ZBA Minutes

MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, December 14, 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; James Hickey; Ken Fex; and Tyler Korfhage. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building Department; Dick Denney, Building Department; and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.

Property located at 200 North Park St. also known on the tax rolls as 41-14-06-176-001. Hearing requested by CBS Outdoor.

The applicant’s request is to install a billboard 95 ft. above grade instead of the required 35 ft.

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

Mike Hugel, CBS Outdoor stated that the current variance we have is for 65 ft. and this billboard would not be able to be seen at 65 ft. In order to see it fully another 30 ft. would be needed.

Ken Fex stated that he felt 95 ft. was very high.

Mr. Hugel replied that a lot of this will be in a hole and you will not see it all. You will see less of it from the freeway than you would a normal billboard on the street.

Robert Marz asked how far from the road surface will the sign be?

Mr. Hugel stated that the roadbed at I-96 is 126 ft. It will be 56 ft. above I-96 and 67 ft. above 131.

James Hickey stated that several signs have been denied by the Planning Commission and he does not think this is a good idea. He felt that if the Board allows this variance it would set a precedent.

Tyler Korfhage stated that this Board has already granted a variance to have this sign higher because of the freeways.

Ken Fex stated that the last variance was too high and does not like this.

Mr. Hugel stated that with the current variance we are only 26 ft. above the road grade of I-96. This sounds like a lot but will not look that way once it is in the ground.

James Hickey asked what the purpose of the sign was?

Mr. Hugel replied it is for general advertising.

Ken Fex moved and Jim Hickey supported the motion to deny the applicant’s request to install a billboard 95 ft. above grade instead of the required 35 ft. The Board felt that the applicant failed to show there were exception or extraordinary circumstances on this request.

Motion carried 6 to 0. (Rebecca Haven absent)

Property located at 975 3 Mile Rd., NW also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-02-476-001. Hearing requested by Beverly Lawson.

The applicant’s request is to have a massage therapy judged similar to the permitted uses in the ORP District and to conduct this regulated use closer to 100 ft. of residentially zoned property.

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

Roger Crabtree asked the applicant what the name of the business is and how do you get your patients?

Ms. Lawson replied that the business is Alpine Ridge Massage Therapy some of the clients are from advertising but most are from referral.

Robert Marz asked if there would be a sign up?

Ms. Lawson replied yes.

Jeff Nelson stated that they are allowed signage based on the frontage of the property.

Rebecca Haven asked the applicant if she were working under the direction of a medical doctor?

Ms. Lawson replied no she is not.

Ken Fex asked if it were just a one room operation.

Ms. Lawson replied yes that is all she needs. She also makes house calls.

Ken Fex stated that he did not know that a nurse could do physical therapy without a license.

Ms. Lawson stated she is not a physical therapist, she is a massage therapist.

Jeff Nelson stated that if she were a physical therapist, she would be here only to be judged similar to, but a massage therapist is a regulated use, and that is why she is here and she is within 100 ft. of residential property. He went on to say that if this variance is granted, he would like to see it be limited to a one person operation so that if she leaves, we do not get 2 or 3 people in here. She will have to go through and apply for a license, which a physical therapist would not have to do.

Tyler Korfhage moved and Ken Fex supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request to have a massage therapy judged similar to the permitted uses in the ORP District and to conduct this regulated use closer to 100 ft. of residentially zoned property.

The Board imposed the following conditions:

1. This be a one person operation.

2. This person be medically licensed.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Property located at 3287 Alpine, NW also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-02-277-024. Hearing requested by Royal Seal Development.

The applicant’s request is to reduce the required front yard setbacks on Coventry and Alpine Ave. from the required 75 ft. to 50 ft. for a commercial building.

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

Jim Hickey stated that he did not have a problem with the setbacks. According to the site plan the southern drive on Alpine is closed off which is under access management and will come before the Planning Commission. Also the first driveway on Coventry is closed off which is another thing that we would do. We would not close off the access to Bennigan’s for through traffic. The parking will have to be reconfigured to get the parking that they will need. Under the new ordinance they would be 2 parking spots short.

Robert Marz stated that this variance is for the setbacks only.

The applicant replied that they fully intend to cooperate with the City on this site.

Charles Deshaine moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request to reduce the required front yard setbacks on Coventry and Alpine Aves. from the required 75 ft. to 50 ft. for a commercial building.

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 tract of land is approximately 153 x 159 ft. and the imposition of the required 75 ft. building limit line substantially reduces the feasibility of development of the tract of land in an economical manner. Nearly three-fourths of the property would be within the 75 ft. building limit line.

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. Granting of the variance assures that the property can be developed in an economical, reasonable manner with an increase in property value, improvement in the overall quality of development at the site and providing new services and benefits to the community of Walker.

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 granting this variance will not be detrimental on this or adjacent properties. All other development requirements including landscaping and zoning buffers will be included. By granting the variance, it allows the building to be placed more centrally on the tract thereby increasing the building’s distance from adjacent residentially zoned property.

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. Granting the variance results in no general problem or conflict with other property.

Does not apply.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Property located at 4787 Lake Michigan Dr. also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-19-351-039. Hearing requested by Faro Uccello.

The applicant’s request is to construct an 880 sq. ft. dining room addition to Uccello’s Restaurant with 38 fewer parking spaces than the required under the new off street parking ordinance.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. He then read a memo from the Planning Department dated 12-5-06 and a memo from the City Engineer dated 12-5-06.

Tim Alspach, Architect representing Uccello’s stated that he has not had a chance to talk to Frank Wash, Planning Director about the parking. He felt Frank made a contradictory statement because he said that right now, as it exists on the site, we have proper parking without this addition. If we add this addition, which is 45 seats, at 2 seats per car, it would be 22 seats, so half of what he is saying would be required. Mr. Alspach stated he did not follow Mr. Wash’s math on how he came to 38 parking spaces. Because the patio is such a seasonal use and that season is the slow time when the restaurant is full typically the smoking, the banquet would be adding seats when the patio would be closed. The shared parking agreement that we have the retail center, is based on 75% which is the number we gave to Mr. Wash and is nothing written in the ordinance. The ordinance speaks about usable space so that is undefined. If you look at the 75% that is close to a restaurant type use and there is nothing in that retail center right now. Our contention is that the patio is a small seasonal part of the overall operation. There was a big issue on parking here before the retail center was put in. Mr. Uccello got approval from Tallmadge Township to add 48 cars. There has not been any issue with parking since the 48 cars were added in Tallmadge Township. Mr. Uccello would like to offer his patrons more non-smoking room. This addition will be a dining facility that is non-smoking.

George Karas 457 Clinton would like to know where the new addition will be?

The applicant showed on the site plan where it will be toward the back of the building.

Erik Harvey 444 Clinton stated that his backyard is full of cars when the restaurant is busy. He did not feel they need a banquet room for non-smoking. He would like to know when the banquet room will be used and what hours.

Michelle Schoenborn 463 Clinton stated that parking is already a problem at this location. There is parking to the west of the building and a gas main runs there. If they do not own that property and they are just leasing it, what is going to happen when the people who own the property sell it? What happens to the parking?

Ken Fex asked if there have been problems with the parking since the new parking was added?

The applicant replied no they have not had a problem. Prior to that on the busy weekends we have been busy and that is why the extra parking spots were added to the west. We have a 6 year lease on the 48 parking spots with an option to buy. Since there is a gas line here, the only thing that can be put on that spot is a parking lot.

Charles Deshaine stated that he was at Uccello’s on Saturday night and drove around the parking lot and the place was full and there were quite a few spots open in the new area in the back. There were 48 spots open to park on the east side north and south of lot 8.

Jim Hickey asked if there was room to add more parking on the lot that was added?

Mr. Alspach replied they can put more but would have to go back to Tallmadge for approval. The new addition will be connected to the non-smoking area of the restaurant. That part would close before the smoking area which is open til 2:00 a.m. There are a lot of calls for parties needing a private room and that would be used for this. The banquet room would close at 10:00 p.m.

Jim Hickey felt that there will be a problem parking when that retail center opens. He went on to say that you cannot infringe on the parking for the retail center.

Rebecca Haven stated we are talking about adding 20 to 22 more parking spaces. We now see that there is an addition of 48 spaces which is more than double what was there when this project was approved. She stated she was confused on the number of parking spaces needed.

Jeff Nelson stated that the original building met the parking standard at that time. This building with the edition, using the new parking standard is going to be 38 spaces short including the whole building and the addition. The ordinance has now been changed.

Jim Hickey stated that the Planning Commission told them to get more parking and that is when they added the 48 parking spots to the west when the patio went in.

Tyler Korfhage asked who owns the 48 parking spaces to the east?

Jim Hickey replied that they have a lease for those 48 spots.

Tyler Korfhage replied that there is no guarantee here for those parking spots. They have not purchased this yet. If we grant this variance, and they build this, six years from now their parking disappears, they will be in worse shape. They do not own that parking and he does not feel that we cannot consider those 48 parking spots. It should be on- sight parking.

Mr. Alspach stated that the banquet room and the patio seat the same amount. We are under the contention that the summer hours, when the patio is open, is 30% less than non- patio time. When the patio is closed those people will be in the banquet area.

Tyler Korfhage replied that you cannot guarantee that. You cannot guarantee that the 48 parking spots will be there.

Mr. Alspach stated that the Planning Director says we have enough parking spaces now, which includes the 48 parking spaces we have with option to purchase. After six years, if we lose those parking spaces, then there would be the necessity to close either the patio or banquet room, as they both seat the same amount.

Roger Crabtree suggested that if the patio and the banquet room both seat the same amount, why do you need both? Make the patio into a room that can seat both.

Mr. Alspach replied that would be too pricey. He went on to say that there are shared parking agreements that are recorded as well as a lease agreement next door with the option to purchase. We have 91,000 sq. ft. so we need 69 parking spaces. We have 47 shared and 23 extra on the restaurant side.

Jim Hickey stated that if you rent out the retail space, you have used up 69 parking spots. If they go the extra 40 ft. in the parking lot, more spaces could be added there.

Mr. Alspach stated that Frank Wash, Planning Director claims we need 38 more parking spots but he also makes the comment that the what we have right now meets the new ordinance. If we add the banquet room, we are short 38. We are adding 45 seats, which would be between 20 and 22 parking spaces, so he does not understand where the 38 is coming from.

Jim Hickey stated that under the new ordinance, if they put this new addition on, they will need 38 new parking spaces.

Charles Deshaine stated that we helped create this problem and now we are saying they need more spaces.

Jim Hickey felt this should be tabled to allow the applicant to go back and see if they can create more parking spaces to the west.

Roger Crabtree stated that the applicant needs to get together with Frank Wash and determine what the actual number is, that is needed. He felt maybe a shared lease agreement should be looked into with the neighbors.

Roger Crabtree moved and Jim Hickey supported the motion to table the applicant’s request to construct an 880 sq. ft. addition to Uccello’s Restaurant with 38 fewer parking spaces than the required under the new off street parking ordinance. The Board would like to know how many actual parking spaces are needed.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Property located at 25 North Park & 3535 Mill Creek also known on the tax rolls as 41-14-06-103-002 & 001. Hearing requested by Highpoint Real Estate.

The applicant’s request is to reduce the frontage on North Park from the previously approved 160 ft. to 158.5 ft. and reduce the site square footage from previously approved 41,000 sq. ft. to 28,314 sq. ft.

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

Brian Sikkema, Highpoint Real Estate stated that when he was here the first time he took approximate measurements. What we did with the surveyor was to run this line as the best case between these buildings because it is an odd shape and that is where the miscalculation came in the first time. We are hooked up to sewer and water now and we have a substantial investment here. We also have a cross parking agreement.

Rebecca Haven asked if the decrease in the total square footage of the area has any bearing on the frontage calculation?

Jeff Nelson replied no, the frontage calculation is close and we tried to work this out. We had many meetings on this. He was going to change the lines so he had the 160 and then we found that the square footage was too far off. A lot of this has to do with keeping the side yard for these buildings. The property line went through one of these buildings.

Rebecca Haven moved and Ken Fex supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request to reduce the frontage on North Park from the previously approved 160 ft. to 158.5 ft. and reduce the site square footage from the previously approved 41,000 sq. ft. to 28,314 sq. 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. Presently site is non-conforming.

Proposed property line is more conducive to building locations. Existing line presently runs through an existing building.

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. Change will enable the potential for more improvements and investment in 25 North Park.

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 there will be no affect on neighboring parcels.

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. No additional ingress or egress. Cross parking agreement will be executed upon agreement.

e. Does not apply.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Ken Fex moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to approve the Zoning Board of Appeal minutes of November 9, 2006.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Roger Crabtree moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 9:15 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.