MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, August 13, 2009
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; Brian Boelens; James Hickey; Beth Rogers; and Sandi Howland.
Member absent: Randy Smith. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building Official
and Tammy Freedman, Recording Secretary.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 3442 Peach Ridge, NW also known on the tax rolls
as 41-13-04-201-010. Hearing requested by Kevin L. Smith.
The applicant’s request is to install a detached accessory building
in the front yard instead of the required rear yard.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. No other citizen appeared with respect to this request.
Kevin Smith appeared on behalf of Dave VanHolstyn, owner.
Jeff Nelson stated that this is actually a front yard and not a side
yard. This was noticed as a front yard.
The applicant submitted signatures from two neighbors in front of the
property stating that they were in favor of this request. They are Reyne
& Mike Haeske and Jon Britton.
James Hickey stated that there is a transformer sitting where you
want to put the accessory building. He asked what they are going to do
with the transformer?
The applicant stated that it will be actually down from the
transformer. We will remove some trees and put it into the corner. The
building will be placed south and west of the transformer. It is a small
shed and will be 14 x 20 ft. The corner of the tree line will be cut
out.
James Hickey stated that the neighbors will not see it then?
The applicant replied no, just in the winter when the trees are bare.
Bob Marz asked how big is the lot?
Mr. VanHolstyn replied it is six acres.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Sandi Howland supported the motion to grant
the applicant’s request to install a detached accessory building 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 accessory building cannot be placed in the rear yard
because of the grade of the lot. It will be 400 ft. off of 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. 3373
Peach Ridge has a detached garage and 961 Timberwinds has an
accessory building in the side yard.
- 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
owner wants to locate the accessory building behind the tree line
only visible from his driveway which is private, and will not change
the neighbor’s view.
- 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 hinder
the neighbor’s view and close neighbors.
- Does not apply.
Motion carried 7 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 1029 Maynard also known on the tax rolls as
41-13-33-351-026. Hearing requested by Paul Sietsema.
The applicant’s request is to expand a non-conforming industrial use
by moving a 40 x 40 ft. steel engineered pole building onto the site.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. He stated that we have a letter from the Kent County Parks
Department stating that they had no objections to this request. He went
on to say that we have a structural engineer’s report on the building
the applicant is going to move. No citizen appeared with respect to this
request.
Jeff Nelson stated that I required the structural report from the
engineer because it is an agricultural building and it is going to be
used as an industrial building now, so the building code required that
they do modifications, which they have agreed to do.
James Hickey asked the applicant where they plan to place the
building?
Mr. Sietsema replied that we are open on that at the present time.
Both locations will have the same foundation. He stated we would like to
have the option on where the building will be placed. #1 will probably
work out best.
Jeff Nelson stated that generally you approve something like this per
site plan.
James Hickey asked if #1 option is approved and the applicant decides
he wants to go with option #2, what would happen?
Jeff Nelson stated that he felt the applicant should come back to
this Board at the next meeting if that should happen.
Mr. Sietsema asked how long the permit will be good for?
Jeff Nelson replied that you have six months to start the project and
one year to finish after getting the building permit.
Motion
Charles Deschaine moved and Beth Rogers supported the motion to grant
the applicant’s request to expand a non-conforming industrial use by
moving a 40 x 40 ft. steel engineered pole building onto the side.
- 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. There are over 6 acres of land and the building will not
be a problem. The current use will remain the same.
- 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.
Hunderman Redimix at 1050 Maynard has 3 buildings.
- 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 we
have been in business since 1952 and are hoping to improve the
asthestics of this site by having more equipment in an enclosed
area.
- 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 use would not be
allowed in an AA Zoning District today. The additional building will
not change the property but will help to store more equipment inside
instead of on site.
- Does not apply.
Motion carried 7 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 1108 Kusterer also known on the tax rolls as
41-13-20-202-009. Hearing requested by Joseph Grochowalski.
The applicant’s request is to replace the demolished detached garage
which is required with a 12 x 22 ft. attached carport with an attached
storage unit, which violates the minimum side yard, combined side yards,
and rear yard setbacks.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. No citizen appeared with respect to this request.
Bob Marz stated that you have removed the garage and that gives you
room for windows on that side?
Mr. Grochowalski stated that we are replacing two windows on that
side that used to be windows that went from the bedrooms into the
garage. The garage was structurally unsound. If the garage were to be
rebuilt these would not be legal bedrooms because they would not have
legal egress windows. Now they will have legal egress.
Jeff Nelson stated that they are asking for a rear yard and a side
yard variance. One side has not been changed. That was closer to the
side yard than it is suppose to be. Due to the size of the lot, they are
only required to have 15.3 total and not less than 7 on any side. By
adding the carport and taking the garage down, they are still
maintaining the same rear yard that they had before. This house had
egress windows going into the garage, which is illegal, with no fire
wall between the garage and house and the windows were not egress
windows. Now we have remedied some of this if we go to a carport.
James Hickey asked what the side yard can be?
Jeff Nelson replied they are suppose to have 15.3 total because of
the reduction in the size of the lot and not less than 7.
James Hickey stated that the only thing they want to do is to put
this 12 ft. carport in and they will wind up with 9.2 ft. from the
carport to the fence. This is a 100% improvement to the neighborhood.
Jeff Nelson stated that the applicant has redesigned a whole new
foundation for the house which is a big improvement.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Charles Deschaine supported the motion to
grant the applicant’s request to replace the demolished detached garage
which in required with a 12 x 22 ft. attached carport with an attached
storage unit, which violates the minimum side yard, combined side yards
and rear yard setbacks.
- 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 existing garage was in a dilapidated, structurally
unsound state. With it removed, it is possible to replace all
existing bedroom windows with code compliant egress windows. Without
the garage removed, this 3 bedroom home could only possibly have one
legal bedroom. Lots at 50 ft. wide are very narrow.
- 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. This is similar to other
homes in the area.
- 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 due
to the existing economic conditions, many homes are falling into
foreclosure. These properties typically have many zoning or building
code violations that are remedied when an investor or homeowner
rehabs the structure into a usable code compliant 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. Many of the houses on
this street do not have garages. This home was nearly a condemned
property and will be a much improved building, a positive for the
neighborhood, provide a higher community tax base, etc. Many older
homes in the City of Walker don’t have garages or carports.
- Does not apply.
Motion carried 7 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 3003 Walkent also known on the tax rolls as
41-13-03-412-002. Hearing requested by Wolverine Building Group.
The applicant’s request is to build an addition 16 ft. from the front
property line off of Walkent Ct. instead of the required 40 ft.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. No citizen appeared with respect to this request. He stated
that the Board received a report from the Planning Department.
Duane Hoover, West Michigan Shared Laundry and Kurt Adams, from
Wolverine Building appeared for this request.
James Hickey stated that we approved this a couple of years ago for
an addition and they didn’t build it. Now they are coming back and they
want to put an addition in a different location.
Frank Wash replied that was more than 5 years ago. In 2007 they
received a front yard variance off of Walkent Dr. for an office addition
and that was never built.
James Hickey stated that the addition on the side were the offices
were going to be was not put on because the power is on that side of the
building. You are just moving this over now instead of putting it where
the first one was approved.
Jeff Nelson stated that they are still planning on building the other
addition too but are going to keep it within setbacks for the Walkent
Dr. frontage.
The applicant replied that is correct.
Beth Rogers stated that they want us to approve this variance and
then they are going to the Planning Commission on August 19?
Frank Wash stated that because of the two additions together that
they are putting on, they are coming to the Planning Commission with
changes to the site itself as additional parking and adding a sidewalk.
Jeff Nelson stated that he asked the applicant if they wanted to go
back for a variance for the other addition and they said that they would
make it work within the setbacks so they are only going for this
variance.
Charles Deschaine asked if there is anything that should be included
in this tonight if it is approved such as sidewalks?
Frank Wash replied that things such as landscaping and sidewalks, and
drainage, are concerned , those will be taken care of by the Planning
Commission.
James Hickey asked if there is anything that we are going to do here
tonight that will give us a problem next week at the Planning
Commission?
Frank Wash stated nothing that he is aware of. There should be some
landscaping to buffer the site, but there are no major concerns here.
The Planning Commission will make sure this project will meet planning
requirements.
Roger Crabtree commented that when the variance was granted for the
office addition, the argument was that there were to be two stories so
that we could avoid setback problems. The other argument was that they
could not put the office addition anywhere else because the terrain was
so bad it could not be built. He stated he felt at that point they had
outgrown this lot. In the near future he felt they would be looking for
more additions. The industrial park was built with setback requirements
for a reason. Now we are going to end up with 15 to 20 ft. setbacks
because we are establishing a precedence for the rest of the industrial
park.
Bob Marz asked if he felt that all of the properties in this
industrial park are the same shape as this property and will thismake a
precedence?
Roger Crabtree felt it was not the shape of the property but the
terrain.
Charles Deschaine stated that this is a problematic site for the
shape of this lot. He did not think this would set a precedence.
Beth Rogers wanted to know why they could not build on this property
before and now they can.
Kurt Adams replied that this expansion provides clean linens for a
number of hospitals across West Michigan. This is what they need to do
to get them through the next two decades. In regards to building in the
back of the building, the building is being designed around the
equipment that is going inside. There are very long washing tunnels and
dryer areas and it is very expensive to bring this site up to standards.
Jeff Nelson stated that a building can have 60% coverage on the lot
and the applicant is under that.
Motion
Beth Rogers moved and Sandi Howland supported the motion to grant the
applicant’s request to build an addition 16 ft. from the front property
line off of Walkent Ct. instead of the required 40 ft.
- 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 lot is a pie shaped corner lot with 2 front yards. The
lot drops off steeply to the north. Loading docks are needed on the
west side of the proposed building addition. Due to the limited
space and change in grades it would be impractical to provide a
loading area perpendicular to the west wall.
- 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. 1534 Pannell (Andy Mast’s
Greenhouse).
- 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 the
property is in an industrial park. The businesses in the area do not
typically rely on site distance from passing traffic. Walkent Ct. is
not a through street and serves only 4 parcels. Site distance should
not be significantly impaired at street intersections.
- 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
encroachment is in the middle of the lot and over 250 ft. from the
nearest property corner. Most of the businesses on the cul-de-sac
actually front on the expressway.
- Does not apply.
The Board imposed the following condition:
- Contingent on what the Site Plan Review Committee and the
Planning Commission deem appropriate for this site.
Motion carried 6 to 1. Roger Crabtree opposed.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 4335 Lake Michigan Dr., NW also known on the tax
rolls as 41-13-19-451-033. Hearing requested by Vito Dolci.
The applicant’s request is to reconfigure the west portion of the
parking lot creating a row of compact car parking with a stall depth of
13 ft. instead of the required 16.5 ft. and with a single loaded aisle
27 ft. wide instead of 41 ft. and an aisle width of 14 ft. instead of
the required 15 ft.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. No citizen appeared with respect to this request. He then
read a memo from the Planning Department dated August 3, 2009.
Phil Dolci stated that Tim Allspach measured this site and he felt it
was accurate.
Frank Wash stated that he talked to Tim Allspach and he said that the
dimensions on this plan were as-built dimensions that he took from the
Wallgreen’s as-built plans so they should be accurate. If these
dimensions are true, he has no problem with this variance.
Roger Crabtree asked if McDonalds are required to give them a cross
access?
Frank Wash stated that we have the Wallgreen’s cross access set up
and that would be step two and then if McDonald’s comes in for highway
permits, we would ask for that.
Beth Rogers stated that she has safety concerns here. We are adding
more pedestrian safety issues here. Because Wallgreens is not
operational right now, we do not know what the traffic will be there.
She is concerned about the compact car area, as people do not
necessarily park just compact cars in these areas. She did not feel
parking in the rear was a good idea. She stated she would not park in
the rear and walk around to the front of the building.
James Hickey asked if graphic standards were applied to this site?
Frank Wash replied yes, we started with that saying if you want to
put in 45 degree angle parking, this is what the ordinance says. They
came close except for that 41 ft. dimension. They put as much room as
they could on the site on the plan and then came up short on a couple of
spots and that is why they are here tonight.
James Hickey stated that if you went back to the plan and put
diagonal parking on both sides, up against the building and the small
car parking, this would work better. These people are backing out on a
45 degree angle and they are already in the middle of the aisle. A truck
needs quite a bit of room to turn around. He felt it should be gone
through with diagonal parking on both sides. This can be worked out but
this is a problem. He felt that a diagonal lot would work out but it
needs to be reworked. You need access from the back parking lot and if
you do, you will lose the driveway going through there. He felt it
should be tabled for 2 weeks and the Dolci’s and Mr. Allspach should
rework the plan.
Phil Dolci replied that he does not have a problem tabling this. We
thought about the angle but we wanted to keep the front part two way. If
it could be diagonal that would be OK.
The new Wallgreens have a 26 ft. spread on the large part and we have
24 ft. We would like 26 ft. but felt it would limit the compact parking
spot. We did send letters to all the tenants to have the employees park
in the back.
Robert Marz felt that the pedestrian access should stay.
Vito Dolci stated that we want this done right so we are not opposed
to tabling this.
James Hickey stated he would be willing to sit down with them and Tim
Allspach to go over this to find the best solution.
Bob Marz asked if they had east to west access to get out to Wilson?
Mr. Dolci replied yes they do.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Sandi Howland supported the motion to table
the applicant’s request for two weeks to work out the parking on this
site.
Motion carried 7 to 0.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Brian Boelens supported the motion to approve
the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of June 25, 2009.
Motion carried 7 to 0.
Motion
Roger Crabtree moved and James Hickey supported the motion to adjourn
the Zoning Board of Appeals at 8:30 p.m.
Motion carried 7 to 0.
_______________________________
Roger Crabtree, Secretary
The City
of Walker, Michigan