MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD JUNE 25, 2008

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Joyce Weise.

 

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

Members Absent:        Stanley Sterk

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

 

#080625-01 - Approval of the minutes

 

The minutes of the regular meeting held on April 23, 2008 were presented.

 

Moved by Carl DeVree, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to approve the minutes as presented.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#080625-02 – (VAR0804) Unfinished Business - (VAR0804) 348 Baldwin LLC, 169 Monroe Ave.,

Grand Rapids, is requesting to have 28 parking spaces, a variance of 17 spaces (38%) from the 45 spaces required in Sec. 26.8 and 26.9; in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district, on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-401-004 and -005, located at 348 and 358 Baldwin St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (withdrawal letter)

 

The zoning administrator presented a review as follows.

 

REQUEST

 

At the March 26, 2008 ZBA meeting, variances were granted for elements relating to the front yard setback and sign location.  The request for less parking was tabled.  The site plan was subsequently redesigned in regards to parking.  At the April 16, 2008 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit and the Township Board approved the special use permit at the April 28, 2008 meeting.  The Planning Commission approved the site plan on May 7, 2008.  The development no longer needs the variance for less parking since the site was redesigned and has received approval.  The applicants have submitted a withdrawal letter asking that the remaining variance request to have less parking be withdrawn.

 

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to approve accepting the withdrawal request from the applicant because the variance is no longer needed

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#080625-03 - (VAR0805) Robert Stoll, 8240 Mellowwood Dr., is requesting to locate an accessory

use (hot tub) two feet from the main building, a variance of 8 feet from the 10 feet required in Sec. 3.4(C), in a (LDR) Low Density Residential District, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-10-465-005, located at 8240 Mellowwood Dr., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (withdrawal letter)

 

The zoning administrator presented a review as follows.

 

REQUEST

 

At the April 23, 2008 ZBA meeting, variances were granted for elements relating to the front yard setback for the applicant to locate an accessory building and accessory use (hot tub) in a front yard due to the unusual circumstances of the shape of the lot and the fact that the applicant had no physical means to meet the ordinance requirements without removing trees.  The request to locate the accessory use (hot tub) two feet from his was tabled due to the fact that the ZBA determined that the request did not meet the standards of the ordinance that were necessary in order for a variance to be granted.  However, the consensus of the ZBA members was that the 10 foot setback requirement was not necessary and the ordinance should be changed rather than grant a variance for a request that does not meet the standards of the ordinance.  Subsequently, the Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance revision and recommended approval to the Township Board.  The Township Board will act upon the ordinance revision at the June 9, 2008 meeting.  Once the revision is adopted, the variance for the hot tub to be located two feet from the house would no longer be needed since the location would be allowed by the ordinance.

 

In addition to these reasons, the variance is no longer needed because the applicant is moving to a different house according to the letter he submitted.  He asked that the request be withdrawn because he no longer intends to proceed with the project of the accessory building and the hot tub.

 

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to approve accepting the withdrawal request from the applicant because the variance is no longer needed since the ordinance has been revised to permit the location and because the applicant is moving to a different location.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#080625-04 - (VAR0806) Dentistry and Design PC, Clifford J. VanPutten DDS, 6543 28th Ave., is

requesting to locate a sign 48 feet from the centerline of 28th Ave., a variance of 12 feet from the 60 feet required in Sec. 25.6(B)(2), in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-21-300-039, located at 6459 (6543) 28th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (submittal material)

 

The zoning administrator presented a review as follows.

 

REQUEST

 

This is an existing site with the use of a dentist’s office.  The ground-mounted sign also currently exists at a spot 48 feet from the centerline of 28th Ave.  Sec. 25.69B)(2) stipulates that a freestanding pole sign must be so located so as to not extend over the distance from which a setback is measured in Chapter 24.  For 28th Ave., Chapter 24 requires that setbacks be measured from a point 60 feet from the centerline.  Therefore, a freestanding pole sign is required to be located at least 60 feet from the centerline of 28th Ave.  A ground-mounted sign requires an additional 15 foot setback for a total setback of 75 feet from the centerline of 28th Ave.

 

The applicant attempted to obtain a sign permit to replace the currently existing ground-mounted sign located 48 feet from the centerline of 28th Ave. with a pole sign and found that the current sign was non-conforming.  If the sign was replaced with a pole sign, the location still would not meet the ordinance requirement of 60 feet from the centerline of 28th Ave.  The applicant had determined that a pole sign would be more visible in the area due to the existing trees and other signs in the area.  A sign permit could not be issued to replace the sign in the current location without a variance.

 

HISTORY

 

Although there are no records at the Township Office of site plan approval for the development, it is likely that the building and sign met ordinances in effect at the time of construction which, according to the Assessing Department, was around 1991 with final building approval in 1992.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Although a road construction project is taking place at this location on 28th Ave., the project itself has NOT caused any issues which result in the requirement of the variance.  There is an existing ground mounted sign that may continue to exist at this current location.  The variance has resulted from the fact that the applicant wants to replace the current sign with a new one.  Plus the applicant has requested to replace the ground mounted sign with a pole sign and the ordinance requires that a ground mounted sign have an additional 15 foot setback.  By replacing the sign with a pole mounted sign, the location will actually be less nonconforming since the ground mounted sign is required to be 75 feet from the centerline and the pole mounted is only required to be 60 feet from the centerline.  The amount of the variance for the pole mounted sign (12 feet) is less than the amount of the variance for a ground mounted sign (27 feet).  However, the Township has normally in the past preferred ground mounted signs because they are less obtrusive.

 

The ZBA has granted variances in the past for signs in similar situations including: VAR0603-Dentistry by Dad, 657 Baldwin; VAR0609-Chase Bank, 615 Baldwin; VAR0803-St. Mary’s Health Service, 7782 20th Ave.; and VAR0804-348 Baldwin LLC, 348 Baldwin.

 

Variance standards in Sec. 28.11(C) are required to be met in order for a variance to be granted.  The ZBA should determine if they agree with the determination that the following standards are met or not met.

 

 

Variance ID

 

VAR0806

 

Applicant

 

Dentistry and Design PC (Clifford VanPutten DDS)

 

Address

 

6543 (6459) 28th Ave.

 

Request

 

Freestanding pole sign located 48 feet from the centerline of Baldwin

 

Date

 

Applied for June 25, 2008 meeting

 

 

#

 

YES

 

NO

 

CONDITIONS (Chapter 28.11-C)

1

 

 

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 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.

4

X

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

The ZBA will have to determine if this standard is met.  The spirit of the sign ordinance according to Sec. 25.1 is to regulate and limit the construction or reconstruction of signs to protect the public peace, morals, health, safety, aesthetics and general welfare.  The ordinance states that such signs will not, by reason of their size, location, construction or manner of display endanger life and limb, confuse or mislead traffic, obstruct vision necessary for vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety or otherwise endanger public welfare.  A ground mounted sign currently exists at this location and has since the early 1990’s and does not appear to have been detrimental to the area.  The proposed pole mounted sign would be constructed at the same location as the existing sign.  The ZBA should determine if this standard is met.

 

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 dentist office is permitted in the CS 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.

 

Met.  This area of Georgetown Township was constructed prior to the adoption of the ordinance that requires setbacks to be measured from the extra distance of 60 feet from the centerline of 28th Ave.  Therefore, if the sign was to be located in a spot that meets the ordinance, it would be right next to the building and the applicant would be forced to remove trees.  The ZBA has granted sign variances in the past for similar situations. 

 

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.

 

Met.  The current sign has existed in this location for over 15 years without causing detrimental affects to the area.  Even though the road is to be widened in this area, the sign location is still at least three feet from the sidewalk. 

 

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.

 

The ZBA will have to determine if this standard is met.  Other properties in the area will be affected by the road widening project and most of the structures in the area were constructed prior to the adoption of the ordinance that requires the extra distance for setbacks.

 

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 existing sign will be removed.  In fact, the required setback for the freestanding pole sign is less than the ground mounted sign and would, therefore, be determined to be less nonconforming than the current sign.

 

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

 

The ZBA will have to determine if this standard is met.  The road construction project has not impacted this situation.

 

Cliff VanPutten stated that the sign would be behind the building and both the pine tree and crabapple tree if the sign was located in a spot that met the ordinance.  He said that the trees would have to be cut down.

 

Joyce Weise asked about the electric wire.

 

The zoning administrator stated that the Zoning Ordinance did not address electric wires that that it would just have to be moved if it interfered with the sign.

 

The applicant said that he would like to have the electrical wired removed because he has underground utilities.

 

Joyce Weise stated that she had visited the site and noted that all the adjacent businesses as well as those across the street had the same type of signs.

 

John Fanthorpe stated that the road is being widened.

 

The zoning administrator stated that the road widening project did not affect this situation because the existing sign was not affected.

 

The chairman opened the public hearing.  No one was present to speak at the public hearing.  The chairman closed the public hearing.

 

John Fanthorpe stated that under the circumstances the request meets all the standards of the ordinance that are necessary in order for a variance to be granted.  He said that by replacing the existing sign with a pole mounted sign, it became less nonconforming.

 

Moved by John Fanthorpe, seconded by Carl DeVree, to approve (VAR0806) Dentistry and Design PC, Clifford J.  VanPutten DDS, 6543 28th Ave., to locate a sign 48 feet from the centerline of 28th Ave., a variance of 12 feet from the 60 feet required in Sec. 25.6(B)(2), in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-21-300-039, located at 6459 (6543) 28th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, (submittal material) based on  conformance with the seven standards of the ordinance. 

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#080625-05 - Adjournment

 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.