Kentwood Committees & Boards
Zoning Board of Appeals (Back to index)
Minutes for 09/19/2005APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, 7:30 P.M.
1. Chair Derusha called the meeting to order.
2. Roll Call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Akers, Tom Cutts, Les Derusha, Theresa Dudley, Richard Lenger, and Ed Swanson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Alan Lipner
OTHERS PRESENT: Planner Joe Pung, Planner Debargha Sengupta, the applicants and two residents.
Motion by Dudley, supported by Akers, to excuse Alan Lipner from the meeting.
- Motion Carried (6-0) -
- Lipner absent -
3. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by Swanson supported by Dudley to approve the minutes of August 15, 2005.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Lipner absent -
4. Old Business
Appeal V-05-26
Applicant: Design United LLC
Location: 2210 East Paris Avenue, SE
Request: The applicant wishes to construct a 9,750 square foot building with approximately thirty-nine (39) parking spaces. The parking would be up to the south and east property lines and an accessory structure would be up to the east property line. Sections 17.06.C.1 & .3 of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance require that parking be setback a minimum of forty-five (45) feet from the south and east property lines with the twenty (20) feet nearest the property lines developed as a buffer with a six (6) foot high vertical screen. Section 19.03.C.3 of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum landscape buffer of ten (10) feet along the south and east property lines with a minimum of five (5) trees and twenty-one (21) shrubs along the east property line and six (6) trees and twenty-seven (27) shrubs along the south property line. The requested variances are to eliminate the required parking setbacks, buffering requirements and minimum landscaping required by ordinance.
Chair Derusha introduced the request and opened the public hearing.
David Daining with Design United of Grand Rapids along with Dr. Girish Junega, the property owner, and Jim Sukenik, adjacent property owner were present. Mr. Daining stated they worked very hard to come up with an acceptable solution to all parties; they have been through a dozen different layouts. Mr. Daining presented the previous plan which was developed without working with the adjacent property owner to the east. He indicated that they have now worked out a different layout with the adjacent property owner. The church property to the south is zoned R1-C Single Family Residential sandwiched between two commercial properties. They are still looking at compliance with setbacks and landscaping with regards to the other property lines. Mr. Daining presented a new layout that depicted a shared driveway to access both parcels 2210 and 2220. He indicated it also accommodates the City?s desire to have a future drive to the north aligning with the drive on the Grand Rapids side. Daining stated that the previous layout made the traffic movements confusing and therefore was abandoned. Both owners are in agreement with the new layout. They would like to have unrestricted access to East Paris Avenue for the south drive. Derusha asked what restrictions were anticipated. Mr. Daining indicated entry access only and if use of the drive is restricted users would have to come around the building. Akers asked whether restrictions can be imposed; Derusha and Swanson agreed that such kind of a binding condition can probably not be imposed. Akers asked staff that with the parking lot layout to the south, whether the future building would come before the ZBA as well with regards to the buffer. Staff indicated that the buffer requirement for shared drives and common parking lots is under consideration by staff for a future ordinance amendment. Cutts asked how far down the Church was located to which the applicant pointed on the plan and indicated approximately 200 feet. Dudley inquired if any landscaping was proposed. The applicant showed on the plan which areas would be landscaped. There is some green space along the church drive. Mr. Daining stated that they talked about this last week and have tried very hard to arrive at a layout that is not detrimental to any of the properties. Derusha asked that if, in the long term, the layout would meet all other requirements. Staff indicated that it would be difficult to state now; however, if both properties are developed as office no variances would be required. At this point a residential use has to be considered for the adjacent property since although it may be the intent of the owner to development it as office, the owner can currently still use it as a residence. Akers asked if access from the church was pursued. The applicant indicated that is was not. Akers asked what would constitute the common drive. The applicant indicated it on the plan.
Chair Derusha asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on the request.
Jim Sukenik, representing the interests of 2010 East Paris, indicated that they looked at this property and have worked with Integrated Architecture, David Daining and Dr. Junega and has a good working relationship with them. He indicated that he intends to use the property and existing home for office use. The property is a bit awkward but this design would create a little relief to that situation. The church is busy only at certain times but overall the drive is not that busy. The church drive is overbuilt for only Saturday or Sunday use. His property could be designed to have a nice vista overlooking the woods.
Swanson asked if he had any conversations with the Church. Mr. Sukenik indicated that he had not but would have problems with circulation and signage if they had to use the church drive for access. Derusha asked if the church was used weekdays. Mr. Sukenik stated that is was not used many days; he noticed one car was parked one day and thirty cars another day. Swanson asked how signage would be addressed. Mr. Sukenik stated they would apply for a variance to have a combined sign with the surgical center. He indicated that he has had very little time to look at this but is very supportive of this solution.
Chair Derusha asked for any other comments.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Dudley to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Lipner absent -
The Board reviewed Section 21.04.B as follows:
Swanson indicated that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applying to the property with the narrowness of the adjacent driveway and layout with respect to adjacent property.
Swanson stated the condition is not so general or recurrent in nature, there are not many parcels like this that need a common drive and would have a shared parking lot.
Swanson stated the variance is necessary for a substantial property right to reasonably developed the property and work with the adjacent property owner although he would have preferred a shared drive with the church.
Akers, Cutts, Lenger, Dudley and Derusha all concurred that the first three points were met.
Swanson stated that granting the variance would not be detrimental to adjacent property. No concerns were voiced by adjacent property owners.
Swanson stated that granting the variance would not impair the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance.
Swanson stated that the shape of the property created the need for the variance not the applicant.
Akers, Cutts, Lenger, Dudley and Derusha all concurred that the second three points were met and Akers commended the applicant for working the adjacent property owner to the east.
Motion by Lenger, supported by Swanson, to conditionally approve the variance for Appeal #V-05-26 Design Limited LLC, as it meets the requirements of Section 21.04.B as follows:
1) There are exceptional circumstances applying to the property in its shape and its layout with respect to the adjacent property to the east, the need to have a shared drive with the adjacent property to the east and the residential zoning or use on the adjacent properties.
2) Due to the exceptional circumstances applying to the property, granting the variance would not make reasonably practical the formulation of a general regulation.
3) The variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right, with the restrictions created based on the adjacent properties and the need for a shared drive; it would be difficult to reasonably develop the property without the variance.
4) The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent properties. The applicant has worked with the adjacent property owner to the east to come up with a plan they both agree on.
5) Due to the exceptional circumstances applying to the property, granting the variance will not impair the intent and purpose of the ordinance.
6) The applicant did not create the practical difficulty causing the need for the variance request. The applicant did not create the layout of this lot nor the zoning or uses on the adjacent properties.
Staff indicated that the variance should be conditioned on the site plan dated September 19, 2005 as presented to the Board and that approval does not pertain to any variances that may be required for the adjacent property to the east.
??.
Lenger amended the motion to condition the approval on the September 19, 2005 site plan and to clarify that the approval does not pertain to any variances that may be required for the adjacent property to the east. Swanson supported.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Lipner absent -
5. Public Hearing
Appeal V-05-30
Applicant: Houseman Construction
Location: 900 ? 52nd Street
Request: The applicant wishes to construct a new car wash and an ice cream shop. The car wash would be set back 10 feet from the rear lot line. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet. The requested variance is for a reduction of 20 feet to the minimum rear yard setback.
Chair Derusha introduced the request and opened the public hearing.
Mike Houseman, representing the property owner, gave a brief history. The original site plan submitted for Planning Commission review had the car wash in the front and the ice cream stand to the rear. Based on a suggestion from Planning Staff, the buildings were flipped and it ended out working great and was approved by the Planning Commission. The only difficulty of the revised layout was that due to the unusual circulation and need for a larger turning radius it required a variance for a rear yard setback. The Planning Commission conditioned their approval on receipt of the variance. This design frees up the site for more maneuvering area and better circulation; therefore, enhancing the site not only for the owner but also for the user.
Mr. Houseman indicated that he believed that the standards were met and went over some of them and how he felt they were met. He also indicated that there is a shared parking arrangement with the property to the south and that access easements have been procured.
Chair Derusha asked how the idea for a combination car wash and ice cream shop came about.
Mr. Houseman indicated that initially there was going to be a kiosk to house the attendant and the idea came up that ice cream and coffee would be a good supporting business to run from that kiosk. Mr. Houseman indicated he believes it would be an asset to the community.
Swanson indicated that the applicant had tried to meet the setback requirements but the Planning Commission advised him to come up with this layout which works better.
Akers asked the applicant if there had been any discussion on putting the coffee shop next to the car wash. Mr. Houseman indicated that they had looked at that but the operation and circulation worked better with the buildings being separated.
Cutts asked for an explanation of the traffic flow and the applicant, using the site plan, showed how the operation would work and where customers would enter and leave the site. Lenge wanted to know if the access drives off of 52nd Street were existing drives. The applicant indicated that they were.
A letter was received from Cecil Bennett (5156 Southglow Court) objecting to the request citing concerns over traffic, lights and noise. Swanson read the letter. Swanson asked where that address is in relation to this project. Staff pointed out the general location and Swanson felt that that was a significant distance from this site.
The applicant stated that site lighting would be focused downward and to reduce impacts on the neighboring properties, driers would be housed inside the facility. Noise would remain below 50db.
Akers wanted to know what the hours of operation were going to be. The applicant state the ice cream/coffee shop would be from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. and the carwash up to 10 at night. The applicant indicated it is not a 24 hour self service facility.
Chair Derusha opened the floor for public comments.
Dennis (Southglow Court) indicated that he supports the project and does not think there would be any problems.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Akers to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Lipner absent -
The Board reviewed Section 21.04.B as follows:
Dudley felt that there were exceptional circumstances applying to the property in that is was not a very deep lot.
Dudley felt that this situation was not so general or recurring in nature.
Dudley felt that the variance was necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right.
Akers, Cutts, Lenger, Swanson and Derusha all concurred that the first three points were met and Derusha added that the flipping of the buildings worked better than the original design.
Dudley felt that the variance would not be detrimental to adjacent property.
Dudley stated that granting the variance would not impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
Dudley felt that the practical difficulty causing the need for the variance was not created by the applicant.
Akers, Cutts, Lenger, Swanson and Derusha all concurred that the second three points were met.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Cutts, to approve the variance for Appeal #V-05-30 Houseman Construction, as it meets the requirements of Section 21.04.B as follows:
1) There are exceptional circumstances applying to the property in its dimensions (shallowness) which places restrictions on any development once required setbacks are considered.
2) Due to the exceptional circumstances applying to the property in terms of land use mix and Planning Commission conditional site plan approval, granting the variance would not make reasonably practical the formulation of a general regulation.
3) The variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right, with the restrictions created by the shallowness of the lot, required setbacks and existing drive layout for the shopping center, it would be difficult to reasonably develop the property.
4) The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent properties. The applicant has worked with the Planning Commission to come up with an acceptable design for traffic flow and with the requested variance, this layout places the carwash further from any residential uses than would otherwise be possible.
5) Due to the exceptional circumstances applying to the property, granting the variance consistent with the conditional Planning Commission approval will not impair the intent and purpose of the ordinance.
6) The applicant did not create the practical difficulty causing the need for the variance request. The applicant did not create the layout of this lot.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Lipner absent -
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal #V-05-31
Applicant: Select Auto Group
Location: 4717 Broadmoor Avenue, SE
Request: The applicant wishes to conduct retail sales of automobiles within an enclosed building located in the I-1 Light Industrial district. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance does not permit retail sales of automobiles in the I-1 Light Industrial district. The request is for a use variance to allow wholesale/retail sales of automobiles at this location.
Chair Derusha introduced the request and opened the public hearing.
Chris Vinton and Craig Vandyke (applicants) were both present. Mr. Vinton presented their request. He indicated that they both have other full time occupations and this is just a part-time business and they have been operating for almost a year. Mr. Vinton stated that the office for his primary business is in the same building and it is important for him to have both businesses at the same location so that he can oversee them both. Craig would run the operation. All business is by appointment only, there is no walk-in traffic. For the most part all the cars are pre-sold and the main functions at this location would be clean and store the cars until they are picked up or delivered. Mr. Vinton indicated that there is very little inventory and all cars would be stored inside the warehouse and any advertising would only be through referrals or internet based which helps keep the overhead low. Mr. Vinton indicated that they are currently working through the renewal of their Class B license (used car sales) through the State. The variance is needed to meet State requirements. Mr. Vinton believes that what they intend to do is consistent with the Zoning District and would have no negative impact on neighboring businesses.
Chair Derusha asked staff if they had received any negative comment from the two similar variances that had been granted before. Pung indicated that he was not aware of any negative feedback from the two prior variances.
Derusha asks about signage. Mr. Vinton stated they would have not freestanding sign and only have to place a wall sign to meet State requirements. The applicant presented the proposed sign.
Swanson questioned how the business could keep running relying on only a small wall sign and referrals and what kind of cars would be sold. Derusha stated they would probably be specialty cars.
Mr. Vinton confirmed the type of cars that would be sold and that the low overhead helps make the business work. He has tried it before and it works.
Chair Derusha opened the floor for public comments. There was no public comment.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Dudley to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Lipner absent -
The Board reviewed Section 21.04.C as follows:
Dudley stated that the proposed use is unique and therefore meets the first standard.
Dudley stated that the second standard was also met.
Dudley stated that the use would not alter the character of the area.
Akers, Cutts, Lenger, Swanson and Derusha all concurred that the first three points were met.
Dudley stated that the request was not so general or recurrent in nature as to formulate a general regulation.
Dudley stated that the variance would not impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
Dudley indicated that the immediate unnecessary hardship causing the need for the variance was not created by the applicant.
Akers, Cutts, Lenger, Swanson and Derusha all concurred that the second three points were met.
Motion by Dudley, supported by Swanson, to conditionally approve the variance for Appeal #V-05-31 Select Auto Group, as it meets the requirements of Section 21.04.C as follows:
1) The intended use of the property is unique in that it primarily involves the storage and cleaning of cars and is secondary to the applicant?s primary business located on the property. The conditions are intended to insure that there is no walk-in traffic or outdoor display as is typically associated with a customary used car dealership as was represented by the applicant.
2) There is an abundance of vacant industrial buildings and it is not reasonable to assume all of it will be utilized for traditional industrial uses in the near future.
3) The variance will not alter the essential character of the area as the conditions require all activity will occur indoors and there will be no outdoor storage or display and no freestanding signs are permitted. The use will not be of detriment to adjacent properties, the applicant has indicated they had been operating at that location for almost a year and staff is not aware of any complaints.
4) Due to the unique character of the business and its operation, the use is not so general in nature to formulate a general regulation. There have only been two other similar requests since 1999.
5) Due to the unique character of the business and its operation, granting the variance will not impair the intent and purpose of the ordinance since it would be comparable to a warehouse in terms of storage and traffic generation.
6) The applicant did not create the practical difficulty causing the need for the variance request.
With the following conditions:
1) Restricted to a narrow segment of cars.
2) No freestanding signs.
3) Only one sign not to exceed three square feet.
4) No display/storage of inventory outside of the building.
5) Not to be promoted as a used car business.
6) All activities to occur within the enclosed building.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Lipner absent -
Swanson requested a brief overview of the drawing system for the Board. Pung gives a quick review.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Akers to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Lipner absent -
Meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Akers, Secretary
|