AGENDA MARQUETTE CITY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Transcription

AGENDA
MARQUETTE CITY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
November 7, 2013 at 7:00 PM
Commission Chambers, City Hall
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
MINUTES OF October 3, 2013
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA
1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 18-VAR-11-13 – 1301 O’Dovero Drive (PIN: 0514230): O’Dovero Properties and
Sears are seeking a variance from the City of Marquette Sign Ordinance to allow for
a 5 ft x 16 ft pole sign located at 1301 O’Dovero Drive.
B. 19-VAR-11-13 – 401 E. Fair Avenue (PIN: 0511040): City of Marquette,
Marquette County Community Foundation, and United Way are seeking a variance
from the City of Marquette Sign Ordinance to allow for a 24 in x 96 in wall sign
located at 401 E. Fair Avenue.
2. CITIZENS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD
3. OLD BUSINESS
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. BZA Presentation to City Commission
5. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Packets for the Board of Zoning Appeals are Now Available at the City of
Marquette Web Page: www.mqtcty.org
Public Comment:
A member of the audience speaking during the public comment portion of the agenda
shall limit his/her remarks to 3 minutes
DRAFT
CITY OF MARQUETTE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
October 3, 2013
A regular meeting of the Marquette City Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order at 7:00
p.m. on Thursday, October 3, 2013 in the City Commission Chambers of City Hall.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mr. Crotty, Mr. Patrick (alternate), Ms. Roberts, Mr. Fuller, Mr. O’Neill, Mr. Suksi,
and Mr. Vasseau.
Absent: Mr. Huddle (excused).
MINUTES
It was moved by Mr. Suksi, seconded by Mr. Fuller, and carried 7-0 to approve
the meeting minutes of September 5, 2013 as presented.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
16-VAR-10-13 – 522 W. Ridge Street (PIN: 0250250)
A. Landers, Planning/Zoning Official, stated Joseph and Barbara Little are seeking a 2-foot
height variance and a closed construction fence variance from the City of Marquette Fence
Ordinance to allow for a 6-foot high privacy fence which is more than 50% of closed
construction located at 522 W. Ridge Street. She also stated that the applicant received a
Notice of Violation letter on August 15, 2013 for erecting the fence without receiving a permit
and that the fence would need an approved variance. She stated the ordinance states, "Any
person desiring to build or cause to be built a fence upon property within the corporate limits
of the City of Marquette shall first apply to the Zoning Department for a permit to do so." She
also stated the applicant met with staff and stated he had a permit in 1989 and did not realize
he needed to apply for another one if he was removing the old fence and replacing with a
new fence. She stated the old permit was for a cyclone fence with a height of 4 ft on the east
side and 6 ft on the west side and along his front property line abutting the W. Michigan
Street right-of-way. She also stated that the applicant submitted the variance application once
he understood that the ordinance requires a permit for a new fence. The area map, photos of
the site, and certificate of survey with the fence location marked on it were shown.
A. Landers read correspondence received from Carl R. Tuch, 248 N. Seventh Street, which
noted he had no objections regarding the fence and that sometimes people need more
privacy, especially in their neighborhood. She also read correspondence received from
Wayne Francis, 443 W. Ridge Street, which stated he was okay with the fence and the
variance request.
Chairman Crotty opened the public hearing.
Joseph Little, resides at 522 W. Ridge Street and applicant, stated that he replaced the old
chain link basket weave fence with a new privacy fence. He also stated that he did not realize
F:\BZA\MINUTES\2013\10-3-13 draft.doc
1
DRAFT
he needed a permit to replace the old fence. He stated he hoped the board would let the
fence remain. He also stated once he received the letter of violation he filed the appropriate
paperwork. He stated his neighbors do not mind the new fence and that the main reason the
fence was placed was because he and his wife take care of their young grand kids. He also
stated that his home is located near a major thoroughfare for N.M.U. and it is a very busy. He
stated that there are things he could potentially do to make the fence 50% open, but hoped
he would not have to.
Chairman Crotty closed the public hearing.
Mr. Fuller asked if the gates noted on the pictures locked. Mr. Little stated that they did. He
also stated that he made the gates himself. Mr. Fuller stated that the reason he asked was
due to if a life safety issue was to arise, could emergency responders be able to access the
home. He also stated that was his only concern. Mr. Little stated the gates are locked when
his grandkids are playing.
It was moved by Mr. Fuller, seconded by Mr. Vasseau and carried 7-0 that after
conducting a public hearing and review of the STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for
16-VAR-10-13, the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the request demonstrates the
standards found in Section 80.64.4.B.1 (a. through e.) of the Zoning Ordinance and
hereby approves 16-VAR-10-13 as presented.
17-VAR-10-13 – 2225 Fitch Avenue (PIN: 0480870)
A. Landers, Planning/Zoning Official, stated Matthew Deakins is seeking a 7-foot side yard
variance and a 30-foot front yard variance with approximately 4 feet encroaching into the
Fitch Avenue right-of-way from the City of Marquette Zoning Ordinance to allow for a deck
with steps located at 2225 Fitch Avenue. She also stated that the applicant was sent a notice
of violation on July 30, 2013 for erecting a structure without first obtaining a zoning
compliance permit and that after being notified of the violation he turned in the required
permit. She stated upon review of the permit, it was discovered that the structure would
require a variance from the required setbacks as well as a license from the City Commission
due to a portion of the structure being located on the city’s right-of-way. Photos of the site,
the site plan, and the property survey were shown.
A. Landers read email correspondence received from Patrick Myron, 2212 Fitch Avenue,
which stated he has been neighbors with Mr. Deakins for over ten years and that he is a
great neighbor, as well as an asset to the neighborhood and the community. The
correspondence also noted that he sees no reason why anyone would object to the variance
request as Mr. Deakin’s craftsmanship has done nothing but enhance the property.
Matthew Deakins, 2225 Fitch Avenue, spoke on behalf of his request. He stated the original
steps came up the front of the deck and off the side, and that over time they had settled and
had become detached from the existing deck. He stated the original steps did come out
almost as far as those he recently constructed. He also stated that he was told his property
line was a lot closer to the curb, that he did not realize the city’s property came almost to his
house, and that he thought he had built on his own property and not the city’s. He also stated
he did not want to change the walkway layout because he wanted more of a barrier between
the inside of his house and the road because the house sits very close to the road.
2
DRAFT
Mr. Crotty asked what the small box structure was in the pictures. Mr. Deakins stated it was
not complete, but that it was going to be a portion of the stairway. Mr. Crotty asked what the
purpose was for such a large deck in the front of the home as there was a large side yard and
an existing large deck on the back of the home. He also asked why the applicant did not
entertain a wrap around type deck. Mr. Deakins stated he did not want traffic flow to go right
in front of his living room windows.
Mr. Suksi stated that Mr. Deakins would no longer have a sidewalk to access the street. He
also noted that the applicant did not obtain a permit before construction. Mr. Deakins stated
that once he received the notice of violation he stopped construction.
Mr. Crotty asked if the applicant’s driveway was paved. Mr. Deakins stated it used to be. Mr.
Crotty asked if the applicant had any future plan to place an approach for a driveway over to
the house. Mr. Deakins stated at some point he would like to.
Mr. O’Neill asked the applicant if he ever chose to place a sidewalk, would that too end up on
the city right of way. Mr. Deakins stated that a portion of it would have to be. A. Landers
stated that a permit would be required from the Engineering Department to place a sidewalk
in the right-of-way area. Mr. O’Neill stated he understood the permit process; however it is
not common practice for the city to allow people to build on the right-of-way.
Mr. Fuller asked Mr. Deakins how large of a curb cut he has in front of his home. Mr. Deakins
stated it is about the length of the front of the house. Mr. Fuller stated there may be enough
room to place a driveway in that area. Mr. Deakins stated that there was not enough room to
create a driveway.
Mr. Vasseau asked Mr. Deakins if the deck would improve the accessibility to the front of his
home. Mr. Deakins stated it would be an improvement as far as traffic flow and he still
needed access to his front door. He also stated that without the deck, he felt he and his
family would be displayed on the street.
Mr. Suksi asked Mr. Deakins if he considered reconfiguring the layout of the deck. Mr.
Deakins stated the reason he planned the deck the way he did was to create a buffer from
neighboring properties and their ability to see in the house.
Mr. Susksi asked Mr. Deakins if he was the person who constructed the seven foot fence on
the property. Mr. Deakins stated he did construct the fence.
Chairman Crotty closed the public hearing.
Mr. Suksi stated he had difficulty with the request due to the imposition to the city right-ofway. He also stated that he felt the applicant could come up with a very nice deck by placing
it to the side, which would eliminate any imposition to the city.
Ms. Roberts stated there were other ways Mr. Deakins could construct the deck without
encroaching on the city right-of-way.
Mr. Patrick stated he would like to see the request be approved as it is not going any further
toward the street than the original deck. He also stated that upon review of the survey, the
house was placed in the set back area long ago at no fault to the homeowner, and that
approximately 20% of the home is in the allowable building area. He stated that there is really
nothing that can be done to the house without the need for a variance.
3
DRAFT
Mr. O’Neill stated he is not in favor of the encroachment on the city right-of-way, especially
without checking with the city to find out where the allowable building area was. He also
stated that Mr. Deakins did very fine work. He stated he did not feel the Board of Zoning
Appeals has the right to give away city property and that he could not approve the request.
He also stated that although there are cases where property owners maintain the city right-ofway, it is still city owned property.
Mr. Fuller stated that there are a lot of instances where property owners maintain the right-ofway area, but if the city wants to do anything with those areas they will.
Mrs. Landers stated that the board is looking at the variance portion of the request only and
that it is up to the City Commission to approve or deny Mr. Deakins a license to use the city
right-of-way area.
Mr. Fuller stated upon review of the site he is in full support of the request. He also stated the
property is in good condition and maintained very well which shows the character of the
applicant.
Mr. Vasseau stated he was in support of the request. He also stated that the minimum lot
size for the area is 20,000 square feet and that the applicant’s lot is only 10,000 square feet
and that anything he attempts to do with the front of his property will create an issue. He
stated the size of Mr. Deakins lot creates a practical difficulty.
Mr. Crotty stated he can support the variance request, but cannot support anything built in the
city right-of-way area. He reminded his fellow board members of a ramp that was built in the
city right-of-way where the board denied the variance and required the applicant to
reconstruct the ramp in an area where it did not create an encroachment on the city right of
way.
Mr. Fuller expressed his concern that each variance request stands alone and that the
applicant cannot reference any other similar situations/locations within the city to justify their
request. He also stated that every request that comes before the board has distinct attributes
that effects its location, and since the city does not allow an applicant to reference other sites,
ie. a garage, a fence, he finds it odd that it is the zoning board that references other locations
when the variance request application does not allow the applicant to do so.
It was moved by Mr. Fuller, seconded by Mr. Patrick and carried 4-3 that after
conducting a public hearing and review of the STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for
17-VAR-10-13, the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the request demonstrates the
hereby approves 17-VAR-10-13 as presented.
Ayes: Mr. Vasseau, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Patrick, and Mr. Fuller.
Nays: Mr. Crotty, Mr. Suksi, and Mr. O'Neill.
02-INT-10-13 – Interpretation Request
A. Landers, Planning/Zoning Official, stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals is being asked
to make an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the extent of "the area covered
by the maximum horizontal cross section of a building or buildings," as the phrase is used in
the Ordinance definition of Ground Coverage Ratio. She also stated staff is seeking
clarification in order to make consistent and accurate calculations of the Ground Coverage
4
DRAFT
Ratio (GCR). She stated section 80.40.3.D specifies a maximum ground coverage ratio 0.20
for each parcel in the RM Multiple Family Zoning District and that in calculating the GCR, staff
is required to divide the area (square feet) covered by the maximum horizontal cross section
of a building or buildings by the area of the site. She also stated a 10,000 square foot
building on a 50,000 square foot site would yield a GCR of 0.20, which is the maximum
allowable GCR per section 80.40.3 (d), but there is no guidance in the ordinance as to how
the maximum horizontal cross section of a building is to be calculated, in terms of including
or excluding the space under eves and other non-enclosed portions of the building.
A. Landers stated that staff was recently challenged by a project applicant as to staff’s
understanding that there are no exceptions provided in the current Zoning Ordinance to
include all parts of a building in the maximum horizontal cross section calculation for GCR.
She also stated staff has done research into the matter and has submitted a support
document for study and consideration, as well as examples of cases that used ground
coverage ratio calculations.
D. Stensaas, City Planner/Zoning Administrator, stated that the situation arose with a
particular case brought before staff by Robert Cambensy in August 2013. He also stated that
the Zoning Ordinance reads that when there are questions of interpretation they should be
first presented to the Zoning Administrator, and then such questions shall be presented to the
Board of Zoning Appeals, only on the appeal from the decision of the administrator. He
stated such language is not exactly correct because State Law is such that if there is any
question of an interpretation the Board of Zoning Appeals should make the final decision. He
also stated that the Zoning Administrator should not make a decision when there is not clear
guidance. He stated that the Michigan State University Zoning and Planning Center teaches
Zoning Administrator training and that it is their direction that a Zoning Administrator should
not exercise discretion that the Zoning Ordinance does not provide. He also stated specific to
the interpretation of phrases, the zoning ordinance training that MSU provides, states the
Zoning Administrator should in cases of interpretation research past applications, various
definitions, and consult with its attorney, and that if the results are unclear, then the
interpretation should be sent to the Board of Zoning Appeals for an interpretation or an
amendment to the ordinance, or initiate an amendment to the ordinance to clear up the
problem. He stated support documentation has been provided in the board’s agenda packet
for their consideration, one piece of which is from Mark Wycoff, Director of the MSU Planning
and Zoning Center.
Mr. Suksi asked Mr. Stensaas what was the original intent of the ordinance. D. Stensaas read
the bulk lot coverage information from the site plan review guidebook regarding impervious
surfaces, storm water run-off, and other environmental impacts. He stated part of the
ordinance is to assure that storm water runoff is being controlled on the property that is being
developed.
Mr. Patrick asked if a structure(s) can cover only 20% of the lot. D. Stensaas stated that the
GCR is 20% in the Multi-Family Zoning District which includes all structures.
Mr. Cambensy, 306 N. Sixth Street, stated the issue was being brought before the board
because of their decision on August 1, 2013 concerning requested variances for the
construction of a 16-unit apartment building on Grant Avenue as proposed by Mr. Robert
Luke. He also stated upon being denied the variance at that meeting, Mr. Luke told him to
5
DRAFT
resubmit a plan for an apartment building on the same site which would require no variances
and that he would completely comply with all aspects of the existing Zoning Ordinance. Mr.
Cambensy stated upon direction by Mr. Luke he preceded with a new design which resulted
in an 8 unit apartment that reduced the required parking by 16 spaces from the previous plan
and require no variances. He also stated that before proceeding with the plan he spoke with
A. Landers and D. Stensaas for exact interpretation of parts of the ordinance, where it was
determined by D. Stensaas to place everything discussed, including eaves, under the
heading “ground Coverage”. He stated the result of that decision was far different from the
historical interpretation of the definitions in the 36 years the ordinance had been on the
books. He also stated although the interpretation request was spawned from this particular
request it is paramount that the decision be viewed as important for the entire city and all
owners of multiple family zoned property within the city, noting that there are many single
family homes within the RM district.
Mr. Cambensy stated that there are other associated definitions from the Zoning Ordinance
that are in question as well, such as; open space, parking space, permanent structure, and
structure. He also stated that the important items in need of clarification are the maximum
ground coverage ratio of 20% and the minimum outdoor livability space of 40%. He stated he
has been involved with Marquette City Ordinances since September 1, 1972 as a consulting
engineer and a registered land surveyor, and that the current Zoning Ordinance was ratified
sometime in 1977 or 1978. He also stated for a great majority of the past 36 years two
individuals, Pat Gruber and Tom Murray, were involved with the site plan review process and
that he included letters received from them regarding their historical interpretation and
determination. He stated the letters received from Pat Gruber and Tom Murray are very
important and can not be overlook as they are supported by Mark Wycoff’s, Director Planning
and Zoning Center, Michigan State University reply to D. Stensaas which is in the board’s
agenda packet. He also stated a building is an enclosure with walls and a roof and an open
porch or open stairs, or a deck without walls and a roof, is not enclosed and therefore is not a
building. He stated the eaves of a building do not enclose anything and while they may give
some shelter to someone trying to get out of the rain, they in no way cover the ground and
they should have never been thought of as figuring into ground coverage ratio, noting that
they were not used as a part of the ratio for the past 36-year historical interpretation. He also
stated that the interpretation of outdoor livability space is a common sense interpretation,
while the ordinance defines this as “any area of a site which is not covered by a structure is
not included in the required parking area, and is available for use by residents and visitors”.
He stated that the reality is that open decks and porches should be considered part of the
outdoor livability of a site. While an open deck or open porch is a structure, it is not a building,
but a part of “the outdoors” and should be considered as such. He also stated maybe the
easiest way to clarify the question is to agree that a building is enclosed or an enclosure,
enclosed by a wall and a roof, and that what is not inside those walls and roof is not. He also
stated that the Zoning Ordinance was recently amended which allows for cornices, canopies
and eaves to encroach into the required yard up to 2.5 feet and also allows for unenclosed
stairs, balconies and porches to encroach into the required front and rear yards up to 10 feet
and up to 3 feet from side lot lines. He stated that the Planning Commission and City
Commission have obviously considered the items as different from the building.
Glenn VanNeste, 1402 Kimber Avenue, stated that in the past no one was concerned with
storm water run-off relating to ground coverage, but today it has become a concern. He also
stated it is his belief that permeability is what the ground coverage question is about. He
stated a building as defined in the ordinance is a roofed structure. It does not say a roof it
says a roofed structure. He also stated that relating to storm water runoff; water runs off the
eave towards the house as well as running away from the house. He stated many people will
6
DRAFT
place gravel under the eave area to allow for water to permeate into the ground. He stated
that the building inspector requires basement block walls to be coated because water runs
toward the house. He also stated to use the eave as a part of the GCR does not make sense.
He stated if someone is going to put drain tile around their house it is because they are
getting water in their basement and that the drain tile is placed right next to the house and
then drains out somewhere. He also stated what is permeable on the lot is from the
basement wall, not the drip line, and that the drip line really does not have anything to do with
it. He stated the main question is to whether or not the eaves should be used for the GCR or
the face of the house. He also stated a change was made for setback purposed where the
eave is no longer used to calculate a setback area. He stated that it makes common sense to
use the face of the house and not the eave. He also stated he did not see the difficulty in the
ordinance as it never says “the eave”, it says a roofed structure, or an enclosed structure.
A. Landers, Planning/Zoning Official, read correspondence received from Patricia Scullin
Gruber, prior City of Marquette Planning Department employee, which stated as long as she
had worked with the zoning ordinance (its entire duration) her calculations were based upon
the exterior wall, not upon unoccupied eave overhangs, and that the divide could be further
thought of as “indoors or outdoors”. The correspondence further read that the ground
coverage and outdoor livability space ratios were developed to limit the density of units, limit
space devoted to parking, and guarantee open space for use by the residents. The
correspondence also stated to the best of her knowledge and recollection, the area outside
the exterior walls (usually the foundation footprint), were never including the ground coverage
ratio. It also stated the interpretation was that the ground was not “covered” even though the
eave occupied “air space”.
A. Landers, Planning/Zoning official, read correspondence received from Thomas A. Murray,
2532 Montgomery Street, prior City of Marquette Planning Department employee, which
stated during his 20 year tenure with the city and his involvement with site plan review, eaves
were not considered for ground coverage as they were overhangs and not part of the
enclosed building. It also stated open entryways or stairwells that were not walled in or
enclosed on all four sides were also not used in the calculation. The correspondence also
read that the key word used in the application of the site plan review process was “enclosed”
as used in the definition of building.
Chairman Crotty Closed the public hearing.
Ms. Roberts stated it seems to be cut and dry, and that as Mr. VanNeste stated, the ground
coverage ratio measurement should be taken from the face of the building and the
measurement should not include the eaves.
Mr. Patrick stated that from the way the ordinance is written and the way it has historically
been interpreted, he agreed with Ms. Roberts and the face of the building, not including the
eaves, should be used for the determination of the ground coverage ratio.
Mr. O’Neill stated that a structure has four walls and a roof and the roofs overhang has
nothing to do with it, but if you have a building with a foundation under it, the water is not
going through the foundation, it is going to stay there, which is in the enclosure of the
building. He also stated a garage should be included in the ground coverage ratio.
Mr. Fuller stated that the location of a roof of a garage does directly reflect water run-off
towards certain locations, depending on where the structure is located. He also stated he
concurred with Mr. Patrick’s views.
7
DRAFT
Mr. Vasseau stated that upon review of the support documentation (site plan review case
studies) that he felt the ground coverage ratio has been applied consistently.
Mr. Suksi stated that he understood the initial intent of the ordinance. He also stated that he
felt the board needs to be very explicit in that the face of a house is the building and not the
eaves and that any enclosed structures, with four walls, a roof and a foundation, should all be
considered structures.
Mr. Crotty stated he had no problem with defining the building and the cross section of the
building as part of the maximum coverage. He also stated but did not agree with excluding a
garage or a storage shed, because whether it has a cement foundation, or whether it is a
removable barn, it is still a covered four walled enclosure, which means it is a structure, and
that the totality of all of the structures on that piece of property is the maximum, and that
defining maximum is all inclusive, all structures on that property. He stated he has no
problem with using the sidewalls of a building excluding eaves, but he will not agree that if
you park a car in something it becomes a part of the parking area. He stated that the
ordinance was not originally for water run-off, but water run-off is what is being addressed.
He stated the cross section should be measured from the walls and not the eaves.
Ms. Roberts asked Planning Staff if the board was being tasked with anything other than the
interpretation of the maximum horizontal cross section. Board of Zoning Appeals members
and staff discussed the issue at length. Mr. Stensaas stated that there are many factors that
would be considered when the ordinance is updated, and that he did not feel the board
needed to cover anything other than the maximum horizontal cross section at that time.
It was moved by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Vasseau and carried 7-0 that after
review of the Zoning Ordinance, and the attached information from 01-INT-04-13 that
was provided, the Board of Zoning Appeals has made the interpretation that the
maximum horizontal cross section calculation for GCR include the area within the
outside walls of all structures that are under a roof with completely enclosed walls.
CITIZENS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD
Robert Cambensy, 306 N. Sixth Street, congratulated the board on their decision regarding
Ground Cover Ratio.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Mr. Vasseau, seconded Mr. Fuller, and carried 7-0 to adjourn the
meeting at 8:53 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
________________________
Pam Greenleaf
Administrative Assistant,
Community Development Department,
For Board of Zoning Appeals
8
CITY OF MARQUETTE
PLANNING AND ZONING
300 W. BARAGA AVENUE
MARQUETTE, MI 49855
(906) 228-0425
www.mqtcty.org
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Board of Zoning Appeals
Andrea Landers, Planning/Zoning Official
November 1, 2013
18-VAR-11-13 – 1301 O’Dovero Drive (PIN: 0514230)
The Board of Zoning Appeals is being asked to review an application for variances from the City
of Marquette Sign Ordinance to allow for a 5’ x 16’ pole sign located at 1301 O’Dovero Drive.
Please see the attached STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for more specific information regarding
the application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Board of Zoning Appeals should conduct a public hearing, review the application, and
render a decision on whether or not to grant the variance.
As always, it is highly recommended that any a motion include finding of fact similar to the
following:
After conducting a public hearing and review of the STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for 18-VAR11-13, the Board of Zoning Appeals (finds/does not find) that the request (demonstrates/does
not demonstrate) the standards found in Section 80.64.4.B.1 (a. through e.) of the Zoning
Ordinance and hereby (approves/denies) 18-VAR-11-13
...as presented.
...with the following conditions (e.g. with the ______ variance not to exceed ____
number of feet along the side yard, and ___ number of feet along the rear yard).
Or...
After conducting a public hearing and review of the STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for 18-VAR11-13, the Board of Zoning Appeals does not find that the request demonstrates the standards
found in Section 80.64.4.B.1 (a. through e.) of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant requested
a ___ variance, which the facts show is not appropriate; however, a ______ variance is
warranted by the facts and demonstrates the standards found in Section 80.64.4.B.1 (a.
through e.) of the Zoning Ordinance, and the Board of Zoning Appeals hereby approves 18VAR-11-13 with the ______ variance.
STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS
Completed by Andrea M. Landers – Planning/Zoning Official
Reviewed by Dennis Stachewicz – Director of Planning and Community Development
File #:
18-VAR-11-13
Date:
November 1, 2013
Project/Application:
Applicants are seeking variances from the City of Marquette Sign Ordinance to
allow for a 5’ x 16’ pole sign.
Location:
1301 O’Dovero Drive
Parcel ID:
0514230
Available Utilities:
Natural Gas, Electricity, City Water, City Sewer, and Garbage Collection.
Current Zoning:
BG – General Residential
Surrounding Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Year Built:
The Sears building was constructed in 2012.
Sales:
The owner of the property bought it on August 12, 1993.
PUD – Planned Unit Development
PUD – Planned Unit Development
Relationship to Sign Ordinance Standards (Staff Comments in Bold Text):
82.13 Signs Permitted by Zoning District
2. All Office, Industrial, and Business Districts.
Please see the attached variance worksheet document. As the existing signage for the site is
currently at the maximum allowable freestanding signs for the entire site, the proposed Sears sign
would need a variance.
Relationship to Zoning Ordinance Variance Standards (Staff Comments in Bold Text):
80.64.4.B. Variances: Conditions Governing Application; Procedures. To authorize upon appeal in specific cases
such variance form the terms of this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing
to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in practical
difficulty. A variance from the terms of this ordinance shall not be granted by the Board of Appeals
unless and until:
(1) A written application for a variance is submitted demonstrating:
a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure,
or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings
in the same district;
TBD by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
b.
That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
18-VAR-11-13
Page 2 of 4
this ordinance;
c.
That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant;
d.
That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the
same district;
Similar properties have the same recourse available if the same situation were to
arise, therefore, this is not considered to be a special privilege.
e. That no non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same
district and no permitted or non-conforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in
other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance.
This application shall stand on its own and not be precedent setting, nor shall other
cases be used in the decision making.
Relationship to Zoning Ordinance Administrative Standards (Staff Comments in Bold Text):
80.60 Administrative Standards. For the purpose of administering this ordinance, the Zoning Administrator, the
Planning Commission, the Board of Appeals and any other reviewing body or official shall consider each
case as an individual case. Consideration shall be give to the location, size, and character of a use to
determine if the use will be in harmony with the intent and appropriate and orderly development of the
district in which it is situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent districts.
Consideration shall be given to the following:
1.
Intent of the Zoning District.
The intent of the BG Zoning District is to provide suitable areas for businesses which cater to a
regional market. Uses include offices, retail and wholesale businesses, services, light manufacturing,
comparison shopping and land intensive establishments, which may be located so as to utilize a
common parking area, or may provide their own parking separately.
2.
Current use of adjacent lands and neighborhood.
The neighborhood is comprised of single family and multiple family structures that are both
rentals and owner-occupied, and commercial businesses.
3.
Physical appearance of existing or proposed structures (location, height, bulk of building as well as
construction materials).
The proposed pole sign will be 19 feet high from the grade, please see attached location sketch and
sign sketch.
4.
The suitability of the proposed landscaping in providing ground cover, screening and decoration on the
site.
No landscaping is proposed.
18-VAR-11-13
Page 3 of 4
5.
The nature and intensity of operations involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use.
No problems anticipated.
6.
The time of use, the physical and economic relationship of one type of use to another.
7.
The assembly of persons or employees, which may be hazardous to the neighborhood or incongruous or
conflict with normal traffic in the vicinity.
The time of use and physical relationship will be similar to that of surrounding properties.
8.
Vehicular and pedestrian traffic volumes and patterns, particularly of children, as well as vehicular
turning movements in relation to traffic flows, intersections and site distances.
9.
The physical characteristics of the site such as: area, drainage, topography, open space, landscaping,
and access to minor and/or major streets
10. Demands upon public services such as electricity, sewer, water, police, and fire protection, schools and
refuse disposal.
11. The type and amount of litter, waste, noise, dust, traffic, fumes, glare and vibration which may be
generated by such use.
12. Area requirements for the proposed use and the potential for the use or its area requirements to expand.
The applicant would have to request another variance to expand any signage on this proposed
freestanding sign.
13. Other factors necessary to maintain property values in the neighborhood and guarantee safety, light, air
and privacy to the principal uses in the district.
14. Compliance with the Master Plan.
The Board of Zoning Appeals should review Chapter 14 - Summary of Recommendations;
Chapter 8 - Neighborhood Assessment; and the Future Land Use Map on page 226 of the
Community Master Plan, to determine compliance.
Additional Comments:
State Law provides that reasonable conditions may be places on a variance request to ensure… the health, safety,
and welfare as well as, the social and economic well-being, of those who will use the land use or activity under
construction, residents and landowners immediately adjacent to the proposed land use or activity, and the
community as a whole.
18-VAR-11-13
Page 4 of 4
Originally the parcel was being developed as a subdivision, but after construction of several buildings the
preliminary plat expired. It remains a single parcel. Allowable freestanding signs for the site is at is maximum
allowable limit. Please review the attached variance worksheet.
Attachments:





Application with sign and location sketches
Variance Worksheet
Area Map
Photos of current signage and site of the proposed location
Minutes for the 4/5/01, 12/6/01, 6/5/08, 1/5/12, and 8/2/12 meetings for the past sign variance cases on this
site
CITY OF MARQUETTE
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY STAFF USE
q- 2o— 12’
asr Check #: Th
Received by and date: ‘1k )cJ 3
\ 2—
i2’
— (3
0
Application Deadline (including all support material: to -ic
Parcel ID#:__________
Receipt
i
Hearing Date:
FiIe#:
i-VAft- W13
Date:
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED, THE VARIANCE REQUEST WILL NOT BE
SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING UNTIL IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION
REQUIRED IS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION NO EXCEPTIONS!
-
FEE SCHEDULE
Dl or2 Family Residential Units
DCommercial
$274
$328 V
If you have any questions please call 228-0425 or e-mail alandersmqtcty.org.
www.mqtcty.org to find the following information:
Please refer to
Dsoard of Zoning Appeals page for filing deadline and meeting schedule
DExcerpts from the City Zoning Ordinance
• Section 8064.4 Variances
• Section 8060 Administrative Standards
• Section 8040 for setback information
• Section 8042 for off street parking requirements
APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
Peter E. Otovero
Address:
Phone #:
Name:
110 Airport Road
City, State,
Fax #
APPLICANTIOWNERS REPRESENTATIVE
Signs Unlimited
Address:
jp.Negaunee Ml 49866
1401 South Front Street
City, State, Zip:
906-475-9544
Phone #
906-475-9551
-
Marquette, MT 49855
906-226-7446
Fax #:
[email protected]
Email:
•APPLlCANTS OR REPRESENTATIVES ARE STRONGLY
ENCOURAGED TO BE PRESENT AT THE MEETING**
APPLICANTS OR REPRESENTATIVES ARE STRONGLY
ENCOURAGED TO BE PRESENT AT THE MEETING
-
Name: O’Gaue.ro
Address:
PZi-p’?7 City, State. Zip: A UQ-
at.ptk0
gcd
Phone
Fax#:
Email:_________________________
q-7’1
A current survey (location sketch), prepared by a licensed surveyor an’d showing all existing and
proposed construction must be submitted at least 22 calendar days prior to all public hearings involving
dimensional variances.
*
Revision Date 01/17/13
Page 1 of 4
fS
VARIANCES REQUESTED
PROPERTY INFORMATION
o Fence
Location (Street Address):_13cC ODovero Drive
ØSignage
Zoning District: General Business
DParlcing (location, # of spaces, screening)
Total area of site:_____________________________
OZoning (building uses, size, placement)
• Size/lot coverage________________
Sq. ft. of Existing Building(s):_____________________
• Placement/Setbacks_____________
Sq. ft. of Proposed Building(s):____________________
• Height_________________________
Number of floors:
Total Height:
• Use_________________________
0 Other
EXISTINGIPROPOSED USE
(Check all that apply)
SETBACKS
FRONT
Please circle
the
appropriate
direction
N
S E W
SIDE1
N
S
E
W
SIDE2
N
S
E
W
REAR
N
S
E
W
REQUIRED
Please fill in
the distance
PROVIDED/
PROPOSED
Please fill in
the distance
110’
CResidential (# of units
C Office
E Retail
C Personal Services
C Institutional
CAutomotive Services
C Outdoor Services/Sales
C Food & Beverage
C Warehousing (storage) Service
CAssembly
COutdoor Storage (describe)________________
CPublic Use (describe)_____________________
Multifamily and non-residential development must
undergo a formal site plan review See Section 80.62
of the Marquette City Zoning Ordinance
-
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY
•
Unique circumstances applying to the
property.
•
Not adversely affecting adjacent
properties.
•
Need for variance was not self-created.
• Variance is the minimum necessary.
•
Not general or recurrent nature.
• Will not alter the essential character of
the area.
State law authorizes the Board of Zoning
Appeals upon finding that there are practical
difficulties in carrying out the letter of the law,
to grant a variance. The Board of Zoning
Appeals may impose conditions upon
affirmative decisions. Any person having
interest affected by the Board may appeals a
decision to the Circuit Court within 30 days.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Specify proposed building style and materials, ultimate ownership, proposed timeline for work, etc. (Use another
sheet of paper if necessary). Sketches showing facades, rooflines, window and door placement, etc are
encouraged but need not be professionally drawn photos of similar construction may also be submitted.
-
pole sign identifying Sears Store
NO WORK INCLUDING EARTHWORK CAN COMMENCE UNTIL THE CLASS A DESIGNATION IS
OBTAINED AND A ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMIT IS ISSUED.
-
Revision Date 01/1 7113
Page 2 of 4
SEC 80.64.B(1)
The Board of Zoning Appeals shall make a finding that the requirements of Sec. 80.64.4.B(1) have
been met by the applicant for a variance.
(1) Written application for a variance must be submitted demonstrating:
a. That special conditions exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and
which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district.
The store/building is only visible from the parking lot. We need
highway frontage exposure to direct traffic to the store.
b. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.
Petitioner’s Response: As a result of the many businesses on the same
property Sears is not allowed the customary signage alloted for a store
of this size.
c.
That special conditions and circumstances áo not result from the actions of the applicant.
Petitioner’s Response: The division of the property was not intended
to accommodate many businesses as its original purpose was for
residential.
Revision Date 01117/13
Page 3 a14
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is
denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district.
Petitioner’s Response:
understood
a That no non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district
and no permitted or non-conforming use of lands! structures, or buildings in other districts shall
be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance.
understood
SIGNATURE
I hereby certify the following:
1. I am the legal owner of the property for which this application is being submitted.
2. I desire to apply for the variance indicated in this application with the attachments and the
information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
3. The requested variance would not violate any deed restrictions attached the property
involved in the request.
4. I have read Section 80.64 of the Zoning Ordinance and understand the necessary
conditions that must be completed; and I have read Section 80.60 Administrative Standards
and understand the consideration that will be given in making a decision on this petition.
5. I understand that the payment of the application fee is nonrefundable and is to cover the
costs associated with processing this application, and that is does not assure approval of
the plan.
6. I acknowledge that this application is not considered filed and complete until all of the
required information has been submitted and all required fees have been paid in full. Once
my application is deemed complete! I will be assigned a date for a public hearing before the
Board of Zoning Appeals that may not necessarily be the next scheduled meeting due to
notification requirements and Board of Zoning Appeals Bylaws.
7. I acknowledge that this form is not in itself an approval of the variance but only an
application for a variance and is valid only with procurement of applicable approvals.
8. I authorize City Staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals members to inspect the site.
Property
Owner
Revision Date 01/17113
Signature:
Date:
7
13
Page 4 o14
1401 S. FRONT ST.
MARQUETTE, MICHIGAN 49855
“awn
906-226-7446
FAX 906-226-7937
ow
ATTN:
Pv’ofessionctl SignHsts’
“I
SEARS
c\axran a
L
I,
S
4
yoc’c/s
LI”
/
,.1
1—
‘
/
-ø’4B/flW,° /
e4€
mat0h1
RECEIVED SEP 252013
Layout Approved
•ALL LAYOUTS ARE PROPERTY OF SIGNS UNLIMITED.
a
goo C?
TDd
3qYao
,CLAk’ t
—
/
6Z9TEL3906
OYU—ThV2S
ACQJLJ
wae:ro
-‘
T/sf6D
n
t
•
.4
I
r1
.4
Proposed sign
location
proposed sign
locatio
LcPFZ
h$O
Sears Sign Variance Worksheet Excerpt from Chapter 82 – Sign Ordinance
2. All Office, Industrial, and Business Districts.
F. The following section applies to the BG Zoning District only. In the case of a
shopping center or a group of stores or other business uses on a lot held in single
and separate ownership, the provisions of this section relating to the total area
of signs permitted on a premise shall apply with respect to each building,
separate store, separate storefront, or separate use. Only wall signs shall be
permitted for individual establishments in a shopping center or on a property
with more than one use, entity or business (multi-use or multi-tenant properties).
Multi-use or multi-tenant properties may also have one (1) freestanding sign per
street frontage).
1. Freestanding Signs:
a) Freestanding signs shall be limited to one (1) per property held in single and
separate ownership except for a property that has frontage on more than one
(1) street, in which case one (1) such sign shall be permitted for each separate
street frontage. If a property has frontage that exceeds five hundred (500) lineal
feet on any given roadway one (1) additional such sign on such frontage shall
be permitted. Unless otherwise regulated by specific reference herein, the area
and height above grade of any freestanding sign shall not exceed the amounts
specified in Table 82.13.A below.
Frontage on US 41 is 555 feet. O’Dovero Drive frontage (public right-of-way) is
255.60 feet
So you can have two freestanding signs on US 41 and O'Dovero Drive allows for
another freestanding sign.
Table 82.13.A - Sign Size Limits in BG Shopping Centers
speed limit=miles per hour; area=square feet; height=feet
Speed Limit
Area Height 60% Area 60% Height
25
50
20
30
12
35
98
20
58.8
12
45
253
25
151.8
15
55
300
30
180
18
The existing pole signs on US 41 are as follows:
Econo Foods is 294 sq ft
Chiropractic is 42 sq ft
The existing pole sign on O'Dovero Drive, the chiropractic sign is 42 sq ft and
they received a variance for this sign. This sign now meets the ordinance as it is
under 50 Sq ft and 20 feet in height, so the variance would not be needed
anymore.
The Ordinance allows for 3 freestanding signs and Sears is asking to erect
another one. The speed limit on US 41 in this area is 55 MPH which would allow
the pole sign to be 30 feet high and 300 S.F. in area. The proposal is for a 19 ft
high pole sign and 80 S.F. in area.
CO
L
100
772
00
US
41
752
W WA
SH I N
G TO N
76
2
1200 W WASHINGTON
00
752
772
782
IL
W
SO
1000 W BAR
AGA
N
81
2
822
80
2
822
812
83
2
832
842
802
DAY BREAK DRIVE
862
1300 WILSON
802
782
852
55
0M
Contours10FT
Watermains
Sanitary Sewers
3
812
LEGEND
60
872
77
2
3
882
762
55
0M
862
872
2
84
892 872
882
792
82
2
86
2
OSPREY
ON
50
842
852
812
1500 WILSON
LS
WI
00
2
1
1
78
2
84
E
ON
88
2
1400 WILSON
812
832 822
MERLIN
ST
2
2 84
86
O VER O
822
ON
1300 OD
55 3
400 M
WI
LS
822
2
81
00
OK
872
782
792
2
2
82 82
822
822
S
ON
16
742
BARAG
A
US4 1
842
O
BR
872
882
862
772
772
900 W
300 M55 3
1700 WILSON
SO N
862
852
RIZ
HO
792
T
EK COUR
MILL CRE
762
2
75
1800 WIL
802
812
1100 W WASHINGTON
742
19
822
1500
83
2
772
762
822
ES
762
76
2
19
1300 W RIDGE 1200 W RIDGE
792 782
100 MEESKE
772
772
W RI
DGE
100 RUBLEIN 200 RUBLEIN
18-VAR-11-13 Area Map
1500
772
752
782
<all other values>
892
SLIP_DATE
82
2
CIPP
89
2
Street Labels
882
Building FootPrints
2
85
Streets
Parcels No Labels
City_Marquette_2012.sid
RGB
Community Development Department
November 1, 2013
1000 GROVE
900 GROVE
Green: Band_2
862
Blue: Band_3
87
2
T
800 GROV
E
1 inch = 0 miles
1 inch = 431 feet
852
0-100 FAIRWAY
912
872
90
2
892
Band_1
852
Red:
2
87
294 SQ FT
42 SQ FT
42 sq ft ground sign
approved per variance
01-SGN-06-08
6 feet x 7 feet
Existing freestanding signs
Existing freestanding sign
Cl
tR
LO
2
n
Mr. Keller had no comment and Dr. Jackson supported the request.
Vice Chairman Crotty asked Mr. Jilbert if the vehicles would be left running. Mr. Jilbert
said that all drivers have been instructed not to leave vehicles running. Vice Chairman
Crotty then voiced his support for the proposal adding that the request will not add
additional noise pollution to the area.
It was then moved by Mr. Dahlke to approve O1-BZA-03-O1 as submitted. Mr. Keller
provided the second, and the motion passed 6-0.
8.
02-SGN-03-O1 /1498 O’DOVERO DRIVE
Vice Chairman Crotty asked staff to present the analysis for the members. Mr. Murray
read the analysis and explained the contents of the support packet.
Staff explained that The Michigan Dept. of Career Development and the Michigan
Rehabilitation Services of 1498 O’Dovero Dr. were requesting a variance from section
82.13 2. A. to permit the installation of an additional 36 Sq. Ft. of wall signage. It was
explained that the Sign Ordinance limits the amount of signage per site based on a
combination of site frontage and building square footage. This site includesthe Secretary
of State, the GKC Theatre, Econo Foods, Northern Michigan Bank, the Michigan Works,
Michigan Dept. of Career Development and The Michigan Rehabilitation Services which
have a total of 989 Sq. Ft. of signage and that the site is currently over signed by 312.52
Sq. Ft. Staff noted that the site is an unplatted parcel located in section 22 lying W. of S.
McClellan Ave. and S. of the U.S.41 By Pass. The size of the site is estimated at 16.98
acres. The parcel is irregular, with 555.01’ of frontage on U.S. 41. This parcel and all
adjacent Commercial properties are designated as General Business. The maximum
permitted signage for this site is 673.479 Sq. Ft. Current on site building improvements
and signage were outlined to the members.
-
Soon after the 7/7/95 discovery of the 300 Sq. Ft. of additional wall signs at Econo Foods,
the preliminary plat for the subdivision expired, and it became evident at this point that the
McClellan Commercial Subdivision Plat would never be finalized. Lots 1 & 7, being under
the same ownership, were considered as combined for zoning and signage calculations.
The 256 Sq. Ft. of signage allocated to the Secretary of State on 12/2/93 has been
eliminated, thus compounding the excessive signage on this entire site.
In summary, the Petitioners were requesting a variance to permit the installation of
36 Sq. A. of additional wall signs bringing the total signage on this property to 1,025
April 5, 2001
Page 3
Sq. Ft. or a cumulative variance of 351.5 Sq,. Ft.
Vice Chairman Crotty, opened the public hearing portion of the appeal. The petitioner,
Bob Chapman explained that he is present to answer any questions.
Vice Chairman Crotty inquired if the sign will be lit and which way the sign will face. Mr.
Chapman stated that the sign will be lit and that it will face south.
Mr. Kivela voiced concern overthe number of variance requests for signage for this parcel.
Mr. Dahlke stated that more structures will be built on this parcel, and additional request
for signage will be made.
Mr. Reed and Mr. Keller had no comment.
Dr. Jackson stated that the sign should be lighted.
Vice Chairman Crotty confirmed that the hours of operation are 7:30 to 5:00, that there are
special meetings at night, that the sign should be lit, and that it will not face any
residences.
It was then moved by Dr. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Reed to approve 02-SGN-03-D1 as
presented. The vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
C.
03-BZA-03-01 / 1400 ALBION ST.
Vice Chairman Crotty asked staff to present the analysis for the members. Mr. Murray
read the analysis and explained the contents of the support packet.
Mr. Murray stated that Craig and Tamara Leadbetter of 1400 Albion St. were requesting
a front and rear yard setback variance from Section 80.40.2 of the Marquette City Zoning
Ordinance to permit the construction of a second story and a attached garage onto their
existing dwelling. It was explained that the site was a platted parcel located on the
southwest corner of Craig and Albion Streets. The site is rectangular with 75’ of frontage
on Craig St. and 127’ on Albion St. The site and all surrounding property is designated as
PG-General Residential. Present improvements to the site included a 1,189 Sq. Ft. one
story home with an integral or basement garage. The original structure was constructed
in 1975. The slope of the lot drops off to the south to permit a level entrance from Albion
St. to the basement garage.
The applicants proposal was to add an attached 1,402 Sq. Ft. garage on the south portion
April 5, 2001
Page 4
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARQUETTE CITY
I.
was duly called to order
A regular meeting of the Marquette City Board of Zoning Appeals
th
6
2001, in the commission
by Vice Chairman Cook at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, December
chambers of City HaIl.
ROLL CALL
II.
Present:
Absent:
Staff;
r
Vice Chairman Cook, Mr. Dahlke, Mr. Burdick, Mr. Kivela, Mr. Fulle
and Mr. Capuana.
Chairman Crotty
l
Mr. Murray, Assistant City Assessor, Zoning I Planning Officia
MINUTES
III.
approve the November l,
It was moved by Mr. Burdick and seconded by Mr. Capuaria to
passed on a 6-0-1 vote
2001 minutes as presented. The vote was taken and the motion
for the November 1st meeting.
with Vice Chairman Cook abstaining as he was not present
ADDITIONS I DELETIONS TO AGENDA
IV.
alk sign under new business.
Mr. Kivela asked to add discussion of the Total Image sidew
V.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.
25-SGN-12-01 /1407 O’DOVERO DRIVE
background information on
Vice Chairman Cook asked staff to provide the analysis and
M.K. Stores, and O’DDvero
this appeal. Mr. Murray reported that Ronald C. Katers,
of the Sign Ordinance to
Properties are requesting a variance from section 82.13 2. A.
age. It was noted that the Sign
permit the instaflation of an additional 30 Sq. Ft. of wall sigri
bination of site frontage
a
Ordinance limits the amount of signage per site based on com
Secretary of State, the GKC
and building square footage. The site which includes the
Career Development and The
Theatre, Econo Foods, Michigan Works, Michigan Dept. of
Ft. of signage and the site is
Michigan Rehabilitation Services has a total of 1026 Sq.
currently over signed by 347.97 Sq. Ft.
ed in section 22 lying W. of S.
It was explained that the site was an un platted parcel locat
the site is estimated at 16.98
McClellan Ave. and S. of the U.S.41 By Pass. The size of
-
December
h
6
t
2001
1
acres. The parcel is irregular, with 555.01’ of frontage on U.S. 41, containing buildin
4
gs
with a combined area of 96029 Sq. Ft. Permitted signage and calculations were given
to
th,
the members. Mr. Murray explained that soon after the July 7
1995 discovery of the 300
Sq. Ft. of additional wall signs at Econo Foods, the preliminary plat for the subdiv
ision
expired, and it became evident at this point that the McClellan Commercial Subdiv
ision
Plat would never be finalized. Lots 1 & 7, being under the same owners
hip, were
considered as combined for zoning and signage calculations resulting in the over
signing
of the site. In summary, the Petitioners were requesting a variance to
permit the
installation of 30 Sq. Ft. of additional wall signage, bringing the total signag
e on this
property to 1056 Sq. Ft. or a cumulative variance of 377.97 Sq,. Ft.
Ron Katers of 15 Specker Circle spoke on behalf of his appeal, stating that Snyder
Drugs
will be occupying the space within Econo Foods previously occupied by Northe Michig
rn
an
Bank. Along with the interior remodeling, a 30 Sq. Ft. sign will be needed to
identify the
business. Mr. Dahlke confirmed that the sign will be internally lighted.
Vice Chairman Cook opened the public hearing portion of the appeal.
Mr. Surdick noted that he had no problem with the additional signage, that this is a small
sign, this is a good project, that some signage is needed for identification and that
he
would support the request.
Mr. Dahlke said that he had supported previous sign appeals at this location, that
this area
was intended to be platted, and that with each business calculated on individual
lots there
would not be a problem, that this is a unique parcel, the Board has made previo
us
allowances, and would support an additional 30 Sq. Ft.
Mr. Capuana had no problems with the request and added his support.
Mr. Kivela also supported the request and asked staff on what could be done to preven
t
this from occurring again. Mr. Murray said that development restrictions should
be placed
on preliminary plats to provide incentive on finalizing these plats.
Mr. FulLer asked questions pertaining to the application and how may square
feet of
signage had been removed when Northern Michigan Bank ceased operations at
this
location. Vice Chairman Cook agreed with all of the members comments.
It was then moved by Mr. Kivela, and seconded by Mr. Capuana to approve
25-SGN-12-O’1. The vote was taken and the motion passed on a 6-0 vote.
December
6
t
h
2001
2
CITY OF MARQUETTE
June 5, 2008
A regular meeting of the Marquette City Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order
7:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 5, 2008 in the City Commission Chambers of City Hall.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Fuller, Mr. Bruns, Mr. Dupras, Mr. Huddle (late), Mr. Patrick, Mr.
Suksi, and Mr. Ventura
Staff: Mrs. Gruber and Mr. Stachewicz.
MINUTES
It was moved by Mr. Patrick and support by Mr. Ventura and carried
on a 6-0 vote to approve the minutes of May 1, 2008 as presented.
Mr. Huddle arrived.
ADDITIONS I DELETIONS TO AGENDA: none
PUBLIC HEARINGS
01-SGN-06-08, 1301 O’Dovero Drive, McLean Family Chiropractic Center
(PIN: 0181780)
Mrs. Gruber presented the staff report and visuals of the site. She noted that originally
the parcel was being developed as a subdivision, but after construction of several
buildings the preliminary plat expired. It remains a single parcel, with the allowable sign
area prorated among the existing businesses. Allowable sign area for the site is
exceeded. No square footage remains for Dr. McLean’s chiropractic center. Econo
Foods and the GKC Theater exceed their allotted square footage. Econo Foods and
Michigan Works/Rehab Services have received variances. Dr. McLean has replaced
the face of the pole sign along the US-41 Bypass formerly used by the Secretary of
State. He would also like to have a 42 square foot ground/monument sign in front of
Mrs. Gruber estimated that if the plat had been recorded and the
the building.
structure was located on its own site, its allowable signage would be 128 square feet.
The proposed signage was less than that area. Two pieces of correspondence were
presented. Dr. McLean was unable to attend the meeting. Dan Landers of Cook Sign
Service was introduced to represent him.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Landers stated the signage would be legal if the building were on a separate site.
He answered questions regarding his mock-up of the sign in the proposed location. It is
not excessive. The sign is refurbished, from another site.
No one else wished to speak. The hearing was closed.
O:\CLRK\Pat-Planning\BZA\minutcs\2008\O6-05-O8doc June
*
as un ended intL 10. 2008
5, 2008
Page I of 3
Board members noted that Dr. McLean was not asking for excessive signage. His
signage would be well within that which would be allowed if it were on a separate lot.
The problem was created by ODovero Properties failure to complete the subdivision,
excessive signage at Econo Foods and lack of enforcement by the City. It was
necessary that, after patients turned off the Bypass and onto O’Dovero Drive, the
building have signage for identification purposes.
It was moved by Mr. Dupras, supported by Mr. Bruns and carried
unanimously that variance O1-SGN-06-08 be granted for the proposed
addition of a 42 square foot ground sign at 1301 O’Dovero Drive on the
basis of his need to identify his structure within the vast development.
07-BZA-06-08. 122 E. Arch Street (PIN: 0181780), First United Methodist Church
Mrs. Gruber informed the Board that she was a member of the Church’s Board of
Trustees and that she had submitted the application and written the staff report. She
did not have any monetary interest in the outcome of the appeal. She then
summarized the report, regarding the Church’s request for a lot width variance to
facilitate a land exchange/lot line adjustment with an abutting parcel. Mr. Zerbel, owner
of the abutting property at 110 E. Arch St. has signed an agreement with the Church to
exchange a 17’ x 50’ area which projects into the perimeter of the church parcel for a
20’ X 100’ parcel fronting on Arch Street. The exchange would “square-up” the two
properties. The Church’s frontage on E. Arch Street would be reduced to 53 feet. Mr.
Zerbel’s property would be increased to 69 feet of width. Mrs. Gruber gave a brief
history of the development of the Church, its acquisition of adjoining parcels the
development of the privately held adjoining parcels. Many of the abutting parcels were
comprised of portions of lots. The exchange would resolve a number of problems for
the Church-- including snow storage, unauthorized parking and through traffic. Snow
removal would be facilitated and more green space could be established. Mr. Zerbel’s
rental property is a nonconforming use. It does not have sufficient parking, snow
storage area or meet the width requirements for the OS-Office district. The exchange
would provide additional area for the rental unit parking. The Church would still have
53 feet of frontage on Arch Street in addition to its frontage on Ridge and Front Streets.
Visuals of the site were shown.
The public hearing was opened.
Don Balmer, a representative of the Church, offered to answer questions.
questions were forthcoming. The hearing was closed.
No
Board members noted the platted lots were “chopped-up” and re-configured prior to the
adoption of zoning in Marquette. It was obvious that time and research had gone into
the proposed exchange. The new lines will work out nicely for both parties. It was also
noted that the survey was somewhat confusing because it predated the Church’s
demolition of the house at 316 N. Front Street and Mr. Zerbel’s removal of the garage
Mr. Stachewicz stated that he anticipated that if/when the
at 110 E. Arch Street.
Zoning Ordinance is finally updated the required lot widths would be reduced to 50 feet.
Then the resulting parcels would both conform to the ordinance that occurs.
It was moved by G. Patrick, supported by Mr. Suksi and carried
O:\CLRK\PaI-Pianning’BZA\minutcs\2008\06-05-O8.doc
June 5, 2008
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF MARQUETTE
January 5, 2012
A regular meeting of the Marquette City Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on
Thursday, January 5, 2012 in the City Commission Chambers of City Hall.
ROLL CALL
Present: Vice-Chairman Fuller, Mr. Huddle, Mr. O’Neill, Mr. Patrick (alternate), and Mr. Vasseau.
Absent: Mr. Landers (excused), Chairman Crotty (excused), and Mr. Suski (unexcused).
Staff:
A. Landers and D. Stensaas.
MINUTES
It was moved by Mr. Vasseau, seconded by Mr. Patrick, and carried 5-0 to
approve the meeting minutes of December 1, 2011 as presented.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
01-VAR-01-12 – 1401 O’Dovero Drive (PIN: 0514230): O’Dovero Properties and Econo Foods
is seeking a variance from the City of Marquette Sign Ordinance to allow for a 70” x 144” wall
sign located at 1401 O’Dovero Drive
A. Landers stated O’Dovero Properties and Econo Foods is seeking a variance from the City of
Marquette Sign Ordinance to allow for a 70” x 144” wall sign located at 1401 O’Dovero Drive. She
stated originally the parcel was to be developed as a subdivision but after construction of several
buildings, the preliminary plat expired and the property remains a single parcel with the allowable
sign area prorated among the various businesses. She also stated that the site has exceeded its
allowable signage which is 671.09 s.f. Visuals of the site were shown and graphs of the existing
signage as well as prior sign variance requests were presented.
Vice-Chairman Fuller opened the public hearing.
Zack Quinnell, resides at 125 Dandelion Lane and is a representative of Econo Foods, stated Econo
Foods is asking for a variance from the sign ordinance to allow for the placement of the family name
which has been in existence since 1968. He stated he felt the variance should be approved due to
the peculiar shape of the parcel and its location. He also stated that the allowable signage
established for the site was based on the street frontage on U.S. 41 and that a lot of changes have
taken place since that time. He stated for example, the development of Wilson Street that runs
along the complete south side of the building, and the construction of O’Dovero Drive which
essentially runs through Econo Foods parking lot. He also stated that he believes the lot fronts on
more streets than what is being considered. He also stated that the current signage cannot be seen
from the highway and that the two existing Western Union wall signs, one measuring 24” X 80” and
the other 18” x 72”, are being removed as they are no longer conducting business in the building.
He also stated that the proposed signage measures approximately 70” X 144” which is a bit bigger
than the signs to be removed. He stated it is important to get the Tadych name on the building
because it is a family owned business, and that the Econo Foods name is derived from their grocery
supplier—Nash-Finch Company.
F:\BZA\MINUTES\2012\1-5-12.doc
Page 1 of 3
Mr. Vasseau asked if the sign was going to have any lighting. Mr. Quinnell stated the sign would
have internal LED lighting.
No one else wished to comment. Vice-Chairman Fuller closed the public hearing.
Mr. Vasseau stated he would be in support of the request as it is a minimal request. He stated that
the sign does not face any homes and that it is consistent with the intent of the district and is
somewhat close to the comprehensive plan. He also stated that the sign would break up the look of
the metal siding. He stated he felt the sign would look nice and would be in support of the request.
Mr. Patrick stated he agreed with Mr. Quinnell and Mr. Vaseau. He stated that Mr. Quinnell made a
good point in that the signage calculation was based only on the frontage of U.S. 41, and Wilson
Street was not used for the allotted square footage for signage. He also stated that the request was
minimal and that the signage was appropriate for the area.
Mr. O’Neill stated he would support the request. He stated that the business does not front any
homes and that even if the sign were brightly lit, it could not be seen from the bypass. He also
stated adding the family name is common sense.
Mr. Huddle stated he would support the variance request. He stated that the request is minimal and
that it makes sense due to the site’s layout.
Mr. Fuller stated he would support the request and that he agreed with his fellow board members
that the request is minor. He stated due to the location of the business, it would be a hindrance to
the owner if the board did not allow for signage promoting the family business.
Vice-Chairman Fuller stated that the concurring vote of a majority of the members is necessary to
decide in favor of the applicant on a matter upon which the Board is required to grant a variance;
therefore, only five members were present and four had to concur. He stated thus it is up to the
applicant whether or not they want to wait and have the vote next month when more members are
present, or at the current meeting.
Mr. Quinnell stated he would like a decision made at that time.
It was moved by Mr. Vasseau, seconded by Mr. O’Neill, and carried 5-0 that after conducting
a public hearing and review of the STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for 01-VAR-01-12, the
Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the request demonstrates the standards found in Section
80.64.4.B.1 (a. through e.) of the Zoning Ordinance and hereby approves 01-VAR-01-12 as
presented.
OLD BUSINESS
Review of Board of Zoning Appeals Presentation to the City Commission
The Board of Zoning Appeals reviewed the presentation material.
Mr. Vasseau asked if the Powerpoint presentation could have an example of a variance request. D.
Stensaas, Planner, stated that he believes the City Commission is looking for information on how
things are going on an administrative level. R. O’Neill stated that the first goal should be to
maintain board membership and the second should be to allow input from sitting board members
as to the appointment of new board members.
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF MARQUETTE
August 2, 2012
A regular meeting of the Marquette City Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
on Thursday, August 2, 2012, in the City Commission Chambers of City Hall.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Chairman Crotty, Ms. Dombrowski, Mr. Suksi, Mr. Fuller, and Mr. Vasseau.
Mr. Huddle and Mr. O'Neill (both excused).
MINUTES
It was moved by Mr. Suksi, seconded by Mr. Vasseau, and carried 5-0 to approve
the meeting minutes of July 5, 2012 as presented.
ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
Mr. Crotty stated "Committee Boot Camp" will be added under Item 4.A of the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
01-CAN-08-12 – 102 W. Park Street (PIN: 0350980): Joseph Rose IV and Martha Fitzgerald
are requesting a Class A Non-conforming Use Designation to allow for future
reconstruction of the three unit structure should the existing structure on the property
listed above be damaged or destroyed.
A. Landers, Planning/Zoning Official, stated that Joseph Rose IV and Martha Fitzgerald are
requesting a Class A Non-nonforming Use Designation to allow for future reconstruction of their
three unit structure should the existing structure on the property be damaged or destroyed. She
stated that the structure was built in 1940 and contains three units. She also stated that the three
unit structure is legal and has been maintained as a non-conforming structure for a number of
years. She stated the neighborhood is comprised of single family structures and multiple family
structures that are both owner-occupied and rentals, offices, retails, a funeral home and
restaurants. She also stated consideration should be given to ensure that vehicles are stored
properly on the site. She stated that the request is supported by the Community Master Plan
because it fosters the creation of an affordable housing opportunity. The area map, site plan, and
photos of the property were shown.
A. Landers read correspondence received from Daphne Greenwood, 193 Oak Wood Drive, and
owner of 1008 N. Front Street, which stated she was opposed to the request because a structure
of such magnitude would blight a distinguished old neighborhood.
Joseph Rose and Martha Fitzgerald, 533 E. Michigan Street, spoke on behalf of their request.
Ms. Fitzgerald stated that they are seeking a reclassification so they can hold a mortgage on the
Page 1 of 8
stated she likes what the applicant has done to the west side of the property and that the project
fits in well with that. She stated she would be in favor of the request.
Mr. Fuller stated he is glad to see closure to the project. He also stated that the variance request
meets the following variance requirement, "that granting of the variance requested will not confer
the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same district". He stated with that, he believes the applicant has a practical
difficulty based on the age of the home in relation to the construction of Hampton Street. He also
stated that the literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the
ordinance. He stated the applicant deserves the right to enjoy a porch like everyone else and
would be in full support of the request.
Mr. Crotty stated that the request is one that he has a tough time with because there is an
encroachment on the city right-of-way. He gave a brief description of a more recent situation
where the board directed a homeowner to remove a ramp that was constructed in the city right-ofway without a permit. He stated that the ramp, once reconstructed, would still encroach into the
set back area, but not the city right-of-way. He also stated that an existing stairway in a city rightof way is like having a sidewalk in the right-of-way, and that he is good with that, but adding a
section of deck that protrudes into the city right-of-way is something he has a problem with. A.
Landers stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals is being asked to grant a variance for the portion
within the applicant's property lines, and that the City Commission will have to grant a license for
the use of the city right-of-way.
The board and applicant discussed the location of the deck and the planter boxes in detail.
Chairman Crotty stated that the “concurring vote of a majority of the members is necessary to
decide in favor of the applicant on a matter upon which the Board is required to pass under the
Zoning Ordinance, or to grant a variance in the Zoning Ordinance”; therefore, since only five
members were present four had to concur. He stated thus it is up to the applicant whether or not
they want to wait and have the vote next month when more members are present, or at the
current meeting. The applicant asked that the board vote at the current meeting.
It was moved by Mr. Vasseau, seconded by Mrs. Dombrowski and carried 5-0 that after
conducting a public hearing and review of the STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for 13VAR- 08-12, the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the request demonstrates the
hereby approves 13-VAR-08-12 to allow for .6 ft of the planter boxes and the portion of
the deck attached to the home that is on the applicant's property within the 20-foot front
yard requirement.
14-VAR-08-12 – 1301 O’Dovero Drive (PIN: 0514230): O’Dovero Properties and Sears are
seeking variances from the City of Marquette Sign Ordinance to allow for a 4’ x 12’ wall
sign and an addition of a 3.4’ x 12’ sign to an existing pole sign located at 1401 O’Dovero
Drive.
A. Landers, Planning/Zoning Official, stated O’Dovero Properties and Sears are seeking
variances from the City of Marquette Sign Ordinance to allow for a 4’ x 12’ wall sign and an
addition of a 3.4’ x 12’ sign to an existing pole sign located at 1401 O’Dovero Drive. She stated
that the existing signage has already exceeded the square footage allowed resulting in the
request.
Page 6 of 8
A. Landers stated that the Community Master Plan only discusses signage when dealing with the
Downtown area, traffic signage, or way finding signage. She stated it does however indicate the
parcel to be “regional Commercial” according to the Master Land Use Plan. She also stated the
concept sketch depicts that the site still has vacant space that could accommodate more
commercial structures, therefore, it should be anticipated that more commercial development will
occur at the site, requiring additional signage to support the expansion.
A. Landers stated that originally the parcel was being developed as a subdivision, but after
construction of several buildings the preliminary plat expired resulting in a single parcel, with the
allowable sign area pro-rated among the existing businesses which has been exceeded. She also
stated that any new signage for the site would require variance approval. The area map, site plan,
and photos of the property were shown.
Chairman Crotty opened the public hearing. There were no citizens wishing to comment on the
request.
Mr. Fuller stated since the applicant was not present to answer the board's question we should
consider postponing hearing the case. A. Landers asked that the board continue with the public
hearing portion of the meeting because she would have to re-notice the request at the cost of the
City if the board did not allow for the public hearing portion of the meeting to be completed.
No one else wished to comment. Chairman Crotty closed the public hearing.
Mr. Fuller asked A. Landers if she was aware of what type of directional lighting the applicant was
proposing for the parking lot area. A. Landers stated she did not know because the site plan had
not been turned in and that would be something that the Planning Commission would address.
Mr. Crotty asked if the applicant was going to place additional pavement on the site. A. Landers
stated that she had not discussed the issue with the applicant’s surveyor, but that the preliminary
plan indicates where service trucks would unload and that it appears there would be a need for
additional pavement.
A. Landers stated that the Sears Store signage currently located in Negaunee would be relocated
to the proposed site.
A. Landers clarified that the sign would be considered a pole sign which would be placed directly
above the existing chiropractic office sign located on O’Dovero Drive. Mr. Crotty asked if the
existing chiropractic office sign was lit. Mrs. Landers stated it was not.
Mr. Fuller asked if the wall sign was going to be lit 24 hours a day. A. Landers stated she was not
sure if it would be, but that the sign ordinance does allow for signage to be illuminated.
Mr. Crotty stated that the board would like answers to their various questions. A. Landers clarified
that the questions requiring information from the applicant are as follows: is the wall sign going to
be illuminated 24 hours a day, and is the pole sign going to be illuminated.
Mr. Vasseau stated that he would be in favor of the sign request because the area is an
established business area. He also stated that due to the slope of the land, signage is
difficult to see from U.S. 41.
Page 7 of 8
Ms. Dombrowski stated that the Econo Foods sign is lit 24 hours a day and if the Sears
sign was to be lit as well, she did not believe it would be an intrusion to the area. She
also stated she would support the request.
Mr. Fuller stated that he understands the use and the location of the sign, and that a
business owner does have the ability to sign their buildings, but that he was disappointed
that the applicant was unable to attend the meeting to match the time volunteered by the
board.
Mr. Suksi stated that the condominiums south of the site are already being lit by the
existing signage which can be an annoyance.
Mr. Crotty stated that he was disappointed the applicant was not present to answer
questions.
It was moved by Mr. Vasseau, seconded by Ms. Dombrowski that after conducting a
public hearing and review of the STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for 14-VAR-08-12, the
Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the request demonstrates the standards found in
Section 80.64.4.B.1 (a. through e.) of the Zoning Ordinance and hereby approves14-VAR08-12 as presented.
AYES: Mr. Vasseau, Ms. Dombrowski, and Mr. Suksi.
NAYS: Mr. Fuller and Mr. Crotty.
The motion failed.
NEW BUSINESS
Committee Boot Camp
A. Landers read the memo which had the next meeting dates for the boot camp.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Mr. Vasseau, supported by Mr. Fuller, and carried 5-0 to adjourn the
meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
________________________
Pam Greenleaf
Administrative Assistant,
Community Development Department,
For Board of Zoning Appeals
Page 8 of 8
CITY OF MARQUETTE
PLANNING AND ZONING
MARQUETTE, MI 49855
(906) 228-0425
www.mqtcty.org
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
November 1, 2013
19-VAR-11-13 – 401 E. Fair Ave (PIN: 0511040)
The Board of Zoning Appeals is being asked to review an application for variances from the City
of Marquette Sign Ordinance to allow for a 24”’ x 96” wall sign located at 401 E. Fair Ave.
Please see the attached STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for more specific information regarding
the application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Board of Zoning Appeals should conduct a public hearing, review the application, and
render a decision on whether or not to grant the variance.
As always, it is highly recommended that any a motion include finding of fact similar to the
following:
After conducting a public hearing and review of the STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for 19-VAR11-13, the Board of Zoning Appeals (finds/does not find) that the request (demonstrates/does
not demonstrate) the standards found in Section 80.64.4.B.1 (a. through e.) of the Zoning
Ordinance and hereby (approves/denies) 19-VAR-11-13
...as presented.
...with the following conditions (e.g. with the ______ variance not to exceed ____
number of feet along the side yard, and ___ number of feet along the rear yard).
Or...
After conducting a public hearing and review of the STAFF FILE REVIEW/ANALYSIS for 19-VAR11-13, the Board of Zoning Appeals does not find that the request demonstrates the standards
found in Section 80.64.4.B.1 (a. through e.) of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant requested
a ___ variance, which the facts show is not appropriate; however, a ______ variance is
warranted by the facts and demonstrates the standards found in Section 80.64.4.B.1 (a.
through e.) of the Zoning Ordinance, and the Board of Zoning Appeals hereby approves 19VAR-11-13 with the ______ variance.
Completed by Andrea M. Landers – Planning/Zoning Official
Reviewed by Dennis Stachewicz – Director of Planning and Community Development
File #:
19-VAR-11-13
Date:
November 1, 2013
Project/Application:
Applicants are seeking a variance from the City of Marquette Sign Ordinance to allow for a
24 in x 96 in wall sign.
Location:
401 E. Fair Avenue
Parcel ID:
0511040
Available Utilities:
Natural Gas, Electricity, City Water, City Sewer, and Garbage Collection.
Current Zoning:
CR – Conservation & Recreation
Surrounding Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Year Built:
Lakeview Arena was built in 1973.
Sales:
The City of Marquette has owned the property since 1997.
RG – General Residential & CR – Conservation & Recreation
RG – General Residential & PUD - Planned Unit Development
CR – Conservation & Recreation
RG – General Residential
Relationship to Sign Ordinance Standards (Staff Comments in Bold Text):
4. Conservation-Recreation and Deferred Development Districts (CR & DD):.
C. For all non-business and non-residential uses in this district, one of the following shall be permitted, per
site:
1. ground signs - not to exceed 20 square feet.
2. pole signs - not to exceed 20 square feet.
3. projecting signs - not to exceed 20 square feet.
4. wall signs - not to exceed 40 square feet.
As the existing signage for the site currently exceeds the allowable non-business signs, the proposed wall sign
would need a variance. Please see the attached map of the location of existing signage, and pictures indicating
the sign area of the existing signage.
Relationship to Zoning Ordinance Variance Standards (Staff Comments in Bold Text):
80.64.4.B. Variances: Conditions Governing Application; Procedures. To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such
variance form the terms of this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special
conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in practical difficulty. A variance
from the terms of this ordinance shall not be granted by the Board of Appeals unless and until:
(1) A written application for a variance is submitted demonstrating:
a.
That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or
building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
district;
19-VAR-11-13
Page 2 of 4
b.
That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance;
c.
That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant;
d.
That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is
denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district;
Similar properties have the same recourse available if the same situation were to arise,
therefore, this is not considered to be a special privilege.
e. That no non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district and
no permitted or non-conforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be
considered grounds for the issuance of a variance.
This application shall stand on its own and not be precedent setting, nor shall other cases be
used in the decision making.
Relationship to Zoning Ordinance Administrative Standards (Staff Comments in Bold Text):
80.60 Administrative Standards. For the purpose of administering this ordinance, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning
Commission, the Board of Appeals and any other reviewing body or official shall consider each case as an individual
case. Consideration shall be give to the location, size, and character of a use to determine if the use will be in harmony
with the intent and appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is situated and will not be detrimental
to the orderly development of adjacent districts. Consideration shall be given to the following:
1.
Intent of the Zoning District.
The intent of the CR Zoning District is to preserve the character of land in the city which have outstanding
scenic and/or recreational qualities by restricting development not suited to this goal; to prevent development of
land which has great ecological value or where there are natural hazards to development; to preserve open areas
for forestry, agriculture and recreation; and to control the construction of structures along the shoreline of Lake
Superior.
2.
Current use of adjacent lands and neighborhood.
The neighborhood is comprised of single family and multiple family structures that are both rentals and
owner-occupied, and community and university facilities for recreational purposes.
3.
Physical appearance of existing or proposed structures (location, height, bulk of building as well as construction
materials).
The proposed wall sign will be 24 inches x 96 inches, and they are proposing to replace the existing wall sign
with this one.
4.
The suitability of the proposed landscaping in providing ground cover, screening and decoration on the site.
No landscaping is proposed.
19-VAR-11-13
Page 3 of 4
5.
The nature and intensity of operations involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use.
6.
The time of use, the physical and economic relationship of one type of use to another.
7.
The assembly of persons or employees, which may be hazardous to the neighborhood or incongruous or conflict
with normal traffic in the vicinity.
The time of use and physical relationship will be similar to that of surrounding properties.
8.
Vehicular and pedestrian traffic volumes and patterns, particularly of children, as well as vehicular turning
movements in relation to traffic flows, intersections and site distances.
9.
The physical characteristics of the site such as: area, drainage, topography, open space, landscaping, and access to
minor and/or major streets
10. Demands upon public services such as electricity, sewer, water, police, and fire protection, schools and refuse
disposal.
11. The type and amount of litter, waste, noise, dust, traffic, fumes, glare and vibration which may be generated by such
use.
12. Area requirements for the proposed use and the potential for the use or its area requirements to expand.
The applicant would have to request another variance to expand any signage.
13. Other factors necessary to maintain property values in the neighborhood and guarantee safety, light, air and
privacy to the principal uses in the district.
14. Compliance with the Master Plan.
The Board of Zoning Appeals should review Chapter 14 - Summary of Recommendations; Chapter 8 Neighborhood Assessment; and the Future Land Use Map on page 226 of the Community Master Plan, to
determine compliance.
Additional Comments:
State Law provides that reasonable conditions may be places on a variance request to ensure… the health, safety, and welfare
as well as, the social and economic well-being, of those who will use the land use or activity under construction, residents and
landowners immediately adjacent to the proposed land use or activity, and the community as a whole.
19-VAR-11-13
Page 4 of 4
Attachments:




Application with sign sketch
Area Map
Map of existing signs and photos of the existing signs
Minutes of the 12/7/89 and the 12/7/00 meetings for the past sign variance cases on this site
CITY OF MARQUETTE
VARIANCE APPLICATION
.:.
•
Parcel ID#:
Receipt #:
CITY STAFF USE
pS1O9O FiIe#:
U/Pc
Check
li V,i(’& i)- i2
#:___________
Hearing Date:
U—
} iS
Date:
lOi(4 12
Received by and date:_______________________
Application Deadline (including all support material:
Jo— Ibr i 3
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED, THE VARIANCE REQUEST WILL NOT BE
SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING UNTIL IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION
REQUIRED IS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION NO EXCEPTIONSI
-
FEE SCHEDULE
Dl or 2 Family Residential Units
DCommercial
$274
$328
Please refer to
If you have any questions please call 228-0425 or e-mail aIandersmqtcty.org.
www.mqtcty.org to find the following information:
Dfloard of Zoning Appeals page for filing deadline and meeting schedule
DExcerpts from the City Zoning Ordinance
• Section 80.64.4 Variances
• Section 80.60 Administrative Standards
• Section 80.40 for setback information
• Section 80.42 for off street parking requirements
APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION
ARpqANTiosMRSREPaESENTATIVE
LPROPERTY OWNER
9
C
Name:
Address.
ot M arau..e.fI-c
L4Q
E Ear ikue
tccs&\
g
COO CR 6
Narne:*Address:
(QL{
‘\‘
City! State, ZIPS’S
City, State! Zip:
Phone #:
Phone#9t’30
Fax #:
Fax #:
Email:
Emat LA\iSQ
k-tx:
‘j
flQOkI\
-I
**APPLICANTS OR REPRESENTATIVES ARE STRONGLY
ENCOURAGED TO BE PRESENT AT THE MEETING
**APPLICANTS OR REPRESENTATIVES ARE STRONGLY
ENCOURAGED TO BE PRESENT AT THE MEETING**
SURVEYOR
4
.1
Name:_________________ Address:_____________________ City, State. Zip:___________________________
Email:______________________________
Fax
Phone
A current survey (location sketch), prepared by a licensed surveyor and showing all existing and
proposed construction must be submitted at least 22 calendar days prior to all public hearings involving
dimensional variances.
#:__________________
#:____________________
*
Revision Dale 01/17113
Page 1 of 4
r
VARIANCES REQUESTED
PROPERTY INFORMATION
D Fence
óôation (Street AddresLt’b3’t1)
ig nage
E
CR.
Zoning District:
C Parking (location, # of spaces, screening)
Total area àf site:_______________________________
CZoning (building uses, size, placement)
• Size/lot coverge_________________
Sq. ft. of Existing Building(s):_______________________
• Placement/Setbacks_____________
Sq. ft. of Proposed Building(s):____________________
• Height__________________________
Number of floors:_______ Total Height:_____________
• Use
DOther
EXISTING/PROPOSED USE
(Check all that apply)
SETBACKS
FRONT
Please circle
the
appropriate
direction
N S E W
SIDE1
N
S
E
W
SIDE2
N
S
E
W
REAR
N
S
E
W
REQUIRED
Please fill in
the distance
PROVIDED/
PROPOSED
Please fill/n
the distance
CResidential (# of units__________
Office
CRetail
C Personal Services
C Institutional
CAutomotive Services
COutdoor Services/Sales
C Food & Beverage
CWarehousing (storage) Service
CAssembly
COutdoor Storage (describe)________________
EDPublic Use (describe)_____________________
Multifamily and non-residential development must
undergo a formal site plan review See Section 80.62
of the Marquette City zoning Ordinance
-
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY
•
Unique circumstances applying to the
property.
• Not adversely affecting adjacent
properties.
• Need for variance was not self-created.
• Variance is the minimum necessary.
• Not general or recurrent natUre.
• Will not alter the essential character of
the area.
State law authorizes the Board of Zoning
Appeals upon finding that there are jjractical
difficulties in carrying out the letter of the law,
to grant a variance. The Board of Zoning
Appeals may impose conditions upon
affirmative decisions. Any person having
interest affected by the Board may appeals a
decision to the Circuit Court within 30 days.
VEtRIPTIONOFPROJE@r
Specify proposed building style and materials, ultimate ownership, proposed timeline for work, etc. (Use another
sheet of paper if necessary). Sketches showing facades, rooflines, window and door placement, etc are
enco raged but need not be profes nally drawn photos of imilar onstruction m als be submitte
-
%tt
cw
t \&‘3 *
3ect°
st
‘.‘
s;
4q-çNtt
cL9skQ)S-c
NO WORK INCLUDING EARTHWORK CAN COMMENCE UNTIL THE CLASS A DESIGNATION IS
OBTAINED AND A ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMIT IS ISSUED.
-
Revision Date Dill 7/13
Page 2 cr4
SSEC 80.64.B(ij!
The Board of Zoning Appeals shall make a finding that the requirements of Sec. 80.64.4.B(1) have
been met by the applicant for a variance.
(1) Written application for a variance must be submitted demonstrating:
a. That special conditions exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and
which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district.
Petitioners
Response:
c&
Q.o%c c-c
0
b. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.
( &
t
‘n,t’\e c .a
‘O
C.
That special conditions and circumstances do not result Iron, the actions of the applicant.
QkJ..&
Petitioner’ esponse:
%J)ç\Sk\t
t
cs_.%
QV
*o
‘s-\%.ct\\se%t N
\.3i’ç
C
--
ks
\cs-s
y
3
Revision Dale 01/17/13
Page 3 of 4
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is
denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures or buil ings in the same district.
t
Petitioner’s Resnse:
e, That no non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district
and no permitted or non-conforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall
be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance.
Petitioner’s Res onse:
‘1’ t’k
t’t
SIGNATURE
I hereby certify the following:
1. I am the legal owner of the property for which this application is being submitted.
2. I desire to apply for the variance indicated in this application with the attachments and the
information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
3. The requested variance would not violate any deed restrictions attached the property
involved in the request.
4. I have read Section 80.64 of the Zoning Ordinance and understand the necessary
conditions that must be completed; and I have read Section 80.60 Administrative Standards
and understand the consideration that will be given in making a decision on this petition.
5. I understand that the payment of the application fee is nonrefundable and is to cover the
costs associated with processing this application, and that is does not assure approval of
the plan.
6. I acknowledge that this application is not considered filed and complete until all of the
required information has been submitted and all required fees have been paid in full. Once
my application is deemed complete, I will be assigned a date for a public hearing before the
Board of Zoning Appeals that may not necessarily be the next scheduled meeting due to
notification requirements and Board of Zoning Appeals Bylaws.
7. I acknowledge that this form is not in itself an approval of the variance but only an
application for a variance and is valid only with procurement of applicable approvals.
8. I authorize City Staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals members to inspect the site.
Property
Owner
Revision Date 01/17/13
Signature:
Date:
/D
I
&—/.3
Page 4 of 4
E$
5019
LIVE UNITED
Marquette County
community_foundatioii
For good. For ever7
(,uaiC 519-n
612
19-VAR-11-13 Area Map
17
00
NL
AK
ES
612
HO
RE
16
00
LA
2
60
N
SH
1600 PINE
KE
E
OR
15
00
N
LA
KE
SH
612
612
1500 PINE
E
OR
14
1000 SPRUCE
K ESH
ORE
612
N LA
1100 SPRUCE
<all other values>
SLIP_DATE
1200
1200 RUSSELL
1300 HIGH
1300 PINE
1200 PINE
1100 PINE
Watermains
Sanitary Sewers
CIPP
Street Labels
61
2
Streets
Building FootPrints
Parcels No Labels
City_Marquette_2012.sid
RGB
Red:
Band_1
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band_3
2
61
1000 PINE
E
IV
1100 HIGH
DR
1000 HIGH
S
612
Community Development Department
November 1, 2013
622
400 ALBERT
P
CK
RO
300 ALBERT
E
C
NI
1200 HIGH
C
PI
2
62
642
OR
K
LEGEND
Contours10FT
2
61
K
LA
H
ES
R
PA
CE
LA
2
61
622
61
2
2
61
300 E KAYE
300 E MAGNETIC
632
E
OR
400 E FAIR
200 E COLLEGE 300 E COLLEGE 400 E COLLEGE
622
2
61
SH
300 E FAIR
200 E KAYE
100 E KAYE
KE
200 E FAIR
LA
100 E FAIR
N
1400 PINE
00
612
612
612
T
1 inch = 0 miles
1 inch = 333 feet
1600 PINE ST
0511041
1505 PINE ST
0511082
L
00
16
VACANT LAND (LAKESHORE)
0490040
RE
HO 0
E S 09
AK 511
0
VD
BL
10
9
r
ho
401 E FAIR AVE
0511040
lev
ou
eB
Pine Street
s
ke
La
ar
3
d
400 W FAIR AVE
0511080
7
C
VA
T
AN
SH
KE
(LA 0
ND 04
LA 490
0
8
OR
E)
4
5
6
401 E FAIR AVE
0511040
1
2
Fair Avenue
1
62 S.F.
2
3ft x 8ft = 24 S.F.
3
35 S.F.
4
4ftx8ft = 32 S.F.
5
2ft x 8ft = 16 S.F.
6
4ft x 10ft = 40 S.F.
7
96" x 120"
8
2ft x 3 ft =
6 S.F.
9
2 ft x 8 ft = 16 S.F.
10
35 S.F.
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE
MARQUETTE CITY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A regular meeting of the Marquette City Board of Zoning Appeals
was duly called and held at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, December 7,
1989 in the Commission Chambers of City Hall.
PRESENT:
ALSO
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Chairman Mann, Mr. Pelto,
Mr. Ameen and Mr. Rigby.
Paul V. Enrietti,
Thomas A. Murray,
Mr.
Dupras,
Mr.
Szczepanski,
Assistant Zoning Administrator and
Assistant City Assessor.
None.
MINUTES
It was moved by Mr. Pelto to approve the minutes from the meeting
The motion was seconded and passed on a
of the November 2, 1989.
vote of 5 to 0 with one abstention.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
This was a request from Mr. Steve Pelto for two
52—BZA—12—89:
side yard setback variances to permit the installation of an
existing four unit apartment building at 2004 Longyear Avenue.
Mr. Ennietti read the staff analysis and there was one letter
The
received from Henry and Mary Brisson, of 513 Hawley Street.
Mr. Pelto stepped down from
Brisson’s were against the variance.
his position as a Board member and addressed the Board in regard
He explained his proposed plans in more detail.
to his request.
The Board did not have any problems with the request and Mr.
The motion was seconded and
Dupras moved to approve the request.
passed on a vote of 5 to 0.
53—BZA—12—89:
This was a request from Mrs. Ruth Kolhek for an
interior ceiling height variance for the property located at 302
Mr. Enrietti read the staff analysis and there
S. Fifth Street.
Mrs. Kolhek was in attendance
were no letters of correspondence.
Dupras
Mr.
Board.
the
of
questions
to
answer
offered
and
inspection
the
on
items
of
the
other
to
the
status
as
inquired
The Board asked various questions
letter dated October 3, 1989.
The public
of the property.
status
Kolhek
regarding
the
Mrs.
of
with the
problems
have
any
did
Board
not
was
closed.
The
hearing
request and discussed granting it with the stipulation that the
other items on the inspection letter to be completed in a timely
The motion was
Mr. Rigby moved to approve the request.
manner.
seconded and passed on a vote of 6 to 0.
1
54—SGN—12--89:
This was a request from Marquette Lakeview Arena
for a variance from the City sign ordinance to permit the
installation of an electronic message display center located at
401 E. Fair Avenue.
Mr. Dan Cook, of Cook’s Sign Service was
present and offered to answer questions of the Board.
The Board
members were in favor of the request, but had a concern regarding
the pole cover.
The original sign poles are positioned close to
the right—of—way line and it was feared that the pole cover would
interfere with the sight distance for traffic.
The discussion
revolved around the sign and its proximity to the right—of—way.
The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Pelto said the pole skirting
Mr. Ameen said he would like a
was a common thing in the cities.
survey of the position of tire sign compared to the right—of— way.
Mr. Cook said the Lakeview Arena Board originally wanted skirting
on the existing pole sign but it never was installed.
Mr. Rigby
had concerns about the pole skirting also, and Mr. Murray said he
would ask the City Surveyor to stake the right-of—way.
Mr. Rigby
moved to approve the request with the stipulation that it be
positioned off of the public right—of—way.
The motion was
seconded and passed on a vote of 6 to 0.
47—FNC—12—89:
This was a request from Michael and Theresa
Croschere for a variance to the City fence ordinance to allow the
Mr.
fence constructed at 1948 Wright Street to remain in place.
Enrietti read the staff analysis.
Chairman Mann asked Mr.
Szczepanski if he had a chance to review the appeal tapes since
Mrs. Croschere had requested the vote on the
the last meeting.
The petitioners and the
appeal be postponed until this meeting.
neighbors to the west (the Boxers) did not come to an agreement
The petitioner, Mr. Michael
on the fence since the last meeting.
Tie
was
Croschere,
in attendance and addressed the Board.
explained the events that led up to the construction of the
fence, he said he moved the fence back 6 ft. from the front lot
Chairman Mann summarized the
line since the last meeting.
Mr. Jack Boxer, of 205 E.
appeal up to where it stands now.
to the west of the
Street,
the
owner
of
the
property
Prospect
asked
for
a
Mr.
Ameen
addressed
the
Board.
petitioners,
Mr.
clarification to the fence ordinance regarding this appeal.
Dupras said the Croschere’s received bad information concerning
the construction of the fence and he would not support the
Mr. Rigby was against the variance because he thought
petition.
the petitioner should show more of a hardship and the ordinance
Mr. Pelto said he wished the Croschere’s and
should be enforced.
Mr. Pelto said he can
the Boxer’s could reach an agreement.
the Croschere’s were in and
sympathizes with the situation
Mr. Szczepanski had problems with the
propose some compromises.
Chairman Mann said
request and saw the fence as a violation.
the problem of time and money cannot determine the granting of
The
Mr. Rigby moved the request be denied.
this variance.
Mr. Pelto asked for a modification, but the
motion was seconded.
The question was called
request died for the lack of a second.
The variance was denied.
and failed on a vote of S to 1.
2
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARQUETTE CITY
I.
A regular meeting of the Marquette City Board of Zoning Appeals was duly called to order
by Chairman Saint-Onge at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 7, 2000, in the Commission
Chambers of City Hall.
ROLL CALL
II.
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Chairman Saint-Onge, Vice Chairman Crotty, Mr. Cook, Mr. Dahlke
and Mr. Reed.
Mr. Yelland, (not excused) Mr. Keller (excused)
Mr. Murray, Assistant City Assessor, Zoning / Planning Official
MINUTES
Ill.
It was moved by Vice Chairman Crotty, seconded by Mr. Dahlke and approved 4-0-1 to
accept the minutes of the November 2, 2000, meeting as presented. Mr. Cook abstained
from voting as he was not present at the November 2, 2000 meeting.
ADDITIONS / DELETIONS TO AGENDA
IV.
Mr. Murray asked to add item VII A. 2001 meeting Schedule to the agenda. It was moved
by Mr. Cook and seconded by Vice Chairman Crotty to accept the agenda as amended.
The motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
V.
A.
28-SGN-12-00 / 1420 PINE St. / Y.M.C.A.
Chairman Saint-Onge asked staff to present the analysis for the members. Mr. Murray
read the analysis and explained the contents of the support packet. Mr. Cook announced
that he has a conflict of interest in this mailer as his firm has placed a bid on the ground
sign.
Staff explained that the Y.M.C.A. of 1420 Pine St. is requesting a variance from section
82.13. 4. A) 3) of The Marquette City Sign Ordinance which permits only one pole,
projecting or ground sign per site within the Conservation / Recreation Zoning District. The
Y.M.C.A. shares the same site as Lakeview Arena and is requesting permission to install
December 7, 2000
Page 1
a 4’ X 8’ ground sign adjacent to the Northeast corner of Pine St. and B. Fair Ave. The
proposed ground sign is in addition to a existing 129 Sq. Ft. pole sign serving Lakeview
Arena.
The site is located on the North side of E. Fair Ave., East of Pine St. and is shared with the
Lakeview Arena located at 401 E. Fair Ave. The area is bounded on the South by the
North right of way of W. Fair Ave.; on the West by the East right of way of Pine St.; on the
East by the West right of way of Lakeshore Blvd.; and on the North by a line drawn 650’
North of and parallel to the North right of way line of East Fair Ave. The site contains 14.8
acres. Present improvements to the site include the 91,500 Sq. Ft. arena constructed in
1973 and dedicated in April of 1974. The arena holds 2- 85’ X 200’ sheets of ice provided
in the Olson and Russell arenas. The seating capacity of the Russell arena is 3,651
occupants. The Y.M.C.A. constructed in 1998 is 35,400 Sq. Ft. The West Donor room will
be renovated to create the Lakeview Learning Center, citizens forum, and Northern
Michigan Public Training Academy with an additional seating capacity of 120. 335 parking
spaces are present for all uses with 1,219 parking spaces required for the Russell arena,
the Y.M.C.A., and the training academy. Based on a combination of building size and
frontage on a public right of way this entire site is permitted a total 1,404 Sq. Ft. of
signage. Present signage is 427 Sq. Ft. which includes the changeable pole sign which
required a variance in 1989 due to its mechanical changeable copy. Remaining signage
permitted at this site is 977 Sq. Ft.
Zoning of the site and property lying immediately South and East is designated as
Conservation Recreation, the previous Lakeshore Engineering is now a Planned Unit
Development, N.M.U and residences lying to the West and Southwest are designated as
General Residential.
C
.
The main issue was not allowable square footage of signage but the number and type.
The Conservation district permits only one ground, pole or projecting sign per site with the
remaining signage permitted to be used as wall signs. The proposed sign is in compliance
with required height, proximity to adjacent drives and intersections and is at least 100’ from
adjacent residences.
Mr. Murray noted the correspondence from Lynette Pynnonen representing Signs Now,
Grace Nolinberg of 319 B. Kaye, and Hugh M. Leslie Ill, Parks and Recreation Director.
Chairman Saint-Onge opened the public hearing portion of the appeal.
Mark Pynnonen, of Signs Now, commented on Mr. Leslie’s letter and had no reservations
on complying with his conditions or requests.
Chairman Saint-Onge clarified that the sign will be lighted.
December 7, 2000
Page 2
C
Mark P. stated that the ground sign is smaller than the typical Y.M.C.A. sign used in other
locations. Mary Tavernini of 433 2. Arch St. and member of the Board of Directors of the
Y.M.C.A. supported their request and asked that the $225.00 application fee be waived.
Responding to Mr. Dahlkes question on the base of the sign, Lynette Pynnonen
representing Signs Now, explained that the base of the sign will be covered with a 3’
section and the height of the sign area will be 4’ for a total of 7’.
Mr. Dahlke was concerned that snow storage would block the sign, Mr. Pynnonen added
that blockage would occur only on rare occasions.
Chairman Saint-Onge confirmed that the no “Y” signage would be placed on the existing
pole sign, and closed the public hearing portion of the appeal.
Mr. Reed supported the request but was concerned that if the sign were lighted 24 hours
per day, 7 days a week it would be a distraction for adjacent residences, and that a timer
should be installed for operation only during business hours.
Chairman Saint-Onge was not concerned over the lighting as 2. Fair Ave. and Pine St.
are will lighted already.
Vice Chairman Crony supported the proposed location, that it is setback enough from the
right of ways, one adjacent property owner has supported the request and none have
opposed it, identification is necessary, and that he would support the placement of the sign
if regulated by a timer.
Mary Tavernini requested that the application fee be waived, and that they would install
a timer if so instructed by the Board.
Mr. Reed supported the waiver request but a timer is needed.
Mr. Dahlke asked if Miss Dig had been contacted to locate underground utilities. Mark P.
stated that will be done in the spring before the sign is installed. Mr. Dahlke questioned
the R. R. right of way, and that a timer should be installed on the existing pole sign as well.
Chairman Saint-Onge added that the Conservation Recreation zoning district is restrictive
on allowable signage, that the request is reasonable, is not concerned with glare of the
lighted sign, would support the waiver request, and that he is not concerned with the
lighting being timed.
It was then moved by Mr. Dahlke, seconded by Mr. Reed to approve 28-SGN-12-OO. Mr.
Reed amended the motion with concurrence from Mr. Dahlke to require that the a timer be
installed so that the sign is not lit between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 4:30 A.M. and that
December 7, 2000
Page 3
the application filing fee be waived.
Vice Chairman Crotty questioned how the face of the sign will be oriented. He suggested
that it face Pine St. to minimize the affects of the lighting. Lynette P. supposed that it would
be oriented on an angle to be visible to both Pine St. and E. Fair Ave.
Chairman Saint-Onge received assurance from the applicants that the sign will not blink
or move in any way.
Chairman Saint-Onge explained to the applicants that there are only four voting members
present, that four affirmative votes are required to approve a motion and that the applicant
has a choice to wait for a full contingency of the members prior to the actual vote.
Mary T. opted for a vote at this time.
The vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
B.
29-BZA-12-0O / 509 E. MICHIGAN ST.
Chairman Saint-Onge asked staff to present the analysis for the members. Mr. Murray
read the analysis and explained the contents of the support packet. Mr. Reed announced
that he has a conflict of interest in this matter as his employer was the firm who prepared
the design for the renovations at this property.
Staff explained that Bruce A. & Toni A. Tiseo, of 509 E. Michigan St., were requesting a
front and side yard setback variances from The Marquette City Zoning Ordinance, section
80.42.2 Schedule of General Regulations. The applicants proposal is to construct a
second story addition to the existing structure and extend the eaves of the garage to match
the proposed addition.
Mr. Murray noted that the site is located on the North side of E. Michigan St. on the cul
de sac just East of Cedar St. and is described as the S. 110’ of the E. 67’ of Lot-i 28 and
the S. 110’ of the W. 25’ of Lot-i 29 of Hewitt’s Addition, platted in 1855. The site has
91.94’ of frontage on E. Michigan St. and 109.33’ of depth. The topography of the site at
the front of the home is level with street grade, but drops approximately 60’ to the
Northeast which is why the home is partially located within the required front yard setback
area.
Existing improvements included a 1,218 Sq. Ft., 3 bedroom, 2 bath, one story, single family
home with an attached 594 Sq. Ft. garage constructed in 1967. Zoning of the site and all
surrounding property within the subdivision is General Residential.
December 7, 2000
Page 4
C.
CITY OF MARQUETTE
PLANNING AND ZONING
MARQUETTE, MI 49855
(906) 228-0425
www.mqtcty.org
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
November 1, 2013
Board of Zoning Appeals presentation to the City Commission
The Board of Zoning Appeals will review and discuss the upcoming February 10, 2014
presentation that Chairman Crotty, Jr. will give to the City Commission. Please review the
attached presentation from this past year.
City of Marquette
Report to the
City Commission
February 11, 2013
Background
Name
Position
Date of
Appointment
Term
Expiration
Charles Crotty, Jr.
Chair
02-14-11
02-15-14
Mark Fuller
Vice Chair
02-22-10
02-15-13
Heather
Dombrowski
Appt. by PC 3-12-12
02-15-13
Trey Huddle
Member
02-15-12
02-15-15
Robert O’Neill
Member
02-16-12
02-15-15
James Suksi
Member
02-14-11
02-15-14
Justin Vasseau
Member
02-08-10
02-15-13
Joe Constance
Alternate
02-15-12
02-15-15
George Patrick
Alternate
02-08-10
02-15-13
Staff Liaison – Andrea Landers, Planning/Zoning Official
Background Cont.
2012 Meetings
Total Meetings
Scheduled
11
Number of
Meetings
Canceled
1
Number of
Unexcused
Absences
1
• Meetings are held on the first Thursday of the month.
• Additional meetings are scheduled when an applicant requests a
special meeting. No special meetings were requested for 2012.
• There were 11 excused absences in 2012; however, alternates, when
they can, attend the scheduled meetings to help ensure that 7
members are present.
• 4 meetings were conducted with less than 7 members present.
Purpose and Goals
 Per Michigan Zoning Enabling Act of 2006, P.A. 110
of 2006, Section 125.3601, “A zoning ordinance shall
create a zoning board of appeals.”
 Section 80.64 of the City of Marquette Zoning
Ordinance establishes the BZA.
 Responsibilities:




Official interpretations of zoning ordinance text and
map.
Appeals from administrative orders, requirements,
decisions, and determinations.
Variances from zoning ordinance standards.
Designate Class A Non-conforming uses or structures.
Accomplishments for 2012
25
 Variances (VAR)
 Class A Non-
conforming Designation
(CAN)
 Appeals of
Administrative
Decisions (APL)
 Administrative Review
(ADR)
 Interpretations (INT)
20
15
10
5
0
VAR
CAN
APL
ADR
INT
Requests heard in 2012
Goals for Upcoming Year
 Develop more outreach tools such as the
Zoning Department web page in conjunction
with Land Development Code to inform public
 Decrease the number of variance requests
regarding structures that are under
construction or already built
Issues & Discussion
 Allow present board members to provide a
recommendation on perspective applicants
 Recommend raising penalty fees by 25% to deter
future non-compliance with the ordinances
 Recommend the development of a plan for
efforts to support public awareness and
education
 Recommend a fine structure for licensed and
unlicensed contractors who violate the zoning
ordinance
Questions?

AGENDA MARQUETTE CITY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Transcription

Similar documents

Board of Zoning Appeals Variance Application BEGINNING JULY 1

MLK - Landcroc

Creekside at Berkeley Hills

Användarinstruktion och tips

Official Zoning Map - Town of Carlton Landing

VAR2016-00004 jared jewelry parking.pub

section i - City of Huntington Beach

Report - Glynn County

treasure island planning and zoning board city hall auditorium