APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011, 7:00 P.M.
1. Chair Derusha called the meeting to order.
2. Roll Call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Cutts, Les Derusha, Garrett Fox, Mel Halloway, Alan Lipner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Lenger, and Walter Wing (with notification)
OTHERS PRESENT: Planner Joe Pung, Staff Secretary Monique Collier the applicants, and one resident.
Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supported by Commissioner Lipner, 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 Commissioner Fox, supported by Commissioner Lipner, to approve the minutes of August 15, 2011.
- Motion Carried (5-0) –
- Lenger and Wing absent -
4. Public Hearing
Appeal #V-11-07
Applicant: DTN Management Company
Location: 3756 – 28th 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 McEhnill, engineer with Fitzgerald and Associates, was present to represent the request. He stated since the August meeting they were able to get some clarification from HoneyBaked Ham. He stated HoneyBaked Ham sent additional correspondence September 12, 2011 to the City in favor of the drive-thru.
McEnhill stated DTN Management also has an agreement with HoneyBaked Ham to shrink their space if it is mutually acceptable to both parties. HoneyBaked could be moved to the back of the building and a new tenant brought in to the front portion of that building.
McEnhill stated there was also discussion as to whether or not construction would take place within a year and that is something that DTN Management does want to do, they would like to get it constructed as soon as possible.
McEnhill stated if HoneyBaked Ham doesn’t utilize the window then DTN Management would move them to the rear of the building and they would be in the situation where they would be looking for a new tenant for the front portion of that building. He stated that if that were to happen they do understand they would have to get a modification to that special land use permit. He stated they do want to get the drive-thru built and HoneyBaked Ham is in favor of it being constructed.
McEhill stated they are utilizing an existing building, there is a setback issue from Lake Eastbrook Boulevard and also the landscape percentage. He stated what they tried to do is they went from 16% greenspace to 19% greenspace. He stated this is a ½ acre parcel. He stated because of the drive-thur lane and the bypass lane and the small size of the lot, there really wasn’t another option to get that additional greenspace. He stated what they tried to do is use the adjacent parcel, which is also owned by DTN Management and try to come up with the additional acreage of greenspace.
McEhill pointed out where the greenspace was added. He also stated they shifted the east curb line further to the west and eliminated a driveway and added two additional islands.
Derusha asked if the Planning Commission had a problem with the request. Pung stated no, there is a copy of their conditional approval of the special land use and site plan review.
Holloway asked what type of tenant they are looking to put in the front half of the building. McEnhill stated possibly a coffee type shop would be their ideal tenant. Holloway asked if there will be any overnight hours. McEnhill stated there will not be.
Chair Derusha opened the public hearing.
There was no public comment.
Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supported by Commissioner Lipner to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (5-0) –
- Lenger and Wing absent -
Cutts stated point 1 is met due to the modifications they have made and the Planning Commission has approved the special land use and site plan. Cutts stated point 2 is met. Cutts stated point 3 is met.
Holloway, Lipner, Derusha and Fox concurred with Fox adding that the additional greespace in split areas that is on lot and off of lot and also that off lot greenspace is owned by the same person. Derusha added he liked the idea of removing that curb cut.
Cutts stated 4 is met because it is a corner lot sitting away from other areas. Cutts stated point 5 is met. Cutts stated point 6 is met.
Holloway, Lipner Derusha and Fox concurred with Fox adding to meet the proposed setback it is not possible with the lot of this size.
Motion by Commissioner Cutts, supported by Commissioner Holloway, to approve V-11-07 DTN Management Company adding the condition that the use be consistent with the Development Impact Assessment as approved by the Planning Commission or other approved uses by the Planning Commission.
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 corner lot and they are trying to do something unique with the building to bring two businesses inside and they have made some modifications with the land that will work. Adjacent parcel under common ownership allow off-site improvements such as landscaping and closing of a drive.
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. It is a corner lot very small and doing their best to fit the needs of the variance request. Adjacent properties under common ownership allowing off-site improvements.
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. Corner lot and sits away from everything. Improvements made to parking on-site and off-site and a curb cut has been removed.
5. The variance will not impair the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. The Planning Commission has reviewed and conditionally approved the use and site plan
6. That the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance request was not created by any action of the applicant. This is a small lot and they are working with what they have.
- Motion Carried (5-0) –
- Lenger and Wing absent -
Appeal #V-11-11
Applicant: RJM Design
Location: 3300-36th Street SE
Request: The applicant wishes to install a chain link fence in the street side yard of a corner lot. Section 3.19.B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance does not permit chain links fences in the street side yard of a corner lot. The requested variance is to permit a chain link fence to be located in the street side yard.
Jim Morgan, landscape architect with RJM Design and Lee Huff with Wedgwood Christian Services were present to represent the request. Jim Morgan stated their request is for the Paramor Home which works with developmentally delayed children who are special needs. He stated there is currently a 6ft high white fence that happens to comply with the zoning ordinance. Morgan stated the difficulty they are having is from a program standpoint these children need to go outside and feel like they are outside. Morgan stated if you have a solid fence it is really not changing the environment the way they need it to and a chainlink is going to be more transparent so they can see the landscaping and they can see the cars go by and other people on campus and not feel like they are indoors. Morgan stated the concern is from a functional/program standpoint but also a perception that Wedgwood is concerned with the solid white fence of people driving by wondering what is going on behind that fence. He stated it works both ways from the children’s standpoint and from the public driving by. He stated the white fence is inconsistent with the rest of Wedgwood’s campus the fencing they do have is all chainlink and very transparent.
Derusha asked what is the hang up of the chainlink fence versus a solid white fence. Pung stated this is a fairly recent amendment to the zoning ordinance that was approved in September of last year. Pung stated the main intent of the ordinance was to limit fencing in the yard areas fronting public streets to something that is more decorative, chainlink and wire fencing in general is not considered to be decorative. Pung stated you can still have a fence in the rear and side you just can’t have it in front lawn, and a corner lot you have two front yards.
Morgan stated the fence is vinyl coated not galvanized. Morgan stated the other important factor is the ordinance changes were for a residential zone. He stated Wedgwood’s campus is in a residential zone, but it is an institutional use.
Fox asked if they looked at painting the fence to create a different type of atmosphere. Morgan stated changing the colors would make it less unattractive from the outside but still from a functional standpoint and allowing the children to go outside and feel like they are outside it is still going to be a solid wall and not a lot different from being in a room with solid walls, therefore the perception is going to remain enclosure and the kids need something other than enclosure.
Holloway asked if there has been any thought they might climb the fence. Morgan stated there is a concern but the numbers are small there are 7 students with a maximum of 10. The supervision is ratio 2 to 1 and these kids could go outside without the fence but they are concerned about that because they are special needs. Holloway asked what the age limit is of the children. Lee Huff stated they are between the ages of 6-18
Fox asked how long the facility has been functioning. Lee Huff stated this program just started in February 2011.
Derusha asked if there would ever be an occasion they would be out there unattended. Lee Huff stated they will never be unattended.
Lipner stated there are concerns about them if they had the solid fence there is a visual barrier to the street is there any concern that with the chainlink they children might be more prone to go over the fence. Huff stated their thought is to get the smaller circles so that they cannot climb the fence it makes it a lot harder. He stated they want them to feel like they are outdoors and not enclosed in. Morgan stated if you go to a 1 ½ inch it is very difficult to get your foot in if you reduce the size of the mesh it is hard to get over.
Fox stated what is causing hesitation for him is long term, as Wedgwood grows this may not be the location and then we have a fence that goes against the intent of beautification of yards. He stated he recognizes the importance, but if this is granted then it says to anyone else who may has a child care facility they may think they should then be allowed to have a fence.
Derusha asked if there could be a restriction on it. Pung stated they can and they can also condition it on the site plan so the fence can’t expand in the future. Pung stated they are showing possible building expansion, if the building expansion is constructed then the fence will no longer need a variance it would no longer be in the street side yard. Fox asked when the building expansion is planned. Morgan stated it is a building expansion as part of an approved PUD there are no plans to put the addition on and it will probably never happened.
Discussion ensued regarding the ordinance change. Pung stated the intent was more concerned with the aesthetics within residential areas and trying to maintain an appealing residential appearance. Pung stated in industrial and commercial there was some requirement for security issues with regards to the chainlink.
Morgan stated they are setback 80feet with the proposed fence and there is a lot of existing vegetation along Shaffer.
Discussion ensued.
Chair Derusha opened the public hearing.
There was no public comment.
Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supported by Commissioner Lipner, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (5-0)
- Lenger and Wing absent -
Fox stated point 1 is not met. Fox stated point 2 is met this is not a residential use as the rest of the neighborhood. Fox stated point 3 is met because this is not a standard residential, this is a facility that has multiple uses.
Lipner stated point 1 is met the property is unique in its size, over 20 acres, compared to other residential type environments and it use is unique. Lipner stated points 2 and 3 are met.
Holloway stated point 1 is met the fact that this is not a residential area per se it is more less institutional and the setback is considerable. Holloway stated point 2 and 3 are met.
Cutts stated points 1, 2 and 3 have been met.
Fox stated point 4 he is on the edge the ordinance states no chainlink fences but this fence will be a different type, it does not affect the neighborhood as there has been no community response. Fox stated point 5 is met because this is institutional rather than residential use. Fox stated point 6 is not met it was the institutions choice to place the residents in this facility.
Lipner stated point 4 has been met there are other facilities to the east and south that are chainlink fenced so it would fit in the environment. Lipner stated point 5 is met because it is institutional in a residential. Lipner stated point 6 is met they are already doing the type of service.
Holloway concurred with Lipner adding that point 6 if they had this request a year ago they wouldn’t have the need for a variance. He stated he doesn’t think it will cause anything in the public eye. He stated he thinks this is a definite need with that type of child.
Cutts and Derusha concurred that points 4, 5 and 6 have been met.
Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supposed by Commissioner Lipner to approve V-11-11
- That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. It is an exceptionally large parcel with an institutional use. The fence will be setback 80 feet from
- 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.
- 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.
- The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. The fence will be setback 80 feet from the road with landscaping in between. There are other chainlink fences in the area.
- The variance will not impair the intent and purpose of this Ordinance due to the unique situation and circumstances.
- That the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance request was not created by any action of the applicant. The type of children served by the facility is determining the type of fencing they need.
Motion by supported by to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (4-1) –
- Fox dissenting -
- Lenger and Wing absent -
Meeting adjourned at 7:40p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Lipner, Secretary