STERLING HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL July 20, 2017 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held July 20, 2017. Mr. Graef called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Members present at roll call: David Graef, Junina Jean, Stefano Militello, Pashko Ujkic, and Ray Washburn Members absent at roll call: Derek D Angelo and Dale Deming 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. Mr. Washburn suggested moving case #3 to #1. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to AMEND the Agenda by moving case PZBA17-0013-The Gilson Corporation from item #3 to #1. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, Graef, Jean CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Macomb County Public Works Office regarding case PZBA17-0011 MRJ Sign Company Letter from Mr. Gilson regarding case PZBA17-0013 The Gilson Corporation PZBA17-0013 The Gilson Corporation (Crossroads Plaza) Requesting board approval for two variances; 1) a ten (10) foot variance to allow parking within the required front yard setbacks of Van Dyke and Metropolitan Parkway; and 2) a one (1) space variance to the require ten (10) stacking space requirement to allow for only nine (9) stacking spaces east side of Van Dyke, north of Metro Parkway in Section 22. Property address: 37308 Van Dyke A letter was received from The Gilson Corporation requesting to postpone this case. Mr. Graef asked if there was any public participation. Being none, he asked for a motion. Motion by Mr. Washburn, supported by Mr. Militello, based upon the letter received from Michael Gilson, president of the Gilson Corporation, I move to POSTPONE case PZBA17-0013, Gilson Corporation, 37308 Van Dyke, to no specific date. Ayes: Washburn, Militello, Graef, Jean, Ujkic Mr. McLeod stated since the case was postponed indefinitely, the petitioner would have to come before the board to establish a new date for the application and there would be new notices sent out. PZBA17-0011 MRJ Sign Company
Page 2 Requesting board approval for a twelve (12) foot variance to the required front yard setback for a freestanding sign to allow the freestanding sign to be constructed with a zero (0) foot front yard setback - east side of Mound between Fifteen Mile Road and Metro Parkway in Section 28. Property address: 36200 Mound Road Mr. Graef asked Mr. McLeod to give an overview of the case. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview of the application stating the applicant is proposing the construction of a freestanding sign to provide advertising for the existing business. The sign is proposed to be located at the front property line rather than at the required 12-foot setback. The sign will be located centrally on the site along the Mound Road frontage. Mr. Graef asked Mr. McLeod if there are any other signs which would line up with the proposed sign if variance was granted. Mr. McLeod stated there is not one in the general location, however, the City has granted setback variances for freestanding signs in other situations. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any further questions. come forward to the podium. Being none, he asked the petitioner to Mark R. Johnson, of MRJ Sign Company, came to the podium. He stated there are other signs with minimal setbacks further south. He was not aware a sidewalk was supposed to be installed and he would revise his request to set back the sign four to five feet back from the sidewalk. The practical difficulty is the existing topography on the site and the mature trees in both directions that block site lines. Mr. Washburn asked when the previous sign was installed. He also asked to see any picture indicating what kind of problems the landscaping would create if the new sign were to go in at a 12-foot setback. Mr. Johnson stated the previous sign was installed in July of 2002. He stated there were drawings which accompanied his submittal. He asked Mr. McLeod if he could display the drawings. Mr. McLeod displayed the drawings. Mr. Washburn asked Mr. Johnson if there is anything in between the north and southbound lanes of Mound Road that would obstruct vision of the sign. Mr. Johnson answered no. Mr. Graef stated he is having a problem with a zero-foot setback. Mr. Johnson stated he would revise his request to a five-foot setback to accommodate the installation of a future sidewalk. Mr. Ujkic made Mr. Johnson aware that two board members were absent and he had the right to postpone if he wanted to do so. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any further questions. Being none, he asked for any public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any other questions or for a motion. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported Mr. Washburn, in the case of PZBA17-0011 MRJ Sign Company, 36200 Mound Road, I move to APPROVE a modified variance request of seven (7) feet required for a freestanding sign setback requirement to allow the construction of a freestanding sign five (5) feet from the front lot line for the following reasons: 1. The site as developed has significant berming along the Mound Road frontage which limits the ability to locate the sign at the required setback without losing significant visibility. 2. Second, a significant landmark tree is located in the one area of the Mound Road frontage not impacted by the existing berming along the frontage. 3. Third, the subject freestanding sign is the only freestanding sign for the industrial site. The site has two frontages, one on Mound Road and the other on Center Drive. 4. Fourth, the freestanding sign, as proposed, would otherwise comply with the City s requirements.
Page 3 5. Fifth, all of the other requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variance will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Sixth, allowing the location of the sign as proposed will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Seventh, the location of the sign as proposed will not likely to significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 8. Eighth, no useful purpose would be served by strict application of the locational requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 9. Ninth, the location of the sign will not have an adverse impact on adjoining property. 10. Tenth, the sign as proposed is substantially less than that permissible by Ordinance for this location. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the information provided to the Board must remain accurate, and the approval of the variance and a Hold Harmless Agreement in favor of the City must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. These requirements will be provided to the petitioner in writing. Failure to follow these requirements will be grounds to revoke the variances. 2. Second, the petitioner must comply with the following conditions requested by the Office of Planning: a. The variances 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 this 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 the current variance application. Mr. Militello stated a letter was received from Candice Miller, Public Works Commissioner of Macomb County, stating they do not have any objections because of the Sterling relief easement. Mr. Graef asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Washburn, Ujkic, Graef, Jean PZBA17-0012 Midway Group d/b/a Protocon RM Requesting board approval for two variances; 1) a one (1) foot variance to the required eightynine (89) foot front yard setback to allow a silo to be constructed eighty-eight (88) feet from the front property line; and 2) to allow an expansion of a non-conforming use to allow for the placement of a portable concrete batch plant at the location - north side of Metropolitan Parkway between Mound Road and Van Dyke in Section 21. Property address: 6227 Metro Parkway Mr. Graef asked Mr. McLeod to give an overview of the case. Mr. McLeod displayed the site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is requesting a one-foot variance to the required front yard setback for the construction of the silo. He stated the height of the silo is in compliance but they could only achieve an 88-foot setback and ordinance requires an 89-foot setback for a structure 62-feet in height. The second request is to allow an expansion of an existing non-conforming use to allow for the placement of a portable (temporary) batch plant. He stated the processing facility has been in existence for a substantial amount of time.
Page 4 Mr. Graef asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Ben Aloia, counsel for the Midway Group, gave an overview stating the site was used as a processing plant well before the zoning ordinance. Metropolitan Parkway was expanded after the building (located in front of the silo) was built which decreased the setback and caused the current existence of the building. He also stated they will be adding landscaping to the front of the building. Richard Zanotti, Property Development Engineer at Edward C. Levy Company, gave an overview of the batch plant. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any questions. Mr. Washburn asked if the base will be concrete and how often they will be moving the batch plant on and off the site. He also asked if the silo would be a permanent structure. Mr. Zanotti stated it is a concrete base and it depends on market demand. He stated it could be a few weeks or a few months. He confirmed the silo will be a permanent fixture. Mr. Washburn asked how often will the silos be inspected. He stated his concern because years ago a silo collapsed and there was a fatality. Gary Lowell, Protocon Readymix, stated they have an ongoing maintenance and inspection program. Mr. Graef asked the Board for any other questions. Being none, he asked for public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any further questions or a motion. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Washburn, in the case of PZBA17-0012, Midway Group dba Protocon, 6227 Metropolitan Parkway, I move to APPROVE the requested variance of one (1) foot to the front yard setback requirement to allow the construction of a storage silo eightyeight (88) feet from the front lot line for the following reasons: 1. First, the site as developed has buildings and structures in the same location that are of a similar height. 2. Second, the location of the silo will not be highly visible from the abutting roadway or property lines. 3. Third, the silo as proposed would otherwise comply with the City s requirements. 4. Fourth, all of the other requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for approving a non-use variance have been established in the record, and granting the variance will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Fifth, allowing the location of the silo as proposed will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Sixth, the location of the sign as proposed will not be likely to significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 7. Seventh, no useful purpose would be served by strict application of the locational requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Eighth, the location of the silo will not have an adverse impact on adjoining property. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the information provided to the Board must remain accurate, and the approval of the variance and a Hold Harmless Agreement in favor of the City must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. These requirements will be provided to the petitioner in writing. 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.
Page 5 b. The approval of this 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 the current variance application. Mr. Graef asked for any discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Washburn, Ujkic, Graef, Jean Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Washburn, in the case of PZBA17-0012, Midway Group dba Protocon, 6227 Metropolitan Parkway, I move to APPROVE the requested expansion to the existing nonconforming use to allow the placement of the portable batch plant in the noted location and ancillary movement of the storage bunkers, for the following reasons: 1. Continuance of the existing use, along with the nature of the expansion, will not be contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Second, that the use of the property for cement production has been located onsite in some form since before the incorporation of the City, and was therefore lawful at the time of its inception. 3. Third, the batch plant as proposed will remain portable and otherwise complies with the City s requirements. 4. Fourth, the location of the portable batch plant as proposed will not be likely to significantly depress the value of nearby properties. 5. Fifth, no useful purpose would be served by strict application of the provisions or requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with which the use does not conform, due to the presence of the existing use and the existing surrounding conditions. 6. Sixth, the location and use of the portable batch plant will not have an adverse impact on adjoining property. 7. Seventh, the conditions and requirements for approving a use variance for this use will all be met. This motion includes the following conditions: 1. First, the information provided to the Board must remain accurate, and the approval of the expansion of the nonconforming use and a Hold Harmless Agreement in favor of the City must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. These requirements will be provided to the petitioner in writing. 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 approval shall expire, without the need for any action by this Board, if the expanded use is abandoned for any period of 6 consecutive months. b. The approval shall not be a rationale for, and does not authorize, any variance requests relating to the expanded use. c. A future variance request related to the expanded use approval may be grounds for revocation of this approval. 3. Third, that dust control shall meet all requirements and conditions as set by the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb, State of Michigan. Mr. Washburn asked if Mr. Militello would consider adding #3 of the conditions.
Page 6 Motion by Mr. Militello to AMEND motion by adding #3 to the conditions. Mr. Graef asked for any discussion on the motion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Washburn, Ujkic, Graef, Jean APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to APPROVE minutes for the June, 22, 2017 meeting. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, Graef, Jean Abstained: None Motion carried NEW BUSINESS Mr. McLeod stated the Office of Planning would like to start doing the ZBA packets electronically. He stated there will be a transitional period and asked if the board members would let him know who would like to start receiving e-packets. OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Ujkic, to ADJOURN. Ayes: Militello, Ujkic, Washburn, Graef, Jean Motion Carried Meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Graef, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals