Kentwood Committees & Boards
Zoning Board of Appeals (Back to index)
Minutes for 08/20/2007APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
AUGUST 20, 2007, 7:30 P.M.
1. Vice-Chair Lenger called the meeting to order.
2. Roll Call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Akers, Theresa Dudley, Richard Lenger, and Ed Swanson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Cutts, Les Derusha, Alan Lipner
OTHERS PRESENT: Planner Joe Pung, Planner Debargha Sengupta, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, the applicants, and 20 citizens.
Motion by Swason, supported by Dudley, to excuse Cutts, Derusha and Lipner from the meeting.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Cutts, Derusha and Lipner absent -
3. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by Swanson, supported by Akers, to approve the minutes of July 16, 2007
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Cutts Derusha and Lipner absent -
4. Public Hearing
Appeal #V-07-11
Applicant: Guardian Angel Homes
Location: 2400 Forest Hill Avenue, SE
Request: The applicants wish to develop an assisted living facility on a 3.06 acre site which will be split off from a larger 10.32 acre site currently the home of Christ Community Church. The existing parking for the church would be setback one foot from the new property line created by the lot split. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum parking setback of 45 feet along with a 20 foot landscaped buffer.
The development would consist of four residence buildings and one community building located off of Forest Hill Avenue. The residences will have front yard setbacks of 20 feet (Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires 35 feet), combined side yard setbacks of 15 feet (Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires 40 feet) and rear yard setbacks of as little as 20 feet (Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires 50 feet).
The requested variances are a reduction of 44 feet to the required parking setback, waiving the 20 foot landscape buffer requirement, reduction of 15 feet to the required front yard setback, reduction of 25 feet to the required combined side yard setback and a reduction of 30 feet to the required rear yard setback.
Lenger indicated that the request will be tabled and then opened the public hearing.
John Tobassco, 2333 Shadetree lane, Henry and Lois Devries Forest Meadows Condo Association, Esma 2279 Forest Hill Ave feel the applicant is asking for to many variances and they are all in opposition of the variance
Motion by Swanson, supported by Akers to table the request until September 18, 2007.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Cutts Derusha and Lipner absent -
Appeal #V-07-12
Applicant: The Design Forum, Inc
Location: 4144 Breton Avenue, SE
Request: The applicant wishes to install an on-site identification sign on the property; the proposed sign would six (6) feet in height. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance limits the height of the sign to four (4) feet. The requested variance is for an increase of in height of two (2) feet from what is permitted by ordinance.
Neal Bauman, President of the Design Forum Architects, was there to present the request. He stated the sign will include two feet of base that will set it above the ground. He stated the sign is located at the north end of the property. He stated the front of the building is heavily landscaped from north to south and wraps around both sides. He stated the combination of the sloping site and the stepping terrain, by the time you take a four foot high sign you can barely be able to see the sign without having something to elevate it. He stated they would like to set it up above the base so that they can get it up above the plantings. He stated being able to elevate the sign will be essential to increase the visibility. He stated they think it is important because Breton is a five lane 45 mile per hour road and cars are going by too quickly to be able to see the sign and react to the sign. They are concerned if the sign is forced to be at grade and only four feet high, the problems with the vegetation, plantings and the grading issues will cause difficulty in visibility and that could be a potential traffic hazard as people who see the sign react to it to slowly and don?t see it soon enough and are forced to slow down quickly to try to make the turn into the driveway.
Motion by Akers, supported by Swanson to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Cutts, Lipner and Derusah absent ?
Dudley stated that it does not meet points 1, 2, or 3. Dudley stated that she saw nothing exceptional about the property
Akers, Swanson and Lenger concurred.
Akers stated he did drive by the building and he didn?t notice any problem seeing the sign that was there so did not see that as exceptional. Swanson noted that when the vacant property to the north is developed they would want the same allowance so it would be recurring.
Dudley stated points 4, 5, and 6 are not met
Akers, Swanson, Lenger concurred.
Swanson stated it is a beautiful building and they have done a good job.
Motion by Akers, supported by Swanson to deny V-07-12 in that:
1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. In driving by the site there was no problem seeing the sign.
2. The condition or situation of the specific piece of property for which the variance is of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonable practical the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Once the adjacent property to the north is developed they may want the same allowance.
3. That such a variance is not 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. Due to the lack of exceptional circumstances applying to the property the variance will impair the intent and purpose of this Ordinance.
5. That the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance request was created by action of the applicant.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Lipner, Cutts and Derusha absent -
Appeal #V-07-13
Applicant: Dale Heyboer
Location: 2500 ? 52nd Street, SE
Request: The applicant wishes to erect a barn which is 1,825 square foot in area 45 feet in height on the property, which already contains 2 accessory buildings. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance limits the area of the accessory building to 120 square feet and the height to 15 feet, the Zoning Ordinance also limits the property to 2 accessory buildings. The requested variances are for an increase in area of 1,705 square feet and an increase in height of 30 feet for the accessory building and to permit a third accessory building on the property.
Dale Heyboer was there to represent the request. He stated he is representing the Kentwood Historic Preservation Commission. He stated the reason they want to put the barn at 2500 ? 52nd Street is because it is a historic barn built in 1914, by John VanderLaan a resident of Paris Township. He stated this request is to preserve some history in Kentwood. He stated eventually they would like to be able to make a museum where people in Kentwood can bring things in and have a place to put them and eventually over the years make a display. He stated the people that owned the barn gave them a month to get it out otherwise they were going to tear it down and haul it to the landfill. He stated they tore it down and hauled it over to his place. He stated that he thinks his property will be the best place to build it because if you look around Kentwood there is really no other place to put it without it interfering. He stated that his farm has been in the family for about 105 years and it fits and it allows for it to keep the historic value.
Esther Middlewood, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission stated this is the last remaining barn built by John VanderLaan. She stated the barn was made with pegs and the wooden pegs have been saved. She stated we are re-constructing a piece of history. She stated the centennial farm on 52nd Street is an ideal place for it. She stated they have other artifacts they would like to put in that barn.
Maureen Hickey Vicksburg Ct., she stated when she got the letter in mail she was very happy to see that Kentwood is trying to preserve some of its history. She stated she thinks this will be an excellent addition to preserve the history and the conservation oriented development mindset for the area.
Jeff Shrimba 5249 Stauffer stated he is pleased and in full support.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Akers to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Cuttes, Dersuah and Lipner absent.
Akers stated he loves history.
Akers stated point 1 was met they are trying to do something exceptional and that this is the only working barn left in Kentwood. Akers stated point 2 was met due to the unique and exceptional circumstances and point 3 was met as well this is a unique situation and the only farm in Kentwood.
Dudley, Swanson and Lenger concurred.
Akers stated point 4, 5 and 6 were met. The barn will be an asset to the City and there are currently no homes adjacent to the proposed location. It is a unique situation and will not impair the intent of the ordinance.
Dudley, Swanson and Lenger concurred.
Swanson did indicate that Bob VanderLaan is a friend of his and he may have the plans to the barn that his family built years ago.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Akets, to approve V-07-13.
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 historic barn and the property is the last remaining active farm in the City of Kentwood
2. 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. This is a one of a kind situations there are no other active farms in the City.
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 use is unique and not applicable to other situations.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. Meets conservation oriented development guidelines, it saves a portion of Kentwood?s history which is a benefit to the city as a whole.
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, Lipner and Derusah absent ?
Appeal #V-07-14
Applicant: Robert Grooters Development
Location: 4460 ? 44th Street, SE
Request: The applicant wishes to add seventy (70) parking spaces to the property. The additional parking would come to within twenty-five (25) feet of the private road to the east (front yard). Section 10.03.B of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires that the parking be setback at least thirty-five (35) feet. The requested variance is for a reduction of ten (10) feet to the minimum required front yard parking setback
Kurt with Robert Grooters Development Company was there to represent the request. He stated they would like to reduce the front yard setback by 10 feet to a 25 foot setback. He stated it will allow them to create 70 additional parking spaces. He stated this is an industrial development. One of the items they consider an exceptional circumstance is the length of the building it is 200 foot wide by 1,000 feet long. He stated it has 100,000 square foot of office space. He stated the building was built for Common Point Mortgage; they went bankrupt after three months and left them with 100,000 square feet of office space. He stated they have been trying to secure tenants for that space. He stated the problem they are running into now is that they are all smaller users and as it doesn?t correlate to the number of parking spaces. He stated the basic available parking at the building onsite is 456 parking spaces and an additional 189 spaces in the low lot. He stated they have filled up the entire space with the exception of an 18,000 square foot suite. He stated they are working with a user that has a requirement of 140 parking spaces and they have 74 parking spaces available for that tenant, that is what creates the need for 70 additional parking spaces. He stated they do have spaces in the low lot but the road is a major truck traffic road. He stated the other exceptional circumstance is that it is 100,000 square foot of office within an industrial zone location. He stated the area has a great deal of truck traffic and there is a lot of concern keeping pedestrians off the major truck routes that are the private drives. He stated they are doing their best to secure long term tenants. He stated the variance is necessary to allow adequate safe parking on the east end of the building and within an acceptable distance of the suite. He stated they have looked at a number of options that they could fit the amount of parking space they need which is 70 by going parallel parking but the problem is that it required one way streets through the development. He stated that they will cause traffic jams in the private drive and they felt that would be a bigger detriment causing traffic back-ups in the private drives than requesting the zoning variance. He stated the intent of the variance is to provide adequate buffer area for aesthetics and they will provide landscaping within the green belt for aesthetics and maintain the feel that the industrial park carries. He stated the need has been created by the change in the economy. He stated the large office users are no longer out there, they have had to split up the office spaces. He stated as they expand the amount of tenants the parking demand also increases.
Swanson stated shared parking works better than designated parking because the demands are not always identical. Swanson asked if he has talked to the tenants about sharing parking. Kurt stated they just switched to the designated parking plan a year and a half ago when they started securing additional tenants back in the space and the problem is that there is no staggered start time with the companies, they are all 8am-4pm. He stated they were running into difficulty with the second shift taking up all the other parking spots.
Akers asked about adding parking area to the south. Kurt stated that area is a retention pond that they can not build on.
Lenger opened the public hearing.
There was no public comment.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Akers, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (4-0)-
- Derusha, Cutts and Lipner absent ?
Swanson stated that point 1 was met because it is a private road, there seems to be adequate room and to move it wouldn?t create anything extraordinary it is a large building (100,00) in an industrial area that is used as an office building. Swanson stated point 2 was met due to the fact that this it the only building in this area where an industrial building has been used for office. Swanson stated that point 3 was met because it is necessary to get that vacant property used, to provide adequate parking for the uses on the site and to limit pedestrians from crossing truck routes.
Akers concurred
Dudley stated that point 1 and 3 were met but her concern is as you start getting new tenants moving in then the make-up starts to change again and they w ill have to come back in for other parking variance. Kurt stated this is the last suite they have and it puts them in the building at 100% occupancy. He stated there will not be any future needs and they do have spaces to complete the build out off the aero-tech office suites. Dudley stated that she agrees points 1, 2 and 3 have been met.
Lenger concurred
Swanson stated that point 4 was met because it is a private road and the adjacent buildings are owned by the applicant. Swanson stated point 5 was met because the ordinance has been changed so that this kind of situation will not happen again. Swanson stated point 6 was met because it was caused by the loss of a tenant, which had occupied the whole building.
Akers, Dudley and Lenger concurred.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Akers, to approve V-07-14.
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 use of the property for office while surrounded by industrial development, it is a very large building also.
2. Due to the unique situation and exceptional circumstances applying to the property the variance 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 variance is needed to provide needed and safe parking for the allowed use of the building or buildings.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that it is on a private road and there are all owned by the applicant. They will also provide landscaping along the road.
5. Due to the exceptional circumstances applying to the property the variance will not impair the intent and purpose of this Ordinance.
6. Due to the loss of a tenant the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance request was not created by any action of the applicant.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Derusha, Cutts and Lipner absent -
Appeal #V-07-15
Applicant: Erie Construction Mid-West
Location: 437 Pine Vista Drive, SE
Request: The applicant wishes to construct a 3-season room onto the rear of the existing home. The 3-season room would be setback 22 feet 5 inches from the rear lot line. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard building setback of 35 feet. The requested variance is for a reduction of 12 feet 7 inches to the required rear yard building setback.
Jody Hopkins, Manager for Erie Construction was there to present the request. He stated the neighbors have the same size room as Mr. Bobbledyke is requesting. He stated what they are proposing to build will protrude no further than what the existing deck already does and it will not encroach more on the property line than the deck already does. He stated they are going to put a strong backer carrier underneath the existing deck. He stated they will insulate the floor, put a new floor system on top of the existing deck and build a vinyl sunroom around it.
Discussion ensued regarding the construction of the building and the neighbor?s property.
Swanson asked did they talk to the neighbors. Mr. Hopkins stated they have not talked to them. Swanson stated he doesn?t have a problem if the neighbors don?t have a problem with it and he would like to know their opinion. He stated he would like to see this tabled and to come back next month.
Lenger stated the neighbors were given a letter and they had the opportunity to be at the public hearing.
Motion by Akers, supported by Swanson, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Derucsha, Cutts and Lipner absent -
Dudley stated that point 1 was met due to the use of the property immediately adjoining the property. Dudley stated point 2 was met she doesn?t think it will come back again due to the unique situation. Dudley stated point 3 was met.
Akers, Swanson and Lenger concurred.
Dudley stated point 4, 5 and 6 have been met.
Akers, Swanson and Lenger concurred
Motion by Dudley to approve, supported by Akers, to approve V-07-15.
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 adjacent home has a similar room with the same setback. When the home was built it appeared to be considered a corner lot with reduced setbacks.
2. Due to the development of the adjacent home and how the home was originally setback, the variance 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. Without the variance the applicant could not enjoy a sunroom similar to that on the adjacent home to the east.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. It will be no closer than the existing deck on the sunroom on the adjacent home.
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 construct the home with the current setbacks.
- Motion Carried (4-0) ?
- Derusha, Lipner and Cutts -
Motion by supported by to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried ( 4-0) ?
- Derusha Cutts and Lipner absent ?
Meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Akers, Secretary
|