ZBA Minutes

MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, January 26, 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; Rebecca Haven; Jay VanSoestberg; Ken Fex; Tyler Korfhage; and Beth Rogers, Alternate. Member absent: Charles Deschaine. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building Official; and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.

Ken Fex moved and Jay VanSoestberg supported the motion to remove 2658 & 2660 Alpine from the table.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

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 (car wash detail center) to 6 ft. instead of the required 15 ft.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. No other citizen appeared with respect to this request. He went on to say that we now have a rough draft of the driveway accesses and easement agreements between the two properties that we have asked the applicant to furnish us.

Mr. Rudell stated that this agreement will need a final review and a proper legal description of the easement sections. Moore & Bruggink has prepared a drawing showing the easements on the property and we have shifted one of the lot lines to the east to bring it out of the parking lot behind Valvoline into the grass island between the two parking lots.

Robert Marz, Chairman then read a letter from the City Planner dated January 25, 2006.

Roger Crabtree stated that the minutes from the Zoning Board dated 2-27-03 shows that we granted the variance to have two similar businesses on the same lot. When we granted that variance, the proposed remedy was to make this one lot and it never happened. Now we are asked to divide it again.

Robert Marz replied that it always was divided and never combined, this is a reconfiguration of the division.

Roger Crabtree replied that he is in violation of the first variance. It was determined then to combine this into one lot with a shared driveway and two businesses on the same lot.

Tyler Korfhage agreed and stated if he is in violation of the first variance, how can we act on it again?

Ken Fex asked what was the reason for not complying with the original variance?

Mr. Rudell replied we were working through several departments here. We were working through the Planning Commission to try and get the combined site to work. It was hard because we were denied any type of curb cut so we had to go to the adjacent businesses next to each other (McDonalds & Valvoline) and we ended up striking a deal with Valvoline to do this. We got to a point where a number of things would have to be done in order to have the sites compatible because we were still left with that 55 ft., 37 ft., and side lot yard setbacks. It was determined that we would have to come to the ZBA to address those things. At that time it seemed to be the simplest to assembly the two lots into one and that is what was granted. When we went to the Assessing Dept., it was not that easy. They will not separate and issue separate tax bills. Right now there are two individual businesses owned by two complete different corporations, one of them being Marathon Speedway. We tried again last summer to get separate tax bills and there was no clean way to do it. At best we would get an accessment and it would not be updated everytime an accessment was changed. That is why we are trying to redefine the lot lines. It is the simplest and cleanest and it keeps the two businesses separate and defined. It will be easier now if one of the businesses is sold. It will define the lot lines.

Jeff Nelson stated that he did not know, if it was suppose to be combined, why we did not get the cross easements and all that before they got Planning Commission approval. This was a multitute of errors.

Tyler Korfhage stated that the applicant’s issue here is that he wants to issue Valvoline a tax bill.

Mr. Rudell replied that is correct because it is Valvoline’s building and their improvements.

Mr. Korfhage felt that the taxes should be taken care of in the lease and not have the government involved.

Mr, Rudell replied, no. Right now they are set up to pay the entire tax bill on their portion of the land. How do you define their portion of the taxes and what if they make an improvement? This is a tax issue.

Roger Crabtree stated that he understood the tax issue but that has to do with the Accessing Dept. and is not a Zoning Board issue. By not combining the two lots that he was granted, he is in violation of the zoning ordinance because the car wash does not meet the setbacks.

Rebecca Haven stated that what we have is an unaddressed issue by the Planning Commission with respect to the zoning. He would not have to be here today if that site plan approval also included rezoning to C-1 or PUD. We are quibbling over a frontage issue in a C-3 zone and the C-1 parcel should be acceptable with no issues.

Jeff Nelson stated that we have a problem with it being over the property line and we also have the problem that being on the property line, or close to the property line, requires that the wall be a 3 hour rated wall and it is not. By doing this we are going to get 6 ft. which will not require the rating. He went on to say that he has talked with the City Engineer and he agrees with the information that the Planning Director would require a site plan reviewed by an engineer. If it is approved he would like to see this prepared by a professional and have it recorded within 30 days.

Rebecca Haven moved and Beth Rogers supported the motion to approve 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 (car wash detail center) to 6 ft. instead of the required 15 ft.

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. No additional curb cuts are allowed here and there are two businesses operating on the same property. There is a situation here that needs correction.

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. There are other similar properties existing on Alpine Ave.

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 this use is the type of use for business along Alpine Ave.

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. The Planning Commission has reviewed this property and the adjacent property to the south for its uses.

e. Does not apply.

The Board imposed the following conditions:

1. The execution of legally approved easements.

2. Building addition on the C-1 parcel be 6 ft. from the lot line.

3. Be recorded within 30 days.

Motion carried 4 to 3. Roger Crabtree, Ken Fex, and Tyler Korfhage opposed.

Property located at 1616 Mullins, NW also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-17-226-016. Hearing requested by Scott Bont.

The applicant’s request is to split parcel creating one lot with 9,840 sq. ft. instead of the required 11,880 and an 18 ft. rear yard instead of the required 35 ft. The other parcel will have 9,600 sq. ft. instead of the required 11,880 and 80 ft. of street frontage instead of the required 90 ft.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. He then read a letter from Stanley Meyers, a neighbor, dated 1-26-06 opposing this application.

Nannette Wheeler 3333 Milo is opposed. She does not want the lot size cut down and wants to see the lot size stay larger.

Ms. Bogner 3359 Milo asked if there was going to be a garage here?

Jeff Nelson replied that they would be required to have a 12 x 22 ft. garage but it can be attached.

Rose Schnipke 1571 Marlin is concerned about drainage here if a new house were built.

Dennis Lemaire 1615 Mullins is concerned about the flow of water that goes through that area. It seems to be a natural drain for water. Does not feel that it would be good for the neighbors.

Beth Rogers asked the applicant if he was going to fill this lot?

The applicant replied that he has never seen water here.

Tyler Korfhage moved and Ken Fex supported the motion to deny the applicant’s request to split a parcel creating one lot with 9,840 sq.ft. instead of the required 11,880 sq. ft. and 80 ft. of street frontage instead of the required 90 ft. The Board failed to find anything exceptional or extraordinary about this lot.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Rebecca Haven moved to nominate Robert Marz as Chairman.

Motion carried 6 to 0.

Roger Crabtree nominated Ken Fex as Vice-Chairman

Motion carried 6 to 0.

Tyler Korfhage nominated Roger Crabtree as Secretary.

Motion carried 6 to 0

Ken Fex moved and Rebecca Haven supported the motion to approve the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of January 12, 2006 with corrections to the roll call.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Roger Crabtree moved and Ken Fex supported the motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:20 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.