|
View Agenda for this meeting
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION SUMMARY
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers | Roll call Members Cassis, Ghannam, Ibe, Krieger, Sanghvi, Skelcy and Gedeon Present: Member Ghannam, Ibe, Krieger, Sanghvi, Skelcy and Gedeon Absent: Member Cassis Also Present: Charles Boulard, Community Development Director, Thomas Schultz, City Attorney, Malinda Martin, Senior Customer Service Rep Pledge of Allegiance : Member Sanghvi Approval of Agenda: APPROVED Approval of Minutes: APPROVED with corrections Public Remarks: NONE
1. Case No. 10-061 41107 Jo Drive Schonsheck Construction, Inc. is requesting a variance to allow outdoor storage of unlicensed cars in the parking lot of the property located at 41107 Jo Dr. The property is zoned I-1 and is located on the south side of Jo Dr., north of Grand River Ave. CITY OF NOVI, CODE OF ORDINANCES, Section 1903.4 requires vehicle parking for automobile service establishments be limited to customers and employees and not for vehicle storage longer than twenty-four hours and indicates that no vehicles without current license plates be stored outside. IN CASE NO. 10-061 Motion to table this case until the April 12, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as requested by the applicant.
Motion carried: 6-0 2. Case No. 10-062 Weiss The petitioner is requesting variances to allow the land uses allowed currently under Section 1401 of the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance for the B-2 zoning for portions of existing parcels 22-26-101-019 and 22-26-101-021 zoned I-1 and OS-1 respectively with frontage on Ten Mile Road. CITY OF NOVI, CODE OF ORDINANCES, Article 11, Section 1101(OS-1) and Article 19, Section 1901 (I-1) IN CASE NO. 10-062 In the Matter of ZBA Case No. 10-062, relating to a use variance to allow land uses currently provided for in Section 1401 of the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance for the B-2 Zoning District on portions of Parcels 22-26-101-019 and 22-26-101-021, zoned I-1 and OS-1 respectively, I move that the request be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. With regard to Section 3104.1, the ZBA has authority to authorize the use in a zoning district in which it is not otherwise permitted only if it is clearly shown that the land cannot be used for a zoned use. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the land at issue cannot be used for any of the variety of uses allowed in the Office and/or Light Industrial Districts. The applicant instead has focused in the application on the alleged desirability of a Kroger store and related uses on one discrete portion of the property. 2. With regard to Section 3104.1, the ZBA finds that the spirit of the zoning ordinance would not be observed or substantial justice done by a change in the uses allowed to retail/commercial. The recent (2010) Master Plan Amendments and the existing ordinance reflect the intended and desired use of the area. The applicant made no specific reference to any particular terms or requirements of the zoning ordinance in support of the change to retail/commercial uses, and did not establish, or even attempt to establish, efforts made to use, market, or develop the property as zoned and planned. In addition, the applicant almost exclusively focuses on the proposed Kroger store and related strip mall development. The applicant does not identify the uses or any specific development proposals for the remaining areas along Ten Mile Road and along Novi Road. In other words, the applicant has not indicated how those areas demand specific approval of retail or commercial uses now, as opposed to office or industrial uses. In the absence of proposed uses and users, the Board cannot find that all of the B-2 uses are appropriate for the entire property, or that other uses allowed in the OS-1 or I-1 Districts are not available. 3. With regard to Section 3104.1, the applicant has not established the requirements set forth for use variances as follows: (a) The property cannot reasonably be used for any of the uses permitted by right or any special land use permit in the zoning district in which it is located. (i) The Board finds that the applicant misstates the findings of the staff’s update to the 2007 report by the Chesapeake Group. This study does not support the applicant’s conclusion that the property "will remain vacant for another 18 to 48 years." As indicated in the planning review prepared by the City’s Plan Review Center dated February 28, 2011, and in the memorandum from Birchler Arroyo Associates, also dated February 28, 2011, the projections in the original Chesapeake Group study nor staff’s update do not predict which land or buildings will or should be utilized, or when such land or buildings will be utilized. While there is other land and there are other buildings currently authorized for Office and/or Light Industrial uses, the property at issue is of sufficient size and configuration to allow development similar to developments within such districts that have recently occurred in the City. One of the purposes of the master plan is to make sure that there is sufficient area planned for particular kinds of development and uses into the future. The vacancy study cited does not establish that the master plan and zoning for this property is unsupported. (ii) The applicant did not provide any information to the Board with regard to any efforts to use, market, or develop the property as permitted by the zoning ordinance. In fact, the applicant expressly stated in the application (Page 7) that "it was always intended to become a retail development." Further, no indication from counsel today indicating efforts made to actively market land for either Light Industrial Or Medical Offices. (b) That the need for the requested variances due to unique circumstances or physical conditions of the property involved, such as narrowness, shallowness, shape, water, topography, or similar physical conditions and is not due to the applicant’s personal or economic hardship. (i)The applicant did not establish any unique circumstances or physical conditions causing a hardship for development of the property. The property has roughly a third of a mile frontage along Ten Mile Road, and approximately 450 feet of frontage along Novi Road. While there are environmental features on the property, there is significant buildable space near both the Ten Mile frontage and the Novi Road frontage, where the topography is reasonably flat and public utilities are available. The applicant’s counsel admitted the land could be used for Medical Office or Industrial use based on the topography of the land. (c) That the proposed use will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (i) As indicated in the Plan Review Center report and the Birchler Arroyo report, the Master Plan for this property has been primarily Office and/or Industrial since 1993, with only a brief exception between 1999 and 2001. It has not been master-planned for commercial use "since 1993" as asserted by the applicant. (ii) The majority of other properties in the surrounding area are zoned and master-planned for Industrial, Office, and Residential uses. (iii) Allowing commercial or retail uses on the nearly one-third mile long stretch of Ten Mile from Novi Road to the railroad tracks would substantially change the character of the area from a Residential and Industrial/Office corridor, with limited commercial serves, to a Residential and Commercial corridor. (iv) The applicant really only addresses the effect of the proposed Kroger store and related retail strip mall. The applicant does not discuss the specific proposed uses for the remaining Ten Mile frontage or the remaining Novi Road frontage. Those uses and potential users cannot be evaluated by this Board under those circumstances. (v) The October, 2008 Chesapeake Group study, which the applicant asserts shows market support for a grocery store and related retail center, is outdated. The letter from Chesapeake Group dated February 28, 2011 supersedes any previous findings by Chesapeake Group in that regard. (d) The need for the requested variance is not the result of actions of the property owner and previous property owners (i.e., is not self-created). (i) While the applicant indicates that the property was "always intended" to be used for commercial or retail purposes, a substantial amount of growth and development in the City of Novi over the last 30 years has involved Office and Industrial development. The applicant has not addressed any efforts made to use, market, or develop the property for the permitted purposes within that time. Motion carried: 6-0 3. Case No. 10-069 27754 Novi Rd – Suithouse The petitioner has requested in writing to withdraw this case IN CASE NO. 10-069 Withdrawn by petitioner prior to meeting. 4. Case No. 10-071 42355 & 42235 Grand River – KIA The petitioner is requesting variances at 42355 Grand River - KIA to change out the faces of (2) ground signs approved under previous variances with specified text, install an oversize wall sign with an area increase over that approved in previous variances, install (2) additional wall signs, an additional non-allowed ground sign of greater than the allowed area and height and (3) oversize directional signs. The property is zoned B-3 and P-1 and is located on the east of Novi Road and south of Grand River Avenue. CITY OF NOVI, CODE OF ORDINANCES, Section 28-5(3) Number of on-premises advertising signs permitted: No building or parcel of land shall be allowed more than one (1) sign permitted, Section 28-5(2)b.1.i.b. Single business: A wall sign displayed on a building occupied by one (1) business shall not exceed one (1) square foot of signage for each three (3) feet of setback from the centerline of the nearest adjacent thoroughfare or collector street as defined in the master plan adopted by the city, as amended, but not greater than fifteen (15) percent of the frontage surface of the building and not greater than two hundred fifty (250) square feet, unless a ground sign is also permitted under this chapter for the building, in which case the wall sign shall not exceed sixty-five (65) square feet. Section 28-5(2)a2.ii. all other ground signs shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet, Section 28-5(2)a.i. ground signs shall not exceed a maximum thirty (30) square feet or one (1) square foot of sign area for each two (2) feet of setback from the nearest street center line as required herein, whichever is greater, with a maximum area of one hundred (100) square feet. Section 28-7a.(9) Directional sign: Signs not exceeding two (2) square feet which contain only noncommercial messages including designation of rest rooms, telephone location, and direction of door openings. IN CASE NO. 10-071 Motion to grant the requested variances for the signs at the Marty Feldman dealership. I move that we grant the request to install an enlarged sign of 103.25 SF for sign E and the request for the variance for a 2nd wall sign of 23.16 SF with the additional name FELDMAN on the wall sign. With regard to FELDMAN/KIA, sign H, that we permit the additional FELDMAN wall sign of 18.75 SF on the new KIA dealership. With regard to sign I, that we approve a 20 FT in height and 44 SF ground sign for KIA. Sign D is approved for a 18.75 SF directional sign with the copy change. Also, a 17 SF directional sign is approved for signs J and K and a 19 SF directional sign is approved for sign L. The circumstances and features of this particular area are exceptional and unique to the property, such as the traffic on Grand River drives by the facility very quickly. Also, we want people to pull into the land facility without stopping on Grand River to look for the delivery or service area. The failure to grant relief will unreasonably prevent or limit the use of the property and will result in substantially more than mere inconvenience or inability to attain a higher economic or financial return. The grant of relief will not result in a use of the structure that is incompatible with or unreasonably interferes with adjacent or surrounding properties, will result in substantial justice being done to both the applicant and adjacent or surrounding properties, and is not inconsistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Motion carried: 6-0 5. Case No. 11-001 41460 Grand River Ave – Ste F & G The petitioner is requesting a variance to install an additional 18 SF wall sign on Suite F & G of Gateway Village Retail located at 41460 Grand River Ave. The property is zoned NCC and is located north of Grand River Ave and west of Meadowbrook Rd. CITY OF NOVI, CODE OF ORDINANCES, Section 28-5 (3) f. states: "Where two (2) more separately owned and operated businesses occupy a building on a single parcel of land, each having a separate exterior entrance, each business is entitled to a single identification wall sign…" IN CASE NO. 11-001 Motion to approve the variance as requested for a 2nd sign for a single business operating under 2 suites. The building is clearly designed to have a sign over each door frame and is not visually unappealing to have a sign above each door frame. The mistakes made with the size of the sign were not the fault of the petitioner. It was merely due to a misunderstanding of what was permitted. The failure to grant relief will unreasonably prevent or limit the use of the property due to the contractual relationships between Anderson and C & L Ward. The grant of relief will not result in a use of structure that is incompatible with or unreasonably interferes with adjacent or surrounding properties. This approval is limited to this tenant only. Motion carried: 6-0 6. Case No. 11-002 41370 Bridge St The petitioner is requesting an extension of the variance to install a real estate leasing sign of 48 SF adjacent to I-96 for 41370 Bridge St. The property is zoned I-1 and is located east of Meadowbrook Road and south of I-96. CITY OF NOVI, CODE OF ORDINANCES, Section 28-6 (4) permits leasing signs to be a maximum of 16 square feet and located not less than one-half the distance between the principal building and adjacent street. IN CASE NO. 11-002 Motion to approve the variance as requested by the applicant. The request is based upon circumstances or features that are exceptional and unique to the property and do not result from conditions that exist generally in the City or that are self created. The grant of relief will not result in a use of structure that is incompatible with or unreasonably interferes with adjacent or surrounding properties, will result in substantial justice being done to both the applicant and adjacent or surrounding properties, and is not inconsistent with the spirit of the ordinance. The extension is approved for 1 year. Motion carried: 6-0 7. Case No. 11-003 30995 Springlake Blvd – Springs Apts II The petitioner is requesting a variance from Section 2503.2.A to allow accessory structures in the interior side yard with setbacks of approximately 18 FT. CITY OF NOVI, CODE OF ORDINANCES, Section 2503.2.A states: "Accessory structures, except where otherwise permitted and regulated in this Ordinance, shall be located in the rear yard…" IN CASE NO. 11-003 Motion to grant the variance as requested by the applicant. There are unique circumstances or physical conditions of the property which makes it necessary to have carports to keep the vehicles out of the weather elements. The need is not self created. Obviously due to the weather conditions it makes it necessary to have the carports. Strict compliance with regulations governing area, setback, frontage, height, bulk, density or other dimensional requirements will unreasonably prevent the property owner from using the property for a permitted purpose, or will render conformity with those regulations unnecessarily burdensome. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the district. The requested variance will not cause an adverse impact on surrounding property, property values or the use and enjoyment of the property in the neighborhood or zoning district. Motion carried: 6-0 8. Case No. 11-004 31170 Wellington Dr – Portsmouth Apts The petitioner is requesting a variance from Section 2503.2.A to allow accessory structures in the front and interior side yard. CITY OF NOVI, CODE OF ORDINANCES, Section 2503.2.A states: "Accessory structures, except where otherwise permitted and regulated in this Ordinance, shall be located in the rear yard…" IN CASE NO. 11-004 Motion to grant the variances as requested by the applicant to install 28 carports at the Portsmouth Apartments. There are unique circumstances or physical conditions of the property which makes it necessary to have carports to keep the vehicles out of the weather elements. The need is not self created. Obviously due to the weather conditions it makes it necessary to have the carports. Strict compliance with regulations governing area, setback, frontage, height, bulk, density or other dimensional requirements will unreasonably prevent the property owner from using the property for a permitted purpose. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the district. The requested variance will not cause an adverse impact on surrounding property and is consistent with the zoning ordinance. Motion carried: 6-0 OTHER MATTERS Election of officers Chairman Member Ghannam Meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM. NOTICE: People with disabilities needing accommodations for effective participation in this meeting should contact the Community Development Department (248) 347-0415 at least seven working days in advance of the meeting. An attempt will be made to make reasonable accommodations.
|