Kentwood Committees & Boards
Zoning Board of Appeals (Back to index)
Minutes for 12/15/2008PROPOSED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
DECEMBER 15, 2008, 7:30 P.M.
1. Chair Derusha called the meeting to order.
2. Roll Call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Les Derusha, Garrett Fox, Mel Holloway, Richard Lenger, Alan Lipner, Ed Swanson and Cutts (arrived late)
MEMBERS ABSENT: none
OTHERS PRESENT: Planner Joe Pung, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, the applicants.
3. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by Commissioner Swanson, supported by Commissioner Lipner, to approve the minutes of November 17, 2008
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Cutts (arrived late) -
4. Public Hearing
Appeal #V-08-25
Applicant: Bob Israels (Holland Home)
Location: 2589 - 44th Street, SE
Request: The applicant wishes to expand and existing building. The proposed addition on the north (rear) side would come to within ten (10) feet of the rear property line. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard setback of fifty (50) feet. The requested variance is for a reduction of forty (40) feet to the minimum required rear yard setback.
Doug Stalsonburg, with (Exxel Engineering, 7091 Brooklyn) was present to represent the request. He stated Holland Home would like to upgrade their current nursing home. He stated there are deficiencies with the state licensing that need to be corrected and in order to do that; they need to build one building at a time. He stated the building will have 15 units; they will move the residents from one wing into the new building and remodel and then demolish the old building.
Stalsonburg stated the request has gone through Planning Commission and City Commission approval and they have obtained a major change to a PUD and Special Land Use permit. The approvals were subject to obtaining a variance for the rear yard setback. Stalsonburg stated the property has 60 foot of frontage on 44th Street and is a separate parcel owned by Holland Home. He stated it is a separate parcel because it is tax exempt.
Stalsonburg stated Holland Home also owns a large piece of property to the north that is not taxed exempted. He stated that it is the property line that we are dealing. It is a property line because it distinguishes between the properties that are tax exempt and not tax exempt. He stated the one building is ten feet off the property line and the other is 15 feet off the property line.
Stalsonburg stated through the PUD process there was a 35 foot rear yard setback which they could have asked for a deviation as part of the PUD, and got approval by the Planning and City Commissioners. However, he stated this also requires a special land use permit and that is where the 50 foot rear yard setback comes in and that can not be waived by the City Commission as part of the PUD and they could not get a deviation under the PUD approval.
Fox asked when they are looking to start construction. Stalsonburg stated next year. Stalsonsbrug stated there are some licensing deficiencies that have to be dealt with before they can start construction. Stalsonsburg stated there are two and three beds per room and Holland Home would like to change that so that it will be a single bed per room.
Stalsonsonburg pointed out that from the old building to the existing building to the north there is 100 feet between the buildings.
Chair Derusha opened the public hearing.
Dr. Jim Kozer owner of the property at 2591 44th Street was concerned about his property line and where his property is. Stalsonburg stated his property isn?t going to be affected. Mr. Kozer stated that it will not be a problem.
Motion by Commissioner Swanson, supported by Commissioner Lenger, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (7-0) -
Holloway stated point 1 was met because there is a great distance between the buildings, the property is within a PUD and the property to the north is under common ownership. Holloway stated point 2 was met. Holloway stated point 3 is met due to the distance between the buildings and the applicant trying to meet the state code which is a benefit.
Lipner concurred. He stated point 1 the property line is there for tax purposes and the ownership is common on both pieces of property which makes it unique.
Fox, Lenger, Swanson, Cutts and Derusha concurred.
Holloway stated point 4 is met because there aren?t any complaints or concerns. Holloway stated point 5 was met Holloway stated point 6 was met they own both properties but because it is for tax reasons from a tax exempt status it is met.
Lipner, Fox, Lenger Swanson, Cutts and Derusha concurred.
Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supported by Commissioner Lenger, to approve V-08-25.
1. That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. There is a large distance between the buildings, the same owner owns the adjacent property to the north and one of the properties is tax exempt.
2. Due to the exceptional and extraordinary 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. Because of the tax exempt status, common ownership and separation between buildings.
3. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that 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. Because they are trying to comply with the state codes and the tax exempt status makes changing property lines difficult.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood.
5. Due to the exceptional and extraordinary 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. Because of the tax exempt status and need to meet State Code requirements.
Motion by Commissioner Lenger, supported by Commissioner Fox, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
Meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Lipner, Secretary
|