1. Chair Derusha called the meeting to order.

 

2. Roll Call

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

• Motion Carried (4-0) –
• Cutts, Lenger and Wing absent -

 

3. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact

 
 Motion by Lipner, supported by Fox, to approve the minutes of   April 16, 2012   
 

• Motion Carried (4-0) –
• Cutts, Lenger and Wing absent -

4. Public Hearing

 
Appeal #V-12-04
 
 
Applicant:                               Rodney McGrain
Location:                                 1995 Jamestown Dr. SE
 
Request:                                  The applicant wishes to install a chain link fence in the                                                         front yard of the property.  Section 3.19.B.1 of the Zoning                                                  Ordinance does not permit chain link fencing in the front                                                     yard of any residential lot.  The requested variance is to                                                   permit a chain link fence to be located within the front                                                          yard.
 
Rodney McGrain, 1995 Jamestown Dr. was present representing the request.  He stated they added on to their home last year and when they got the permit for the additions they told him that his side yard is really his front yard.  He stated his address, front door and driveway is on Jamestown Drive. He stated there are no doors on Fawnwood.  He stated when they got the permit he had a shed and a chain-link fence that has been there for 40 years.  He stated the City asked him to remove the shed, which he has done, and he removed 90% of the fence. He stated he would like to put the fence back up and the shed is gone. They are not going to put the fence back as far as it was there is a large maple tree and the fence will be beyond that. McGrain stated he will be installing a black coated fence rather than the old chain link fence, it will be decorative and you won’t be able to notice the fence. Mr. McGrain presented photos of other chain link fence from around the area.
 
McGrain stated he doesn’t know why they call this his front yard.  He stated when the fence goes in it will look normal it will not look like it is a side yard.  He stated his landscaping will be beautiful.
 
Derusha asked why the City thinks his front yard is on Fawnwood.   Pung stated it is based on the existing setbacks for the home. Pung stated on the north side of the home the setback is not deep enough for what would be required for a rear yard. Pung stated the rear yard setback is only met on the west side and there is a minimum of 30 foot setback to the property line.  Derusha asked if this was a failure in the building permit. Pung stated on a corner lot the builder can choose what they want to be the front yard, but your entrance does not have to come off the front yard. Pung stated there are homes where the front yard is one street but the driveway is on the other street.  Pung stated the street address doesn’t necessarily dictate what the front yard is going to be.  It is what the setbacks are and how it was oriented when it was built. Derusha stated in this case he does not see anything about this house that says front yard on Fawnwood Ct. Pung stated when they built the home the larger setback was on the west side with the shorter setback to the north side.
 
Fox asked when he was applying for the permit to make the addition was he told that his fence was out of speck. McGrain stated at that time they did not tell him anything was wrong with his fence they told him his shed had to come down. McGrain stated the shed is gone now and he will not put it back.  McGrain stated back in 2009 there was a wooden fence, a chain link fence and a shed, it didn’t look very nice.
 
Holloway stated to the north side of the house is there still a chain-link fence along there and is it his.  McGrain stated there is a fence and it is his fence. Holloway asked if he wants to put the fence up from the northeast corner of the garage directly towards the road about 8 feet or more. McGrain stated he wants to go more than the 8 feet, he would like to go 24 feet and that is about 8-10 feet shorter than what it was. Discussion ensued.
 
Derusha explained to the applicant that in order for a variance request to be approved 4 members have to vote yes and there are only 4 members present tonight.  He stated his options are he can take his chances or he can come back next month with the hopes of more board members present. McGrain chose to move forward.
 
Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supported by Commissioner Fox, to close the public hearing.

• Motion Carried (4-0) –

           
Holloway stated point 1 was met there have been photos produced similar properties and it will be nice looking.  Holloway stated point 2 was met.  Holloway stated point 3 is met he thinks it is necessary that he has the enjoyment as every other resident in the area.
 
Lipner, Fox and Derusha concurred.
 
Holloway stated point 4 is met there is nobody present to contest the request.  Holloway stated point 5 is met as supported by the various pictures.  Holloway stated point 6 is met and the fence will be further from the road than the one it is replacing.
 
Lipner concurred Fox concurred adding he is not constructing a new fence he is just replacing and existing fence and Derusha concurred.
 
Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supported by Commissioner Fox, to approve V-12-04. Condition that the north/south direction in relationship to the street is to be held as close to the current concrete slab as conceivable, keep fence as far away from the street as possible.

1. That there exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. It is a corner lot and he considers it his side yard. It is replacing existing chain-link privacy fences that were closer to the street
2. That 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 a 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.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and surrounding neighborhood. There are existing chain-link fences in street sideyard in this area so it will not look out of place.
5. Due to exceptional circumstances 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 action of the applicant. This is a replacement of a current fence

 
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 Development LLC represented the request.  He stated they wish to build a 4 story Marriott Hotel.  He stated the request was tabled in March to work out the concerns with neighbors.  He stated they met with the neighbors numerous times since the public hearing in March and have come up with a solution.
 
Fox asked what was the solution with the neighbors.  Mast stated they are adding 35 pine trees behind the condo and 2 more on Mr. Wang’s property, they have letters committing to that.  Fox asked were there any other concerns from the residents that are not being met. Mast stated none from Forest Meadows Home Owners Association; they have a letter in with the City stating they agree with the terms.
 
Chair Derusha opened the public hearing.
 
There was no public comment.
 
Two letters were submitted from the Forest Meadows Condominium Association stating they are acceptable with the request as long as the applicant plants 35 8-9 feet tall pine trees as a barrier between their properties and the hotel.
 
Motion by Commissioner Lipner, supported by Commissioner Fox, to close the public hearing.

• Motion Carried (4-0)-
• Cutts, Lenger and Wing absent -

 
Fox stated point 1 was met based on the location and the number of modifications the applicant has gone through and the distance from the street in relation to the condos.  
 
Fox stated point 2 was met based on the shape of the lot as well as the location of the lot. 
 
Fox stated point 3 was met as there are other hotels in the same area and doing what is necessary to allow for a second hotel in the area meets the request.
 
Lipner concurred points, 1, 2, and 3 have been met noting that there are other facilities in the general area that exceed the two story limit and this request well meets the requirements. Holloway and Derusha concurred.
 
Fox stated point 4 was met there have been letters submitted from neighbors in the neighborhood. Fox stated point 5 has been met due to the residents in the neighborhood and the location of the lot.Fox stated point 6 has been met due to topography.
 
Lipner, Holloway, and Derusha concurred.
 
Bill Mast explained the agreement that was reached with the neighbors for landscaping after the original hearing for the request
 
Motion by Commissioner Fox, supported by Commissioner Holloway, to approve Case#V-12-03

1. That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply general to other properties in the same zoning district. Based on the location of the lot, the large setback from the street and distance from nearby residences.
2. Based on the exceptional circumstances applying to the lot 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. Based on the location of the lot and the shape.
3. That such a 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. Based on other hotels in the area that are above 2 story’s and the shape and location of the lot.
4. Based on the location of the hotel and the landscaping that will be provided the variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. 5.
5. Due to exceptional circumstances of the lot and landscaping that will be provided the variance will not impair the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. Per the letter that have been submitted by the housing authority.
6. That the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance request was not created by any action of the applicant. Due to the topography of the land.

 

Appeal #V-12-05

 
Applicant:                               DEG Development Company, LLC
Location:                                 4401 – 28^th Street, SE
 
            Request:                                  The applicant wishes expand an existing freestanding off-site sign by 65 square feet for a total area of 128 square feet.  Section 16.05.A.2 of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires that all signs, with a few exceptions, pertain only to the business or activity conducted on the premises.  Section 8.03.D of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance limits the maximum size of the sign to 100 square feet.  The existing sign is non-conforming; Section 16.03.A.1 of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance states that non-conforming signs may not be altered, expanded, enlarged, or extended.
 
                                                            The requested variances are to permit an off-site sign, allow for the alteration/enlarging of a non-conforming sign, and permit an increase of 28 square feet over the maximum allowed by ordinance.
 
Bill Mast was present representing the request.  He stated their hotel site is uniquely configured and that the signage ordinance uses linear footage of frontage as opposed to lot area as its metric for determining an sign size for a parcel or business.  He stated the ordinance doesn’t consider situations where back land behind other businesses is even commercially feasible, therefore it doesn’t use a formula based on acreage but on frontage.  Mast stated when this property gets split from the 34 acres that it is part of now, it will have zero street frontage. Mast stated a commercial business like this needs signage; people need to be able to find their hotel and other businesses.  He stated they are locating behind 4 existing buildings and one buildable lot.  He stated they need an off property sign and they need a variance for the size of it as well. 
 
Mast stated one possible suggestion would be that they use the existing former Bullwinkle, AJ’s Waterpark sign, but this is about 1/3 of what they have to eventually develop back there and whatever else goes there will need signage too. Mast stated this sign is within 2 inches of meeting the ground clearance, and the location and even with the proposed addition on top of the existing pylon would meet the height requirements. He stated he was not aware of the 100 foot square maximum. He stated he knows there is a concern with cluttering up commercial streets so he thought that adding the sign on to the top would accomplish the signage needs for the Marriott without adding another pylon.  He stated his suggestion would be to take the existing sign add on top and that would give the Marriott the signage it would need to get their guests back to the hotel and still leave the lower space on the sign available for whoever would come in next.
 
Mast stated the existing sign is 64 square feet and to draw another one above it bumped it up to 128 square feet which is 28 feet over.  Mast stated if you take the sign off his request would be a 36 square foot sign 12 feet wide and 3 feet high he would be open to discussing that as an option keeping it under the 100 square feet or at the 100 square feet and still give the Marriott a nice sign on 28^th Street.
 
Derusha stated usually what happens when we have someone coming in for an off premise sign there are several other people waiting to sign up to take one right along with you.   Derusha stated that is what we are trying to avoid.
 
Derusha asked if there is a way to make the 100 square feet work. Mast stated quite easily. He stated they will almost be in keeping with the proportion of the property to have it be 36 square feet versus 64ft. Derusha stated when the other piece of land is developed they are going to be right back here for more signage.
 
Fox stated if he is willing to work with 100 square feet then he can work it out with his team.  Mast stated he tried to read the ordinance but he missed the 100 square foot maximum.  He stated he thinks 100 square foot maximum is a nice solution.  The proposal would be a request for adding no more than 36 square feet to the existing sign.
 
Derusha asked if they had to approve the altering of a nonconforming sign. Pung stated they can approve, because it is nonconforming but they are just expanding.  If they are approving they can just put in a condition that the addition cannot exceed the 100 square feet.
 
Mast stated he noticed in the report that the base was too big.  Pung stated as long as he is not touching the base that is fine but if he is going to work with the pole too and shrink it back down and bring it more into conformance they can also have that as a condition if they modify to bring the pole cover into conformance.  Mast stated that will be a lot easier than raising it 2 inches.
 
Chair Derusha opened the public hearing.
 
There was no public comment.
 
Motion by Lipner, supported by Fox to close the public hearing.
 

• Motion Carried (4-0) –
• Cutts, Lenger and Wing absent –

 
Lipner stated point 1 was met the property is setback, the topography of the property and lack of street frontage.  Lipner stated point 2 was met because it is off street. Lipner stated point 3 is met because of the way the property is.
 
Holloway, Fox and Derusha concurred.
 
Lipner stated point 4 is met there have been no complaints.  Lipner stated point 5 is met. Lipner stated point 6 is met.
 
Lipner, Fox and Derusha concurred.
 
Motion by Lipner, supported by  Fox, to approve V-12-05 adding that the applicant will be changing the pole cover to bring it more into conformity, limit the total size of the sign to 100 square feet and it will be retained at the current ground clearance, and that there will not be any freestanding identification signs on the Marriott property itself.
           

1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The property is setback off of 28^th Street behind other buildings and has no street frontage.
2. Due to the exceptional 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.  The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. Other businesses in the area have the ability to have identification on 28^th Street.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. The sign will not exceed the maximum allowed by Ordinance and will allow drivers to find the hotel.
5. Due to the exceptional circumstances 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. The applicant did not create the situation in the parcel location.

 
Appeal #V-12-06
 
Applicant:                               D.E.G. 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 new hotel.  The exterior of the building would consist of 53.75 percent cement board siding and panels; Section 8.03.B.2 of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance limits the coverage by siding to 25 percent.  The requested variance is to permit 53.75 percent of the exterior building coverage to be siding.
                                                           
Bill Mast was present representing the request. He stated they have 27% glass aluminum and the architect has drawn a conforming set of elevations and one for which the variance is being sought.  Mast stated the stone is about 25-27%.  The one that meets the ordinance they would then have about 24% EIFS. He stated it would meet the ordinance, but have glass aluminum masonry or stone veneer and cement board and siding and EIFS. He stated what they would prefer to build has a little more residential feel fewer material transitions for water infiltration over the years and a cleaner more residential look. Discussion ensued regarding the look being cleaner and maintenance free.
 
Derusha stated that in his experience cement board siding is almost a durable as stone
 
Fox asked why it was reduced to 25%.  Pung stated it use to be that there were no requirements and there were guidelines and when the ordinance was redone in 2002 they wanted to formalize or bring some of those requirements into the ordinance and through all the discussion that is where they broke out the percentages. They tried to figure out what would be the preferred breakdown for different material types. Discussion ensued.
 
Holloway asked if there are any buildings that have been built lately that are using the cement board. Pung stated he could not right off hand think of any non-residential projects. Discussion ensued.
 
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 (4-0) –
• Cutts, Lenger and Wing absent -

 
Holloway stated that point 1 is met it is a back lot. Holloway stated point 2 is met. Holloway stated point 3 is met 49-50% were granted and he sees why the applicant would like to use this.
 
Lipner concurred. Fox concurred adding that the intent is to maintain a residential look and Derusha concurred.
 
Holloway stated point 4 is met. Holloway stated point 5 is met. Holloway stated point 6 is met.
 
Lipner concurred. Fox concurred adding the reduction of the material down to zero allowing for the adjustment allowing for this material to increase.  Derusha concurred adding that cement board is probably more desirable than EIFS.
 
Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supported by Commissioner Fox, to approve V-12-06

1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. This is a zero frontage lot next to residential and you would want to maintain a residential look. The building is located behind an existing hotel.
2. That 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. The parcel has no street frontage and the hotel will be located behind another existing hotel.
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.  The possibility of increased financial             return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. The cement board siding will help maintain a residential appearance and reduce material transitions.
5. Due to the exceptional circumstances 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 by Holloway, supported by Lipner, to adjourn the meeting.
 

• Motion Carried (4 -0) –

 
Meeting adjourned at 8:01p.m.
 
                                                                        Respectfully submitted,
 
                                                                        Alan Lipner, Secretary