(return to index)

 

1.                  Chair Derusha called the meeting to order.

 

2.                  Roll Call

MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Cutts, Les Derusha, Mel Halloway, Richard Lenger, Alan Lipner,

MEMBERS ABSENT: Garrett Fox (with notification) and Walter Wing

OTHERS PRESENT: Planner Joe Pung, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, the applicants, and 4 residents.

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Fox and Wing absent -

3.                  Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact

 

 Motion by Holloway, supported by Lipner, to approve the minutes of July 18, 2011.   

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Fox and Wing absent -

4.                  Public Hearing

 

 

            Applicant:                               DTN Management Company

            Location:                                 3756 – 28^th Street, SE

 

            Request:                                  The applicant wishes to add a drive-thru facility to the existing building. The existing building is setback 30 feet from the Lake Eastbrook Boulevard right-of-way line; Section 15.04.BB.1 of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires the building be setback 50 feet from the right-of-way line. The proposed project will increase lot coverage to 81 percent; Section 8.03.B of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance restricts maximum lot coverage to 75 percent. The requested variances are to reduce the required setback from the Lake Eastbrook Boulevard right-of-way line by 20 feet and to permit lot coverage of 81 percent.

 

Ryan McEnhill, Engineer with Fitzgerald Henney & Associates was present to represent the request stating they are requesting two (2) variances. He stated the first one is for the building setback. He stated currently the building setback is at 30 feet off Lake Eastbrook Boulevard and the ordinance requires 50 feet. He stated they have a 30 foot setback with a 40 foot building and 44 feet to the adjacent property line. McEnhill stated the site constrains itself so that the 50 foot setback isn’t possible with the current building. 

 

McEnhill stated the second variance is related to the landscape percentage. He stated it is currently at 19% and the ordinance requires 25%. He stated they were at 16% at the first submittal and now they have increased the percentage to 19%. He stated one of the things they did was, get rid of the hardspace in the rear of the building. He stated there were three parking spaces proposed to be there, they got rid of those and added some green space. 

 

McEnhill stated with the drive-thru lane the initial one is 10 feet and a 10 foot bypass lane and a 10 foot landscape buffer between the bypass lane and the right-of-way line. He stated they wanted to have a bypass lane in there for convenience; it doesn’t increase the hardscape percentage. He stated the bypass lane was something that the Planning Commission liked to have to provide and escape route for customers that are in the drive-thru lane. He stated he did not want to take that out even though it reduces the greenspace. He stated there is also some sidewalk at the north end of the property that was added as well. He stated these were some nice things that have been added to the site, but it has reduced the greenspace percentage.

 

McEhill stated that in putting the site together they knew they were not going to be able to get that 25% greenspace, therefore what they tried to do was add some things on the adjacent property that DTN Management also owns. He stated they added islands on the property and eliminated a drive and shifted the curb line further to the west so that greenspace could be added. McEhill stated they even added greenspace to that adjacent property it is not included in the calculation.

 

Derusha asked what is being done with the building that requires a setback issue. Pung stated the addition of a drive-thru, there is currently no drive-thru and the zoning ordinance requires drive-thru facilities to have a larger setback. Pung stated the building itself under normal conditions would meet the setback requirements, but the addition of a drive-thru requires the 50 foot setback from the lot lines and the right-of way.

 

Secretary Lipner read a letter from John J. Broderick (Director of Real Estate for the HoneyBaked Ham) indicating they do not utilize a drive thru window as part of their operations and do not have any plans to add a drive thru window at this location. The letter indicated Honey Baked Ham did not file the variance request and their lease does not expire until January 31, 2014 and they have the option to extend the lease term through January 31^st 2016.

 

Derusha asked if this variance request was approved what is their time frame to act upon the request. Pung stated they have to act on it within one year, it will expire if not used unless they come back prior to expiration in which case they can and ask for a one year extension.

 

Lipner asked about the coverage. Pung stated the coverage takes up all of non-green areas they would need 25% greenspace.

 

Derusha asked what the coverage is on the current property. McEnhill stated over 28% existing right now. McEnhill stated the south end is currently pavement.

 

Cutts asked for clarification for ingress and egress. McEnhill stated if they were going to access the drive thru they would come in through 28^th Street and go around to the drive through and exit on Lake Eastbrook.

 

Lenger stated in reading the letter it appears that the tenant who is currently leasing the building does not want a drive thru window. McEnhill stated this is the first time he has heard communication with Honey Baked Ham.  He stated DTN Management is the landlord for Honey Baked Ham and the letter has not been relayed to them. Lenger stated would it be worthwhile to table the request and go back and have a discussion with Honey Baked Ham. McEnhill stated he thinks the owner would like to set up the building to have the capability of a drive thru window at the location. Lenger stated the tenant has a lease until 2014 which is three years from now. 

 

Lipner asked if there has been any discussion with the tenant and DTN Management about the disruption to business while the construction is going on. McEnhill stated he isn’t sure if there have been any discussions. Lipner stated Honey Baked Ham is a rent paying lessee who would like to maintain a business and this will be disruptive to them in light of the letter. McEnhill stated this is difficult for him to comment on because the letter just came in today, he has never seen the letter. He isn’t sure if DTN has had ongoing discussion with HoneyBaked Ham.

 

Lenger stated he would be in favor of postponing the request for a month it would make sense for the landlord and the tenant to sit down and come up with a solution.

 

Derusha stated the setback issue is not a big deal and the coverage is something to be concerned about and reducing it for a customer that doesn’t want it does not make sense.

 

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Fox and Wing absent -

                       

 

 

Applicant:                               Kate Eberhard

Location:                                 4500 Broadmoor Avenue, SE

 

           Request:                                   The applicant wishes to operate an indoor recreational facility (ballet studio) at 4500 Broadmoor Avenue. The property is zoned I-1 Light Industrial and Section 10.02.A does not allow for industrial recreational facilities in the I-1 Light Industrial district. The request is for a use variance to allow for an indoor recreational facility to operate at this location.

 

An email was submitted from Kate Eberhard asking to delete the application due to the fact that they were unable to reach a purchase position on the building.

 

 

Applicant:                               Mercantile Bank Mortgage Company, LLC

Location:                                 4308 Division Avenue, SE

 

           Request:                                   The applicant wishes to split an existing parcel into two separate parcels. The parcels would have an area of 7,228 square feet and 5,184 square feet. Section 8.03.B.1 of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 11,050 square feet. The requested variances are for reductions of 3,822 square feet and 5,866 square feet from the minimum require lot area.

 

Eric Trewieller, (Prime Development a Commercial Brokerage Company, 825 Parchment SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546) was present to represent the request. He stated they are trying to get a foreclosed property that had some collateral on the property that was once part of two parcels and is now tied into one tax ID number. He stated it is platted in that district from the 1930’s and 1940’s when it was originally set up as a commercial district. He stated these are smaller commercial lots than what are seen today. 

 

Trewieller stated there was a fire that occurred on this property, and the adjoining property. The city owes a 50x50 foot parking lot immediately behind the property that they have under contract to sell. He stated they would like to give the City Assessor permission to create a new tax ID number for what they have to convey to a new property owner, who happens to be a future owner/occupant of the building. He stated they would like to get rid of what is a strange split or allocation of the original lot that was there that is now tied to two lots, one tax id number. He stated what happened to the allocation or when it happened he doesn’t know but the Assessor’s office created a number of 6.9% of the tax bill of that particular tax parcel that fronts on Division that also shares it with the parking lot that is owned by somebody else. 

 

Treweiller stated Merchantile Bank loaned money on the property years ago and the party that had the mortgage failed to make the payment and the property was in foreclosure. He stated their collateral did not extend to property that they didn’t have rights to, somebody else owns it, it just happens to be the other property is tied into a tax ID number that they would like to separate. He stated they would love to sell it, the buyer would like to buy it but not have any potential long term liability with the previous tax payer who doesn’t pay his 6.9%. He stated the bank has to protect their position and they will eventually go after those dollars that are not separated because of the tax ID number. He stated this was one of their avenues to get some separation.

 

Lenger asked if the address of the parcel is on 43^rd Street. Trieweiller stated it is a 43^rd Street. Lenger asked was the entrance off 43^rd Street address. Trieweiller stated they did a survey and all is subject to shared easements for parking, ingress, egress.

 

Lenger stated when an owner puts a building on a piece of property they want a sign that people can see and it has to be on a street. Lenger stated they can’t put a sign on Division if they don’t have lot frontage on Division. Lenger was concerned where the frontage is because in the future they want to put a business on the property they are going to want a sign and where will it go. Trieweiler stated it is zoned C2 so they have some rights in that district, they have frontage on 43^rd and a curb cut and share the cross access benefits of the other property owners.  Trieweiller stated the owner of lot 181 is the only property they own in that district and it is subject to easement and access and parking. He stated they are not trying to put anybody in the bad spot for the future, but lot 181 is a platted commercial lot that happened to be linked to his clients tax ID bill. 

 

Derusha asked for clarification of who is going to be owning this parcel on 43^rd Street. Trewieller stated the current owner is the owner they just aren’t paying taxes on it because they don’t have a bill, they piggy back with another property. Pung stated the way it is set up there was a lot/split combination that occurred as part of and EDC grant in order to create parking for the businesses. Pung stated there were two lots as part of the lot split/combination this one was carved out and there is also one now owned by the city; there was some demolition work that occurred to create some additional parking. Discussion ensued.

 

Lenger asked if the remaining square footage and the number of parking is not an issue for the business if this is split off. Pung stated there are easements to the City for shared parking.  

           

Chair Derusha opened the public hearing.

 

Steve Zimmer, (39 Murray SE) who has property next to Home Acres Reformed Church and property on the east side was present. He stated he looks at the back side of these buildings everyday and feels there will never be a viable business because it is locked. He stated their back entrances are their main entrances because they don’t have off street parking. He stated to make the property smaller is not going to bring any relief to this area it is turning into the ghetto. He stated making smaller lots is not the answer making

accessible lots is the answer.

 

Dennis Voight, tenant at Boba Latte Café at 4314 S. Division was also present.  He stated he is concerned about parking. He stated they are already fighting for parking spaces and get customer complaints. His concern was if whether or not the entire parcel public parking and privately owned. Pung stated there is a parking easement as part of the block grant project that occurred 2003/2004. Pung stated the building use to come up to the property line and the back portion was demolished and a shed that was demolished. The easements will stay. Discussion ensued.

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Fox and Wing absent -

 

Holloway stated point 1 is met he sees no change to the property simply as a tax ID number to split off the part that the City has the lease on. Holloway stated point 2 is met. Holloway stated point 3 is met, the City can get the tax id in the correct order.

 

Lipner added the size of the lot location and the tax issues he thinks points 1,2 and 3 have been met. Lenger, Cutts and Derusha concurred.

 

Holloway stated point 4 is met. Holloway stated point 5 is met. Holloway stated point 6 is met.

 

Lipner stated 4 is met the parking issues have been addressed. Lipner stated point 5 is met. Lipner stated point 6 is met because it will help clarify the tax issues. Lenger, Cutts and Derusha concurred.

 

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Fox and Wing absent -

 

 

Applicant:                               Scott Tiemersma        

Location:                                 2850 Shaffer Avenue, SE

 

Request:                                  The applicant wishes to operate a drive-through                                                                    establishment on the property. The existing building is                                                         (rear) lot line; Section 15.04.BB.1 of the Kentwood Zoning                                                             Ordinance requires the building be setback 50 feet from                                                       any adjacent public right-of-way line or property line. The                                                         requested variances are to reduce the required setbacks                                                             from the Shaffer Avenue right-of-way line and east (rear)                                                         lot line by 15 feet.

 

Scott Tiemersma, (1059 Cherrywood, Grand Rapids MI) was present to represent the request. He stated he plans to put in a drive through driveway for a drive-thru coffee bar. He stated the back lot line to the east of the building is only 35 feet to the next property line. He stated that is where the entrance to his drive-thru would go. 

 

Holloway asked for clarification of the flow of traffic. Tiemersma stated from Shaffer Avenue there is a 25 foot easement that connects Shaffer to the property to the east. He stated traffic would come in off of Shaffer up and around the building to the drive-thru window and come out and exit back onto Shaffer. Tiemersma stated the property to the east has another entrance to the south on the private drive.

 

                        Cutts asked what the former use of the building was. Tiemersma stated it was an ambulance sub-station. Cutts asked if he anticipates on having sit down customers. Mr. Tiemersma stated it is strictly drive-thru, whatever parking they have is for him and his employees.

 

                        Tiemersma stated he has two garage doors, he will be taking one out on the north side rebricking and putting the window in there and yet still be able to access the center garage door for supplies and deliveries. He stated he will be removing the access that is to the building right now so there will only be one entrance into the property.             Tiemersma stated he met with the Planning Commission and there were no serious request made.

 

                        Tiemersma stated he has a report from the environmental survey done in 2009 that isn’t complete and if he gets a favorable response from the committee then the next step is to get a current evaluation of the environmental before proceeding with the project.

 

                        Derusha asked why 50 feet for a drive-thru versus 35 feet. Pung stated to allow for adequate stacking distance and separation from the adjacent uses. Derusha stated this is a creative use of the property.

 

Chair Derusha opened the public hearing.

 

Henry Witte, Owner of Witte travel was present. He stated he is in favor of the request but just wanted to make sure that is not one way traffic. Pung stated there is no change to the easement. 

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Fox and Wing absent

 

Lipner stated point 1 is met, the property is unique, it is small and the property has been vacant for quite some time. Lipner stated point 2 is met this is a unique property. Lipner stated point 3 is met, he is utilizing an existing property that has been vacant for a long time.

 

Holloway, Lenger, Cutts and Derusha concurred with Derusha adding a lot has to do with the creative use of laying out the drive and makes a lot of sense.

 

Lipner stated point 4 is met there were no negative comments and heard from one of the neighbors. Lipner stated point 5 is met. Lipner stated point 6 is met due to the property as it is meets this requirement.

 

Holloway, Lenger, Cutts and Derusha concurred.

 

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Fox and Wing absent -

 

 

-          Motion Carried (5 -0) –

-          Fox and Wing absent -

 

 Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

 

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                        Alan Lipner, Secretary