Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting

Development Center Board of Zoning Appeals 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 April 21, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. 12:00 - 12:30 p.m. Commissioner's lunch - Room 303 II. 12:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Lynn Rabaut, Traci Montgomery, Mary Swanson, Rafael Castanon, Micah Perkins and Cortney Schaffer Absent: Fred Stella, Ryan Kilpatrick, Bruce Anthony McCoy, Lawrence Zeiser Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Tyler Kent, Dale Fitz, Assistant City Attorney Amber Beebe, and recording secretary Carol Gornowich Ms. Rabaut provided a brief outline of the hearing process. III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from March 17, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Rafael Castanon SECONDER: Cortney Schaffer YEAS: Rabaut, Castanon, Swanson, Schaffer, Montgomery, Perkins ABSENT: Lawrence Zeiser, Bruce Anthony McCoy, Ryan Kilpatrick, Fred Stella IV. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in the Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor A. 1:00 PM - P-BZA-2022-0001 - Sign Variance Address: 1033 Freeman Ave SW Case Number: P-BZA-2022-0001 Applicant/Owner: Alro Steel (Mick Kalahar) Variance Type: Sign Requesting: To install a 340 sq. ft. sign on the northeast building wall, and an 103 sq. ft. sign on the southeast building wall. In the Special District – Industrial Transportation zone district the maximum wall sign is 40 sq. ft. with one additional sign not exceeding 24 sq. ft. Permitted: Wall Signage 40 sq. ft. maximum with one additional wall sign 24 sq. ft. Generated 4/27/2022 11:24 AM Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 2 April 21, 2022 Requesting: Wall Signage 340 sq. ft. & 103 sq. ft. Variance Needed For: 300 sq. ft. & 79 sq. ft. Lot Size: Frontage: ~ 930 ft. Depth: irr. 1,042 Area: 12.3 Acres Zoning: SD-IT Inspection: Montgomery Ordinance Sec. 5.15.13. Previous Appeals and N/A Disposition: Mr. Fitz introduced the request to install a 340 sq. ft. sign on the northeast building wall and a 103 sq. ft. sign on the southeast building wall. The property is located in the Special District - Industrial Transportation Zone District and the maximum wall sign permitted is 40 sq. ft. and one additional sign is allowed not exceeding 24 sq. ft. Ms. Montgomery provided the inspection report. As you proceed west on Hall, and as you arrive at the intersection of Hall and Freeman, the building becomes quite visible. You make a right on Freeman and you can clearly see the two sides of the building where the signage is intended. Ms. Rabaut added that it is a completely industrial area. Other businesses in the area have signage, some on the wall and others ground mounted. She did not observe any as large as the proposed. Ms. Rabaut related that when she turned onto the street, she saw the side of the building and front of the building. The signage is for the front and back if she understands correctly. Ms. Montgomery explained that it was unclear to her where the front door is. The building is angled on the property. Mr. Fitz explained that the entry door to the office complex is on the northeast wall. The southeast wall is what you see initially when northbound on Freeman. Mr. Fitz added that Freeman dead ends more or less at the entry to the subject site. The turkey producer’s sign indicates there is a truck turn-around and it is more or less described as the Alro Steel turn- around. Ms. Rabaut added that there were multiple signs on site directing traffic for pickups and deliveries. Their company sign is well down the drive that leads to their building, not on the main road. There are multiple signs on the property already but none on the building. Ms. Rabaut agreed with Mr. Fitz that the road leading into the site dead ends into basically a railroad track, which runs along the northeast side of the building. Ms. Montgomery related that when reviewing Google images there was a picture from June, 2011 and it appeared that historically the building had a sign on the southeast corner. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 3 April 21, 2022 Mr. Fitz stated that there were two signs. There is also another sign in the packet that is an off- site advertising sign for Alro Steel. In the past they had a sign on the northeast side and the southeast side that he believes were taken down about the time of the building expansion. There were no permits on file for those signs. Mr. Fitz identified the proposed locations for the signs for Ms. Rabaut. The 340 sq. ft. sign is proposed on the northeast side near their office entry and the 103 sq. ft. sign is proposed on the southeast. Chris Ebrom, Fast Signs of Grand Rapids, explained that the reason they are here is due to lack of visibility. They have a number of delivery drivers and visitors that may only visit the site one time. It isn’t so much to advertise the building but to have signage that is proportional to the building as people approach and also noticeable to people visiting for the first time. Mr. Ebrom stated that in their professional opinion the current zoning ordinance allowance of 40 sq. ft. won’t be visible on the building based on their building size and from how far away one would be viewing the signs. When turning left off of Freeman onto the Alro site you are over 600 ft. from the building. Having something that is only 40 sq. ft. would be very difficult to read by the naked eye. They are proposing 340 sq. ft. of non-lit signage on the large/entrance side of the building. The signage will be formed plastic dimensional letters on the building. The 103 sq. ft. sign is proposed to be internally illuminated. Mr. Ebrom circulated an image of the northeast side of the building showing what the signage would look like as permitted in comparison to the proposed signage. The goal is to provide signage that will be visible and limit the number of questions they get from delivery drivers and visitors as to their location. Ms. Schaffer asked if the reason for lighting the sign on the southeast side is also for visibility. Mr. Ebrom replied affirmatively explaining that that is the first sign as you approach from the southeast. Mr. Ebrom circulated an image of another of their projects in Gaines Township depicting the lit signage for Alro Plastics. The proposed signage would have red lettering to match the look of the Gaines Township signage. Depending on the time of year and when deliveries are occurring, they felt it made sense to have the first sign lit. Ms. Montgomery asked if they considered other signage configurations such as only the logo or only the lettering vs. both. Mr. Ebrom explained that what has been proposed is based off of their brand standards/logo. The goal was to include the official logo of their company. Ms. Montgomery asked how much light they anticipate will be cast from the sign on the southeast wall. Alex Ordley, Fast Signs, replied that there isn’t a lot of light cast from the sign. He referred to the image of the Alro Plastics location for what it would look like at night. Mr. Fitz clarified that the sign would be internally lit. He explained to the Board that there isn’t a standard for internally illuminated signs but there is a standard for lighting on electronic message centers. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 4 April 21, 2022 Ms. Montgomery asked for an explanation of the turn-arounds and how that occurs on the property and on the street. Zach Huizing, General Manager of the Grand Rapids facility, explained that Freeman is a dead- end street. As you turn off of Hall onto Freeman, it dead ends at the north. He asked if the question was specific to people visiting them or people that simply take the wrong way and have to turn around at the dead end. They do get the latter quite a bit. Ms. Montgomery explained that in the application for Standard 4 it talks about helping drivers identify the building and avoid turn-arounds. Mr. Huizing explained that they average 10-12 trucks of metals from various suppliers throughout the country a day. Where they are located is a challenge for people that aren’t familiar with the area, especially over the course of the last few years with Godfrey torn up and some of the construction in that area. Once you get onto Hall you hit the dead-end at Michigan Turkey Producers, where Freeman begins and a lot of people think that Michigan Turkey Producers is Alro Steel. You simply can’t see the building when at Freeman and Hall; you have to take a right and go 50-100 yards north before the building is visible but there is no signage to identify what the building is. You have to continue on all the way to the dead-end where the entrance to the site is. It is very confusing for people that have never been there. They get a lot of people on a daily basis from all over the country delivering metal. Ms. Montgomery asked where they see turn-arounds occurring today around the property. Mr. Huizing replied that they get a lot of phone calls. Things like they are at Godfrey and Hall or on Hall St. looking for direction to the site. The turn arounds usually occur before they get to where they need to go. Mr. Perkins asked who owns the massive amount of greenspace on the southeast side near Freeman. Mr. Huizing replied that that is their property. Mr. Perkins asked if they also own what appears to be a parking lot at Freeman and Hall. Mr. Fitz explained that that is Michigan Turkey Producers and that is the location of the sign that directs them to the Alro turn-around. Ms. Montgomery asked where their property line is on the south end near Freeman. Mr. Huizing replied that they abut Michigan Turkey Producers. Ms. Rabaut asked Mr. Fitz if there is a difference is the size a sign can be if it is a ground sign vs. a wall sign. Mr. Fitz explained that in the SD-IT Zone District they can have up to 40 sq. ft. of wall signage. The permitted signage is not proportional to building size. The Ordinance also allows another 24 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 5 April 21, 2022 sq. ft. of wall signage. They could also have a ground sign of up to 60 sq. ft. in this Zone District. Mr. Castanon asked if Alro is a 24/7 operation. Mr. Huizing replied that they are close to a 24/7 operation. Whether they are open on Saturday depends on the work load. They are open 6 days a week, 24/7. It is primarily the warehouse that operates 24/7. The sales office hours are 5 days a week. Mr. Huizing provided some information on the company. It was founded in 1948 out of Jackson Michigan by Al and Robert Glick. They have expanded to 70 locations in 13 states. This site was acquired from Grand Rapids Steel and Supply in 1984. What prompted this is that they made a major investment in the facility. Approximately 3 years ago they added 30,000 sq. ft. to the warehouse and made interior renovations. With those improvements they did a lot of clean up and siding. They are present today hoping to wrap the project up. Ms. Swanson recalled from testimony that they get calls about the location. It sounds like the calls are coming from drivers that wouldn’t be seeing the building when they make the call. Mr. Huizing agreed. There is some confusion getting back to where they are located. However, even if you get to Hall and Freeman there still isn’t visibility of who they are and what the building is. It is a challenge to identify where they are. Ms. Rabaut noted that there are approximately five other signs in various locations. There is one on a hill that says customer pick-up and others scattered through the site. She asked if all of those are coming down. Mr. Huizing replied no. Those are directional signs once someone is on the premises. Getting to the site is one challenge and then once on site there are a number of overhead doors that those signs provide direction to. Ms. Rabaut referred to the sign that faces the railroad track, which is over the signage limit. She clarified that they are not planning to take that down. Ms. Rabaut indicated that she didn’t have any trouble finding the location with her GPS. She wonders how much of the signage that is on the site is legal. Mr. Fitz agreed that there is a sign of approximately 300 sq. ft. basically facing Market. Market is the only place that you can see that sign other than when you are on the site. He researched that sign and couldn’t find any permits or information on when it was put in. There were times when there were different billboard types of signage that were allowed in industrial districts. Mr. Kent asked the purpose of that sign. Mr. Huizing replied that sign has been there for some years. He has been with the company for 15 years and it has been there well before his time. They are approaching 36 years on the site so at some point in the last 15-36 years it was installed. It is basically now you’ve made it to Alro Steel/an entryway sign on the drive that brings one into the building. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 6 April 21, 2022 Mr. Kent asked how much signage they had on the building previously. Mr. Huizing replied that there was lettering that said Alro but he doesn’t know the exact size of the lettering. It was very similar to the size being presented today. They took those individual letters down when they resided the building. Mr. Fitz explained that he tried to get a measurement from the mapping software and he estimates the individual lettering sign to be over 200 sq. ft. and the other one facing southeast was approximately 40-50 sq. ft. Those signs were there for quite some time. The previous ordinance, prior to 2007, allowed 225 sq. ft. of signage of any shape or form. Ms. Swanson clarified that the previous signage was likely consistent with the previous ordinance. Mr. Fitz replied that it looks like it was close to what had previously been permitted and likely would have been considered non-conforming, both on the southeast and northeast sides. Mr. Fitz again clarified the signage that is currently present on site; some directional signage plus the over 300 sq. ft. sign facing north toward Market. The two signs referred to on the building were removed 2 or 3 years ago. Mr. Huizing indicated that they currently only have the one large billboard type sign. He agreed that the other two wall signs were removed approximately 2 years ago. Ms. Rabaut noted that there are two smaller signs near the billboard sign. Mr. Fitz clarified that those are directional signs. Staff has no information on how the quasi- billboard sign was installed. There may have been a circumstance where it was legal at one time because it is an industrial zone. Mr. Fitz clarified for Ms. Rabaut that the Board’s purview is for the two wall signs the applicant is requesting. Mr. Ebrom explained that the smaller sign that one would see first, on the southeast side, is the sign that overlooks the parking lot. The reason for placement so high up on the building is that it would actually be visible as one is approaching the top of the hill. That is also why it isn’t centered on the building. If it were centered, lowered, and 24 sq. ft. it wouldn’t be visible because of cars parked there. Mr. Perkins referred to the application and response to Standard 1; that the 72” tall letters are still less than the ideal height. He asked what the ideal height is and how that is determined. Mr. Ordley stated that the ideal height would be as large as possible. Because it is set so far back you want the letters as big as possible for maximum readability. Ms. Rabaut asked if there is any other way to put signage on the property to identify it and stay within code. Mr. Ordley replied that there are a number of different sign types they could put on the property. Because of the positioning of the lot and the building and the Michigan Turkey Producers Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 7 April 21, 2022 parking lot it is hard to do that and have it clearly define the location. If they were to put a ground sign in place in front of the parking lot or behind it, the cars could obscure it and it still doesn’t provide very good identification for the building in general. By putting the signage on the building, it clearly identifies what it is and where it is. He believes that is the most appropriate for the situation. There was no one present for public comment. Motion by Ms. Montgomery, supported by Ms. Swanson, to close the public hearing. Ms. Schaffer disclosed that she grew up in Jackson, MI, home of Alro Steel. Her brother-in-law is in a leadership role at the Jackson facility and has worked there for 25 years. Ms. Schaffer doesn’t feel that biases her in considering this request but wished to disclose it to the Board. Ms. Montgomery addressed the Standards: 1. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances or Conditions. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same Zone District or in the general vicinity. Based on the application, there is a suggestion of view obstructions so a sign could not be reasonably seen by passing motorists due to a configuration of existing buildings. However, Ms. Montgomery did not find any exceptional view obstructions based on configuration of buildings, trees, signs, or abutting properties. The building itself is very large and, while set down into a bit of a valley, when you come to Freeman and Hall you can see the top of the building and it is the only building. Therefore, any signage, particularly on the southeast side of the building, should be visible to drivers and the building would not be identified from the northeast side based on traffic flow. The point is not met. 2. Substantial Property Right. That the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same Zone District and in the neighboring area. Ms. Montgomery did not find any loss of property right. The property can be used as zoned, as evidenced by other properties in the immediate area that have signage that complies with the Ordinance. This point is not met. 3. Not Self-Created. That the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the Variance was not created by an action or inaction by the applicant or the applicant’s predecessors in title. The request for the variance is based on the visibility of the building identification. The building is large enough to be identified. It also previously had signage on the building that was roughly compliant that appears to have been visible. This point is not met. 4. No Substantial Detriment. The Variance, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. At face value, it doesn’t appear that there would be substantial detriment with the new signage. One could argue that the lighting would change the environment. Ultimately, Ms. Montgomery did not find there would be any substantial detriment and this point would be met. 5. Master Plan/Zoning Ordinance. The Variance, if granted, is consistent with, and not materially impair, the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and the provisions of the Zoning Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 8 April 21, 2022 Ordinance and District under consideration. The proposed signage is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This condition would not be met. Ms. Montgomery MOVED TO DENY. SUPPORTED by Mr. Castanon. Ms. Rabaut clarified for the record, with respect to Standard 3, that the signage they previously had that appeared to be visible was under the former Ordinance. Ms. Montgomery agreed. The question was called. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: DENIED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Traci Montgomery SECONDER: Rafael Castanon YEAS: Rabaut, Castanon, Swanson, Schaffer, Montgomery, Perkins ABSENT: Lawrence Zeiser, Bruce Anthony McCoy, Ryan Kilpatrick, Fred Stella V. Discussion  There will be a meeting in May.  Ms. Rabaut related that the Master Plan Steering Committee meetings have been paused as staff and the sub-committee review consultant proposals and perform interviews.  Site visits as a small group will resume next month. Brief discussion on that process occurred. Site visit times will be discussed in the future. VI. Adjournment 1:45