try to interpret each application as it relates to city ordinances this board is not empowered to rezone or take any action that could be considered rezoning variances must meet four crucial tests in order to be granted those of you who are here for a variance have already answered questions about the test on your application will be asking you about those answers again tonight this is the procedure we file we ask that you come to the microphone to speak and state your name and address we will hear the applicant first and anyone supporting then a nyone in opposition to it typically will hold the public hearing an application and then deliberate and decide on application before moving on to the next application you're welcome to stay for the deliberations but there is no opportunity for further public comment elect not to stay for a deliberation and decision you can call the city clerk's office after eight thirty tomorrow morning to learn the results will hear the applications in the following order construction zone and housing dangerous structures that said will you please read the first application but actually at this point we've been asked to interpret some definitions within the ordinance that relate to signs and with regard to that i would like to open up a public hearing to address the definitions of sign thirty nine deaths three forty six and the possible implication of the three forty seven a thirty nine three forty seven a and thirty nine three fifty b if is there anybody here that would like to speak with regard to the interpretation of the definition of sign in the city ordinance if not i'm going to consider the public hearing closed for deliberation amongst the board and as a preface to that i would like to read ordinance thirty nine dash three forty six the definition of a sign which is a device structure fixture or placard using graphic symbols and or written copy designed specifically for the purpose of ever ties ing or identifying an establishment product service or activity provided on the site and which the si located and as a preface to that discussion on the sign there is to application before the board tonight which brought the matter to light and we are discussing it in light of that  would like to make a motion in regard to the interpretation of the sign ordinance as it applies to applications for fourteen point zero six z and fourteen point zero seven z the prior to doing that it  just like to ask staff the the pictures that you've got in front of us the one for the shanghai grill and bar that is a that is not the way it currently looks is that correct that sign area motion to the extent that that neither of the structures that are involved in the application fourteen point zero six zero or fourteen point zero seven z are signs under the ordinance ok and just to clarify we're using those applications as a luster of example because you're making a global interview to assign it exactly we are making a global we are making a global interpretation of what a sign is under the ordinance a sign is a device structure fixture or placard using graphics symbols and or written copy designed specifically for the purpose of advertising or identifying an establishment product service or activity provided on the site on which the sign is located illustrative examples these two these two structures neither of these structures has any graphics symbols or written copy on them whatsoever and without graphics symbols or written copy they are not signs and that would be the interpretation that i would like to put forth to the board and we're just going to consider them structures we're going to consider them structures davis is there any discussion motion of leads necessarily to the following that the application fourteen zero six zero and fourteen zero seven zero no longer need to be reviewed by the board tonight rather  since we are not viewing these as signs the applicants i would suggest would need to go to the city to apply for a permit to quote erect a sign or just viewing these a structures and not signs and for further clarification you can call down tomorrow morning and or speak to the city stef so the just to repeat the interpretation tonight of what a sign is or in this case is not the skids the need for us to even address fourteen  you would you please read the next step occasion fourteen point eight the landed resource engineering on behalf of an invalid lester holding l l c is requesting variances in connection with the construction of a new building located on part of seven forty six east sixteenth street parcel seven zero one six three four one hundred three zero zero three nine the building has proposed will be eighty seven point five feet from the front property line where one hundred feet is required in addition the propose landslip will come existing freestanding meyer to have a set back of eight point eight feet from the rear property line in fixed point seven from this new side property line where setbacks of twenty five feet are required in this  engineering we put forth the application for the two dimensional variances that we are that we are requesting tonight i'm going to try and keep this somewhat short  were involved in the retail project that's directly east of this project and when we did that one you're going to find if you were on the board at that time that several of the same items are coming up again for the structure that we're proposing here the only difference is the use excuse me so with that we're proposing to put in a pizza ranch restaurant in this area there is one other piece of ranch it's in the hudson belt it's could be the  same type of structure type of menu different owner not that that has a lot to do with a demential or as i want to give an idea what it what we're what it is we're putting in or what we'd like to put in from the geometric layout that we have we have a couple of items on this property that are somewhat restricted first of all there's the front edge along myer is primarily developed now with the exception of this piece i call it developed because we have a proposed layout on it but it's currently being used as a parking lot extension from the myer parking lot the the so the area that's available on the front is what it is there's a myer gas station to the west  c store and it has a covered gas pump area which there are the roof of which is about forty feet from the right away and when i say that from the right away the setbacks on this property are measured from the right away line the so that being to the directly to the west and then directly to the east of us there is a dimensional variance that was allowed to reduce the setback from one hundred feet to eighty seven feet so the variance was approximately thirteen feet the request that we have is a twelve and a half foot reduction of the hundred foot setback and the reason for that primarily is number one we want to keep the same character and feel on the front edge that's established along sixteenth street another reason being is that there is a public sewer directly located directly to the south of the building that runs along the south in parallel with sixteenth street there is a public easement that's established there and on that map that was just placed we're basically snug up as close to that  possibly be so when we initially looked at the site we went back to pizza ranch and worked with them to coordinate a bit of a smaller footprint that would foot fit much better on a this size property that is if approved about one point five six acres in all other size and regulations and it's exactly the same depth as other lots in the area it is as far as the width and depth it's very very similar in character in nature connected into the sanitary sewer that runs along and carol it's behind the buildings that are skirt only there so it's in their parking lot well that's at the edge of the parking lot right now so in order to him by an easement you can park on an easement but you cannot have anything that has a footing or roof so that's what the def defined as a permanent structure so we have to we can we can park on it we can drive on it we basically that what it comes down to is if they can get access to that sewer they're willing to work with us and they don't want to get into a situation where they have to maintain their sewer for maintenance replacement jetting cleaning whatever and have to work around a footing or replace or interrupt a business is that in your reasonable opinion would access to that publix who are being impeded if the structure required to meet the setback it would be it would be the  only alternative if we were required to be the setback the only alternative would be to move the sewer it wouldn't be to get closer to the what we are thank you  second variant dimensional variance that we're asking for is that there is an established existing meyer sign located at the entrance of their private drive which is directly west of the proposed lot it's at the southeast corner of their their entrance and i'm going to look for the actual requirement but we're requesting a reduction in set back there to allow the property line to be closer to the product to the proposed or the existing sign than what is currently required i need to point out of there it is an established sign it's not something we're moving or getting closer to or whatever but we are in our configuration able to expand the green space around the s currently the dimensions from the sign to the nearest parking at the edge of the parking to the east is about seven feet seven a half feet and going my memory here so bear with me and then to the south i a proximately let me find that so i know exactly so currently currently of the existing parking is eleven feet to the east and seventeen point six to the south and the proposed configuration and is providing eighteen or seventeen point nine feet to the east and twenty point five feet to the cells of the green spaces increased as a result of the proposed layout i'd like to quickly go through the four criteria that this has to meet but i'm is that please take your time ok those are important criteria and that's what this app case will be judged on thank you the first criteria explain why the requested variance of the due to the unique circumstance of the condition the property such as narrowness shape water topography and is not due to personal economic difficulty as i stated earlier the the land is kind of what it is the available space there the envelope is if you have the the depth that's identical to other lots in the area the proposed lot is two hundred ninety four feet wide by two hundred thirty six feet measured from the center line and the space is severely restricted by this sanitary sewer and keep in mind the meyer connection to this sewer but so does the c store and i don't remember with that's a that's not a bank anymore two doors down anymore but whatever it is is whatever is currently located there all of those you those existing businesses connect into that sewer so it's not an issue where we can abandon a piece or pump it full and relocate it would be located services and digging up all the pavement curb and everything along with it so we again please  could you make your building smaller we actually did that already we got we start with we started out with a much larger building well i say much larger but it was and in the sixty five to seven thousand square foot range in order to make this envelope work in the space that's available we had them shrink the building down so that's a little smaller than what they wanted to build in this market ok so it's a little smaller than they wanted to build but they could build smaller ok have they looked at the possibility of changing the shape of the building because if you go to the east a little bit i don't i recognize that there's already parking there but could you go east and get the space the size that you want and still meet the parking requirements so you going have a rectangular building going east to west in having a more narrow yeah i mean the older narrower building so you stayed within the envelope actually it doesn't at that point we get to a point we kind of pushed them as far as we could push them as far as the footprint is concerned because of the relationship of the inside floor  plan to the east you've got right now you've got currently one hundred twenty three point two five feet set back from the property line what's the minimum that you can do there i don't know that often but i'm guessing it's less than that because you only get eighty four for your feet on the other side i guess i don't understand the question ok on the on the west side of the building you're set back to the property line is as proposed as eighty four feet correct and on the east side your setback as proposed shows one hundred twenty three point twenty five feet my question is could you expand the envelope of the building into that hundred twenty three point two five foot setback and still keep your cysto keep reduce the depth but still keep the square footage that you want right and the answer to that is no we couldn't and what's right why is right to do that because the internal floor plan the way it needs a function then the spatial requirements the way it needs to flow we got to a point with them that they would abandon the site and go to different site to get the floorplan they need ok so that's an economic difficulty i'm not well it's a functional difficulty i'm not sure if it's so economical they certainly want to be on this position in this location for economics certainly but when it comes to a point of we kind of we've we've really tried to push them as far as we could to get them number one to reduce the op the need for a variance and number two to if they're going to be a variance we actually reduce the variance that's necessary to as minimal as possible ok are our criteria is that that the property can't be used for any permitted purpose not the not the purpose that you want but any permitted purpose and so what i'm what i'm trying to get trying to determine is is there a permitted purpose that this property could be used for where we didn't have to do the variance which is why i'm asking the questions are there waits for you to be able to alter what it is that you're doing and still have this be a usable piece of property not necessarily for a pizza ranch not necessarily for these particular perspective buyers or users but in general could this be used for a purpose that is permitted within the zoning ordinance and in what i had and the answer that i would need from you is no it can't be the only you know the only way this property can be used for a purpose that is permitted would be if if you will if we allow the variance that is that one of the four criteria  why why will strict thank you to go ahead i'm sorry why will strict compliance with the regulations governing area set back height bulk density or other dimensional requirements unreasonably prevent you from using your property for a permitted purpose or will strict compliance make conformity with those regulations unnecessarily burdensome so it's what we need to do what we need to determine is it's unreasonable to work for somebody to have to stay within the ordinance right or a necessarily personally believe it is is it fair to say that if we follow this line of thinking the only type of building that would be able to meet the setback requirement would be a long narrowness of the buildings can to be within the within the envelope looks like it's going to be about eighty feet correct and then we get into the issue that we don't have the required parking that we that's required well that's that was one of my questions as it is if you if you've got to stay within the envelope then does it does that negate your ability to be able to get the parking that you're required to have it keep in mind that this is a commercial right and that's and that's a that's exactly my question is this ok if we expand the envelope of the building now suddenly we've lost the parking another question but that would be a burden yes all right sort of start interrupting with that not at all please do if you do it that way than wait and try to remember it till the  end as far as the front yard setback goes again the site available area is what it is and it's restricted by the sanitary sewer the land the land area t there there are when looking at the dimensional regulations we are also looking at character intent of the zoning ordinance and those owning orders is in our opinion  set up to consistently or to set up a consistent character throughout an area be it in this case it's a it's a heavily traveled area there is no need to have buildings next to the street but in the same case this there are other structures in the area were established prior to the hundred foot setback being established so by following the selling ordinance in this case and setback case it actually sets us behind some of the other structures that are out there we're not requesting that we be allowed to approach the right away as quote as close as what myers rough is but we put that on the the sketch to show basically that there is no sign again we're making a and existing situation better with the layout that we have by providing additional setback number one in additional green space again when we if we were to conform to the strictly by the explain why your need for variance is not self created i e not the result of actions by the current or previous property owners this one's a little bit i'm going to call gray because there was an existing condition there that i'm  with meyer is that marketing this frontage has always been there the grand scheme of the grand plan since this meyer was placed where it is and by that i mean they always had the intention of putting out lots along the front edge but the property lines were never defined because they didn't know who they were going to serve and what special needs they had so when these people started filling in the the frontage locations they sold the square footage they needed to number one get passed to adhere to all the zoning ordinances that they could and also if your desires that were necessary for the individual uses in this case we have what's left over all the frontage of is primarily field we're working with what we have and of course again i'm repeating myself but it we are trying to make the better the situation better than what it was  just a another question for you my are currently on to this property it does it does ok so it hasn't been it hasn't been split off yet it hasn't been subdivided get this is still part of the the larger myer parcel correct ok yet everything breaks because contingent on the action tonight ok ok why will strict compliance with a regulation governing area set back height bulk density or other dimensional requirements on reason we grant you for using your property for the privilege use or strict compliance make conformity with those regulations unnecessarily burdened so we reviewed a lot of those details already but there are a couple items that we when we're looking at the configuration of where is a building located how is it identified you enter the site in some cases when we have a setback that's behind another one and keep in mind that there is a roof line that's to the west and assuming that we could move this back to the desired or the required setback it would create a bit of a hidden building that doesn't necessarily conform with the character of the area it's established in doing that in some cases when you're looking down the road you want to  where you're going to turn it in or where you're what you're looking for to get where you want to go all something that's somewhat hidden gets seen later and so maneuvers on the road become a little more brought so not that that happens every time but it it's something that does happen if you if you if something's she a litter or or buffered more than another they'd be able to see buyers better if the pizza rance wasn't there at all though with the meier yes ok we're talking about  the the other items that we were looking at strict compliance with the law and how it's been established in the area that we we are really looking at our neighbor and say well you let them do it when you let us do it but there is there is a character and there is a field as dallas along that corridor and what we're attempting to do here is number one we have a we have an envelope that's available there isn't much way around that but in we also are mimicking  we're basically matching the setback that's adjacent into the east with an a half a foot so we're we're requesting that we be allowed to have a setback produced by that much similar to the way the neighbor was reduced the other issue that i didn't put in the letter is that in regards to the position of this building and i'm not sure if we have a great implant here the grades across the site are a little bit deceiving in that there is about a six foot fall from the east edge of the property to the west of the property the reason that we position the building where we did east and west is that we had to get the grade down to a certain point to actually enter the building and then accommodate barrier free parking that again is another state law and local law local law stipulates that we have to have a two percent no greater than two percent slope from where you park in a barrier free parking spot to the ramp and then from the ramp to the front door and then of course no steps in that in the meantime by moving the building further away from the west parking lot or property line we were able to accomplish that and then also when you come out the building we moved or as we moved i mean we we did really get creative with this plan to make it work in order to make the building and doors work in relationship to where all the what i call pin points are around the site there's pinpoints all the way around that can't move there's a drive to the west that can't move there are entrance ways to the site that can't move the grade is what it is so again we can't have a situation we don't certainly want a situation where we come out we have a flat area for birth reproaching at two  percent and then it drops to a ten percent or an eight percent to get to the existing grade this layout does accomplish those things where we do we have gradual slopes in the comfortable slopes where you're not parking out five percent where your door swings open too fast or whatever explain where the variance that you request is a minimum relief necessary to do substantial jobs justice to both you and the other property owners in the district going back to something i said earlier as well the the building to the east is that currently an eighty seven foot s back i believe there's four tenants in that building maybe three we did that project as well but when what i was saying before the meeting started the one of the people attending is that she wondered what was in there and you know we get to do the front end work and then the exciting stuff happens we're not a lot and they were not around for that stuff so i don't know what the tenets are but i believe there's three of them possibly four in there to the east yeah and is that all rancho and then fantastic sam's i think a hair cut place it could be area and it certainly isn't detrimental to anybody in the area as it it's mimicking the character of the area the same is true of the science that back the sign is has been there for many many years people are used to it they know where meyer is they don't need to see the building in order to find the entrance to my or i'm certain in my or has their own set of circumstances and requirements and regulations as to what's approvable and allowable in these out lots in front meaning they have their own set of criteria as to how high a building can be how wide the village can be and so they require in stipulate how much open areas between the buildings so they don't lose significant visual appeal from the wro the in regards to item number five then explain why the variance will not cause an adverse impact on the surrounding property property values or the use enjoyment of the property in the neighborhood hers or zoning district we are looking for a variance that would allow us to enjoy the property such as our neighbors are currently enjoying it the setback certainly is not closer than other buildings in the area  the size of the building is in regards to other regulations such as site lot coverage height location setbacks from the sides is all accommodated the only thing we're looking for as far as that structure is a step back i skipped over a couple of details here in my letter but i i think i covered everything substantially if there's any questions please i'm here for your question jeff the does anyone from the board have any question i have a question how we're at thirty one hundred west river drive comstock park michigan thank you and in answer to your question the required number of parking spaces for this particular facility is sixty ripper proposing closer to eighty ideally pizza ranch would like on the order of one hundred spaces at least and as todd mentioned before they wanted a fairly larger facility we've strung the facility our reduce the amount of parking spaces that they desired as much as possible and if there's any other questions oh yeah as a matter of fact our initial layout had several other dimensional required variables that were going to be no incentive for myron to perhaps provide in eve easement from their ample parking actually we we went down that road we talked to meyer and they were concerned actually with the our lot and initially when they constructed they did have ample parking and for ninety five percent of the year that's very true they're concerned about the special events you know the big thanksgiving and christmas and whatnot when there is snow that takes up some of the parking and they're very very busy so they were willing to number one sell the lot  which is parking lot right now and primarily that's where they used to stack snow and then turn around and give us an easement for cross parking and usually we would approach them and say you know we want our employees to park in your lot closest from yours they just didn't feel comfortable doing that here perhaps it might be dangerous as well if you have patrons walking back and forth across that walkway across that road right and again we will try to restrict that to the employee question of ploys or they're so they're you know adept at get back and forth when they opposed to maybe elderly and whatnot could you put up the other side plan that you've got the the one that's the more detailed yes that's one thank you so back where they're ok and then just for the benefit of the board and all and the audience i'm going to record requests two motions one for the sign and also one for the property technically these are separate variance request and i'm leaning toward denying based on the fact that number three still kind of sticking in my micro with this that i i see that i think that there are other reasonable uses or even a reasonable reasonable alternatives possible for pizza ranch in regard to this property reasonable commercial uses reasonable commercial uses for this property i mean i'm looking at the size the size of this proposed bill building envelope and it's almost as big as the one to the east that houses three separate retail establishments there looks like there is space there for ample parking within the ordinance maybe not the parking that pizza ranch would like to have but i see that as a as an economic want rather than one that fits within the the ordinance i see i understand that they would like to have the six thousand square feet and actually would like to have more but again i see those as economic wants not necessarily ones that are necessary to be able to use this property reasonably use this property you know maybe i can be convinced otherwise by other members of the board but that's that's kind of where i'm leading with us i don't necessarily see it that or at least in the short period of time the six feet the commercial nature of this and then the sewer access would take this piece of property as proposed and limit it to a long and narrow building with with disjointed parking as i could see it and to me the of all the circumstances would be unreasonably burdensome  for the commercial establishment in this area and in a lot that has been broken off from a parent parceled where it's currently being used productively as parking so this is not a currently existing parcel this is a parcel that they're planning on carving out of a larger parcel well it's sort of myer has already indicated they would sell it right know what i think that penny the review here right but what i'm saying is myer doesn't have to sell it myer can continue to use it the same way that's been using it all along what they're what they're saying is can we can we at their asking for special permission to carve this parcel out to be able to use it in this way that requires a variance and my my argument is it can be continued to be used exactly the way that it's being used right now without a variance or there may be other way if it if it is carved out that there probably ways it can be used without a variance so administratively if they were to separate this parcel from current or the previous owner well let me explore something a little bit here on the on the site plan here i see exactly what meekins talking about and looking at close to the stop sign to the west and then you're as far as you can go already to the east so if it so if they extend the envelope of the building to the east that me can cause a problem with getting in and out of that p as you know my room is big piece of property but because of the sewer because of their dry here i just i don't really see another alternative to to you know creating this property in a different way that would solve the issue but that that's why go back to they're creating a new parcel true and it's currently able to be used as a conforming use under the then unreasonably burden them to use that property in a way other than parking sounds to me like and like an m a and economic difficulty on their part if it if one of if there's one at all and we don't look at it from the economic difficulty standpoint i don't know that's economic as much as an enjoyment they've they we've already heard from the applicant that this this property has been used for snow storage in the winter and that meyer is concerned that they may be constraining the amount of parking that they have during special events by doing this split at all you know so i guess i have difficulty we haven't heard anything any evidence from the from the applicant or any other external evidence that says that there's any economic difficulty on meyer's part at all or any difficulty in owning this it's just sounds to me like it's something that they think well we were willing to sell this off i feel like they have that right though also if as long as they're within the ordinance they're asking for it they're asking for well very and the miners really they're not outside of the ordinance already they really could have split this property off before they came to this meeting tonight which is just administrative yeah it's i don't think that would change things  came in it was already split off one of our requirements is that the request that the need for the variance was not created by the applicant or a prior owner well because otherwise all you got to do is put off a parcel and go see it wasn't me the need for the gradient and the public sewer that i think that argument has more credence but given the unique structure and layout i don't land i don't i don't have a problem with with the first the first element which is explain the stud or circumstances or conditions of the property if we were if we were brought this lot i would i would agree there's a sewer on one side there's a relatively close or large front yard building setback on the other side but i do have a problem with number two which says explain why your need for the variance is not self created not the result of actions by the current or previous property owner but for splitting this off which would be an action of the previous property owner there's no need for a variance i don't see it that way i think they have the right to split this property off but then that but and then they can use it certainly without the need for a variance but as soon as they ask for a variance then we need to look at what action caused that need for the variance they could have split fifteen years ago and the need for the variance for me really is tied to that sewer line mainly because that's that is the hard stop of how far this property can be built back and i don't see this action that was done by the owner or the previous owner so i guess what you've been saying this is relegated to parking lot full stop no no i say it's i say i think that there are other uses for this lot that's a that's a pretty large building envelope that they're asking for i think it's possible for for there to be a it's a large building  i'm ready to make a motion i move we can i any other comes from the board before entertain the motion motion from box to deny and this is i'm sorry this is that a motion simply in regard to the front yard building setback we're not dealing with the sign on this motion but the motion of that eye in the front yard building setback is the support for that motion split and i do not believe that strict numbers under number three strict compliance with the regulations regarding governing governing area set back frontage height bulk density or other dimensional requirements would unreasonably prevent the applicant from using the property for a permitted purpose and strict compliance and conformity with those regulations would not be unnecessarily burdensome and i think that's all that we need i just have to find one of one of them that they do not me ok thank you anyone else like to make another motion and approval of application a move we approve the variance motion to approved by david is there support for that support by levy findings of fact please yeah the uniqueness of the property is due to not only the contours of property but the sewer easement and the current layout of the surrounding property variances the need for the variance is not property strict compliance with the regulations would be unnecessarily burden so both because it would create a a longer and wider building which would have difficulty in gross grass and also it would not be in line with the surrounding properties which is important for commercial properties as visibility is important in the variance i believe is the minimum relief necessary to do justice to this property owner and other properties owners in the district i think that they've already made modifications to try to work with the site and also is i think a benefit to other property owners in the district to be somewhat in line with each other on a commercial corridor and i don't believe this the variance will cause an adverse impact to surrounding neighborhoods and values as the are commercial in nature and the need for this variance wouldn't have a negative impact on any of the need that the properties use or enjoyment of their property an davis yes and wearing yes variance is not self created as it is it is based on the topography of the property and the current usage in the usages of uses of the property strict compliance with regulations governing area setback  governing the setback on this would be unreasonably burden some in regard to the ability to use this property and i do believe that it is the minimum relief necessary to do substantial justice to the applicant and the other property owners within the district and i do not believe that there would be any of adverse impact to surrounding property property values or the use an enjoyment of the property in the neighboring zoning district thank you conditions just as as proposed ok thank you thank you and with that conclude dollar business for this evening we have no unfinished business and no minutes to approve the next meeting day is made to point to two thousand and fourteen have a motion to adjourn this meeting