711 South Saginaw Road for a variance
of 23 stalls to permit operation with 64 stalls instead of the required 87
stalls for a restaurant of this size.
Mr. Higgins: The ordinance
states one parking space is required for every three people in the restaurant
without a drive-thru. A non drive thru restaurant
would require fewer parking spaces, even though people all go inside to eat. Because
there is only one drive-thru lane, traffic backs up onto Saginaw Road. It does substantial justice to the applicant
because they are losing customers and because it creates a problem coming out
onto Saginaw Road. Things have changed
in our society in the past 10 years. Fewer
people are sitting and more people are using the drive- thru spaces. The ordinance does not recognize the paradigm. He thinks they should recommend the Planning
Commission evaluate the number of parking places needed.
Mr. Lichtenwald: The facility can be used just like it is
now. The real issue here is knowing how
many spaces are really needed at the site. The first criteria is not met. There is nothing unique about this
property. No one knows the total spaces
really required.
Mr. Green agreed with Mr.
Higgins. He feels there have been
changes and they should recommend that the Planning Commission look at the
number of spaces required. He is also
concerned about the Americans with Disabilities Act and the numbers of spaces
available.
Mr. Steele stated he is
disappointed that they do not have the accurate number of spaces required by
the ordinance. The seven spaces that are there now are not usable in the
present configuration.
Vote on the motion:
Steele: Yes
Lichtenwald: No
Green: Yes
Higgins: Yes
Siemer: Absent
The
motion to approve Petition 12-06 passed by a vote of 3-1.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (not related to items on the
agenda)
None
5. OLD BUSINESS
None
6. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Higgins recommended that Ms. Winland go back to
the Planning Commission and review the parking standards in the Zoning Ordinance. There needs to be a definition of “usable
floor space”. There are five categories
in the ordinance that need to be revisited and possibly rewritten to be based
on the number of seats.
7. DECISION SHEET SIGNATURES
a.
12-04 Review Findings of Fact
b.
12-05 Review Findings of Fact
8. ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia E. Winland, AICP
Consulting Planner