ZBA Minutes
MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, January 11, 2007
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.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 2070 Waldorf St. also known on the tax rolls as
41-13-10-327-011. Hearing requested by James Burns.
On June 10, 2004, the applicant requested a variance, which was
granted to the Haunt, a professional Halloween attraction, to operate in
an industrial zoned district. The Haunt not wishes to add an outdoor
attraction in conjunction with their current indoor attraction. All
activities in the industrial district are required to be conducted in a
wholly enclosed building.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. He then read a letter from the Fire Inspector dated January
4, 2007. No citizens appeared with respect to this application.
James Burns, owner of the Haunt, stated that he wants to expand to
meet competition in the area. Last year attendance dropped because of
the weather, the Walker Ave. exit on the expressway was closed, and we
had a power outage. Consequently, we had a drop in attendance of about
4,000 people. Being a seasonal operation, and only open 24 nights, we
cannot afford to take hits like that. We do attract about 30,000 people
annually. We do not feel that increasing the attraction will increase
our attendance. We are offering another opportunity for entertainment.
On the weekends we sometimes have a 2 to 3 hour wait to get in, which is
outdoors, and we feel this would be an accommodation or a second
attraction for people to do while they are waiting in line. This will be
temporary. To the southeast corner of the property there is a field that
is relatively level. We have no use for that property. We would level
the property to insure proper footing and we will lay down green indoor
– outdoor astro turf, which will insure proper footing for people going
through the maze. The maze will be constructed fully free standing with
4 x 4 landscape timbers or posts and 4 x 8 sheets of ¾ in. OBS plywood
horizontally attached. We will have security of course. We will continue
to work closely with City officials as we have in the past. We have a
great track record. This will operate in conjunction with the Haunt and
will operate the same days and same hours. It will not be a disturbance
to the area. We are considering working on Saturdays, for a couple of
hours, a fun house maze for younger kids. There will be a couple of
actors working in the maze otherwise it is just a big labyrinth, with
dead ends and one way to get out. There is no theming or electrical
requirements. Any type of lighting will come from the generator tower
lights that we have to light our parking area.
Rebecca Haven asked what the hours of operation are?
Mr. Burns replied that Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday we are
open 7:00 p.m. til 10:00 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays our hours are from
7:00 p.m. until midnight and Sunday from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. He went
on to say that the tops of the walls will be 8 ft. and then from 4 ft.
to the ground is open. That way people can crawl underneath to find
another way or catch up with their friends.
Rebecca Haven questioned the hours. She stated that the hours of
operation were from 10:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and
Saturday and Sunday from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on conditions imposed
on this address when the original variance was granted.
Tyler Korfhage replied that those hours are unreasonable for this
type of operation. Their hours were until 10:00 p.m. during the week and
12:00 p.m. on the weekend.
Mr. Burns felt that those hours were for the Christmas show that we
did not 2535 Waldorf Ct. and had nothing to do with the Haunt.
Jim Hickey asked how do you cut off the line that is there at 10:00
p.m. at night?
Mr. Burns replied that the majority of people know they need to get
there before closing so typically we have seen our lines diminish to
practically nothing just before closing. If people pull into the parking
lot, and it is 5 til closing, we do sell tickets up to closing time. At
closing time, security will not allow anyone to hop into the line.
Rebecca Haven asked if there will be a sound system on the outdoor
attraction?
Mr. Burns stated that no, there will not be a sound system outside.
Tyler Korfhage stated that The Haunt was operating next door to his
business and Mr. Burns was a very good neighbor. The operation is only
operating one month out of the year. He is always careful about his
neighbors and safety and he puts on a quality show.
Roger Crabtree asked if they felt the existing parking lot lighting
was sufficient to light the maze?
Mr. Burns replied that we have halogen fixtures on the east side of
the building and we also rent two tower lights with 4 adjustable heads
that are gas generator lights and we can position them to shine in any
direction.
Rebecca Haven stated that she saw people crossing the street from the
Andy Egan parking lot across the street on Waldorf. She was concerned
with traffic going through there.
Mr. Burns replied that is something that we have tried to address. He
stated he has talked with the City, as far as the police go. As
individuals, we cannot go out there and stop traffic. That is why we try
to light this up as much as possible. This is a safety concern that we
are aware of.
Motion
Tyler Korfhage moved and Ken Fex supported the motion to grant the
applicant’s request to add an outdoor attraction in conjunction with
their current indoor attraction at The Haunt. All activities in the
industrial district are required to be conducted in a wholly enclosed
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. This is in an industrial zone but this is not an industrial
operation.
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. The
objective for an outdoor attraction is to keep up with rising
competition in the industry and to offer a second venue of
entertainment for patrons waiting in line for the indoor attraction.
This could be considered to be similar to outdoor storage that is
allowed in the industrial district.
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. The proposed
property would only require a minor amount of surface excavating in
order to assure a level walking surface. The outdoor attraction would
be constructed only as a temporary structure using free- standing 4 x
4 landscape timbers and ¾ in. OBS plywood.
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.
Does not apply.
The Board imposed the following conditions:
1. Hours of operation Monday thru Thursday 7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. &
Friday and Saturday 7:00 p.m. – 12:00 p.m. and Sunday 7:00 p.m. –
10:00 p.m.
2. Tickets not to be sold after operation hours but lines may exist
at the time.
3. Attempt to put in a cross walk from across the street to the
north.
Motion carried 6 to 1. Rebecca Haven opposed.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 1320 Maplerow, NW also known on the tax rolls as
41-13-17-327-18. Hearing requested by Eric Kaiserlian.
The applicant’s request is to erect a detached accessory structure in
the front yard instead of the rear yard as required. Existing detached
accessory building is to be demolished.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. No other citizen appeared with respect to this application.
Mr. Kaiserlian stated that he moved from a 900 sq. ft. house into
this house which is about 2,000 sq. ft. It is a good sized house but has
almost zero storage. It has a very small garage that is full of yard
maintenance equipment. He stated the small out building is very old and
needs to be demolished and we plan on doing that. The new pole barn will
be 1500 sq. ft. and we would like a gabled style roof to maximize the
storage above. It will be 30 x 50 and a gabled style roof.
Jeff Nelson stated that the variance is for the location of the
building. He will still have to meet all the requirements as far as size
and height of the building, total area for the size of his lot, and the
barn style roof can be done as long as he does not exceed the maximum
allowed in the ordinance.
Mr. Kaiserlian stated that the wall height will be 12 ft. finished.
It will be 19 ft. from the lot line so he has a lot of room.
Jim Hickey asked if the building was going to be placed where the
stakes are placed on the property?
Mr. Kaiserlian stated yes that is correct. The other building will be
torn down.
Roger Crabtree stated that the building is 30 ft. wide and the
building will cover half of one lot.
Mr. Kaiserlian stated that the new building will not be seen from the
property on any of the four sides in the spring and summer due to the
vegetation that is there.
Motion
Chuck Deshaine moved and Rebecca Haven supported the motion to grant
the applicant’s request to erect a detached accessory structure in the
front yard instead of the rear yard as required. Existing detached
accessory building is to be demolished.
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. Our house is built at the back of the property leaving
very little room for any structure. The front yard from house to
street measures approximately 550 ft.
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. 1729
Kinney, 2726 Bryanwood, and 3653 Grand Bluffs have similar
situations.
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 ordinances or public interest. The home
and yard is completely hidden from all sides thanks to very thick
vegetation facing the street and wooded lot lines.
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.
Does not apply.
Motion carried 7 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Motion
Ken Fex moved and Chuck Deshaine supported the motion to remove 4787
Lake Michigan Dr. from the table.
Motion carried 7 to 0.
Legal Description
Property located at 4787 Lake Michigan Dr., NW also known on the tax
rolls as 41-13-19-351-39. Hearing requested by Faro Uccello.
The applicant’s request is to construct an 880 sq. ft. dining room to
Uccello’s Restaurant with 38 fewer parking spaces than the required
under the new off street parking ordinance.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. He stated that this application was tabled because we needed
a correct count on what the shortages were for parking. He then read a
letter from Tim Alspach dated January 4, 2007.
Mr. Alspach stated that Frank Wash wants to keep the 11 parking
spaces on the retail. Retail is calculated on 75% useable which is very
close to a restaurant type use. It could go down as much as 50% and we
could gain another 11 cars. If we are going to keep the 11 in reserve,
based on the 75% it is almost like a double dip. Why couldn’t we use
what would be a 50 or 60% count and keep that as a reserve and still
count the 11 that are left over from the retail center? This is a
percentage game. We have a patio that is equal to what this banquet
facility will need and it is our contention that there will never be a
full use of the entire facility because of the minimal use of this
patio. We calculated and we can get 10 spots on the side to the north.
Robert Marz asked that this agreement lease you have on the property
to the west, is that for 6 years?
Mr. Alspach replied yes, with options to renew with rights to
purchase. Frank Wash does not have a problem with using those numbers on
the spots available in Tallmadge.
Robert Marz stated that his concern is that if the property is not
purchased, the agreement goes away in 6 years. Once we grant the
variance, it goes with the property forever. He felt that if they lost
the parking to the west, the banquet facility and the patio should be
shut down. He did not feel that the 11 spots at the retail center should
be counted at all since that is a variable factor.
James Hickey stated that there is 9100 sq. ft. of retail space here
and none of it is rented. There are five units here. If one person parks
there that works in the retail, and one customer comes in, that is 10
parking spots so those should not be considered. If the west side goes
away there will be a dire shortage.
Roger Crabtree stated that if they owned the parking area on the
north side, there would be no problem here.
Robert Marz felt there should be some compromise here because they
did fulfill the parking requirements until the ordinance changed so some
of this is created by the City.
Charles Deshaine stated that if you drive in, and all the parking
spots are full, you drive out and leave.
Rebecca Haven felt that maybe the DDA should consider some kind of
common parking lot. Right across the street from here is a large parking
lot on the northwest side of Meijers that is barely utilized.
Mr. Alspach stated that Mr. Uccello was approved under the old
ordinance and that was based on the usable program. He pursued 48
parking spots because he knows it is good for business. The gas line
runs through the property so it can only be used for parking on this
lot.
Tyler Korfhage asked what happens if they lose this parking? Can we
come back and say they have to close the banquet room?
Jeff Nelson stated he felt the variance should either be given or not
but do not attach conditions on this, as it would be difficult to
enforce.
Jim Hickey stated that we gave you approval to enclose the patio and
you opted not to do that and now you want to put an addition on the
building that is about the same size as the patio. Your parking would
have been ok had you done that. It seems obvious that you would enclose
the patio and not have to put on this addition since the patio is not
used that much.
Mr. Alspach replied that in the summer when it is slow, people like
to sit outside. It is used 15% of the time. We tried to enclose it with
windows but the price was outrageous.
Roger Crabtree stated that D & W came to us to get approval for
outside dining and they never used it. Shots had a variance to have
outdoor dining and you rarely see anyone sitting out there. The National
Pastime also got a variance for a deck outside and it was rarely used.
For 15% use he felt they should get rid of the outdoor dining and
enclose it.
The manager of Ucellos stated that the patio is used. When it is nice
outside people like to be outside. He stated we need a separate room for
private parties.
Motion
Ken Fex moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to deny the
applicant’s request to construct an 880 sq. ft. dining room to Uccello’s
Restaurant with 38 fewer parking spaces than the required under the new
off street parking ordinance. The Board failed to find extraordinary
circumstances to modify the new parking ordinance.
Motion carried 4 to 3. Robert Marz, Rebecca Haven, and Charles
Deshaine opposed.
Motion
Roger Crabtree moved and Jim Hickey supported the motion to approve
the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes from December 14, 2006.
Motion carried 7 to 0.
Motion
Ken Fex moved and Jim Hickey supported the motion to adjourn the
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:50 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.
|