Zoning Board of Appeals

Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, September 25, 2019 7:00 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Minutes of July 24, 2019, regular meeting 3. General Public Comment: This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non-public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required 4. Case # 19-013 – 2118 Pheasant Avenue N.W. Applicant and owner Robin Blakeslee seeks a dimensional variance to construct a +/- 604-459-sq. ft. addition, to the side of an existing +/- 1,757-sq. ft. home with an existing +/- 600-529-sq. ft. attached garage, which encroaches to within 9’ of the side lot line, contrary to Section 94-188(a) of the Walker zoning ordinance, which requires a 10’ minimum side yard setback for A-zoned properties. The subject property is located at 2118 Pheasant Avenue N.W. (PPN 41-13-09-354-007) and is zoned A - Single Family Residential. 5. Case #19-014 – 3050 Fruit Ridge Avenue N.W. Applicant Jason Berris on behalf of owner Stars Real Estate LLC seeks a dimensional variances to remove an existing pylon sign and replace it with a pylon sign with a total area of 108 sq. ft. and a total height of up to 26’. This is contrary to Section 94-410(c)(3)(iii) and 94-410(c)(4) of the Walker zoning ordinance, which limits new pylon signs to an overall height of 20’ and a total area of 80-sq. ft. The subject property is located at 3050 Fruit Ridge Avenue N.W. (PPN 41-13-05-340-006) and is zoned C-4 – Outdoor Commercial. 6. Zoning Board of Appeals member/Staff Comments Page 1 of 67 7. Adjournment Page 2 of 67  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Wednesday, July 24, 2019 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Vice Chairman Brian Boelens, Scott Funke, Roger Crabtree, Patrick Nolan, Craig Taestch, and Elaina Huizenga. Members absent: Chairman Bob Marz, Tom Winkelman, and Randy Smith. Staff Present: Dan Power, Planning Director / Zoning Administrator. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Vice Chairman Boelens open the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers. REVIEW MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2019 REGULAR MEETING D. Power remarked that there were formatting errors regarding the attendees at the meeting. R. Crabtree motioned to approve the July 10, 2019 minutes subject to changes according to Power’s comments. Second by S. Funke. Motion carried unanimously. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non- public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding nonpublic hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required. There was no public comment. CASE # 19-012 – 2640 MULLINS AVENUE N.W. - SIGN (DIMENSIONAL) VARIANCE REQUEST Applicant Midwest Sign Company on behalf of owner David Zuspann / Steele Marcia Trust has applied seeking to install two wall signs, each 80-sf, with a total sign area of 160-sf, to be installed on front walls of two buildings located at 2640 Mullins Avenue NW (PPN 41-13-08-201- 025), zoned ML-Light Industrial and MH-Heavy Industrial. This is contrary to Sec. 94- Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 7-24-19 Page 1 of 3 Page 3 of 67 411(d)(1)(iii) of the Walker Zoning Ordinance, which restricts industrially zoned sites with a building footprint of less than 100,000-sf to 80-sf of total permissible wall signage. Applicant Midwest Sign Company on behalf of owner David Zuspann / Steele Marcia Trust has applied seeking to install two wall signs, each 80-sf, with a total sign area of 160-sf, to be installed on front walls of two buildings located at 2640 Mullins Avenue NW (PPN 41-13-08-201-025), zoned ML-Light Industrial and MH-Heavy Industrial. This is contrary to Sec. 94-411(d)(1)(iii) of the Walker Zoning Ordinance, which restricts industrially zoned sites with a building footprint of less than 100,000-sf to 80-sf of total permissible wall signage. B. Boelens summarized the findings of fact as provided by the applicant: Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying 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. Applicant’s response: They have two different businesses at one address and would like a sign for both. Preservation of Rights: That such 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 possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. Applicant’s response: They are two separate businesses that would like to be identified separately. No Detriment: Authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Applicant’s response: This is a sign so it will not be a detriment. They are non-lit. Not a General Problem: That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Applicant’s response: These signs will not be a general problem as they are located on the buildings on the property. They will be non-lit signs. D. Power summarized zoning background and findings in a series of slides. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Motion to open the public hearing by R. Crabtree, second by P. Nolan. Motion carried unanimously. Applicant Jeremy Kok, Midwest Sign Company, explained the rationale for the requested signage package and details of the application. Some questions were exchanged. C. Taestch introduced the idea that the smaller “HS Inc.” sign proposed for the automation building could be replicated for the tool and dye portion of the site. Discussion was held between the applicant, the ZBA and staff about C. Taestch’s idea. Discussion was also held about the opportunity to reinterpret signage such that sign areas can be calculated separately via “shrink-wrapped” measurements around each individual sign component. This would reduce the overall sign area proposed. Some discussion was held regarding the ability to divide the lot into two distinct lots – one for each building. D. Power described some constraints due to there not being adequate fully improved street frontage serving both proposed lots. The ZBA came to a consensus that, between the reduction of logo sign area and the re-interpretation of sign measurements, the sign variance would not be necessary and should be denied. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 7-24-19 Page 2 of 3 Page 4 of 67 J. Kok agreed to withdraw the application. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Motion to close public hearing by E. Huizenga, second by P. Nolan. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION C. Taestch made a motion to agree with the interpretation that staff could allow the area of signage to be based on a linear shrink-wrapped space and for the total sign area to be limited to 80 square feet. Based on this finding and the applicant’s withdrawal, the application by applicant Midwest Sign Company on behalf of owner David Zuspann / Steele Marcia Trust to install two wall signs, each 80-sf, with a total sign area of 160-sf, to be installed on front walls of two buildings located at 2640 Mullins Avenue NW (PPN 41-13-08-201-025), zoned ML-Light Industrial and MH- Heavy Industrial, contrary to Sec. 94-411(d)(1)(iii) of the Walker Zoning Ordinance, which restricts industrially zoned sites with a building footprint of less than 100,000-sf to 80-sf of total permissible wall signage, is denied. P. Nolan supported the motion. Yays: 6 Nays: 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBER/STAFF COMMENTS Power stated that there are no meetings immediately scheduled and gave a brief update on the Chair. C. Taestch announced his vacating his position as ZBA member due to family commitments. The ZBA congratulated and thanked C. Taestch. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the hearing by R. Crabtree, second by C. Taestch. Motion carried unanimously. Roger Crabtree, Secretary Andrea Hendrick, Recording Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 7-24-19 Page 3 of 3 Page 5 of 67  Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, September 25, 2019 7:00 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Minutes of July 24, 2019, regular meeting 3. General Public Comment: This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non-public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required. 4. Case # 19-013 – 2118 Pheasant Avenue N.W. Applicant and owner Robin Blakeslee seeks a dimensional variance to construct a +/- 604-459-sq. ft. addition, to the side of an existing +/- 1,757-sq. ft. home with an existing +/- 600-529-sq. ft. attached garage, which encroaches to within 9’ of the side lot line, contrary to Section 94-188(a) of the Walker zoning ordinance, which requires a 10’ minimum side yard setback for A-zoned properties. The subject property is located at 2118 Pheasant Avenue N.W. (PPN 41-13-09-354-007) and is zoned A - Single Family Residential. 5. Case #19-014 – 3050 Fruit Ridge Avenue N.W. Applicant Jason Berris on behalf of owner Stars Real Estate LLC seeks a dimensional variance to remove an existing pylon sign and replace it with a pylon sign with a total area of 108 sq. ft. and a total height of up to 26’. This is contrary to Section 94-410(c) of the Walker zoning ordinance, which limits new pylon signs to an overall height of 20’ and a total area of 80-sq. ft. The subject property is located at 3050 Fruit Ridge Avenue N.W. (PPN 41-13-05-340-006) and is zoned C-4 – Outdoor Commercial. 6. Adjournment 1 Page 6 of 67  2 Page 7 of 67 Table of Contents: Case ZBA 19-013: 2118 Pheasant Avenue N.W. Dimensional Variance Request Planning Director report dated 9-19-2019 (5) Application materials and communications with applicant (9) Site Imagery (21) Exhibit A. Summary of Lot Areas - Richmond Meadows No. 1 and No. 2 Plats (23) Exhibit B. Analysis of Side Setback Adherence in Nearby Walker Properties (25) Exhibit C. Estimation of Visual Impact (27) Exhibit D. Potential Process Chart (29) Model Motion (31) 3 Page 8 of 67  4 Page 9 of 67  2118 Pheasant Avenue N.W. – Dimensional Variance Request To: City of Walker Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Power – City of Walker Planning Director Date: September 19, 2019 Request and Findings of Fact Applicant and owner Robin Blakeslee seeks a dimensional variance to construct a +/- 604-459- sq. ft. addition, to the side of an existing +/- 1,757-sq. ft. home with an existing +/- 600-529-sq. ft. attached garage, which encroaches to within 9’ of the side lot line, contrary to Section 94- 188(a) of the Walker zoning ordinance, which requires a 10’ minimum side yard setback for A- zoned properties. The subject property is located at 2118 Pheasant Avenue N.W. (PPN 41-13- 09-354-007) and is zoned A - Single Family Residential. The dimensions described above are based on a general analysis performed by staff based on a computer modeling and scaling method. The applicant has further clarified that the floor areas of the proposed addition, based on interior dimensions are as follow: - Existing garage: 529-sq. ft. - Proposed addition o Garage portion: 334-sq. ft. o Laundry room portion: 125-sq. ft. o Total: 459-sq. ft. I have attached application materials, site imagery, and a model motion to this review packet, along with a set of exhibits highlight aspects of my analysis of the four dimensional variance criteria. When deciding on this case, the ZBA should address the specific variance standards noted in State of Michigan Law and in Section 94-59 of our Walker Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has offered a narrative that explains his variance request. I will offer my opinions using the four “questions for findings” found on the application on the following pages. 1. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying 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. Applicant’s response: The width of the garage is designed with minimal dimensions to house a boat; which would otherwise be stored in the side yard. 5 Page 10 of 67  My response: More than any other feature of a property, lot size impacts the ability for to a building addition’s ability to fit within required setbacks. In this case, it is helpful to consider whether this lot has an exceptionally or extraordinarily small lot. See Exhibit A. The subject lot’s area is 14,910.4 square feet. This leads to two different size analyses: - Slightly undersized in relation to surrounding lots. Within the context of the two platted subdivisions and 49 lots adjacent to the subject lot, the subject lot has an area that is slightly smaller (+/- 85.4 square feet smaller) than the mean of the 49 lots surrounding and including it, and significantly smaller (+/- 7,059 square feet smaller) than the median of this sample. - Adequately sized in context of district standards. It should also be noted that the minimum lot area in this zoning district - within which buildings are expected to meet the 10’ minimum side yard setback - is 11,880-sq. ft. - roughly 3,030-sq. ft. smaller than the subject lot. In my interpretation, this is not an exceptionally or extraordinarily limited lot area. However, the ZBA may consider that the limits on lot area are proportional to the relatively minor encroachment being sought (1’) is proportional the relatively small size of the lot within the context of its neighborhood. - Finding: The ZBA should discuss their interpretation of whether this criterion has been met. 2. Preservation of Rights: That such 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 possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. Applicant’s response: Being that the proposed garage is not a living space and will be used for storage; we request that the variance be approved. The exterior will tie into the existing home and the roof will also be integrated using the same materials. The immediate neighbor was granted a variance to encroach 6'. My response: See exhibits B-1 - B-3. The applicant makes a valid point that storage and living space are rights enjoyed by properties in the same zoning district and vicinity. The significant majority of properties in the same zoning district and vicinity were able to accommodate these types of features without encroaching into required side yard setbacks. However, there are two examples of properties where side yard setbacks were granted within the vicinity of the subject lot and within the zoning district, according to our records: - 2132 Pheasant Avenue N.W. 6’ side yard setback encroachment variance granted 3-10- 1988. - 2099 Lamont Court N.W. 2’ side yard setback encroachment variance granted 6-26- 2008. - Finding: The ZBA should discuss their interpretation of whether this criterion has been met. 6 Page 11 of 67 3. No Detriment: Authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Applicant’s response: The proposed garage addition meets all construction standards and is designed to enhance the neighborhood. It would be less desirable to park it exposed in the existing side yard. My response: Setback regulations were partially put in place to prevent visual obtrusiveness and to mitigate potential nuisance issues between neighboring properties. An addition that aesthetically and spatially complements the architecture of the surrounding area may avoid these issues. The applicant has provided elevation drawings with the application to demonstrate the addition’s architectural character. See Exhibit C for my estimation of the visual impact of this addition in relation to the neighboring property. Side yard setbacks were also put in place to mitigate fire safety risks between structures. Considering the neighboring property’s side yard encroachment as well as this proposed encroachment, I will ask our chief fire inspector to review plans prior to the building official issuing a permit for this addition, if the variance is approved. I also advise the ZBA to receive any concerns or comments of support regarding this request. These comments can often be telling in terms of potential “detriments” posed by a particular variance request.  Finding: Pending fire safety compliance, and pending no additional aesthetic or safety concerns discussed at the meeting, this criterion is likely met. 4. Not a General Problem: That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Applicant’s response: The addition meets all standards and will not have any impact on the immediate neighbor’s house to the north at 2132 Pheasant Avenue. My response: See exhibit D. This request is unique and does not represent a broader trend requiring a zoning ordinance text amendment.  Finding: This criterion is met. Final Thoughts and Recommendations The ZBA may grant, conditionally grant, table, or deny the requested variance. The ZBA should not consider granting the requested variance unless they carefully weigh, and agree upon favorable findings for, all four dimensional variance “findings of fact”. In my interpretation, the “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances” and “preservation of rights” criteria need to be 7 Page 12 of 67 more closely assessed by the ZBA. It would appropriate to deny the variance request if either of those criteria is not met. If the ZBA is inclined to approve the requested variance, I recommend that prior to the issuance of a building permit, a final set of calculations is evaluated to ensure compliance with garage and accessory building limits in Section 94-352 of the Walker zoning ordinance, and the plan should be reviewed by Walker’s chief fire inspector. Understanding the depth of the ZBA’s history in cases like this, and their role in interpreting State law and the City of Walker’s Zoning Ordinance, I defer to their judgement in evaluating the findings of fact regarding the official merits of the requested variance. They may also decide to further evaluate the case based on the facts as presented by the applicant at the public hearing on the case on September 25, 2019, and by any comments made by neighboring property owners or the general public at that time. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this case. Sincerely, Dan Power, AICP - City of Walker Planning Director CC: Michael Witkin and Robin Blakeslee - Applicant and owner representatives Frank Wash, AICP, SHRM-CP - Walker Assistant City Manager / Community Development Director Meghann Gorby - Walker Code Enforcement Specialist 8 Page 13 of 67  9 Page 14 of 67  10 Page 15 of 67  11 Page 16 of 67  12 Page 17 of 67  13 Page 18 of 67 Daniel Power From: Daniel Power Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 11:52 AM To: Michael Witkin Subject: 2118 Pheasant ZBA application clarification Hi Michael: Can you clarify the following with respect to your ZBA application?: ‐ Proposed floor area of “laundry room” component of addition: ____ ‐ Proposed floor area of “garage” portion of addition: _____ Note – our records show there is an existing +/‐ 600‐sq. ft. garage on the property. Is this going to remain? Is a wall going to be removed so a new stall is accommodated for that garage in the addition? I also note that the house’s floor area is 1,757‐sf according to our assessing records. Note also that per Sec. 94‐ 352(2)(b)(1) of our zoning ordinance, the attached garage’s total area is limited to 923.4‐sf, based on this floor area (832‐sf for first 1,300‐sf of home floor area, plus 1‐sf for each additional 5‐sf of home floor area [+91.4‐sf]). So, this means that the proposed addition being roughly 600‐sf, in addition to the existing 600‐sf garage, must have garage space that is limited to 323.4‐sf (and the remaining +/‐ 276.6‐sf must be for the laundry room and other space not dedicated to the garage). We can catch up about this next week. Have a good holiday weekend in the meantime. Thank you, Dan Power, AICP Planning Director I City of Walker Phone# (616) 791‐6879 Office hours M‐Th 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m and Friday 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. See Planning Commission‐reviewed development in Walker on this map. 1 14 Page 19 of 67 Daniel Power From: Michael Witkin <michael@mwarchitects.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 11:05 AM To: Daniel Power Subject: Fwd: 2118 Pheasant ZBA application clarification ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Michael Witkin <michael@mwarchitects.net> Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:01 AM Subject: Re: 2118 Pheasant ZBA application clarification To: Michael Witkin <michael@mwarchitects.net> Hi Dan, With reference to our discussion I have calculated the existing and proposed sq footage as follows: Existing garage = 529 sf Proposed garage addition = 334 sf Laundry addition = 125 sf Total 459 sf The proposed garage is contiguous with the existing garage and is connected with a doorway The addition is integrated with the existing home and garage; as the design incorporates the same materials, roof pitch etc that will impart a single unified elevation to the street. Thank you in advance for your consideration and trust that this will meet with your approval. Michael On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 11:27 PM Michael Witkin <michael@mwarchitects.net> wrote: ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Michael Witkin <michael@mwarchitects.net> Date: Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 2:10 PM 1 15 Page 20 of 67 Subject: Fwd: 2118 Pheasant ZBA application clarification To: Michael Witkin <michael@mwarchitects.net> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Daniel Power <dpower@walker.city> Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:52 AM Subject: 2118 Pheasant ZBA application clarification To: Michael Witkin <michael@mwarchitects.net> Hi Michael: Can you clarify the following with respect to your ZBA application?:  Proposed floor area of “laundry room” component of addition: ____  Proposed floor area of “garage” portion of addition: _____ Note – our records show there is an existing +/‐ 600‐sq. ft. garage on the property. Is this going to remain? Is a wall going to be removed so a new stall is accommodated for that garage in the addition? I also note that the house’s floor area is 1,757‐sf according to our assessing records. Note also that per Sec. 94‐ 352(2)(b)(1) of our zoning ordinance, the attached garage’s total area is limited to 923.4‐sf, based on this floor area (832‐sf for first 1,300‐sf of home floor area, plus 1‐sf for each additional 5‐sf of home floor area [+91.4‐sf]). So, this means that the proposed addition being roughly 600‐sf, in addition to the existing 600‐sf garage, must have garage space that is limited to 323.4‐sf (and the remaining +/‐ 276.6‐sf must be for the laundry room and other space not dedicated to the garage). We can catch up about this next week. Have a good holiday weekend in the meantime. Thank you, 2 16 Page 21 of 67  Dan Power, AICP Planning Director I City of Walker Phone# (616) 791‐6879 Office hours M‐Th 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m and Friday 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. See Planning Commission‐reviewed development in Walker on this map. ‐‐ Michael Witkin ‐‐ Michael Witkin ‐‐ Michael Witkin Architects 547 Ethel Ave Se Grand Rapids, MI 49506 TEL: (616) 808‐7426 www.mwarchitects.net ‐‐ Michael Witkin Architects 547 Ethel Ave Se Grand Rapids, MI 49506 TEL: (616) 808‐7426 www.mwarchitects.net 3 17 Page 22 of 67  AA A-3 This drawing is the sole property of MWA Architects and is a copyrighted document and is not to be used or reproduced without their written consent. C Blakesely Residence Page 23 of 67 2865 Whitneyville Ada, Mi. 49301 Addition to AA A-3 Issued For: PERMIT C:\Users\Owner\Dropbox\190703-Blakesley Garage\Working Drawings\A-1.dwg, 9/5/2019 11:00:01 AM Foundation Plan Floor Plan 05/20/2019 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" Date: Seal: Drawn: Project Number Sheet Number A1 18  NEW ROOF: ASPHALT SHINGLES ON SYNTHETIC ROOF FELT This drawing is the sole property ON 5/8" T&G PLYWOOD ROOF DECK ON WOOD of MWA Architects and is a ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. (FINISH ROOF TO copyrighted document and is not to be used or reproduced MATCH ADJACENT EXIST.) without their written consent. C PROVIDE METAL FLASHING 1'-10" 2'-0" BETWEEN NEW ROOF & EXISTING WALL INTERFACE EXIST WALL BEYOND REMOVE AND REINSTALL VINYL SIDING AS REQ'D. DUE TO NEW CONSTRUCTION ICE & WATER SHIELD CARD BOARD BAFFLE CARD BOARD BAFFLE ROOF INSULATION ROOF TRUSS BRG. EL. = 108'-1 1/8" Blakesely Residence NEW ROOF & GUTTER TO LINE UP WITH AND MATCH EXIST. ROOF & DOUBLE 2x4 TOP PLATE GUTTER 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP. BD. ON UNDERSIDE OF WOOD Page 24 of 67 CONT METAL DRIP ROOF TRUSSES EDGE / FLASHING NEW GUTTER & DOWN SPOUT SYSTEM METAL CLAD FASCIA WALL CONSTR. : CONT VENTED SOFFIT VINYL SIDING ON "TYVEK ON 5/8" EXT. GR. SHEATHING BD. 8'-1 1/8" 2865 Whitneyville WALL CONSTR. : ON 2x4 WOOD STUD FRAMING PAINTED 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP. Ada, Mi. 49301 @ 16" O.C. W/ PAINTED 5/8" ON EA. SIDE OF 2x4 WOOD GYP. BD. INTERIOR FINISH STUD FRAMING @ 16" O.C. FACE Addition to CRAFT FACE BATT INSULATION TREATED 2x4 SILL PLATE ON SILL SEAL ANCHOR TO CONC. 4" CONC. FLOOR SLAB MAIN FLOOR TOP ON VAPOR BARRIER OF WOOD FLOOR COMP. FILL DECK EL. = 100'-0" 1'-0" Issued For: PERMIT C:\Users\Owner\Dropbox\190703-Blakesley Garage\Working Drawings\A-2.dwg, 9/5/2019 11:00:42 AM TOP OF CONC. SLAB EL. = 98'-5"+/- V.I.F. 1/4" COMP. FILLER Roof Plan 3'-6" MIN. 3'-6" MIN. 4" CONC. FLOOR SLAB 05/20/2019 NEW 8" CONC. FOUND. WALL 2" RIGID PERIMETER W/ (1) #5 T & B ) ON 8"x16" 4" 8" 4" 4" 8" 4" ON COMP. FILL. SLOPE 1/4" = 1'-0" INSULATION Date: CONC. FOOTING TYP. SLAB 2" TO GARAGE DOOR Seal: 8" 8" Drawn: Project Number Sheet Number Wall Section 1 A-2 3/4" = 1'-0" A2 19  This drawing is the sole property of MWA Architects and is a copyrighted document and is not to be used or reproduced without their written consent. C 1 A-2 ROOF TRUSS BRG. ROOF TRUSS BRG. EL. = 108'-1 1/8" EL. = 108'-1 1/8" Blakesely Residence Page 25 of 67 MAIN FLOOR TOP OF MAIN FLOOR TOP OF WOOD FLOOR DECK WOOD FLOOR DECK EL. = 100'-0" EL. = 100'-0" TOP OF CONC. SLAB TOP OF CONC. SLAB EL. = 98'-5"+/- V.I.F. EL. = 99'-0"+/- V.I.F. 2865 Whitneyville NEW 8" CONC. FOUND. Ada, Mi. 49301 WALL W/ (1) #5 T & B ) ON 8"x16" CONC. FOOTING TYP. Exterior Side Elevation Section "AA" 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" Addition to Issued For: PERMIT C:\Users\Owner\Dropbox\190703-Blakesley Garage\Working Drawings\A-3.dwg, 9/5/2019 11:01:13 AM ROOF TRUSS BRG. ROOF TRUSS BRG. 05/20/2019 Date: EL. = 108'-1 1/8" EL. = 108'-1 1/8" Seal: 1'-3" 7'-1" MAIN FLOOR TOP OF MAIN FLOOR TOP OF WOOD FLOOR DECK 5'-10" WOOD FLOOR DECK EL. = 100'-0" EL. = 100'-0" Drawn: TOP OF CONC. SLAB TOP OF CONC. SLAB EL. = 98'-5"+/- V.I.F. EL. = 99'-0"+/- V.I.F. Project Number NEW 8" CONC. FOUND. WALL W/ (1) #5 T NEW 8" CONC. FOUND. & B ) ON 8"x16" CONC. FOOTING TYP. Sheet Number WALL W/ (1) #5 T & B ) ON 8"x16" CONC. Front Exterior Elevation Rear Exterior Elevation FOOTING TYP. 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" A3 20  Site Image Courtesy of Connect Explorer Pictometry, 2018 Page 26 of 67 21  22 Page 27 of 67 Exhibit A. Summary of Lot Areas - Richmond Meadows No. 1 and No. 2 Plats Subject lot area: 14,910.4 square feet Richmond Meadows No. 1 and No. 2 plats: 49 lots Median lot area: 14,995.8 square feet. Mean lot area: 21,969.4 square feet. 23 Page 28 of 67  24 Page 29 of 67  Exhibit B. Analysis of Side Setback Adherence in Nearby Walker Properties Focus Area ‐ Pheasant Avenue, Lamont Avenue, and Lamont Court ‐ Two (2) side yard setback variances on record (shown below) Page 30 of 67 2132 Pheasant Avenue NW 2099 Lamont Ct. NW 25  26 Page 31 of 67  Exhibit C. Estimation of Visual Impact Page 32 of 67 27  28 Page 33 of 67  Exhibit D. Potential Process Chart Is the City of Walker CDD fielding a significant number of requests for side yard setback variances? YES NO Is it apparent that there are many instances of non-conformities evident in this zoning district related to this issue? YES NO May a general ordinance provision to grant a reduction in the required side yard setback be desirable and consistent with the intent of the Walker Zoning Ordinance? YES NO Page 34 of 67 The “general problem” criterion The “general is not met and action on this problem” criterion is request should be held until the met and action on Walker Ordinance Committee has this request should be a chance to discuss and consider decided by the ZBA addressing this issue as an based on the merits ordinance text amendment. of this case. 29  30 Page 35 of 67  -1- 2118 Pheasant Avenue N.W. – Dimensional Variance Request September 25, 2019 MOTION – 9-25-2019 Case 19-013: I make a motion to (approve / deny) the request by applicant and owner Robin Blakeslee to construct a +/- 604-459-sq. ft. addition, to the side of an existing +/- 1,757-sq. ft. home with an existing +/- 600-529-sq. ft. attached garage, which encroaches to within 9’ of the side lot line, contrary to Section 94-188(a) of the Walker zoning ordinance, which requires a 10’ minimum side yard setback for A-zoned properties, for the subject property at 2118 Pheasant Avenue N.W. (PPN 41-13-09-354-007), based on the findings of fact derived from Section 94-59 of the Walker Zoning Ordinance: 1. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying 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. Applicant’s response: The width of the garage is designed with minimal dimensions to house a boat; which would otherwise be stored in the side yard. Findings: 2. Preservation of Rights: That such 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 possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. Applicant’s response: Being that the proposed garage is not a living space and will be used for storage; we request that the variance be approved. The exterior will tie into the existing home and the roof will also be integrated using the same materials. The immediate neighbor was granted a variance to encroach 6'. Findings: 3. No Detriment: Authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Applicant’s response: The proposed garage addition meets all construction standards and is designed to enhance the neighborhood. It would be less desirable to park it exposed in the existing side yard. Findings: 31 Page 36 of 67  -2- 4. Not a General Problem: That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Applicant’s response: The addition meets all standards and will not have any impact on the immediate neighbor’s house to the north at 2132 Pheasant Avenue. Findings: Conditions: Recommended Condition (if variance is granted): - Prior to issuance of a building permit: o A final set of calculations is evaluated to ensure compliance with garage and accessory building limits in Section 94-352 of the Walker zoning ordinance; and o The plan will be reviewed by Walker’s chief fire inspector. Additional condition: __________________________________________________ Additional condition: __________________________________________________ Motion made by:__________ Support from:__________ Ayes:__________ Nays:__________ Motion carries / fails 32 Page 37 of 67  Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, September 25, 2019 7:00 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Minutes of July 24, 2019, regular meeting 3. General Public Comment: This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non-public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required. 4. Case # 19-013 – 2118 Pheasant Avenue N.W. Applicant and owner Robin Blakeslee seeks a dimensional variance to construct a +/- 604-459-sq. ft. addition, to the side of an existing +/- 1,757-sq. ft. home with an existing +/- 600-529-sq. ft. attached garage, which encroaches to within 9’ of the side lot line, contrary to Section 94-188(a) of the Walker zoning ordinance, which requires a 10’ minimum side yard setback for A-zoned properties. The subject property is located at 2118 Pheasant Avenue N.W. (PPN 41-13-09-354-007) and is zoned A - Single Family Residential. 5. Case #19-014 – 3050 Fruit Ridge Avenue N.W. Applicant Jason Berris on behalf of owner Stars Real Estate LLC seeks a dimensional variances to remove an existing pylon sign and replace it with a pylon sign with a total area of 108 sq. ft. and a total height of up to 26’. This is contrary to Section 94-410(c)(3)(iii) and 94-410(c)(4) of the Walker zoning ordinance, which limits new pylon signs to an overall height of 20’ and a total area of 80-sq. ft. The subject property is located at 3050 Fruit Ridge Avenue N.W. (PPN 41-13-05-340- 006) and is zoned C-4 – Outdoor Commercial. 6. Adjournment 1 Page 38 of 67  2 Page 39 of 67 Table of Contents: Case ZBA 19-014: 3050 Fruit Ridge Avenue N.W. Sign (Dimensional) Variance Requests Planning Director report dated 9-19-2019 (5) Application materials and communications with applicant (9) Site Imagery (17) Exhibit A. Comparison with other C-4 lot areas (19) Exhibit B. Comparison with other C-4 lots’ and pylon signage (21) Exhibit C-1. Sign Change Analysis (23) Exhibit C-2. Signs as a percentage of lot area (25) Exhibit D. Potential Process Chart (27) Model Motion (29) 3 Page 40 of 67  4 Page 41 of 67  3050 Fruit Ridge Avenue N.W. – Sign (Dimensional) Variance Request To: City of Walker Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Power – City of Walker Planning Director Date: September 19, 2019 Request and Findings of Fact Applicant Jason Berris on behalf of owner Stars Real Estate LLC seeks a dimensional variances to remove an existing pylon sign and replace it with a pylon sign with a total area of 108 sq. ft. and a total height of up to 26’. This is contrary to Section 94-410(c)(3)(iii) and 94- 410(c)(4) of the Walker zoning ordinance, which limits new pylon signs to an overall height of 20’ and a total area of 80-sq. ft. The subject property is located at 3050 Fruit Ridge Avenue N.W. (PPN 41-13-05-340-006) and is zoned C-4 – Outdoor Commercial. I have attached application materials, site imagery, and a model motion to this review packet, along with a set of exhibits highlight aspects of my analysis of the four dimensional variance criteria. When deciding on this case, the ZBA should address the specific variance standards noted in State of Michigan Law and in Section 94-59 of our Walker Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has offered a narrative that explains his variance request. I will offer my opinions using the four “questions for findings” found on the application on the following pages. I also note that the applicant used some information from a preliminary analysis regarding his request that I provided him with. 1. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying 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. Applicant’s response: The site / lot area (112,947-sf) is significantly larger than the median (46,072-sf) lot area for occupied C-4 lots in Walker. We purchased the lot to the north and have combined the two lots into one. Also, the existing sign is in the MDOT ROW and has to be relocated within our property lines. My response: The applicant is correctly referencing my research regarding lot areas of known C-4-zoned lots in Walker, and I agree that their newly combined property is significantly larger than the median lot area in this zone district. See Exhibit A. The lot area of 112,497-sq. ft. exceeds the district minimum (40,000-sq. ft.) and median (46,072-sq. ft.) by more than double. The ZBA should consider whether this relatively large lot size warrants 5 Page 42 of 67  a need for higher, proportional visibility for commercial messaging via the allotment of a larger and taller sign than permitted under the zoning ordinance. The applicant is also referencing the need to move an existing pylon sign, which is larger than the proposed pylon sign, due to the presence of expansive MDOT right-of-way that the existing sign currently falls within. The existing sign would be permitted to remain in place as a lawful non-conforming sign if it was not in the MDOT right-of-way. The MDOT right-of-way is pictured below: < 75’ > . - Finding: The ZBA should consider whether the relatively large lot size and the presence of a 75’ MDOT right-of-way pose “exceptional or extraordinary” circumstances and consider whether this criterion is met. 2. Preservation of Rights: That such 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 possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. Applicant’s response: 13/19 other C-4 zoned lots in Walker have pylon signs. 9/13 of these lots’ pylon signs have a larger area and/or height than Sec. 94-410 currently allows. By combining the two lots, there will be less signage in the area than if there was still the two separate businesses. 6 Page 43 of 67  My response: The applicant is correctly referencing information on Exhibit B attached to this report. 9/13 pylon signs on C-4-zoned lots have areas greater than permitted, and 8/13 pylon signs on C-4 zoned lots have heights taller than permitted, under Section 94-410.  Finding: I believe the “preservation of rights” criterion has been adequately met. 3. No Detriment: Authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Applicant’s response: The sign is proportionate to our use. The sign area is about 0.1 % of the lot area, as compared with a mean ratio of pylon signs being about 0.3% of the lot area. We will relocate the existing sign out of MDOT right-of-way (improving safety). Can consider removing highway sign also. My response: The applicant points out the relocation of their existing sign outside of the MDOT right-of-way. The applicant has also removed an additional pylon sign as part of their development project. These are positive moves toward decreasing the detriment posed by the eventual sign layout on the subject site, by reducing the total area of signage on the site and removing signage from hazardous locations. At the present, the applicant has not clarified whether they will remove an additional pylon sign in a remote rear portion of the lot connected to the site. See Exhibit C-1. In my opinion, a predominant factor behind the potential visual obtrusiveness and driver distraction posed by signs is their area. I have created a metric that examines the area of pylon signs in relation to lot area. This relates the area of the sign to how it presents itself in the scale of the site that surrounds it. The applicant correctly references information on “Exhibit C-2” attached to this report, which demonstrates that the mean pylon sign area-to lot area ratio on C-4 zoned lots in Walker is roughly 0.3%. By comparison: - The proposed sign package without the remote pylon sign in the rear of the lot has a sign area-to-lot area ratio of roughly 0.1%. - A hypothetical sign proposal that maximizes pylon signage (80-sq. ft.) on a minimal lot size for the C-4 zoning district (40,000-sq. ft.) has a sign area-to-lot area ratio of 0.2%. - The proposed sign package with the remote pylon sign in the rear of the lot has a sign area-to-lot area ratio of roughly 0.3%. . I believe additionally removing the remote pylon sign would be an additional benefit toward reducing signage visual impacts. This should be considered.  Finding: The proposed sign package considerably reduces existing detriments posed by existing signage on the site. This criterion is satisfactorily met. - I believe additionally removing the remote pylon sign would be an additional benefit toward reducing signage visual impacts. This should be considered. 4. Not a General Problem: That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or 7 Page 44 of 67  recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Applicant’s response: Based on the history of land use and sign approvals, this type of signage is consistent & specific to our use and other like business. My response: See exhibit D. I do not believe this is a general request or a request suitable for prompting an ordinance amendment for signage.  Finding: This criterion is met. Final Thoughts and Recommendations The ZBA may grant, conditionally grant, table, or deny the requested variance. The ZBA should not consider granting the requested variance unless they carefully weigh, and agree upon favorable findings for, all four dimensional variance “findings of fact”. In my interpretation, the “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances” criterion should be closely considered by the ZBA. If the ZBA is inclined to approve the requested variance, I recommend the following conditions of approval: - The existing pylon sign in the remote rear portion of the site should be removed. - The proposed sign package will meet all other applicable requirements of Article XIV (sign regulations) of the Walker zoning ordinance. Understanding the depth of the ZBA’s history in cases like this, and their role in interpreting State law and the City of Walker’s Zoning Ordinance, I defer to their judgement in evaluating the findings of fact regarding the official merits of the requested variance. They may also decide to further evaluate the case based on the facts as presented by the applicant at the public hearing on the case on September 25, 2019, and by any comments made by neighboring property owners or the general public at that time. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this case. Sincerely, Dan Power, AICP - City of Walker Planning Director CC: Jason Berris - owner representative, AGO / Stars Real Estate LLC Frank Wash, AICP, SHRM-CP - Walker Assistant City Manager / Community Development Director Meghann Gorby - Walker Code Enforcement Specialist 8 Page 45 of 67  9 Page 46 of 67  10 Page 47 of 67  11 Page 48 of 67  12 Page 49 of 67  13 Page 50 of 67  14 Page 51 of 67  15 Page 52 of 67  16 Page 53 of 67  Site Images Page 54 of 67 Image courtesy of Connect Explorer Pictometry, 2018 Images taken viewing the site, now under construction, toward the south. 17  18 Page 55 of 67 Exhibit A: Comparison with other C-4 lot areas Street Address Street Name Lot Area 3529 Alpine Ave NW 15375 3226 Leonard Street NW 17297 4417 Remembrance Road NW 39905 2501 Wilson Ave NW 52238 4500 Remembrance Road NW 453695 4568 Lake Michigan Drive NW 815950 3260 Remembrance Road NW 2737 2754 Alpine Ave NW 23746 3287 Alpine Ave NW 25788 3271 Alpine Ave NW 27233 2145 Alpine Ave NW 29259 2625 Alpine Ave NW 30254 2611 Alpine Ave NW 31126 2672 Alpine Ave NW 54345 2345 Alpine Ave NW 69606 3461 Alpine Ave NW 87866 2366 Alpine Ave NW 90763 3050‐80 Fruit Ridge Ave NW 112947 4438 Remembrance Road NW 139177 3385 Alpine Ave NW 296345 Median lot area 46,072 19 Page 56 of 67  20 Page 57 of 67  Exhibit B: Comparison with other C-4 lots’ and pylon signage Street Pylon sign Pylon sign Pylon sign area over allowed Pylon sign area Pylon sign Pylon sign height over allowed Street Name Lot Area Notes / methods Address present? area by current ordinance? as percent of lot height by current ordinance? 3529 Alpine Ave NW 15375 N x x x x x 3226 Leonard Street NW 17297 N x x x x x 4417 Remembrance Road NW 39905 N x x x x 2501 Wilson Ave NW 52238 N x x x x 4500 Remembrance Road NW 453695 N x x x x 4568 Lake Michigan Drive NW 815950 N x x x x 3287 Alpine Ave NW 25788 Y 3.2 No 0.000124089 15.25 No Double check street file 3260 Remembrance Road NW 2737 Y 27 No 0.009864815 ~16' (estimaNo Connect explorer estimate 2145 Alpine Ave NW 29259 Y 32.8 No 0.001121023 ~13.1' No 3461 Alpine Ave NW 87866 Y 62.3 Yes 0.000709034 20' Yes Check street file 4438 Remembrance Road NW 139177 Y 80 No 0.000574808 <20' No 2754 Alpine Ave NW 23746 Y 85.4 Yes 0.003596395 ~22.1' Yes 3271 Alpine Ave NW 27233 Y 86 Yes 0.003157933 26' Yes Page 58 of 67 2672 Alpine Ave NW 54345 Y 112.5 yes 0.002070108 35' Yes Connect explorer estimate 2366 Alpine Ave NW 90763 Y 125 Yes 0.001377213 25' Yes Check street file 3050‐80 Fruit Ridge Ave NW 112947 Y 126 0.001115567 26' Yes 3385 Alpine Ave NW 296345 Y 150 Yes 0.000506167 39' Yes Connect explorer estimate 2625 Alpine Ave NW 30254 Y 158.6 Yes 0.005242282 25.3' Yes 2611 Alpine Ave NW 31126 Y 174 yes 0.005590182 28' Yes Connect explorer estimate 3050‐80 Fruit Ridge Ave NW 112947 Y 370 Yes 0.003275873 ~30' Yes Connect explorer estimate including highway sign 2345 Alpine Ave NW 69606 Y 390.2 yes 0.005605839 28' Yes Check street file 21  22 Page 59 of 67  Exhibit C-1 Sign Change Analysis Ex. Sign A Page 60 of 67 Ex. Sign A ? 23  24 Page 61 of 67  Exhibit C-2 Signs as a percentage of lot area Street Mean pylon area- Street Name Lot Area Pylon sign area Address to-lot area ratio 3287 Alpine Ave NW 25788 3.2 0.01% 3385 Alpine Ave NW 296345 150 0.05% 4438 Remembrance Road NW 139177 80 0.06% 3461 Alpine Ave NW 87866 62.3 0.07% 2145 Alpine Ave NW 29259 32.8 0.11% Without additional highway 3050-80 Fruit Ridge Ave NW 112947 126 (proposed) 0.11% pylon sign 2366 Alpine Ave NW 90763 125 0.14% Hypothetical District min. area / max. 40000 80 0.20% 2672 Alpine Ave NW 54345 112.5 0.21% (appx. With additional highway Page 62 of 67 3050-80 Fruit Ridge Ave NW 112947 346 measurement 0.31% pylon sign of prop. + ex.) 3271 Alpine Ave NW 27233 86 0.32% 2754 Alpine Ave NW 23746 85.4 0.36% 2625 Alpine Ave NW 30254 158.6 0.52% 2345 Alpine Ave NW 69606 390.2 0.56% 2611 Alpine Ave NW 31126 174 0.56% 3260 Remembrance Road NW 2737 27 0.99% Mean pylon area-to-lot area ratio (outside of subject lot) 0.30% 25  26 Page 63 of 67  Exhibit D. Potential Process Chart Is the City of Walker CDD fielding a significant number of requests for pylon signs that are larger or taller than permitted? YES NO Is it apparent that there are many instances of non-conformities evident in this zoning district related to this issue? YES NO May a general ordinance provision to grant an expanded minimum pylon sign area and/or minimum pylon sign height be desirable and consistent with the intent of the Walker Zoning Ordinance? YES NO Page 64 of 67 The “general problem” criterion The “general is not met and action on this problem” criterion is request should be held until the met and action on Walker Ordinance Committee has this request should be a chance to discuss and consider decided by the ZBA addressing this issue as an based on the merits ordinance text amendment. of this case. 27  28 Page 65 of 67  -1- 3050 Fruit Ridge Avenue N.W. – Sign (Dimensional) Variance Request September 25, 2019 MOTION – 9-25-2019 Case 19-014: I make a motion to (approve / deny) the request by applicant and owner Applicant Jason Berris on behalf of owner Stars Real Estate LLC for a dimensional variances to remove an existing pylon sign and replace it with a pylon sign with a total area of 108 sq. ft. and a total height of up to 26’, contrary to Section 94-410(c)(3)(iii) and 94-410(c)(4) of the Walker zoning ordinance, which limits new pylon signs to an overall height of 20’ and a total area of 80-sq. ft., regarding the subject property located at 3050 Fruit Ridge Avenue N.W. (PPN 41-13-05- 340-006), based on the findings of fact derived from Section 94-59 of the Walker Zoning Ordinance: 1. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying 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. Applicant’s response: The site / lot area (112,947-sf) is significantly larger than the median (46,072-sf) lot area for occupied C-4 lots in Walker. We purchased the lot to the north and have combined the two lots into one. Also, the existing sign is in the MDOT ROW and has to be relocated within our property lines. Findings: 2. Preservation of Rights: That such 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 possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. Applicant’s response: 13/19 other C-4 zoned lots in Walker have pylon signs. 9/13 of these lots’ pylon signs have a larger area and/or height than Sec. 94-410 currently allows. By combining the two lots, there will be less signage in the area than if there was still the two separate businesses. Findings: 3. No Detriment: Authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Applicant’s response: The sign is proportionate to our use. The sign area is about 0.1 % of the lot area, as compared with a mean ratio of pylon signs being about 0.3% of the lot area. We will relocate the existing sign out of MDOT right-of-way (improving safety). Can consider removing highway sign also. Findings: 29 Page 66 of 67  -2- 4. Not a General Problem: That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Applicant’s response: Based on the history of land use and sign approvals, this type of signage is consistent & specific to our use and other like business. Findings: Conditions: Recommended Condition (if variance is granted): - The existing pylon sign in the remote rear portion of the site should be removed. - The proposed sign package will meet all other applicable requirements of Article XIV (sign regulations) of the Walker zoning ordinance. Additional condition: __________________________________________________ Additional condition: __________________________________________________ Motion made by:__________ Support from:__________ Ayes:__________ Nays:__________ Motion carries / fails 30 Page 67 of 67