MINUTES CITY OF KALAMAZOO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 13, :00 p.m. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS

Transcription

1 MINUTES CITY OF KALAMAZOO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 13, :00 p.m. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS Members Present: David Artley, Karl Guenther, Karl Freed, Rachel Hughes-Nilsson, Albert Robitaille, Charles Martell, alternate Members Absent: City Staff: City Staff: Thomas Stolz Pete Eldridge, Project Coordinator; Deanna Benthin, Recording Secretary John Kneas, Assistant City Attorney Chair Artley called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Chair Artley thanked the Board for his re-election to Chair for another term and noted he wanted to talk about two other items that had previously been before the Zoning Board of Appeals after the first request. MINUTES: Mr. Robitaille, supported by Mr. Guenther moved to approve the minutes of February 14, 2008 as submitted; Chair Artley and Mr. Freed abstained. Motion approved by voice vote unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS: Chair Artley summarized the process and explained the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing rules of procedures stating that a full board consists of six members and that approval requires four affirmative votes. If only four members are present the applicants would have the option to hold their requests over to the next meeting or present their requests with the hopes of getting all four affirmative votes. Mr. Guenther read the application for 815 West Michigan Avenue, CCN# : ZBA# : 815 West Michigan Avenue: An application for a variance to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance has been filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals by Patrick Stanley, the property owner. The request concerns the property at 815 West Michigan Avenue, which is situated in use Zone CC (Commercial Community District). The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance from Chapter 9, Section 9.5 A, in order to change the sign face of a nonconforming freestanding sign. The existing

2 Zoning Board of Appeals 02/14/08 2 of 9 freestanding sign is noncompliant in regard to the 25-foot maximum height for signs in the CC District (actual height is 27 feet), the maximum size for a freestanding sign in the CC District is 150 square feet (actual size is 232 square feet), and a two foot setback is required from the property lines (zero setback from west property line). Please note that this request will not change the zoning classification of the property. This is a request for a variance only regarding the items described above. There were 158 notices of public hearing sent and two responses were received. Patrick Stanley, 5827 Jacille, stated he and Mr. Derhammer were the co-owners of the property at 815 W. Michigan and were present to speak on behalf of the request. Mr. Stanley stated the present sign had been there on West Michigan Avenue since he lived there 50 years ago, in the same location and the same size. Now he s being asked to tear it down and move it back two feet. The pillar to the sign is two feet back from the sidewalk, the sign itself is exactly even with the sidewalk. Mr. Stanley commented he wasn t aware there was a problem with the height. Prior to purchasing the property he had checked with the building department to make sure there wasn t anything the City wanted taken care of, they couldn t find any, so they purchased the property. Now there s a new tenant going in who is relying on the sign for advertising and has signed a lease with him for the next 15 years and plans on putting approximately $70,000 into remodeling. The sign company estimated to move the sign two feet it would be between $30,000 to $40,000. Mr. Stanley commented it doesn t make sense just because the City Commission or Buildings Department decided three or four years ago to take all of the signs out of downtown and get the signs into compliance. Mr. Stanley stated he wouldn t have a problem with if he was putting a new sign in today, but he purchased the property with the sign on it and relied on that sign. The property was leased knowing the sign was there, not knowing that the City Commission wants it changed and asked the Board to explain the reasoning. Chair Artley explained to Mr. Stanley this was his opportunity to share with the Board his views, stating the Zoning Board doesn t normally respond to an applicants questioning. If staff chose to respond it would be after the public spoke in favor and against the request. Mr. Stanley acknowledged he understood this. Mr. John Skinner, 2211 Glenwood Drive, commented he was a property owner on Lovell St. and feels the sign is beautiful and has class. Mr. Skinner stated he s been in the neighborhood since 1965, stating he didn t have a problem with having a new tenant or the sign. Mr. Emig stated he s the owner of W. M. Spaman Jewellers and other properties along W. South St. and felt the sign itself was fine where it exist. Mr. Emig stated the signs been there a long time and feels the new tenant will be a good one. David Derhammer, 8509 Van Kal, stated he was co-owner of the building and commented they weren t changing the structure of the sign only the name on it. He stated it didn t make any sense to him. Mr. William Snyder, 924 W. Lovell, is a neighbor and welcomed the new business to the neighborhood and wished them success. Mr. Snyder stated for a dimensional variance all applicable criteria must be met which are as follows:

3 Zoning Board of Appeals 02/14/08 3 of 9 1) There are special circumstances or conditions (like exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness, or the shape of property) that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is sought, that is not applicable to other land or structures in the same zone district. In fact the particular lot is exceptional in that it is a corner lot that has extraordinary frontage for it s size. The view of the proposed sign as one approaches from the south heading north is totally unobscured and due to the angle of the property in relation to the traffic traveling south from the Michigan/West Main intersection, visibility is likewise excellent. Additionally, there are no competing business signs protruding out from the fronts of adjacent businesses. This criteria is clearly not met. 2) The special circumstances are not the result of the actions of the applicant or titleholder of the land. This criteria is not met. Obviously, the purchase of the property and change of tenants are the sole responsibility of the applicant. 3) The literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the same zone district, and would cause practical difficulty. The ordinance is applied to everyone according to the law and all businesses in this zone must abide by the same governance. The visibility of this business is high and it is uniquely unencumbered by surrounding competing businesses. This criteria is certainly not met. 4) The granting of the variance is the minimum action that will make possible the use of the land or structure that is not contrary to the public interest, and that would carry out the spirit of this Ordinance. It would be false to assume that granting the variance will somehow make it possible to use the land or structure. Again, all other businesses are required to abide by the restrictions of the ordinance and he seriously doubts there is a single person present who believes the land and structure cannot be used for the purposes being stated without the variance being granted. This criteria is definitely not met. 5) The granting of the variance will not adversely affect adjacent land in a material way. The subject property is embedded in a historic district with historic structures as the adjacent properties and while he personally believes that the granting of the variance wouldn t impact the quality of life for the surrounding properties, he can obviously see an argument being made that this criteria would be met by those in favor of the variance. 6) The granting of the variance will be generally consistent with the purposes and intent of this Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the Ordinance is to bring all properties in the zone into conformity. The granting of the variance is directly in opposition of this stated goal since there are not extenuating circumstances associated with this particular property.

4 Zoning Board of Appeals 02/14/08 4 of 9 In summary, five of the six relevant criteria are not met for the granting of the variance. Mr. Snyder stated in the interests of considering the merits of the requests as it applies to the spirit of the ordinance and substantial justice being done, there is a relevant project occurring in the proposal area. There are new sidewalks, bike paths and historic lighting already in the College Park. Mr. Snyder commented that over a decade ago a group of concerned citizens got together with the sole interest in beautifying and improving this area referred to as College Park and the Archipelago of traffic islands extending down from W. Lovell to Academy Streets. The committee consisted of neighbors, local businesses, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo College, and likewise had the City as a contributing partner. The work started then has now come to fruition with the awarding of an MDOT enhancement grant and the letting of bids by the City this past fall. Over a million dollars will be spent to improve the area with the project being completed by early summer of this year. Neighbors have contributed a quarter of a million dollars by passing a special assessment on their properties. Kalamazoo College has pledged financial contributions. Western Michigan pledged over a quarter of a million in funding and $125,000 in cash. The City of Kalamazoo has contributed in labor, engineering, and in cash an estimated quarter of a million dollars also. Mr. Snyder commented, through the offices of Engineering, Frank Szopo has been working to improve the aesthetics of the area by reducing signage, removing unsightly telephone poles and redundant street lights. He stated it would be inconsistent for the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve any increase in signage above that which mandated by the ordinance when the City has so aggressively pursued the reduction of signage in the area. Mr. Snyder stated the Gateway Coalition Project (as this is generally referred to) not only involves the aforementioned aesthetic improvements, but also is responsible for sidewalk corner brick paver treatments throughout the area and the historic lighting now present. Additionally, bike paths and sidewalks, curb cuts and landscaping have been added and/or replaced across the street from the subject property. Mr. Snyder commented in the spirit of the ordinance and in ensuring that substantial justice is done, it would be consistent for the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the variance request and is in keeping with the fact that the request fails to meet the necessary criteria set forth under the provisions of the Ordinance. In fact it fails to meet most if not all of the required criteria as set forth for granting a dimensional variance. Nelson Nave, 610 W. South Street, stated he drives down the street and turns at that corner at least once a day and stated he was against the dimensional variance. Carrie Venema, 471 W. South St., commented she was a representative of the residential component of the area. Ms. Venema stated she had heard of the new business coming to the area and was excited by the prospect. She was hoping to work out a compromise that leads to compliance, but doesn t injure the property owner or new business with a large financial expense upon opening and wished them both well. Ms. Venema stated she doesn t like the sign and would like to see something more consistent with collegiate, funky business and more consistent with the historic neighborhood. Pat Hirsch, 610 W. South Street, stated she welcomed the new business to the neighborhood and has no opposition to the business. However, she has a problem with any kind of variance on the sign because of the fact they are making stipulations. Ms. Hirsch commented approximately a month and a half ago she stood before the Board and asked that the Board not allow the Spaman Jeweller relocation. Ms. Hirsch commented on her view and displeasure

5 Zoning Board of Appeals 02/14/08 5 of 9 with the look of Spaman s sign at the entrance to the historic district. She also asked that the City do something about the dumpster that isn t shielded. Ms. Hirsch asked the Board to please take the neighbors into consideration, the entry way into Kalamazoo and make the sign the way it s supposed to be. Mr. Eldridge commented on the amendment of the ordinance in October of The ordinance in place prior to that amendment allowed for one thing on non-conforming signs, the changing of the sign face. Mr. Eldridge explained you couldn t take cabinets down and put cabinets back up if the sign was too large, too tall or too close to the property line, the old ordinance allowed for just the change of the sign face in a non-conforming sign. The outcome he explained resulted in sign structures, some roof mounted, free standing, large wall signs throughout the city many of them in various states of disrepair yet still functional signs. The ordinance was doing nothing to perpetuate the removal of these signs that were in some cases just rusting on their supports. Mr. Eldridge explained why in October of 2005 the ordinance was amended to not allow any alterations to a non-conforming sign. However, when they did amend the ordinance they added one additional caveat that the property owner could enter into an agreement with the City of Kalamazoo to continue using a non-conforming sign for a period of five years. This agreement clearly states at the conclusion of that five year period that the non-conforming sign had to be removed completely and a conforming sign could then be erected. When the ordinance was changed it didn t shift that burden immediately to the property owner and force the removal of all non-conforming signs every time someone wanted to alter a sign face or change a cabinet. This was provided as a secondary option and was mentioned to Mr. Stanley when it was realized this particular sign was non-conforming in height, square footage and location. However he d already made application to the Zoning Board of Appeals and wanted to proceed with this hearing. Mr. Eldridge commented he would like to see the change come about from a Planner s perspective; the large signs don t beautify the community. Mr. Martell questioned if the sign was non-conforming before the October, 2005 amendment and how long had it been there. Mr. Eldridge replied yes it was nonconforming in height, sq. footage and setbacks, and the sign has been there at least 30 to 40 years he could locate documentation for. Mr. Martell questioned if Mr. Stanley was trying to make it bigger. Mr. Stanley replied he was only changing the words on it. Mr. Robitaille questioned what the plan was to change the sign face, would it be a digital sign. Mr. Stanley replied the only change will be the sign will be painted and the face will be more subdued subject to approval tonight. He stated it would be attractive and not flashing. Mr. Robitaille commented regarding the estimated cost of moving the sign could be $40,000, that the Zoning Board doesn t consider financial burdens. Mr. Robitaille questioned if he had looked at other structural changes to the cabinet that would bring the sign into compliance without moving the pedestal. Mr. Stanley replied yes and he was told it couldn t be done. The sign company would have to take the sign down in its entirety and rebuild a brand new sign to take care of the size and the height at a cost of approximately $12,000 to $15,000 which is a lot to him. Chair Artley closed the public hearing. FINDING OF FACT

6 Zoning Board of Appeals 02/14/08 6 of 9 Mr. Freed moved the Finding of Fact as follows: 1.) The Finding of Fact for 815 West Michigan Avenue shall include all information included in the notice of public hearing dated February 27, ) There were 158 notices of public hearing sent and two responses were received, one in favor, one in opposition. 3.) A public hearing was held before the board and public comments were accepted. 4.) The Zoning Board of Appeals received documents on the request including lot diagrams, photographs and drawings. 5.) The Finding of Fact shall include those documents just described and also all facts and comments made during the public hearing, which are summarized to include without limitation, the following: Four people spoke in favor of the request, Mr. Stanley said the sign had been at that location for a number of years and the pillar supporting the sign is two feet from the property line, but the sign is not. He stated the new tenant needs to use the sign and economically it doesn t make sense to move the sign two feet. He does not understand why it has to be changed. Mr. John Skinner a property owner on Lovell Street feels it s a beautiful classy sign and gave some history of the sign. Richard Emig spoke in favor stating he owns a number of properties on W. South Street and said the sign should be left as it is. Mr. Derhammer a co-owner of the property stated the changes to the sign are due to a new tenant who is renting the building and he spoke in favor of the request. Four people spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Snyder reviewed the criteria required under the ordinance for granting a dimensional variance. He stated there were no competing business signs that would block this sign and stated that of the six criteria that the ordinance requires all be met, five of them are not met in this request. Nelson Nave of W. South Street was opposed to the request. Carrie Venema of W. South Street said she wished there was a way to have compliance over time where the changes could be made and the integrity of the property on South Street could be protected. Pat Hirsch of W. South Street was vehemently opposed; she doesn t like signage in the residential historic neighborhoods. Mr. Eldridge responded to Mr. Stanley s question about why the city is requesting this sign to be removed. He stated that there was a new ordinance in 2005 that allows the City to negotiate with the property owner for the signs ultimate removal. Mr. Stanley responded to questions of the Board regarding what was going to happen to the face of the sign and how it was going to be redeveloped. Mr. Guenther supported the Finding of Fact.

7 Zoning Board of Appeals 02/14/08 7 of 9 Motion approved for the Finding of Fact by voice vote unanimously. Mr. Martell moved to approve the application, supported by Mr. Guenther. Mr. Martell stated the sign had been there a long time; no one was opposed to the previous sign. He stated it s just a replacement of the words not a change in the sign dimensions. Mr. Martell commented two feet isn t too much or the increase in size isn t much. Mr. Guenther stated he agreed with Mr. Martell s observations, it hasn t apparently been a problem; the applicant only wants to change the words not make the sign bigger or make it brighter. He stated the reason for a Zoning Board of Appeals is for these exceptions and feels this is one of those, commenting he ll be in support of the request. Mr. Freed commented he could support the motion if there was some language to ultimately modify the sign to bring it into compliance. He stated he s not sure if that would be a limitation in the granting of a variance, that a granting of a variance would last a specific amount of time. Mr. Freed questioned Mr. Eldridge if this is a formal written agreement between the property owner and the City. Mr. Eldridge replied yes, it s laid out in Chapter 9 of the Ordinance, the five year non-conforming agreement. The property owner enters into the agreement with the City of Kalamazoo to remove the sign within five years or the City will come and remove the sign placing a lien on the property. Basically, the sign will be removed within five years, but the owner can continue to obtain sign permits to change the sign face during that time. Mr. Eldridge commented it was written into the ordinance. Mr. Freed questioned if it had to be five years. Mr. Eldridge replied it s written into the ordinance for five years and has to be for five years. The property owner may replace the sign with a conforming size sign if they choose; it also waves the right to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Freed questioned if there is any language that allows the owner to phase that work over time or is it something he could modify the height of the sign in two years. Mr. Eldridge replied that as long as at the end of the five years all the non-conforming elements were eliminated. Chair Artley asked the maker of the motion if this was going to be was part of the motion, if this agreement was acceptable to the maker of the motion and the supporter. Mr. Martell replied no. Ms. Hughes-Nilsson stated she was in opposition to the request, she commented the sign had been there a long time, but the city has evolved over a period of time and many people have made a concerted effort to make that a nice area and gateway into town. She feels the business has high visibility there and they could easily have a new sign there that fits the area. Stating she d be voting in opposition. Mr. Robitaille stated he s in opposition, its true the sign doesn t appear to have been a problem over the years, but it is in non-conformance. He stated the spirit of the ordinance is to bring all signage into conformance over time and just because this sign hasn t had any vocal opposition or been in front of a committee doesn t make it conforming in that regard. Mr. Robitaille stated the trend is to go away from static rear lighted signs to digital signs that can be changed

8 Zoning Board of Appeals 02/14/08 8 of 9 and moving. Whether it s in the current plan or not it will happen, the sign is a third larger than a conforming sign making it all the more problematic. Costs is not a concern to the Board but the owner brought it up several times, yet the dollar amounts brought up were still not cost prohibited in his mind to bringing the sign into compliance. Chair Artley stated he went, looked at the sign, read the ordinance and read the conditions that must be met to order to qualify for a dimensional variance. He stated he doesn t believe the request meets the criteria. The topographical area of the land and the special circumstances are the result of the actions of the applicant. The literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Ordinance do not deprive the applicant of rights to use the land for the purposes it is to be used for or in the same zoning district, and for those reason he would be voting in opposition Yes: Martell, Guenther No: Hughes-Nilsson, Freed, Artley, Robitaille Motion denied by roll call. Mr. Artley commented to Mr. Eldridge that he should have a conversation about the five year commitment with Mr. Stanley and Mr. Derhammer as a middle ground if their inclined. Chair Artley commented he had read an article in the newspaper regarding someone who had been before the Zoning Board twice and had sent a letter to the Editor. Chair Artley asked Mr. Eldridge to clarify to the Board an explanation of what happened. Mr. Eldridge replied, in summary 1027 Clinton Ave. came before the Board as a rooming house in a residential duplex zoning district as a use variance back in July of The use variance was denied, but the Board provided for a six month time extension to bring the property into compliance. Over the course of the next few months the Thorpe s looked for other alternatives, 1004 Conant Street was an alternative, but that wasn t a perfect fit either. They still needed a parking variance which brought them back before the Zoning Board in November 2007, which was also denied. The conclusion of their six month time extension was January 12, Hearing nothing from the Thorpe s he contacted them on January 18 th and they informed him there were still seven residents living at 1027 Clinton Ave. to his surprise. He thought they d have reduced the number by then. On March 3 rd he received a letter from Kimberly Bracewell-Thorpe stating they had given three of the seven residents a notice to quit, bringing the number of residents down to four. Ms. Bracewell-Thorpe inquired about keeping the four remaining residents at 1027 Clinton, making statements about how they are no longer washing and laundering for the residents. Mr. Eldridge stated he hadn t gotten with the attorney to see if they could consider this a rental instead of a rooming house since there are services still being provided to theses individuals which is why it was defined as a rooming house versus a rental property. Mr. Eldridge commented he will respond to the Board when he has spoke to Mr. Kneas regarding this fact and when the three individuals who have received notices to quit will actually be out. Chair Artley commented his reason for bringing it before the Board was to make the members aware of it. He stated there isn t any further action that can be done, the Board s already made their decision. Mr. Eldridge commented the Letter to the Editor was an unfair statement, the City has worked with them to make alternate accommodations, but they haven t been very aggressive in relocating these tenants. Now all of a sudden they ve run out of time and the City is pushing

9 Zoning Board of Appeals 02/14/08 9 of 9 them to take action and now they sent a letter to the Gazette. Mr. Guenther moved to adjourn the meeting and was supported by Mr. Martell. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Submitted By Reviewed By Approved By Date Date Date