CITY OF WALKER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. Wednesday, January 28, :00 p.m

Transcription

1 CITY OF WALKER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Wednesday, January 28, :00 p.m Members present: Robert Marz, Chairman; Brian Boelens; Roger Crabtree; Sandra Howland, Leon Wysocki, Heidi Hohendorf, Randy Smith, Beth Rogers and Scott Funke. Staff present: Tim Musser, Building Official/Zoning Inspector and Tammy Freedman, Recording Secretary CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Robert Marz, Chairman at 7:00 p.m. at City hall 4243 Remembrance Rd., N.W., Walker, Michigan. REVIEW MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014, REGULAR MEETING Roger Crabtree moved and Beth Rogers supported a motion to approve the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes from with a correction on page 3 paragraph 6 change was made. Motion carried unanimously. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding nonpublic hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required. No public comment offered. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment offered. CASE # MILE RD NW Applicant Lamar Outdoor Advertising requests to increase the total height of an existing billboard from 35 feet to 45 feet. The billboard is located adjacent to I-96 at Mile Road NW (PPN ). This request is contrary to the maximum billboard height of 35 feet as noted in Section (1) of the Walker Zoning Ordinance. Legal Description Property located at Mile Rd NW also known on the tax rolls as Finding of Facts Chairman Robert Marz reviewed the application and site plan submitted. Page 1 of 7

2 Paul Bastien with Lamar Outdoor Advertising appeared on behalf of this request. Paul Bastien asked the Zoning Board of Appeals if they had received the pictures he had taken of the billboard. Robert Marz replied this was correct. Paul Bastien stated they are looking for an uninterrupted use of their billboard sign. If the billboard sign was built today they would have put the billboard sign in a different location. The billboard sign is obstructed by vegetation in the I-96 median and by the MDOT electronic traffic information sign. The State of Michigan does not allow Lamar Outdoor Advertising to clear the vegetation. If the billboard was being built today they would have probably build the sign further to the east. Roger Crabtree asked if the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance has any jurisdiction over the location of MDOT's signs. Robert Marz and Tim Musser replied the city does not. Roger Crabtree stated that MDOT is clearly the one that is in violation of the City of Walker's Ordinance since their electronic traffic information sign is not more than 500 feet from any other freestanding sign located on the same side of the freeway and is located less than 2,000 feet from any other billboard. Roger Crabtree thought this site had applied for a previous variance request for height. Paul Bastien stated that the billboard located by Pitsch Wrecking applied for a previous variance as did the billboard near the Meijer corporate office, but this site has not had any previous variance requests. Robert Marz stated that there have been previous variances granted for other billboards because of the topography of the land. Beth Rogers stated that she felt this billboard sign is very visible the way it is currently built. Paul Bastien stated that when they take pictures for these billboard signs they are standing next to the billboard which makes the billboard easy to see. When someone is driving 70 mph, they want the billboard sign to be visibly uninterrupted, which is not the case with this billboard because of the MDOT billboard which was not there when their billboard sign was constructed. Brian Boelens asked if they have contacted MDOT. Paul Bastien replied they have not. Paul Bastien stated that they have no control over MDOT's signs. This is the first time he has had to deal with an MDOT sign like this. Brian Boelens stated that he drives in this location several times during the day and he has never felt like this billboard sign is obstructed by the MDOT sign. Brian Boelens stated that you would have to turn your head sideways to have the subject billboard obstructed by the MDOT sign. Paul Bastien stated that Wayne State University called after their sign had been up for two weeks and asked Lamar Advertising to remove their sign because of the obstruction by the MDOT billboard. Paul Bastien stated they are only asking for a variance for a 10' extension to the billboard, which will not be much of a difference. Mr. Bastien noted that it will cost approximately $10,000 for the extension so this is an investment for Lamar Outdoor Advertising. Page 2 of 7

3 Brian Boelens asked what was previously advertised on the billboard sign and did Lamar have an issue with visibility. Paul Bastien replied he was not sure. Mr. Bastien stated that he thought the Wayne State sign was installed within a few weeks of the billboard being constructed. Mr. Bastien stated that Wayne State University is not paying for this billboard sign. Roger Crabtree stated he questions what might be considered exceptional or extraordinary on this piece of property relative to the requested variance. Robert Marz replied the exceptional circumstance might be that MDOT put a traffic information sign next to Lamar's billboard sign. Roger Crabtree replied that does not effect the subject property. Robert Marz stated that the MDOT traffic information sign did effect the subject property. Roger Crabtree replied that if the ZBA grants this variance for a 10' height extension how many other billboards sign variances would they have saying there are trees or other obstructions in front of their billboard. Robert Marz stated that the other billboard signs would need to prove the same level of obstruction for a variance, as this request might set a precedent. Beth Rogers stated there are other billboard signs with advertisements for McDonalds and Burger King that have obstructed other billboard signs more than this billboard sign. Randy Smith stated that he does sympathize with the applicant. If he had an existing billboard and MDOT put up a sign in front of it he would not be pleased. However, this MDOT sign is not a detriment to Lamar's billboard business. Randy Smith stated that when he drove this area to find the billboard sign he thought if the billboard sign was illuminated it might be easier to see. Tim Musser stated the sign has not been lit at night for quite a while. Paul Bastien replied the billboard sign is not illuminated because Wayne State University is not paying for the advertisement. Heidi Hohendorf stated that the location of the MDOT sign is an issue between Lamar Advertising and MDOT. Sandra Howland stated she can see both sides of this issue. She does not like that Lamar Advertising is losing revenue, but she can also agree with Beth Rogers because she has driven in this area and had no problem seeing the billboard sign, but she was also looking for it. Sandra Howland stated that she can see where the MDOT billboard does block the Lamar Advertising billboard. Robert Marz stated that he was looking for the billboard sign and didn't have a problem seeing it, but if you were not looking for the billboard sign he could see where there could be an obstruction. Tim Musser was under the impression that Lamar Advertising had spoken to MDOT regarding the billboard sign. Paul Bastien replied they have not been in contact with MDOT. Paul Bastien stated that he has a lease with the landowner of the property where the billboard sign is located. Lamar Advertising has not received a payment for the sign since September so Lamar Advertising still needs to pay the landowner even though they are not receiving money from the advertisement of the billboard sign. Paul Bastien stated someone looking to advertise on a billboard sign, say 9 out 10 people, ride and look at different billboards to see what would be a good location for their advertisement. Someone looking at this billboard would not want to do advertisement because of the obstruction by the MDOT traffic information sign. Lamar Advertising will probably have to reduce the amount of money they are paying to the landowner because they are not receiving revenue from this billboard. It is a trickle-down effect. Page 3 of 7

4 Robert Marz stated that he talked to Frank Wash, Assistant City Manager and City Planner. Frank explained that he could see both sides of this variance request and encouraged the development of explanatory findings of fact for the ZBA decision. Randy Smith asked if the variance was granted for the 10' extension what if something were to happen and the billboard collapsed. Would the additional 10' extension have an impact on the neighbors or the businesses in this area. Tim Musser stated if the variance was granted he would definitely want an engineer s report showing that the billboard sign base could handle the extra load. Robert Marz stated if someone is driving down the expressway at 70 to 75 mph they will not notice the additional 10' on this billboard one way or another. Roger Crabtree stated that the whole idea for the billboard ordinance is to minimize distraction to drivers. Roger Crabtree stated that if the billboard is raised up 10' he feels it would be more of a distraction and people would be looking at the billboard for a longer period of time. Lee Wysocki asked what the cost to move the Lamar Advertising billboard sign. Lee Wysocki stated that if the Lamar Advertising billboard sign was moved 10' to the east parallel to the MDOT billboard sign you would be able to see the billboard sign in both directions. Paul Bastien stated that there may be some side yard setback issues. This is probably why this billboard sign is in the present location. Paul Bastien stated that the trees to the east on the right-of-way would also be in the way of the billboard sign. Paul Bastien thought it might cost approximately $20,000 to move the billboard. Robert Marz re-read the Reasons and Grounds (a d) as supplied by the applicant for this variance request. Tim Musser asked how many billboards Lamar Advertising owns in this general location. His concern is that if this variance is approved, other billboard companies would want to do the same thing. Paul Bastien replied that they own approximately 6 or 7 billboards in the City of Walker with no plans for new billboards. MOTION Randy Smith moved and Sandra Howland supported a motion to approve applicant Lamar Outdoor Advertising requests to increase the total height of an existing billboard from 35 feet to 45 feet. The billboard is located adjacent to I-96 at Mile Road NW (PPN ). This request is contrary to the maximum billboard height of 35 feet as noted in Section (1) of the Walker Zoning Ordinance. a. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the properties in the same zoning district. In September 2014, the Michigan Department of Transportation installed an MDOT highway traffic sign (see photo). After the project was completed the highway traffic sign west face partially blocks Lamar Advertising east advertising face to west bound traffic. b. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. When we installed the billboard sign in 2004 there was no highway traffic signs built or in the way of our construction. Based on the overall height of the sign as it sits we will need to have the sign raised 10 for continued uninterrupted viewing of the sign. c. Authorization of the variance will not be of a substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purpose of the ordinances of public interest in that there Page 4 of 7

5 is not detriment. The variance request is at 10 higher based on the new sign that was installed in September, 2014 by the MDOT. This is the maximum needed to protect the clear view of the east face from the highway westbound traffic. d. The condition or the situation of the piece of property or the intended use of the property for which the variance is ought is not so general or recurrent a nature as to make there is no general problem. The billboard structure is only 10 years old and the monopole base would allow an extension to be installed for the 0 height variance request. With the location being MLlight industrial it would continue the sign use on the property with very little change in the landscape. The billboard was built September of Motion failed - 3 ayes (Robert Marz, Randy Smith and Sandra Howland) and 4 nays (Roger Crabtree, Brian Boelens, Heidi Hohendorf and Beth Rogers). Motion failed based on the reasons and grounds stated in the applicant s application. CASE # WEST RIVER DR NW Applicant David Krupp from Universal Spiral Air has applied seeking two dimensional zoning variances: 1. A building addition side yard setback of 5.2 feet. This is contrary to Section (a) and (b)(6), which requires a side setback minimum of 27 feet. 2. An allowance to avoid sidewalk construction along Hillside Drive. This is contrary to Sections (f) (4) and (6). Legal Description Property located at 2735 West River Dr NW also known on the tax rolls as Finding of Facts Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted Dan Hula with Hula Engineering appeared on behalf of this request and David Krupp owner of Universal Spiral Air. Dan Hula reviewed the supporting documents attachment A, B, Figure 1, 2 and 3 of the variance application with the Zoning Board of Appeals members. Dan Hula explained there is no other alternative for sidewalks along Hillside Drive given the topography very unique situation probably not another one like this in the City of Walker that he is aware of. When Hillside Drive is updated and curbs are put in you install sidewalks at that time. Dan Hula explained attachment B that the lot layout and the building do not match up, they could not get the 25' setback that they needed. They tried to offset the building addition, but this does not work for the manufacturing process. The property owner next door is aware of what they are doing with the building addition and are ok with it. Robert Marz asked if they have an agreement with the business next door when they start construction on the addition since the addition will only be 5'2" from the business next door. Dan Hula replied they have talked to the contractor building the addition and he said 5' will be Page 5 of 7

6 plenty of room for them during construction. Robert Marz asked if the contractor is confident he will not infringe on the neighbors property. Dan Hula replied the contractor is confident they will not infringe on the neighbor's property, but if they have a problem they will go and talk to the business next door. David Krupp stated the adjacent business owner said they could go on their property they would just need to repair whatever they damage. Roger Crabtree asked if there were any variances granted on this piece of property. Dan Hula replied there is some type of encroachment, but there have not been any previous variances for this site. Sandra Howland asked with the building expansion will they be adding any new jobs to the area. David Krupp replied that they will. David Krupp said they have grown over 30% since they have been at this site and will add new additions as they need to. Brian Boelens asked if they foresee outgrowing this building. David Krupp replied they do. They are constantly trying to re-work their operation with different shifts, and changing the way they do their operation. The new addition should last them for approximately 3 years after that they will need to look additional property. Roger Crabtree asked if this has been before the Planning Commission. Dan Hula replied that he thought they go through the Planning Commission first and then the Zoning Board of Appeals, but they were told they needed to go the Zoning Board of Appeals first.. MOTION 1. Sidewalk variance Beth Rogers moved and Sandra Howland supported a motion to approve the applicant David Krupp from Universal Spiral Air variance request for an allowance to avoid sidewalk construction along Hillside Drive. This is contrary to Sections (f), (4) and (6). 2.Setback variance Beth Rogers moved and Sandra Howland supported a motion to approve the applicant s request a building addition side yard setback of 5.2 feet. This is contrary to Section (a) and (b), (6) which requires a side setback minimum of 27 feet. a. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the properties in the same zoning district. 1. Sidewalks Extraordinary topography, see attachment A. 2. Setback; existing irregular lot shape and building configuration, see site plan and attachment B. b. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. 1. Sidewalks; extraordinary cost of extra work within the street right-of-way to construct a safe sidewalk is prohibitive. 2. Setback; loss of use of a substantial portion of the lot, see attachment B. c. Authorization of the variance will not be of a substantial detriment to adjacent Page 6 of 7

7 property and will not materially impair the intent and purpose of the ordinances of public interest in that there is not detriment. 1. Sidewalks, continuation of the existing condition until Hillside Drive is reconstructed to City of Walker standards will not have a negative impact on the ordinance nor neighbors in the vicinity. 2. Setback; There will be no detriment to the neighbor nor the ordinance, see attachment B. d. The condition or the situation of the piece of property or the intended use of the property for which the variance is ought is not so general or recurrent a nature as to make there is no general problem. 1. Sidewalk; this is a very unique topographical situation which should not require inclusion in the ordinance. 2. Setback; The irregular lot shape, building construction and manufacturing process are unique to this situation; therefore, modification of the ordinance is not warranted. e. Cannot be used only for use variance The board imposed the following conditions: 1 Vegetation buffer on Hillside Drive to be maintained. 2 Sidewalk to be added if street gets curb/gutters. 3 Per Planning Commission approvals for buffer. Motion carried unanimously. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBER/STAFF COMMENTS No staff comments ADJOURNMENT Roger Crabtree moved and Randy Smith supported a motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals at 8:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Roger Crabtree, Secretary Tammy Freedman, Recording Secretary Page 7 of 7