Kentwood Committees & Boards
Zoning Board of Appeals (Back to index)
Minutes for 01/21/2008APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
JANUARY 21, 2008, 7:30 P.M.
1. Chair Derusha called the meeting to order.
2. Roll Call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Garrett Fox, Mel Holloway, Richard Lenger and Alan Lipner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Cutts, Derusha and Swanson
OTHERS PRESENT: Planner Joe Pung, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, the applicants, and two residents.
Motion by Lipner, supported by Holloway, to excuse Cutts, Derusha and Swanson from the January 21, 2008 meeting.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Cutts, Derusha and Swanson absent -
3. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by Lipner, supported by Fox, to approve the minutes of December 17, 2007.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Cutts, Derusha and Swanson absent -
4. Public Hearing
Appeal #V-08-01
Applicant: Calvin Loham
Location: 3130 Lindenwood Drive SE
Request: The applicant wishes to construct a 1,120 square foot detached accessory building in the side yard. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance limits the accessory building to 960 square feet in area and requires that it be located in the rear yard. The requested variances are for an increase in area of 160 square feet and to permit the accessory building to be located in the side yard.
Calvin Loham, 3130 Lindenwood Dr. SE, was there to represent the request. He stated he would like to erect a utility building ? in the side yard and ? in the rear yard so he can divide it into a woodworking workshop and storage. He stated the reason he would like to go into the side yard is because if he were to go back to the rear yard he would be taking out trees. He stated he would like to keep the trees to obscure the building as much as possible and also keep the wildlife. He stated the neighbors have no objections.
Fox asked how intends to keep it beautiful. Mr. Loham stated he would like to add some pine trees after the building is built and some landscaping. He displayed a photo with a similar structure to provide an idea of how it would look on the site.
Lenger asked staff if there was a problem with the height. Pung stated they can go up to 15 feet and that is measured at the midpoint between the peak and the eaves and based on what he has presented it comes in exactly at 15 feet; 9 feet from the ground to the eave and then from the eave to the peak is 12 feet.
Lenger opened up the public hearing.
Robert Begemann, 3100 Lindenwood Dr. lives west of the property and Jim Hollenfield who lives across the street had no problems with the pole barn and are in favor of it.
Lenger asked if he could have made it work with 960 square feet. Mr. Loham stated it would be crammed trying to divide it with the workshop and storage.
Fox?s concern was how he intends to give access to the barn. Mr. Loham stated that it will eventually be a drive off the street. Robert Begemann stated the drive is off a private drive it?s not off the main access road.
Motion by Lipner, supported by Holloway, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Cutts, Derusha and Swanson absent ?
Lipner stated point 1 was met due to the shape of the property, the vegetation and wildlife, the side location is a better location. He stated point 2 was met because it is a large piece of property, over an acre and with the foliage in the back he thinks it is unique. He stated point 3 was met because properties on the same street have similar structures.
Holloway, Fox and Lenger concurred.
Lipner stated point 4 was met due to the neighbor?s support of the request. He stated point 5 was met. He stated point 6 was met based on his need and how he is going to use it.
Holloway, Fox and Lenger concurred.
Motion by Lipner supported by Fox, to approve V-08-01
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 over an acre in area and located off a private road. The property has an irregular shape and rear has many trees.
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 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. Other properties in the area either have or were approved for longer accessory buildings.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has the support of his neighbors and existing and proposed trees would help screen the structure.
5. Due to the exceptional 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 (4-0) ?
- Cutts, Derusha and Swanson absent -
Appeal #V-08-02
Applicant: Valley City Sign
Location: 1640 East Paris Avenue SE
Request: The applicant wishes to erect an 88 square foot pylon sign where the lot width is 74 feet. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance restricts the area of the sign to 29.6 square feet and requires that the sign be located where the minimum lot width (100 feet) for the zoning district (C4 Office) is attained. The requested variances are for an increase in sign area by 58.4 square feet and to allow the sign to be located where the minimum lot width is not attained.
Beth Spaman, with Valley City Sign,5009 West River Dr. Comstock Park, was there to represent the request. She stated East Hills Athletic club currently has a 74 square foot pylon sign and they would like to add a 13.3 square foot electronic message center. She stated originally they had 400 feet of frontage but the property was split and sold in 1999 that decreased the frontage. She stated that sign is now non-conforming with what they currently have and they are asking to maintain the existing sign and add the electronic message center. She stated they are setback a far distance from the road and they would like to have a message center to be able to advertise classes and membership specials and community events. She stated MVP is their competitor and they would like the same right as MVP.
Lipner asked if it will be a new sign or an existing sign. Beth Spaman stated it is an existing sign they would just be adding an electronic message center beneath the existing sign.
Holloway asked what color letters do they plan to use. Beth Spaman stated it will be one color either amber or red. Holloway asked staff if there were cause for concern from the city with the color of the sign. Pung stated no.
Lenger asked how often a sign can change. Pung stated they can change them once per day or 24 hours.
Fox?s concern was how it will affect the visibility as you are exiting the drive. Beth Spaman stated it will not affect the visibility at all; they are maintaining the required clearance.
Fox asked if East Hills has any plans in the future to redo the sign. Beth Spaman stated this will be a permanent fix.
Lenger opened up the public hearing.
There was no public comment.
Motion by Lipner, supported by Fox, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Cutts, Derusha and Swanson absent -
Holloway stated point 1 was met due to the reduction of the lot size from the original size. Holloway stated point 2 was met because of the depth and the narrowness of the front. Holloway stated point 3 was met.
Lipner, Fox and Lenger concurred.
Holloway stated point 4 was met because there is enough clearance to see and it is part of the same sign. Holloway stated point 5 was met. Holloway stated point 6 was met with the lot size changing.
Lipner, Fox and Lenger concurred.
Motion by Holloway, supported by Lipner, to approve V-08-02.
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 reduction in lot frontage and its narrowness and the large distance the building is setback from the road and its lack of visibility.
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 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.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. The additional sign area will not impede vision and not be out of character for the area. Other signs in the area are similar.
5. Due to the exceptional 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. The applicant did not create the reduction in lot size nor the significant setback from the road and lack of visibility.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?-
- Cutts, Derusha and Swanson absent -
5. Election of Officers
Motion by Lipner, supported by Holloway to keep Derusha as Chair, Lenger as Vice-Chair and Lipner as Secretary.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Cutts, Derusha and Swanson absent
Motion by Holloway, supported by Lipner, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (4 -0) ?
- Cutts, Derusha and Swanson absent -
Meeting adjourned at 8:00p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Lipner, Secretary
|