MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
6:30 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Board
Members - Green, Higgins, Lichtenwald,
Siemer and Steele
ABSENT: Board Members – None
OTHERS
PRESENT: Cindy Winland,
Consulting Planner, Cheri King, Community Development Specialist and three
others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Higgins
and supported by Siemer to approve the minutes of the August 21, 2012 meeting. Motion was approved unanimously 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 Board of Appeals decision criteria in the Zoning Ordinance.
The variance is legally recorded with the property and is not transferrable to
another parcel.
a.
No. 12-01
– Site Enhancement Services for Olive Garden for a dimensional variance to permit more
square footage of wall signage than is permitted and to permit two ground
mounted pole signs. The applicant is
asking for a variance of 24.54 square feet to the maximum 150 square feet of
wall signage in the Regional Commercial district. The applicant is also asking for a variance
of one additional pole sign, exceeding the maximum permitted ground mounted
signs per parcel by one. The property is
located at 6803 Eastman Avenue.
Background:
Ms. Winland showed an aerial
photograph of the subject property. The
fairgrounds entrance is to the north, Midland Mall is to the east and the
Hampton Inn is to the south. The request
is for three proposed wall signs totaling 174.52 sq. ft. They are asking for a variance of 24.52 sq.
ft. to the permitted 150 sq. ft. for wall signage. The second request is for an additional
ground mounted sign. The ordinance only
permits one ground mounted sign per parcel.
As with all of our requests,
there are five criteria that need to be met.
(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: This site is
currently a multi use parcel with retail and food offerings. The proposed new restaurant will be located
on the northeast corner of the property.
This site will be .52 acres in size and will require cross access
agreements for parking due to the size of the parcel. This proposed restaurant could not operate on
such a small parcel unless additional easements are allowed. The additional signage request will allow
this parcel to achieve its zoned potential within this plaza. Also, due to the existing building locations
with the center, the proposed restaurant has been situated to accommodate the
needs of others within the plaza.
Staff: This
question really asks that, if the variance was not granted, could the property
still be used for a permitted purpose.
This property has been used for commercial development for quite some
time.
(2) The variance
will do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property
owners.
Petitioner: This proposal will provide a greater draw to
the existing plaza, so the individual businesses within the plaza and the surrounding
area will get increased exposure from individuals travelling the area. The proposal, if granted, falls within the intent
of the ordinance and will not provide an advantage to the proposed Olive
Garden. The wall signage request is
approximately 25 square feet over code, but only occupies around 3.5% of the
elevation to which it is attached. The
proposed signage is integral to the building design and also essential for
providing quality way finding devices to the motoring public. The request is not excessive and provides
harmony with the building design and surrounding area.
Staff: When we look
at substantial justice, we measure whether it meets the intent of the ordinance
and if it does justice to other properties in the area. In terms of aesthetics, signs should enhance
the aesthetics of the community. Staff
evaluated the wall signage and the ground pole sign separately. It is staff’s opinion that the additional
wall signage is not necessary for exposure of the business in this area.
There is an existing ground
mounded pole sign on the property that is 24’ tall and 160 sq. ft. that
includes an LED section at the bottom. This
sign is 60% over the square footage permitted and 20% taller than the City
allows. The sign was part of the property
when it was annexed into the City in 2002.
Winland showed a dimensioned picture of the sign, indicating that there
are roughly 60 sq. ft., of vacant area on this sign now that could be used for
the Olive Garden signage, as well as the LED portion of the sign. An additional sign does not meet the stated aesthetic,
safety or equal protection intent and purpose requirements of the zoning
ordinance. It is excessive and
unnecessary.
(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: The
proposal is the minimum request over what the code allows for this location to
safely and effectively notify the motoring public. The plaza has multiple access and exit
points; signage is necessary to help individuals attempting to navigate this
area. This area is a commercial corridor
and individuals expect to see adequate, properly branded businesses. The requested wall sign relief is
approximately 16% over code allowed, but will not look out of balance with the
building or the neighboring businesses.
The proposed freestanding sign would meet the ordinance requirements if
this was its own lot in the commercial corridor.
Staff: It is
staff’s opinion that no additional signage is necessary beyond what is allowed
by the ordinance. Signage within
permitted wall size and using the existing pole sign is sufficient exposure to
notify the public of the location of this business. Research shows that the overall size and
height of the sign is not related to the effectiveness of the sign. An innovative use of the space on the
existing ground pole sign would be sufficient for this business.
(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: This
property was designed to have multiple businesses on one parcel. This is not a typical commercial one tenant
pad site, which is prominent in this corridor.
This site is intended for multiple uses and the proposal falls in line
with that intent. This site is also
accessible from more than one curb-cut and a motorist could access the plaza
from one public/platted road and exit the plaza on a different platted/private
road. This is not typical of other sites
along this corridor.
Staff: This plaza
is going to be accessible from the fairgrounds driveway. They have agreed to permit an additional curb
cut here. The existing Damon’s drive is
going to be closed. To the south is
Saylor Drive, which is an unused access point and will be closed. There will be another access from the Panera
Bread location. The business will be
visible from every direction and every access point.
(5) The problem
and resulting need for the variance has been created by strict compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance and not the applicant.
Petitioner: Due
to the unusual condition this development presents, the strictest
interpretation provides a disadvantage to the success of the Olive Garden
Restaurant. This site is much smaller
than most of the lots in the area and a variance for signage would allow this
business to be successful without causing any favoritism. The proposal meets the intent of the ordinance
by providing quality way finding devices and not causing harm to the
surrounding public. Motorists need to
focus on navigating their vehicle, not searching for a location. This distracts them from their main objective
which is navigating and controlling the vehicle.
Staff: Because these
are all new signs, this is a self created hardship.
The City has received one
written objection to the variance from the Hampton Inn. He has asked that the ZBA adhere to the
requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The frontage of the property is about 265 feet, to the property
line. All the parking will be
shared.
Shawn Smith, 6100 Nimms Parkway, South Bend, Indiana,
represented the petitioner. This
particular location is under massive renovations. Olive Garden should be thought of as an out parcel
of this development. Usually, as an out parcel,
they are allowed additional signage. One
additional ground pole sign, which would be permitted if this were on its own
parcel.
Pole sign comments: They are changing traffic patterns here as
well. Additional signage is needed to
allow the additional traffic to identify the business. They would like to have their own free
standing sign. They were looking at
utilizing the existing Damon’s sign but it is no longer there. Staff suggested the Olive Garden could
utilize the existing ground pole sign.
The property owner wants to use that signage to identify businesses that
are behind the Olive Garden in the plaza that cannot be seen from the
road. Smart growth is occurring here
with the cross-access and multiple entrances to the site. They are approximately 1400 feet away from
the interchange. Panera Bread has
approximately a 100 sq. ft. pylon sign and 300 sq. ft. of wall signage. Applebee’s has their own free standing sign.
Olive Garden is not asking for that. The
Olive Garden sign will be illuminated.
Wall sign comments: The front elevation is oriented to the
south which will have a 42 sq. ft. sign.
Because this is a shared plaza, they need to draw attention to the Olive
Garden building. The only illuminated portion
of this sign is the Olive Garden name.
Mr. Smith stated there are
several businesses in the area with free standing signs including Fazoli’s and
Logan’s. The makeup of this particular
site and the development here makes this an unusual site. They are changing some traffic patterns
here. This is the minimum variance
request necessary. It is consistent with
Panera Bread and consistent within the corridor. This is a new development with
new tenants coming in the area, cross access easements, and they feel the
signage is necessary for this unique situation and warrants additional
signage. They do not feel this is
self-created as this is new development going into the area.
Mr. Higgins asked how many tenants they expect in the mall
area. Mr. Smith stated he did not
know. Mr. Higgins stated there are 20
slots on the sign. Mr. Smith stated the
developer would like the existing sign to remain as it is. The Olive Garden is an out-lot and they
desire to have their own sign for their business. The property owner owns this parcel as well
as the property to the back and to the side.
The property owner is not here tonight.
The petitioner is his authorized representative.
If this lot were split to provide Olive Garden its own parcel,
it would end up having to be a flag lot, which is not permitted by the
ordinance. If they could have the free
standing sign, they would like 100 sq. ft. because that is standard. Panera Bread is using a sign structure that
was there previously. The Damon’s sign was
removed last week. They do not want to
hamper development so they would not like to move their sign down to the
southerly part of the property.
No one else spoke either in
favor of or in opposition to this request.
Findings of
Fact:
1. This is a Regional
Commercial zoned property.
2. One letter was received objecting
to additional signage.
3. The existing pole sign
existed when this property was annexed into the city. It is 24’ high and has 60 square feet of
unused area on it now.
4. There is access to the
private drive to the fairgrounds behind the proposed building.
5. There is no proposed curb cut
for a left hand turn into the mall parking lot.
6. There is access by the
signaled intersection, on a separate piece of property.
7. There is access by a cross
drive behind the property in front of the Hampton Inn.
8. There is 265 feet of
frontage on the Olive Garden parcel.
9. The Damon’s and Mattress
Connection signs had to be removed since the buildings were removed.
10. The property is located at 6803
Eastman Avenue.
11. 150 square feet of wall
signage would be permitted and they are asking for 174 sq. ft.
12. The restaurant will be located
at the northeast portion of the site. The front of the building will be facing
south.
13. Signage is available at the freeway
exit for way-finding signs.
14. The speed limit on Eastman
Avenue is 45 mph.
It was moved by Higgins and
supported by Green to approve Petition No. 12-01 based on the findings of fact
for an area/dimension variance at 6803 Eastman Avenue for a variance of 24.52
square feet to the maximum 150 square feet of wall signage.
Mr. Green stated the main
access to the building will be south facing.
As people head south on Eastman, wall signage is needed on the back side
to identify the property and feels it is appropriate to grant additional wall
signage.
Mr. Higgins stated Olive
Garden has not met any of the five criteria.
Mr. Lichtenwald agrees. Mr. Siemer stated he also feels the criteria
have not been met. They will be a destination
point. Mr. Steele agrees with Mr.
Higgins, Mr. Lichtenwald and Mr. Siemer.
He thinks there is nothing unique and it is self created. The parcel has been that way for 15 years or
so. Mr. Siemer stated he is very happy
to see an Olive Garden in the community, but they should have no advantage to
their competitors.
Vote on the motion:
Green: Yes
Higgins: No
Lichtenwald: No
Siemer: No
Steele: No
Moved by Higgins, supported
by Lichtenwald, to permit a second pole sign, located 200 feet south of the existing
pole sign on this property and advertising the Olive Garden.
Mr. Green stated that people
coming from the south will be able o see the sign. The objective is to draw
people to the restaurant. Having the
sign at the south end of the property is near the traffic control device. Ms. Winland stated that requiring a 200 foot
spacing from the existing sign may interfere with the parking lot and will
require removal of at least two spaces. She is not sure if this can be done
based on the site plan requirements. Mr. Higgins feels this is a unique
situation. If he was coming into the
city and looking for the Oliver Garden, it would be very useful to him. Mr. Siemer stated this is a safety issue
here.
Shawn Smith, 6001 Nimms
Parkway, South Bend, Indiana, was called back up by the Board. Mr. Steele asked if there were any
restrictions in the lease agreement regarding signage. Mr. Smith stated they
already have a lease agreement that includes the separate free standing sign,
contingent upon approval by the municipality. They want to place the sign at
the ingress/egress point.
Mr. Higgins discussed
tabling the issue and requesting the owner of the property to attend the
meeting. Ms. Winland stated that the
petitioner is representing the owner as his agent and is authorized to speak
for him.
Mr. Higgins stated
discussing the criteria is difficult on this case. It is a safety issue. Mr. Siemer stated there will be less driver
confusion. It is unique, a safety issue,
there is an existing shopping center in the back and is a multi-use site. Mr. Green stated the second sign is the same
size that would be permitted to adjacent property owners. Everyone would be entitled to the same
signage. Mr. Higgins stated they are
meeting the zoning ordinance except for the second sign with a 200 ft.
separation and 100 sq. ft. maximum size.
Vote on the motion:
Steele: Yes
Lichtenwald: Yes
Green: Yes
Higgins: Yes
Siemer: Yes
The motion to approve Petition 12-01 was approved by a vote of
5-0.
- No. 12-08 – Valley City Sign for a variance to the
height and size of a ground mounted sign.
The applicant is requesting a variance of 3.33 feet to the height
of the sign and a 31.75 square foot variance to the size of the sign. The property is zoned Office Service and
is located at 7101 West Wackerly Street.
Background:
Ms. Winland showed the area
map. The property is west of Stark Road
and north of N. Saginaw Road. Most of
the parcel is wooded. It has two
driveways. The existing signage on this
parcel is the shingle style. The
proposed sign is 100 inches tall and 63 inches wide. The applicant has proposed that it be next to
the driveway, along an open ditch, at the western driveway. The front of the property has open drainage,
which is unusual for the city. The
approach, from the east, has a significant amount of tree cover.
(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: Signs are
used by the public to find and identify a business. With a 12 square foot, 5’ tall sign
requirement, there would not be adequate visibility for patients and visitors
to see the sign easily from the road as they travel by.
Staff: The parcel
has been used for office use and will continue to be able to do so even without
the variance.
(2) The variance
will do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property
owners.
Petitioner: A variance will allow the owner to install an
adequately sized sign for patients, visitors, etc. to be able to see the sign
easily and identify the location as they drive down the road. This does not affect other property owners in
the city limits, as there are not any in the immediate vicinity of this office.
Staff: There is an
industrial use directly across, which is a lumber yard. There is a dog training facility that remains
in Lincoln Township. The new McKay Press
is zoned Industrial. There are no other neighbors. The ordinance is intended to prevent
excessive signage or things that are out of context with the surrounding
structures. Staff feels this is a safety
issue. The larger, taller sign is not
out of scale with the industrial uses the abut the property. The applicant is permitted two ground pole
signs due to the frontage of the property and has chosen to have one larger
sign. Instead of two 12 sq. ft. signs,
they have chosen to ask for a 43 sq. ft. sign.
(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: We
believe this to be the minimum size needed to properly identify the building on
this property.
Staff: There is a
ditch and foliage growing out of the ditch.
This is out of the applicant’s control.
The applicant could cut down some of the trees, coming around the
corner. Staff feels it meets the safety
and fairness portions of the ordinance, as the applicant is trading the square
footage of signage. The applicant is not
in control of what might grow in front of the sign. There are only a few places in the city that
have open ditches.
The zoning ordinance requires a ground mounted sign in this
zoning district. If the Board grants the
height, they need to grant at least part of the requested increase in area or
the sign will only be 1.5 feet wide. A 12 sq. ft. sign, 8.33 feet high would be
long and narrow and make it difficult to put a message on it. We’d also recommend that the address is moved
to the top of the sign. The lower
portion of the sign will be in the weeds or the snow.
(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: The
unique circumstances are that the use is zoned OS, which is correct for the
use. However, most of the other OS
businesses are on city roads with sidewalks and very few visual obstacles. This particular property is heavily wooded on
a curved country road, with a large drainage ditch running along the front of
the property.
Staff: There are
very few properties in the city on heavily wooded roads with drainage ditches
running along the front of the property.
This situation is unique and not related to the zoning of the property.
(5) The problem
and resulting need for the variance has been created by strict compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and not the applicant.
Petitioner: The
need for the variance stems from the wooded nature of the lot, along with the
drainage ditch along the roadway. This
causes the lack of visibility due to the trees and the distance between the
property line and the roadway (caused by the ditch).
Staff: The
current signage on the property is not in conformance with the zoning
ordinance, but it existed when the property was annexed into the city. The property is heavily wooded and has a
ditch in front of it. Lack of visibility
indicates that the situation was not self-created.
Julie Couturier, Valley City Sign, 5009 West River Drive,
Comstock Park, MI stated they are asking for both the height and area
variance. Visibility is and has been an
issue to the occupants of this building.
This is why they are asking for the larger sign. The signs would be five feet behind the
property line, which is behind the ditch, according to the ordinance. Option 1 would be by the west driveway. Option two would be to place the sign in
between the two driveways. Ms. Couturier
showed some other Office Service zoned properties in the city of Midland and
the size of their signs. They do not
have the same frontage with the ditch in the front yard.
No one else spoke either in
favor of or in opposition to this request.
Findings of
Fact:
1. This is an Office Service
zoned.
2. Annexed in 2002 – the
existing signage was there.
3. The property is heavily
wooded.
4. There is a ditch in front of
the property.
5. No letters have been
received in favor or in opposition.
6. The legal speed limit on West
Wackerly Street is 45 mph.
7. Those traveling west bound
on West Wackerly Street are negotiating transverse curves.
8. The property is a corner lot.
9. It is located at 7101 West
Wackerly Street.
10. It has a frontage of 1260
feet on West Wackerly Street.
It was moved by Higgins and
supported by Green to approve Petition No. 12-08 based on the findings of fact
for an area/dimension variance at 7101 West Wackerly Street for a variance of 3.33
feet to the height of the sign and a 31.75 square foot variance to the size of
the sign.
Mr. Siemer feels the
property is unique and should be approved based on this, and the curves on road. Mr. Higgins stated he does not think it meets
criteria “a” or criteria “c”. They could
ask for a 12 sq. ft. variance on a pole instead of the monument sign.
Mr. Green stated he has
difficulty with the unique circumstances.
The property, at one time, was in the township and is now in the
city. The speed of the traffic and
curves make it difficult for patrons to find the location. There is nothing necessarily unique about the
property as there are detention basins in the city that have growth in the
summer.
Mr. Lichtenwald stated he
would have liked to see something like a 30 sq. ft. sign. He is not sure the minimum criteria have been
met here.
Julie Couturier, 5009 West
River Drive, Comstock Park, MI, stated this is a unique property to the Office
Service District. When you go back five
feet behind the ditch area, you are 30+ feet off the road. That is why the printing needs to be so
large. Driving down the road at 45 mph,
that sign will be difficult to see. You
still need to put the services as well as the name of the businesses on the
sign. This could be a safety issue. The sign will be approximately 30 feet from
the edge of the road. The height of the
sign is just over eight feet. They do
not oppose trimming the trees, they just do not want to remove the trees.
The motion was amended by
Steele to add a condition that trees are trimmed to the extent necessary seconded
by Siemer. Amendment passed 3-2 – (Green
and Higgins voted “no”).
The motion was amended by
Steele to add a condition that the street address is visible on the top half of
the sign and not obscured by snow. Mr.
Higgins seconded. No vote was taken on this amendment.
Vote on the motion:
Steele: Yes
Lichtenwald: Yes
Green: No
Higgins: No
Siemer: Yes
The motion to approve Petition 12-08 was approved by a vote
of 3-2.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (not related to items on the
agenda)
None
5. OLD BUSINESS
None
6. NEW BUSINESS
None
7. DECISION SHEET SIGNATURES
a.
12-07 Review Findings of Fact
b.
12-06 Recorded
8. ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia E. Winland, AICP
Consulting Planner