1.                  Chair Derusha called the meeting to order.

 

2.                  Roll Call

MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Cutts, Les Derusha, Mel Halloway, Alan Lipner, MEMBERS ABSENT: Garrett Fox, Richard Lenger, and Walter Wing

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

 

 

-          Motion Carried (4-0) –

-          Fox, Lenger and Wing absent - 

3.                  Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact

 

 Motion by Lipner, supported by Holloway, to approve the minutes of March 21, 2011     

-          Motion Carried (4-0) –

-          Fox, Lenger and Wing absent -

4.                  Public Hearing

 

Applicant:                               Matt Levandoski                    

Location:                                 3585 – 32^nd Street, SE

Request:                                  The applicant wishes to construct a new building in the                                                        industrial district. Up to 100% of the side of the building                                                    facing the street would be covered in metal siding. Section                                                             10.03.C.1 of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance limits the                                                      coverage by metal siding to a maximum of 50% and                                                    Section 14.05.D.4 requires that at least 50% be covered                                                  with brick, decorative block, cut stone, windows or other                                                    material approved as part of the site plan. The requested                                                      variance is to allow up to 100% of the building façade                                                         facing the street to be covered in metal siding.

 

Midwest Geothermal has withdrawn their request

 

 

Applicant:       R&R Mechanical Services LLC

 

Location:         1721 Buchanan Avenue SW

 

Request:          The applicant wishes to place (4) air conditioning units in the front yard                              of each of the existing residential buildings. Section 3.09 of the Kentwood                Zoning Ordinance prohibits air conditioning units from being located in                                    the front yard.

 

Derusha stated to the applicant the option to wait until next month due to the fact that there were only 4 commissioners present and each one would have to approve the variance request. Mr. Rueben Ramos chose to move forward.

 

Rueben Ramos, with R&R Mechanical Services, 2953 Perry Ave SW Wyoming, MI was present to represent the request. He stated they would like to keep the four air conditioner condensing units in front of the properties located at 1631 & 1645 52^nd Street SE. He stated due to the fact that there are exceptional limitations and circumstances that make it difficult to place them elsewhere on the property he would like to keep them in the front yard. He stated the buildings are two 4-plexes and they are trying to air condition the main living areas.

 

Ramos stated they are utilizing a mini split system. He stated there is a unit inside the apartment that is connected to the refrigerate lines that go outside to the condensers. He stated the limitations they have are the limited amount of refrigerate lines they can run per the specifications of the equipment. He stated they can only go a maximum of 65 feet horizontally and 49 feet in elevation. He stated if they were to go to the side of the buildings there are driveways on the outside of the buildings and it is too narrow and not enough space to place the units. Ramos stated for at least two of the units to go along the side of the building it would exceed the length limitation; it is approximately 75feet to go to the far side of the buildings and therefore they have nowhere else to go with them. He stated placing them in the back is not an option and he doesn’t know where else to place them. 

 

Ramos stated he realizes the aesthetic impact is one of the reasons they are not allowed in the front. He stated the unit themselves are nice looking, and there is a plan to disguise them with white vinyl fencing and nice array of decorative landscaping. Ramos displayed pictures of the building and showed the landscaping and fencing. He also showed a picture of the air conditioning unit.

 

Ramos stated they would like to be allowed to leave the units where they are. He stated the reason they were placed there is because his company was unaware of the ordinance. He stated once they were in place they were made aware of it.

 

Ramos stated in looking around the area at other buildings there isn’t another building besides these two that have the same conditions; therefore he feels that another person wouldn’t have this request in the same area. Ramos stated moving the units elsewhere would also incur additional cost that would be unreasonable for the owner of the buildings.

 

Derusha asked if there were any opportunity to run the refrigerate lines through the building. Ramos stated seeing that they have drywall ceilings, not without breaking through the existing ceilings and there is plumbing going through the buildings. Ramos stated going to the back side would be over the 65 foot limitation that they have for running the lines. Derusha asked how deep are the buildings. Ramos stated approximately 55 feet. Derusha stated it looks like it was about 25 to 30 feet deep. Derusha stated if they wrap the hose around the building then the 55 feet may be the right number but to go through the building he stated it would be considerably less. Derusha stated the issue he has is the aesthetic issues of looking at it; you can cover it up but you can’t cover up the noise. Ramos stated these units are quiet units. Derusha stated his other issue is who else will try doing this and he hasn’t seen one condenser unit sitting out in someone’s front yard.

 

Derusha stated to air condition a building you don’t necessarily have to use a split unit air conditioner; you can put a traditional air condition unit in and make the refrigerant line as long as you would want to make it. Derusha stated it may be more expensive but it can meet the requirement. Ramos stated the units they have right now have been purchased and paid for and are non-returnable. He stated this equipment can cost up to $2500 a piece. He stated there are 8 that have been purchased.

 

Holloway asked who wrote the specifications. Ramos stated Lighthouse Communities and they followed their specifications.

 

Derusha stated point 3 would also be an issue.   Lipner stated point 6 would also be an issue. Ramos stated the he feels they have not created the practical difficulty given that these buildings were built in 1964. Ramos stated with the equipment they have, it is impossible to place them in any other wall. He stated on one side of the building there are driveways and the other side there is a stairwell and you can’t place it there. Ramos stated the only available location to place the units is on the outside of the wall facing towards the front. 

 

Ramos stated there are four units that could be moved to the inside wall between the two buildings and would still be within the permitted length for line set. The real issue is the two units that sit on the driveway side of the buildings, there are four total, two on each building.

 

Cutts concern was on the far side of each building it appears that the air conditioning unit is narrow and will it be able to fit on the site. Ramos stated they have to be a minimum of 1 foot away from the wall or any kind of wall or barrier to allow for proper air intake. If they were to put them 1 foot away from the building they would be taking part of the driveway space.

 

Derusha asked about the evaporator unit that sits inside the unit, is that within about 1 foot of the ceiling. Ramos stated they are on top of the main window. Derusha stated getting back to his original suggestion and running the hose, it will be work and you have to put a hole in the drywall straight out the back, but this is potentially a workable solution. Ramos stated this is something they can look into. Derusha stated the two inner apartments could be met by moving the air conditioners around the side of the buildings. Derusha stated then only the two outside ones would be the issue.

 

Holloway asked for some scaled dimensions of the building. Pung stated the width is about 30 feet. Derusha stated with the 30 feet he could go 8 feet up and 8 feet down and he still has distance left over. Pung stated the height is about 16 feet.

 

Ramos stated at the current spot where the air conditioners are sitting, the lines that run 12 feet horizontally to make it to the front of the building where they are sitting currently to go in between space they would need to move them approximately another 60 feet from where they currently are would be 72 feet. Ramos stated to go above the ceiling, they would have to open up drywall ceilings, possibly need electricians, and plumbers and it would be costly. He stated he thinks that to request this would be above and beyond what would normally be anticipated for this job.

 

Ramos stated he was not made aware of the ordinance until the units were already in place. Pung stated the mechanical inspector asked about the location of the units and then that is when staff noticed the applicant that it would require a variance.

 

Lipner asked when were the units placed. Ramos stated he does not have an exact date but maybe around late March. 

 

Holloway asked how would moving the units between the two buildings exceed maximum number of horizontal feet. Ramos stated the units that sit on the driveway side already have 12 foot horizontally to connect them to the entering unit to go from there and around the corner he measured about 1 or 2 feet into the space, 60 feet additional to the 12 that they already have.

 

Pung stated the 2 inside air conditioning units could be moved.

 

Ramos stated he didn’t think this request would come up again given the unique condition of the building and that the driveway is so close to them. Ramos asked if there is a zoning ordinance that would prohibit those condensers to be hanging about 1 foot up on the wall about 1 foot away from the wall. Pung stated he would have to check with Inspections to make sure it will meet the building code requirements. Cutts stated they should also check to make sure it would be an appropriate height so that it is not an obstruction for vehicles that are passing.

 

Ramos stated if they did that it would stick out about 2 feet. 

 

Derusha asked if garbage trucks would go in the back. Ramos stated yes, the dumpsters are kept in the back. Derusha stated a garbage truck is typically 10 feet tall.

 

Cutts asked if placing the units the roof was an option. Ramos stated that could be an option. Pung stated they would have to verify what the load weight is of the rafters in order to have it up there. Ramos stated they would have to place them far enough to the back of the roof so that they are not visible from the front. He stated they are a little over 2 feet tall. Ramos stated these are possibilities that aren’t for sure, they would likely encounter other barriers and make it difficult.

 

Ramos stated the unit has to be on the outside it has to have proper air flow to function correctly.

 

The commissioners were trying to assist with different options.

 

Holloway suggested the applicant table for another month to work on different options. Derusha stated if he tables the request then he and staff can discuss different options.

 

Pung stated he can work with staff but the inside units can be moved so if he came back the most he would need would be the outside units. The inside units can be moved to the side.

 

Ramos stated if they could find another solution without placing the units in the front. Pung stated if he finds a solution that meets the ordinance he will not have to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

 

-          Motion Carried (4-0) –

-          Fox, Lenger and Wing absent -

 

 

 

-          Motion Carried ( 4-0) –

 

 

Meeting adjourned at 7:48p.m.

 

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                        Alan Lipner, Secretary