ZBA Minutes
MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, April 24, 2008
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
Deschaine; James Hickey; Tyler Korfhage; Randy Smith; and Brian Boelens.
Member absent: Beth Rogers. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building
Official; and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 4787 Lake Michigan Dr. also known on the tax
rolls as 41-13-19-351-039. Hearing requested by TJA Architecture.
The applicant’s request is for a permit to add a 400 sq. ft. outdoor
patio on the west corner of Uccellos. They would like an interpretation
of Section 94-466 (5) of the City of Walker parking ordinance. It is
their opinion that required parking does not need to be under the same
ownership as the business but within 300 ft. of the property.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted.
Jeff Nelson stated that we are here today because this is a short
term lease and if that lease were to go away we would be short of
parking by adding the outdoor patio. We would like an interpretation if
a short term lease would be allowed and if there would be any
stipulations if this was granted.
Tim Allspcah, TJA Architecture stated that the original restaurant
was approved in March of 2004 for both parking and building under the
ordinance at the time. In March of 2005 the original patio was approved
and in June 2005 Mr. Uccello purchased the property to the east and
built the retail center. At that point in time that retail center
required 39 parking spaces per the zoning ordinance. There are 92
parking spaces on that site. Right now 55% of the retail space is
leased. In 2006 Mr. Uccello sees the issue of parking in relationship to
people staying on site and wanting to come to his restaurant. If there
is no parking space they will leave.
In the meantime the City adopted a new parking ordinance ratio for
restaurants. The initial three buildings built were under the old
restaurant so everything constructed there is per the zoning ordinance
when it was approved. There were no variances at that time. Mr. Uccello
would now like to add the patio on the southwest corner of the building.
He received approval a little over a year ago to enclose the existing
patio and he wanted to build a banquet facility. That was turned down
because it was going to create a parking issue. Since then Mr. Uccello
enclosed his existing patio. They have found that in the summer months
business is not as busy especially on weekends due to the fact that
people leave town for the weekend. So the slow period is on Friday,
Saturday and Sunday. We went to the Planning Commission to get this
approved and we ran into the interpretation issue. This section of the
code does not specifically state that it has to be within property
ownership and property distance. Jeff Nelson, myself, and Frank Wash got
together to discuss where we needed to go to see what the issue was and
that is why we are here. They felt the ZBA could address the parking
issue. The parking that was put into Tallmadge Township meets their
ordinances and he has a six year lease with the property owner. He was
first right of refusal to purchase that property. He has a lease option
here. The issue here is if there enough parking and the other is the
ownership. The original approval of everything that was constructed was
under the old ordinance which only required 151 cars. We have 211 spaces
there now for this site.
The retail has a shared parking agreement for what is beyond the
requirement there. There are only 39 required for that site and there
are 92 spaces provided. Of the 39 required half of that is leased to
people who close their business by 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The
zoning ordinance allows under Section 94-466 the ability, if you have
off peak hours, to share parking as well. They close at 6:00 p.m. and
the restaurant peak time is between 6:00 and 6:30 Friday and Saturday.
There is only one overlap potential and that is on Friday from 6:00 to
6:30. Saturday these businesses are closed. There are plenty of spaces
that meet the ordinance but we are dealing with the issue of ownership
in Tallmadge Township. It is our opinion that the impact is so
negligible to the whole issue that we feel there is not a parking issue
here. If the parking spaces were to be lost in Tallmadge, Mr. Uccello
would give up the patio. We are only talking about 9 cars in a seasonal
use. We feel these are extraordinary circumstances and unique to this
site.
Charles Deshaine stated that he liked where they are moving the
proposed patio on the northwest corner away from residences. He felt
this is a unique situation and good improvements have been made here.
James Hickey asked if this could be approved with the condition that
if the parking went away, the patio would go away also?
Jeff Nelson replied that he felt they could because it is based on
the parking that the patio would be granted to meet the new requirement.
If this goes away and the patio goes away, we are still back to the old
requirement.
Roger Crabtree asked about future shared parking here with adjacent
business and how that would cut into the available parking spaces.
Robert Marz stated that we could make a stipulation here.
Charles Deshaine asked how much seating is there on the patio.
Mr. Allspach replied there are 18 seats here.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Randy Smith supported the motion to approve
the applicant’s request for a permit to add a 400 sq. ft. outdoor patio
on the west corner of Uccellos. They would like an interpretation of
Section 94-466 (5) of the City of Walker parking ordinance. It is their
opinion that required parking does not need to be under the same
ownership as the business but within 300 ft. of the property. The Board
concluded that as long as the patio is there the parking would be
sufficient.
The Board imposed the following conditions:
If the parking goes away, the patio goes away.
This patio will not be enclosed.
Motion carried 7 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 3373 Peach Ridge, NW also known on the tax rolls
as 41-13-04-176-014. Hearing requested by True North Homes.
The applicant’s request is to build a detached garage in the front
yard instead of the required rear yard.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and
site plan submitted.
Richard Bloem, True North Homes stated that we are currently
constructing a new home on this property. The home is going to be a very
nice home and will be in the Parade of Homes this spring. The garage
will compliment the architecture of the home.
Paula Gilmer 3327 Peach Ridge stated that this garage will block her
property. The dirt is already built up there and makes the ground higher
than the ground in her backyard. This garage will be in her backyard.
She stated she would like to see trees planted to protect her privacy.
Mr. Bloem stated that the area cleared Ms. Gilmer is describing is
for the drain field and septic system and the garage will not be in that
area. He went on to say that they are being respectful of the neighbor.
He then pointed out on the site plan where the garage will be located.
The drainage will also be such that it does not interfere with any of
the neighbors. Our goal is to save trees and be respectful to the
neighbors.
Charles Deshaine asked what do you want to do with this garage?
Mr. Nadwodnik, the owner stated that he wants to store trucks there
but will not conduct any business out of there. He stated he has his
inventory stored downtown in a warehouse. He stated that the garage will
be in a lower elevation and will not be intrusive to the neighbors.
Brian Boelens asked how tall is the building?
Mr. Bloem stated it will be standard height and the eave height will
be 10 ft.
Ms. Gilmer stated that she now understands where the garage will be
located. She would like to see trees planted here.
Mr. Nadwodnik stated that the garage will be about 12 ft. lower than
the houses nearby.
Roger Crabtree stated that under the ordinance the applicant is only
allowed to store one commercial vehicle up to one and a half ton.
Jeff Nelson stated that they are not asking for a variance for that.
James Hickey asked what is the difference between the elevation of
the floor of the existing garage and the garage that you are proposing?
Mr. Bloem replied that it will be the same. The back of the garage
will be sunk into the ground because at the back wall we will have to
build a concrete wall. He went on to say that they had someone from the
DEQ come out and review the site and tell them where the home could be
constructed.
Charles Deshaine stated that under the circumstances it would help if
you share your plan with the neighbors directly affected.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to approve
the applicant’s request to build a detached garage in the front yard
instead of the required rear yard.
There are exceptional and 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 preservation of the 8+ acre site
area allows for only certain areas for building per Michigan DEQ
requirements. The proposed garage will not be visible from Peach
Ridge Ave.
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 examples of garages and homes with the same conditions
along Peach Ridge Ave.
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 in that
the proposed garage will not be a detriment to the neighborhood.
It will not be visible from Peach Ridge Ave. The proposed garage
will not block views of any traffic nor the views of surrounding
homes.
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
proposed garage will be constructed in such a manner that it would
match the newly constructed home. This will not be a recurrent
problem.
Does not apply.
The Board imposed the following conditions:
1. Preserve the trees and foliage for a buffer near the
neighbor’s rear lot line or replace it if it is damaged.
2. Garage not used for commercial purposes.
Motion carried 5 to 2. Charles Deshaine and Roger Crabtree opposed.
Motion
Randy Smith moved and James Hickey supported the motion to approve
the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of April 10, 2008.
Motion carried 7 to 0.
Motion
Roger Crabtree moved and Brian Boelens supported the motion to
adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:00 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.
|
