MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD MAY 24, 2006

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice-Chairman John Fanthorpe.

 

Members Present:         John Fanthorpe, Greg Honderd, Joyce Weise and Carl DeVree

Members Absent:         Daniel Lennington

 

Others Present: Mannette Minier, Secretary and Zoning Administrator, and the applicants

 

#060524-01 - Approval of the minutes

 

The minutes of the regular meeting held on April 26, 2006 meeting were presented.

 

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Carl DeVree, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on April 26, 2006, as presented.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#060524-02 – (VAR0608)

 

Apex Sign, 6200 North Dort Highway, Flint, is requesting to have three wall signs, a variance of one wall sign from the two permitted in Sec. 25.6(B)(3) for two street frontages, and to have 438 square feet of wall signage, a variance of 38 square feet from the 400 square feet permitted in Sec. 25.6(B)(3), in a (NS) Neighborhood Service Commercial district, on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-15-200-005, located at 1965 Baldwin (7676 20th Ave.), Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

 

Gary Gebhardt, Apex Sign, represented the applicant and presented the request.  He explained that the store wanted a wall sign by the entrance.  He said that the Township would be lenient.

 

The zoning administrator explained that the Township would not be lenient in regards to enforcing the ordinance or in regards to meeting the standards of the ordinance for a variance to be granted.  She further explained that the ordinance requires that a wall sign front on the principal street and there could be some discretion in determining which wall the sign would be on to be located on the principal street.

 

The zoning administrator presented a review as follows:

 

Request

 

The former D&W store at the corner of Baldwin and 20th Ave. was purchased by Family Fare.  Apex Signs is requesting a variance to have three wall signs for Family Fare when two are allowed because the parcel has frontage on two streets under Sec. 25.6(B)(3), Baldwin and on 20th Ave.  In addition, the lineal frontage allows for the maximum area of 200 square feet for each sign (allowed to have 2 X 200 = 400 square feet permitted).  Sign permits were obtained for the two existing newly replaced signs to have 153.88 square feet (2 X 153.88 = approximately 308 square feet).  Since the variance is to have a third sign with an area of about 130 square feet, the application, therefore, includes the request to have an additional 38 square feet in area of signage (153.88 + 153.88 + 129.37 = 437.13 square feet in signage requested and only 400 permitted-hence the request for the additional approximate 38 square feet). 

 

During the preapplication meeting the applicant indicated that they would be willing to eliminate the 75 square foot freestanding pole sign permitted by the ordinance in exchange for the additional wall sign.  The applicant was directed to submit that proposal in writing and so far it has not been submitted.

 

Variance standards in Sec. 28.11(C) are required to be met in order for a variance to be granted.  The standards that have objectively been met are noted with an “X” in the “yes” column and the standards that have objectively not been met are noted with an “X in the “no” column.  The ZBA should determine if they concur with this determination.  

 

 

Variance ID

 

VAR0608

 

Applicant

 

Apex Sign

 

Address

 

1965 Baldwin (7676 20th Ave.)

 

Request

 

Three wall signs and 438 square feet of wall signage

 

Date

 

May 24, 2006

 

 

#

 

YES

 

NO

 

CONDITIONS (Chapter 28.11-C)

1

 

X

 

Granting the variance(s) will be in the public interest and will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed.

2

X

 

 

Granting the variance shall not permit the establishment within a district of any use which is prohibited, nor shall any use variances be granted.

3

 

X

 

That there are practical difficulties in complying with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance resulting form exceptional, extraordinary, or unique circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question, that do not generally apply to other property or uses in the vicinity in the same zoning district; and have not resulted from the adoption of this Ordinance.

4

 

 

That the granting of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity; or, that the application of conditions of an approved variance will eliminate or sufficiently mitigate potential detrimental impacts.

5

 

X

That granting such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district.

6

X

 

That granting such variance will not cause any existing non-conforming use, structure, or condition to be increased or perpetuated, contrary to the provisions of Chapter 27 of this Ordinance, except in accordance with Section 27.12.

7

 

X

That the variance is not necessitated as a result of any action or inaction of the applicant.

 

Findings.

The determination can be made that standards 2 and 6 are met and that standards 1, 3, 5 and 7 are not met.  The ZBA should discuss those findings and determine if they agree with the determinations.  The ZBA should determine if standard 4 is met.  The following was provided for information and discussion.

 

Standard #1 - Granting the variance will be in the public interest and will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed.

 

Not met.  In the application, the applicant indicates that the public interest would be met because the entrance of the store would be identified.  The ordinance permits the store to have two wall signs, one for each street frontage.  The applicant has the option to move one of the permitted signs to the location at the entrance of the store. 

 

At the last ZBA meeting, Advance Auto was granted a variance to have an additional wall sign; however, the area of the two wall signs was less than what would have been permitted in the ordinance with the one wall sign.  In January, the ZBA granted Meijer a variance to have two wall signs; however, again the overall square footage was less than what was permitted in the ordinance.  In August 2004, the ZBA denied a variance for ABC warehouse to have additional square footage for signage.  The applicant in this case does not make such a concession (unless a proposal is submitted in writing to eliminate the freestanding pole sign that is permitted to have 75 square feet in area).  If the applicant offered to eliminate the freestanding sign, the standard could be determined to be met because the best interest of the public would be served by the elimination of the freestanding pole sign). 

 

Standard #2 - Granting the variance shall not permit the establishment within a district of any use, which is prohibited, nor shall any use variances be granted.

 

Met.  The use of a retail store is permitted in the NS district. 

 

Standard #3 - That there are practical difficulties in complying with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance resulting from exceptional, extraordinary, or unique circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question, that do not generally apply to other property or uses in the vicinity in the same zoning district; and have not resulted from the adoption of this Ordinance.

 

Not met.  There are no exceptional, extraordinary or unique circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply to other properties in the area.  There are no practical difficulties relating to the property that prevent the applicant from complying with the ordinance.  In fact, the site currently complies with the ordinance.  The applicant answered the question by stating that the entrance and parking are at the rear of the building.  The option exists to place of the two permitted signs at the entrance.

 

Standard #4 - That the granting of such variances will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity; or, that the application of conditions of an approved variance will eliminate or sufficiently mitigate potential detrimental impacts.

 

The ZBA should determine if this standard is met.  No reason was provided by the applicant for indicating that the additional signage would not be detrimental to the neighborhood.  If the freestanding sign would be eliminated, the wall sign would appear to be less intrusive to the area than a pole sign.

 

Standard #5 - That granting such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district.

 

Not met.  No other properties in the vicinity have the property right to additional wall signs with additional square footage.  Other properties in the vicinity meet the ordinance in regards to signs.  As noted under standard one, variances have been granted for additional wall signs only when the overall square footage of the multiple signs is LESS than what the ordinance would permit for one wall sign.

 

Standard #6 - That granting such variance will not cause any existing non-conforming use, structure, or condition to be increased or perpetuated, contrary to the provisions of Chapter 27 of this Ordinance, except in accordance in Section 27.12.

 

Met.  The site appears to be conforming. 

 

Standard #7 - That the variance is not necessitated as a result of any action or inaction of the applicant.

 

Not met.  The only reason the variance request is necessitated is because the applicant wants the additional wall signs. 

 

Discussion

There appears to be no exceptional, extraordinary or unique circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply to other properties in the area.  There are no practical difficulties relating to the property that prevent the applicant from complying with the ordinance.  In fact, the signage currently complies with the ordinance.  The request as proposed and explained by the applicant in the application does not appear to meet the standards of the ordinance. 

 

However, a case could be made that the elimination of the freestanding sign replaced with less square footage of wall signs would be less detrimental to the neighborhood and would be in the public interest.  The ordinance permits the applicant to have a freestanding sign with 75 square feet in area.  However, it does not appear appropriate for the ZBA to grant the variance, if they determined that the request meets the standards, with a condition that the freestanding pole sign be eliminated (since the ordinance allows the freestanding sign) unless the applicant proposes such a concession in writing. 

 

John Fanthorpe stated that a letter had been submitted by the applicant indicating that the freestanding sign permitted by the ordinance would not be installed if they could have the additional wall sign.

 

The vice-chairman opened the public hearing.

 

Phil Smith, 1574 Bauer Rd. said that he shops at the store regularly and the wall is ugly without the sign.  He said that the entrance area needs the wall sign.

 

The vice-chairman closed the public hearing.

 

Greg Honderd said that it is a confusing site with the entrance on the east side.

 

Joyce Weise asked where the signs were now located.

 

The applicant presented pictures.

 

The zoning administrator clarified that signs were currently located on the north and south walls and they were asking to have an additional sign on the east face.

 

Joyce Weise asked about the sign on the north face.

 

The applicant said that the sign on the north side has limited visibility.

 

Joyce Weise said that the extra sign would exceed the 200 square footage requirement and would be more confusing.  She said that they should install a pylon sign at the entrance.

 

The applicant said that they do not want to have a pylon sign because it would interfere with trucks unloading.

 

Carl DeVree asked what faces 20th Ave.

 

Greg Honderd said that they were trying to meet the spirit of the ordinance by eliminating the freestanding sign and that there was an odd layout with internal access to other stores.  He said that signs on the east side would aid in the internal movements and this would meet the spirit of the ordinance.  He said that this was similar to the variance request last month.  He said that the ordinance should be changed to allow a percentage of a pylon sign to be used as a wall sign if the pylon sign was eliminated and granting a variance was not the way to go.

 

The zoning administrator said that the freestanding sign would be eliminated.

 

Greg Honderd said that the square footage of the freestanding sign could be moved to a wall sign.  He said that a condition of approval, if the ZBA was to grant the variance, would be that no freestanding sign would be allowed unless one of the wall signs was removed.

 

John Fanthorpe said that businesses have certain needs and they should be able to choose according to the ordinance.

 

Greg Honderd said that the square footage should be tied to a number.

 

There was discussion about the request in relation to meeting the standards of the ordinance and that the request meets some of the standards.

 

John Fanthorpe said that there is a practical difficulty due to the layout of the building and the way it was placed on the lot.

 

The zoning administrator suggested that a smaller wall sign would be less detrimental than the freestanding sign.

 

Joyce Weise said that they were asking to have a lot of wall signage.

 

John Fanthorpe said that it would be 38 square feet less than if a freestanding sign was constructed.

 

The applicant said that it would be workable to add or reduce the signs by a couple of feet to take care of the additional 38 square feet.  He said that if a person goes back 75 feet, they could not tell the difference.  He said that when he built the sign it was a confidential deal and he was told to move forward.  He said that the signs that were built were LED lighting which costs more to build, about $20,000, and that they would give up the freestanding sign.

 

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Carl DeVree, to grant the request (VAR0608) for Apex Sign, 6200 North Dort Highway, Flint, to have three wall signs, a variance of one wall sign from the two permitted in Sec. 25.6(B)(3) for two street frontages, and to have 438 square feet of wall signage, a variance of 38 square feet from the 400 square feet permitted in Sec. 25.6(B)(3), in a (NS) Neighborhood Service Commercial district, on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-15-200-005, located at 1965 Baldwin (7676 20th Ave.), Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, with a condition of approval that the additional wall sign and square footage would be permitted if the freestanding sign was eliminated in writing and that if the freestanding sign was ever constructed, the additional wall sign would be removed, based on the findings that the request meets the spirit of the ordinance, that this would help create internal access and entrance visible, that the difficulty is the layout of the store which has been in existence for a number of years, and the practical difficulty is that visibility of the site, that it is not detrimental but will help with internal control, and that most other stores have visible signs from the front.

 

Joyce Weise asked if all the standards of the ordinance were met.

 

Greg Honderd said that he was opposed to granting the variance because this situation and others like it should be handled with a Zoning Ordinance change.  He said that he took the position that this is the same as the last sign request and that the concept was fine although this was not the proper way to go about it.

 

Joyce Weise asked if the Planning Commission was in the process of revising the ordinance.

 

The zoning administrator explained that the sign revisions were initiated by the Planning Commission and the revisions would have to be advertised for a public hearing.

 

Yeas:   none

Nays:  Greg Honderd, John Fanthorpe, Carl DeVree, Joyce Weise

Absent: Daniel Lennington

 

MOTION DEFEATED.

 

The reasons for denial were that members of the ZBA did not agree that the standards of the ordinance were all met and that it would be too much wall signage with 38 feet over what is allowed.  It was also noted that the Planning Commission was working on revising the Zoning Ordinance to allow the additional wall signs if the overall square footage was less than what was permitted in the ordinance.  The revision would allow the applicant to have what was requested without the variance after the amendment was adopted.

 

Moved by Joyce Weise, seconded by Carl DeVree, to deny the request (VAR0608) for Apex Sign, 6200 North Dort Highway, Flint, to have three wall signs, a variance of one wall sign from the two permitted in Sec. 25.6(B)(3) for two street frontages, and to have 438 square feet of wall signage, a variance of 38 square feet from the 400 square feet permitted in Sec. 25.6(B)(3), in a (NS) Neighborhood Service Commercial district, on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-15-200-005, located at 1965 Baldwin (7676 20th Ave.), Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, based on the findings that the request does not meet standards 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the ordinance.

 

The applicant questioned the motion since it appeared that the ZBA was in favor of allowing additional wall signage if the freestanding sign was eliminated.  It was explained that while the ZBA might be in favor of the additional wall signage if the freestanding sign was removed, the proper way was to change the ordinance for wall signage since the request did not meet the standards of the ordinance.

 

Yeas:   Greg Honderd, John Fanthorpe, Carl DeVree, Joyce Weise

Nays:  none

Absent: Daniel Lennington

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

Greg Honderd said that the Planning Commission would go through the process to revise the ordinance and it would take about two months.  He said that the applicant was welcome to keep in touch with the Township.

 

#060524-03 – Adjournment

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.