ZBA Minutes
MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, March 9, 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; Ken Fex; Rebecca Haven; and Beth Rogers, Alternate. Members
absent: Jay VanSoestberg and Tyler Korfhage. Also present: Jeff Nelson,
Building Official; and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 2859 Walkent also known on the tax rolls as
41-13-03-395-010. Hearing requested by Design Edge.
The applicant’s request is to install a free standing sign 86 inches
tall instead of the required 42 inches.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. No other citizen appeared with respect to this request.
Vince Cobb, Design Edge stated that there is a disadvantage to W.S.
Reed in that there is a deep decline going down the driveway. The peak
on the sign is for identification of the building. The actual sign
itself does fall within the 39 in. and less than the 4 ½ ft. tall
requirement. The blocks there are to put the sign up high enough to be
seen from the road. He did not feel that the neighbors objected to this
sign.
Chuck Deschaine asked if this was on 3 Mile or 4 Mile since the
picture shows 4 Mile?
Mr. Cobb stated that it is 3 Mile not 4 Mile.
Ken Fex feels there is a visibility problem here. He felt it should
go back further than the 8 ft. they are proposing from the sidewalk.
Mr. Cobb replied that the curve there goes to the east and not to the
west. There would be a blind spot if the curve went to the west. He felt
there was enough visibility there. He stated we are going 7 ft. back. He
went on to say that if we went a few more inches back we would be within
the ordinance. He then pointed out the location of the sign on the site
plan. The sign will be about 6 ½ ft. behind the sidewalk.
Charles Deschaine stated that he was concerned about the visibility
here also.
Rebecca Haven stated that she is worried about the traffic on the
sidewalk and what cars can see on the sidewalk. She does not want the
sign to block the view of the corner.
Robert Marz felt that the sign should go back at least 2 ft. from the
sidewalk.
Mr. Cobb stated that there is a gradual decline at the entry and you
are about 2 ft. down from the crown of the road at 8 ft. back from the
sidewalk. If you go back another couple of feet, you would probably lose
another 6 inches. The customer would like the best viewable signage that
they can get.
Roger Crabtree stated that the application states that this sign will
be located where the grade is 18 in. to 2 ft. below the sidewalk so they
put a 2 ft. base on it. He is still 20 in. over and what on this site
justifies a sign that is higher than what the ordinance recommends?
Robert Marz felt it was because he is setting it further back.
Roger Crabtree felt that they could take the peak off the top of the
sign and put the address numbers down the side post of the sign. If the
top piece is 21 inches and they do away with that, it would put them
within the ordinance. He did not feel that they needed the extra 21
inches. He also felt that the sign should go back 10 ft. from the
sidewalk.
Mr. Cobb stated that the business directly to the south is within 50
ft. of the driveway but it does have an entrance off 3 Mile Rd., it does
not exit into Walkent so it is not blocking any entrance to Walkent from
the other business. The next business north is about a 100 yards, which
is Lear. They specifically asked for the numbers to be on the face
instead of the end for more recognition of the address. If it is on the
side, it will be more difficult to read.
Robert Marz stated that we know that you have a grade drop off, but
why should we have to let you go bigger to get you at the same
elevation? The base will raise it to street level and the 21 in. of the
peak puts you over what is allowed.
Motion
Rebecca Haven moved and Ken Fex supported the motion to approve the
applicant’s request to install a free standing sign 66 inches tall
instead of the required 42 inches.
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. The
grade of the property is exceptional here.
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
property owners that have similar rights.
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 will be
modified to meet specifications.
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 in
that the ordinance should be changed.
e. Does not apply.
The Board imposed the following conditions:
1. The sign be setback 10 ft. from the sidewalk.
2. Sign height be limited to 66 inches total.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 3056 Walker Ridge, NW also known on the tax rolls
as 41-13-04-328-003. Hearing requested by CBS Outdoor.
The applicant’s request is for an interpretation of the bldg.
official’s determination that the 35 ft. height requirement for
billboards above grade is taken directly below the sign panels. If the
bldg. official’s determination is supported, then the applicant wishes
to be granted a variance to install a billboard 45 ft. above grade.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. No citizen appeared with respect to this application.
Jeff Nelson stated that the applicant is questioning my
interpretation that the average grade is below the billboard and where
the grade should be taken from. They want to take the grade from the
highest point and that has never been the way that we have done signs.
It is the average grade underneath the billboard face. There was a
billboard there before that was higher and there was no variance granted
for that, it was grandfathered in. The billboard has been down more than
a year so it has lost any non-conforming use. In this case where it is
higher at one end and lower at the other end, then we would take the
average grade which would be 40 ft. which is higher than the 35 ft.
allowed.
Motion
Roger Crabtree moved and Ken Fex supported the motion to accept the
interpretation of the building official that the average grade under the
sign should be taken.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
Charles Deshaine asked how tall will this sign be if we use the
average grade?
Mr. Hucul, CBS Outdoor replied it depends, if we use the high end of
the grade, we could build a flag monopole structure. In other words, we
would put the pole up front, closest to the freeway and flag the rest of
the sign back. We could build it at 35 ft. from that point to the top of
the sign. If we use the center of the grade, where the second stake is,
it would be about 40 ft.
Jeff Nelson stated that he would feel more comfortable if the Board
would say that it could not be higher than 45 ft. at any point.
Rebecca Haven felt the Board should say the sign cannot exceed 35 ft.
at the highest point of the grade and 45 ft. at the lowest point of the
grade.
Motion
Rebecca Haven moved and Charles Deshaine supported the motion to
approve the applicant’s request for a variance to install a billboard
above grade.
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. The
grade varies considerably on the property.
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
billboards in the area.
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 because this is
a highly industrial location, there should be no detriment to the
surrounding area.
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. There would not be a general
problem because buildings around this location are taller in this
industrial area than in residentially zoned locations.
e. Does not apply.
The Board imposed the following condition:
1. The sign height from the lowest grade point cannot exceed 45 ft.
and from the highest point of the grade cannot exceed 35 ft.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
Motion
Charles Deshaine moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to
approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of February
23, 2006.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
Motion
Ken Fex moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to adjourn the
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 7:50 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.
|
