Kentwood Committees & Boards
Zoning Board of Appeals (Back to index)
Minutes for 12/19/2005APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
DECEMBER 19, 2005, 7:30 P.M.
1. Vice-chair Lipner called the meeting to order.
2. Roll Call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Akers, Tom Cutts, Theresa Dudley, Richard Lenger, Alan Lipner, and Ed Swanson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Les Derusha (with notification)
OTHERS PRESENT: Planner Joe Pung, Planner Debargha Sengupta, Staff Secretary Mary Faulkner, and the applicants.
Motion by Lenger, supported by Dudley, to excuse Les Derusha from the meeting.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Derusha absent ?
3. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by Swanson, supported by Cutts, to approve the minutes of November 21, 2005.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Derusha absent ?
4. Old Business
Appeal #V-05-36
Applicant: Embassy Properties and Investments, LLC
Location: 2500 East Paris Avenue, SE
Request:
Applicant has withdrawn their sign variance application.
Akers read a letter from Phillip S. Stenger, Stenger & Stenger withdrawing their request for a sign variance. The Board accepted the withdrawal of the request.
Appeal #V-05-37
Applicant: Amvets Post 23
Location: 98 ? 52nd Street, SE
Request:
The applicant wishes to place a 32 square-foot and 4-1/2 foot high freestanding monument sign along Kellogg Woods Drive. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance does not permit a monument sign in conjunction with a freestanding pole sign and limits a freestanding monument sign to a height of 4 feet when less than 10 feet from the public right-of-way. The requested variances are to permit a freestanding monument sign in conjunction with a freestanding pole sign and for a one-half foot increase in permitted sign height.
Pung explained that the Amvets withdrew their application since they are taking the existing pylon sign and turning it into a monument sign and are planning on another monument sign for Kellogg Woods Drive. Both signs will be set back at least 10 feet from the right-of-way. The new proposal would meet the ordinance requirements so they are withdrawing their request for the variance. The Board accepted the withdrawal.
--------------------------------------------------
5. Public Hearing
Appeal #V-05-41
Applicant: Hope Network of West Michigan
Location: 4345 ? 36th Street, SE
Request:
The applicant wishes to expand the existing adult foster care family home to an adult foster care small group home. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires that adult foster care small group homes meet the non-residential parking setback and screening provisions which require a 45-foot parking setback, 20-foot greenbelt and 6-foot high vertical screen. The applicant wishes to retain the existing parking which is setback 21.6 feet from the east property line with no vertical screen. The requested variances are for a reduction of 23.4 feet from the required parking setback and waiver of the screening requirement.
Vice-chair Lipner introduced the request and opened the public hearing.
Andrea Ott, 2534 Thorn Creek, was representing Hope Network. She explained that they provide supportive living arrangements for people so that they can enjoy the benefits of a near to normal life in the community as opposed to being institutionalized. They currently operate a six-bed family foster care home with the support of Kent County Mental Health Network 180 at an address of 4345-36th Street. She stated that Kent County Network 180 has asked them if they could help them to accommodate the volume of individuals requiring care by increasing the capacity of this facility by one bed. Ms. Ott stated that the capacity of the home would be increased from six individuals to seven individuals. Their plan is to turn a little used family room into an additional bedroom. No changes would be made to the exterior of the building and it would not increase the staffing levels for the care of the persons in the home. She stated that they would be simply caring for one additional individual at this site. Ms. Ott stated that they would like to maintain the exterior of the building in its present state and not have to impair the residential atmosphere of its setting by putting parking spaces in front of the front door. She explained that the driveway has been sufficient to accommodate the vehicle that serves the facility as well as the staff vehicles. The maximum number of staff at any one time would be four individuals which would be at a shift crossing and having two people coming on and two people leaving.
Swanson asked if they could pave a parking area behind the building. Ms. Ott stated that would be cost prohibitive and because this program is funded with public dollars and they are a not-for-profit organization the funding to do it would be very difficult.
Swanson asked staff if they would be too close to the property line if they put in a driveway to the back and build a lot behind the house. Sengupta stated that for that stretch they would not be able to provide the 20-foot landscaped buffer because it should not include any necessary drives. It would also take out a lot of landscaping behind the building. Swanson stated that not only would it be expensive, it would make the property uglier. Ms. Ott stated that putting pavement in front of the house would make the property uglier. Swanson stated from the discussion at the Planning Commission the perception was that they had no problem with the site plan because there was no increase in staff and no increase in parking and no significant change in the operation of the home.
Akers stated that theoretically we are giving them a variance that would allow them to go to 12 residents. Ms. Ott stated that the license will specify seven beds and no more. Sengupta explained that they could go up to 12 beds but because it is a special land use they would have to go back to the Planning Commission to get that because one of the conditions of approval was that there would only be seven residents. Akers stated that we should consider limiting the number of residents at seven as a condition of the variance.
Akers questioned the type of screening. Ms. Ott stated that they are not proposing to add or remove any existing landscaping or fencing. Pung explained that with non-residential parking next to residential district or use there is a requirement for a 45-foot setback to the nearest parking space, a 20-foot buffer and within that buffer a six-foot vertical screen whether it is a fence or vegetation. The intent is to hide large parking lots or to prevent lights from shining into an adjacent residence. Akers stated that he was concerned how this will impact the vacant parcel to the east. Sengupta stated that this area is master planned for a mixed use of office and residential.
Swanson stated that since there is no change in the appearance or use externally and all they are doing is adding one bedroom and are willing to limit it to one bedroom he did not see a problem. Akers stated that staffing levels are not expected to increase. Lenger stated that modifying the parking would make the property look uglier and the lights would shine at the neighbors.
Pung explained that any major change to this site would require Planning Commission approval since it would be considered a major change to an approved site plan.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Dudley, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Derusha absent ?
The Board reviewed Section 21.04.B as follows:
Swanson stated that point 1 was met as this property is unique and it is residential adjacent to it and we are maintaining a residential character of the property. If we allow one more bedroom and limit it to seven then we have met that test.
Swanson stated that point 2 is met as there are no changes to the building itself or how the building operates. They are only adding one more bed and that is not a change that is general.
Swanson stated that point 3 is met as there is no financial gain by doing this. They are trying to accommodate a need in the community. It does not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or similar properties in the same zoning district.
Dudley, Lenger, Cutts, Akers and Lipner all agreed. Akers agreed as long as there was a limit of seven residents.
Swanson stated that point 4 is met as they are not changing the appearance of the home and therefore it would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood.
Swanson stated that point 5 is met as the variance will not impair the intent and purpose of the ordinance because we are limiting it to seven residents.
Swanson stated that if they stayed with six residents they would not have a problem.
Ms. Ott stated that they would not have pursued the special land use permit, the change in licensing, or the need for this variance had it not been for the specific request of Network 180 Kent County Community Mental Health.
Swanson stated that is very true but you are still making the application. It is an application that was created by a request to the applicant.
Dudley, Lenger, and Cutts agreed that points 4, 5 and 6 were met.
Akers stated that point 4 is met as it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood in any way. There are no exterior changes and there will be no staff changes. There are no neighbors here to complain or to vote positively.
Akers stated that we are crossing the line from six to seven and we are violating the intent of the ordinance to some degree but that is doable since we have given the condition that there will only be seven residents. He also noted the changes to the interior but not to the exterior.
Akers stated that he would have to dissent on point 6. The request was brought by Hope Network even though Network 180 requested it. You are not forced into this situation by them.
Lipner stated that he felt that points 4, 5 and 6 were met. Lipner stated that point 6 is difficult but because Kent County Community Health has requested it he felt it met point 6.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Lenger, to grant the variance for Appeal #V-05-41 Hope Network for a reduction of 23.4 feet from the required parking setback and waiver of the screening requirement for an adult foster care small group home subject to limiting the number of group home members to seven with no increase to staff as it meets the requirements of Section 21.04.B as follows:
1) There are exceptional circumstances since it is a residential style use and look in a residential area and any change in that would have a negative impact on adjacent properties; the site has existing parking and no change in the amount of parking is required by the expanded use;
2) The condition of the specific piece of property is not so general or recurrent because they are actually only increasing the home by one bed and would not otherwise require any exterior changes to the site;
3) Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to those possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity; there will be no financial return;
4) The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or the surrounding neighborhood; there will be no changes in the staffing nor any exterior changes to the site, it would continue to operate as it currently does;
5) The variance will not impair the intent and purpose of the ordinance subject to restricting the number of residents to seven; no other exterior changes were needed to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements;
6) The immediate practical difficulty was caused by a request from Kent County Community Mental Health Network 180 to Hope Network to expand the facility by one bed.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Derusha absent ?
-------------------------------------------------
Appeal #V-05-42
Applicant: Big Splash Studio
Location: North side of 52nd Street, West of East Paris Avenue (Wildflower Creek Subdivision)
Request:
The applicant wishes to place a plat entry sign within the boulevard of the entrance into the residential development. The sign would be 28 square feet in area and 60 inches in height. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance permits plat entry signs within the boulevard of a collector street but limits them to 20 square feet in area and 30 inches in height from the mean grade. The requested variances are for an increase of 8 square feet in area and 30 inches in height from the maximums permitted by ordinance.
Vice-chair Lipner introduced the request and opened the public hearing.
Jessica Shaw, Big Splash Studio, representing Wesley & Velting the developers of the plat, explained that the sign that they are requesting is permitted if it is installed off to the side of the entrance. They are requesting that it be placed in the boulevard island of the entrance drive as it is a more logical, visually appealing location. She stated that they would maintain the 17-foot setback. The sign is 48 inches from grade and the only part that extends to the 60 inches is the decorative arch at the top. She noted on the site plan where they would like to place the sign.
Akers questioned why it would not be allowed in the boulevard. Sengupta stated that it is allowed in the boulevard but all boulevard signs are limited to 30-inches in height and 20 square feet in size. The intent is to protect the clear vision for any incoming or outgoing traffic.
Swanson asked if the intersection will be signalized. Sengupta stated that the intersection is signalized. Swanson asked if there was any feedback from the city?s traffic person relative to visibility or sight distance. Sengupta stated that we have not heard anything from him. He stated that at the Planning Commission had concerns with the sight distance as it was marginal there. Swanson stated that since the intersection is now signalized you would approach it with speed rather than a stopped condition.
Dudley questioned whether or not the sign design could be reworked. Ms. Shaw stated that to become smaller they did not feel that it would be as worthwhile of a sign. They would rather locate it off to the side rather than have a smaller sign. She noted that Bailey?s Grove sign was larger than this sign. The problem with their sign is the location of the sign; it makes more sense to have it in the boulevard for visually identifying the development.
Swanson asked Ms. Shaw to explain the extraordinary circumstances to this property. Ms. Shaw stated that she did not know the berm was created by the developer. She stated that was one of the areas that they were considering putting the sign on top of the berm.
Lenger stated that if the sign is put on the either side of the driveway then the size and height are not a problem. Ms. Shaw stated that was correct.
Cutts asked if they could have a better visual on how the sign might look as you are proposing it in the boulevard. Ms. Shaw stated that is something that they could provide.
Swanson stated that the pictures do not show the signal or the road being there or any of that as it is currently configured. Swanson stated that the applicant will have to do a lot more work if she is going to convince the Board. Ms. Shaw asked what he meant. Swanson stated that you need more graphics and words to say how it would meet the six standards. He did not feel that the sign was unique. Anyone who builds a development likes to have a sign right down the middle. There was nothing exceptional or extraordinary about this particular condition. It is general as anyone who puts in a development would like to do the same thing. It the immediate practical difficulty was caused by the developer. Swanson stated that it would be hard to meet the six standards.
Lipner stated that Ms. Shaw?s response to point 2, ?This request is specific to our property and the required 17-foot setback will be maintained? does not answer the point as the property is still not unique in anyway. It could be applied to any property within the City.
Swanson stated that he felt there is a traffic problem with vehicles accessing 52nd Street at a faster speed than a stopped condition. You need to be able to see an on-coming car past the sign as you approach it.
Akers informed Ms. Shaw that if she tables her request she will have an opportunity to come back with more information to try her case. He stated at this time the request does not meet any of the six standards. Ms. Shaw stated that she would like to table her request until the January meeting.
Swanson stated that the items he would like to see is what the Traffic Safety Specialist for the City has to about that this request; and show why this request is unique to any other subdivision who wants a sign in the middle of median. He suggested to the applicant that she look at the six standards and explain in justifiable language why it meets the six standards as well as the traffic issue. Lenger stated that she needs to explain what is truly unique to this property that is not to someone else?s. Swanson stated that if she does not feel that she could meet the standards then just send a letter to withdraw your request.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Dudley to table Appeal #V-05-42 until the January 16, 2006, meeting.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Derusha absent ?
-------------------------------------------------------
Appeal #V-05-43
Applicant: Valley City Sign
Location: 900-52nd Street
Request:
The applicant wishes to install a freestanding pole sign to identify 2 new businesses which will be located on the property. The proposed sign has a clearance of 7 feet from the bottom of the sign to the ground and would be the second freestanding sign on the property. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum clearance of 10 feet from the bottom of the sign to the ground and permits only one freestanding pole sign. The requested variances are for a reduction of 3 feet to the minimum required clearance from the bottom of the sign to the ground and to permit a second freestanding pole sign on the property.
Vice-chair Lipner introduced the request and opened the public hearing.
Akers read a letter from Valley City Sign requesting to table this request until the January meeting as they are considering installing a ground/mount monument sign instead of a pylon sign.
Swanson asked if they build a ground mount sign will they meet the ordinance. Pung stated that they would not since there will still be two signs on the property and they would need the variance for the number of signs. There is an existing freestanding pylon sign that identifies the shopping center on this property. The ordinance only allows one freestanding sign per property per street frontage.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Dudley, to table Appeal #V-05-43 Valley City Sign until the January 16, 2006, meeting.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Derusha absent ?
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal #V-05-44
Applicant: Land Development Solutions
Location: 3333-28th Street
Request:
The property owner wishes to construct a new restaurant attached to the existing hotel. A portion of the new restaurant would be setback 21.5 feet from the rear lot line. The Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard setback of 35 feet. The requested variance is for a reduction of 13.5 feet to the required rear yard setback.
Vice-chair Lipner introduced the request and opened the public hearing.
Todd Olin, Land Development Solutions, stated that he was present on behalf of National Hospitality and Ramada Inn. He reviewed his letter dated December 1, 2005, addressing his response to the six points and reviewing the history of this project. He stated that the plan attached to the staff report was the original site plan showing a restaurant on the south side of the existing hotel structure and also a freestanding strip retail mall to the east of the site. Since that time they went through a number of changes including a variance for a reduction to the number of parking spaces. He stated that what is under construction is the stand-alone building along the East Beltline that will house a Starbucks Coffee on the southernmost portion of the building. Mr. Olin stated that they were granted a variance to allow a drive-through establishment for the Starbucks Coffee. He explained that they currently have a lease agreement with a restaurant called ?Old Chicago? to be attached to the hotel and service all of the rooms in the hotel along with the standard business. Mr. Olin reviewed the problems that they have encountered with the topography of the site; about a four-foot grade difference; and barrier-free access to the hotel and from the outside. The solution that they found is the least impact to everybody involved and is as close to the zoning that they could possibly make it. He stated that they need a property line for a future split that was approved in the original site plan. The drive-through needs a 50-foot setback and the sit down restaurant attached to the hotel needs a 35-foot rear yard setback. He reviewed the site plan noting the problem area for the setback and the reason for the variance request of a 13.5 foot reduction to the required rear yard setback.
Akers questioned the need for the property line split. Mr. Olin stated that it has to do with ownership. The restaurant will be on a pad lease. He stated that they did not know about the poor soils and the concrete grade beams for the hotel. He thought they could have a lower finish floor and lower the grade but that is not possible. The whole integrity of the structure would be compromised if they did something like that.
Dudley asked if you could access the hotel from the restaurant. Mr. Olin stated that you will but it will have to be done with ramps in order to meet the barrier free standards. Swanson stated if you can do that why not put the bathroom in the hotel. Mr. Olin stated that the bathroom would be too far away from the restaurant by code.
Swanson stated that it appears that this will be very tight between the drive-through and the wall of the restaurant. Mr. Olin agreed that it does appear tight but that is where it meets code. The rest of the building and structures meet code except for that one corner. He stated that with the landscaping it will look a lot different.
Motion by Swanson, supported by Lenger, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Derusha absent ?
The Board reviewed Section 21.04.B as follows:
Akers stated that point 1 is met as there are exceptional circumstances applying to the property due to what they are trying to do with the foundation, grades, barrier-free codes, building codes, and the soil conditions and existing fill under the hotel.
Akers stated that point 2 is met as the condition of the property is not so general or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practical the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. He stated that if we have other applicants that try to stuff too much on one piece of property this will reoccur again.
Akers stated that he did not feel that point 3 was met as the reason for the second strip mall and adding the restaurant to the hotel is for a financial return.
Cutts agreed with Akers assessment of points 1, 2 and 3.
Lenger stated that he felt that points 1, 2 and 3 were met. The variance is not significant to warrant the financial return but it is also for the preservation and use of the restaurant and hotel.
Swanson stated that points 1, 2 and 3 were met, however, the reason for the variance is the property split and he did not know if there was any way of working that through.
Dudley stated that points 1 and 2 were met and partially point 3 was met.
Lipner stated that points 1 and 2 were met. Point 3 is a stretch but in so far as the hotel was there and the restaurant was closed in lieu of this, the financial return is not the driving force.
Akers stated that point 4 is met as the variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. An extra couple of feet in that area will not be a big concern.
Akers stated that point 5 is met as the variance will not impair the intent and purpose of the ordinance. The property line is what is causing the problem.
Akers stated that if the property was not split they would not need this variance so point 6 is not met.
Cutts and Lenger agreed with Akers. Lenger stated that it is only the split that makes the problem.
Swanson asked if rather than a lot split could long-term leases or easements work for the properties. Pung stated that they could probably do a condominium ownership of the building and then setbacks would be met because there is no property line. Pung stated that if the Starbucks drive-through was not there it would meet the setback requirements because the strip mall would only need a 35-foot rear yard setback. Swanson stated that if it could be done on a condominium agreement that would give everybody what they want in ownership.
Mr. Olin asked to comment. He stated that when they considered all the different uses on the property it was the Planning Commission?s approval on the number of uses and the size of the uses with the property line where it is. As a result of the soils that they found and the footing configuration they actually lost uses on this property. All they are trying to save is the restaurant because it is integral to the hotel. They would much rather have built to the original plan and if there was any way to make this so that it did slide into the building as originally planned they would have done it.
Swanson suggested tabling since it is the property split that is causing the need for the variance. He stated that they want to say yes because they want it to happen. Mr. Olin asked about the condominium ownership. Pung explained that is done through the City Assessor?s office and there would be condominium ownership of the building or the clients could still own the building and they could do long-term leases.
Mr. Olin stated that they have gone through three restaurants trying to locate on the corner and have lost square footage as a result of these problems. He understood their problem with the property line going in there. He stated that the site plan was approved and had the intentions of going forward and did go forward. This is the last piece of the puzzle and will be the last structure built on the property. There was a corridor and retail proposed for the southwest corner which has been abandoned. Mr. Olin stated that to table would kill this project since the lease agreement was contingent on the variance. He stated that Ramada is at a point where they need the split to happen. Old Chicago cannot sacrifice the floor plan or they will locate somewhere else.
Akers stated that we are talking about 13-1/2 feet. He stated that even though he voted no on two points, he probably would have voted yes to pass this. Akers stated that what bothered him the most is that when you split the property you make two smaller pieces and there are issues all through the City with small pieces of property.
Swanson stated that this little variance is not a technical problem as much as it does not meet the ordinance because of the ownership change. He stated that the reason the Planning Commission approved this was because they all drive by there and saw the parking lot being used to sell hot tubs and furniture and its a great piece of property and because of the nature of the layout was unusable.
Akers asked if the strip mall was booked already. Mr. Olin stated that Starbucks is going in but he was not sure of how many others are leased. Akers stated that we have worked with the gas station and others with setbacks.
Motion by Lenger, supported by Cutts, to grant the variance for Appeal #V-05-44, for a reduction of 13-1/2 feet to the rear yard setback as it meets the requirements of Section 21.04.B as follows:
1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property due to the existing hotel, the soil conditions and method of construction of the existing hotel which limit development options for the restaurant and the fact that if there was not a drive-through restaurant on the proposed new lot, setbacks could be met;
2) Due to the exceptional and extraordinary conditions of this specific piece of property for which this variance is sought is not so general or recurrent;
3) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment that other property owners enjoy; without the variance development of the restaurant, in order to meet the owner?s needs and city codes, would be difficult;
4) The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent properties as the design is similar to that approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year and if there were no adjacent drive-through restaurant the building setback could be met;
5) Due to the exceptional and extraordinary conditions applying to the property the variance will not impair the intent of the ordinance;
6) The immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance, while it was brought up by the applicant, is not caused by the applicant; the soil conditions and construction method of the existing hotel are driving the design and location of the restaurant.
- Motion Carried (4-1) ?
- Dudley dissenting ?
- Lipner abstained ?
- Derusha absent ?
Motion by Lenger, supported by Dudley, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (6-0) ?
- Derusha absent ?
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Akers, Secretary
|