Kentwood Committees & Boards
Zoning Board of Appeals (Back to index)
Minutes for 12/17/2007APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
DECEMBER 17, 2007, 7:30 P.M.
1. Chair Derusha called the meeting to order.
2. Roll Call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mel Holloway, Tom Cutts, Les Derusha, Don Yokom, Richard Lenger, Alan Lipner, and Ed Swanson
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Planner Joe Pung, Planner Debargha Sengupta, Staff Secretary Monique Collier and the applicants.
3. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by Swanson, supported by Lenger, to approve the minutes of November 19, 2007.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
4. Public Hearing
Appeal V-07-17
Applicant has withdrawn request
Applicant: Michigan Commercial Properties LLC
Location: 4842 Division Avenue, SE
Request: The applicant wishes to construct a 9,014 square foot commercial building on the property. The proposed development would provide 32 parking spaces (Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 36 spaces), would have a front yard parking setback of 10 feet (Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 35 feet), would have lot coverage of 84% (Kentwood Zoning Ordinance limits lot coverage to 75%) and would have a 3-foot green space along the north property line (Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot landscaped buffer along the lot line abutting the residential district).
The requested variances are for 1) a reduction of 4 parking spaces from the minimum required, 2) a 25 foot reduction to the required front yard setback, 3) an increase of 9% to the permitted lot coverage, 4) a reduction of 17 feet to the required landscape buffer along the north property line adjacent to the residential district (eastern most 200 feet) and 5) to waive the vegetation requirements of the landscape buffer.
Appeal #V-07-23
Applicant: City of Kentwood
Location: 3261-60th Street
Request: The applicant desires to construct a parking lot and restrooms to serve the Paul Henry Trail, Paris Park and a future M-6 non-motorized trail. The proposed parking lot would abut the 60th Street right-of-way. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance prohibits non-residential parking in the required front yard setback of forty (40) feet. The requested variance is to reduce the required setback for the parking lot by forty (40) feet.
Kendall Klingelsmith, 355 48th Street, Deputy Director for the Kentwood Parks and Recreation Department was present to represent the request. He stated this has been in front of the board back in 2005. He stated the setback is needed due to the wetlands that surround the area where they would like to put the parking lot. He stated they haven?t done anything up until this point due to some County issues that have been holding the project up. The project will now take place this spring.
Lenger asked have any changes been made since it was last presented to the board. Klingelsmith stated the only thing that has changed is the timing of the trail due to some property issues.
Derusha stated the last time this was approved it was said to have a green area between the street to parking will that still be there. Pung stated yes there is still room in for green area. Derusha indicated he wants to make sure in the conditions that we add the headlight buffer will have adequate lighting around the parking and restroom for safety and security and signage in the parking lot prohibiting overnight parking.
Derusha opened up the public hearing.
Tom Swan lives at 60th and Wing Mr. VerDine 3291 60th Street had concerns as to where the trail will be and who is responsible for paying for the sidewalks etc. Pung stated this is a county project and state and federal funds should be used.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Cutts to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Yokom abstaining -
Cutts stated point 1 is met as the property is unique especially with the trail heads and the wetlands.
Cutts stated point 2 is not so general as to make reasonably practical a formulation of a general regulation. Predicated on the trail head and the use of the trails this point is met and it is unique.
Cutts stated point 3 is met as the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right due to the uniqueness of the usage of the land and the property.
Lenger stated he agreed with Cutts. Due to the topography of the land, it is a good use of the property.
Swanson, Halloway, Lipner and Derusha concurred. Yokom abstained the reason being his serving on the Parks & Recreation Commission
Cutts stated point 4 is met as the variance will not be detrimental to the adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood condition for lighting and bushes would add to point 4 in preventing a detriment to the neighbors also a ?No overnight parking? Sign should be posted, headlight buffers, and green area between the parking lot and the sidewalk
Cutts stated point 5 was met as granting the variance will not impair the intent and purpose of the ordinance. The uniqueness of the property and the use of the property are unique.
Cutts states point 6 is met as the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance was not caused by the applicant. The uniqueness of the property due to the wetlands and the proposed use caused the need for the variance.
Swanson, Lenger, Halloway, Lipner and Derusha comcurred. Yokom abstaining.
Motion by Cutts, supported by Lipner, to grant the variance for V-07-23 City of Kentwood as it meets the requirements of Section 21.04.B as follows: 1) there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that apply to the propertywith respect to the amount of wetlands and floodplain on the property limiting development;
2) the condition or situation is specific to this property so as to not make reasonably practical the formulation of a general regulation; 3) the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property without the variance the property could not be reasonably developed due to the amount of floodplains and wetlands; 4) with the conditions applied to the variance granting the variance will not be detrimental to adjacent properties; 5) due to the exceptional circumstance applying to the property and the unique use the variance will not impair the intent of the ordinance;
6) the immediate practical difficulties causing the need for the variance was not caused by the applicant the applicant did not create limitation placed on the property by the wetlands and floodplain. The variance is conditioned on the following: 1) there should be a green area between the street and the parking lot; 2) there should be a green headlight buffer in order to not encumber the neighbors across the street; 3) there should be adequate lighting in and around the parking and restrooms for safety and security; 4) there should be signage in the parking lot addressing the City ordinance prohibiting overnight parking.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Yokom abstaining -
Appeal # V-07-24
Applicant: Douglas & Janet Vandrie
Location: 3608 Lake Drive, SE
Request: The applicants wish to construct a 324 square foot pool house. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance limits the size of the accessory building to 120 square feet. The requested variance is for an increase in area for the accessory building of 204 square feet.
JanVandrie stated they are putting in a pool and they would like to construct a pool house for the purpose of having a half bath during the summer season and storage for patio and pool equipment during the off season. She stated they are keeping it with the same theme as the house, an English country cottage style. She stated their neighbors to the east and west and across the street had no objections. She submitted letters fro the neighbors who support the project. He stated their property is large and there is a large tree barrier.
Lipner read the letters from John and Edna Schorr 3560 Lake Drive and Mrs. James DeLiefte 3590 Lake Dr SE were in support of the project.
Motion by Lenger, supported by Swanson to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
Swanson stated point 1 was met because it is an extremely large piece of property well in access of an acre and it is tree lined and buffered.
Swanson stated point 2 was met
Swanson stated point 3 was met if they want to enjoy the pool they should have a pool shed.
Lenger, Cutts, Lipner, Halloway, Yokom and Derusha concurred.
Swanson stated point 4 was met because there are letters from the surrounding neighbors supporting it.
Swanson stated point 5 was met.
Swanson stated point 6 was met.
Lenger, Cutts, Lipner, Halloway, Yokom and Derusha concurred.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Cutts, to approve V-07-24
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. Due to the size of the lot and the tree lined around the property it makes it exceptional. The size of the home is also exceptional.
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. The size of the lot and the treeline and all the neighbors in support.
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. It will help preserve the enjoyment of the property rights. A larger accessory building would be allowed if the existing garage were attached to the home.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. Letters have been submitted by the neighbors in support of the project. There is a substantial tree line to screen the pool house it would not be visible from the street.
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 (7-0) ?
Motion by Lenger, supported by Lipner, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried ( 7-0) ?
Meeting adjourned at 8:05p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Lipner, Secretary
|