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; Brian Boelens; Randy Smith; and Sandi Howland, Alternate.
Members absent: James Hickey and Beth Rogers. Also present: Jeff Nelson,
Building Official; and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 3731 Northridge, NW also known on the tax rolls
as 41-13-05-127-001. Hearing requested by Design Edge.
The applicant’s request is to add 4, 4 x 16 ft. signs on the west
side of the building with 256 total sq. ft. instead of the 80 sq. ft.
allowed.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. He then read a letter from the Planning Director dated
November 3, 2008. No citizen appeared with respect to this request.
Thomas Brown, owner of Design Edge showed a picture of the building.
He showed the only sign visible from Fruitridge Ave. and it is
unreadable. It is 175 ft. from the street and cannot be read. He stated
it is important to him, being a sign company, to have a sign that is
able to be read. He needs the visibility so that people will know where
he is located. The new Northridge is not on Map Quest so people do not
know how to find him. He went on to say that he is trying to get
approval here for both tenants but his primary objective to get it
approved for his property. There are contradictory things in the sign
ordinance, under Section 5 it says for corner lots, the front building
wall will be that facing the street that carries the most average daily
traffic. That would mean that the front of the building is actually the
back of the building. In the wall mounted sign portion of the ordinance,
it says the area of wall mounted signs for each occupant or tenant of
the multi-occupant building shall not exceed 1 sq. ft. for each 2 lineal
feet of the building front wall occupied by such occupant or tenant.
Right now we have 57 ft. of frontage and I am asking for 112 ft. of
signage so that is exactly 2 sq. ft. for every lineal feet. Wall mounted
signs may be permitted on non-front building walls or non-corner lots of
property adjacent to I-96, US-31, and 196. This is an exception because
this is Fruitridge Ave. and it is very busy.
For a corner lot I am allowed to have a sign on both corners facing
the street. He stated I am not asking for that. He is asking only for
the backside. Once Northridge is connected, people will be able to see
our low profile sign coming west. This will increase our business and
beautify the building.
Jeff Nelson stated that one thing that Mr. Brown said that was wrong
was the lineal footage. You are allowed only 80 sq. ft. for up to
100,000 sq. ft. building. The other sq. footage is meant for buildings
that only have maybe 20 ft. of frontage and then you would have less
than 80 sq. ft. That is for signs that are allowed less than 80 sq. ft.
Brian Boelens asked how long have you been in this building?
Mr. Brown responded it has been one year. The only other tenant is
Altus and Work Stuff. They take up 75% of the building. Prior to this he
was on Calaan Ave. He stated that he owned his portion of the building.
Roger Crabtree commented that he had a problem with this being an
industrial park. The road is eventually going through. He did not think
that the traffic going at 45 mph here would help. It will just clutter
up the wall. We also do not know what type of landscaping is going in
here. The signs may not be visible or legible then.
Mr. Brown stated that he would not put up a sign that was not
readable.
Randy Smith stated that he could put up 80 sq. ft. of signage here
without a variance.
Mr. Brown stated that 80 sq. ft. of signage is not enough. He is
concerned about the two signs that he wants which would be 112 sq. ft.
He would like the sign placed in the windows on the building.
Jeff Nelson stated that the signage is based on the busiest street
which is Fruitridge here.
Chairman Marz explained to the applicant that we have only 6 members
present tonight. The applicant agreed for the hearing to go on with only
6 members present.
Robert Marz stated that he felt this request was extraordinary
because the rear of the building is facing the most trafficked street
and that is where the signage would normally appear. The preservation of
rights is that the applicant does not enjoy the same rights as any other
building on Fruitridge.
Roger Crabtree stated that there are going to be two other buildings
going in on Fruitridge that are going to be required to go by signage
that the Planning Commission has approved.
Mr. Brown stated that those buildings will be facing Northridge not
Fruitridge and will not be needing the same signage.
Charles Deschaine asked the applicant if he has talked with the
Planning Director?
Mr. Brown replied no, he talked with the Building Inspector.
Jeff Nelson stated that all the existing buildings facing Fruitridge,
under the old sign ordinance, was 1 ½ sq. ft. signage for every 1 ft. of
frontage which is probably ten times what the ordinance allows now.
Roger Crabtree stated he was having trouble with the preservation of
rights for this request.
Charles Deschaine stated that this is a new industrial park and there
are more buildings being built here and we want to make sure that we do
not regret what we do here. We were hoping that you had talked with the
Planning Director to see what could be done here. We would like to see
more on what this is going to look like.
Motion
Charles Deschaine moved and Randy Smith supported the motion to table
the applicant’s request to add 4, 4 x 16 ft. signs on the west side of
the building with 256 total sq. ft. instead of the 80 sq. ft. allowed
until December 11, 2008.
The Board would like the following:
A material sample and picture of the sign.
Applicant meet with the Planning Director.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 3963 O’Brien, SW also known on the tax rolls as
41-13-29-351-022. Hearing requested by Daniel Engelsma.
The applicant’s request is to split existing parcel of land creating
two parcels with 85 ft. of street frontage instead of the required 90
ft. and exceeding the depth to width ratio of not more than 4 to 1.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and the site plan
submitted.
Jeff Nelson stated that when Mr. Engelsma originally came in , the
parcel on the right hand side was a straight piece that went all the way
back. The Accessor told them to combine it so that they could have it
all as a homestead but when they did that they made it impossible for me
to allow a split with less than necessary street frontage.
Mr. Engelsma stated that he was shocked to find out he did not have 2
buildable lots. We have visited all the neighbors and everyone of them
was in favor of this request. He went on to say that his father owned
the farm and he bought 2 acres from him. There is a land locked plateau
there and it is on the edge of the valley. This is Engelsma Farm LLC and
we bought the entire 55 acres that is left so our family owns all the
land around here. In developing the 55 acres, Frank Wash, thought it
would be a good idea to have a lot of green space. If you looked at this
on an aerial view, there is a valley in there and is not buildable. Our
thought is to keep this as a green space. Our hook up fees for water and
sewer are going to cost more than $12,000. About 2/3 of the way back is
an oil well so a house cannot be built there. Since this is a gravity
situation, we have been assured we can hook into the Grand Rapids water
and sewer. The position of the house will be about 60 ft. from the
sanitary sewer. That is the other reason for moving it back for the 4 to
1 ratio.
Norman Stiles 3897 O’Brien wants to know if the surrounding land will
be developed.
Mr. Engelsma replied that on the land to the east there is a about a
50 ft. drop off and is a flood plain and totally undevelopable. That is
why we kept it as green space. The other property between O’Brien Rd.
from the frontage back, there is another 100 ft. that is totally
undevelopable.
Roger Crabtree asked if the part he is splitting off, the 1.66 acres,
were to be made 90 ft. at the road, why wouldn’t that make these lots
comply with the frontage?
Jeff Nelson replied that it has to be continuous to meet the
ordinance.
Motion
Charles Deschaine moved and Brian Boelens supported the motion to
approve the applicant’s request to split existing parcel of land
creating two parcels with 85 ft. of street frontage instead of the
required 90 ft. and exceeding the depth to width ratio of not more than
4 to 1.
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 one parcel in question was originally surveyed as
two lots 85 ft. wide. They are in between all the other homes
which are on the same size lots which were split off 3853 O’Brien
about 50 years ago when the acceptable was 85 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. The
home was built 16 years ago on one lot at 3963. Since then we
combined the two lots since the assessor’s office stated one
property could be homesteaded. My daughter and son want to build
one home on the lot with some additional property I own that would
allow them privacy and use the land that is not accessible from
any other means.
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 allow one home to be built on the
original 85 ft. lot plus the additional land. The neighbors will
not be affected in any adverse way.
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 will
not be of a recurring nature that the ordinance should be changed.
Does not apply.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
Motion
Randy Smith moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to approve
the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of September 25, 2008.
Motion carried 6 to 0
Motion
Randy Smith moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to approve
the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of October 9, 2008.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
Motion
Roger Crabtree moved and Sandi Howland supported the motion to
adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
___________________________________
Roger Crabtree, Secretary
The City
of Walker, Michigan