[0:03] The following presentation of the Zoning Board of Appeals will begin in a moment. The Zoning Board of Appeals provides for an administrative review, interpretation or exception to the Zoning ordinance, and authorizes variances as defined in the Zoning ordinance and laws of the state of Michigan. This board consists of five members who are appointed by the city council. The city council may also appoint two alternate members. The Zoning Board of Appeals meets on the second Tuesday of every month at 6 p.m. and council chambers at City Hall.

[0:33] This presentation is provided by the MCTV Network, a service of the City of Midland.

[0:39] Replays of this meeting can be found on MGTV, Channel 188, on Charter's Spectrum.

[0:44] Through Channel 99 on AT&T Ubers, or on Demand at www.cityofmidlandmi.gov.

[0:51] Select meetings are available on MCTV Network's Government Affairs Podcast Channel.

[1:06] Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the July 20th, 2021 meeting of the City of Midland zoning Board of Appeals.

[1:13] I'm Grant Merchal, the Director of Planning and Community Development, and I'd like to welcome everyone that's in the audience or those that are watching on midland government television channel that's found on cable television as well as now streaming on Apple TV and Roku.

[1:26] I'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. And before I actually turn it over to a chairman since it's after our beginning of the next fiscal year, I do have a little bit of information I want to provide related to the board itself.

[1:39] Usually the preamble that we give at the beginning and then from that will actually proceed through roll call and then the election of officers from there

[1:47] But the zoning board of appeals is a five member board that's appointed by the city council

[1:51] And it here's cases involving variances from the requirements of the city's zoning ordinance and cases such as interpretations of the language in the zoning ordinance

[1:59] The zoning board of appeals also has the authority to grant special approvals as specified within the zoning ordinance itself

[2:05] Most of the cases heard by the board involve variances either non-use or area and dimension

[2:10] in nature.

[2:12] An example of this type of variance would be to request to build a house or detach garage

[2:16] closer to the property line than what is otherwise permitted.

[2:20] There's other kinds of variances including the use variance and that type of variance results

[2:24] when a proposed use of a property is not allowed.

[2:27] An example of this would be a convenience store within an office service zone.

[2:31] A three-fifth vote of the entire board is required to approve non-use or area dimension

[2:36] variances as well as decisions on interpretations and special approvals and a four-fifth vote

[2:42] is in the entire board is required to approve a use variance.

[2:45] The board bases its decision for variances on specific criteria that are listed in the zoning

[2:50] ordinance and provided within the staff report.

[2:53] All decisions of the board are final and appeals of the decisions are made to circuit court.

[2:57] An important note to remember is that the variance cases that, that in variance cases the approvals are granted for the property and not granted for the property owner.

[3:07] If you do have any specific questions related to the zoning board of appeals and its functions, please reach out to the city planning department at 989-837-3374.

[3:16] And with that, I will do a roll call.

[3:18] All green.

[3:21] President.

[3:22] Erickson.

[3:23] President.

[3:24] Kyle.

[3:25] President.

[3:26] Danielson.

[3:27] Here.

[3:27] And me.

[3:28] Here.

[3:29] Okay.

[3:30] So since it is our new fiscal year and the new term of the board of appeals, we do have two officer elections that we need to do one for chair and one for vice chair.

[3:41] So for chair, I would entertain any nominations for recommendation of chair.

[3:47] I

[3:53] made Roy Green.

[4:02] Roy, do you have any concerns with that nomination?

[4:04] Okay, I'll actually ask for a second on that if you're okay.

[4:10] I support for that as well.

[4:13] All right, so that's motion by Danielson and

[4:16] support by Erickson to appoint Roy Green as chair.

[4:23] All in favor, signify by saying aye.

[4:25] Aye.

[4:26] I'll post him, sign.

[4:28] All right, that motion is approved.

[4:30] Mr. Green, you are a new chair.

[4:32] Right here.

[4:33] Now, with the next step in the agenda, this evening will be the appointment of the Vice

[4:36] Chair.

[4:36] Do I have a motion regarding someone for Vice Chair?

[4:46] Someone sort of underwhelming.

[4:49] Can the chair make a, through the procedure?

[4:52] If there isn't anyone else, Chairman, you can make a motion.

[4:56] In absence of any other motion, unless you'd like to, I would like to, I'm going to repeat

[5:01] All

[5:06] in favor of the motion to be guarding the vice chair.

[5:11] You're the answer to that by saying aye.

[5:13] Aye.

[5:14] Upon your names, the voice voted was approved.

[5:16] Thank you, Peter.

[5:17] Appreciate that.

[5:25] Ready?

[5:25] Go ahead.

[5:26] Next item on the agenda this evening are the approval of the minutes from the 20th of April.

[5:30] Meeting any questions or comments or corrections regarding those minutes in your packet?

[5:37] I mean, a move we accept the minutes is submitted.

[5:40] The motions are made to have support.

[5:41] Support.

[5:41] support. On favorite acceptance of the meeting minutes from the 20th of September, excuse me,

[5:47] 20th of April, isn't it saying aye?

[5:49] Aye.

[5:50] unanimous voice vote, it's passed. Next item on the agenda will be the public hearing,

[5:55] two cases, just a brief review of the process of what we do. The first step of this public

[6:01] hearing process is that the staff will come to the podium and they will review the criteria

[6:06] which have been completed both by the applicant and also the review comments from the staff.

[6:11] At that time, members of the zoning commission may ask questions for clarifications, questions

[6:17] anything presented in the information pack that was given to us.

[6:21] After that, the applicant is asked to come forward to the podium, stating their name and

[6:25] their address, realizing the criteria that you completed are important part of the decision

[6:32] process and we encourage you to make additional comments.

[6:35] After that, this provided then any one additional support for their applicant and their

[6:40] application is asked to come forward, again, the same procedure, stating their name, and

[6:45] the reasons they feel that the variance request should be approved.

[6:49] After that, anyone in opposition is granted the opportunity to come forward, again, stating

[6:55] their name and their address, and the reasons why they feel that the petition should not

[6:59] be approved.

[7:00] So, that we close the public portion of the meeting, and then we make this emotion made in

[7:07] the affirmative regarding the decision, but prior to that, we have a fine definition

[7:13] of the findings of fact based on what we presented to us both in writing and this this evening

[7:19] is used in the findings of fact for the case.

[7:23] After the motion is made, the public hearing portion is closed, the next step will be the

[7:28] liberation by the commissioners based on this criteria, then the vote is taken and the decision

[7:33] is either made to approve or to deny the request.

[7:36] Right, would you please begin with case 21-10.

[7:41] All

[7:44] right, and thank you, Chairman.

[7:45] As indicated, the first petition this evening is by the applicant, David Dalker, for property located at 648 Lamber Road.

[7:53] The subject zoning of the property is RA2, single-family residential, and the proposal is to construct a home with exterior walls less than 20 feet in length.

[8:04] Taking a look at the subject site, it's highlighted here in yellow in the middle part of the screen.

[8:09] It's on the eastern side of Lambert Road, which runs north south to the center part of the image.

[8:14] It's actually on the very far outskirts of the city limits on the west end.

[8:18] Properties on the other side of Lambert are still within Homer Township, whereas this property and properties to the north and south and east are all within the city limits.

[8:26] It's zooming in on the site you can see from this aerial photograph back in 2020, the existing trailer home that's in the North South orientation with the driveway that connects on to Lambert Road.

[8:43] There is some accessory structures and then collection of different materials that are in the back portions of the site itself.

[8:50] It is immediately adjacent to some additional residences both to the North and to the Northwest that you see also here within that aerial photograph.

[8:59] When we look at the zoning of the site, we can see that this site is R-8-2 single-family

[9:04] residential and that applies to properties north, east, and south.

[9:08] Properties across the street since they are still in homer township are subject to the

[9:12] zoning laws of the township.

[9:15] Other zoning in the surrounding area does include the agricultural zoning district, which is

[9:19] the darker shade of grain highlighted on the map.

[9:23] On this image, I can also point out really just the broader orientation or kind of surrounding

[9:27] in context of this particular site.

[9:29] At least on Lambert Road, it is for this south resident

[9:33] before you get into property that is weathered wet

[9:36] in nature.

[9:37] That is due to the topography of the area.

[9:41] This is the floodplain of the Tittabawasi River

[9:44] that you see meandering its way through

[9:46] in the kind of middle part to this bottom part of the screen.

[9:50] And all of this land that's to the north

[9:52] being either open meadow or field as well as wooded area

[9:56] is property that is rather wet around the year and certainly during times of flooding.

[10:03] That's echoed by the next map that I'm going to show you, which is that 100-year floodplain map,

[10:08] which is going to be a particular note within this petition, because not only do we have the rules of the 100-year floodplain,

[10:13] which are shown in that light blue, we also have the rules of the purple regulatory area, which is the floodway.

[10:20] The floodway is designated as an area where the majority of the floodwaters flow during

[10:27] flooding events.

[10:28] So the extent of the blue section is conceivably where a 100-year flood would go as it relates

[10:34] to water expanding throughout the floodplain with the majority of that water moving its way

[10:39] through the floodway.

[10:40] There are different standards that the city applies to the 100-year floodplain and then

[10:45] there are the more restrictive standards that the Department of Environment, Great Lakes

[10:49] and energy, formerly the DEQ, that they apply at the state level when it comes to building

[10:55] within the flood wave itself.

[10:58] So even though this map doesn't continue that purple shade, by extension we do know

[11:03] that that continues and doesn't include this property, it's simply just the way that our

[11:07] GIS was pulled together with the data sets that were available.

[11:14] So the site itself, the site plan that had been submitted by the applicant is what you

[11:23] image of the structures itself within the city's GIS and that shows then that trailer house

[11:28] as well as those accessory structures on the property with that frontage being on Lambert

[11:33] Road, being 132 feet of frontage and a depth of 165 feet. So this is a little bit of a rectangle

[11:42] with dimensions of 132 by 165.

[11:49] This is a non-uneus variance which comes out of Article 29 of the

[11:56] granted, only upon finding that a practical difficulty exists.

[12:00] In order to do that, we do have the five criteria that's part of the review and I will go through each one of those in these next slides.

[12:06] First one being that strict compliance with restrictions governing areas set back frontage and other nonuse matters.

[12:16] Unresolutely prevent the owner from using the property for permitted purpose or will render ordinance conformity unnecessarily burdensome.

[12:23] The applicant points out that EGLE, the State Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy requires that he build within the floodplain or original 14 by 70 footprint of the home.

[12:37] So strict compliance with the city's 20 foot exterior wall minimum paired with the EGLE requirement essentially makes the property unbuildable.

[12:45] Stat points out that strict compliance with the ordinance will put the applicant out of compliance with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy.

[12:53] requirements and between eagles, regulations, and city zoning, a house would not be able

[12:56] to be constructed on the property.

[12:59] This combination could be considered unnecessarily burdensome.

[13:05] The second criterion is how will the variance do substantial justice to the applicant as well

[13:09] as to other property owners?

[13:11] This applicant points out that the variance will allow him as the property owner to rebuild

[13:14] a home on the property which is adjusted afforded to other property owners within this same zoning

[13:20] district.

[13:22] That points out that the applicant is in the difficult position and that RA2 zoning does

[13:28] not permit the applicant to replace this trailer with another trailer, nor does it allow

[13:32] him to build a standard size house with walls that would be no less than 20 feet in width,

[13:37] and that approval of the variance will let the property owner construct a new home like

[13:43] justice that's given to other property owners in the same zoning district.

[13:46] For

[13:50] C, the variance requested is the minimum variance needed to provide relief to the applicant

[13:56] on a break consistent with justice to other property owners.

[13:59] Applicant points out simply that yes, the expectation from Eagle is that the home cannot

[14:03] be rebuilt larger than the 14 by 70 footprint.

[14:06] And so he cannot go larger than 14 on two of the exterior walls and he's requesting the

[14:12] minimum variance necessary to be in accordance with Eagle's requirements.

[14:17] A step points out that the applicant is seeking to comply with the requirements set by

[14:21] EGLE, and they're not seeking additional benefit other than EGLE compliance.

[14:25] And that this is considered the minimum variance needed.

[14:30] For D, what are the unique circumstances peculiar to the property, and that generally applicable

[14:34] in the area, or to other properties in the same zoning district, which would require the variance.

[14:39] Unique circumstance requires that the applicant's property is in the floodway, which is what

[14:46] That leaves him subject to such strict legal rebuilding requirements.

[14:52] That points out that any flood impacted homes in the serious zoning district that are in the flood wave would be subject to the same zoning, the same legal requirement.

[15:00] And the advantage that other property owners may have is that the size of their existing structure met all of the ordinance requirements.

[15:10] And lastly, the problem in resulting need for the grants has been created by strict compliance with the zoning ordinance. Not by the applicant or the applicant predecessors. The applicant points out that yes, in response to the dam failure and resulting flooding in 2020, it has been difficult to rebuild because he cannot comply with the city of Midland zoning ordinances, as well as the state's legal requirements at the same time.

[15:33] Staff points out on this one that staff cannot confirm if the trailer existed on the property

[15:38] prior to the applicant's ownership of the property, but we can say that this property

[15:42] was annexed into the city from Homer township over 25 years ago, which made its subject

[15:46] to Midlands ordinances at that time.

[15:49] The damage to the homeless dissolve of the catastrophic flood and not action by the property owner and

[15:53] the applicant cannot choose to be compliant with the zoning ordinance and be compliant with

[15:57] equals requirements at the same time.

[16:03] So with that, Sherman, it is a three-fourth vote to approve this petition.

[16:08] We have received one communication, which was included within the staff packet.

[16:11] That's an opposition to the request by a neighbor in property owner across the street to the northwest.

[16:18] And with that, I will entertain any questions.

[16:21] Any questions for staff?

[16:22] Peter?

[16:23] Yes, sir.

[16:24] Grant, do you mind going back to the floodway?

[16:26] Picture.

[16:28] I thought you said he's in the flood zone, but not in the floodway.

[16:34] So that again, I thought when you were mentioning this that he was in the 100 year flood zone area, but not in the floodway.

[16:42] The purple is the floodway.

[16:43] The purple is the floodway, but as you can see it had that abrupt north south stop.

[16:49] And that's simply just the way that the map has been generated.

[16:52] Okay.

[16:52] That floodway does continue all the way up through the flood plain itself.

[16:56] So, this does include this property and it heads off into the northwest area.

[17:03] Make sense.

[17:04] So, it is within the flood wave.

[17:07] Questions?

[17:09] Questions for staff?

[17:11] I have a question for Grant.

[17:14] Do you know if the property has been condemned?

[17:17] Of course, the house next to it had a annoying sticker on it.

[17:21] Yes, so I do know that this has gone through the substantial damage.

[17:23] For example, substantial improvement assessment and that's effectively determining if damages

[17:29] to the structure are at an excess of 50% of the value and it is an excess of 50%.

[17:34] So I know, I don't know if it's condemned, I don't believe it is.

[17:37] I know that it is a substantially damaged property though.

[17:40] Okay, and the other question is, is there any zoning regulations in home or township across

[17:44] the street?

[17:46] Are you aware of any?

[17:47] As it relates to property development.

[17:49] So I can say that Homer Township does participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, which they would have to apply those 100-year floodplain standards as well as the floodway standards.

[17:59] So those would be applicable on that side.

[18:02] And I do know that it is, there are zoning standards in Homer Township exactly what those are.

[18:07] I'm not sure, but they do zone and have regulation in that way.

[18:10] Okay. Any other questions for staff?

[18:15] Thank you very much Grant. We now have the applicant to come forward stating their name

[18:19] and the address. And again, the importance of this criteria to us in the deliberation

[18:26] and decision process.

[18:29] Yes, sir. My name is Dave Delker. I live at 648 Lambert Road.

[18:33] I used to live at 648 Lambert Road.

[18:37] And I'd just like to live back there, you know.

[18:41] I've lived there for almost 40 years, you know.

[18:44] I went through the flood of 86, 15, 17.

[18:48] None of that went in my house till it was damn broke, you know.

[18:51] And that's kind of why I want to rebuild, you know.

[18:54] Maybe not a trailer house, but, you know, I'll put a block foundation in

[18:58] and a stick built house on top of that, you know, 14 by 70.

[19:02] And that's all I'm asking for, you know.

[19:05] I can't afford to buy in a place.

[19:06] I'm in disability.

[19:12] I'll be out in the street here pretty soon if I don't find something and that's what I'm

[19:18] kind of asking.

[19:21] Yes, Peter.

[19:21] So, I'll question, so the foundation for the current house, there is a foundation that's

[19:25] 14 feet by...

[19:27] There is no...

[19:28] Well, it's just blocked.

[19:28] Pears are blocked now.

[19:29] But I'll go for it.

[19:30] Put a register foundation in.

[19:31] So, if you put down a foundation that will be 14 feet.

[19:35] by 70 foot. So this is where I'm going to get a little confused on this. Why is it that you can't?

[19:42] Is it Eagles are saying that you can't go 20 feet? Yeah, I'm a little confused.

[19:48] You still have some eagle requirement that he can only be placed in the footprint that was going to be placed in the footprint.

[19:53] Okay. Yes. Because to me the footprint was the foundation. That's why I was thinking it that way.

[19:57] Okay. Thank you for answering that.

[19:59] All right, that's questions for the applicant.

[20:00] Yes, for the applicant.

[20:02] Right.

[20:02] In the past, your house has not received any water from the other plants.

[20:09] It didn't get inside my house.

[20:10] No, but it ruined everything.

[20:11] In my yard.

[20:12] It came up in your driveway in your yard and stuff.

[20:14] All my yard equipment and stuff was all really, all three times.

[20:19] And I replaced all of it.

[20:20] No help, a femur, nothing.

[20:22] Until this year.

[20:23] And I still haven't gotten help from that, really.

[20:25] I mean so I would assume that if you rebuild you would increase the height of it and oh yes

[20:32] I gotta raise in my house up I think seven inches I think is what it is from now. Have you considered putting a second story on them?

[20:39] Not at 14 by 70. No, I'm not just a regular 14 by 70

[20:44] You're more or less like a trailer house sitting there, but a stick built in on a foundation.

[20:49] question.

[20:51] I have a question for Grant. Now, why isn't that who says he can't put a different

[20:58] trailer in there? So it would be our zoning ordinance. So we have specific mobile home zoning

[21:05] districts and this is not one of those. So all right, all right, one, two, three, four zoning

[21:10] districts require foundation and stick building. In some cases, the module homes, but a trailer

[21:17] would have to go within a mobile home zoning district of the city, which is the R.D zoning

[21:22] district.

[21:24] Interesting.

[21:25] Any other questions?

[21:26] I have one for the applicant in the probably ranking comment on this, too, regarding the

[21:31] elevation of the new property, with the applicant go by the city regulations or EGLE, as far

[21:36] as the elevation for the new foundation out of the floodplain.

[21:40] So those would actually be one in the same.

[21:42] So his indication of having to raise at that seven inches, that's to put it one foot above

[21:46] the base blood elevation, which is 619 feet out there. So he'd have to have his lowest level finish

[21:51] floor at 620 feet. Okay. Those are the... Yes, go ahead. Is it possible to request an

[22:01] eco-ferience? Is there a process through thousands? You can do this. So they've allowed the six feet

[22:07] or the footprint would change? No, I don't know. It works. I could change it, you know, myself, you know,

[22:13] but because I actually had plans on putting a module or stick their

[22:18] hulls in it, you know, years ago until I got divorced, you know, that I went down the train, but

[22:23] we don't have that over yet.

[22:25] In the end, I've gone disability, so I'm really stupid.

[22:28] I guess the question is, is this a really any other option?

[22:31] You have to check with Ego to see what that would be an option.

[22:35] I don't think there is, is there?

[22:38] I can answer that.

[22:38] What's the process?

[22:39] So Eagle in short, so building new construction in the floodway is an extremely small regulatory allowance within the federal regulations that they're applying.

[22:52] Eagle's way to be able to accommodate existing homeowners like this is to do that footprint rule and that's what we've heard on a number of occasions that's all the flexibility that they're allowed to do.

[23:03] so that it doesn't change water flow or height and block water.

[23:08] It's part of another group.

[23:09] That's correct.

[23:10] Yeah.

[23:11] Yeah.

[23:12] similar rules to dealt with with a new compensation cut somewhere else for an equivalent

[23:17] outward.

[23:17] Yes.

[23:19] That's correct.

[23:20] That's correct.

[23:21] So they do allow, like if you're going to build new construction, just in the 100-year

[23:25] floodplain, not the floodway, but just the 100-year floodplain, that's when you can do

[23:28] the compensation cut to accommodate the floodplain volume elsewhere.

[23:33] The floodway does not allow for that to take place.

[23:35] So it is just that.

[23:37] Thank you.

[23:38] Any other questions for the applicant?

[23:39] No.

[23:40] We thank you very much for your presentation.

[23:42] Any one else in support of the applicant's presentation does make please come forward hearing none sing them will now go to any anyone in opposition to the applicants petition hearing none sing them will close the public portion of it and begin with the determination of the findings of fact who wishes to start.

[24:07] So Grant, do you have the list and the initial list you've been doing for the actual

[24:11] time you had to find where I wrote that down?

[24:17] Yes.

[24:19] So for our standard findings of fact, I do have the property.

[24:22] I just said 648 Lambert Road, the zoning of the subject property is RA2.

[24:27] The surrounding zoning is RA2 as well as home or township zoning.

[24:31] The speed limit on adjacent streets is 35 miles an hour.

[24:35] Number of comments in support would be zero.

[24:37] a number of comments in opposition would be one.

[24:42] The size of the subject property is that 132 by 165 I believe.

[24:53] And then the current use of the property is residential, although this structure is currently vacant.

[25:02] What's up, mine?

[25:04] The additional findings are fact we wish to add.

[25:06] If I may, Chairman?

[25:07] Yes, go ahead.

[25:08] So the foundation of the property needs to be raised to 620 feet.

[25:12] I was actually mistaken on those numbers, so I've got it written down here.

[25:16] So the base blood elevation in that area is actually 616 feet.

[25:20] Is that what?

[25:22] 616 feet.

[25:24] And the new structure would need to be elevated to at least 617 feet.

[25:28] So the foundation must be raised to 617 feet.

[25:32] The applicant is here because of eagle requirement, which don't allow him to change the foundation

[25:44] He's requesting a variance to the 14 foot with not being 20 feet, but being only 14 feet to meet the Eagle requirements.

[25:54] And in this case, the Eagle requirements in the city of zoning do not match, so they're in conflict with each other.

[26:02] The

[26:05] property is in the floodway.

[26:10] The additional findings of fact?

[26:12] There's no reasonable likelihood of getting a variance from evil, so this is only option

[26:18] for the property if he wants to reside on it.

[26:25] Just a couple additional findings of fact, if I may add them to property, if we can, this

[26:29] is actually located in Midland and across the street is home or township, and we're not

[26:34] certain of the zoning regulations in home or township.

[26:38] The property was, that east side of the street was apparently acquired more than 25 years ago.

[26:45] Annex and to the city of Midland, there was one letter in opposition, no letters of support presented on the case.

[26:55] And the trailer is currently zero handed to a north-south orientation and it is not inhabited at this time.

[27:03] I

[27:11] want to read this back and base it sure, and we'll face it on the issue.

[27:14] I think that's pretty good.

[27:15] Yep, so in addition to the ones I had previously read off, it would be that the foundation

[27:22] must be raised to a minimum of 600 and 17 bs in here.

[27:29] Thank you.

[27:31] Eagle requirements are such that it must be an existing footprint which is that 14 by 70.

[27:37] the applicant is asking for a variance of six feet, which would be the difference between

[27:42] the 14-foot and the 20-foot minimum.

[27:46] The legal requirements and the zoning requirements are at odds with one another.

[27:51] The property is within the floodway.

[27:54] The likelihood of legal granting a variance is very unlikely.

[27:58] Property across the streets in homer township and applicable to the homer township zoning

[28:03] rules.

[28:04] property has been within the city limits for at least 25 years and the trailer is

[28:08] oriented north-south and currently bacon.

[28:11] Any other thing we added to that? With that we will close the public portion of the

[28:15] media now looking basically soliciting a motion regarding the applicant as far as

[28:23] again the motion is made in the affirmative regarding the approval of case number 21-10.

[28:28] You want us to make that motion, please?

[28:31] So moved.

[28:32] I have support.

[28:33] Second.

[28:34] Second.

[28:35] All right.

[28:35] The motion has been made and supported regarding the approval petition 20-10.

[28:44] If we have a new member, we're asked one of the three existing members to begin with the findings of fact as far as the analysis of those five criteria.

[28:52] Who wishes to start?

[28:53] I'm happy to start.

[28:54] Thank you.

[28:55] Peter, thank you.

[28:55] So what criteria A, how strict are the compliance?

[28:59] And is this unreasonable prevent them to use the property?

[29:02] And the answer is, to me it's very obvious that this is very much an unnecessary

[29:05] burdensome to him.

[29:07] He cannot comply when things are at odds between ego and the city.

[29:13] How does a variance do substantial justice to the applicant?

[29:16] Well, obviously it gets in the chance to actually build on the property.

[29:20] Does a variance request the minimum variance?

[29:22] It is he's only asking for exactly what the foundation was or the property structure was before nothing larger is the

[29:29] You can't get any less

[29:31] Of a chain change the mid of the variance on that one

[29:35] What's the unique circumstances peculiar to the property that's not generally applicable in the area or other properties in the same zoning district

[29:42] Well, this isn't a flood zones in the flood away. It's a very unique property. It's been there for a long time over 40 years

[29:50] He has the same advantage as the other property owners in the area.

[29:54] The problem in the resulting need for the variance has been created by strict compliance with

[29:58] the zoning ordinance.

[29:59] Thank you very much.

[30:00] The answer is yes. It really has been because of the zoning requirements of the City of Midland and Ego.

[30:08] Any additional comments regarding that? I'm sorry, but I'm sorry. Certainly, another a, I would say that there's a very limited use other than for a residence of this property due to zoning and due to the size of the property. I would also say under B that it's not his fault.

[30:29] or anything that was intentionally done, it was an act of God.

[30:34] I also would say that it would be my opinion that would increase the property value

[30:38] to have a stick-built home on the property versus the mobile home that was there prior to

[30:45] and would be a value and a benefit to the community in that area.

[30:50] And again, I would just concur with what Peter said on the remaining three items.

[30:54] Thank you very much.

[30:58] No additional comments. I just think the five criteria have been covered very well and

[31:05] I think that it's a perfect catch-22. I think that there's not much choice in this.

[31:13] I think that rebuilding in the footprint is the only option at this point. So I agree

[31:24] in terms of substantial justice to the applicant, the property owners.

[31:28] It's going to, as was planned out by Mr. Exxon, it's going to improve the value of the property.

[31:34] He's building houses just the same as are able to build a house and use it the same way.

[31:37] So it seems like I don't see any injustice to the neighbors in any way.

[31:42] Okay.

[31:42] My name is Comet, it's been already identified.

[31:45] My Peter's actually forgot a situation with the applicant.

[31:48] And this caught one organization, one government agency says you can do something, and the other

[31:53] can't.

[31:54] There's an on- make conflict in that, and it's not fair to the homeowner to be caught

[31:58] in that situation where you know when.

[32:00] It is unique situation where it's located, as far as unfortunately the many areas in

[32:05] middle and suffered the same of similar damage in the last may a year ago, obviously do substantial

[32:11] justice to the homeowner to get the chance to rebuild a facility at house where it's

[32:16] currently located, as far as the minimum obviously yes, the idea is to, you want to enlarge

[32:24] the exposure to any future water flooding in the area when that, when the nip that occurs.

[32:31] Obviously, there are some unique circumstances.

[32:34] It happens to be located in the floodway, but again, it's a properties where this class

[32:39] flat is R-E-2, this is R-E-2, that's not in the floodway.

[32:42] The problem resulting variance created by strict compliance, I think it's obvious, and I have no issue at all supporting the variance request.

[32:50] Would you please take a roll call to vote, please grant.

[32:52] Yes, so this is the motion by Eric Sinan and supported by Daniel Sin to approve petition number 21-10.

[33:03] Mead.

[33:04] Yes.

[33:05] Daniel Sin.

[33:06] Yes.

[33:07] Kyle.

[33:08] Kyle, yes.

[33:09] Eric Sin.

[33:10] Yes.

[33:10] And Green.

[33:11] Yes.

[33:11] Yes, the petition has been approved.

[33:13] Thank you.

[33:18] Second case is evening with BK21-11, dealing with an area variance on 10-20 South Fagnall

[33:26] Road from James Kim.

[33:28] Grant, would you please make the presentation?

[33:54] It's Chairman, this is petition number 21-11 and properties at 10-20 South Fagnall Road,

[34:00] applicant is James Kim.

[34:02] And the subject zoning is RC regional commercial and the center city overlays district also known as CCO.

[34:10] CCO is an overlay district that actually mirrors the center city authority boundary,

[34:16] and that's a tax increment financing or corridor improvement district.

[34:20] It was approved, the CCO was approved about 40 years ago, and currently regulates just signage.

[34:26] So the intent behind the CCO district was to provide uniform signage in the district over time.

[34:32] It's not a police power ordinance which means that there's a certain time frame that

[34:36] science have to conform to the new ordinance standards. It's simply meant to apply a uniform

[34:42] type of signage across the district and over times as signage is replaced and there's redevelopment

[34:47] that takes place. They would all start to conform more and more to add to that uniformity.

[34:52] But the applicant this evening is requesting a variance from that center city overlay district sign regulations and the specific request is to permit 30 additional square footage of ground signage that would be attached to the existing 40 square feet and located on an 18 foot tall ground full sign.

[35:11] The center city district does have standards for both ground signage and wall signs.

[35:17] We do in the city does allow for ground signs in the center city districts, but they must be a monument style.

[35:25] They cannot exceed 60 square feet in maximum area, and they cannot have a height taller than 12 square feet.

[35:32] So this is to create lower signage monument style is to remove the pole mounted nature of a lot of signs and

[35:41] to bring them down closer to eye level with people that are walking as well as driving

[35:46] through the district.

[35:48] They're all are the additional wall sign standards that apply and they do allow for

[35:52] a hundred square feet of wall signage which is actually quite high compared to a lot of

[35:56] other zoning districts in the city and there are additional allowances that are given through

[36:01] footnotes that apply to multiple establishments within one building and that is based off the

[36:06] the millennial foot of the tenant-least building frontage.

[36:09] So we don't have the exact calculation of what would be allowed wall signage-wise for

[36:13] this particular property.

[36:14] We simply just want to point out that there is rather generous sign regulations that are

[36:20] given to the wall signs.

[36:24] Looking at the site itself on Stegner Road, this is on the southwest side.

[36:28] It's just south of the intersection of Eastland Drive and just northwest of the intersection

[36:33] of Washington Street, highlighted here in yellow.

[36:35] So this is within the center city district area, which includes properties to the north east and to the southeast.

[36:45] Immediately to the rear are properties that are multiple zone, multiple family residential, but a lot of them are single family residential homes on Michigan Avenue, and then through Cherry Street, Walnut Street, and the light back off to this side.

[36:58] There are fences that separate both the residential and the commercial uses that then front

[37:03] on the Saginaw Road.

[37:04] And this particular site when you zoom in does have two buildings that are pushed to

[37:09] the very north and southern extents with the parking area in the center.

[37:14] So you have two driveway access points for vehicles that come off of Saginaw Road, allowing

[37:19] for parking in front of both the south building as well as the smaller north building that

[37:24] that you see with the black top on this aerial photograph.

[37:28] One thing I do want to point out is that this, the property lines on the city's aerial

[37:33] photograph are give or take accurate about 10 feet so that it does appear that this sign

[37:38] is in the right of way, although we have found no evidence that it is, in fact, in the right

[37:43] of way that it is still on private property.

[37:45] So I know that that might be a question of why there's an important action on a sign that's

[37:50] actually in the right-of-way and this is simply just that inaccuracy of the

[37:54] property lines on the aerial photograph. The zoning district that I mentioned

[37:58] does have that RSC regional commercial and the center city overlay on top of

[38:03] that which is that full extent of the pink shade that you see here, properties to

[38:09] the south, west and to the west are RV multiple-family residential that you see

[38:15] in the brown shade.

[38:18] The applicant has provided a couple of sketches illustrating

[38:21] what they intend to do, and that is simply to add two additional panels to the lower part

[38:27] of the sign.

[38:28] This is the existing sign on the top, which does provide that total square footage for

[38:33] the sign and the height of that 18 feet.

[38:38] The illustration on the bottom then does show what they would like to do, which is add two

[38:45] additional 18 inch tall panels that would allow for advertisement on both sides of the poll.

[38:52] and those would be that width of 10 feet and so each would be 18 inches tall

[38:59] in addition to the 4 foot tall by 10 foot existing 40 square feet.

[39:07] The applicant

[39:08] did submit a site plan with this as well that illustrates where that sign is

[39:11] located in relation to the property. The property right-of-way line is about one

[39:17] and a half to two feet off of the backside of the sidewalk and there's about five

[39:21] feet between the existing sign and where that sidewalk is at so that puts it on

[39:24] the private property. This shows those existing driveways and how vehicles traverse through

[39:30] the parking area, avoiding that pole sign right here in the middle. Both of these buildings,

[39:35] as you saw in that aerial photograph, are pushed quite close to the street. They are legally

[39:39] non-conforming in that way. Since there would be new requirements to push those buildings back,

[39:45] if they were to be built brand new right now. But that is something we'll talk a little bit about,

[39:50] because of course that influences visibility towards the sign as you're driving.

[39:54] I'm on Saginaw Road.

[39:57] This is also a 9-news variance, and so I will go through the same five criteria, starting

[40:01] with the applicant's answers to each of them.

[40:04] First one being, how will strict compliance with 9-news matters unresolutely prevent the

[40:09] owner from using the property for permitted purpose, or will render ordinance conformity

[40:13] unnecessarily burdensome?

[40:14] The applicant points out that the city's requirement of alignment side would only be visible

[40:19] from one way direction of the roadway.

[40:21] The opposite direction of South Saginaw Road would make the sign difficult or non-visible.

[40:28] The existing sign ordinance would pay the money meant sign for the way from the road causing an obstruction of view.

[40:35] In addition to the placement away from the road, this situation would take up one or more parking spaces in order to comply with that sign requirement.

[40:43] This would result in an undue hardship upon the business in this plaza.

[40:48] To purchase a sign that would not be visible and the loss of the valuable parking space would be counterintuitive and costly to implement the existing sign pool or pool sign where they are asking for a variance would not take up any new real estate.

[41:02] And they are just asking for a small addition to the sign that is already constructed.

[41:06] This will result in minimal ground space being flooded with signs that would not be functional and the new sign cabinets would not block or hinder any businesses adjacent.

[41:17] Staff points out that the applicants are a compliant new sign, a monument size would occupy

[41:22] that parking space for the property and for the lack of setbacks for both the building

[41:25] and the parking lot.

[41:27] There are a number of businesses that use monument signs on South Stegon or Road but most

[41:31] of all have significant, but most if not all of them have significant setbacks to allow

[41:35] for parking signage and then the building kind of in sequence back from the sidewalk.

[41:45] Other structures like the building to the south of the applicant's property utilize wall

[41:48] signage to advertise through more businesses.

[41:51] One of those businesses including the little Caesars Plaza also uses a second projected

[41:55] sign on the property and not on the city property.

[42:00] That's not on the city property in the right of way.

[42:04] We also point out that they have no signage in the alley between the applicant's building

[42:07] and their building and that this means that only traffic coming northbound see the signage

[42:11] for the building's south of the applicants building.

[42:14] The ordinance allows for wall signs or roof signs

[42:17] up to 100 square feet, projecting signs of 12 square feet

[42:21] and ground signs up to 60 square feet.

[42:25] Pointing out that we have not received any details

[42:27] on the exact square footage of the existing wall signs

[42:30] or what would be permitted up to that 100 plus allowance.

[42:37] How will the variance do substantial justice

[42:38] to the applicant as well as the other property owners?

[42:41] The businesses in this possible would be positively benefit from the extra signage if you potentially draw more patronage into the existing stores in the area with the economic development, the pandemic has caused issues in the area and improvement in advertising would be beneficial.

[42:59] It would draw as much patron traffic to the area,

[43:02] would not just help their circumstances

[43:04] also to the other businesses in the surrounding area.

[43:07] It would improve center city as well as part of the city of Midland

[43:09] is always in the best interest of every business.

[43:13] They have two tenants who do not have an advertising on the single,

[43:17] the single cabinet poll sign currently

[43:19] so they'd be wanting to advertise those two businesses

[43:22] and they have requested space to advertise.

[43:24] That is,

[43:27] staff points out that the applicant or the approval would provide the applicant with additional signage similar to what is allowed in the RC district without the extra regulations of the center city overlay, that being said, there seems to be a few alternatives regarding signage and that staff cannot say with certainty which options may be the most beneficial to the business since we don't have all of that information.

[43:48] The applicant might even be able to modify the existing sign staying within the existing

[43:53] square footage by reducing the laundry signage and adding additional business names or a

[43:58] name for the plaza while utilizing wall signage for specific businesses.

[44:02] Staple is that the applicant's desire to increase the sign's size is in addition to the options

[44:08] available allowed by the ordinance currently.

[44:12] The variance requested is the minimum variance needed to provide substantial relief to the applicant.

[44:18] The applicant points out that many of the businesses in the area of center city have

[44:24] signage that they are requesting and that their location is very unique, where any ordinance

[44:28] that would move, assign a way and provide ground level from the roadway would most likely

[44:33] not improve traffic into the business.

[44:35] They have observed countless other businesses with multiple sign cabinets on single posts

[44:40] throughout the city.

[44:41] If the variance were to be allowed and permitted, the business is in the plaza would not

[44:47] only keep the number of parking spaces at its present count, but the new signs would

[44:53] be beneficial, beneficially observed by the traffic.

[44:58] This is the main.

[45:00] This is the main reason signs are constructed at businesses throughout the city and the variants that they are seeking would not harm or restrict any adjacent businesses whatsoever.

[45:12] Stat points out that the applicant currently has projected in wall signage, similar to surrounded properties from the road, the wall signs appear easier to read than the projected signage.

[45:22] The applicant has not indicated if they intend to add new tenants in the building or simply would like the larger signs to advertise the primary occupant.

[45:29] They suspect that they plan to add tenants and, therefore, would like more signage.

[45:34] The applicant could modify their wall signage, which would allow southbound travelers to identify the businesses.

[45:39] But this is not resolved issues for travelers heading northbound.

[45:46] What are the unique circumstances precluded to the business and not applicable in the area or

[45:51] other properties in the same zoning district, which would require this variance?

[45:55] The applicant indicates that it's the plaza that they are located.

[45:59] There are two buildings relatively close to the roadway, where there is minimal space

[46:02] to construct a sign according to the City of Midland regulations.

[46:08] They would have to construct a comply sign,

[46:12] a quit, just from the roadway, thus negating any benefit of a cost of project.

[46:17] Many of the businesses adjacent to our location have very normal space away from the road

[46:22] to comply with the new ordinance standards, but that is not a luxury that they have.

[46:29] Staff points out that the applicant building has the zero setbacks

[46:31] which limits visibility for monument sign.

[46:34] There are a number of businesses in the center of city

[46:36] overlay district that share this characteristics.

[46:39] Not all buildings with zero setbacks

[46:40] that equivalously against another building.

[46:42] Therefore, limiting sign visibility

[46:43] should the signage be on the wall of the building itself.

[46:47] In the case of the applicants,

[46:48] the neighbor to the south, the owner chose to use wall signage

[46:51] in the second sign to the little sea there's plazas.

[46:53] So this is effectively delineating the inability

[46:57] for them to have a southern exposure

[46:59] of their wall signs to take advantage

[47:00] of that northbound traffic.

[47:04] And then lastly, the resulting need has been created by street compliance with the zoning

[47:09] ordinance, not by the applicant or the applicants predecessor.

[47:12] The applicant indicates that they have been located and in business here since 1986.

[47:17] The signs that are now in place were constructed during the preceding years and were at the

[47:21] timing compliance.

[47:23] The new ordinance, we believe, were modified to address new building codes and setbacks that

[47:27] the planning commission created to negate future problems.

[47:30] They wish the new sign ordinances would allow, would also include the compliance that existed

[47:34] for many years ago.

[47:36] It is very difficult, if not impossible, to undo past construction methods that met strict

[47:41] ordinances during that period.

[47:44] Stack points out that similar to any district that experience is changing in the zoning, any

[47:48] modifications to the property are subject to the current zoning ordinance.

[47:52] It appears that the resulting need is due to the applicant's desire to increase the ground

[47:55] sign square footage rather than seeking strict compliance with the ordnance standard.

[48:01] So with that, Sherman, this is a three-fist vote that's required to approve this variant,

[48:06] and to date we have had one communication that's been received indicating no objection

[48:12] to the petition.

[48:14] And with that, I will entertain the question.

[48:15] Questions for staff regarding that?

[48:20] So, yeah.

[48:22] Good.

[48:22] So, can you put up the picture again of the building and where the sign is?

[48:28] So, as I understand, yeah, that's good, yeah.

[48:31] So, these buildings are both have no setbacks, right?

[48:35] So, they're obviously, that's making it difficult for the monumental sign, the monument sign, right?

[48:42] And because in between, it's very difficult for traffic to necessarily see,

[48:49] coming northbound, to see the sign.

[48:51] Yep, that's the argument that the applicant's indicating.

[48:54] And actually, if I go back just a couple more, this might be a better image that's shown.

[48:59] So you've got the sign that's located here, and so the applicant's pointing out that

[49:04] vehicles traveling down southbound or southeastbound on Saginaw Road, if this was a monument

[49:11] sign that was set back from the sidewalk, the visibility would be less than what the 18 foot

[49:18] high sign is currently since it's lower to the ground and would be set back further from

[49:23] the street.

[49:30] Of course, Northbound coming from Saginaw Road towards the Northwest, a similar type of

[49:38] question, although one thing to point out would be simply the distance between those travel lanes

[49:42] and the sign itself that would open up that vision triangle just a little bit more than the south

[49:47] And can you also comment on the little caesars just south of the building?

[49:54] Yeah.

[49:54] They have a poll sign.

[49:56] Yes.

[49:56] Right.

[49:58] But then they do, they also have signage on the building too.

[50:01] They do have a well sign, and then they also have a projecting sign that's perpendicular to the building that is visible for cars.

[50:16] So is there any sort of grant on the, if someone's to go back and go to the roof of one of those buildings with a sign that would be perpendicular

[50:25] particular to the roadway? Is there a 100 square foot ordinance of a wall or roof signage?

[50:32] Is there any sort of height limitation of such a sign?

[50:39] And you're saying directly on top of the roof?

[50:41] Correct. If I either, you know, bolted it or did some sort of a pull extension on the roof

[50:44] that would allow for visibility, similar to the pull sign on front, the amount on the building.

[51:22] So with any roof sign in the city limits, we actually say that the roof sign may not be higher than the roof line of the building, so they would not be able to simply place the sign on top of the building that would exceed that line.

[51:32] So they cannot put a roof top.

[51:34] A roof top would not be permitted.

[51:36] Okay. Thank you.

[51:38] Any other questions for Stan?

[51:39] Yes, I have one.

[51:40] So there's a question about leaving or losing a parking space.

[51:46] Does the property have sufficient parking in terms of the ordinance currently?

[51:51] Yes, they do with their current requirements.

[51:53] We have not done a parking calculation to know if they were to lose one.

[51:56] If that would put them out of compliance, however.

[51:58] But we do know they are compliant currently.

[52:01] Okay, but they would definitely lose one parking space if they put a monument sign in.

[52:04] That's correct.

[52:05] Okay.

[52:05] Yeah.

[52:08] Sorry.

[52:08] I have a question.

[52:10] According to his calculation, the existing sign is 3 square feet and the regulations on

[52:21] this center city are 60 square feet.

[52:25] What would prevent him from adding 20 more feet to that sign with a new sign?

[52:31] So the fact that the center city required that all new ground signs be

[52:36] monument in nature would not allow for a poll sign to be modified. So you

[52:41] couldn't make your poll sign or non-conforming. If you're gonna change the

[52:46] overall square footage you have to conform to the standard. Well how about if he

[52:50] if he created a monument around the base of the existing pool?

[53:03] So let me think

[53:13] So he would need to comply so the total of 60 square feet of ground signage would be a hard stop so he would be able to do that but he would not be able to exceed 20 square feet with that since you'd have the 40 of top and you'd be able to do 20 below and it couldn't be more than 60 square feet.

[53:32] If that's another understanding, what do you mean, 40 and 20, I don't know what that is?

[53:39] So in total in this intercity overlay district, you can't have more than 60 square feet of

[53:44] signage.

[53:44] So we have to work within that maximum.

[53:46] Okay.

[53:47] So the fact that he has 40 already, he'd only be allowed 20 additional.

[53:50] Okay, but I'm talking so he creates a new sign, which is 60 puts a monument around the

[53:56] bottom, makes a new sign on the top, which is 60 square feet as opposed to his existing 40.

[54:04] He would have to remove the 40 square feet if he was going to do that all 60.

[54:08] Yeah, replace it, yeah.

[54:09] Yeah, he would have to replace it, exactly.

[54:11] Would that monument sign then be in the right of way?

[54:14] We would require that it be set back in that direction.

[54:17] So it would be visibly, it have to be moved back from its current location.

[54:20] I'm assuming where the pole is now is allowing the elevated sign to protrude over top of

[54:26] the right of way even though it's not physically in it at ground level.

[54:29] That's correct.

[54:30] Okay.

[54:30] I thought so.

[54:31] Yep.

[54:31] So if you look at, there's, it's five feet away from the, the sidewalk and the, the

[54:37] 10 and it's 10 feet wide.

[54:39] So yes.

[54:40] So that five feet is to accommodate that, that overhang like you indicated.

[54:44] Yeah.

[54:45] So you would not be able to put an exact sign at the ground level period.

[54:49] Correct.

[54:50] Okay.

[54:50] Yep.

[54:50] You would have to set it back.

[54:51] I believe you have to set it back at least two feet from the right of way.

[54:54] and then you could build in that location.

[54:58] But you would also have a maximum of 12 square feet.

[55:02] So, or 12 feet. So, you would be able to do

[55:07] 60 divided by 12. I'm trying to think of five.

[55:09] There we go again.

[55:12] You would be able to do 5 feet wide, 12 feet tall,

[55:16] or anything within that dimension of not exceeding 12 feet in height.

[55:20] Okay.

[55:21] So, you could put a 12 foot height sign.

[55:23] a grant, a monument sign, a monument sign, it's 12 feet high, correct. That would be very odd.

[55:29] It's what the exact ordinance meeting that ordinance standard of 12 feet high and five feet wide

[55:35] is CDS across the street. Okay, yeah, all right. I have a question. Grant, we're going in. This is what's

[55:42] been the question about the applicant. He shows a clearance from street, I mean, from the ground level

[55:47] to the bottom of the sign of 11 feet. Is there any regulation of the city? I mean, if that option would

[55:52] Is there a certain minimum height that much be?

[55:55] We don't have a minimum standard for that since there's not going to be like vehicles

[56:00] traversing underneath, so there wouldn't be anything that would permit that.

[56:08] Any other questions from Stanton?

[56:10] Is there going to be a viewing issue if it has a monument sign because it's a unique parking lot?

[56:15] No setbacks.

[56:17] When cars are pulling in or pulling out, is that going to be a traffic issue?

[56:23] I had the question too.

[56:25] So, yes.

[56:26] So, if cars are pulling in and pulling out and they're in the way of that sign, they

[56:29] would be blocking a large portion of that monument sign.

[56:31] Since cars are usually about 5 to 8 feet, sometimes taller, so you would have either partial or

[56:39] full blockage of that monument sign as cars are moving back and forth.

[56:42] This being 14 feet before currently does get you outside of the vast majority of the height of vehicles.

[56:50] But I mean my question is actually slightly different is, okay, will the driver not be able to see the traffic coming?

[56:58] The driver of the vehicle inside the parking lot is a good thing to say about that.

[57:01] I see what you're saying.

[57:02] Yes, so that I'm glad you brought that up because I should have applied that standard.

[57:06] So we do have the clear vision triangle that would apply to both of those driveways,

[57:09] which would push that monument sign much further back away from the road.

[57:13] And that was my question.

[57:14] Yes, yes, at the same point.

[57:16] Yeah, so I was mistaken, you would not be able to go two feet away from that sidewalk.

[57:19] You'd probably be at least ten feet back in order to allow for cars to not be impeded by the clear vision.

[57:27] Okay, thank you.

[57:28] I have another later question, Grant.

[57:31] The building that's to the southeast with the pizza restaurant is they have no signage.

[57:39] on the street do they because there's a car there's a cartridge printing cartridge place there they don't have any signage on it on the street

[57:55] Maybe a wall sign in the front facing basically facing the southeast. I don't think there's any street sign up there

[58:02] Next to these a full-mounted sign anything that's on that particular site double check and see I know for sure

[58:09] They have wall signage in the back projecting sign on the building

[58:12] But even at looking at the aerial photograph, I don't see a shadow that's being casted.

[58:17] Also, I don't believe they've got.

[58:18] I don't think there is.

[58:19] From signage, unless it's close to the building.

[58:21] Because they have the same property line issue.

[58:24] It appears to have the same property line issue with the building and budget of the property line.

[58:27] Yep.

[58:32] When just a point of clarification, is it possible for him to,

[58:44] I don't know,

[58:45] Let's let's say it's 40 square feet and that seems like it is of the current type. Yes. Yeah

[58:51] Can he just simply put a new sign in that location at 60 square feet instead of giving 20 square feet more to he could not extend that cabinet in any way

[59:02] So if he's simply just wanting to replace like for like in that 10 by 4 by 10

[59:06] Yeah, he could do that, but he wouldn't be able to enlarge that cabinet

[59:09] So he's not really going to replace it. He just can't accept it. Correct. Okay. Okay, so he can't make it 60 feet

[59:15] Yeah, well, how about just the

[59:18] Out of bearings for it? Okay, it got you

[59:21] I can't say that there is a ground sign at little scissors. It does it's right at that intersection if I can put my cursor up

[59:28] It's right here where that building. It's right at the corner of this building and doesn't see

[59:33] Looks to be either 18 feet or maybe a little bit taller. Yeah

[59:38] Compared to the state of the service subject time we're talking. Okay

[59:42] Any other questions with staff regarding this?

[59:54] We didn't see them.

[59:56] We're in the presentation.

[59:58] Anyone else in the audience regarding this?

[1:00:00] If we wish to make comment and fake of support of the applicant, hearing none seeing them, we're now the opportunity anyone in opposition. To the ground sign, request. My name is Simon, request. Do an opposition? We'll officially oppose the public portion of the meeting now and let's begin with the findings of fact. We wish us to start on this one.

[1:00:30] Well, it's located at 10, 20 South Saginaw.

[1:00:37] The speed limit on South Saginaw is 35 miles an hour.

[1:00:44] There are no comments on the variance.

[1:00:49] It is governed by the regional city center overlay district rules as

[1:01:02] a starting.

[1:01:04] Yes.

[1:01:05] I wanted a sheet sheet we have.

[1:01:06] Oh I'm sorry.

[1:01:09] You're giving me time to put my money on.

[1:01:11] Yeah, good.

[1:01:11] Just trying to take the pressure off your grand.

[1:01:14] I appreciate that.

[1:01:15] Oh, it's right.

[1:01:16] I'm zoning is the regional commercial and the center city overlay as well as RB multiple

[1:01:19] family residential, 35 miles an hour on the on South Fingered Road as indicated.

[1:01:25] No comments in support, not in opposition, but we did have that one indicating no objection.

[1:01:31] The area of the property, well the current use of the property is commercial business.

[1:01:38] The area of the property is 190 feet wide by 120 feet.

[1:01:46] The property currently has an 18-foot tall ground pole sign that is 40 square feet.

[1:01:53] It is 10 feet wide.

[1:01:56] They are requesting a 30 square foot additional signage to that pole sign.

[1:02:04] They give them a total length of 70 square feet, which is over the 60 square feet maximum.

[1:02:10] So the property is right on the, run the property line with no setbacks.

[1:02:23] There's two buildings, one to the north and south of this parking lot and the sign.

[1:02:28] To put a monument, that's my fighting spank, it's going too far.

[1:02:38] So any new sign would be required to be a monument type sign not exceeding 60 square feet in total and would be subject to the clear triangle rule of city ordinance.

[1:02:58] Any new monument sign would have a maximum height of 12 feet. The current sign has a height of 18 feet, I believe.

[1:03:21] And although the existing property is classified regional commercial, the

[1:03:26] center of city overlay, it is bounded on the, what would be the north, should

[1:03:30] be on the northwest side, or they should be the southwest side by residential RB,

[1:03:37] classified property,

[1:03:42] and what's the speed limit on the second one, 35 today?

[1:03:44] 35.

[1:03:44] I thought it was okay, 35.

[1:03:47] There was a fence between that residential property and the commercial property that's running on South Secondary Road.

[1:03:53] Yes.

[1:04:06] And on both properties, storefronts I give out of it just one.

[1:04:13] As long as a large amount.

[1:04:15] There's a coin.

[1:04:16] Yeah, they're both coin or something like that.

[1:04:19] Yeah, the coin and that.

[1:04:20] There is property, the parts which do have existing businesses.

[1:04:25] Yeah, just existing question

[1:04:32] in the other thing we wish to add I think the applicant demonstrated

[1:04:37] that there were I can't find a real quick that there were two tenants that weren't able

[1:04:42] to have space on the manual which is what they're trying to accommodate here is to existing

[1:04:48] tenants to be able to advertise grant

[1:04:55] is just just just a point of information on this

[1:04:57] Well, is it possible for this person to just replace the existing sign with another sign that's exactly the same size and, you know, change the lettering and everything?

[1:05:14] They could take out the panels of the sign, replace those, but they would have to keep the pole in place, they'd have to keep the cabinet in place.

[1:05:21] but they do have the option to simply just change out that 40 square feet with new signage that would advertise every business.

[1:05:29] So if the sign pole would have become decrepit and dangerous, they would have to replace it with the monument sign.

[1:05:34] That's correct.

[1:05:38] Would that be true even if we gave them an ordinance for the pole sign now?

[1:05:43] So the variance that would be, if this was approved, that would apply simply to the addition of those two cabinets.

[1:05:49] So, say that it were to go out and disrepair and need to be fully replaced, they would need

[1:05:55] to conform to the ordinance at that time.

[1:05:57] Or obtain a second variance.

[1:05:58] Or obtain a second variance.

[1:06:02] Anything we should add to the findings of the fact that we are understanding what the findings

[1:06:06] of the fact have been developed,

[1:06:14] anyone wants to have read them back or we fully understand?

[1:06:18] I'm good with it.

[1:06:19] Very good.

[1:06:19] Okay.

[1:06:20] Based on that, I will solicit a motion.

[1:06:22] I'm motion that we accept report number 21-11 to approve the variance for 10-20 South

[1:06:34] Saginawe.

[1:06:35] I have support for that.

[1:06:37] Support?

[1:06:39] We'll be doing the work you'll begin the first afternoon.

[1:06:43] All right.

[1:06:44] So the first comment here is how will strict compliance make this unreasonable for the

[1:06:52] owner. This is a difficult one.

[1:06:57] The property is very unique in comparison to the

[1:07:01] most majority of the other buildings up and down this part of the city. So I

[1:07:06] will suggest based on the lack of the setbacks of the current buildings, having

[1:07:11] to take that sign out and put it in a monument sign is an unreasonable request

[1:07:15] because of also the parking and the triangle viewing. So I will say, I think it

[1:07:19] is a necessary burdensome.

[1:07:22] How would the variance use substantial justice to the applicant, as well as all the property

[1:07:27] owners?

[1:07:28] All the property owners like little seizures have very similar signs, that signs have been

[1:07:31] there for a long time.

[1:07:33] They at least gives them a chance to advertise some other building or other runchers at that

[1:07:37] site, so it does give them justice there.

[1:07:41] Is the variance request the minimum variance need to provide substantial relief?

[1:07:46] He is only asking for two 18-inch signs that are going to stay the same width of the 10-foot width.

[1:07:52] So, to me, the 18-inch height is not a significant, to me, it's a minimal request.

[1:08:02] So, with unique circumstances, particular is property that are not generally applicable in the area.

[1:08:08] Again, this is a very unique with the zero setbacks.

[1:08:11] Everything else is CVS across the street, the Walgreens or the Cady Corner, the properties right on the setback, and then if it does have to go back in and take out some more property, it's a more parking spot.

[1:08:23] It is a very difficult issue, so it's really the building how it's constructed, which is making this difficult.

[1:08:32] As a problem, the result of the need for the variance has been created by strict compliance.

[1:08:35] Yes, I mean, he is going to be a larger assigned than was required and he has a poll signed burst of the monument.

[1:08:41] So to come into conformance, he is out of compliance.

[1:08:48] Thank you very much, additional comments.

[1:08:51] Yeah, I would agree on the first item that to comply with the clear view triangle grant had mentioned

[1:08:59] It would be approximately 10 feet back from the building's setback, which if I look at where the existing pole is on the submission exhibit B, an additional five feet beyond that before it could even start.

[1:09:15] I think would honestly make the sign pretty much not visible from either direction until you're pretty much on top of the building, which would negate any efficacy of that signed visibility.

[1:09:27] There are, I think I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the different sizes in how far you should be able to see a sign at X numbers of miles an hour, what size they are and how much, you know, run time you need.

[1:09:39] I don't see how you could possibly comply with a reasonable visibility of 35 miles an hour if it was set back that far.

[1:09:50] The point I think though is that his current sign, although it's not in compliance with

[1:09:54] the ordinances, he's not being required to take the sign down.

[1:09:57] He could keep the sign up, he could reface that sign.

[1:10:00] He could repaint the sign to advertise the two businesses.

[1:10:03] He could explore, and he apparently hasn't, the idea of putting up wall signs or group signs

[1:10:08] or production signs up to 100 square feet, which would alleviate some of the problems he's

[1:10:12] having currently.

[1:10:13] I think the biggest thing is for him, this is cheaper to do in this this way.

[1:10:16] He was just this and sign by a couple of panels, put it on top of it.

[1:10:20] He gets everything he wants, but he's the purpose of the ordinance is to try to get eventually

[1:10:25] the entire area into compliance, where instead allowing somebody to further go past what's

[1:10:32] already in compliance, whatever the ordinance says and make it even worse by adding additional

[1:10:35] signage to it.

[1:10:38] Thank you.

[1:10:39] Roger.

[1:10:40] It's really interesting.

[1:10:41] I think Peter pointed out the uniqueness of the situation and I agree with it.

[1:10:45] I don't find anything different and Julie points out that what the fix is.

[1:10:55] And so I agree with what's been said and I'm ready to vote.

[1:11:01] Just a couple of comments.

[1:11:03] The fact that I guess the uniqueness, there are obviously, there are some unique ones

[1:11:08] the property. But again, as we've seen this this evening, there are other properties

[1:11:12] along the area that have the same issues of of position and relationship to the property

[1:11:18] line. So that's the one that gives me the biggest trouble accepting the fact. And again,

[1:11:24] keep in mind that when we vote on the criteria, it's all five. That if one is would be a negative,

[1:11:32] that's that must be considered. And so when you make your deliberation, please remember

[1:11:37] that they all have to be in the firm and if.

[1:11:40] I would say that I think that this property is somewhat unique in that it does have a

[1:11:44] building on each side of the property with a center parking area, whereas the parking

[1:11:48] adjacent is a single-sided lot of a building with a single-sided parking lot.

[1:11:54] It's not too opposing with a shared center, so I think there is a bit of a differential

[1:11:58] there which creates almost a full of art in the center where the existing sign is.

[1:12:02] Yes.

[1:12:02] Okay.

[1:12:05] We have the motion.

[1:12:06] We've been through the findings.

[1:12:07] Are we now ready to vote?

[1:12:10] Ready to vote.

[1:12:11] Grant, would you please roll call for the vote?

[1:12:13] Yes.

[1:12:14] So this is the motion by Danielson.

[1:12:16] Support by me to approve petition 21-11.

[1:12:23] Harrison.

[1:12:24] Yes.

[1:12:25] Kyle.

[1:12:26] No.

[1:12:28] Danielson.

[1:12:29] Yes.

[1:12:30] Mead.

[1:12:31] No.

[1:12:32] No.

[1:12:33] And green.

[1:12:34] No.

[1:12:35] Traditions denied.

[1:12:38] All right.

[1:12:39] The next item in the agenda this season will be in the old business.

[1:12:42] Right.

[1:12:42] Do we have any?

[1:12:43] We do not.

[1:12:44] Okay.

[1:12:45] Any public comments?

[1:12:47] No public comments?

[1:12:48] Any new business?

[1:12:51] And do we anticipate what's the deadline for the month of August cases?

[1:12:54] So our deadline for the month of August is actually this Friday.

[1:12:57] So if we do receive any applications which we have not yet,

[1:13:00] we'll let you know whether or not we'll keep that meeting.

[1:13:03] or cancel it due to lack of business.

[1:13:06] You haven't heard any threats or anything.

[1:13:08] No threats or any really specific inquiries.

[1:13:12] But sometimes that can change pretty quickly so.

[1:13:16] Based on that, just a first comment is glad to be back.

[1:13:20] Absolutely.

[1:13:21] I'm glad to see everyone this health thing will back

[1:13:23] and look forward to continuing.

[1:13:25] And based on that, the meeting is adjourned.

[1:13:27] Have a good evening.

[1:13:28] Great.

Zoning Board of Appeals 7/20/21

Transcript