Minutes and Agendas

ZBA Minutes

MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, September 10, 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 Deschaine; Brian Boelens; James Hickey; Randy Smith; and Beth Rogers. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building Official and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.

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. This variance was approved a few weeks ago. The applicant had two sites on the request, which was labeled # 1 and #2. Mr. Sietsema picked option #1 at that time and now he would like to change the request to option #2. So he is back to the Board for approval of option #2. No citizen appeared with respect to this request.

Mr. Sietsema stated that the #2 location works out better for him.

Jeff Nelson stated that he would like two conditions placed on this request:

1. That they maintain a 55 ft. setback from the property line on Maynard Ave .
2. That they maintain a 30 ft. setback from the other building for a fire lane.

Motion

Charles Deschaine moved and Beth Rogers supported the motion to approve the applicant’s request to expand a non-conforming industrial use by moving a 40 x 40 ft. steel engineered pole building onto the site. This is being changed from location #1 (which was approved on August 13, 2009) to location #2.

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. With over 6 acres of land, the building will not be a problem for adjoining neighbors. The current use will remain the same.

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. Hunderman Redimix at 1050 Maynard has 3 buildings on their site.

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 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.

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. The use would not be allowed in an AA zoning today, the additional building will not change the property, but will help to store more equipment inside instead of on site.

e. Does not apply.

The Board imposed the following conditions:

1. That they maintain a 55 ft. setback from the property line on Maynard Ave.
2. That they maintain a 30 ft. setback from the other building for a fire lane.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

DECISION AND ORDER

Legal Description

Property located at 2105 Nolan Ave. also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-07-476-013. Hearing requested by Gary Nordstrom.

The applicant’s request is to replace existing accessory building with a new 32 x 46 ft. accessory building in the side yard and to maintain existing accessory building until the new building has been constructed.

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 Department of Public Works dated September 3, 2009. No citizen appeared with respect to this request.

Robert Marz asked the applicant if the existing building was going to be taken down and will this building be further back than the existing building?

Mr. Nordstrom replied that yes it will come down after the new building is constructed and it will be another 12 ft. back from the existing building.

Jeff Nelson stated that you are allowed up to 1500 sq. ft. if you have an acre and a half to 3 acres.

The applicant stated that the building materials on this building will match the house. He went on to say that everything from Remembrance Rd. slopes back toward his lot and there is run off water from Deerfield. Between the lots there is a natural drainage. There is a tile that runs halfway from his lot out toward the road. If the garage is put back father it would not work when the water runs off in the spring with heavy rains.

Brian Boelens asked if this building will be used just for storage?

Mr. Nordstrom replied that yes, it will be storage for vehicles and garden tools. This is larger than the original building.

Beth Rogers stated it will be shielded by the pine trees there.

Jeff Nelson stated that if the applicant wants a second driveway he will need a permit from the

ZBA 9-10-09
DPW Department.

Mr. Nordstrom stated he did not plan on putting a driveway in at this time.

Motion

James Hickey moved and Beth Rogers supported the motion to approve the applicant’s request to replace existing accessory building with a new 32 x 46 ft. accessory building in the side yard and to maintain existing accessory building until the new building has been constructed.

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. This request would place the new accessory building 101 ft. off Nolan Ave. and 78.5 ft. from the house. Further setback would cause problems with water runoff. The area behind the building is needed for natural drainage.

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. 3442 Peach Ridge (Side Yard)
961 Timberwinds (Side Yard)

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 this request will not be a detriment to the neighbors because the new accessory building will be built behind the existing building. The new building will appear to be physically located in the rear yard.

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. Will not hinder the neighbor’s view because the placement is next to a tree line.

e. Does not apply.

The Board imposed the following conditions:

1. Building to be started in 6 months and finished in one year.
2. 30 days after building is constructed, current accessory building to be demolished.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

DECISION AND ORDER

Legal Description

Property located at 3976 Woodstream also known on the tax rolls as
41-17-05-165-011. Hearing requested by Paul Gessner.

The applicant’s request is to build a 1588 sq. ft. accessory building instead of the required 1200 sq. ft. with 16 ft. side walls instead of the required 14 ft. and located in the side yard instead of the required rear yard.

Finding of Facts

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. He then read a letter from a neighbor dated September 10, 2009 opposing this request.

Mr. Gessner stated he had a letter from the resident at 3975 Woodstream stating that he had no objection to this request. This resident lives directly across the street from the applicant.

James Hickey stated that Mr. Gessner stated he could not place this building in the backyard because of geothermal loops. He asked why not?

Mr. Gessner stated that it would be hard to have the accessory building in the rear
yard. The geothermal loops are located behind the house in the grassy area and he stated he could not put a frost wall above these loops, they are six feet in the ground, three feet wide, and a hundred feet long and there are six of them. They take up 15 ft. of space that is 200 ft. long. It is impossible to fit an accessory building there.

James Hickey stated he did not know why these loops were that large as geothermal loops usually pump back into the ground. The people who live at 3975 Woodstream would be looking directly into this building. He did not feel that any house in this neighborhood should have an accessory building sitting that close to the road. He felt it should go behind the house so it is not so noticeable. He stated he has a problem with where the applicant wants to place this building. He went on to say that the thermal loops will not be affected on where you can place this building.

Charles Deschaine stated that he felt the building was too large and too close to the property line on the east side.

Robert Marz, Chairman stated he had a problem with the height and size of this building.

James Hickey stated that he would not have a problem with this building being on the opposite side of the house because no one would be looking at it.

Mr. Gessner replied that there are daylight openings and it does drop 4 or 5 feet. The grade starts to drop down in front of the garage. So the plane from the front of the garage to the backyard is all the same level. He went on to say that he was unaware of the driveway requirements. He did not know if he had to have a drive that would go straight out to road or if he would have to 90 that driveway to his existing driveway. He felt that if he had to put the driveway on the side of the house, it would make it very long and cost prohibitive.

Jeff Nelson stated that the applicant is asking for 16 ft. side walls and with 14 ft. side walls he would have to be 15 ft. off the property line. For 16 ft. he should be 20 ft. off the property line.

Mr. Gessner stated that the accessory bulding is going to be on the same plane from front to back and on the same level. The slope is 30 ft. in front of where the accessory building will be placed.

Randy Smith asked where the overhead garage doors will be placed.

Mr. Gessner replied that there will be two and they will be facing the street.

Mr. Schultz, the developer would like the building placed as far back on the property as possible and that would be just in front of the drain field.

The Board felt that the applicant could have the accessory building in back of the house and meet the ordinance requirements.

Roger Crabtree commented that the size of an accessory building does not depend on the number of toys that you own. This ordinance was recently changed to allow more square footage. If you need more height you can go to scissor trusses in the middle of the building. There is nothing extraordinary about this lot.

Robert Marz, Chairman stated that he felt if this variance was granted, it would set a precedence for the neighborhood.
Motion

Beth Rogers moved and James Hickey supported the motion to deny the applicant’s request to build a 1588 sq. ft. accessory building instead of the required 1200 sq. ft. with 16 ft. side walls instead of the required 14 ft. and located in the side yard instead of the require rear yard. The Board felt that the
applicant failed to prove exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that apply to his property.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

DECISION AND ORDER

Legal Description

Property located at 2332 Alpine Ave. also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-12-301-012. Hearing requested by Valley City Sign.

The applicant’s request is to 1. Replace existing pole sign with a ground mounted sign 13.88 ft. high instead of the required 6 ft. 2. 115.9 sq. ft in area instead of the 48 sq. ft. allowed. 3. An aluminum base instead of the required masonry. 4. To expand existing non-conforming sign on the face of the building by replacing 8.33 sq. ft. wall sign with a 12.33 sq. ft. sign.

Finding of Facts

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

Jeff Hammond, Spectrum Health stated that they wish to withdraw the request for the pylon sign and work within the ordinance. The only sign on the building that we are requesting a variance for is the urgent care sign on the side of the building. It will be better visibility for people entering the driveway.

Robert Marz stated that the City Planner does not have a problem with the wall mounted sign because of the emergency situation.

Motion

Charles Deschaine moved and Randy Smith supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request to expand the existing non-conforming sign on the face of the building by replacing 8.33 sq. ft. wall sign with a 12.33 sq. ft. sign.

a. 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. This facility is an urgent care facility and so needs to be easily identified as do the various entrances/tenants of the facility.

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. Ground and wall

signs are permitted in this district. The request for a variance is to help make the signs more visible and to direct the public to the various entrances quickly and easily especially in an emergency situation.

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 approval of the request will not be a detriment to the adjacent properties. The wall sign is for immediate access or for emergency services and will not affect neighboring properties.

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. This is not a recurrent problem.

e. Does not apply.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Motion

Beth Rogers moved and James Hickey supported the motion to approve the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of August 13, 2009.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Motion

Roger Crabtree moved and Brian Boelens supported the motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:35 p.m.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

_____________________________
Roger Crabtree, Secretary

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.