ZBA Minutes

MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, August 11, 2005
7:00 p.m.

The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Robert Marz, Chairman at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall 4243 Remembrance Rd., N.W., Walker, Michigan.

Members present: Robert Marz, Chairman; Roger Crabtree; Rebecca Haven; Jay VanSoestberg; Ken Fex; and Tyler Korfhage. Member absent: Charles Deshaine. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building Administrator; Dick Denney, Building Department; and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.

Property located at 1875 Wilson, N.W., also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-18-126-019. Hearing requested by Frank Janusz.

The applicant’s request is to erect a 40 x 60 ft. accessory building which exceeds the 1800 sq. ft. allowed with 14 ft. sidewalls 10 ft. from the property line instead of the required 12 ft. and to maintain an existing 12 x 14 ft. accessory structure. Existing 20 x 20 ft. accessory building to be removed.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted.

Jeff Nelson stated that the agenda says the structure should have 14 ft. sidewalls. That should read 12 ft. sidewalls that are required.

Robert Marz asked how far does the house sit back from the road?

Mr. Janusz replied it is about 800 ft.

Ken Fex asked the applicant why he wanted the building he is asking for?

Mr. Janusz replied he needs additional storage for a boat, snowmobile, tractor and other things sitting outside.

Roger Crabtree asked what the definition difference is between a garage and an accessory building?

Jeff Nelson replied that you are allowed a garage and an accessory building so you can call it whatever you want as long as the two together do not exceed the allowed square footage.

Mr. Janusz stated that there is a temporary storage tent there now and that will be taken down. The new building will match the house.

Rebecca Haven stated that the application says that the new building will be 10 ft. from the property line is that right?

Jeff Nelson replied that he has to be 15 ft. from the property line to have 14 ft. sidewalls and the applicant wants to be 10 ft.

Rebecca Haven stated that the reason given is so that the applicant can use the existing driveway approach for the 20 x 20 ft. accessory building, is that right?

Mr. Janusz replied that we want to line the building up with the current drive so that we don’t have to put in a new drive. The new building will be in the same spot as the current 20 x 20 ft. accessory building. Currently there are two drive areas, and we have a gravel base. We won’t have to do much work with the driveway in lining it up with the new structure. He stated we would like to line up the drives with the new doors.

Tyler Korfhage asked the applicant if he was aware of the plans of the neighbors to the west and to the north?

Mr. Janusz replied that he was aware of a new development going in to the west. He went on to say that they are working on an agreement of 20 to 40 ft. being a no touch zone between us and the new development. He stated that he talked with the neighbor to the north and she wants to leave it the way it is. He went on to say that he talked with her about cleaning up the trees on the property line.

Rebecca Haven asked how the proposed new building relates to the placement of the house? Is this building going to be to the north of that house?

Mr. Janusz replied it will be approximately 60 ft. to the northwest.

Linda Meyer 1820 Wilson is concerned this will be used for commercial purposes. She stated their pontoon boat is on Maynard.

Robert Marz stated this will not be used for commercial purposes.

Mr. Janusz stated that this storage will be strictly for family use. The property is owned by his grandfather.

Rebecca Haven asked if the Board could restrict this so that the lot could not be split in the future?

Robert Marz replied that if we grant this on the premise of the size of the lot, and if it were reduced, that would be in violation of the conditions that the variance was granted.

Roger Crabtree stated that last year the Ordinance committee raised the square footage on these larger pieces of property and they determined that anything over 3 acres would have a maximum accessory building of 1800 sq. ft. What is so special about this piece of property that it needs an extra 600 sq. ft?

Robert Marz replied that this house has an 800 ft. setback and screening of the trees makes this parcel unique.

Roger Crabtree stated that he felt the addresses listed under the preservation of rights predated the ordinance.

Rebecca Haven stated that if we are going to look at personal property that people purchase for their recreational and entertainment needs, etc. and use the rationale of the size of the lot compared to the size of the building; the ordinance committee has attempted to address this general problem.

Robert Marz informed the applicant that since there was a missing member of the Board there will have to be a vote of at least 4 to pass the ordinance request.

The applicant opted to continue.

Rebecca Haven moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to deny the applicant’s request to erect a 40 x 60 ft. accessory building which exceeds 1800 sq. ft. allowed with 14 ft. sidewalls 10 ft. from the property line instead of the required 12 ft. and to maintain an existing 12 x 14 ft. accessory structure. Existing 20 x 20 ft. accessory building to be removed. The Board felt there were other options for storage facilities available for personal property including commercial storage facilities. The Board failed to find anything unique about this property to support the variance.

Motion carried 6 to 0.

The applicant asked the Board if they should vote separately on the three items that were asked for? The emphasis of the Board seems to be on the size of the building and not on the other two items.

Roger Crabtree stated he was against the 14 ft. eave as the building could be moved over 5 ft. with no problem.

Robert Marz stated that the third item the applicant was looking for was to keep the gazebo/sunroom that is existing.

Roger Crabtree stated that in order to accommodate that we would normally require the applicant to reduce the size of the new structure by a reasonable amount.

The Board was of the consensus that they would like to see a new revised application to take a look at how the second accessory building relates proportionately to the size of the proposed new accessory building to be built.

Rebecca Haven moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to waive the fee for another variance application for another accessory building.

Motion carried 6 to 0.

Property located at 234 Maynard also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-28-351-002. Hearing requested by Frank Janusz.

The applicant’s request is to build a 416 sq.ft. addition on a concrete slab instead of basement or crawl space to match existing house foundation.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. No citizen appeared with respect to this request.

Jeff Nelson stated that the building code does allow for slab foundations with 42 in. frost walls. They have to be insulated and anchored like a regular wall. It is the zoning ordinance that requires the crawl space or basement.

Mr. Janusz stated that the existing building is a poured slab and part of the cost of doing the project was to maintain that and add only the additional slab for the new part.

Rebecca Haven asked when this house was built?

Mr. Janusz replied in the 40’s.

Roger Crabtree asked what was going to be done with the existing enclosure?

Mr. Janusz replied it will be taken off and there will be a new roof and new walls.

Rebecca Haven asked if this was going to be a four season porch?

Mr. Janusz replied it will be an open room off of the back of the house.

Jeff Nelson stated that this request will comply with the building code. The zoning requirements came about just a few years ago. 25 years ago you could build on a slab or crawl space.

Ken Fex moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request to build a 416 sq. ft. addition on a concrete slab instead of basement or crawl space to match existing house foundation.

a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. Having the new addition be the same construction style, poured slab, of the house would allow the height of the floors, as well as floor materials to be consistent in the transition from existing structure to the new enclosure. The grade of the property does not easily allow for alternate construction style. We would also like to avoid any additional steps or unleveled floors as a result of an alternate construction style.

b. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. We would like to maintain the same construction style of the entire house which all is poured slab foundation.

c. Authorization of the variance will not be of a substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purpose of the ordinance or public interest in that the addition is well within the property and will not be a detriment to adjacent properties. The addition will be professionally finished to match the rest of the house.

d. The condition or the situation of the piece of property or the intended use of the property for which the variance is sought is not so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable for the formulation of a general regulation. This is not a general problem since this house is a special case due to the fact that it has a poured slab foundation.

e. Does not apply.

Motion carried 6 to 0.

Ken Fex moved and Jay VanSoestberg supported the motion to remove 3833 Timberwind Dr. from the table.

Motion carried 6 to 0.

Property located at 3833 Timberwind Dr. also known on the tax rolls as 41-17-06-277-001. Hearing requested by Chad VanOverloop.

The applicant’s request is to erect a 5 x 7 ft. identification sign at the entrance to Riverbend Meadows (site condominium) which exceeds the 6 sq. ft. allowed and a 3 ½ ft. total height requirement in a residential district.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. No other citizen appeared with respect to this application. He then read a letter from the City Engineer dated August 10, 2005.

Jeff Nelson stated that since this application came in we have been asking for an actual site plan that shows distances from property lines and not from edge of pavements. We still have not received that. Scott’s letter mentions the fact that it appears that we have a large right-of-way here. Jeff stated that if it were up to him this would be tabled until they bring in a proper site plan. If it is granted he would like to see the condition that they bring in a proper site plan showing that they are so many feet back from the property line and not the pavement.

Tim Zeef, Eagle Development stated that they are not in the right-of-way but just off the north edge of the right-of-way. He stated that we want it 14 sq. ft. bigger because we are going to do cobblestone on the outside of the sign with pillars. There will be brick on the inside with a composite wood center which will be engraved with Riverbend Meadows. It is fairly tight to try and fit this in here.

Rebecca Haven asked about the dimensions on the site plan.

Tim Zeef replied that the pillars will be set with cement blocks and then a cobblestone will be built around the cement blocks. They are approximately 18 in. wide with the pillars. Then we will have approximately 4 ft. left for the center between the pillars to fit the name in. The overall outside dimensions will be 7 ft. wide by 5 ft. tall.

Robert Marz stated that the City Engineer has a question as to the placement of this sign from the right-of-way. He says the sign is proposed to be 10 ft. back from the edge of the pavement. This may be actually in the right-of-way and he recommends that the sign be 10 ft. outside of the right-of-way to Riverbend. The engineer recommends that the sign should be no higher than 30 in. from the adjacent pavement.

Roger Crabtree asked if this is a single or double-faced sign?

Mr. Zeef replied it is single faced sign. On the east side of Timberwind the grade jumps about 30% to Fred Meyers property. When we were granted permission to put the development in, they wanted trees on the east side to block his property from the street. So we have pine trees along the east property line and we were going to put the sign in front of those trees. So the top of the sign would be about 2 ½ ft. above the high part of the grade which is the property to the east. It will look like it is sitting into a hillside.

Robert Marz asked if it would be a problem for the setback to be 10 ft. outside the right-of-way?

Mr. Zeef replied that would be alright. He went on to say that there are pine trees there that we are required to keep as a buffer zone.

Robert Marz stated that the question here is elevation and height. We need you to measure this whole thing and come back with dimensions.

Jeff Nelson stated that we need to pin point the property line.

Roger Crabtree moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to table the applicant’s request to erect a 5 x 7 ft. identification sign at the entrance to Riverbend Meadows (site condominium) which exceeds the 6 sq. ft. allowed and a 3 ½ ft. total height requirement in a residential district.

The Board would like to see a drawing of the sign and where it will be placed exactly on the site, with the setback and height of the sign on the plan. The applicant should check with the City Engineer on dimensions, etc.

Motion carried 6 to 0.

Jay VanSoestberg moved and Ken Fex supported the motion to approve the Zoning Board of appeals minutes of July 14, 2005.

Motion carried 6 to 0.

Roger Crabtree moved and Jay VanSoestberg supported the motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:45 p.m.

Motion carried 6 to 0.

___________________________

Roger Crabtree, Secretary

Government  |  Departments  |  Community  |  Resource Center
Contact Us  |  Search  |  Site Map  |  Home  |  Site Use Policy

The City of Walker, Michigan
4243 Remembrance Rd. NW
Walker, MI  49534
(616)453-6311
City Hall hours: Mon-Thursday from 7:30am to 5:30pm. Closed Fridays
All information © 2012 City of Walker

Contact Us!
If you would like to leave general comments about the website, click here.
Click here to report technical problems with the website.