1. Chair Derusha called the meeting to order.

 

2. Roll Call

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Tom Cutts, Les Derusha, Garrett Fox, Mel Halloway and Alan Lipner
MEMBERS ABSENT:  Richard Lenger (with notification) and Walter Wing
OTHERS PRESENT: Planner Joe Pung, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, the applicants, and about 20 residents
 
            Motion by Commissioner Fox, supported by Commissioner Holloway, to excuse          Commissioners Lenger and Wing from the meeting.
 

• Motion Carried (5-0) –
• Lenger and Wing absent -

 

3. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact

 
 Motion by Holloway, supported by Fox, to approve the minutes of November 21, 2011.

• Motion Carried (5-0) –
• Lenger and Wing absent -

4. Public Hearing

 

Appeal #V-12-01

 
Applicant:                               Curtis & Robin Behrens
Location:                                 486-44^th Street SE
 
Request:                                  The applicant wishes to conduct the open-air retail sale of                                                    automobiles on the property; the property is zoned I-1                                                          Light Industrial and Section 10.02.A of the Kentwood                                                        Zoning Ordinance does not permit the open-air retail sale                                                     of automobiles.  The request is for a use variance to permit                                                             the open-air retail sale of automobiles on the property.
 
Chair Derusha gave the applicant the option to have the board vote at the meeting today or come back next month because they are required to have a two thirds majority for approval for a use variance. Derusha stated there are 7 members on the board but only 5 board members were present. The applicants chose to proceed with the request with the 5 board members that were present.
Curtis Behrens and Robin Behrens (486 44^th Street) were present representing the request. He stated they would like a variance to renew their dealers license which they had before on 52^nd Street for 4 years.  He stated they would like to sell cars.  He stated they currently do bodywork and mechanical work.  He stated they have a lot of customers asking if they have any cars for sale.  He stated they have a good reputation, selling good, safe cars.  He stated the only thing he wanted to do in the front was put 3 cars at most. He stated there will be no for sale signs, or banners it will be word of mouth and they do a lot of wholesale to car dealers too.
 
Fox asked how many parking spots they have available right now.  Behrens stated they have 15, including about 25 spots in back. Fox asked how many vehicles they could have in the body shop working on at one time.  Behrens stated about 20 cars and (about 15 inside the building and another 5-10 cars outside.) Fox asked how many employees do they currently employ.  Behrens stated they have 5 employees. Fox was concerned they  would be left without much parking.
 
Lipner questioned what type of inventory they plan to have in the sales area. Behrens stated about 3 cars maximum at a time. Lipner asked will there be any cars inside for sale.  Behrens stated there will not be any cars for sale inside, just cars when they fix them up.
 
Derusha stated he walked by there around 8:30am and most of the parking spots were occupied. Behrens stated they do a lot of work for car dealers and they bring them out front and get them ready there.  Derusha stated the issue he has is car repair shop cars seem to grow everywhere and he doesn’t want that to become a problem.  Behrens stated for the most part the bulk of their work is auto body repair.  If someone drops a car off on the weekend it will sit out until they can get it into the back and into the shop.
 
Fox asked about the dealers license they had from 2001-2007.  Behrens stated when they moved to 44^th Street they couldn’t have the dealers license, they couldn’t have open air sales so they let it go because of the move from 39 -52^nd Street to 486- 44^th Street. Behrens stated they concentrated on repair and now they want to get back into selling cars, they have a lot of customers that ask them if they have any for sale.
 
Derusha asked if we can put some restrictions on the number of cars they can sell at any one time. Pung stated they can put restrictions in place and also state that it has to be an accessory to an auto repair operation.
 
Fox asked when they moved from their previous location to 44^th Street did they know they were not going to be able to sale cars.  Mr. Behrens stated they did not know.  Mr Behrens stated this will be a supplement income and it will keep the customers happy.
 
Holloway asked if there had been any complaints at their previous 52^nd Street address. Pung stated he is not aware of any complaints at the previous location.
 
Cutts asked if there is a statute of how many cars can be kept on a lot whether they are repair/ running etc. Pung stated there is a restriction and depending on the size of the lot it will restrict how many cars you will be able to store, there are restrictions on how many cars you can have outside that are inoperable and also want to make sure there is enough parking for customers.  Pung stated for auto repair the minimum parking requirement is based on the number of repair bays they have.
 
Fox asked how long does it take for them to repair a vehicle and get it back to their customers. Behrens stated about 2-3 days. 
 
Fox stated one of the conditions that they have to meet is point 6, which states this cannot be a condition that is created by the applicant and he thinks in this situation this sounds like that is something the applicant wants to do. Mrs. Behrens stated they are only going to have 2 to 3 cars for sale, no banners, no flags, and no signage. Mr. Behrens stated this is more of a convenience for their customers so they can continue to do business.
 
Lipner stated his problem would be with point 2 that the building structure of land cannot be reasonably used  in a manner consistent with the uses allowed in the zoning district in which it is located. Lipner stated they have a business, it is being used it is only an augmentation of that business.
 
Chair Derusha 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) –
• Lenger and Wing absent –

 
Fox stated point 1 was met, he believes this is a unique condition, auto body shop with the full scope of what they are looking to do is unique as well as the amount of bays they have in their facility. Fox stated point 2 is met if we were to set in place a limit of 3 cars.
 
Fox stated point 3 is met as there were no complaints from residents and also with the condition that there will be no signage and that we put in writing that this will be allowed only with a connection to a body shop not a condition that can used for future owners.
 
Lipner stated points 1,2 and 3 were met. Holloway, Cutts and Derusha concurred.
 
Fox stated point 4 was met based on the other businesses that are in the area this is unique. Fox stated point 5 with the three conditions that have been set forth will ensure that this will not become a recurrent issue. Fox stated point 6 was not met.
 
Lipner stated point 4 and 5 have been met and point 6 predicated on the fact that the applicant had a retail license and existing customer base and also the request from customers and that point 6 would be met.
 
Holloway stated point 4 and 5 have been met and would agree with Lipner adding they did not know this regulation when they purchased the property and the fact that there is customer request that it would meet point 6.
 
Cutts and Derusha concurred that points 4, 5 and 6 have been met.
 
Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supported by Commissioner Lipner, to approve V-12-01 with conditions 1) display of vehicles for sale is limited to 3 vehicles; 2) there will be no banners or signs advertising vehicle sales are permitted; 3) permitted only as an accessory use to a vehicle repair business only a connection to a body shop not used for future owners; 4)parking along west property line reserved for customer parking only.

1. The condition, location, or situation of the specific pieces of property or of the intended use of the property is unique to that property in the zoning district in which it is located. The proposed use for sale of vehicles accessory to the automobile repair operation is unique to this district.
2. The building, structure or land cannot be reasonable used in a manner consistent with the uses allowed in the zoning district in which it is located. With the condition that there is a 3 car limit front 3 parking spots and the side parking to the west of the building be reserved and labeled as customer parking only.
3. The use variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood nor the intent of the City Master Plan, nor be of detriment to adjacent properties. As long as this is an associated business with the auto body business. The outside appearance will not change and the number of vehicles is limited to 3.
4. The requested use is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practical the formulation of a general regulation or adding it to the permitted uses in the zoning district in which it is located or to permitted uses in other more appropriate zoning district. This has been the only request for outdoor auto sales accessory to a vehicle repair business.
5. Due to the unique use and conditions of the approval, the variance will not impair the intent and purpose of this Ordinance.
6. The immediate unnecessary hardship causing the need for the variance request was not created by the applicant. The applicant did not know this was a part of the ordinance when they purchased the property.

 

• Motion Carried (5-0) –
• Lenger and Wing absent -

 
 
 
Appeal #V-12-02
 
Applicant:                               Gino Lombardo
Location:                                 1239 Camille Drive, SE
 
            Request:                                  The applicant wishes to install a wire fence in the front yard and to locate a second detached accessory building (3^rd accessory building) in the front yard.  Section 3.19.B.1 prohibits chain link or wire fencing in a residential front yard.  Section 3.15.D.1 limits the number of garages or accessory buildings to two.  Section 3.15.C.b requires that the detached accessory building be located in the rear yard.  The request variances are to permit a wire fence to be located in the front yard, to permit a third accessory building, and permit a detached accessory building to be located in the front yard.
 
Gino and Mary Lombardo, 1239 Camille were present representing the request.  He stated they have 5 acres on their property and located on the dead end of the street about 500 feet back from Camille and they would like to get some small animals; 2 goats; 4 chickens and a rooster.  He stated this will be 120 feet west of the house.  He stated they purchased about 1 ½ acres that runs south from the house. Lombardo stated the kind of fence they are putting in will not be visible because they are surrounded by woods all the way around.  He stated the reason he will not be putting the animals in the back is because he has two hunting dogs who are bird dogs.
 
Fox asked how far from the closest property line will the fence be.  Lombardo stated on the west side about 50 feet from the private drive from the church and the church was ok.  Fox stated if you are in the church parking lot can you see into his property.  Lombardo stated in the winter you can but in the summer you can’t see anything. Mrs. Lombardo stated that is a parking lot that the church doesn’t use.
 
Cutts asked if they have talked to the representatives at the church to let them know their desire to put up a fence.  Lombardo stated they have.
 
Derusha asked about the size of the existing accessory building in the rear. Lombardo stated it is a 10x16 and it has been there since 1979.  Derusha asked how big the property has to be in order for them to have animals.  Pung stated no minimum is stated each request is reviewed on a case by case basis.
 
Derusha asked if there are any restrictions on the animals. Pung stated it was approved by the Zoning Administrator Schweitzer ; the restrictions of the approval are listed.
 
Lipner asked about the rooster.  Lombardo stated she has raised him since he was a baby and they neighbors love the rooster call. She stated they haven’t had any complaints.
 
Chair Derusha opened the public hearing.
 
Fox asked if there is any type of fencing that would be allowed in the front yard.  Pung stated anything other than what is prohibited which is chainlink and wire. Pung stated a solid type fence in the front yard is limited to 3 feet in height and an open type fence will be limited to 4 feet in height.
 
Deruhsa asked how tall is the proposed fence.  Lomabrdo stated it is called cattle fence and is about 4 feet in height.
 
Discussion ensued regarding fencing and what is considered a front yard.
 
Cutts asked if this is for pets or just breeding.  Lombardo stated no breeding this will be a hobby.
 
Holloway asked if the restrictions outlined in the staff report is designed for this residence only or is this a city ordinance. Pung stated each residence may have a different conditions but some of the conditions are always the same; such as, not allowing roosters.  It depends on the circumstances of each specific property. Holloway asked if this would have to be put in the motion. Pung stated it would have to be conditioned on the fence permit and the shed, but they can condition it on the conditions outlined in the animal keeping approval.
 
Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supported by Commissioner Fox, to close the public hearing.

• Motion Carried (5-0) –
• Lenger and Wing absent -

 
Lipner read a letter in support from Don and Margaret Thomas 1244 Camille.
 
Holloway stated point 1 is met because of the acreage, the location and it is a secluded  lot. Holloway stated point 2 is met. Holloway stated point 3 is met.
 
Lipner stated point 1 is met the property is very unique in shape and size and setbacks and point 2 and 3 are met.
 
Fox stated points 1,2, and 3 have been met adding that the orientation of the house on the lot makes it unique.
 
Cutts and Derusha concurred.
 
Holloway stated point 4, 5 and 6 met.
 
Lipner, Fox, Cutts and Derusha concurred points 4, 5 and 6 have been met.
 
Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supported by Commissioner Fox, to approve V-12-02 with the conditions that the zoning administrator has set in place and identified in the staff report.
 
1.      That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The size and shape of the lot and the orientation of the home on the lot.
2.      Due to the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applying to the property, the condition or situation of the specific piece of property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonable practical the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations.
3.      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.
4.      The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. Have received at least one letter in support of the request.
5.      Due to the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applying to the property, the variance will not impair the intent and purpose of this Ordinance.
6.      That the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance request was not created by any action of the applicant.
 

• Motion Carried (5-0) –
• Lenger and Wing absent -

 
Appeal #V-12-03
 
Applicant:                               DEG Development Company, LLC  
Location:                                 Part of 4381 – 28^th Street SE, 4401 – 28^th Street SE and 4443 – 28^th                                                Street
 
            Request:                                  The applicant wishes to construct a 4-story hotel with a building height of 45 feet.  The abutting property to the north is zoned RPUD-1 High Density Residential PUD and the abutting property to the east is zoned R4 High Density Residential.  Section 8.03.B.1 of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance limits the building height to 2-stories or 30 feet, whichever is lower, in any commercial property abutting a residential district.  The requested variance is to permit a hotel with a building height of 4-stories and 45 feet, an increase in height of 2-stories or 15 feet over the maximum allowed by ordinance.
 
Bill Mast with DEG LLC and Visser Brothers was present to represent the request.  He stated they would like to build a 4 story Marriott Residence Inn Extended Stay Hotel on the eastern portion of the land they own behind Art Van and Quality Inn.  This hotel will be behind the Quality Inn and the building will be 209 feet south of the north property line over 4 times the minimum distance permitted by the ordinance as its read without needing a variance. Mast displayed drawings/pictures of the proposed hotel, showing the distance from the property lines.
 
Mast stated the rear of the hotel does not have a door. There will be no pedestrian traffic on the north side. Mast stated there were questions regarding dumpster pick up and that would be 10am. He stated the typical hours for their guests would be leaving around 7-8am and returning around 5-6pm.
 
Mast stated they have proposed an approximately 5 foot high berm to shied headlights from going north of the property.
 
Mast stated there were questions regarding the HVAC system and the hotel will have individual units for each individual room but not through the windows or hanging out the back side they are built into the room in a closet.
 
Mast stated they have made application with the Planning Commission for site plan approval and there will be a public hearing in a couple of weeks.
 
Derusha asked how many units will be in the development. Mast stated 100 rooms.
 
Fox asked what will be the difference in the 4 story as opposed to the 2 story.  Mast stated it cost more to build 2 stories but this is the typical footprint of the Marriott Residence Inn which limits the walking distance back to the common facilities.  Mast stated they can’t expand to the south or west if they are going to ever be able to build the Menards which isn’t being discussed at this time.  The only way to expand would be to the north and getting closer to the residences by taking out a lot more trees and getting within 50 feet of the property line. 
 
Holloway asked about access to get to the hotel. Mast stated they do have the access out to 28^th Street both the east and main drive on west side.
 
Fox asked about signage. Mast stated he will have to get a variance for an off property signage.
 
Discussion ensued regarding setbacks.
 
Thomas Holland 2524 Forest Bluff Ct.; Greg Giadini 4564 Forest Bluff; Dr. Ted  Tatco 4496 Woodcreek Dr.,  Mark Shibly 4518 Woodcreek,  Brian Hannin 4544 WoodCreek Dr ;  Victor Wung 4508 Woodcreek Dr. ; Dr. William Herrons 4530 Woodcreek Dr.; Patricia Watson 2500 Forest Bluff. Thomas Holland stated the property slopes down he asked why write the ordinance if they are not going to abide by the rules. . Diane Fryer 2594 Forest Bluff; concerned how much they are going to see when they look out of their window, what are they going to have to block their view, concerned about lighting, vision blocking, if they are going to start construction during the summer to have the trees in to block some construction noise and some dust. concerned about the grade; developer has cleared a lot of the trees and left behind very few trees to block the view, the elevation has been raised to the hotel will be 45-50 feet higher, vegetation; visual line of site, no more trees cut down; would like downward lighting; disappointed for cutting the trees; consideration be given to changes, eliminating some spots to the north and moving the dumpster; Bob Hedges President  of the Forest Meadows Homeowners Association 4535 Wood Creek Dr. they realize something is going to built and they are aware that Marriott properties are nice. Setbacks are one of the biggest issues.
 
Fox asked if the homeowners had conditions they would like to see. Hedges stated the setback  is important and the vegetation.  They hope more trees are not removed. Fox asked would the community like to go back with Mast and discuss some options. Lipner stated the homeowners should get together with the developer.
 
Derusha stated we can table the request to next month so they can work with the developer
 
Fox asked if there were other conditions that the residents had if they were to move forward with the 4 story that would meet their approval.
 
Discussion ensued regarding the homeowners getting together with the developer.
 
Mast stated he has met many times with both groups and took everything into account. Mast stated he would like to meet with the homeowners since they do intend to build something back there.
 
Holloway asked about the wetlands to the east will it have to be maintained. Pung stated they cannot come in and fill the wetlands. They will go to Planning Commission on April 10. Discussion ensued.
 
Motion by Commissioner supported by Commissioner to table V-12-03 to April 16, 2012.
 

• Motion Carried (5-0) –
• Lenger and Wing absent -

 

5. Election of Officers

 
Motion by Commissioner Fox, supported by Hollwoay to keep the officers the same with Derusha being Chair; Lenger Vice Chair; and Lipner as Secretary.
 

• Motion Carried (5-0) –
• Lenger and Wing absent -

 
Motion by Fox, supported by Lipner, to adjourn the meeting.
 

• Motion Carried (5 -0) –
• Lenger and Wing absent -

 
 
Meeting adjourned at 9:00p.m.
 
                                                                        Respectfully submitted,
 
                                                                        Alan Lipner, Secretary