ZBA Minutes

MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, January 12, 2006
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; Charles Deshaine; Rebecca Haven; Ken Fex,; Tyler Korfhage and Beth Rogers, Alternate. Member absent: Jay VanSoestberg. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building Official; Dick Denney, Building Department; and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.

Property located at 2658 & 2660 Alpine also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-12-101-023, 071. Hearing requested by John Rudell.

The applicant’s request is to split existing properties creating one parcel with 106 ft. of frontage (Valvoline) instead of the required 150 ft. and reduce the side yard setback of second parcel (carwash detail center) to 6 ft. instead of the required 15 ft.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan reviewed. He then read a letter from the City Engineer dated January 11, 2006. No citizen appeared with respect to this request.

Ken Fex felt that the three issues brought up by the City Engineer should be addressed. He went on to say that he could not make a decision on this request until these three issues are answered by the applicant.

Mr. Rudell stated that the building is owned by Valvoline and they have a land lease. We own the property. When we wrote the lease, they gave us an easement for the southern 37 ft. which is where we have the car wash and the detail center. There is also another clause there for the easterly 110 ft., which includes the parking. We were required to develop 10 parking spaces for Valvoline, which we have done for their use. If we assembly the property as one, big unit, we cannot divide the taxes. The City will not issue separate tax bills. That is the problem. He went on to say that he wants to define the boundaries so that the taxes can be assessed properly for each individual use.

Robert Marz, Chairman stated that he did not think that what the City Engineer is asking, is going to prevent Mr. Rudell from doing this.

Charles Deschaine asked how the taxes are being handled now?

Mr.Rudell replied that they are divided. He stated we have a building on 37 ft. of land that they (Valvoline) are currently paying taxes on. We are paying taxes on part of a building.

Tyler Korfhage stated that when this went to the Planning Commission you had a site layout similar to this and now you are coming in and asking to split it.

Mr. Rudell replied that originally we had a variance to combine the two parcels into one and have two businesses on one parcel. When we went to divide it for the taxes, we could not divide the two parcels into two tax bills. It is in our best interest to have two separate tax bills. That way the City would define each tax bill independently.

Tyler Korfhage asked if that could be defined in the lease agreement?

Robert Marz stated that since there are two businesses currently operating on the same parcel, it would be a lot cleaner if it were split.

Roger Crabtree stated that the only thing is, that he is not splitting it business to business because he does not have Valvoline’s parking on their own property. He has gone through the middle of the parking spaces. If you are splitting it for tax purposes, but yet they are both going to be using both pieces of property. The whole site will end up an easement.

Tyler Korfhage stated that this whole problem seems to be after the fact. This whole parcel was planned long ago and now this has become an issue.

Roger Crabtree stated that this parcel was before this Board before and they got their zoning variance to put two businesses on one piece of property.

Mr. Rudell stated that we are trying to define what those properties are for tax purposes.

Roger Crabtree felt that the tax issue should be handled through the lease agreement. He did not feel this is a Zoning Board decision.

Robert Marz stated that he would rather see it split with two separate properties than to have two businesses operating on a joint piece of property. Sooner or later this is going to have to be split.

Roger Crabtree asked if the applicant would retain ownership of both properties if this were split?

Mr. Rudell responded that right now we own both pieces of property. Valvoline has ownership of their building. Our intent is to keep both pieces of property. Valvoline is totally developed on the property with 106 ft. of frontage. There are other properties on the street that have less than 150 ft. frontage in the C-3 District. The detail center is within 6 ft. of the lot line.

Robert Marz, Chairman stated that if we were to grant this, he would like to see the items listed in the City Engineer’s letter addressed with some sort of legal documentation.

Ken Fex agreed.

Jeff Nelson stated that the new legal descriptions and cross accesses and all that will not be done until the Board of Appeals approves the split. We will not approve the split unless all these conditions are met.

Rebecca Haven asked if this variance would rescind the earlier approval of two businesses operating on a parcel because the parcel will no longer exist.

Jeff Nelson replied that you do rescind it by splitting the parcel because then it is no longer one parcel. This will create two new parcels and two new parcel numbers.

Roger Crabtree stated that he does not want to use a zoning ordinance to clean up a bookkeeping problem.

Mr. Rudell felt that this is more than a bookkeeping problem. We are talking about accessments and taxes and how value of land and business ownership is defined publicly. Both properties are owned by one owner but the physical building and use of it is owned by another corporation.

Tyler Korfhage stated that this was foreseeable and you made your choice when you came for the last variance.

Mr. Rudell stated that he felt that it is great what has been done on this property. The City has worked hard with him to develop this to get the access to have two businesses that work together in one small area. Unfortunately there are a lot of code requirements that are established to preserve people’s rights from adjacent properties. When you do something like this you are going to be crossing paths with those requirements. We are not trying to violate someone’s ownership on adjacent properties. We have worked together well to develop this and we share an access and utilize one driveway. This has been done before.

Tyler Korfhage replied that if this came before the Board with only one business, would we grant the split? The City has worked with you on this and now there is more to be done and to whose advantage? It is to your advantage.

Rebecca Haven stated that we are looking at this as to what is best along Alpine Ave. In the C-3 area we want to minimize driveway cuts. We have made decisions similar to this particularly in commercial areas and we have a dental office across the street with driveway access and very small frontage. The Planning Commission rezoned this to allow two businesses and we went along with it. She felt this is exceptional and there is no detriment.

Mr. Rudell stated that the taxes are being directed to Valvoline now and they are paying them directly. They are also paying for that 37 ft. to the south that we are utilizing for this addition. This is in the lease. There are two tax bills out there, one is for the exising parcel that Valvoline sits on and that tax bill goes to Valvoline but the other parcel with 55 ft. of frontage is coming directly to us. The 115 ft. on the northeastern corner, is included in the easement for cross access and parking. We were suppose to develop 10 parking spaces for their use and we have done that. The original lease was set up with Ashland and is now with Marathon Speedway. For a year the lease has been floating around to be completed.

Charles Deschaine asked if everything is being paid?

Mr. Rudell replied that everything has been paid. He went on to say that there is no way he can go up against a national corporation as an individual and he wants to keep this as clean as possible. He wants these lot lines defined. This is not a simple thing. He wants to define each individual’s use and ownership and accessment. He stated he wants to shift the lot lines of the two parcels to reflect the way it is built.

Tyler Korfhage asked how can we act on this if it was suppose to be combined and was not done what was proposed?

Charles Deshaine stated that it would not be good to leave it as it is.

Mr. Rudell stated that he went twice to combine the property and each time there was a problem with the taxes.

Rebecca Haven felt that the fact that there are two businesses operating on one parcel is exceptional. There are two business interests here on one parcel with one land

owner. The only way the accessor’s office can issue a bill is to have two separate parcel numbers.

Roger Crabtree stated he would like to know the history on this property. Was it suppose to be combined?

Charles Deschaine moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to table the applicant’s request to split existing properties creating one parcel with 106 ft. of frontage (Valvoline) instead of the required 150 ft. and reduce the side yard setback of second parcel (carwash detail center) to 6 ft. instead of the required 15 ft. Tabled for two weeks for more input from the Planning Commission and Accessing office.

Motion carried 6 to 1. Rebecca Haven opposed.

Ken Fex moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals of December 8, 2006.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Roger Crabtree moved and Ken Fex supported the motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:25 p.m.

Motion carried 7 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.