1.                  Vice-Chair Lenger called the meeting to order.

 

2.                  Roll Call

MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Cutts, Garrett Fox, Mel Halloway, Richard Lenger, Alan Lipner

MEMBERS ABSENT: Les Derusha (with notification) and Walter Wing

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

 

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Derusha and Wing absent –

 

3.                  Correction of the Minutes of November 15, 2010 meeting.

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Derusha and Wing absent -

4.                  Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Derusha and Wing absent -

 

5.                  Public Hearing

 

Applicant:                               Dustin L. Wadsworth

Location:                                 3851 Model Court

 

Request:                                  The applicant wishes to operate an indoor recreational facility at 3851 Model Court, SE. The property is zoned I-1 Light Industrial and does not allow for indoor recreational facilities. The request is for a use variance to allow for an indoor recreational facility to operate at this location.

 

Lipner read a letter from Pung stating the applicant has requested to table V-10-16 until the March 21, 2011 meeting in order to provide time for additional information regarding the request.

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-                                                                                              Derusha and Wing absent -

 

 

Applicant:                   A.J. Veneklassen Inc. (G-Force Fitness)

Location:                     3876 East Paris Avenue SE Suites 5&6

 

Request:                      The applicant wishes to operate a fitness facility in the I-1 Light Industrial district. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance does not permit fitness facilities in the I-1 Light Industrial district. The request is for a use variance to allow a fitness facility to operate at this location.

 

A.J. Veneklassen (5000 Kendrick, Grand Rapids, MI) was present to represent the request. He stated this isn’t a typical fitness facility and the tenants are in 3,000 square foot total area. He stated this started out as a personal training facility and he leased the space to the tenant not knowing this would be a problem. He stated the business is going well and a lot of the businesses in the area are using the facility. He stated the tenant expressed the desire to start more classes so the rented another 1,500 square feet. He stated the tenant has already been in this location for 2 years. He stated their business is in the middle of an industrial district but their classes are in the mornings before work and after work and some at noon. He stated part of their business is weight lifting/personal training and the second part is open gym where they do exercises and strength training. He stated in the middle of the day there are probably only 2 people working on the personal training. Otherwise they have zero negative impact on the neighborhood and the only impact is good because it provides a private area for business people to come in and use the facility. He stated they don’t have problems with parking and they don’t disturb anybody it’s not retail.

 

Fox asked since they do not accept walk in clients, how do they advertise. Veneklassen stated it is not a retail facility but they market to the business community. Veneklassen stated  it is hard to know they are even there, so they put flyers out. Veneklassen stated it is set up like a class you have to call in and sign up, the business is sitting back off the street so it not that visible.

 

Fox asked how many vehicles are at the facility in the early morning and after work as he indicated these are their busiest times. Veneklassen stated he hasn’t been there but he thinks the class sizes are 15-20 people at a time. He stated they start from 6:30-8a.m. and they have 1 or 2 classes at noon.

 

Holloway asked what type of signage they have for the business. Veneklassen stated they have their own sign above the door. The freestanding sign is for the Kentwood Commerce Center. (Regis photo displayed to show location)

 

Lipner asked what other tenants occupy the building. Veneklassen stated there are offices, US Flag Company who uses it for storage, a pharmacy, where they fill prescriptions for hospitals or facilities for the elderly, a manufacturer.  He stated the businesses are all small, the largest space is 2,000 square feet and the smallest is 1,300 square feet. Vanekalssen stated there are a lot of little businesses in the Center.

 

Lenger opened the public hearing.

 

Lipner read a letter from Collier’s International stating they are the adjacent property land owners and are in support of the variance request.

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Derusha and Wing absent -

 

Holloway stated point1 was met because the business is already established in the area and filling a void; the business has been well established for 2 years. Holloway stated point 2 was met. Holloway stated point 3 was met; the business has been there for 2 years.

 

Lipner, Fox, Cutts and Lenger concurred that points 1, 2 and 3 have been met.

 

Holloway stated point 4 was met the use is unique, not a typical fitness facility. Holloway stated point 5 is met.  Holloway stated point 6 was met; he is doing it for the business that is already established.

 

Lipner, Fox, Cutts and Lenger concurred that points 4, 5 and 6 have been met.

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Derusha and Wing absent -

 

Appeal #V-11-02                               

 

Applicant:                   Aaron Boatin

Location:                     3960 Broadmoor Avenue, SE

 

Request:                      The applicant wishes to replace an existing freestanding sign with a new sign. The leading edge of the sign would be setback 2 feet from the public right-of-way. The City of Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 17 feet behind the public right-of-way. The requested variance is for a reduction of 15 feet to the minimum required setback.

 

Aaron Boatin, (3960 Broadmoor) was present to represent the request. He stated they are not looking to replace the sign pole, nor place the sign closer to the right-of-way. He stated the two previous tenants had a sign in the exact location one was a freestanding sign in a planter and the previous tenants had a pedestal sign installed. He stated the previous sign included an electronic billboard sign that took up 44 square feet of signage. He stated they are asking for the ability to replace the sign with one that will take up the same amount of space using the existing pole. He stated the size and the pole will stay the same. He stated if they were to move the sign back it would be in their back parking lot.

 

Holloway asked if it will be an electronic sign. Boatin stated it is just a backlit sign it is very low key and would be lit at night.

 

Lenger asked if the sign was to the north of the building. Boatin stated that is correct.

 

Fox asked if they meet the ordinance for square footage. Pung stated they are fine.

 

Cutts asked if the sign he is asking for will be the exact same square footage. Mr. Boatin stated when you take in to the account the electronic sign the previous tenant removed it would be the same within the guidelines of 44 square feet.

 

Lipner asked if he would be using the same post and not be moving anything other than the physical sign on the top. Boatin stated that is correct

 

Lenger asked about the ROW and the widening of the East Beltline. Pung stated the ROW required an additional 23 feet of ROW acquired by MDOT in 1998. Pung stated the last variance that came in for was in 2004 where they did a building addition so they needed a setback variance for that. Pung stated in 2005 they came in to replace the monument sign on the property and on the application there is a note stating that it had to be setback 17 ½ feet from the R.O.W. not from the road edge. Pung stated when they went out and installed the sign they put it back in the exact place where the existing monument sign had been instead of moving it back the 17 1/2 feet. When the applicant came in for the proposed sign replacement is when staff caught that it doesn’t meet the setback requirements.

 

Holloway asked if he knew what the height is from the ground up to the bottom of the sign. Mr Boatin stated it is 10 feet. Holloway asked if it is below the roofline of the building. Mr. Boatin stated that it correct. Holloway asked have there been any complaints about the sign. Pung stated that the City has not had any complaints.

 

Fox asked if the sign were moved 17 ½ feet would it limit visibility. Pung stated that based on where they show the sign would be located you wouldn’t see the sign if you were heading north on Broadmoor. 

 

Lipner asked if there was a variance request in 2005. Pung stated when they came in there was a note on the sign permit stating that it had to be setback 17 ½ feet from the R.O.W. not from the road edge, no variance was requested.

 

Holloway asked how long they have been at the property. Boatin stated since December 2010. Holloway asked if they had any idea the sign did not meet the ordinance requirements. Boatin stated they did not.

 

Lenger opened the public hearing.

 

There was no public comment.

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Derusha and Wing absent -

 

Cutts stated point 1 was met. Due to the shape of the property, the location and the height of the sign is lower than the building it which would not limit visibility from the road.

 

Cutts stated point 2 was met because it is a pie shaped and if it was setback 17 feet. If the sign is setback  it will be difficult to see from the road and with the changes from MDOT makes it unique.

 

Cutts stated point 3 is met a sign is what attracts people to the business.

 

Fox concurred adding that it is in the exact same location as the existing sign. Lipner, Holloway and Lenger concurred.

 

Cutts stated point 4 is met. Cutts stated point 5 is met. Cutts stated point 6 is met, the applicant just purchased the building and the sign already non-conforming.

 

Fox concurred adding the distance to the R.O.W was changed by MDOT not by the owners of the property or previous owners. Lipner, Holloway, and Lenger concurred.

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Derusha and Wing absent -

 

 

Applicant:                   Fox Quicklane

Location:                     2950 Broadmoor

 

 

Request:                      The applicant wishes to operate a vehicle repair establishment within the existing building. The building is setback 36.9 feet and 48.17 feet from the adjacent street right-of-ways. The City of Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 50 feet from any right-of-way line. The requested variance is for reductions of 1.83 feet and 13.10 feet to the minimum required building setback from the adjacent street right-of-ways

 

 

Steve Fry, (President of Concept Design Group, 1655 Flowers Crossings Dr). and Tom Rothwell, (Representative for the Fox Quicklane) were present to represent the request. Fry stated this is an existing structure that has been vacant for a while. He stated they are not adding to the exterior. He stated this will not be a detriment to the area it will be putting a vacant building back to use.

 

Lipner asked what type of services they are intending to provide. Fry stated this will be a quick fix service such as brakes, tires, filters, wiper blades, lamps bulbs, hoses and belts, minor tune ups. Fry stated the business will be light maintenance and small parts kind of business.

 

Cutts asked for clarification on the traffic flows. Pung stated the only access will be off of 29^th Street. The customer would come in, drive their car up to the front, come into the building get their quote and if they are going to have work done an employee will then come get their car and pull it into the bay. The customers will not be driving the car into the bays. Cutts asked how they will exit the property. Pung stated they would have to take a right onto 29^th Street; there is a median so there will be no way to make a left it is right in, right out.

 

Lenger asked about the sign on the property and asked if it is on the edge of the R.O.W. Pung stated in a commercial zone as long as it does not encroach the ROW you can have a sign come up to the ROW but does require 10 feet of clearance.

 

Holloway if all the bays will be off  the east side of the building. Fry stated that is correct. Holloway asked if there is any intention to do anything with the property between Fox Ford and the proposed location. Fry stated they do not.

 

Fox asked why in 2002 the 50 foot setback was put in place. Pung stated prior to 2002 there was a classification called vehicle service establishment and they specific requirements for the special land use. In 2002 there was a revision to the zoning ordinance and as part of that revision the vehicle service establishment classification was removed. There was a vehicle repair, vehicle fuel station and vehicle wash. Pung stated when the vehicle service establishment was eliminated the special land use criteria were carried over and put under the vehicle fuel station and under vehicle repair uses. Pung stated prior to that the specific requirements were not applied to vehicle repair. 

 

Holloway asked how deep the building is from the east/west direction. Pung stated 63 feet. Holloway asked if they will have double stalls. Fry stated regarding the setback (from Broadmoor) it’s all green there are no parking lots or driveways and it is 40 feet wide. He stated they have more space than what to make use of because this is an existing facility. He stated a good portion of the building will be customer waiting and light accessory sales. He stated they built a breakroom and put in a handicap facility for the customers. He stated there is nothing on the ROW that will take place. 

 

Holloway asked if the customers will know they will not be able to get into the repair area. Fry stated that is correct it is cut off. Holloway asked about outside work. Fry stated they are adding additional landscaping to bring it closer to the current ordinance that is in place other than that signage and painting the exterior and that is all no automotive repair work outside.

 

Lipner asked what kind of signage they are anticipating. Fry stated there is one existing pole sign and they will replace the panels on that and then wall signage is allowed on both sides, they will meet the ordinance requirements. 

 

Lenger opened the public hearing.

 

There was no public comment.

 

Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supported by Commissioner Fox, to close the public hearing.  

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Derusha and Wing absent –

 

Lipner stated point 1 was met because it is a pre-existing building makes it unique and in an area with the other automotive it fits in well. Lipner stated point 2 is met it is unique because it is an existing building and it fits the nature of the specific location. Lipner stated point 3 is met because the use of an existing structure and being that it is an area by automotive.

 

Holloway, Fox, Cutts, and Lenger concurred.

 

Lipner stated point 4 is met rather have someone in the building instead of having another vacant lot. Lipner stated point 5 was met. Lipner stated point 6 was met it is an existing building being reused.

 

Holloway, Fox, Cutts and Lenger concurred.

 

-          Motion Carried (5-0) –

-          Derusha and Wing absent -

 

 

 

-          Motion Carried (5 -0) –

-          Derusha and Wing absent -

 

Meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.

 

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                        Alan Lipner, Secretary